Ceramic Pall Ring and Ceramic Mini Lessing Ring are both ceramic random packings with more developed geometry than a simple Raschig Ring, but they occupy different engineering positions. DAIER's directly comparable 50 and 80 mm data show that Mini Lessing Ring provides somewhat greater geometric surface area, while Ceramic Pall Ring can provide substantially lower dry packed-bed weight at the larger 80 mm size.

The key selection question is therefore:

Does the process genuinely benefit from the additional internal contacting geometry of Mini Lessing Ring, or is Ceramic Pall Ring able to provide sufficient area with a lighter and more open-wall packing structure?

Neither geometry is universally better.

---

1. Direct Answer

Choose Ceramic Pall Ring more readily when:

• lower dry packed-bed weight is important;
• a more open ring structure is preferred;
• the existing tower already uses Ceramic Pall Ring successfully;
• very high additional internal surface area is not required;
• retrofit risk should be minimized.

Evaluate Ceramic Mini Lessing Ring more strongly when:

• additional geometric surface area is useful;
• ceramic is already the correct material;
• the process is relatively clean;
• the tower can tolerate the selected model's higher dry bed weight;
• the more internally structured geometry has a defined process purpose.

The core trade-off is:

Mini Lessing Ring → More Internal Geometric Area

versus:

Ceramic Pall Ring → More Open-Wall Geometry and Potentially Much Lower Bed Weight

---

2. How Are the Two Geometries Different?

Ceramic Pall Ring

Ceramic Pall Ring is based on a cylindrical ring body with openings formed through the wall.

Its geometry creates:

• open side passages;
• additional internal surfaces;
• multiple gas-liquid flow paths.

Compared with a plain Raschig Ring, it uses the wall volume more effectively.

Ceramic Mini Lessing Ring

Mini Lessing Ring contains additional internal ceramic partition geometry.

This produces:

• more internal surfaces;
• more complex passages;
• greater ceramic structure inside each element.

That can increase geometric contacting area.

But it can also increase:

• ceramic mass;
• internal flow complexity.

So the two products are not simply different shapes of the same bed.

---

3. DAIER Directly Comparable Data

The cleanest exact comparisons are at:

• 50 mm;
• 80 mm.

For Ceramic Pall Ring, DAIER's verified data also provide void fractions of approximately:

• 50 mm — 78%;
• 80 mm — 81%.

The current Mini Lessing dataset does not provide verified void-fraction values.

Therefore this article does not invent them.

---

4. 50 mm Is the Cleanest Geometry Comparison

At 50 mm:

Ceramic Pall Ring

• 130 m²/m³ surface area;
• 78% void fraction;
• 600 kg/m³ bulk density;
• 6,800 pcs/m³.

Ceramic Mini Lessing Ring

• 145 m²/m³ surface area;
• 600 kg/m³ bulk density;
• 6,500 pcs/m³;
• 565 m⁻¹ dry packing factor.

The two beds have exactly the same published:

600 kg/m³ dry bulk density.

Yet Mini Lessing Ring provides:

15 m²/m³ more geometric surface area.

---

5. What Does the 50 mm Comparison Tell Us?

The geometric surface-area increase is approximately:

11.5%.

At the same time:

• bulk density is unchanged;
• packing population is very similar.

This suggests that, at 50 mm:

Mini Lessing Ring uses its internal geometry to create somewhat more exposed ceramic surface without increasing catalog dry bed weight.

That is a legitimate engineering advantage.

But whether the additional 15 m²/m³ is valuable depends on the actual process duty.

---

6. Why 11.5% More Geometric Area Is Not Automatically 11.5% Better Performance

Geometric surface area is only the physical area available.

Actual effective mass transfer depends on:

• wetting;
• liquid distribution;
• gas velocity;
• liquid rate;
• fluid properties;
• process driving force.

Therefore:

145 vs 130 m²/m³ cannot be translated directly into an efficiency percentage.

The extra internal surface must actually be wetted and used by the process.

---

7. Packing Population Is Almost the Same at 50 mm

Ceramic Pall Ring:

6,800 pcs/m³

Mini Lessing Ring:

6,500 pcs/m³.

So Mini Lessing Ring provides more geometric surface area despite having slightly fewer individual elements.

This teaches an important engineering lesson:

Packing population does not determine surface area.

The geometry inside each individual packing element matters.

---

8. 80 mm Produces an Even More Interesting Comparison

At 80 mm:

Ceramic Pall Ring

• 110 m²/m³ surface area;
• 81% void fraction;
• 550 kg/m³ bulk density;
• 1,950 pcs/m³.

Ceramic Mini Lessing Ring

• 120 m²/m³ surface area;
• 820 kg/m³ bulk density;
• 1,950 pcs/m³;
• 356 m⁻¹ dry packing factor.

Here the packing population is:

exactly identical.

That lets us isolate the geometry even more clearly.

---

9. Same 1,950 Pieces—Different Bed

Both 80 mm products contain:

1,950 elements per cubic meter.

But:

Ceramic Pall Ring

110 m²/m³.

Mini Lessing Ring

120 m²/m³.

Mini Lessing therefore provides approximately:

9% more geometric surface area.

So the internal Mini Lessing geometry still increases exposed area.

However, the mechanical cost is now much larger.

---

10. The 80 mm Bed-Weight Difference Is Huge

At exactly the same:

• nominal size;
• packing population;

bulk density changes from:

Ceramic Pall Ring

550 kg/m³

to:

Mini Lessing Ring

820 kg/m³.

Difference:

270 kg/m³.

This is nearly:

49% more dry packing weight

for only about:

9% more geometric surface area.

That is a very different trade-off from the 50 mm comparison.

---

11. Why the 80 mm Comparison Is So Valuable

It answers a real engineering question:

Is additional internal ceramic geometry always worth having?

Not necessarily.

At 80 mm, Mini Lessing Ring provides:

• 10 m²/m³ additional surface area;

but requires:

• 270 kg/m³ additional ceramic mass.

Therefore a project should ask:

Does the process truly need that extra geometric area enough to justify the structural load?

If not, Ceramic Pall Ring may occupy the more efficient mechanical position.

---

12. What Does This Mean for a 20 m³ Bed?

Using catalog dry bulk density:

Ceramic Pall Ring 80 mm

20 × 550 =

11,000 kg

Mini Lessing Ring 80 mm

20 × 820 =

16,400 kg

Difference:

5,400 kg

of dry packing.

That is:

5.4 tonnes additional dead load.

Final structural analysis must also include:

• liquid holdup;
• fouling deposits;
• support structures;
• operating loads.

But this dry-weight difference alone is large enough to matter.

---

13. Why Bed Weight Matters in Ceramic Towers

Ceramic packing can create substantial loads on:

• packing support plates;
• support beams;
• tower shell attachments.

A heavier bed can require:

• stronger internals;
• more conservative structural design.

This becomes particularly important in:

• large-diameter towers;
• deep beds;
• existing-vessel retrofits.

Therefore:

Ceramic packing selection is partly a structural decision.

Not just a mass-transfer decision.

---

14. Ceramic Pall Ring Has Verified Void-Fraction Data

The Ceramic Pall Ring series includes:

• 50 mm — approximately 78%;
• 80 mm — approximately 81% void fraction.

That supports its open-wall product position.

However, because Mini Lessing Ring void fraction is currently unverified in the DAIER dataset:

a direct voidage comparison should not be manufactured.

This is important.

Missing data should remain missing until confirmed.

---

15. Why We Should Not Copy a Competitor's Mini Lessing Voidage

Even if another manufacturer's catalog publishes:

• a similar product;
• the same nominal size;

its:

• dimensions;
• ceramic thickness;
• internal partition design

may differ.

Therefore competitor data should not be inserted into DAIER's product specification table as if it were DAIER data.

The correct RFQ approach is:

request supplier-confirmed physical data for the exact proposed model.

---

16. Packing Factor Is Also an Incomplete Direct Comparison

Mini Lessing Ring has verified dry packing factors:

50 mm

565 m⁻¹.

80 mm

356 m⁻¹.

The current Ceramic Pall Ring records used here do not include a corresponding verified dry packing factor.

Therefore:

this article cannot honestly claim which of the two products has lower packing factor.

That comparison remains open until matching Pall Ring data are verified.

This is preferable to creating false completeness.

---

17. Which Is Better for High Geometric Surface-Area Priority?

Mini Lessing Ring has the stronger catalog position in the exact matched sizes.

50 mm

145 vs 130 m²/m³.

80 mm

120 vs 110 m²/m³.

So if:

• ceramic is required;
• additional contacting area is valuable;
• structural loading is acceptable;

Mini Lessing Ring deserves evaluation.

But the surface-area advantage is moderate—not enormous.

---

18. Which Is Better for Low Bed Weight?

At 50 mm:

tie — 600 vs 600 kg/m³.

At 80 mm:

Ceramic Pall Ring wins clearly — 550 vs 820 kg/m³.

Therefore the answer is size-dependent.

You cannot say:

Mini Lessing Ring is always heavier.

The 50 mm data do not support that.

You also cannot say:

the two always weigh the same.

The 80 mm data strongly disprove it.

---

19. Size Changes the Product-Family Relationship

This is the central lesson.

At 50 mm

Mini Lessing provides:

• more area;

with:

• the same dry bed density.

At 80 mm

Mini Lessing still provides:

• more area;

but now requires:

• dramatically more ceramic mass.

Therefore:

the economic and mechanical value of the additional Mini Lessing geometry changes with size.

This makes supplier-specific size data essential.

---

20. Which Is Better for Fouling?

Fouling behavior cannot be ranked purely from these physical data.

Mini Lessing Ring has:

• more internal ceramic structure;
• more complicated passages.

Ceramic Pall Ring has:

• open wall windows;
• less internally partitioned geometry.

Where the process contains:

• crystals;
• solids;
• sticky deposits;

the more open structure may deserve stronger consideration.

But neither should be described as:

• clog-proof;
• self-cleaning.

The fouling mechanism must be understood first.

---

21. Which Is Better for Clean Contacting Service?

Where:

• the service is clean;
• geometric area is valuable;
• ceramic is the correct material;

Mini Lessing Ring can be attractive.

Its internal geometry is designed to create additional area.

But:

the process must gain enough from the extra surface to justify the packing choice.

At 80 mm especially, the extra dry weight is substantial.

---

22. Existing Ceramic Pall Ring Tower: Should You Change to Mini Lessing Ring?

Only when there is a defined process reason.

For example:

• inadequate contacting;
• changed duty;
• need for additional geometric area.

At 80 mm, the retrofit would change:

Surface Area

110 → 120 m²/m³.

Bulk Density

550 → 820 kg/m³.

Packing Population

remains:

1,950 pcs/m³.

This means:

the process gains moderate additional geometric area while adding very substantial structural load.

That trade-off must be justified.

---

23. Existing Mini Lessing Ring Tower: Should You Change to Pall Ring?

Possible reasons include:

• excessive dead load;
• support limitations;
• desire for more open-wall geometry;
• fouling concerns;
• simpler replacement.

At 80 mm, Ceramic Pall Ring can reduce dry packing density from:

820 → 550 kg/m³.

But the tower also loses some geometric area.

Therefore:

Mini Lessing → Pall Ring is also an engineered retrofit.

---

24. Like-for-Like Replacement Still Has Value

If an existing Mini Lessing Ring tower:

• performs correctly;
• has acceptable pressure drop;
• has adequate structural support;

there may be little reason to change geometry.

Likewise for Ceramic Pall Ring.

A proven operating history is itself valuable engineering evidence.

Changing packing simply because another geometry has:

10–15 m²/m³ more surface area

may not justify the uncertainty.

---

25. Do Not Automatically Keep the Same Bed Height

Even when nominal size is identical:

• surface area changes;
• wetting behavior can change;
• hydraulic geometry changes.

Therefore:

same nominal size + same packed height does not guarantee equivalent performance.

Any geometry retrofit should review:

• required duty;
• hydraulic conditions;
• packed height.

---

26. Ceramic Composition Is a Separate Decision

Packing geometry does not determine whether the ceramic material is suitable.

Confirm:

• chemical composition;
• acid resistance;
• alkali resistance where relevant;
• mechanical strength;
• thermal capability.

Two suppliers can manufacture the same nominal geometry using different ceramic formulations.

Therefore:

packing geometry and ceramic quality must both be specified.

---

27. Breakage Risk Still Applies to Both

Both are ceramic random packings.

Both are therefore:

• brittle compared with plastic or metal.

During installation and maintenance, excessive impact can cause:

• broken pieces;
• fragments;
• altered packed-bed geometry.

Mini Lessing's more complex internal structure should not automatically be assumed to be:

• stronger;
• weaker.

Mechanical strength requires actual product data.

---

28. Installation Weight Can Matter

At 80 mm, Mini Lessing's 820 kg/m³ dry bulk density can make:

• transport;
• lifting;
• loading;
• tower access work

more demanding.

In large projects, bed weight also affects freight economics.

Therefore procurement should compare not only:

price per cubic meter

but also:

• kg/m³;
• total packing tonnes;
• installation logistics.

---

29. Tower Diameter Still Matters

Both 50 and 80 mm random packings require a tower diameter appropriate to the selected element size.

Very large random packing in a narrow tower may create:

• insufficient elements across the diameter;
• stronger wall effects.

Therefore:

tower ID should be known before finalizing 80 mm packing.

Do not select 80 mm solely because its bed is coarser.

---

30. Support Grid Compatibility

Changing between the two ceramic geometries requires review of:

• support-grid openings;
• element retention;
• structural capacity;
• open area.

The 80 mm weight difference is particularly important mechanically.

A support designed around a lighter Ceramic Pall bed should not automatically be assumed adequate for a much heavier Mini Lessing bed.

---

Ceramic Pall Ring vs Mini Lessing Ring Decision Table

---

31. Quick Selection Guide

Favor Ceramic Pall Ring more readily when:

• open-wall ring geometry is desired;
• dry bed weight matters;
• 80 mm class packing is being considered;
• existing Pall Ring operation is proven;
• the extra Mini Lessing area is not essential.

Evaluate Ceramic Mini Lessing Ring when:

• greater geometric surface area has real process value;
• ceramic is already required;
• service is relatively clean;
• structural loading is acceptable.

At 50 mm

Mini Lessing deserves stronger contact-area screening because it provides:

145 vs 130 m²/m³

with the same:

600 kg/m³ bulk density.

At 80 mm

the decision becomes much more cautious because:

120 vs 110 m²/m³ area

comes with:

820 vs 550 kg/m³ bed density.

---

Common Selection Mistakes

Choosing Mini Lessing Only Because It Has More Surface Area

The 80 mm weight penalty is substantial.

Choosing Pall Ring Only Because It Is Lighter

At 50 mm both products have the same verified dry bulk density.

Assuming More Pieces Means More Area

At 80 mm both have exactly 1,950 pcs/m³ but different surface areas.

Assuming Same Pieces Means Same Weight

Again, 80 mm gives 550 vs 820 kg/m³.

Inventing Mini Lessing Void Fraction

The current DAIER dataset does not provide it.

Inventing Ceramic Pall Ring Packing Factor

The current comparison dataset does not contain it.

Treating Same Nominal Size as Like-for-Like Packing

Internal geometry differs.

Ignoring Structural Load

Ceramic packing can add many tonnes to a large tower.

Changing Geometry Without Reviewing Process Duty

Extra geometric area only matters if the process can use it.

---

Frequently Asked Questions

Which has more surface area, Ceramic Pall Ring or Mini Lessing Ring?

Mini Lessing Ring has higher verified surface area at directly comparable 50 and 80 mm sizes.

What is the 50 mm comparison?

Ceramic Pall Ring:

• 130 m²/m³;
• 600 kg/m³;
• 6,800 pcs/m³.

Mini Lessing Ring:

• 145 m²/m³;
• 600 kg/m³;
• 6,500 pcs/m³.

What is the 80 mm comparison?

Ceramic Pall Ring:

• 110 m²/m³;
• 550 kg/m³;
• 1,950 pcs/m³.

Mini Lessing Ring:

• 120 m²/m³;
• 820 kg/m³;
• 1,950 pcs/m³.

Why is the 80 mm comparison important?

Because both contain exactly the same number of packing elements, yet Mini Lessing provides about 9% more geometric surface area while increasing dry bulk density by about 49%.

Which is lighter?

At 50 mm they have the same verified bulk density. At 80 mm Ceramic Pall Ring is substantially lighter.

Which has higher void fraction?

The current DAIER Mini Lessing dataset does not provide verified void-fraction values, so a responsible direct comparison cannot be made.

Which has lower packing factor?

Matching dry packing-factor data are not currently available for Ceramic Pall Ring in this dataset, so the comparison should remain unclaimed.

Is Mini Lessing Ring more efficient?

It provides more geometric surface area in the compared sizes, but actual process efficiency depends on wetting and operating conditions.

Can Mini Lessing Ring directly replace Ceramic Pall Ring?

Do not treat the change as like-for-like. Geometry, bed weight and process characteristics may change.

Which is better for a weight-sensitive retrofit?

At 80 mm, Ceramic Pall Ring has a much stronger dry-weight position.

---

Selection Takeaway

Ceramic Pall Ring vs Ceramic Mini Lessing Ring is fundamentally a question of whether additional internal ceramic geometry provides enough process value to justify its mechanical consequences.

At 50 mm:

Ceramic Pall Ring → 130 m²/m³ / 600 kg/m³ / 6,800 pcs/m³

versus:

Mini Lessing Ring → 145 m²/m³ / 600 kg/m³ / 6,500 pcs/m³.

Here Mini Lessing provides approximately:

11.5% more geometric area with no catalog dry-weight penalty.

But at 80 mm:

Ceramic Pall Ring → 110 m²/m³ / 550 kg/m³ / 1,950 pcs/m³

versus:

Mini Lessing Ring → 120 m²/m³ / 820 kg/m³ / 1,950 pcs/m³.

Here Mini Lessing provides only about:

9% more geometric surface area

while increasing dry bed density by approximately:

49%.

That leads to a very clear engineering decision:

50 mm → Mini Lessing geometry can provide extra area at similar bed weight

while:

80 mm → the additional area must be weighed carefully against a much heavier ceramic bed.

The correct selection sequence is:

Process Duty → Ceramic Requirement → Required Geometric Area → Hydraulic Constraint → Tower Diameter → Dry Bed Load → Support Grid Capacity → Fouling → Exact Packing Model

The key principle is:

Do not pay for or structurally carry additional internal ceramic geometry unless the process genuinely needs the extra contacting area it provides.