What would happen if I MADE my own T?

[Stilletto]

After some quality counselling from some of the wise folk here, I'm going to build a CCVM.

My question is, rather than using a standard T-piece, or a tri clover T, would there be any benefit to squashing one end of a piece of 2" tube and butting it onto the side of another? By my thinking this would give me more control over a reflux ratio, but I'm also thinking how much control do I really need?

[Stonecutter]

Whether you buy a T or make a T you’ll still have a T right?
I don’t understand how making your own T is going to give you more control but I’m having a hard time visualizing your idea and I’m rather new to the CCVM game.

Edit: I’m brand spanking new to the CCVM game

[EricTheRed]

I’m having a hard time visualizing your idea.
Whether you buy a T or make a T you’ll still have a T though right?

ditto - cannot picture it

can we get a drawing?

[StillerBoy]

My question is, rather than using a standard T-piece, or a tri clover T, would there be any benefit to squashing one end of a piece of 2" tube and butting it onto the side of another? By my thinking this would give me more control over a reflux ratio, but I'm also thinking how much control do I really need?

No to your idea.. and lots of control is required..

There is misunderstanding of how the CCVM works.. it is controlled by the RC not by the T..

Mars

[still_stirrin]

… My question is, rather than using a standard T-piece, or a tri clover T, would there be any benefit to squashing one end of a piece of 2" tube and butting it onto the side of another?

Only “benefit” might be cost. Buying a 2” Tee may be expensive, if you’re cheap. If you have extra material and know how to weld, then sure, you can make one. But, the quick (timely) solution is to buy a fitting since they are usually available. If the rest of your still and stillhead are purchased commercially, then why would you even consider building?

Functionally, the branch Tee will work the same “purchased” or “home-made”.

It seems to me that, if you have to ask, then you really don’t understand how the design works… so, a little more homework is due. Ultimately, the reflux condenser works as a “control valve” in the CCVM and its placement relative to the branch of the Tee regulates the split between vapor condensed and returned down the column to the vapor allowed to progress to the product condenser.

But don’t overlook the reflux management control from the coolant flow rate and temperature through the CCVM’s “valve”. Variations will affect the RR stability, that is when compared to a conventional VM controlled by a gate/ball/butteryfly valve.
ss

[shadylane]

My question is, rather than using a standard T-piece, or a tri clover T, would there be any benefit to squashing one end of a piece of 2" tube and butting it onto the side of another? By my thinking this would give me more control over a reflux ratio, but I'm also thinking how much control do I really need?

Do you mean having the take off port oval instead of round?

[Windy City]

My question is, rather than using a standard T-piece, or a tri clover T, would there be any benefit to squashing one end of a piece of 2" tube and butting it onto the side of another? By my thinking this would give me more control over a reflux ratio, but I'm also thinking how much control do I really need?

Do you mean having the take off port oval instead of round?

I am picturing what he is meaning as having the branch of the tee formed into a upside down raindrop, where the branch meets the run. So when you are at a higher reflux ratio (condenser further down) you also have a smaller opening which would kind of mimic a gate valve. Higher reflux/smaller opening. Lower reflux/larger opening. Sounds interesting but being I have never run a CCVM I can't comment if it is a good idea or not worth it.

[Twisted Brick]

By my thinking this would give me more control over a reflux ratio, but I'm also thinking how much control do I really need?

Reducing the branch diameter (anywhere) will increase the reflux ratio, making it more fiddly to manage while reducing output.

Like many new, hypothetical schemes, if there was an advantage, operationally, build or cost-wise, to running a reduced tee, it would have been commonplace by now with ample support explaining why.

Like ss points out, you would benefit from reading until you understand how things work. Maybe these will help:

viewtopic.php?t=58417

viewtopic.php?p=7574344

viewtopic.php?p=7383715

viewtopic.php?f=87&t=65622

[Sporacle]

I'm with you Twisted, I think Stilleto is looking at the outlet on the T being the valve and not the RC being the valve.
2 inch T on a 2 inch column works just dandy, CCVMs are simple for a reason

[Stilletto]

Oh God. I didn't properly explain.
Shadylane, Twisted and Sporacle hit the nail on thr head. The height of the coil in the aperture of the T cobtrols the reflux ratio. The idea was to have an oval junction, with the longest plane vertical. Essentially maximising the distance between the top and bottom of the opening.
More range of travel for my condenser coil = more resolution in controlling reflux ratio.
But also, the area of the hole through which the vapour moves (although deformed) would be the same.

Windy City's idea of an inverse raindrop (or maybe an inverse egg) adds another variable which I hadn't considered.

[shadylane]

Go for it.

[elbono]

But also, the area of the hole through which the vapour moves (although deformed) would be the same.

Actually the flattened area would be about 3/4 of the round area if you ended up with 2 1" semicircles at the top and bottom with straight sides. The circumference of both would be the same. The height would be about 2 5/8 instead of 2

In any case I don't think it's worth the effort, 2" f adjustment works fine.

[Salt Must Flow]

You could just drill a hole in the column, solder a fitting to it and attach a gate valve. VM is really simple. You don't have to fiddle with raising and lowering the reflux condenser. Just turn the knob to adjust the take-off rate.

[still_stirrin]

Go for it.

+1. Nothing ventured … nothing gained!

But, in the end, I’ll bet it’s “in the noise”, that is … below your measure threshhold.
ss

[ecir54]

IIRC correctly by reading the CCVM thread that having a finger on the bottom of your reflux condenser helped in the control of the ratio. I'm with shady go for it and add a finger to your reflux coil. Should be easy enough by ovaling your pipe at the joint.

[elbono]

I started with a finger on the bottom of my RC. With it just above the packing I could force vapor into the take off at high power settings. I used CSST so I reshaped it to have a flatter bottom.

Make sure you have plenty of space below the T if you go that way. Or just don't turn the power up that high.