Home Distiller

I think it would be interesting to calculate the internal reflux generated by the angle plate, the reflux condenser and the fact that the output is reduced before the valve. For doing so, let's say after you built the equilibrium in the column you close the flow of water in the reflux condenser you seal the cap over it and you open the valve 100%. That way you'll get the maximum output. After that, you open the water flow back in the reflux condenser, you unseal the cap and close the valve to rebuild the equilibrium. Once you get this equilibrium back, you open the valve 100% with the reflux condenser working. The ratio between this obtained value and the maximum output you've just calculated will give you a good idea of the reflux generated by the system. What you think?

absinthoman wrote:I think it would be interesting to calculate the internal reflux generated by the angle plate, the reflux condenser and the fact that the output is reduced before the valve. For doing so, let's say after you built the equilibrium in the column you close the flow of water in the reflux condenser you seal the cap over it and you open the valve 100%. That way you'll get the maximum output. After that, you open the water flow back in the reflux condenser, you unseal the cap and close the valve to rebuild the equilibrium. Once you get this equilibrium back, you open the valve 100% with the reflux condenser working. The ratio between this obtained value and the maximum output you've just calculated will give you a good idea of the reflux generated by the system. What you think?

The reflux condenser always needs to have coolant flowing through it to knock down the distillate... You can regulate the take-off condensers coolant flow, as well as the vapor flow, however...

@HookLine

Yes, that method would also work, but I think I'd probably solder the reducer to the top of the T if I was going to go that route and just use the small end of the reducer to regulate how much vapor enters the reflux condenser... Might be a bit more expensive with the added reducer, but not all that much... It would be easier for those not wanting to cut a slot for a slant plate, however... One good aspect of that design is that you could have a butterfly in the small end of the reducer with a wire running down inside the condenser for making adjustments... Geez...!!! Yet another idea...

The reflux condenser always needs to have coolant flowing through it to knock down the distillate

I don't agree. I was talking about when you put your still in stripping mode. You have to close the reflux condenser and only use the liebig condenser. That way you get rid of most of the internal reflux generated by the reflux condenser so you can calculate the maximal output.

HookLine wrote:This thread just gets better and better.
The proportion of column that is blocked by the angle plate needs to be experimented with. Going to 50% like MM has gives a fixed reflux ratio of 1:1 (when the take-off valve is wide open). It is possible that 33% blocked would be better as this gives a ratio of 2:1, which is probably the minimum needed for clean neutral.

Yes but we can increase the RR any time by just closing the valve some degree. It may vary well require a little more input than my current VM column which pretty much runs itself.

rad14701 wrote:I agree that the plate needs to be played with, over time... I was wondering whether add-on plate extensions would work if they could be attached to the bottom of the main slant plate using stainless machine screws... minime, did you catch that... Hint... This method would also allow you to implement a catch lip and directional drip tube...

LMAO, I just this morning cut the tee back and inserted a short piece of pipe and a tri-clamp ferrule for two reasons.
So I can remove the head for easy modification.
So I can easily access both ends of the column to play with packing length for flavor runs

HookLine wrote:

rad14701 wrote: you guys talking about reducers above the plate...???

MM and I have discussed something like this before:
Flare the big end of the reducer a bit to get a snug fit inside the column, forcing the vapour through the small end. Attach the reducer to the condenser.
You do not have to cut the column and solder a plate in.
An inverted reducer makes sure the reflux liquid is returned to the center region of the column.
You could put a bit of loose mesh inside the reducer 'cup' to help slow down and mix up the vapour as it hits the condenser.

Since I've made this head removable it's a concept I could prove (or disprove) next time I run if you haven't already done so. It would be an easy mod for folks with columns already in service.
BTW nice drawing Hook and you're right, this tread just keeps getting better

@absinthoman
Knowing the RR would be nice but I've found it's not a number with much value. The best case is just enough reflux to get us to 95.6 and keep us there. Doesn't really help to know the number except for planing purposes. I'd rather prove the concept in reality and hopefully it'll apply to columns of all diameters. That's why I started with the 50% ratio. It'll be easy to add a bit more plate on if I don't get max performance or cut a piece out, if it's too much.

The benchmark is one gallon per hour as both the Bok and my other VM column maxed out at that. If I can get clean product at that rate it'll be a good day for all of us.

I know some of you won't like it but I've been wanting to experiment with a Turbo rum for distilling on the column. I recently found an outstanding deal for Fancy Molasses at the local wholesalers. A 5KG jug is only 7 bucks
The rest of my supplies arrived this afternoon so here's the experiment that will be run in the trial. The worst that can happen is I'll have to run it again.

I set up two 60 liter washes with 12KG white sugar, 5KG of fancy molasses and one sachet of Alcotec Turbo 48 which is my favorite turbo for neutral. This should ferment out to 14% or so. This yeast has always fermented out in 48 hours for me so I should be stripping on Friday morning.

Photo of the tri-clover on the new head and the molasses I found.

minime wrote:A 5KG jug is only 7 bucks

And it is top grade. Buy as much as you can.

Cheapest I can get bulk molasses is $50 for 20 litres, and that is only horse feed grade.

ENVY ICON

Forgive my ignorance, but I reckon the only way to learn is to expose it. If we are able to control (with a butterfly) the vapor captured in the column, do we still need a valve in the branch-off? I'm thinking, now, of a hinged butterfly (upside down vee) with the apex at the top of the take-off port. Would the gate/ball valve above the liebig still be necessary? The butterfly should be externally open/closed controllable (this is still a thought-in-progress).

maoule wrote:Forgive my ignorance, but I reckon the only way to learn is to expose it. If we are able to control (with a butterfly) the vapor captured in the column, do we still need a valve in the branch-off? I'm thinking, now, of a hinged butterfly (upside down vee) with the apex at the top of the take-off port. Would the gate/ball valve above the liebig still be necessary? The butterfly should be externally open/closed controllable (this is still a thought-in-progress).

We use the valve in VM to control takeoff, without it you wouldn't be able to seal the takeoff to creat equilibrium in the column and then to exactly bleed foreshots

HookLine wrote:

minime wrote:A 5KG jug is only 7 bucks

And it is top grade. Buy as much as you can.
Cheapest I can get bulk molasses is $50 for 20 litres, and that is only horse feed grade.
ENVY ICON

Hook, don't know if you've investigated but the wholesaler supplies eateries, bakeries etc. You only need a business number to buy there and they don't care what the business number is if you pay cash. Just a though.............. It sure worked out for me although I've gotten a more than a few sideways glances when I check out with 20KG of fancy molasses LOL

minime wrote:Hook, don't know if you've investigated but the wholesaler supplies eateries, bakeries etc. You only need a business number to buy there and they don't care what the business number is if you pay cash. Just a though.............. It sure worked out for me although I've gotten a more than a few sideways glances when I check out with 20KG of fancy molasses LOL

I did check out wholesale food suppliers, but they did not even know what molasses was, I kid you not. Besides, the horse feed place is only just around the corner. Might try to find a baker's supplies.

Don't want to step on any toes here but I have an illustration from The Compleat Distiller to attach along with a quote from the book. If this infringes on copyright rules please accept my apologies and delete the post.

This is how vapor management is handled by Nixon McGraw

"A vapor management still head is very easy to build because the
concept is so simple, and is a considerable advance on all previous
liquid management techniques that utilize small, temperamental
needle valves that can be difficult to procure and which often
change their settings with temperature.
It has three further advantages:
• once calibrated its settings remain the same
• it maintains a constant selected reflux ratio for any boiler
power setting or vapor composition
• the quantity of product distillate automatically reduces at the
end of a run when the tails begin to be evident."

So the stream is condensed before it is split into two equally sized outlets. Obviously the vapor speed would jump much higher at the restriction and I would think more than half would bypass the product arm.
So we may be on the right track with the hooded design.
Just my opinion for now, proof to follow hopefully within a few days.

HookLine wrote:
Cheapest I can get bulk molasses is $50 for 20 litres, and that is only horse feed grade.

ENVY ICON

Hook, I just picked up a 27Kg pre-packed bucket of stock feed molasses this week for $40.
Sounds like your guy is trying to make more pocket money. Also, my guy is further from the cane fields than yours.


Cheers.



tracker had a win finally

tracker0945 wrote:

Cheers.



tracker had a win finally

Dunno bout that......

Am i allowed to enter the price war





I think i'm just about untoppable









UnlessSomoneIsGettingPaidToTakeItPunkin

so i've been following this stream splitting discussion and i've had this small nagging feeling that something is being overlooked. so i sat back and tried to look at the big picture, then it dawned on me. but first an example.

suppose you have a 6 lane freeway (6 in each direction) and its rush hour so traffic is bumper to bumper and it's los angeles so everyone is going 75mph. now suppose you take and block off 4 of the lanes and make those cars take the offramp to watts, but instead of maintaing 4 lanes for their use you merge them into 3 lanes, then 2, then 1. now these people will slow down and bunch up and ..... because you have effectively reduced your 6 lane freeway from 6 to 3 lanes.

the same with your "funnel" in your column. for your stream splitting to work properly, you need to keep your four lanes open all the way into your condensor, after the condensor starts condensing the vapor, you can trim down the number of open lanes.

another way of thinking about it: you are filling a container with a hose. if the top of the container is large (a 20 gallon stock pot) you can turn the hose on full, but if the opening is smaller than the hose (the small bung hole on a 225 liter barrel and a 2" fire hose) you will have to slow the flow of the hose so as to get the liquid into the barrel. the throughput of the system is dependent on the smallest opening.

in the examples produced by minime - unless he has a compressor stuffing vapor into the takeoff - the smallest opening is the opening in the liebig of the product takeoff. i submit that your reflux ratio is actually the ratio of your column vs. the size of the pipe in your product condensing liebig. 3":1/2" (?). the size of the tube in your liebig condensor is the opening that the vapor "sees" as an outlet, not the tubes leading up to the outlet.

on another note - the vm still pictured in "the compleat distiller" looks to have the vapor stream split into two 1" diameter tubes, with the liebig further necking down to 3/4" diameter.

minime wrote-

So the stream is condensed before it is split into two equally sized outlets.

i hope this is a typo or other goof. the vapor is split in the 1"x1"x1" T and then proceeds to the reflux condensor at the top of the column or to the product condensor at the side of the column.

hope this wasn't too dampening on the innovation proposed in this thread. maybe if you increase the internal size of your product takeoff liebig to 3" and then decrease the size of the reflux condensor opening (reduce from 3" to 1"?)?

good luck and keep us posted.

editted for spelling

DestructoMutt wrote: minime wrote-

So the stream is condensed before it is split into two equally sized outlets.

i hope this is a typo or other goof. the vapor is split in the 1"x1"x1" T and then proceeds to the reflux condensor at the top of the column or to the product condensor at the side of the column.
editted for spelling

Not a typo, they reduce the 2' column to 1" for the tee, that's condensing in my mind. The vapor speed increases immensely when you do that.
I can't say I've tried their method because I didn't like the look of it. My still is completely open at the top so I was afraid increased vapor speed would blow right through the condenser.

Some of your analogies are not correct. You discuss liquid and vapor as acting the same and they don't. Liquids can't be compressed whereas vapors are highly compressible. That's why my 2 inch funnel can shove vapor down a 1 inch hole. I'm fairly certain and hoping it could actually shove the same volume down a 1/2 inch hole. If that's true and we'll find out soon, the entire process of Vapor Management could be very cheap, highly efficient, easy to run stills for everyone wanting high quality neutrals.

oh you silly canadians and your strange use of the american language, almost as bad as those blokes in the south pacific.

anyway, condensed to you is reduced to me, now i understand.

however, fluids and gases are treated the same in fluid dynamics, because for the most part they act the same. you are correct in your assertion that they have some very important differences, but again, for the most part, they behave in the same manner with regard to flow and flow dynamics.

nixon and mccaw stress that their vapor management head is open at the top also.

when you reduce the pipe, the gas (or fluid) does speed up to get thru the constriction, but it will also slow back down when the restriction is eleiminated. you can use this to help with the condensing of the vapor, by enlarging the column from 3" to 4" at the condensor area, you will slow the vapor/gas (or fluid) down - it will expend energy expanding to fill the container.

you're wrong about your "funnel shoving vapor down" a 1" hole. you need a compressor to compress a gas/vapor into a smaller space. that is a physics law. the compressor can be a condensor, but your condensor is after the reduction in pipe size.

i used the water analogy to give an easy method for understanding the concept of through put - wherein the flow is limited by the size of the smallest opening that the vapor/fluid/gas must pass through in the system. please note, that without a compressor of some sort, the gas/vapor will back up if the path is reduced for a sufficient length. we usually refer to backing up of gas/vapor to be an increase in pressure in the system.

i'm sorry that my attempt to make the physics understandable was not clear. however, what i was trying to convey was that the vapor in the column expands to fill its container. it's what gasses do, especially warmed gasses. ethanol/water vapor is a gas, the laws of gasses and fluid dynamics apply. additionally, they (the gas/vapor) will seek to reach equilibrium with the outside atmosphere - because the system is open to the outside atmosphere. the vapor will have equal pressure at both the reflux condensor and the product condensor. without a mechanical means, you can't "shove" a vapor into a smaller container, it will flow of its own accord, but at a reduced velocity. just like trying to shove four lanes of bumper to bumper traffic into one lane. they will slow down, because they can't all fit at once.

i would like to think that my input would be of assistance. i am not trying to impugn your work. far from it. my intent is to help you along. however, if my attempt at help is perceived as an attack i will go back to just silently/quietly following this thread without input.

DestructoMutt wrote: i would like to think that my input would be of assistance. i am not trying to impugn your work. far from it. my intent is to help you along. however, if my attempt at help is perceived as an attack i will go back to just silently/quietly following this thread without input.

Nope, not perceived as an attack. Any input that moves us forward is more than welcome. Keep in mind I'm a practical hands on person so theory doesn't usually mean much to me.

DestructoMutt wrote: i used the water analogy to give an easy method for understanding the concept of through put - wherein the flow is limited by the size of the smallest opening that the vapor/fluid/gas must pass through in the system. please note, that without a compressor of some sort, the gas/vapor will back up if the path is reduced for a sufficient length. we usually refer to backing up of gas/vapor to be an increase in pressure in the system.

OK, so here's where I think you're wrong. If you pushed a 2 inch pipe of water into a one inch pipe you'd get a decrease in the amount of water flowing.
My 2 inch funnel actually doubles the volume of vapor headed to the condenser. Without the funnel I maxed out at 2 liters per hour. With it I'm getting almost 4 per hour. There were no other changes made. The vapor has to go from ascending, make two 90 degree turns, get reduced from a 2 inch funnel to a 1 inch pipe, and pass through a ball valve before it sees the condenser. All of those conditions are major obstacles for fluids. I think it has to be getting compressed or it's being taken care of with speed or there's some other law in play. My observation is vapor does not behave the same as fluid in this situation.
My understanding of theory might be limited but I'm hoping to exploit my practical observations with this hooded/slant plate design.
Stay tuned........

is someone able to explain why VM is better or diffrent to LM?

decoy wrote:is someone able to explain why VM is better or diffrent to LM?

In a nutshell it's all about reflux.

In VM if you select a 10 to 1 RR it stays at 10 to 1 'till it runs out of vapor.
In LM if you select 10 to 1 RR it gradually deteriorates till there is no reflux.

Took me forever to get that. Hope you come around a little quicker.

DestructoMutt wrote:when you reduce the pipe, the gas (or fluid) does speed up to get thru the constriction, but it will also slow back down when the restriction is eleiminated. you can use this to help with the condensing of the vapor, by enlarging the column from 3" to 4" at the condensor area, you will slow the vapor/gas (or fluid) down - it will expend energy expanding to fill the container.

you're wrong about your "funnel shoving vapor down" a 1" hole. you need a compressor to compress a gas/vapor into a smaller space. that is a physics law. the compressor can be a condensor, but your condensor is after the reduction in pipe size.

i used the water analogy to give an easy method for understanding the concept of through put - wherein the flow is limited by the size of the smallest opening that the vapor/fluid/gas must pass through in the system. please note, that without a compressor of some sort, the gas/vapor will back up if the path is reduced for a sufficient length. we usually refer to backing up of gas/vapor to be an increase in pressure in the system.

You're partially right and partially wrong in your assumptions of what is happening in the LM designs that minime has been working on...

Going from 2" to 1" is not doubling the output, it's "theoretically" a greater ratio based on area calculations... However, we all know that this is only a theoretical measurement due to restrictions further down the line... It will allow a greater amount of vapor to head in that direction due to the rising action building up a small amount of pressure... That pressure, along with the vacuum caused within the condenser, works like the compressor action you mentioned... It might be hard to wrap your head around, but it really works that way... Because the condenser is colder it is causing vapor collapse back into a liquid... The vacuum created must either pull additional gaseous vapor either from within the column or from the atmosphere, and because there is a marginally greater pressure in the column it comes from there first and the balance comes from the atmosphere (the output end of the condenser)...

Now, any vapor that makes it's way past the "funnel" has no choice but to slow down and collapse from vapor form to liquid form at the reflux condenser... What the funnel does is to grab some of the high density (pressurized) vapor before it collapses... This section of the column is where all of the "magic" is taking place based on real world physics... Rather than "letting" it happen, we're "making" it happen...

So the funneling effect does, in fact, work to an extent... What we are attempting to prove, and so far minime's findings have been positive, is whether or not the effort to take advantage of this concept is worth the effort...

I, for one, would like to thank minime for sticking with this endeavor during is "off season"...

rad14701 wrote-

You're partially right and partially wrong in your assumptions of what is happening in the LM designs that minime has been working on...

Going from 2" to 1" is not doubling the output, it's "theoretically" a greater ratio based on area calculations... However, we all know that this is only a theoretical measurement due to restrictions further down the line... It will allow a greater amount of vapor to head in that direction due to the rising action building up a small amount of pressure... That pressure, along with the vacuum caused within the condenser, works like the compressor action you mentioned... It might be hard to wrap your head around, but it really works that way... Because the condenser is colder it is causing vapor collapse back into a liquid... The vacuum created must either pull additional gaseous vapor either from within the column or from the atmosphere, and because there is a marginally greater pressure in the column it comes from there first and the balance comes from the atmosphere (the output end of the condenser)...

Now, any vapor that makes it's way past the "funnel" has no choice but to slow down and collapse from vapor form to liquid form at the reflux condenser... What the funnel does is to grab some of the high density (pressurized) vapor before it collapses... This section of the column is where all of the "magic" is taking place based on real world physics... Rather than "letting" it happen, we're "making" it happen...

So the funneling effect does, in fact, work to an extent...

first, we are talking about vapor management. second, i don't believe i am making assumptions. i think i am discussing the laws of physics. third, please don't imply that i suggested that the output doubled.

i am stating that the "restrictions further down the line" do in fact have a direct bearing on the amount of vapor that enters the funnel. the outlet of the funnel, no matter how long the funnel is, controls the throughput. especially when the inlet is exposed to the atmosphere, as the inlet to this funnel is. or is the top of the column sealed?

vapors/gases expand to fill their container. they don't do it preferentially, that is it won't fill one side of the container first and then fill the other side. vapors/gases seek equlibrium within their container - there is no preferential build-up of pressure in one spot, if pressure builds, it happens throughout the container equally.

"It will allow a greater amount of vapor to head in that direction due to the rising action building up a small amount of pressure... That pressure, along with the vacuum caused within the condenser, works like the compressor action you mentioned"

the vapor will have the same pressure on both sides of the funnel, inside, outside, topside or bottom side. the pressure will be consistent all around the funnel because the funnel is inside the container holding the vapor.

"Because the condenser is colder it is causing vapor collapse back into a liquid... The vacuum created must either pull additional gaseous vapor either from within the column or from the atmosphere, and because there is a marginally greater pressure in the column it comes from there first and the balance comes from the atmosphere (the output end of the condenser)..."

a common misconception regarding the vacuum created by the vapor condensors...the part that is frequently overlooked is that the condensors are connected to a column which is connected to a boiler that is generating huge amounts of vapor (45 liters for every KW of input power!). there is no pulling of vapor - vapor is rushing.....rushing....away from the boiler.

if there was a vacuum created, the just condensed vapor would revaporize - a vacuum lowers the boiling point, and the "slight" vacuum would lower the boiling point sufficiently to revaporize the just condensed vapor. the revaporized condensate would then fill the void of the vacuum. it's how the condensors perform their own little equilibrium "dance" with the vapor that reaches them.

"This section of the column is where all of the "magic" is taking place based on real world physics"

choosing not to understand something or to ignore the laws of physics is not magic....

DestructoMutt, you seem to figure you have it nailed so I'm not going to continue the discussion... You have your theory and I have mine... The condensers are playing a larger part in this VM setup than you give them credit for and the slant plate is yet another piece of the puzzle... I'll just let minime's practical application prove out the real world results, whether for better or worse... Theory on paper, physics, and engineering, are quite often dis-proven in the real world laboratory...

EDIT: Full of food, no room for booze, and annoyed...

rad14701 wrote-

DestructoMutt, you seem to figure you have it nailed so I'm not going to continue the discussion... You have your theory and I have mine... The condensers are playing a larger part in this VM setup than you give them credit for and the slant plate is yet another piece of the puzzle... I'll just let minime's practical application prove out the real world results, whether for better or worse... Theory on paper, physics, and engineering, are quite often dis-proven in the real world laboratory...

EDIT: Full of food, no room for booze, and annoyed...

i think you're being petulent, kind of dismissive and passive aggressive.

i wasn't trying to offend. i thought i was discussing an interesting situation with someone who is intelligent, thoughtful and can learn from experimentation and theoretical thinking. my apologies.

there is always room for booze, unless you've been eating a liquid diet.

(editted for spelling)

Awe come on, if it works it works, don't turn a good thread into a flame war. Get over it.

mutt,
Something minime did worked. You are obviously quite knowledgeable in the theory. Can you theorize as to what may have happened w/his experiments that gave the theory-contradicting results? I'm thinking the force/velocity bit isn't being considered enough... not based on any theoretical or practical knowledge on my part; just thinking. And yes, let's keep this great thread going; I'm getting ready to build a vm column and want to make sure I go the right way.

hawke wrote-

Awe come on, if it works it works, don't turn a good thread into a flame war. Get over it.

to quote punkin, "thank you for reminding me of my manners". i apologize.

however, i dont feel discussing the physics behind, or the cause of, a phenomonon is starting a flame war. i think that understanding the physics involved helps make the systems better. where would we be without nixon and mccaw wondering and discussing and sharing?

by all means, if you're happy with your system and your knowledge of the process, keep on stilling.

by the way, if you were happy/satisfied about either, i don't think that you would be reading this thread in the first place.

If it weren't for mans curiosity and the quest to do better we'd all be happy running around naked using clubs and rocks to get our next woman or meal (priorities)... Academics often overlook small and, sometimes, even large details which eventually become one of those "Eureka!" moments in history... I'd like to think that there is still a lot to be learned about home distillation...

rad14701 wrote:I'd like to think that there is still a lot to be learned about home distillation...

There's sure lots to be learned by me. I just spent the entire day fooling with the new design and came up with more questions than answers. After a seriously slow start yesterday I have made some progress but we're not near what I get from the inverted funnel.

So that's the first question. What did I stumble upon when I inverted that funnel. It works beautifully at one gallon per hour. The best I could get from the slant plate VM was 2.5 liters per hour and that was only after 3 serious modifications. With the stock head as pictured it would only put out two drops per second wide open.
I got up this morning an replaced the condenser chamber with a 16 inch one. I put 3 scrubbers above the slant plate and replaced the coil. When things came up to temp (I still had over a liter of heads to remove) I opened the valve wide open for a minute and boom, I got a nice stream of heads coming off. I slowed it back down thinking I was in good shape.
After heads were gone I added a pile of heat and opened up the valve wide open again. I soon realized the stream was far from adequate 1.5 liters per hour. so I shut down and pulled the head off (god I love those tri-clover fittings).
I cut a piece of plate that covered about 80% of the column when attached to the original slant plate. Re-installed the head and fired up the burner again. That got me to 2 liters per hour.
I then pulled the head off again. cut a plate that covered as much of the column as I could and still shoe horn it in and tie it to the original plate.
That got me to 2.5 liters per hour.

I am at a complete loss. Please disregard everything I ever said about VM. I obviously don't know anything and just got really lucky with the inverted funnel. I'll be contemplating and digesting for the next couple of days and I'm open to suggestions.
The column was really stable and should be with the amount of reflux it was getting. The liebig is 1/2 inch same as the funneler. The ball valves are not the same. I suppose that could be it but if anybody has a simpler suggestion please jump in.

edit to insert this photo of the final plate size that got me to 2.5 liters per hour

minime, as I stated in my PM to you earlier, I think the biggest single contributing factor to the drop in performance is the 1" take-off port in the 3x3x1 Tee... My "guess" is that using a 3x3x2 Tee would greatly improve performance, even with the 50% plate... If the 3x3x2 Tee doesn't work then I might reluctantly agree that you got lucky with the inverted funnel... I'm not there yet, however..

minime -

there are three or four threads going that appear to be following/related to you and your 3" column. this one of course, the "Vapor Management question" one, "Compact VM head, coil in a box",and "VM how and why..cont..from mini's thread".

could you please review the baics of your VM system?

i believe you have a 60" long, 3" diameter column, and the product take-off condensor is 1/2" diam inside. is this correct?