Charles@AEppelTreow

I agree, I think you're pondering a continuous, or at least semi-continuous column. My chem eng is rusty, so I'm sure I'm glossing over things, but the reflux isn't determined by the temperature, but by the heat flux. You're putting heat in at the bottom of the column, and taking heat out at the top. Some heat goes out the sides as loss, and some goes into the enthalpy of the separation. The reflux happens because you're taking enough heat out to convert some gas back to liquid, and it falls back down the column until it's reheated and starts moving up again. If you take enough heat out, you trap all the liquid in the column. The temperature is just an indicator of the nature of the solution that's in flux - what you're actually controlling is heat flow. You could inject steam into the bottom of the column. Or boil enough water in the pot to create the upward flow. And inject low wines into the middle of the column. It will fall until heated, and then work pretty normally. But then you've got to watch mass flow - the water moving down the column will eventually fill up the pot. Hard to arrange, and while it might buy you run time, I'm skeptical that it's worth it.

Ideal? Whatever your customers like. Pears are _typically_ low acid. 0.5 to 2 g/L. It's predominantly citric. You could raise it to 4 g/l easy. 6-8 g/L might not be out of line for a sweet product. Atypical pears may be more acidic - but I've seen a lot of year-year variability in the perry pears we grow. On the order of 5-15 g/L, depending on year, and maybe on post harvest handling. To prevent browning, exclude oxygen first and add anti-oxidants like ascorbic acid second. (IMHO) You may also get precipitates. Pear pections behave oddly compared to other fruit.

It does seem like they are adding pure caffeine directly - rather than being carried by an herb/spice. If you dig through the various crosslinks, you'll find that Phusion has a GRAS petition submitted to the FDA for just this use. It's listed as 'pending'. The GRAS petition describes food grade caffeine and its use in alcohol up to 200 ppm. And is signed off by the requisite 'panel of experts'. Looks like all the parties have jumped their respective guns.

Another reason a simple percentage might not be useful is that it's likely to be quite small. When I was doing some background research in 2004, I found that Wisconsin wineries, all 28+, together amounted to 3% of the volume sold in the state. And more half of that was a single winery. The small figure didn't stop any of us from starting. Indeed, there are now about 40. At the time, local distilleries would have amounted to 0%. There weren't any.

I use the applejack example because I think it's analogous. Class 2 is whiskey, with section 2.5 being blended whiskey. Class 4 is brandy. Applejack is a synonym (rightly or wrongly) for apple brandy and the blend is sub section...hmmm...<insert pause and page flipping noises> that's interesting. Blended applejack is its own class - class 5. Not that it makes it any better - but it is interesting that it's divided out like that. I think I need a sip of something before I ponder the quagmire called the CFR any more today.

Ralph, you do great things for our budding industry, and I mean no disrespect, but I'm going to play devil's advocate for a moment. The regs are pretty specific in lots of places. They distinguish between neutral spirits and grain spirits, for instance. What if the use of 'neutral spirits' in the definition of blended whiskey is intentional. Because it reflects long established (if rarely discussed) practice? Have you looked for older COLAs revealing the same practice? Your understanding of the meaning of 'blended whiskey' might be a minority opinion - at least in terms of proof gallons. I don't think that a reading of the CFR implies that 'neutral' means 'without character'. Redistillers are required to keep them all segregated by source, for instance. (Unless changing the designation). Vodka mandates extra treatment beyond distillation to 190 to render it characterless - so there's implicit understanding that distillation to 190pf might make something substantially bland - but not entirely so. If it's okay for a defined type of brandy to have a 'blended' variation that allows any type of neutral spirit (and to 80% by proof gallon, to boot) why is it a problem for 'blended whiskey'? Does 'blended applejack' diminish the meaning of apple brandy? Or brandy in general? Is whiskey more sacred, somehow, than brandy? I ask the questions because I think the answers will help sharpen your arguments. And personally, the notion of blended applejack using up to 80% of ingredients that cost less than one third of honest apples do makes me grind my teeth. So you have my sympathies, but I think it's a tough battle.

I have the same irritation with the idea of 'blended applejack' - except in that case, blending brandy with neutral grain spirits (rather than neutral fruit spirits) seems to be long standing practice. If it's okay to corrupt the meaning of 'brandy' with that kind of product, why not 'whiskey'? Spirits used to fortify wine have tighter specifications - fruit vs. grain is distinguished. Neutral whatever isn't usually allowed, anyway.

Interesting typo you found Guy. If you go back to the older versions, you will find that in 1998, the citation was 27cfr194.263 'Liqour Dealers' is now 27CFR31 and the paragraph moved from 263 to 203. There used to be a wine bottle reconditioning service in California. I don't know if they still exist - or work with specialty glass.

Ah. Caveat to what I said about my unagitated Col. Wilson still. Wine and wash only. Too thick, convection mixing stalls and you're done. Maybe permanently, as charcoal isn't easy to get off copper. And I only run one pass. No spirit runs, as that idea scares me, too.

I have a Col. Wilson direct fired still. No agitation. No scorched flavor except for the one time I ran apple lees too thick. They burned down and the spirits came out a brownish color. Had to sand the crude off the bottom of the still. The folk in the Christian Carl seminar talked about 'heat stress' from direct firing (requiring additional aging), but I'm not convinced the surface temp of the copper actually get that high.

And Robert, why would reducing tannins matter in something that's redistilled? Given that distillates are clear, it will take some good data to convince me that cyanidin makes it through the column.

If you're fermenting the pears, whole fruit or juice, then I'd recommend acidifying the must. Down to at least 3.5 if you wash the fruit. Maybe 3.0 if you don't. Also, pears have several brix worth of sorbitol. So the specific gravity won't drop to 1.

Pear flavor and aroma do come through very strongly in a spirit. Especially Bartlett. If these don't ripen like other Bartlett, then they are probably not Bartlett. But I wouldn't be too worried about identifying the cultivar. I think the steep and distill method is reasonable. I'd just coarsely chop the fruit up and dump them in. Be forewarned, pears can make really oily spirits. If the fruit is sound and not cracked, it should be okay. One thing to watch for in pears is that they ripen from the core out. They can feel firm, and be complete mush on the inside. Judging soundness can take a little practice, but leaning green shouldn't hurt the spirit much. Fallen pears are almost certainly overripe - unless you shook them off yourself.

To be honest, I'd like to be able to _sell_ 150 gallons a week. If I could do that, I'd then work on making it. Probably why I'm still a chemist. I liked the note about all the different jobs you have to do yourself or hire out. But it's an underestimate. Making a product is only the beginning. I started a craft cidery for less than 35 k$. But have no cash on hand to do marketing, now that I really want to.

Ian, I think that if you have similar plates and reflux ratio, then the flavor between a little still and a big still will be similar. Maybe not identical, but similar. But consider what you're doing when you dilute a batch to fill a bigger pot. You're lowering the alcohol concentration in the pot - and hence changing the solubility and hydrogen bonding with cogeners. It's like starting the run half or two thirds of the way through hearts (depending on how much you're diluting). Sure, you can fiddle with reflux and plates to get the same proof out - but I don't think it's a simple substitution, at all. Take a look at a Water-Alcohol molar XY plot. For a given piece of equipment and settings, your spirit moves a certain distance along that curve. (Or perhaps a certain diagonal across it.) If the only change is moving to lower alcohol in the pot, then the distance your still moves your spirit up the curve is the same, but you start at a lower point. And that curve is really steep at low alcohol. I think flavor changes a lot along that curve, too. On my equipment (Col. Wilson 20 gal modified with 1 plate a new lyne arm and condenser) and cutting to tails by taste (but tends to be similar proof, ~130) then I end with nearly the same proof gallons of tails no matter how many proof gallons I put in the pot. If I start with higher alcohol, I get more hearts before cutting to tails. If I start low, I get less hearts - but the same tails. Once I tried running a perry from asian pears - very low ABV (lots of sorbitol in pears, rather than sugar) - and I might as well not have bothered running. It essentially started with the hearts tasting like tails.

The difference between cloudiness and ppt is just particle size. If it's cloudy, the particles are small enough that brownian motion keeps them suspended. At least short term. They may come out eventually. or with a temperature change. And if you're only using only the oils, then I don't hink you'd have protein or pectin problems - but still wouldn't be surprised that some Mg or Ca 2+ salt was forming with the esters in the oils.

WI Statutes 125.52 Here in WI, the regualtors have some wiggle room for interpretation when it comes to parties at a retail licensed facility. If it's a clearly separate area from sales / bar/ etc, then they can consider it like a leased area and let the party bring in their own alcohol. Something that a retailer norammly can't allow. that's more a policy stance, rather than something specified by law.

Come on, Fino. You aren't that old :-)

You need to know what the preciptate is. Wax/Oil. Some mineral 'salt'. Protein. Pectin. There's probably not a generic answer to 'how much sugar is too much'. There may be a generic answer to the water question. Metal cations in the mineral water could be reacting with acids and esters in oils and dropping out.

In the CFR chapter on Tied House, there's an exception called 'proprietary interest'. If you have whole ownership of both production and retail, Tied House at the Federal level just doesn't apply to you. What you can't do is go out and invest in other retailers. Also, the CFR definitions lump producers and wholesalers together as 'Industry Members', and has retailers separate. Two Tiers, rather than three. Your State may vary :-) In WI, wineries (a subcategory of 'liquor manufacturers' in WI law) have long had the ability, by statute, to hold a single Class A (off-site consumption) or Class B (on-site consumption - mostly) retailer license (but not both). And the 'Class B for wineries' had special rules that got it out of the municipal quota limitations and made the off-site sales allowances workable. For distillers (manufacturers & rectifiers in WI), getting the same wording added to the correct paragraph didn't get past the wholesale lobby, or the Legislative Research Bureau (The LRB writes draft laws at the request of legislators - they preferred a direct exception, rather than copying the winery wording - which would have required a lot more changes to the paragraph on 'Relations with Retailers' e.g. Three Tier.) What was passed a couple years ago (eternal praises to Guy R. and company) was a pretty straightforward clause wedged into the manufacturer/rectifier permit that gave permission to permittees to sell for on-site or off-site consumption under rules like Class B licenses, but without holding an actual Class B license. The lobbying groups that registered interest (at various times) were the Wholesalers, Tavern League, Grocers, Restaurants, DISCUS, Wine Institute and Sheriff's Deputies. The first one has the biggest influence in WI.

Something to consider: we want to build our industry and see it thrive. We are also competitors. Asking for numbers gets into sensitive business information. I find it much easier to ask things like 'have you had better experience with one insurer versus another?' or 'does a distillery need any special coverage compared to a winery or brewery?' rather than 'how much does insurance run you'. Not that the other questions aren't business info, but I think questions with numeric answers put people on guard. You also need to consider the venue of discussion. For instance, meeting notices of the WI Winery Association all have a notice at the bottom to remind people that a number of topics are off limits for antitrust reasons - both during the meeting, but also during breaks and such. If there isn't legalese like this buried in the ADI rules now- there likely will be before long.

Salaries? Boy, that would be nice. Phillip, all the things you mention are common expenses - but the amount of the expense can vary dramatically. It varies with location, personal cleverness, location, size of business, location, sweat equity and the skills you bring versus hiring, etc. I think there is a lot shared on this site already - though scattered here and there through the topics. And I also think there is a strong sentiment here that there is _great value_ in doing the foot-work research yourself. One of the best resources is to get out and meet other distillers. Brewers and vintners, too. There's a lot of overlap. But not complete. Most will take some time to chat - at least once - out of courtesy to folks following their own footsteps. And answer the occasional email question. But don't expect detailed lessons on industry practice and customs for free. Besides, travelling around to distilleries is a decent vacation. WI Distiller, I maintain a mailing list for WI distillers. Not that it sees much activity when the legislature isn't mucking around with the rules (or we want them changed). You can contact me off forum. Oh, and one tip - making the product isn't the hard part. Selling it takes even more creativity, luck, perseverance, sweat, time, etc.

Link to album on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=188047&l=3180016c8f&id=47023992683

Jester, I haven't added it up recently, but I think it's about $800. It's crept up becasue I had to order a hunk of 2" goodyear nutriflo when I wanted about 2 feet. (And then found the lost spool elsewhere. Finagle's law in full force.) And I kitted out the condenser with a nice vent at the outlet - all in 1" triclamp. And those parts add up. Anyway, I finally got the lyne arm put together and tried out the new condenser this weekend. Worked like a charm. Flow of spirits was dead smooth. No pesky surging. I run cooling water in a recycle loop (270 gallon IBC). The temperature of the spirits at the outlet was almost exactly the same as the input water temp. 71F, to within a tenth of a degree. Which was great, because over the summer, the temp of the spirits had crept up into the mid eighties with the Colonel's condenser. The output temp was also much cooler than I expected. It was only just perceptably warmer than the input. I seem to recall that it was about 75F. I could probably reduce the gallon-per-hour a lot. On the other hand, I hadn't realized just how much those through-the-column condenser supports affect the reflux. I lost about 20 proof. I had to reconnect them. So water in to new condenser at bottom, then from condenser output to bottom of CW condenser, and output of CW condenser back to IBC. At that point I gained back the 20 proof, and about 5 more. I think that the water going through the top line is a lot cooler now than it was. During the tails portion of the run, we cranked up the heat. I have no good way to measure this at the moment - but we were able to turn it up ALOT, without taking a hit to the output spirit temp. The output water temp went up to about 103F. The IBC warmed up about the same as it usually does. Putting some active refrigeration into the loop is a future project. I've got pictures I'll post within a few days.

Weight/mass is independent of temperature. Apparent proof is not. Alcohol and water don't form an 'ideal' solution - which shows up in two ways: 1) the simple solution equations don't match experimental data perfectly and 2) mixing is exothermic - it warms up. That's the simplest sign that your equations aren't going to be perfect - the temperature changes. If your equations are good enough (possible - it's a very well studied system) and your measurements are good enough (only maybe), you might be able to do it in one shot. But it's easy to drive close in and then putt the last little bit.