Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 04/20/2018 in all areas

  1. 3 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
  2. 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
  3. 3 points
    This is an interesting thread to which I will bring a dose of oh god the boredom of regulation. You make a production gauge. When you do so you have to designate the product. Assume the production methods used meet the production procedures (19.77) you have on file for for bourbon, corn whiskey, and whiskey distilled from bourbon mash and also meet the the grain/proof standards (80% or more corn at not more than 160) for each. Once produced, you must immediately make a production gauge (19.304). The rules for production gauges state, "Spirits in each receiving tank will be gauged before any reduction in proof and both before and after each removal of spirits." (19.289). I read this to say that you can can have more than one removal of spirits ("each removal") from a receiving tank - or more than one receiving tank ("each receiving tank"). So, let's assume, in either case, three gauges, each of which is deemed a separate production gauge (19.304). I see nothing that prohibits you from entering two of those to the storage account, where you put them into a stainless tank and cut them to 125 or less - this must be done after the production gauge (19.289), designating the first "bourbon designate" and the second "whiskey distilled from bourbon mash designate" (19.305). Then, you transfer (19.324) the first to new charred and the second to used oak as "bourbon" and "whiskey distilled from bourbon mash," respectively, and proceed through a nanosecond or more to create age. The spirits in the third gauge go directly to processing, where you bottle them as unaged corn whiskey. I see nothing in the regulations that prohibit that and 19.304, 305, .324 and .289 seem to authorize it. At the least, it would be an interesting challenge to a TTB investigator or auditor who sought to challenge what you did. I think they would lose the argument that you violated any provision of the regulations. The caveat is that your records would have to include the gauge record (19.618 and 19.619) for each of the three production gauges, showing the quantity and designation in each case, and create the trail that would establish that the products are eligible for the designations you give them. Note that I have not mentioned a formula once, although someone's comment above that you have to have a formula for bourbon is correct, not to show what you did to it, but to show that you did nothing to it that would change the class and type under the special rules that apply to bourbon and not to other American type whiskeys. Now, the above discussions about the methods and procedures you use to create the spirits are a lot more interesting, but wasn't the original question :-).
  4. 3 points
    We have a forklift. Cant imagine life with out it. We move barrels with it. And smoke cigarettes at the same time, and run with scissors.
  5. 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
  6. 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.
  7. 2 points
    What I'm saying is if you are working with rye and wheat in high percentages, or unmalted grains in high percentages, going in hot, even if you are able to easily do it, is less ideal because you can't take advantage of glucanase and protease enzymes and/or rests. So your rye-dominant workflow is going to be very different from your corn-dominant workflows. Why not just deal with one cereal mash workflow and optimize it based on the equipment? Document your optimal cereal mash workflow and it becomes much easier when dealing with assistants, training new brewers on the system, etc. Your dosages, hold times, wait times, heat times, pH adjustments, etc - all become very very predictable and repeatable. I don't see how there is time savings, waiting for the mash tun to heat up to add the grain, versus adding grain at a cooler temperature and then heating. Either way he will have to wait for the tun to heat up. I've actually found that going in cool, and allowing some time for the grist to hydrate and swell during the heatup, actually results in reduction of time spent at temperature. Think about it, if it takes you 1hr to go from 70 to 190f. If you add the grist at 70, you have an additional hour in the water and at least near gelatinization temperatures. So you'll either have higher yield, or a shorter gelatinization hold. That's a great decision to have to make. The point of this thread isn't about optimal/efficient/time saving mash processes, it's about getting this guy a process that'll give him an easy workflow with very high probability of success, with the equipment he's got (shared on another thread). That's all I documented above. It's overkill on many levels, but that's not the point. That's not the process I use, but then again, I've got my process dialed in for my equipment, and my equipment is different from his.
  8. 2 points
    The TTB is accepting public comments regarding changing the CFRs until March 26, 2019. The proposal is incredibly lengthy: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2018-11-26/pdf/2018-24446.pdf Here is the TTBs summary, with links: NEW RULEMAKING IS THE NEXT STEP IN OUR LABELING PROGRAM MODERNIZATION We are pleased to announce the publication of a rulemaking document (Notice No. 176) in the Federal Register of Monday, November 26, 2018, in which we propose to update, simplify, and clarify the labeling and advertising regulations for wine, distilled spirits, and malt beverages. This rulemaking is the latest phase of our multi-year effort to Facilitate Commerce through a Modern Labeling Program Focused on Service and Market Compliance, one of the five strategic goals outlined in our current Strategic Plan. In recent years, we have made significant improvements to modernize our labeling program and reduce approval times for labels and formulas by employing a range of strategies, including: Eliminating the need to obtain formula approval in certain instances; Expanding the list of changes that can be made to approved labels without getting a new Certificate of Label Approval (COLA); Updating COLAs Online and Formulas Online to better meet user needs and expectations; Increasing guidance about label and formula requirements by improving content on TTB.gov and offering webinars; and Adding staff to improve overall service levels. When finalized, the updated labeling and advertising regulations will facilitate industry compliance by simplifying and clarifying regulatory standards, incorporating guidance documents and other current policies into the regulations, and reducing regulatory burden on industry members where possible. We encourage public comments on the regulatory amendments proposed in the rulemaking document (Notice No. 176), particularly from affected industry members. In addition, we welcome suggestions for other changes to these regulations not specifically proposed in the rulemaking. We are accepting comments through March 26, 2019. Please see the notice for instructions on how to submit a comment.
  9. 2 points
    The problem is not simply the equipment that they were building. It's the guys behind the company. Their attitude towards business and customers is their true downfall IMHO. Fixing the equipment issues doesn't fix the people issues.
  10. 2 points
    @richard1 thanks for your input but I would disagree. When a company is producing equipment with flaws that have the potential to kill you, it needs to be known. When the same company producing dangerous equipment is threatening to sue people if they speak out about the flawed equipment it needs to be known. Yes we have nearly beat this horse to death, but Corson is still making dangerous distilling equipment and taking on new customers. I am in no way a competitor of corson, Im merely a professional distiller and consultant who wants to see our industry be as safe as possible. Corson is well aware of this forum and has plenty of opportunity to defend their reputation.
  11. 2 points
    Transpiration is the process of whiskey moving in and out of the wood, or even through the wood. This process occurs in a regular barrel by virtue of the osmotic pressure changing from the changing temperature and humidity on the outside of the stave relative to the inside for the whiskey-filled barrel. If you have free floating staves or wood inside the liquid, you don't have this effect. To some degree, you might try to artificially replicate this effect by pressurizing and de-pressuring the whiskey in the barrel; there is a US craft distillery who does this for their "fast aged" whiskey, although again, they have not accelerated aging, but transpiration and thus extraction. Aging is aging, you don't accelerate by temperature swings, but elevated temperatures will increase the reactions of aging compared to lowered temperatures, although all the different chemical processes do NOT change their rates of reaction to the same degree with a change in temperature. In fact, some reactions can change by orders of magnitude with temperature, and others almost not at all! Many people unfamiliar with the science of barrel aging will confuse aging, extraction, and transpiration. The transpiration affects both extraction and "filtration", the latter in the case of charred barrels. It can also cause a concentration in the solutes with longer aging (so-called "angel share" effect). Hence, why using a sealed non-oak container with oak adjuncts inside is NOT the same as using an oak barrel as far as transpiration. The UV treatment methods are currently patented. We have not tried them ourselves. This is an example of an expensive technology that could be used to do a rapid "aging", because it will increase the speed of some of the aging reactions without having to overly elevate the temperature. However, it will not necessarily be exactly the same result, because photo-induced chemistries will increase at rates different from those from changing temperature, and which reactions increase is different, so the result is different from long aging. Sound and ultrasound can increase extraction. Ultrasound can maybe increase some chemical reactions (photoacoustic chemistry), although I have not seen evidence of a good result for this. Oxygenation by itself is actually a potential problem, unless balanced with appropriate technologies to use the oxygen in reactions normally associated with aging, like esterification. In any case, I am not arguing you can't throw all the technology plus the kitchen sink at the problem to get something comparable to longer aging in shorter time. You might well be able to, but it probably will be expensive to do, and may not taste exactly the same, and is not aging in any case, and the TTB won't let you call it that. Aging occurs, according to the TTB, in OAK BARRELS, and means length of time, legally. Period. And the flavor profile from long aging is complicated, and affected by many environmental factors, so replicating it with other technologies is a challenge. In the end, you make your whiskey, you properly label it, you tell the consumer (hopefully) what you did, and they like or not and pay you accordingly! FYI, I am a retired physicist who spent 40+ years studying photochemical-induced organic reactions, among other things, and so this colors my perspective.
  12. 2 points
  13. 2 points
    Probably not a scammer. It is appropriate to do 30 seconds of diligence before you derail a thread in the B2B world in my opinion. I wouldnt expect to be impressed by the knowledge of a banker who is hunting for opps at a client's request, they are just try to do business, probably looking for help, not insults. https://www.coldwellbanker.com/Coldwell-Banker-Distinctive-Properties-11781c/James-Kuehn-453643a
  14. 2 points
    We are going to market soon with a rum that's aged in cab sauv barrels that underwent no aggressive swelling prior to our refill and all the remnants from the previous fill are significantly impacting the flavor profile. It's pretty tasty.
  15. 1 point
    I recently tried some defoaming additives because I was having trouble with foaming while stripping barley malt mashes. I had previously used simethicon (silicon oil) with success but I was looking for a DIY defoamer, preferably made from grocery store ingredients. The test still I used was a continuous still made of laboratory glassware. This was a good opportunity for testing defoamers since I could see what was happening inside the pot and column. The still pot was a 2 liter glass flask in an 800 watt heating mantle. The column was a 500mm “thorn” column with the wash injection point 2/3 of the way up the column. The set-up is particularly prone to foaming due to its small volume. The still was warmed up and brought to a steady state with wash, fed by a digitally controlled stepper motor peristaltic pump. Each defoamer was mixed into a liter of wash with a blender-on-a-stick. A liter of wash with the test defoaming agent was run through the still. I observed how well it knocked down existing foam, and the new steady-state foam level. I measured how much of the column was blocked by foam as well as how full of foam the reboiler pot was. After the 1 liter test, the feed was switched back to wash with no defoamer until the still returned to steady state. Then the next test would begin. For silicon oil, I used “Five Star Defoamer 105”, 2 drops per liter. This is 1:100,000 dilution, or half the maximum recommended by the FDA. The other defoamers were various strengths and combinations of olive oil, butter and dishwashing liquid detergent. Results: BEST (No foam in column, surface of boiling Reboiler wash visible) 1 tsp olive oil or ½ tsp olive oil + 1 drop dishwashing liquid detergent (DWLD) OK (foam blocking 2” to 6 “of column) ½ tsp olive oil or 2 drops DWLD Ineffective (Reboiler full of foam, column full of foam) 1 tsp butter or 1:100,000 simethicon The olive oil, alone or with DWLD, was the clear winner. I was surprised at how poorly the simethicon performed since it is so effective at “knocking down” foam in an open mash tun. Adding DWLD to olive oil keeps the oil in suspension if the mixture is stirred up with a “blender-on-a-stick”.
  16. 1 point
    Yes. Tails never make it up the column so that part happens naturally. On a still you use for a finished spirit you would pick a plate that has the flavor profile you want and take off from there - aka the take off plate. You design the still so you have a take off rate that matches the replenishment rate and the column will stay in equilibrium. Various designs out there, some you can have more than one take off plate, some you adjust the column dynamics to make changes to the output ABV. The issue is that you will always have at least a trace of heads in it. Think of it like old school moonshining - each plate is like a jar, you pick the jars (plates) that you like and mix that in for a finished product. https://www.alcademics.com/2013/07/how-column-distillation-works-bourbon-edition.html http://cocktailchem.blogspot.com/2019/01/the-physics-of-batch-column-stills-and.html
  17. 1 point
    If you want to improve your yield, you should collect lower than 20% abv. Meerkat has it covered, all the alcohol you estimated is accounted for, its just that you left it in the still because you had about 500 gallons of mash at 2.5% abv, down from your 600 at 8.5%.
  18. 1 point
    You don't make that mistake twice.
  19. 1 point
    Yeah @Aux Arc answered for me. If you are just starting to get into a rhythm and don't have a regular production schedule, using backset/stillage in your mash is a little bit of a challenge, since you need to keep it around. The spent wash from the pot, after distillation - separated from the spent grain. You shouldn't need pH stabilizer, adjust using your acid of choice along with the backset. Question 3 - Anything malted goes in on the way down, at 150-152f. These grains will easily gel at those temperatures, and that temp range will preserve enzyme function. Glad to see you worked through the challenges, keep truckin.
  20. 1 point
    Are you trying to build some walls to separate tanks so you can triple your MAQ? If so a chain link fence doesn't slow down fire very well...
  21. 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/
  22. 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.
  23. 1 point
    http://santeen.com/#portfolio Use this stuff to remove tarnish instantly. Caution rinse with baking soda and water to neutralize otherwise copper will turn green then wash with soap and water.
  24. 1 point
    +1, Yes Paul and others are right. Everyone needs to look out for each other.
  25. 1 point
    A centrifugal pump head on its own is unlikely to be the cause of any potential hazards. It's the motor turning the pump head you should be concerned about. Some motors can spark, which can ignite flammable vapors. You'll want to make sure the pump's motor is rated for use in areas where potentially flammable vapors may be present, either through normal use or in the case of equipment failure. Air diaphragm pumps—though they pose much less of a sparking risk—are not necessarily intrinsically safe. Both laminar flow and the reciprocating action in the pump both have the potential to build up static electricity during normal use. As a result, many air diaphragm pumps are available in ATEX, UL, etc. versions that are fully groundable, so that any static electricity that does build up can be dissipated to ground.
  26. 1 point
    We use a Yamada NDP-15BST and it works great. They can be had cheap on ebay. https://www.ebay.com/itm/YAMADA-NDP-15BST-DUAL-DIAPHRAGM-ALUMINUM-PUMP-SUPPLY-1-4-NPT/273026716080?epid=1910924745&hash=item3f91a911b0:g:MdMAAOSwItJaXPIs:rk:1:pf:0 That ad says it's aluminum but it's actually stainless (the BST denotes stainless) we run it off of a 25 gallon compressor.
  27. 1 point
    No. The mill and bottle filler may be listed at a fair price. The other equipment seems to be listed at full retail price, but its not what most of us would want in our distilleries. As has you have already been told - The still itself is way over priced, not properly designed, has way more negatives than positives and is lacking any required safety features. Used equipment is always available. Distilleries are always going to be going out of business. Your not missing out on some great opportunity by passing on this.
  28. 1 point
    Roger dude... really? Personally I get something out of posts like Georgeous’s. Note all the variables. There is no right way. And any distillery should have a mindset that he/she will be learning about a better way until they are no longer distilling.
  29. 1 point
    Re federal law: I should have cited chapter and verse on this because I insist that no one rely on information for which authority is not cited. I get lazy sometimes. Since the issue of trade practices is one of common interest to many, I'll address it in a bit more detail. §6.21 Application. Except as provided in subpart D, it is unlawful for any industry member to induce, directly or indirectly, any retailer to purchase any products from the industry member to the exclusion, in whole or in part, of such products sold or offered for sale by other persons in interstate or foreign commerce by any of the following means: (a) By acquiring or holding (after the expiration of any license held at the time the FAA Act was enacted) any interest in any license with respect to the premises of the retailer; The regulation goes on to elaborate on the prohibition. 6.25 General. The act by an industry member of acquiring or holding any interest in any license (State, county or municipal) with respect to the premises of a retailer constitutes a means to induce within the meaning of the Act. [T.D. ATF-364, 60 FR 20421, Apr. 26, 1995] - Tip - this citation tells you where to look for the authority for the regulation. In this case it is a treasury decision issued in 1995, which you can find by searching the internet if you are so inclined. Such citations appear at the bottom of most sections of the regulation. It is where you can go to dig deeper into the issue. §6.26 Indirect interest. Industry member interest in retail licenses includes any interest acquired by corporate officials, partners, employees or other representatives of the industry member. Any interest in a retail license acquired by a separate corporation in which the industry member or its officials, hold ownership or are otherwise affiliated, is an interest in a retail license. 6.27 Proprietary interest. (a) Complete ownership. Outright ownership of a retail business by an industry member is not an interest which may result in a violation of section 105(b)(1) of the Act. (b) Partial ownership. Less than complete ownership of a retail business by an industry member constitutes an interest in a retail license within the meaning of the Act. Although less than complete ownership of a retail business by an industry member constitutes an interest in a retail license within the meaning of the Act, it is merely a proscribed inducement. Remember, the "if" provisions of §6.21. A violation only occurs if the jurisdictional elements, exclusion and interstate commerce are also present as a result of the proscribed inducement. Interstate commerce is usually easily proven. But exclusion is a thorny issue. It makes for court cases. §6.151 Exclusion, in general. (a) Exclusion, in whole or in part occurs: (1) When a practice by an industry member, whether direct, indirect, or through an affiliate, places (or has the potential to place) retailer independence at risk by means of a tie or link between the industry member and retailer or by any other means of industry member control over the retailer; and (2) Such practice results in the retailer purchasing less than it would have of a competitor's product. So, not only must the proscribed practice threaten independence, it must also result in the retailer the retailer purchasing less than it would have of a competitor's product. Section 6.151 goes on: (b) Section 6.152 lists practices that create a tie or link that places retailer independence at risk. Section 6.153 lists the criteria used for determining whether other practices can put retailer independence at risk. 6.152 Practices which put retailer independence at risk. The practices specified in this section put retailer independence at risk. The practices specified here are examples and do not constitute a complete list of those practices that put retailer independence at risk. (a) The act by an industry member of resetting stock on a retailer's premises (other than stock offered for sale by the industry member). (b) The act by an industry member of purchasing or renting display, shelf, storage or warehouse space (i.e.slotting allowance). (c) Ownership by an industry member of less than a 100 percent interest in a retailer, where such ownership is used to influence the purchases of the retailer. (d) The act by an industry member of requiring a retailer to purchase one alcoholic beverage product in order to be allowed to purchase another alcoholic beverage product at the same time. Because of the substantial the burden of showing that someone purchased less of a competitor's product than it would have absent the proscribed inducement, the federal government generally devotes its limited resources for trade practice enforcement to only the most egregious cases. That is why, if you look at the offers in compromise and other administrative actions that TTB has taken, for violations of the trade practice provisions, you will see that they are large beyond the ability of any small industry member to pay. Of all of the acts listed that are deemed to put retailer independence at risk, the one of most danger to small producers is the paying of a slotting fee (§6.152(b), probably indirectly, through payments made to a wholesaler, in support of the wholesalers's efforts, through payments the wholesaler makes to the retailer, to get products onto the shelves of the retailer. Because slotting fees are common in many industries, they are ingrained in the retail business model. They just happen to be prohibited in the case of alcoholic beverages. And if a large industry member is making them and you are contributing to them, you could get caught up in them. But the chances of that ...... As you can probably deduce from the above, answers about the likelihood of a practice resulting in a violation of federal trade practice provisions are very (a word I try not to use "very" often) case specific. In the case of inducement, which can only take place in the head of the person making a purchasing decision, it is impossible to for a governmental agency to predict, in advance, if the proscribed payment or service will have the desired effect. But I suspect that you would not make it if you did not have reason to believe it would get you what you are seeking from it. The burden is then on the government to prove you were right. The risk of their doing so is yours. Being small reduces that risk, but not to zero.
  30. 1 point
    Love these guys. The equipment works just as expected...but the real value are Paul and his staff. Always there when you need them.
  31. 1 point
    It certainly seems as if TTB is trying to codify an assumption that they have held for decades. In this case, I think they should drop the assumption rather than codify it. Exploration of different types of barrels is one of the exciting changes that is occurring in the craft spirits movement. If the distillers who collectively have millions of dollars in inventory in smaller barrels can no longer label their bourbon as bourbon or rye whiskey as rye whiskey, then small distillers all over the nation will have a huge problem. Who would benefit from this change in the regs? People who have all their spirits laid down in standard barrels.
  32. 1 point
    Contact Paul at Affordable Distilling Equipment. They will build you a simple controller at a good price. However, not sure about a temp-controlled switch... that is getting into semi-automated controls which is another can of worms, IMO. However, maybe these guys can help... http://distillerycontrols.com/
  33. 1 point
    The liquid flow to the trays can only come from the dephlegs. With moderate heat on the still pot, open the water to the condenser and second dephleg. I would close the water to the 1st dephleg and get the trays in the second column loaded first. The aim is to get the 2nd column on total reflux to start with, but have water open to the condenser in case the vapor load is too much for the 2nd dephleg. At this stage the 1st column and dephleg is just a pipe to get the vapor to the 2nd column. Once you see that you have the trays in the second column loaded and bubbling then you can bring the 1st column on line. Open the water to the 1st dephleg a bit to start the liquid flow to the trays in column 1, and maybe a bit more heat to the still, and get the trays in this column loaded. If this causes the trays in the second column to run dry you have too much water on the 1st dephleg (or not enough heat in the still). Run the unit like this on total reflux with all the trays loaded for a while to get a feel for what is happening, and then you can gradually decrease the cooling water flow to the dephlegs so that some product goes over to the main condenser. Its hard to summarize all this in a few words. I am sure that a chat with Mike will give you a chance to ask the questions that are difficult here.
  34. 1 point
    Thinking of some ideas to for aging. I want to age out some product without really oaking it or having previous product change the flavor. Not solera but similar. So how can I reduce barrel contribution with somewhat used but not really old barrels? I would love to find 10-20 year old 10-30 gallons barrels but I doubt I would be able too. Most probably will be 2-4 years old and still have a fair amount of flavor to influence the product which I don't want. And @Huffy2k, I'm not doing this to the barrels I bought off you. :)
  35. 1 point
    First off Paul is correct. he did not make the condenser, and that was where the problem was. That and operator error. The pot is fine. As far as the modifications I made, I put some copper scrubbers in the reducer cone above the condenser to work as a pre-condenser of sorts. violentblue also recommended I make a copper coil or spring and insert it into the tubes of the condenser to elongate the vapor path, and I suppose create some turbulence. I would guess You are not having the same problem if removing the vent solved it though.
  36. 1 point
    still dragon and distillery-equipment.com are too good choices.
  37. 1 point
    @Patio29Dadio - I agree with you. I have assumed that these density variations are "worst case" examples and that they therefore give the largest error possible in the proof reading. I only wanted to give a better feel for what these accuracies meant. The real interpretation of the accuracy is a bit more complicated. For example, Anton Paar give the accuracy of the 1001 as 0.0001 g/cm3 and the repeatability as 0.00005 g/cm3 (expressed as a standard deviation). This means that if you ran the same sample 1000 times then 680 of the readings would be within 0.00005 g/cm3 (1 std deviation) of some average density and 997 would be within 0.0001 g/cm3 (two std deviations) of that average. I suspect that the difference between this average and the true density is what they call the accuracy. If someone from Anton Paar is reading this it would be great to have your input. Very few labs interpret their results as rigorously as this.
  38. 1 point
    My opinion on this is that as a buyer of equipment, first, I need an equipment manufacture that is up to speed on the current certification code compliance. Then I want to be educated on the value proposition for decisions. I need you to be the expert and help me the customer understand what you think I need and the trade offs for less or more features... what you are doing in this post. Paying more is fine if it makes sense and is a value to me. I would also advise you to think about your market and what you want your brand to represent... and just be committed, convicted and passionate about what you decide. Can you be a lower-cost equipment manufacture while also being tops in safety code compliance? Maybe. But it will certainly create some challenges. Low cost buyers are sometimes willing to take risks on product quality. Just check out those Walmart buyers acquiring inexpensive Chinese-made appliances... things that they could not afford otherwise... so the binary decision they have to make is to go without, or take a chance on the cheap Chinese brands. Some roll the dice. Maybe you don’t want those cheaper product risk-takers as customers? As you point out there are plenty of still manufacturers creating inexpensive systems. Maybe your market sweet spot is above them and below those willing to spend twice as much on Vendome and wait for 2 years for it to be delivered. I am not saying you are a cheap Chinese brand... far from it. You have already established a brand of affordable AND reliable/quality equipment. So maybe you add to that “safe” to that. Affordable, Reliable and Safe! Personally, I believe some distillery equipment manufacturers have jacked their prices due to the craft distillery fever. I appreciate that you have taking an approach to keep your margins consistent and focus on value and customer service. It is my opinion that this is the approach that wins the long-game. Those built on hype and greed will crash when the fever ends. Lastly, I think there is some great responsibility for still manufacturers to over-engineer safety features. Especially with all the craft distillery fever... because so many dreamers without experience are going to be creating highly flammable vapors that can kill them and others around them.
  39. 1 point
    We've tested our product from 25 to 35% ABV and anywhere from 190 to 350g/L and never experience crystallization. As for figuring this all out, I would strongly advise using AlcoDens LQ -- it's greatly streamlined our process.
  40. 1 point
  41. 1 point
    Hello Distilling Community! This is Remington Riehl here, and I handle all client relations for Atlas Barrel. I am sure that I have met up with many of you in person or at least spoken with you over the phone. To clear the air, we are 100% a working cooperage out here in Watertown, MN. I posted a video below from the guys at the factory hard at work today. We are open M-F 7:30-4pm, and welcome anybody who's interested in a free tour of the shop, and an opportunity to link up with our founder while you personally char a barrel yourself! I know that our Owner reached out to you Avonak and came to a delivery agreement. Separately, Red Pine, I've responded to your PM you sent us on our Facebook page directly. And no...we are not tied to the Russian Federation. We are a hard-working bunch of individuals here in middle America, trying to supply a unique cask, made from 100% Minnesota white oak to interested distillers in our community. I've requested to take down a duplicate profile page on Facebook to mitigate confusion. It was created at our companies inception by one of our founder's kids and never managed FYI. This is our current page https://www.facebook.com/atlasbarrel/ Ping me or give me a shout anytime, and I'd be more than happy to chat with you. -Cheers, Remington Client Relationship Manager remington@atlasbarrel.com 612-424-5700 (ext3) http://atlasbarrel.com/ Atlas Barrel Factory 7-26-2018.mp4
  42. 1 point
    Our chickens do a great job of eating everything we throw at them
  43. 1 point
    Love it! Can’t wait to find out what you discover. Keep us posted
  44. 1 point
    Ive worn many hats in this life. My first exposure to distilling whiskey was in 1982 along the banks of the Kings River. I had been in trouble at school and my Dad had me spend a summer helping one of his hunting/ rooster fighting buddies around his place. I was supposed to be feeding chickens, and helping with the dogs. Instead, I learned how to tend a still, and that continued into high school. Like most teenagers I had better things to do, and I stopped tending stills along the river, only helping occasionally to watch a run or deliver a load of whiskey in the central valley . Connie passed in the mid 90s and I forgot about distillation altogether, I was playing in various musical groups around the country, based out of Los Angeles and then Montgomery Al. Returning to Ca, I settled down, started a family and took a job working on oil rigs in Fresno County, eventually working Offshore here in CA and Internationally as a Driller and Tool Pusher. in 2016 I developed post traumatic epilepsy and lost my job in Jan of 2017. All this free time has brought me full circle to the banks of the Kings River and what were some very happy memories of a rough childhood. The more I study fermentation and distillation as a science I realize how brilliant and observant that little old man from Arkansas really truly was. He was a farmer, a brilliant engineer, a skilled craftsman, a masterful distiller, and I had no idea. He was simply Mr. Crenshaw. My dads drinking buddy. He hunted raccoons, fought chickens, he was a bit of a raconteur, and a damned fine horse trader. Id like to honor the memory of the man and perhaps do something with the knowlege he gave me, although the more I explore distillation, whiskey and spirits the more I realize how much there is to learn, and just how sharp that little man from Arkansas really was
  45. 1 point
  46. 1 point
    The state of Oregon makes information on alcohol sales public
  47. 1 point
    Hi Nabtastic, For what it's worth, we recently moved locations (new fire and building approvals), and we had to modify 13 stainless steel single wall tanks with pressure release vents and sealed lid gaskets and lever rings, even while stored in our H3 (fire rated room), to comply with the spirit of NFPA. Plastic IBC totes are not usable for us at all upon landing at our facility, and we have full automatic fire suppression throughout the building. The 240 MAQ is in force for us anywhere outside the H3 storage room, which means 240 gallons of alcohol on the floor for us at any time, and its assumed that all tanks and distilling equipment are UL rated. Tank sizes did not matter in our situation. We had a issue with open vs. closed system in terms of distillation, but were able to keep the 240 MAQ with the open system, but they did initially want us to install a closed system (distillation directly to tank) vs. the open parrot into tank with open alcohol in the building, and threatened to drop our MAQ to 120 during that negotiation. Oh, and we had to install an explosion proof fan in the H3 storage room with a direct vent to outside of the building (through the roof), and had to install and use near ceiling exhaust fans in the building when distilling/pumping/bottling, etc. And the ethanol detection system... Good luck with the upgrades, sounds exciting!
  48. 1 point
    Thank you everyone for your responses. It was actually a mistake that we made here at ground level. We were using a tube that was not rated to handle 190 proof alcohol. We were getting traces of the rubber in the alcohol and that was leaving the blue tint. Make sure everything you're using is rated for high proof alcohols.. Thank you for your help!!
  49. 1 point
  50. 1 point
    For planning I would use a 10:1 reduction. So if you start with 100 gallons in a fermenter, you will have about 10 gallons or 50 bottles finished product for whites/vodka. Barrel aged whiskey will be less, maybe 15:1. Pretty easy to work your way back from there. Just take your bottles per week, divide by 5 for gallons, then decide how many still runs you want to do. Divide your gallons by still runs, then multiply by 10 or 15 to get your still size. Figure 2 week turn on a fermenter. So take still runs per week X still size X 2 and that gives you the fermenter capacity needed. Then match the mash tun to the fermenter size. Might not be perfect, but it will get you close. The hard part is getting sales volume. Equipment is all about capital expenditure and easy to calculate.
×
×
  • Create New...