natbouman

Thanks DeerHunter. So that is Accelpay's take in your case, $200 a month? No per shipment or per bottle fee? And am I right in assuming that the retailer wants 30% or something like that?

Could you give us an idea as to the cost of the service?

This is an embarrassingly dumb question, but I'm unclear what size case I should be using in my business plan and projections. I talked to a couple people who said that a 6 bottle case was the industry standard, but I also see 12 bottles a lot--particularly in industry publications. For instance, the ACSA data project uses 12 bottle cases when describing volume growth in the craft sector. Seems like a silly thing, but if I'm imagining 6 bottle cases and I'm benchmarking my growth projections off of 12 bottle cases then I'm going to be off by a factor of 2x. Easy to correct, but I just want to be using the right size. What do you think?

Sorry, I meant a gas burner inside a skirt attached to the still. I'm just thinking that if the still is in an area that is practically out doors while it is operating then there is no chance of alcohol vapor building up. If I operated the still on very cold days I suppose I could get additional reflux in the head and it might alter the very end of the condenser a bit.

I'm considering setting up so that our direct fire still is in an annex to the main building. The annex would have two, large, insulated barn doors that could open to create cross ventilation (a bit like a threshing barn) and a third door to close off the main structure from the annex so I wouldn't lose heat from the main building when operating the still. The burner would be in a firebox so it would be protected from wind. We'd close up the big exterior doors when not operating the still so that the still wouldn't freeze. Other than the cold in winter (we're in Northeast PA) is there another reason why this would be a bad idea? When I visited Normandy, France a few years ago I found a number of stills set up permanently outside (under a barn roof with maybe one wall but the rest open). It rarely dips too much below freezing there--hovering in the 30s in winter. Basically, I'm interested in this because the set up seems simple and safe.

Is this applicator still for sale?

Can this machine apply two labels to a bottle?

Hi Patio29Dadio, I know it's been a bit since you posted this. Looks like what you created is a way to put the labels on by hand, one at a time but in batches of 6 (or batches of 12 since it's 6 on one side and 6 on the other). Is that right? And you've found this to be faster than the Race labeler? And with your jig you're doing 2 labels per bottle?

I'm not exactly sure what the impact of the information would be. Perhaps nothing. It does seem relevant though. At any rate, I just think it's interesting. I mean, oxygenation is a fundamental part of aging right? So, perhaps the mechanism by which the oxygen enters the spirit is different from what has been assumed for ages. How might this information be used? IDK. Perhaps someone who is interested in more rapid oxygenation would be interested in a barrel made with more and narrower staves. Or yes, someone could just remove the bung with greater frequency. Maybe I'll start doing that.

I believe that French oak staves must be made by splitting instead of cutting because French oak is more porous. Splitting allows the wood to break on natural fault lines that result in closed pores. French oak is less dense and contains less tyloses. Does this study mean one should stop using barrels? Clearly no. I think it does help me evaluate the claims of barrel alternatives. Also I’d be curious about the interstave pressure of small barrels. Does it approximate larger barrels—and thus mimics larger barrel o2 transmission or are there substantial differences? Can I slightly loosen hoops to increase o2 intake? idk, maybe it’s not useful info but I like understanding the process better even if I don’t know how to manipulate it practically, yet.

I recently read a new study published in Vine and Wine Open Access Journal . Here's the URL: https://oeno-one.eu/article/view/909/4304 The authors studied the transfer of oxygen through oak and between oak staves in a barrel. They found that whether the oak is wet or dry, there is no--or nearly no--oxygen transfer across the oak . Here is a quote, " "At the end of the measurement period, the dissolved oxygen level is lower than 0.5 mg.L-1. We can consider that oxygen transfer through imbibed oak wood is seriously limited because no oxygen transgresses through this porous material after 45 days." The study goes on to claim that oxygen passes through to the liquid from desorption (the oxygen which is already in the wood itself, but not from the outside of the barrel, leaches in) and oxygen passes between the staves--particularly where the staves are contacting with less pressure (nearer the bilge). Desorption accounts for a previously observed spike in oxygen in the first weeks of aging. I was pretty surprised by this study as I've always heard that the oak itself is permeable to oxygen. Instead, it seems like it's the barrel construction more than the wood which impacts oxygenation. This is a french study, so they used french oak--but I kind of doubt american oak would be substantially different. This study looks pretty legit to me. I read through their methods and I was fairly convinced--though I'm no scientist. I was curious if anyone else found this study convincing. It made me wonder about the claims of barrel alternatives like the "squarrel." If this study is correct, some kind of stave gap would be necessary if you are seeking oxygenation of your spirit.

Thanks, Admiralty. Actually sounds like I'm pretty far off of your results. I've got 520L of pure alcohol aka ~275 proof gallons. If you're getting 300L of OH to then it sounds like I'm overestimating yield.

Aw, crap. Thank you.

I tried to come up with a predictive excel sheet for giving me an approximate yield of apple brandy from X kgs of apples using an alembic and double distillation. I started with Charles@AEppelTreow's experience based (gleaned from this forum) expectation of PG of hearts/PG in cider of 80%. Could someone tell me where if I'm substantially wrong here? [This post was edited after a correction from JustAndy] 14,705 kg apples My press efficiency 68% 10,000L cider. ABV of cider = 6.5% STRIPPING RUNS: there is 650L pure OH (alc) or 343.2 PG (proof gallons) in the cider Still has 1000L capacity Recovery of pure OH from each stripping run = 96.5% (3.5% left behind in stillage each run). ((650/10)*96.5%) * 10 = 627.25L OH recovered target abv of low wines = 27% total volume of low wines =2323L SPIRIT RUNS: Assuming the still leaves 3.5% of pure OH behind with each full spirit run I can recover about 605.3 pure OH from my 627.25L pure OH. Assuming I recycle heads and tails in subsequent runs and end up discarding 14% (is this very low?) of the 605.3L as foreshots and heads/tails that don't get recycled. I'm left with 520.5L of OH captured as hearts or 275 PG of hearts. This gives me a PG Hearts/PG cider yield of about 80%.

I haven't heard that apples contain terpenoids.