Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 02/04/2019 in all areas

  1. 4 points
    It's only Quarantine if it's in the Quarantine province of France. Otherwise it's just sparkling isolation.
  2. 4 points
  3. 4 points
    Friends don't let friends run stills unattended, any questions?
  4. 4 points
  5. 4 points
    The presentation I put together on continuous column distillation is focused on a comparison of the efficiency of batch distillation versus continuous distillation. The discussion on the science of single pass continuous distillation (finished spirits) including the separation of heads / hearts / tails is a much deeper discussion that my ppt only briefly touches on. The file is to big to upload here if any one would like to see it send me an email Distillerynow@gmail.com and Ill send you the presentation
  6. 3 points
    Wow. That was unexpected. Especially in an industry built around Pasteur's work.
  7. 3 points
    the midwest. if you're from New York, it starts just West of Philly until you get to Nevada. If you're from Texas, it ain't anywhere near Texas. Texas is Texas. If you're from California.. hey, man, like, whaat? If you're from Chicago, that's the midwest, but they aren't happy about who's in the rest of the midwest. If you're from the South and don't say "y'all" then that's not the South, it's the midwest.
  8. 3 points
    I 'll be one just give me your address and a time when your not around .
  9. 3 points
    The issue about turning elements on sequentially over time is in reference to a demand meter. Depending on your service, once you hit your "maximum daily demand" which I believe is over a 15 minute period, you will thereafter be charged that "demand" every day for the rest of your operational life. However your cost per KW will be lower, billed on top of that flat demand charge. As for remote start up, perhaps you could run a feed back loop program to your iPad that is lying beside you in bed, that also activates a remote wire clipped to your nuts. Then when your still starts at the distillery you will simutaneosly gets zapped in the nuts to force you to get up to protect your investment. All of course at a lower cost per KWH.
  10. 3 points
    The Corson's attorney sent the cease and desist letter below to me in 2017. Please see my replies below the letter. They were of course bluffing. They threatened lots of people with law suites at that time. They had no case and I knew it. Everything I said about them was true. You tell them any time they would like to bring suite, my attorney and I are ready. They have no case and we will bleed them dry. Do not contact me again and tell the Corson's that if they or anyone from their organization contacts me again I will report them for harassment. Mr. Hall, You are responding to my secretary, Ms. Bush. Please kindly direct any further communications regarding this matter to me. In your email you allude to the fact that you have an attorney. If that is the case, please immediately forward my cease and desist demand to him or her. As I indicated in the several voice messages I left for you, if you are in fact represented by counsel then I can only speak with your counsel. It is because I received no further information about who your counsel is that the cease and desist demand was forwarded to you directly. The cease and desist demand stands. I respectfully request that you forward that demand, and this email, to your attorney immediately. Thank you. My Reply to the above. You tell the Corson brothers they can kiss my harry hillbilly ass, Tory called here cussing me like a dog threatening to sue me and I told him I would stomp his ass if he ever talks to me like that in person. You picked the wrong person to try and intimidate. Bring on your law suite, I'm ready and waiting
  11. 2 points
    oh jesus christ here's this "idiot again". What an "unbelievable dipshit".
  12. 2 points
    We are running just shy of 30,000 gallons of keg beer per week all into sanitizer
  13. 2 points
    This issue is a mess because both the FDA and the TTB guidelines are for hand sanitizers and only hand sanitizers. They did not address other sanitizers. Specifically, they do not address sanitzers used for cleaning surfaces, which is a common use when you sell sanitizer in spray bottles. Because I do not know squat about the issue, and because there is an emergency need, and because ... well, just because it is easier to be quiet sometimes and let things play out, I decided to shut up. I summarize the current situation as follows: Someone yelled "pandemic" (belatedly) in a crowded room and since it was, hey, a real pandemic, everyone bolted for the doors without much regard to regulatory decorum. Consequently, persons with access to alcohol for use in sanitizers have gone off in all directions to fill emergency needs in just about any way imaginable. Collectively, you've delivered all sort of products to hospitals, doctors offices, fire departments, police, ambulance services, prisons, individuals, and, well, just about anyone who feels they have a need for a santizer for any use for which they feel that they might have that need. Lines between uses are blurred - it's a hand sanitize, it's not a hand sanitizer, - if not complexity ignored - who cares if its a hand sanitizer - and the general refrain, in practice, is "Rules. Rules? We don't need no stinkin' rules." That is the nature of an emergency. The general who was in charge of federal Katrina aid, when the government decided they had to get serious after it turned out that Brownie had done a hell of a job messing things up, said officials should not make rules they cannot enforce. I'll say this, TTB tried, but in my opinion, the FDA was just plain officious. But the dust from the bolting will settle. This thread asks, "What then?" EPA and FDA This question sent me, via a Google search, to a CDA web site - https://www.cdc.gov/infectioncontrol/guidelines/disinfection/disinfection-methods/regulatory-framework.html. The document is headed, "The Regulatory Framework for Disinfectants and Sterilants - Guideline for Disinfection and Sterilization in Healthcare Facilities (2008). Note that it is specifically for health care facilities. It discusses the role of the CDC, EPA, and FDA. I will not pretend to have any expertise on these matters. Some excerpts from that site: In the United States, chemical germicides formulated as sanitizers, disinfectants, or sterilants are regulated in interstate commerce by the Antimicrobials Division, Office of Pesticides Program, EPA. Any substance or mixture of substances intended to prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate any pest (including microorganisms but excluding those in or on living humans or animals) must be registered before sale or distribution. To obtain a registration, a manufacturer must submit specific data about the safety and effectiveness of each product. For example, EPA requires manufacturers of sanitizers, disinfectants, or chemical sterilants to test formulations by using accepted methods for microbiocidal activity, stability, and toxicity to animals and humans. The manufacturers submit these data to EPA along with proposed labeling. If EPA concludes the product can be used without causing “unreasonable adverse effects,” then the product and its labeling are registered, and the manufacturer can sell and distribute the product in the United States. FIFRA also requires users of products to follow explicitly the labeling directions on each product. The following standard statement appears on all labels under the “Directions for Use” heading: “It is a violation of federal law to use this product in a manner inconsistent with its labeling.” Failure to follow the specified use-dilution, contact time, method of application, or any other condition of use is considered a misuse of the product and potentially subject to enforcement action under FIFRA. In general, EPA regulates disinfectants and sterilants used on environmental surfaces, and not those used on critical or semicritical medical devices; the latter are regulated by FDA. In June 1993, FDA and EPA issued a “Memorandum of Understanding” that divided responsibility for review and surveillance of chemical germicides between the two agencies. Under the agreement, FDA regulates liquid chemical sterilants used on critical and semicritical devices, and EPA regulates disinfectants used on noncritical surfaces and gaseous sterilants 793. EPA continues to register nonmedical chemical sterilants. In January 2000, FDA published its final guidance document on product submissions and labeling. Antiseptics are considered antimicrobial drugs used on living tissue and thus are regulated by FDA under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. FDA regulates liquid chemical sterilants and high-level disinfectants intended to process critical and semicritical devices. FDA has published recommendations on the types of test methods that manufacturers should submit to FDA for 510[k] clearance for such agents. I suspect that uses of sanitizers outside of the health services is not regulated at all by the FDA, since it is for neither internal or external human use, but I do not know what I am talking about, so any further comment would be inappropriate. But the path to a continuing market for sanitizer is a mind field of testing requirements, etc. Are they enforced? I don't know. It's not my bailiwick. TTB As to TTB, sanitizes made with alcohol are "articles" under its regulations. You find the rules for articles in n part 20, which requires that the articles be made with denatured alcohol. There is no provision for using undenatured alcohol as an ingredient in sanitizers,hand or otherwise, so, you start with denatured alcohol and then add further sanitizing ingredients. The formulas for denatured alcohol are in part 21. Not all formulas are approved for use in sanitzers. Any alcohol used to make denatured alcohol must be produced at a plant that is authorized to conduct operations in "industrial alcohol" That requires a permit issued under part 19 - this is different than the basic permit that beverage plants must have - and a registration, as an industrial alcohol plant, under the same part . Any DSP conducting operations in industrial alcohol must have a bond. There is no exemption based on the excise taxes paid, as there is for beverage spirits. You can be both a beverage plant and an industrial plant, but unless you declare the acohol to be beverage at the itme of the production gauge, you mustd have a bond sufficient to cover the liability for the taxes on the alcohol. Only a DSP can denature alcohol. When a DSP denatures alcohol according to a formula in part 21, the tax is not due upon removal of the denatured spirits from the DSP. Because the hand sanitizer is made with denatured alcohol, if it is made in accordance with the guidance formula, there is no tax due. That is true whether you sell it or give it away. If it is made with undenatured alcohol, then there is tax due. That is true whether you sell or give it away., A DSP may make articles on the DSP premises. Persons who are not DSPs and want to make articles must get a users permit under part 2o and buy a bond. DSPs are exempt from that, but must follow the other rules for making articles in part 20. The rules require an approved formula for all articles made. The hand sanitizer guidance provided a temporary exemption from the the requirements that DSPs have an operating permit, register as an industrial plant, and post bond. It also removed the formula requirement for hand sanitizers made according to the formulas provided in the guidance document. TTB initially provided that you could make hand sanitizers - specifically hand sanitizers - using undenatured alcohol, but after the FDA demanded for no good reason that the hand sanitizer be made with denatured alcohol, TTB changed its requirement. Under the ruiles, if youy make any sanitizer other than hand sanitizer produced according to the guidance document, taxes are due. Period. Whether TTB will ever attempt to collect those taxes is a real question. I doubt it. With all the sanitizer that has been sold, it would require that they devote most of their resources to collecting that tax, which is going to be a very small portion of the taxes that it collects each year. However, after the emergency ends, all of the requirements come to apply. You need an operating permit, you need to register as an industrial alcohol plant, you need to make the articles with SDA that is designated for use in sanitizers, you need to have a and you need to have an approved formula. What about alcohol delivered to hospitals, state agencies, etc. That is a different subject. For it to be withdrawn free of tax, the entity receiving it must have a permit. I do not want to go there now. Nor do I want to provide a citation for everything I just said. One final statement. Certificates of label approval are for beverage alcohol only. You must label industrial alcohol, denatured alcohol and articles according the rules for such products, but you do not get a label approval because they are not beverage products. I am now going to shut up again.
  14. 2 points
  15. 2 points
    The guidance in the document is precisely worded. The excerpt you quote has three separate sentences, each describing a different set of circumstances. The three sentences are clear, but you have to carefully parse them. First Sentence - Part 19, 20, and 223 requirements Any existing DSP Can immediately commence production of; Hand sanitizer or Distilled spirits (ethanol) for use in hand sanitizer, As described below, Without having to first obtain authorization. What does that allow and prohibit? The sentence is relatively free of embedded clauses. Nothing in that provision prohibits manufacturing , for sale, hand sanitizer or distilled spirits for use in hand sanitizer. This is a blanket authorization. Nothing in that sentence addresses whether you must pay taxes on the distilled spirits that are in the hand sanitize that you produce or on the distilled spirits that you produce for use in hand sanitizer. This sentence waives the requirements of part 19 that a DSP be qualified as an industrial plant and have a bond to engage in such transactions. Part 19 allows you to make "articles," a class of products to which hand sanitizers belong, on DSP premises, without an additional SDA users permit, as long as you make the articles in conformity with the requirements of part 20. Part 20 requires formulas for articles produced. If the formula is not a general use formula, then you must file a formula and obtain TTB's approval of it before making it. However, the "as described below" provision of the first sentence has the effect of making the formula in the guidance a general use formula for the duration of the emergency. Thus, you do not have to have additional authorization, i.e. the formula, to make a hand santizer if you do so in accordance with the formula in the guidance. You will not need to pay taxes if you produce the sanitizer according to the current TTB guidance, since the current guidance requires that you produce hand sanitizer with specially denature alcohol (SDA). You make SDA according to a formula ion part 21. If you follow the formula, , tax is no longer attached to alcohol used to make the SDA. Therefore, the hand sanitizer made with SDA is not subject to excise tax. You remove it without paying tax. Second Sentence - Part 19 and 22 requirements re: governments The second sentence describes a different set of circumstances. It is independent of the first sentance. It addresses the removal, from a DSP, of alcohol. for use by a restricted class of persons, only a state or local government, for use by such persons, to make hand sanitizer. Any existing DSP Also may remove Undenatured or denatured ethanol From bonded premises free of tax For use by any state or local government to produce hand sanitizer. What does that allow and prohibit? The provisions of this sentence apply only to removals made to state or local governments. The government would be the person using the product. In this case, the removal is free of tax, but only if they have an industrial use permit issued under part 22. Again, the guidance waives the requirement that the DSP be qualified as an industrial alcohol plant and the requirement for a bond. It does not waive the requirement that the government have a permit under part 22. Third Sentence - Part 19 and 22 requirements re: hospitals, pharmacies, etc. The third sentence describes a third set of circumstances. It is independent of either of the two preceding sentences. It addresses the removal, without payment of tax, of undenatured or denatured alcohol, to specific types of entities. Any existing DSP may remove undenatured or denatured ethanol from bonded premises free of tax for use by hospitals, blood banks, sanitariums, certain pathological laboratories, non-profit clinics, and qualifying educational institutions seeking to use it to manufacture hand sanitizer, and not for resale or use in the manufacture of any product for sale. What does it prohibit and allow: The provisions of this sentence apply only to removals made to the enumerated parties, hospitals, blood banks, sanitariums, certain pathological laboratories, non-profit clinics, and qualifying educational institutions The enumerated parties will be the persons using the product (they do so under the second set of FDA guidelines, which differ from the set that applies to DSPs that are manufacturing hand sanitizers, which has been a cause of some confusion here). In this case, the removal is free of tax, but only if they have an industrial use permit issued under part 22. Again, the guidance waives the requirement that the DSP be qualified as an industrial alcohol plant and the requirement for a bond. It does not waive the requirement that the government have a permit under part 22. Resale Provisions Importantly, the phrase "not for resale" does not apply to sales of sanitizer made with denatured alcohol under the provisions of the first sentence. The not for resale provision apply only in the circumstances described by the third sentence, i.e., where a DSP sells spirits "free of tax" to one of the enumerated entities. The liability for the tax passes from you to the entity upon removal of the spirits from your DSP. That is why the entity must have an industrial use permit and why you must verify that it has such a permit prior to selling the alcohol free of tax to the entity. If the entity then produces a hand sanitizer for which it makes a charge, the entity owes the excise tax. The regulations assume that the government entities to whom you may remove spirits free of tax for their use will not manufacture articles for sale.. This is my reading of the requirements. I am not an attorney and this should not be construed as legal advice. I offer it for general guidance as a result of my experinece with these matters, If you think that I am wrong, or may be wrong, contact TTB to determine if what I am saying comports to the intent of the regulations in question.
  16. 2 points
    I have avoided getting further involved in this because it is a rats nest. The FDA guidance documents say that it contains nonbinding recommendations. WTF does that mean? The whole thing centers on FDA's concern about it GRAS ruies. Whai Would call the FD's overly cautious approach to covid 19 testing poked a stick into the spokes of an essential program. It put us way behind the wave. It's caution on hand sanitzers is having the same effect. In 1996 and 2009 and nine the FDA was prepared to recognize undenatured alcohol as GRAS in hand sanitizers, but in 2016 it reversed that, calling for further testing. Why? Out of a concern that kids might drink it and poison themselves. Let';s put those two concerns on the scales by which we measure this emergency. To me, the FDA's position is indefensible. The are running much too scared. And as a lot of you know, the result has been a "wild west" scene around the country. What has the FDA's conservatism accomplished? So I stay out of it. Once burned. But I will insert a bit more here. TTB's guidance document addresses TWO different matters. One is the production of an article, in the parlance of part 20 of its regulatons. The article is the hand sanitizer. TTB says that you can forget the rules in part 20 for the production of articles if you make the hand sanitizer according to the guidance document. I'll leave that there. The second matter is the sale of undenatured alcohol, plain alcohol, not containing any other substance other than water, to persons who are eligible to receive it under the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. Normally, you would need to be an industrial alcohol plant to do that. Normally you would need a bond. TTB's guidance document waives those two requirements. It does not waive the other requirements that part 20 p[laces on such sales. If you look at the TTB guidance document carefully, you will see that every reference to "not for sale" applies to the removal of the undenatured alcohol, not hand sanitizer. Here is every reference to "not for sale" that you will find in TTB's guidance document: Alcohol, whether or not denatured, may be delivered tax-free to state and local governments for non-beverage purposes. The same is true for hospitals, blood banks, sanitariums, certain pathological laboratories, non-profit clinics, and qualifying educational institutions, if not for resale or use in the manufacture of any product for sale. Any existing DSP also may remove undenatured or denatured ethanol from bonded premises free of tax for use by any state or local government to produce hand sanitizer. In addition, any existing DSP may remove undenatured or denatured ethanol from bonded premises free of tax for use by hospitals, blood banks, sanitariums, certain pathological laboratories, non-profit clinics, and qualifying educational institutions seeking to use it to manufacture hand sanitizer, and not for resale or use in the manufacture of any product for sale. See 26 U.S.C. 5214(a)(3). These measures are generally authorized under authorities that apply in disaster situations, and as a result, are initially approved through June 30, 2020, with the possibility for extension as necessary. Guidance for hospitals, blood banks, sanitariums, certain pathological laboratories, non-profit clinics, and qualifying educational institutions. Hospitals, blood banks, sanitariums, certain pathological laboratories, non-profit clinics, and qualifying educational institutions may obtain alcohol free of tax for their own nonbeverage purpose use and not for resale or use in the manufacture of any product for sale, as described in 26 U.S.C. 5214(a)(3). Manufacturing hand sanitizer is one such nonbeverage use. As with state and local governments, such alcohol must be obtained from a distilled spirits plant and may only be obtained by those holding an alcohol user permit from TTB. See 26 U.S.C. 5271(a); 27 CFR part 22. TTB will offer these organizations the same streamlined application, as authorized under 27 CFR 22.42 and 22.43(a)(2). Again, please note that recent FDA guidance specifies using denaturants when making hand sanitizer. The requirement that the person obtaining the alcohol have a permit cannot be waived because it would waive a tax provision. Only congress can do that. The rules are different for the removal. for industrial purposes, of tax determined bulk alcohol The TTB guidance document does not waive those rules. But there is no issue that I can find with selling hand sanitizer made in accordance with the provisions of the guidance document.
  17. 2 points
    I'd personally have no issue using H2O2 regardless of supplier if I could get it. It should be cheaper to transport as well. I see it available still from many suppliers. It would be almost impossible for H2O2 not to fall into footnote 7 on the FDA document. https://www.fda.gov/media/136118/download "Hydrogen Peroxide Concentrate USP or Hydrogen Peroxide Topical Solution USP. Technical grade hydrogen peroxide falls within this policy if the concentration is within that of Hydrogen Peroxide Concentrate USP or Hydrogen Peroxide Topical Solution USP." It surely is when you dilute it! Take for example: https://growershouse.com/h2o2-hydrogen-peroxide-34-5-gallon?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&adpos=&scid=scplp9483&sc_intid=9483&gsacid=952889933&keyword=&gclid=CjwKCAjwvZv0BRA8EiwAD9T2VTKMenEZtMtMdSoKvt2TjwtITTZKmBe87MovWnhsak5GK16-Hb8YJxoCq2gQAvD_BwE It's 34% not 3% or 12% as you typically purchase Hydrogen Peroxide. It's a much purer form. 1 Gallon of 34% when diluted would be the same concentration as 11.33 gallons of 3% or enough to make approximately 1030 liters or 272 gallons of sanitizer per FDA recipe.
  18. 2 points
    I have a special denaturing wand I crafted from meteor fragments and banana peels. When I wave that in the general direction of a tank of alcohol or sanitizer it becomes denatured through the chaotic molecular bias inherent in the universe. And now I don't owe FET. damn those f'ing torpedoes, I agree.
  19. 2 points
    I had a client inquire about this and I'll make this short and sweet. You can check references. To deal, as a distiller, in industrial alcohol, you must have a permit issued under part 19. This is in addition to the FAA Act basic permit that you hold. If all you are qualified to do is produce beverage alcohol, and that is probably at least 95% of you, then you also must amend your registrations to include industrial alcohol and must obtain a bond or post a cash bond - minimum $15 operatons and $1K withdrawals.. All of that is easily accomplished, but it takes time. By the time you do that the shortage will have long ago passed. If you qualify to produce industrial alcohol, you are liable for the tax on the head faction. They haveethyl alcohol in them too. You can destroy the heads and be rid of the tax. You must keep records of the destruction, prior to the production gauge, as I am sure you all do. If, prior to the production gauge, you remove the ethyl alcohol so that it is less than 10% of the the product, you might be able to remove the remaining heads from the production account as a chemical byproduct on which you could place a Mr. Yuk sticker. Read what that requires and decide if you think you have a market. But undenatured alcohol removed from the DSP for industrial use is subject to tax. No matter how nasty your heads are, they are not denatured alcohol. You may also only ship to the authorized industrial user. You make denatured alcohol according to a formula found in part 21 of the regulations. You can denature alcohol in your processing account, but you must do that with alcohol you have counted as produced an transferred to the processing account. The alchol you use to make SDA must be not less than 185 proof, unless otherwise specifically stated in the formula or unless otherwise authorized by the appropriate TTB officer. You are relived of the tax when you denature the product according to an approved formula. You may then use certain SDA products to make a sanitizer, which TTB calls an artical, which you may ship from your DSP. Okay, it ain't short, but its a lot shorter than it is when I justify what I say by references. Try §19.307, §19.308 and §19.381 and following,, along with the links stated therein, as a starter. Then delve into parts 20 and 21. And it isn't sweet. If you are not keeping track of your heads and recording their destruction, and TTB audits, and the auditor checks, and the auditor cares, then they could cite a violation and enter an assessment. That is "could." If you are shipping the stuff out the door as a commercial product, I think an assessment of tax would be likely - I've no experience with this because no one I know of has done it - unless you have used 185 plus to make a denatured product which you then used to make a sanatizer under whatever rules the FDA might apply to such products. If anyone finds I am wrong, let me know.
  20. 2 points
    If you think the world is over-reacting to COVID-19 you have not understood the problem. Comparing it to normal flu is irrelevant. You need to compare it to the 1918 Spanish Flu. The only good news so far is that the Chinese have proven that it can be beaten - using basically the same techniques that worked in 1918 and against SARS. If you are prepared to invest half an hour into understanding the process and the risks we face, have a read through this article. Our problem in the west is that we rank personal freedoms above those of the group and this makes it more difficult for us to implement the group focused solutions that have worked for the Chinese.
  21. 2 points
    Foreshot, For just R&D purposes a backyard fire pit or BBQ grill and a a tin can (never used empty paint can or cookie tin to 5 gallon metal bucket) with a small hole punched in the top works. Lots of videos on Youtube on how to do this. Walmart sells "Western Premium BBQ Products Smoking Chips" in a range of wood types including apple, cherry, maple, mesquite & hickory and these seem to work well for R&D purposes and only about $3/bag or so that makes it easy to source for testing. This is what I've been using. Silk City Distillers, Wow, not sure where to begin. Purely talking basics and craft, I like a bit colder ferment than typical (8% to 9%), so it's done in roughly 5 to 7 days vs 3 days. I prefer pure pot stilled whiskey over columns, doublers, thumpers or plates using a worm. I like a slow pot still spirit run (after fast stripping). When I say slow, I mean probably 1/2 speed of what most people run. This allows for more natural refluxing as well as have more time for esterification to take place in the boiler which I think produces a better spirit. I like a generous cut (not super wide or narrow) to get the late heads and early tails which give the whiskey it's unique flavor that will develop as it ages. Hell, I'd even barrel up late heads and early tails (separately) once in a while to use for back blending later after aging which can turn out spectacular on their own. I like rerunning feints with heavy oils skimmed off or separated. I'd strip down to at least 10% on the strip run (adjust as needed) so that the spirit run ABV is just about perfect for aging without having to dilute. I doubt there is anything new here. I'd rather produce less product of higher quality and price it accordingly.
  22. 2 points
    Ask the cooper for references, find people who use them years ago and still use them. We prefer The Barrel Mill, they are local to us, make a good barrel, and I don't think I've ever heard a negative thing about them.
  23. 2 points
    Thanks so much--that saves me some time! Right now we have 2x 6 spout fillers, a Mori from TCW and a 6 spout from Criveller that we use regularly https://store.tcwequipment.com/products/mori-filler http://www.criveller.com/products/winery/bottling-solutions/manual-bottling-systems/fillers/ Both are good fillers, and both have their advantages and disadvantages, depending on the bottle shape and how you use it. I have less headaches with the Mori, and Michael at TCW has been great to work with. The only real headache with the TCW unit was that the fill height is only adjustable by the tray itself, and the Criveller is adjustable by both the tray and knobs on the nozzles (very important for accurate fills on SOME bottle shapes). The tray on the Mori doesn't allow for fine enough adjustment for SOME bottles to meet the TTBs allowable fill tolerances. HOWEVER, I just received a prototype infinitely adjustable tray from TCW for me to test out, and I believe it will solve the aforementioned issue. The Mori is also longer by about 10 inches, which does add up if you're running a few thousand bottles a day. The Criveller unit was sent with a Flojet BEER pump, which is almost the same as the G70 except my brief research tells me that the internals may not be ethanol compatible. We swapped that out immediately, so if anyone wants an unused beer pump, let me know. The main headache we get from the Criveller unit is that the nozzle tips are very soft and prone to getting bunched up on the bottle neck, which can cause overfilling and overflows. The second headache with the Criveller is the pneumatic float isn't strong enough to completely shut off the pump, so if you stop filling you'll want to manually shut off the air supply. We never have those problem on the TCW unit. Again, overall both units are good fillers. I can't say one is absolutely better than the other for everyone, but I'd lean towards the Mori from TCW.
  24. 2 points
    Wait you mean something made by Corson wasn't made correctly? Thats a shocker!!!
  25. 2 points
    Whoa - things are spinning here. There is a need for more discipline and rigour. Yes, adding sugar to wine is chaptalization or amelioration. But neither of those words appear in the standard of identity for brandy, which you find in §5.22(d). Fruit brandy §5.22(d)(1), is, among other things, “brandy distilled solely from the fermented juice or mash of whole, sound, ripe fruit, or from standard grape, citrus, or other fruit wine." The standard goes on to discuss pumice additions, etc., which are not relevant to the question. If real estate is "location, location, location," regulation is "definition, definition, definition." So, you must ask, "What is "standard wine?" Terms like "stand wine," which contain a modifier, almost beg the reader to look for a definition within the regulations. The regulation could have said wine, but it said, instead, "standard wine," and the notion that the wine must be "standard" reflects a conscious choice to include it. That sends us to part 24, the wine regulations (part 4, do not define the term). Part 24 defines it. Standard wine is "Natural wine, specially sweetened natural wine, special natural wine, and standard agricultural wine, produced in accordance with subparts F, H, and I of this part.. Now, that leads us on a merry chase, which I will not pursue to the end here, but "natural wine" "specially sweetened natural wine" and "special natural wine" are all defined too. "Natural Wine" is The product of the juice or must of sound, ripe grapes or other sound, ripe fruit (including berries) made with any cellar treatment authorized by subparts F and L of this part and containing not more than 21 percent by weight (21 degrees Brix dealcoholized wine) of total solids. Natural wine is produced in accordance with subparts F and G of part 24. Now,. things get deep. §24.176, which is headed " Crushing and fermentation," provides, in pertinent part, that , " At the start of fermentation no material may be added except water, sugar, concentrated fruit juice from the same kind of fruit, malo-lactic bacteria, yeast or yeast cultures grown in juice of the same kind of fruit, and yeast foods, sterilizing agents, precipitating agents or other approved fermentation adjuncts." The addition to juice or natural wine before, during, or after fermentation, of either water or pure dry sugar, or a combination of water and sugar to adjust the acid level" is called amelioration. A winery may only do it within limits. What are those limit? Let's go a little further down the rabbit hole. §24.178(a), which is headed "Amelioration," provides, "In producing natural wine from juice having a fixed acid level exceeding 5.0 grams per liter, the winemaker may adjust the fixed acid level by adding ameliorating material (water, sugar, or a combination of both) before, during and after fermentation. The fixed acid level of the juice is determined prior to fermentation and is calculated as tartaric acid for grapes, malic acid for apples, and citric acid for other fruit. Each 20 gallons of ameliorating material added to 1,000 gallons of juice or wine will reduce the fixed acid level of the juice or wine by 0.1 gram per liter (the fixed acid level of the juice or wine may not be less than 5.0 gram per liter after the addition of ameliorating material). There's more on amelioration, but there is also a limit to how far down I want to go to make my point. However, before leasing part 24, you can also add sugar to sweeten a wine. "§24.179 provides: (a) General. In producing natural wine, sugar, juice or concentrated fruit juice of the same kind of fruit may be added after fermentation to sweeten wine. When juice or concentrated fruit juice is added, the solids content of the finished wine may not exceed 21 percent by weight. When liquid sugar or invert sugar syrup is used, the resulting volume may not exceed the volume which would result from the maximum use of pure dry sugar only. (b) Grape wine. Any natural grape wine of a winemaker's own production may have sugar added after amelioration and fermentation provided the finished wine does not exceed 17 percent total solids by weight if the alcohol content is more than 14 percent by volume or 21 percent total solids by weight if the alcohol content is not more than 14 percent by volume. (c) Fruit wine. Any natural fruit wine of a winemaker's own production may have sugar added after amelioration and fermentation provided the finished wine does not exceed 21 percent total solids by weight and the alcohol content is not more than 14 percent by volume. So you can use wine to which sugar has been added to produce brandy. However, before leaving the issue altogether, all of this that raises a question that is not answered clearly. Yes, you could receive in bond standard wine produced at a winery, with acceptable additions of sugar, and you could then distill it, as standard wine, to make a standard fruit brandy. But, could you, as a DSP proprietor, ferment juice, in the manner of standard wine, which would allow the addition of sugar within limits imposed on standard wine, to make distilling material. I don't know. If you can, and you did, you would create a need for a lot of records to prove that the addition of the sugar was within the limits allowed by part 24. So ask TTB. But before you do, understand what the regulations say. When you understand, sort of - and I'd say that is the sort of understanding that I have, a sort of understanding - what the regulations say, you have a clue about the TTB employee to whom you are talking has a clue about what is required, prohibited, or allowed.
  26. 2 points
    You have asked a question that I have thought about writing a book to answer. Having started a few small businesses in my life, this has proven to be the most complex. There are endless details and problems to solve, and there is a very small community available to help (although most in the community are very generous in giving advice, etc.). Investor capture work is worth a chapter of two. Start very early in your business plan process and you will spend a lot of time with little results... but those results are generally more valuable as initial capital is the hardest to come by. However, it will also be more costly capital as you will need to give away more ownership to attract the investor at that point (all you have are ideas on paper without any proof you can actually execute on a plan). There are three types of investors: 1 - those that know you and like you and want to help you. 2 - Those that want to play a role in the business. 3 - Those that will only invest based on anticipated probability of a certain level of ROI. #1 should be your first target early. One idea there is to come up with an offering but include a convertible shareholder note vehicle. Let's say Uncle Joe likes you and wants to help. He has a bit of savings he isn't afraid of losing, and more that he would invest if he has some security behind it. One idea is to have Uncle Joe buy-in with some, and then maybe does a convertible note for some of the equipment where he holds title to the equipment. The payments for the equipment can be deferred, but interests accumulates. At some date in the future the principle and interest would be payable to Joe, or he can chose to convert some or all of it to shares in the business. If the business is not doing well, then Joe can take his equipment and sell it to at least partially recover his losses. However if the business is doing well, it can secure a loan to pay off what Joe is owned, and use the equipment for collateral, or Joe can convert all or some of what he is owed into ownership shares. #2 is a partner. Be careful. It is like getting married without the benefit of sleeping together. #3 is the hard one. Be careful here too. Read about Balcones. Better to push this off into the future when you are open and have some proof of concept that you can pour and sell. Note that if you are not an attorney, and you will have investors, you will need to hire an attorney. I will not tell you how much I have spent on attorneys because it makes me cry. The sequencing of steps will look like a mess, and there are many irreconcilable conflicts that you just have to deal with. For example, my building official wanted county health department sign off before he issued the C of O and the county health department wanted the C of O before they would do any inspection. You just have to negotiate your way to some successful conclusion. You will need an address and floor-plan and list of equipment before you can get TTB approval and state approval. I know of one distillery where the owner leased a very small facility to store all his equipment and supplies he was going to use for his final address, and used that smaller address to get his TTB and state approval for his DSP, and then did some DSP-to-DSP transfers of spirit in barrels that aged in this small warehouse space while he worked on finding and building his final space. He submitted and was approved for the changes, and when he finally opened he had 4-year old whiskey to sell on day one. Very smart! That was not me. The very first thing you need is a fully fleshed out business plan. This is very important as it contains all the big picture thinking that answers a lot of the questions for what steps are needed and in what sequence. You need to put a number of hours into just sitting down and thinking and writing it down. You need to think about how big of an operation and how much you think you can sell, and capture all the money in and money out flows in projected financial reports. I have a 6-year cash flow spreadsheet backed by all the assumptions about costs of good sold and sales that updates everything when I make a change. That way I can play with the assumptions as I develop a better confidence and understanding in how the business will operate. Frankly, you should never talk to any investor without having done this first. I will open this next month. It has been over 4 years since I first sat down to start writing the plan, and three years since I started paying for things related to this business. I will have my first sales revenue in July 2019. My last bit of advice.... making beer is a lot easier and quicker.
  27. 2 points
    No - the spirits must be aged in the oak. Buying wine that has been stored in oak means only that you paying someone else to store something you will still have to store for an additional two years,. I'm not competent to comment on whether distilling wine that has been in oak will benefit the brandy produced. Stipping out the excess verbiage to get to the basic, we get, "In the case of brandy distilled from wine of grapes, which has been stored in oak containers for less than 2 years, the statement of class and type shall be immediately preceded, in the same size and kind of type, by the word “immature”. So, I see your logic. Does the phrase "which has been stored in oak containers for less than two years," modify "brandy" or modify "wine of grape." The answer to that lies in the age statement, in §5.40, again simplified for clarity, and referring only to grape brandy, not other fruit brandy: (b) Statements of age for brandy, Age may, but need not, be stated on labels of brandies, except that an appropriate statement with respect to age shall appear on the brand label in case of brandy (other than immature brandies which are not customarily stored in oak containers) not stored in oak containers for a period of at least 2 years." And age means, by the definition at 5.11, "The period during which, after distillation and before bottling, distilled spirits have been stored in oak containers.
  28. 2 points
    No matter what you do, there will always be the difference between theoretical and practical performance. Manufacturers include a "safety factor" in all designs, signifying the practical application performance differences. What I have seen, more often than not, is somewhat incorrect extrapolation of performances along with sizing without testing those extrapolation values. Of course this is for a manufacturer to decide and warranty. Of course salesman cannot see this or they will try to argue that engineers are oversizing equipment which is why there are warranties. As long as manufacturers live up to warranties and performances, that's the end of the conversation between supplier and user. Everyone else's opinion is a mute point.
  29. 2 points
    Can I ask why you would drain coolant? That’s like saying you drain your fermenter cooling jackets when you don’t need to cool. I don’t drain my still condensers when I’m not distilling. I don’t drain my mash tun cooling jacket.
  30. 2 points
    While you can stage your nutrient additions, you can not stage your yeast additions. Pitch all your yeast at once. For 1000 liters of cane juice, pitch a brick of yeast (500g). In cane juice this needs to be done as quickly as possible post-press. Cane juice is full of wild yeast and bacteria, it will begin fermentation immediately upon pressing. If wild yeast outcompete your pitched yeast, alcohol levels may retard the growth of your yeast in comparison to wild yeast, leading to a stalled fermentation. If bacteria outcompete yeast, pH will plummet quickly and retard yeast growth. By adding nutrient and not all the yeast up front, you are providing an advantage to the wild yeast and bacteria.
  31. 2 points
    Totally don't understand. If you are clogging a straight-through HX, it means your pump can't build sufficient pressure to pump against the back pressure of the tubing. There are zero occlusions in a straight-through flow path to cause any kind of blockage, build up, or otherwise. So how on earth does a more restrictive setup result in less chance of clogging? Especially one that now includes obvious inclusions. You'd face significantly more head pressure with a 4 tube design, because it's more restrictive to flow. Your maximum solids size now becomes the inner diameter of the smaller tube. If I bought a 4 tube design and one tube clogged, so that I needed to break it down to clean it, I'd ask for my money back, because that's garbage design.
  32. 2 points
  33. 2 points
    There are various reasons For distillery success or failure vs the average business type (restaurants included ) such as: Many Small Craft distilleries are secondary to an individual's source of income. Small operations that are run primarily by families who are employed at other jobs, and they are working due to the passion of their endeavor. This type of operation can usually survive as a hobby that may break even. alternatively Retirement / heritage distillery where an individual has left their primary job or business and has a million or more to invest in a new field. They can float through the first few years while their decent local product matures long enough to be palatable. If collocated as a ditillery-pub with decent food, it can be a good model. alternatively Either of the above can also be operate as fake distilleries, where they re-bottle and rebubble bulk products, giving them a better chance to survive by charging True Craft prices with minimal input expense. ( There is no other industry that has a national infrastructure set up to supply fake craft to business that then attempt to dupe customers). alternatively Group funded operations that have sufficent backup cash to run without fear of making payroll. Again these can be run true or fake, or a hybrid of both which is quite popular wherein they rebottle bulk with the "premise" that at some point they will produce their own. Because distilleries come in so many shapes, sizes and models, and are governed by so many different state laws, you really need to drill down to find the reasons for success or failure of any given brand. None of this by the way touches on the plethora of fake "Big Liquor" craft offerings which are sucking up shelf space with the same old products they have been making for 50 years. prost
  34. 2 points
    Doc's, I give my customers free consulting on their equipment needs, equipment placement, equipment safety, hazardous environments, spirit production, spirit storage, bottling equipment etc etc. I also give out all of the trade secrets that I know such as how to created $37,500.00 worth of premium vodka in one of my 300 gallon pot stills in 4 hrs. How to produce higher proofs with fewer plates etc. The things that I don't know anything about are zoning and TTB applications and paperwork. I am the only vender that I know of that does this kind of extensive consulting at no charge. Most vendors just want to sell you equipment and they will try to upsell whenever they can. I am here to help make you successful and I never upsell. If I help make you successful you will come back and purchase more equipment from me when you expand. All of the above gives me advantages over my competitors and gives my customers advantages over their competitor that are not my customers. Also if you purchase my equipment you get a free 3 day one on one distilling workshop at a distillery that has been running my equipment for 7 years. We are about long term relationships and the success of our customers. If you still need equipment and you want some free consulting etc,. email paul@distillery-equipment.com
  35. 2 points
    You are a lucky one. Those piss-ants sent me a dangerous still. It took a lot of work and a lot of money to get it operational. Not to mention that I had to buy another still to try and catch up with demand due to the constant lies from those pieces of shit about delivery times. I am not one to wish bad things on people normally but it would actually make me smile to see them go to jail.
  36. 2 points
    Oh damn, there is a Canada forum???
  37. 2 points
    Georgeous - The American whiskey industry uses the term "beer gallons" to describe mash thickness for grain-in fermentation and distillation of things like corn, rye, wheat and malt. The reason for this, is most equipment and process can handle one level of mash thickness, and scaling up or down or comparing yields from plant to plant or recipe to recipe is much easier done this way. A beer gallon is the total volume of liquid per bushel. Big distilleries typically run a 28 to 35 gallon beer. We run a 30 gallon beer, and hit a starting gravity around 1.065. So, for 500 gallons of finished mash, we start with 16 and 2/3rds bushels. This is important as bushels are a measure of volume, not weight, and we are working in volumes here. So this means my mash with 61 lb/bushel corn has more pounds of corn than if I used 56 lb/bushel corn, yet it has the same thickness so I know my pumps, agitators, exchangers and hoses can handle it. We start with about 380 gallons of 90 degree F water, and use live steam inject to add about another 55 or 60 gallons worth of water getting it to high temp. With the grain we hit 500 gallons +/- 5 or 10 every time. So for your 600 gallon recipe, as a 30 gallon beer, would be 20 bushels. (20*75%) 15 bushels of corn times its test weight (56 is average, but you should test your grain) = 840 lbs (20*21%) 4.2 bushels of rye (54 is average, again should test) = 227 lbs (20*4%) .8 bushels of malt (38 is average) = 30.4 lbs of malt Use about 528 gallons of water (less the appropriate amount of steam if using steam sparge) These weights are for field grains, not flaked. I'd also recommend starting with a 30 gallon beer and see how your equipment runs it, and thicken/thin it out based off experience. We test all of our grains upon receiving, and update our mashbill in pounds to match the new test weight.
  38. 2 points
    I hope you figure this out, I want to have a blue vodka too.
  39. 1 point
    whoa your going to tell the hell out of this!!!
  40. 1 point
    No, I think it is not the same waiver that has been talked about on this thread. That is why I asked this question. I think it is far more reaching. Here is how my argument goes: There is a general presumption in law that congress acts purposefully. Under the Internal Revenue Code there already was no excise tax due on any alcohol used to produce a denatured alcohol, in accordance with part 21. Because those provisions already existed, there was no need for congress to purposefully act to waive a tax on denatured alcohol used in sanitizers. Therefore, congress must have meant something more. I would conclude that congress meant what it plainly said it meant; it waived the tax on undenatured spirits used to make hand sanitizers. If congress waived the tax on undenatured alcohol used to make hand sanitizers, then congress must have intended to permit the use of undenatured alcohol in the production of hand sanitizers. The wavier was an unambiguous expression of congressional intent that undenatured alcohol may be used, as long as the bill is in effect, to make hand sanitizer. Therefore, while TTB and FDA may make rules that govern the use of undenatured alcohol in hand sanitizers, they may not prohibit such use. Thus, both agencies should issue new guidance, consistent with the statutory language, on the rules for the use of undenatured alcohol in the production of hand sanitizers. Because the provisions are emergency provisions, they should issue the rules immediately. That is why I want to see the language of the bill itself. I want to see what rules would seem to be consistent with congressional intent. But without seeing the statutory language, I think it is likely it is the nail in the coffin of the FDA's ridiculous position in this matter. If I am correct,then the silliness will end. I assume that if I have figured it out correctly, DISCUS, ACSA, and attorneys for the large producers, who lobbied for this change, will figure it out too. But I intend to add my voice to those calling on TTB and the FDA to provide guidance documents that comport to congresses intent that taxes be waived to expedite the use of beverage grade alcohol in the production of hand sanitizers. Large distillers have argued, "“If we could get the FDA to say yes you can use the beverage grade and for the duration of this emergency at least for some point in time here for the next two weeks you can waive the denaturant we would literally have millions of gallons of hand sanitizer available within a matter of days,” said Monte Shaw, CEO of Iowa Renewable Fuels Association, an ethanol trade group. “Every one of our plants has gotten contacted by people who want this stuff and we can’t send it to them.” https://time.com/5811201/ethanol-producers-hand-sanitizer/. But, as small distillers, I think you are a more effective distribution channel, at least initially, for sanitizes than the large producers are. You can deliver to the hospital down the street without having to establish and fill a distribution channel that brings the spirits from the large producer to the far away warehouses for subsequent delivery to those who need them to protect the lives of health workers, etc. Such delays cannot be justified. So now we ask that TTB let you do that. I will post my analysis of why the ban on undenatured alcohol should end even if the FDA takes issue with my arguments here about congressional intent. I've been silent here while I worked on a "shame on you, FDA" argument. But, if I am right, about the import of congress' recent action, there is no need for such an argument none. Congress already made it.
  41. 1 point
    Hi all, Below is a summary of the conversation as I've been hearing it from a variety of sources . My goal is to put this logic in front of people who do regulatory work. Anyone care to comment on the logic, pick apart my arguments, or add information? Thanks! A few facts: It's established that we need large volumes of hand sanitizer across the country. There are upwards of 1800 craft distillers distributed across the country, and even more licensed DSPs (rectifiers, etc.). Every DSP has personnel trained and licensed to work with ethanol products safely and most are situated in populated areas for efficient local distribution. Craft spirits sales follow discretionary income, which means that the craft industry has an unknown future in an uncertain economy and will likely need help Conclusions: The craft industry should be making hand sanitizer to assist medical personnel and their local communities to fight the pandemic In order to support economic recovery *after* addressing the acute emergency, the craft industry should be able to offset at least the cost of raw materials, if not recover some of the lost sales revenue, by offering hand sanitizer for sale to the public Challenges: Hand sanitizer has to be made with 96% +/- 5% ethanol as one of the starting ingredients Even with a rectification column, neutral spirit is difficult and expensive to produce from fermented substrate at the levels needed by health care providers. At best, production of neutral spirits from fermentable substrates at the craft level is inefficient, at worst, impossible GNS is usually available from bulk suppliers, but the supply chains are supporting existing accounts and/or large industrial suppliers of hand sanitizer. Bulk suppliers are not responding to small DSPs. Other ingredients (emollients, isopropanol, essential oils) are also difficult to source right now There's lack of guidance from regulatory bodies concerning legal formulas, sales and pricing Questions: Can formulas be further relaxed to allow other ingredients? Can transfer in bond rules be relaxed (or applications processed) to allow bulk orders to be split among small producers so that bulk suppliers are incentivized to support an alternate supply chain? Can regulatory agencies provide clear and cohesive guidance on formulas and pricing? Are there enough DSPs interested in a cooperative effort that these ideas make sense to pursue? Or is it everyone for themselves?
  42. 1 point
    Temperature is the wrong process variable to be controlling via automation. The boiling temperature of the wash changes as the alcohol is depleted. If you can’t afford the expense to control steam flow via a flow meter + pressure + temperature, then you are better off to control manually with a hand valve. Keep control simple. Automating a safety interlock is more important than trying to automate steam flow.
  43. 1 point
    By the way, looking at the photos, I don't see what in that would be eligible for patent protection, looks like a fairly typical vacuum setup. There is a tremendous amount of prior art in this area. If you think you've come up with something brand new, the flavor and fragrance crew probably did it 50 years ago.
  44. 1 point
    Too bad it wasn’t heavy rum, people pay extra for dead rodent.
  45. 1 point
    4 tubes would not be considered sanitary. Can anyone guess why? Tricky, but once you see it, it’s obvious. The dairy guys know exactly what they are doing.
  46. 1 point
    Sodium has a boiling point of 1,621 F so it does not affect the taste of the distillate. Sodium helps break the azeotrope by increasing the boiling point of water so that fewer plates are needed to maintain an output of 190 proof. This is a little known vodka distillers trick.
  47. 1 point
    About building and fire codes I know nothing, but for those who want to know the source of Southhighlander' s contention, §19.192 discusses where you must use TTB approved locks: Subsection (e) Approved locks. Locks meeting the specifications prescribed in paragraph (f) of this section must be used to secure: (1) Outdoor tanks used to store spirits, OR an enclosure around such tanks." The emphasis is mine, but "or" is disjunctive. It is one or the other and I'd advise both as a way of securing your assets, even if TTB settles for just one. TTB hasn't been very strict about enforcing tank requirements for inside tanks. Compare what you see to what it requires below to verify that comment. I suspect that it would be more stringent with outside tanks, so visit §19.182, which requires, in pertinent part, that all tanks be: Equipped with accurate means for measuring their contents. If the means for measurement is not a permanent fixture on the tank, the proprietor must equip the tank with a fixed device for measuring the contents. However, tanks having a capacity of less than 101 gallons are not required to have permanent gauge devices; Accurately calibrated if used for any of the gauges described in this part [for example, an inventory :-)]. Further, if tanks or their gauging devices are moved in any manner subsequent to original calibration, the tanks shall not be used until recalibrated; Accessible through walkways, landings, and stairs that permit access to all parts of the tank [TTB must be able to reach the top safely]; Equipped or situated so that they may be locked or secured [this includes manholes as well as valves]; and Constructed to prevent access to the spirits or wines through vents, flame arresters or other safety devices. Generally, there are no taxes due on spirits that are lost, but hen it appears that a theft occurred, the burden of proof will be on the proprietor or other person liable for the tax to establish to the satisfaction of the appropriate TTB officer that the theft did not result from connivance, collusion, fraud, or negligence on the part of the proprietor, owner, consignor, consignee, bailee, or carrier, or any employee or agent of any of them." That one cannot prove a negative is obvious, so how do you prove that no employee was involved? In practice, some of the burden will fall on TTB to prove that an employee was involved. But TTB is likely to determine that theft from a tank that is not constructed as required by §19.182 is the result of your negligence. Even if TTB accepts an offer-in-compromise of dimes on the dollar, as it has done in at least one case, because tanks hold a lot of spirits, the amount you end up paying can be significant. So, if you use an outside tank, make sure the tank complies with the rules.
  48. 1 point
    From a recent post I made. Both links are good. Don't know about the specific dates but in the current regs fire is exempt but building is not and the toughest test is what you have to meet. The link provided does a pretty good job of explaining. http://www.klausbruckner.com/blog/distillery-storage-dilemmas/ As bluefish says, the barrels count toward your MAQ. If you are shooting for F-1, you are limited to 120 gallons un-sprinkled and 240 sprinkled. Beyond that you classified as hazardous. Another good explanation is from Scott Moore of Dalkita. It's about an hour long https://americancraftspirits.org/courses/code-breaking-barrels-revealing-the-mysteries-of-barrel-storage-in-building-and-fire-codes/
  49. 1 point
    Any " Orwellian " style editing of the true past or otherwise attempting to supress this kind of information should be resisted Violently and Definitely. This is exactly the kind of thread that should be drug out into the clear light of day where everyone can see it, no matter what kind of negative emotional challenges it creates for any oversensitive " ego." Anything else is censorship of the facts which everyone has a right to know, no matter how unpleasant any happens to find them. Removing " anything " from public record is a very dangerous affair with attendent consequences of attempting to suppress free speech. When things happen to go this way, people simply have to man up. Full stop. The only true purpose of any censorship of any kind is to protect children from things that are grossly debased before they are old and mature enough to make an informed decision. We are seeing the exact opposite thing going on in this country and the world at large which should tell everyone involved that the people setting those agendas have thing backwards and its by design.
  50. 1 point
    I had a bunch of old growth white oak that I threw under my deck, it was there 4 or 5 years, completely forgot about it. Cut it down, toasted it, charred it, damn it was so much better than fresh kiln dried wood from the good lumber yard. The seasoning process for the wood/stave, it really is a very important step. Get a nice piece of good quality wood, leave it outside for at least a year, a place where it will be subjected to sun, rain, weather, etc. Even longer is better. It's going to look like garbage, warped, etc. Put it through a planer to shave off just a touch of the gray ugly outside bits, revealing what looks like new wood again. THEN do whatever you want to do with it, toasting, charring, etc. I'm telling you, it's like night and day. Absolutely none of that puckering dry oaky tannin. I'd love to find some old white oak barn wood siding that was never painted, 50 years old, and make a whiskey out of an old barn.
×
×
  • Create New...