Silk City Distillers

101 gallons and up need a permanent measuring device. All of the CFR references to scale tanks refer to tanks on scale beams or load cells. Not tanks sitting on scales. But really, a 200 gallon Letina tank sitting on a floor platform sounds pretty permanent to me. We gave a 400 liter tank sitting on a 1000lb base.

Speaking of Ebay. If anyone is anywhere near Puerto Rico - This is an unbelievable deal: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Mettler-Toledo-2888-1000-lbs-DECKMATE-all-Stainless-Portable-Scale-/262926057121?hash=item3d379d3ea1:g:5lwAAOSwDmBY5ksZ Mettler Class III Indicator, stainless/sanitary deck base, 1000 pounds 0.2lb accuracy, explosion proof/battery powered. You'll probably be dead before you break it. This is a $5,000 scale.

Can you tell I like scales yet? Every distillery should have 3 scales. Yes, get out your pocket book, you should have 3 scales: Scale #1 - Sized for the maximum amount of spirit you deal with in Production. Scale #2 - Sized for the maximum amount of spirit you produce in Processing. Scale #3 - Sized to check weight a filled bottle for verifying filling accuracy in Bottling. If you deal with similar weights on a day to day basis in Production and Processing, than the same scale would suffice. But if you are working with totes of GNS in Processing (needing a max capacity of at least 2000lb), and producing 50 pounds of distillate at a time out of your still, you probably want two different scales. What is a good accuracy when dealing with a tote is not a good accuracy when trying to proof 50 pounds of distillate. If you deal with small volumes in production and processing (under 10 wine gallons), keep in mind 19.186 above, this will all but GUARANTEE you need three scales, since you will not find a high capacity scale with enough divisions to accurate read to the hundredth place. Generally, this kind of scale is going to be under 100 pounds maximum capacity. The third scale is for checking your bottle fill accuracy, and it is going to need to be accurate to the gram. We use a 2kg x 1g scale which works perfectly for us (750ml is our largest bottle, and the glass is a little bit over 900 grams), but you are going to need to know your bottle glass weight and volume to determine if 2kg is sufficient or not. You weigh a bottle, tare it, fill it, then check against the table. Allowable fill variation is pretty wide, so 1g accuracy is enough. You can find inexpensive high quality scales for this, and it is significantly easier than attempting to verify bottle fill volumetrically. You can find my bottle verification check weight chart here for 375 and 750ml:

Generally, legally I mean, Legal-for-Trade is typically determined by your State Division of Weights and Measures. Usually, just having an NTEP scale in place doesn't automatically mean you are Legal-for-Trade - this usually requires state level registration and regular inspection. How many distilleries are registering their scales with their State, and having state inspectors come out to provide a Weights and Measures seal on a regular basis? The CFR we are talking about are all Federal requirements, Legal-for-Trade is a State requirement. Not to mention, the rules for Legal-for-Trade will differ, sometimes SIGNIFICANTLY from state to state.

Call up one of the suggestions above, buy a NTEP scale - not because you need NTEP, but because you want the quality associated with it, and the confidence of knowing you can trust it. If you can spring for it, go 1000lb x 0.2lb - as it will give you a little bit more accuracy when working with smaller volumes. Just keep in mind 19.186 - which means you can't weigh 10 wine gallons or less on the 1000lb x 0.2lb (or 0.5lb) scale. §19.186 Package scales. Proprietors must ensure that scales used to weigh packages are tested at least every 6 months and whenever they are adjusted or repaired. However, if a scale is not used during a 6-month period, it is only necessary to test the scale prior to its next use. Scales used to weigh packages that hold 10 wine gallons or less must indicate weight in ounces or hundredths of a pound. And keep in mind the definition of package: Package. A cask or barrel or similar wooden container, or a drum or similar metal container.

Slippery slope. More information than anyone probably wants or cares about. I like weighing and can't fathom doing anything other by weight. Spirits by volume? You are wasting your time and are highly inaccurate. The scale probably doesn't need to be NTEP, but it should be. Non-NTEP scales generally can't be calibrated, and the TTB wants your measuring equipment calibrated. Given this is used for tax determination, it could be arguable that this is a value exchange and NTEP should apply. Dunbar probably has a good handle on this. NTEP scales are typically higher quality than non-NTEP scales. It doesn't mean a non-NTEP scale isn't good, it can be better than an NTEP scale, but generally, NTEP is there for a reason. Generally you don't make a junk NTEP scale, but lots of people make junk non-NTEP scales. Non-NTEP scales are typically sold based on readability - the display accuracy, the number of digits on the scale display. However, you need to realize that showing more numbers on the display doesn't mean the scale is accurate to the digit of the display. This is a massive misconception. Just because the display shows it, don't mean it's so. You could make a 1000 pound scale with a display that reads 999.99 - but it doesn't mean that the scale is accurate to 0.01 pounds. In fact, you have no idea at all if the scale is accurate to that level, because there are no rules to mandate that it is. The numbers after the decimal point could be complete nonsense. You think it's highly accurate because it shows more numbers, but that ain't the case. That's where NTEP comes in. Among other things, NTEP defines the number of "DIVISIONS" that the scale is capable of accurately resolving. Legal for Trade means that the the display accuracy is equal to the accuracy that is defined by the division in one of these classes. NTEP also means that the scale is independently verified to read accurately across a range of voltages, temperatures, and other operating conditions. NTEP CLASS I - 100,000 Divisions and UP (Precision Laboratory Use) NTEP CLASS II - 10,000 to 100,000 Divisions (Lab Use, Precious Metals, etc) NTEP CLASS III - 1,000 to 10,000 Divisions (Commercial legal for trade) Accuracy/Readability = Maximum weight / Divisions So, you can have an NTEP Class 3 scale, 1,000 pounds, with 1,000 divisions. The display should read 0000 (1000/1000 = 1). Nothing after the decimal point. You would assume it is accurate to the pound only. You can also have an NTEP Class 3 scale, 1,000 pounds, with 10,000 divisions. The display should read 0000.0, and the scale will increment in .1 pound steps. 0000.1, 0000.2, 0000.3. You would assume that it is accurate to a tenth of a pound. So what's the difference? The 10,000 division NTEP scale is going to be more expensive than the 1,000 division NTEP scale. What makes scales more expensive than others? Not the total weight capacity, no no no. It's the divisions. The more divisions a scale can accurately measure, the more complex the circuity, the higher tech the load cells, the tighter the manufacturing tolerances, the more substantial the frame needs to be, and the more expensive the scale. That all said, the scale used for a specific operation needs to be suitable for that operation. Lets say you are proofing 50 pounds of 120proof spirit to 80 proof for bottling, that's going to be 28.154 pounds of water for a total final blend volume of 78.154 pounds. If you have a 5000 pound NTEP pallet scale with a 1 pound accuracy, your display weight of 78 pounds is everything from 77.5 pounds to 78.4 pounds. So you add water until your display reads 78 pounds. In proof terms, it means you are anywhere from 79.7 proof to 80.4 proof, you'll have no idea unless you gauge again. If you read 80.4 - you'll need to slowly keep adding water and gauging, over and over, in little steps. A waste of time. If you read 79.7 proof. Sorry to hear it, hope you have more spirit on hand to raise the proof, which you'll need to do slowly, re-mixing and gauging every time. Now, if you had a 150 pound scale with an accuracy of 0.05lb (NTEP Class III - 3000 Divisions, actually LESS ACCURATE THAN THE 5000lb Scale). You would add water to 78.15 pounds. If proof terms, you are going to be better than 79.95 to 80.05. Do you gauge again? Of course you do. But you'll be dead on, no fiddling around with trying to add an unmeasurable amount of water or spirit (proofing by trial and error). I just hope someone bothers to get this far and at least got some bit of useless trivia knowledge out of this. That said, EVERYTHING BY WEIGHT, NO OTHER WEIGH ... err WAY.

Modular is a nice way to learn. You can start with pot still distillation - arguable the easiest. Then move on to trays, where now you add the complexity of operating the reflux. I wouldn't ever recommend perf plates for a beginner over bubble caps. Cap trays are much more forgiving and have a wider effective operating range.

Stilldragon - everyone else just copies them. You do realize this is illegal, right? And your screen name appears to be your real name...

Ok, I'm sold. Next purchase on my list. Given the ER deductible on our insurance is $1500, seems cheap enough.

VWR 1109 low temperature lab chiller, glycol at 50%, I need to use a gear pump at that temperature.

I'm working on a post about the vac setup that'll go up on SD first.

Vacuum is fun. i have a gin still that runs the product condenser at -20f. I can easily distill at room temperature with no heat input at all to the boiler.

I'm not an organic chemist, but the most probable source of the "minty" aroma is going to a salicylate ester (this is how most commercial mint flavors are made). Camphor - not likely (sometimes described as minty, but more menthol or eucalyptus). Salicylic Acid (SA) is found in both Grape and Wheat. Looking through the literature - SA appears to sometimes be used as a preservative. Ethyl Salicylate has a minty aroma and flavor. Methyl Salicylate has an even stronger mint aroma and flavor than ethyl. Other 4-methyl compounds could be the cause as well. Why the reaction is favored, increased, etc - beyond my pay grade. Try attempting to hydrolyze the esters (if they are salicylate esters) with NaOH during distillation in a small lab still.

Posted this two years ago over at Stilldragon. This was the last time I experimented with baking soda for ester hydrolysis. ----------- Ok - I wasted a lot of time and alcohol yesterday running through trials to determine what the appropriate amount of baking soda is. I didn't want to clutter up other threads this is being discussed in. The game plan is to run a set of trials with a number of different ester hydrolysis/acid neutralization approaches. Here's what I got - Day 1 - The Sodium Bicarb Trials First I wanted to understand the pH dynamics of sodium bicarb in a strip: Sodium Bicarb - 2.5 grams per liter (approximately 1 tablespoon per 10 liters stripped wash) is sufficient to neutralize acids out of a typical strip and push the pH near the equivalent of a water saturated solution. Starting pH was 4.3 - by 2.5g/l sodium bicarb this was pushed to pH 8.3. Adding any more than this amount did not push the pH any higher. Repeating the same test with a clean hearts cut (approximating a very clean strip), even less, 1 gram per liter (approximately 1 tablespoon per 25-30 liters of clean stripped wash) was sufficient to push the pH to 8.3 Then I wanted to understand what the upper limit would be, given a higher than typical acid level: Repeated again adding 5g/liter of citric acid to a 50% ethanol solution - to simulate a very high acidity strip - probably unrealistically high, but not quite vinegar (an awful infected run perhaps). pH was 2.6. Even a small amount sodium bicarbonate was enough to turn it into alka-seltzer - with significant co2 production - you would absolutely recognize the amount of fizz. By 5 grams per liter the pH had moved up to approximately 5.1 (one tablespoon per 5 liters of wash). By 10 grams per liter the pH had moved up to 6.2 (1 tablespoon her 2.5 liters of stripped wash) . By this time there was very little citric acid flavor remaining in the sample. By 15 grams per liter the pH had moved up to 6.7 (1 tablespoon per 1.25 liters, by 20 grams per liter (1 tablespoon per 0.75 liters) the pH was up to 7.2 (and tasted very salty). Between 15 and 20 grams per liter I believe I passed the point of saturation, as I was unable to dissolve some of the sodium bicarb and it was settling at the bottom. Realistically, 1 tablespoon per 2.5l is probably the upward max, and only if your strip was awful - or distilling something with very high volatile acidity (faulted wine maybe?). After running these tests, I realized I should have done this with acetic acid, so that I could run each of these through a distillation and organolepically assess the ethyl acetate produced during distillation. I'll try this next time, but I need a balance with a 0.1g precision so I can run smaller trials. Next time. Next, I wanted to understand the time factor, how long did the hydrolysis reaction actually take to complete. To understand the time factor - I distilled an "ester bomb" with the lab still. 500ml (300ml tails, 200ml hearts) - along with (50ml)acetic acid, propionic acid (10ml), lactic acid (10ml), and butyric acid (10ml), sulfuric acid to bring the pH down to about 2.4. Refluxed for one hour. Worked great - took the sickeningly sweet juicy fruit hearts cut (50%) and split it into two containers (250ml). Began adding sodium bicarb to one sample, keeping the other sample untouched for comparison purposes. If bicarb can reduce the esters, I should be able to discern a pretty linear reduction in ester odor in the test sample, no? Tell you what, not much of a difference, it was relatively minor. Ran all the way through 20 grams per liter, and beyond the point at which I could dissolve additional sodium bicarbonate, and the ester odor was nearly as prominent as the control sample. You could very faintly discern the butyric and acetic acid odor at the 2.5g/liter mark (1 tablespoon per 10 liters), but not much change after that. Even past saturation, but the ester odor still overwhelmed all else. I then heated the sample, to test if I could accelerate the reaction with heat, perhaps it was just too slow. During heating I liberated a bit of vapor, which strongly smelled of volatile acids. Hmm, not what I expected. Cooled it down to see if perhaps some time under heat was sufficient to hydrolyze the esters, nope, nearly identical to before. Gave up around 1:30am - let the samples sit overnight. Fast forward to now, roughly 9hr later - little to no change since last night. Now, it could very well be the amount of ester created was far beyond the ability to easily hydrolyze, but not sure that makes any real theoretical sense. Decided to distill the sample this morning rather than letting it sit, I don't believe it would have done much to wait, especially since heating it made little to no difference. Distilled into 4 equal fractions using only minor passive reflux, 3 distilled through and the final being the remaining boiler contents. NOW WE ARE TALKING Heads fraction - still very similar overall odor, however I expected it to come through very strong as it did during the initial esterification - significantly reduced odor. Hearts fraction, ester odor nearly nonexistent, not that I should be surprised, we know this works, I just didn't expect the very significant reduction in esters - especially since the sample going into the distillation was still very, very strong. Tails were similar (I did start with a hearts cut) - No acidic aroma - which is typically of the tails cut during the esterification. Absolutely no ester odor. Remaining boiler contents, shockingly free of acidic odor, as is VERY common during the esterification process. Absolutely no ester odor. Need to run a few more trials, since what went into the final distillation test here was a sample with excess bicarb - past the point of dissolution. I'd like to try this with significantly less. DAY 1 CONCLUSION - I strongly feel that the 1-2.5g/l amount is more than sufficient to provide for ester reduction in low wines (this is 1 tablespoon per 10 liters to 1 tablespoon per 30 liters). I do not feel that any waiting time, past the point of dissolving the bicarb in low wines, is necessary at all - the reaction was almost nonexistent cold - 9 hours no change - but clearly takes place rapidly during distillation. For the average distiller, plain old baking soda is going to be hard to beat - really, it works that well.

Fair. CCR equipment looks like eye candy for sure.

I suspect you are right on the tails chase - it's not going to be ideal for a spirit run. I would imagine you'd see a huge swing from start to end ABV as a result. At a minimum, I'd imagine you would want to work with a boiler charge well above what you typically set, and use the condensate from heating to provide whatever dilution to your usual charge abv. For example, if your strip typically ends up at 50% and you dilute to 30% for your spirit run, you might want to just charge at 50%, knowing that you'll probably get closer to that 30% ballpark during the run. Perhaps some combination of pre-heat and steam to reduce the overall liquid addition? There were one or two people on here who were going to try it for a spirit run, but they never posted their results.

Just to be clear, my comment was directed towards the OP, and not intended to start a fight.

Pretty basic setup. We have a steam line going to a steam filter, which then goes into the tank from the top. At the bottom of the pipe, we have an elbow and the 3/4" eductor is screwed on. In between there is a simple ball valve to turn the steam injection on or off. It makes a hell of a racket, sounds like the roar of a jet engine. The assembly is mounted with a union, and we pull it apart to clean when necessary. We couldn't go straight through the wall, because we're using a jacketed and insulated tank - jacket only used for cooling. But, in a tote, you could just go right through the side with a weld-in fitting. The benefit the fancy eductor brings, is that it uses the motive power of the steam to act as an agitator and keep the tank mixing. During startup, it does a nice job heating up quick, but once you get the corn in and gelling, it's not enough to replace a real tank mixer.

We use a TLA tank heating eductor 3/4" with our 16hp boiler. http://www.nciweb.net/Jacoby PDFs/Tank_Eductors.pdf

If you feel you must in some way treat your boiler feed water, Reverse Osmosis is far superior to treating your boiler feed with chemicals.

We have a mix of injection (mash tun) and jackets (stills). Jackets are plumbed to return condensate, steam injection - obviously does not. We don't use boiler additives.

I gotta ask. Doing this by hand, it's the fastest process in the bottling line. Looking at some of these machines, they look to be considerably slower. Especially the ones that look like you need to manually load the slotted feeder. What an I missing?

So what you are saying is, the entire history of American Whiskey is wrong?

Why not just use steam injection if you are going to use it to strip - no jackets required.

In another life at another job - the KPIs you are talking about are more in line with annual performance goals set for your employees - which would be reviewed at least annually - and would serve as a basis for any merit increase. Generally, goals would be set in conjunction with the employee, and could be broader than their specific day too day activities (for example, learning and cross-training as a goal). However, these are always SMART goals - Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-Bound. Your examples seem to fall in this category. But in terms of bonuses, these would be higher level shared goals, for example - for the manufacturing team, might be profitability - which encompasses all of the things you are mentioning. Sales goals, revenue goals, profitability goals. You don't want to be too prescriptive about how the target is reached, as you risk stifling innovation and new ideas. But don't, in either case, put a KPI on someone who has no authority or control to move the needle - this can be extremely frustrating.