Tech1145
8h
Graywolf:
It clearly can pickup enough water, or there would be no one experimenting with desiccants, and we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
I don’t think people are running molsieves in the vapor line because they’ve had previous water issues.
IMO people run mol sieves in their vapor line simply because that’s the way it was done by those who came before them (you) on ICMag, then all the extractor companies copied you. Also, not for nothing, equipment companies love selling consumables and they push the narrative out as well.
A filter/drier on the vapor line is the typical way vapor-compression HVAC systems are setup but they usually have another desiccant in the liquid line and the vapor line filter/drier is mostly there to protect the compressor from debris and occasional spits of liquid refrigerant.
The decision that was made back in the day to run mol sieve in the vapor line doesn’t make sense to me.
If the water collects in the tank it would be much more effective to run the sieves in the liquid line before the pre-injection chiller. Why not catch the water (if there even is any) before it contaminates the oil? Why wait and try to catch it on the vapor side after it’s mixed with the oil? Huge columns of sieve beads just muck up the works on the vapor side of an extraction system.
People running the status quo are not experimenting and there’s nothing wrong with that. I have completely removed the mol sieve from my system and have had it that way for years. I used to run it once in awhile on the liquid line but I don’t even do that anymore.
That is my experimental data which you seem to be having hard time acknowledging.
I think the instances you experienced years ago may have had other issues. We don’t see wide spread (or any at all really) issues with water contamination today.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
It would be uplifting to think I had much effect on the rest of the world deciding water was an issue and seeking solutions, but alas no.
“I seem to be having a hard time acknowledging your experimental data”, because it flies in the face of my own personal experience and that of folks worldwide, besides being anecdotal. Show me the empirical test data supporting your position and I’ll consider it.
The way I addressed water with WolfWurx equipment, was to chill the injection LPG with dry ice slurry or LN2 (Mk B versus C) to limit water pickup, added an *inlet cyclonic filter drier, and added a weekly water purge to the operating manual.
The *cyclonic inlet filter was molded zeolite and did two things. Its primary purpose was to protect the pump from concentrate laden liquid and secondarily it removed water from the LPG. It is on record as having saved several pumps and it gains weight in service, suggesting it is absorbing something.
It subsequently loses weight when vacuum baked, suggesting it is losing something.
I picked once a week for the tank purge, which is not fixed in concrete. The fish trap exists only because of the fish, so it could be lengthened, depending on the ongoing findings.
Sooooo, cutting to the chase, would I add a desiccant filter solely to remove water, if I were not protecting the pump. No, because venting the tank on a regular basis solves the problem.
If you had a bottom dump tank, would venting the tank of water be necessary? No, because it accumulates slowly, so its presence in the concentrate would be minimal and removed during vacuum purging.
I get it that you don’t agree, but as you are the one flying in the face of common practice, I believe the onus is on you to convince the rest of the world with empirical data, rather than just your opinion.
Given that concentrates are pharmaceuticals, I also suggest that you consider the cleaning requirements for equipment used in food service and for pharmaceuticals and revisit your carbon steel tank. How have you been cleaning yours?