Fittings

>>1045873
Why not use something like high heat silicone bake-ware? I think a good portion of it is rated for up to 500F degrees and a single item would provide enough material to test a variety of shapes. Also it is food safe.

solder it

Right now, I'm trying to flange a ring of the piping and see how that will work...

>>1045885
Yeah, that was the first thing a friend recommended, but those crack under stress very easily.

>>1045889
I need to be able to open it. Otherwise, I'd be done since I have all the stuff to sweat pipe.

Have you tried simply to taper the joints snugly and apply a silicone-based lube like for glassware (glass-on-glass anyway)? Anything else would be overkill for this application I think

File: DSCN5451a.jpg (366KB, 1024x1534px) Image search: [Google]

366KB, 1024x1534px

Here is what I have so far. "Test 1"

It seems to work, but I need to make one that isn't all screwed up and slanted. The second try should be much easier. The theory is sound though. This would be much easier with some proper flanging tools for 1.5" pipe.

>>1045898
I don't have flanging tools large enough. I may end up calling the local hardware store to see if they have any 1.5" ID pipe. I could easily flange that for my needs and slip it over this one.

>>1045873
why man? literally. you can buy a water filter for 20 bucks at walmart that does a great job. have 2 of them one for camping one for my car "oh fuck" kit.

File: copper-fitting-union-individual-pieces.jpg (29KB, 693x328px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 693x328px

>>1045894
Buy a union, solder the union to the bottle. Screw in pipe.

They make special flux for stainless steel. You might be able to get away with using normal flux if you rough it up really well using some sand paper.

File: DSCN5455a.jpg (353KB, 1154x1534px) Image search: [Google]

353KB, 1154x1534px

Here's where I'm at so far. I rehammered >>1045910 and got them to line up enough to look "good". I soldered the flange on, sanded down a few lumps, and now it fits even more snugly than before. The soldering job looks terrible. I of course didn't flux between the pipes before hammering them together and the pipe was a bit too hot. However, this will work since it won't be holding water at 60psi.

I'll wire up a latch or something and work on the fittings for the other end at a later date.

Thanks everyone who helped.

>>1045933
>They make special flux for stainless steel.

I don't want to solder the bottle to the pipe. I just want it to fit as snugly as possible without falling into it. That way I can latch them together and open it to clean things.

File: Untitled.png (2MB, 1907x1024px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1907x1024px

>trying to read up more for designs
>see my own images already on google

>>1045894

https://www.amazon.com/BLACK-Grade-adhesive-smoker-silicon/dp/B00NU6QDPC/

How about an RTV then?

The solution, and I shall say this only once, is MASTIC you doofus

>>1045873
solder a union to the top of the water bottle and put a flare fittings over the copper

>>1046034
I don't want to use something I have to reapply over time.

>>1046015
I have some of that left over from replacing an oven door gasket. It is "permanent" and I need to be able to open this. Otherwise, I can't put water into it.

>>1046039
Solid idea. I'll look into that when I'm at the hardware for the fittings for the other end. Then I can still open and close it. Glad I have a lot of pipe to work with. Thanks.

File: DSCN5465a.jpg (78KB, 1024x364px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 1024x364px

This is what I have so far. I can still open it to clean everything in the tube and water bottle.

>>1046039
Christ the size of the union I need for that costs $22. I still have the flange at least. I can do testing with just that and get a union for it later when I have a bit more money to spend.

OP, you can't directly join copper to stainless or you will run into serious corrosion problems because they're dissimilar metals. Whatever you end up doing, make sure there's no direct contact between the pipe and the bottle.

>>1046609
Solder is a different metal and also causes galvanic corrosion with copper.

cut a gasket out of sheet rubber

>>1046639
It's the solder that corrodes, though. Worst case scenario is having to reflow the joint every few years, at most, and that's if you use a shitty solder alloy and your joint is bad.

File: 4564566.png (44KB, 280x403px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 280x403px

>>1046643
Silver bearing solder corrodes the copper, not the solder. It causes, "red plague." In fact, silver is further away from copper than stainless steel is on the galvanic scale. That is why zinc is used on boats to protect the steel the boat is made of. When lead-tin solder was used, they corroded instead of the copper, which is what you are thinking of and is what was used in drinking water pipes for a very long time. Now lead-free silver bearing solder is used.

The best thing to do is keep zinc and zinc-galvanized steel well away from copper and hard (silver bearing) solders, which will corrode the hell out of the zinc. Copper and stainless steel isn't much of a problem.

>>1046642
There's a problem with fire.

It's not really fractional distillation if all you are doing is purifying water.

>>1046526
You're gonna carry all that innawoods?

>>1047258
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_distillation

>Fractional distillation is the separation of a mixture into its component parts, or fractions, separating chemical compounds by their boiling point by heating them to a temperature at which one or more fractions of the compound will vaporize. It uses distillation to fractionate. Generally the component parts have boiling points that differ by less than 25 °C from each other under a pressure of one atmosphere. If the difference in boiling points is greater than 25 °C, a simple distillation is typically used.

Mixture being contaminated water or muddy water.

>>1047302
See the last sentence. The term loses its meaning if apply it to muddy water and shit.

>>1047305
You are misinterpreting it and cherrypicking. "Contaminated water" has pollution in it some of which falls into the category of only being able to be purified by fractional distillation. Even if it was only muddy water, the process used in the OP would still be fractional distillation, though that method of distillation wouldn't be needed.

If you are out camping and don't carry your own water, you need to use any water source you can find. Having a proper water purifying system to purifying just about anything is the best option over getting sick.

>>1047308
>"Contaminated water" has pollution in it some of which falls into the category of only being able to be purified by fractional distillation
Or not. OP's thing is supposed to be used while camping. It is reasonable to assume the starting material is lake or river (or maybe tap) water and not horribly polluted with industrial solvents etc. actually requiring fractional distillation to remove them.
And like I said, the term loses all its meaning when you apply it to mud separation.

File: Lost fishing holes.jpg (3MB, 5832x3024px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 5832x3024px

>>1047310
I am the OP and that is exactly what it is like around here now that there's massive fracking wells every couple of miles. The world isn't like it used to be in the 1970s. At least not here.

Also, just because you might be using muddy water doesn't mean it isn't fractional distillation method. It just means that fractional distillation isn't needed.

>>1047311
Sorry to hear that, but why on earth would you drink that water, distilled or not? Is it really not an option to go to a less polluted place or take water with you?

Well, certainly you can build a fractional distillation apparatus and then use it in a way where the column does nothing except adds bulk and wastes energy. Calling it fractional distillation when the other component of your mixture isn't even evaporating is still silly.

>>1047316
It is unknown what is polluted and what isn't polluted. Better safe than sorry, hence the column requirement. Also, carrying 10+ gallons of water isn't really an option.

It used to be all you did was let the water settle after scooping a cup from the stream if that was needed. Now everything has some nasty VOCs in it. I'll still be using a charcoal filter before and after to help remove those.

>>1047318
>carbon filter

>>1047302
>>1047308
Chemist here, it's only fractional distillation if you're separating the components in the distillate by removing them when it comes out at certain (precise and specific) temperatures.
Unless you're dealing with chemicals that form azeotropes with water, and thus separating distillate at different times, you're simply performing a simple distillation of water with a fracturing column in the way, making it less efficient.

Your rig is lacking a thermometer and a clear distillate flask to allow you to see the distillate. If you did "fractionally" distill with it, the purpose would be moot as you would be dumping your intended product into the contaminants again.
There are very few pollutants that will require this, and the ones that would you would have a hard time camping around anyways.

PROTIP: burn the inner and outer coating off that flask

File: Water Still.png (23KB, 444x782px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 444x782px

>>1047361
It is still a fractional distillery. Kind of like using a wrench as a hammer. It is still a wrench.

You also seem to be lacking knowledge of how to use a fractional distillery properly.

File: 1452293681999.jpg (43KB, 570x587px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 570x587px

>>1047505

so you attached a threaded water bottle to a pipe, not making use of the threads, but instead with a mess of solder? great

>>1047521
>>1047361
A fractional distillery does the repouring of the distillate for you inside the column. How can you not know this?

>>1047505
>>1047529
First of all, >>1047521 is not me.

Second of all, I never mentioned re-pouring. You do, in fact, have to separate the components as they come out. Not doing so would just be performing a very inefficient simple distillation.

>>1047626
>I never mentioned re-pouring.
>as you would be dumping your intended product into the contaminants again

>>1047639
Reading comprehension.
Are you just shitposting, or do you really believe you have some kind of point?

>>1047639
>implying that the entire point of a fracturing column isn't to separate azeotropes
>Implying that you don't have to pour out the first azeotropic component to avoid the second product recombining with it

>not reading my post this hard

On second thought, I kinda wish >>1047521 was my post,

File: battersea.jpg (23KB, 600x399px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 600x399px

>>1047529
>>1047639

>>1047644
>>1047648
>>1047718
His entire post states to pour it back in. You should probably re-read it and KYS. It is right here >>1047361 kids.

>>1047936
>Unless you're dealing with chemicals that form azeotropes with water, and thus separating distillate at different times, you're simply performing a simple distillation of water with a fracturing column in the way, making it less efficient.

>and thus separating distillate
>separating distillate
>separating

Actually, no, my entire post is saying not to pour it back in.

>as you would be dumping your intended product into the contaminants again.

Say you're separating water and chemical X (x represents an unknown chemical, but we're stating it's within 2° of water's boiling point)
You want water, without chemical X.
When you fractionally distill, the first portion of the distillate is chemical X and water, which you must pour out, otherwise you will just be dumping your product, water, out of the condenser into the distillate flask which still has the chemical X in it.

Nice try autismo, but you can't put words there that aren't. Learn to fucking read at an adult level, if you knew how to perform a fractional distillation like you claim, I wouldn't have to go so verbose for your dumb ass.

Unless you meant
>There are very few pollutants that will require this, and the ones that would you would have a hard time camping around anyways.

That is quite obviously referring to fractional distillation as a process, not repouring. They are separated sentences with no links to each other. But just for you, I'll re-write it.
>There are very few pollutants that will require [a fractional distillation], and the [contaminants] that would you would have a hard time camping around anyways.

>>1047944
You don't know how a fractional distillery works. I suggest you google it. They are a specific type of distillery unit. It is nothing like the stuff you are using.

>>1047954
A fractional distillation is a process.
A fracturing column is a component.

I never said you didn't have a fractional distillation apparatus (which you probably don't, as you have no mention of fracturing medium), I am simply saying you're wasting your time with the fracturing column if you're not performing a fractional distillation.

>>1047316
said it
>Calling it fractional distillation when the other component of your mixture isn't even evaporating is still silly.

I expanded and explained it.

A fracturing column isn't to get a "more pure" product. It's to slow down the distillation to be able to separate chemicals with boiling points less than a few degrees apart.

You seem to think using a fractional distillation apparatus is like simple-distilling multiple times. It is not.

If you think it's different, how about you explain how you think it works?

"I suggest you google it" is not an argument.

>>1047955
>pretending I'm the OP

Sure thing, kid.

>>1047980
>same tone
>same writing style
>uses "fractional distillery" like previous posts
>same pissy-ness as OP
>not denying that you're OP until now

I've been given no reason to think you're not OP