Silk City Distillers

Don't get me wrong, I love technology simply for technology's sake.  I see Genio's machine as being a work of art, and not just a machine.  I also fully understand the need for competitive differentiation in the marketplace.

Just playing devil's advocate, because it's more fun to take that position.

So how does this translate into real world performance?

A year back I immersed myself in the mathematics as well as spending a considerable amount of time reviewing literature, paying specific attention to commonly used industrial methodologies.  I'm no mathematician by training, but I didn't think it was an insurmountable task if one was patient and inquisitive enough.

My conclusion, after all of that work, was that minor improvements in system efficiency didn't necessary translate into major real-world benefits at all.  In fact, what could be considered serious efficiency issues could be easily "corrected" through what were relatively minor changes to geometry, or specific operational parameters.  For example, even minor changes in column height/theoretical trays would easily compensate for what would be poor Murphree efficiencies.

You don't need to look much further than the hobby community to see this translated into real world performance. Even still designs that shouldn't at all work theoretically still see passable performance.  Realistically, you could fill a column with any compatible material and get passable efficiencies.  Anybody who has built a still themselves, or tinkered, would attest to this.

And all of this is somewhat moot if we're talking about distillation of products other than neutral alcohol, as by their very definition, these are products who are created through inefficiency during distillation.  The fact that many very good products can be created on a pot still, or through double distillation on a pot still, really is significant evidence that looking to maximize efficiency doesn't necessarily translate to specific benefits to beverage distillers.

Probably the most striking realization I came to was that to achieve high levels of tray efficiency, you needed to design a system to operate in an incredibly narrow range of operating parameters.  This was critical.

However, these constraints on operating parameters would place significant limitations on the distiller to run various types of products, or to adjust the operation parameters to suit a specific product.  So while they would give you ideal performance in an industrial arrangement, where nearly zero variability is expected, in the beverage world, this means a still that only does one thing well, when run in a very specific way.

Just my two cents.

I believe what he was saying was, in Washington's day, they didn't char the barrels.  Probably not the case today, because with "Straight Rye Whiskey" on the label, it's going to be aged in charred barrels.

Built a basic table of esters/bacteria a few months back:

Volatile Fatty Acids in Some Brands of Whisky, Cognac and Rum by Nykanen, Puputi, and Suomalainen (Journal of Food Science, 1968)

I always thought that High West was pretty open about it, hell their website product pages tell you (almost) exactly where their source whiskies come from.

You can't even argue that "informed" consumers care, pretty sure they don't.

Regarding using surface waters for cooling, a good place to start are your local regulations (start with the EPA) regarding discharge of non-contact cooling water.  Fortunately for fish and wildlife, heat is now considered pollution, unfortunately for us, it makes using stream water for condenser cooling difficult.

Using surface water for mashing, I would imagine you would need to have some serious water purification equipment in place.  You might want to have your local health authorities weigh in.  If they are treating you like a food manufacturing plant, they might have some serious issues with using untreated (and untested) surface water in a food product (and arguing with them that it shouldn't matter pre-distillation is going to be interesting).

Dilution - RO is a cost effective way to ensuring you don't have post-dilution issues with haze/particulate from high mineral levels, etc.

We treat municipal water with UV and Carbon to eliminate Chlorine/Chloramine - as our water out here in the Northeast is generally pretty solid.  For dilution we use RO plus Deionization, and for still condenser cooling we use a recirculation system with a large holding tank.

17 hours ago, Shindig said:

Great topic you all! Let's keep the rum discussion going

I'll raise you.

Clostridium, Propionibacterium, and Lactobacillus.  In ... or out?

Yeast are soooo boring compared to bacteria.

What size Raschig rings are you using?  What's the column diameter/height?  Interested as I'm working on a 8"x20' column, and have been hunting for packing.  The fact that you didn't see much difference between SPP and Raschig is actually positive, as it's much easier to source.  On the hobby side, those guys tend not to be so concerned about fouling, but with a big column, the packing is never leaving the column, and needs to be effectively cleaned in place.

I would imagine you could probably line up your brewery customers before you dump.  I'm sure they would likely appreciate receiving still-relatively-sterile fresh dump barrels.

If your timing is good, they wouldn't need to treat the barrels, and they would be guaranteed maximum flavor contribution.  If I were brewing, that's exactly what I would want, the fresher the barrel the better.  If I was selling used barrels, that would be my pitch.  In this case, local rules, no substitute for freshness/time.  Ain't nothing like the aroma of a fresh dump bourbon barrel.

Dump, re-bung, and deliver (or pickup).

Personally, I would think that rinsing the barrels out is asking for a problem.  Dilution of the spirit will turn a sanitizer into food, will introduce external bacteria, and may introduce chlorine/chloramine depending on your rinse water.  The interior of a barrel is going to be relatively sterile, at least until the residual spirit gets diluted through evaporation, etc.

When in doubt, sniff test.  If there is a problem, I would imagine the first thing you are going to start to pickup is acetic acid.

Interesting point about the Keurig model - their new make-a-soft-drink-at-home machine was a colossal failure.

 https://www.zacks.com/stock/news/219798/the-one-simple-reason-that-keurig-kold-failed-no-one-makes-soda-at-home

From Volatile Components in Food and Beverages by Maarse.  Ethyl laurate and ethyl dodecanoate are the same thing, just different naming conventions.

So for example, based on the Nykanen paper, which found a P<0.001 significance between Ethyl Laurate and distilling with yeast, here is a table from Nykanen's Aroma of Beer, Wine, and Distilled Alcoholic Beverages:

You can start to make some assumptions on whether or not you would distill on lees for the style you are aiming for.

Attaching instead.

Nyk-nen_et_al-1977-Journal_of_the_Institute_of_Brewing.pdf

If its truely innovative, don't share anything online - China will be selling it before you even get the first unit out.

This is rampant, ask any manufacturer of small stills.  Good ideas get stolen immediately.  If you don't watermark your photos, they'll steal those too.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1002/j.2050-0416.1975.tb03788.x/asset/j.2050-0416.1975.tb03788.x.pdf?v=1&t=isna5vg3&s=2dff8519bbf1579b74def060c32b4379620221b0

No right or wrong here.  In or out is going to yield two different profiles.

There are a few journal articles on this, let me see if I can dig them up later.

One thing that stood out to me, is that distilling with yeast will increase the total esters in the distillate.  If I recall, it's somewhat indiscriminate, so while you'll get more fruity esters, you'll also get some of the funkier esters as well, and a number of other compounds (fatty acids, etc), which you might find desirable or undesirable based on what you are going for.

Also, you need to be careful of your use of the words "Intrinsically Safe", as the terminology has a very specific engineering meaning.

The concept of intrinsic safety is predicated on reducing ignition potential by eliminating or significantly reducing the amount of electrical or thermal energy in a system.  These are things you are going to find very difficult to accomplish in a distilling apparatus, especially if they contain things like heating elements, motors, high voltage circuitry, capacitors, switches, etc.

Certification agencies like UL and FM have specific testing methodologies to certify devices as Intrinsically Safe.  It's very different from the concept of Explosion Proof, or even just safety best practices and common sense.   Take a look at UL 913.  These are very rigorous standards.  Intrinsic Safety is a very serious certification.  It's not a certification that would generally apply to a countertop appliance that would plug into a household outlet (that pretty much eliminates the possibility of Intrinsic Safety certification).  This is a standard to ensure that people don't die in hazardous areas like refineries, or miners don't blow themselves up by lighting a shaft up.

I also applaud you for your focus on safety, which is almost entirely absent from that segment of the market.

However, if you are exclaiming the fact that you solved the problem, you first need to ensure everyone understands the problem, and in that lies significant risk for yourself.

Can you imagine talking to the consultants at Underwriters Laboratory?

Product Manufacturer: "Distilling is an incredibly dangerous activity, and there needs to be considerable safeguards in place, which I've solved for with x, y, z, you see here, I've done this.  We've taken care of that, it's entirely safe now."

UL: "So, your saying that this product performs an incredibly dangerous activity?"

Product Manufacturer: "Well, no, um, well, yes, distilling is dangerous, but, um, you see I've taken care of that here, and there, with this doohickey, and that, and there is absolutely no risk of explosion."

UL: "So, your saying that this product can explode?"

Product Manufacturer: "No, no, you aren't understanding me.  Yes, the process is extremely dangerous, and there exists the risk of a vapor explosion, and considerable risk to life, limb, and property, but I've engineered solutions to fix all of that."

UL: "Thank you for your time today."

Wish you the best of luck, it's an exciting project.

But, what I don't get is, if you have to go to the liquor store to buy the 4 gallons of wine  Wouldn't you just buy a bottle of vodka and skip the whole middle part?

What's the value proposition for the consumer?

It's certainly not ROI and saving money, because 4 gallons of wine is going to cost the same as a mid/lower shelf bottle of vodka.  And with a $500 cost of entry...

in my opinion, the home distilling trend has everything to do with creativity and experimentation, just like the home brewing trend.  It's about hands on, it's about learning.

I don't think the average consumer is going care much about a tiny elegant continuous still design.  That's geek territory, and an obscure corner of geekdom at that.

That said, I'm sure there are dozens of people that pony up $200, every day, to buy that little countertop air still thing.

17 minutes ago, meerkat said:

If 90% abv is used to make an infusion and then that is used as part of the final blend then the program must be able to handle whatever abv the infusion finishes at. Thanks for this information as it confirms that whatever the strength the infusions can be, I do need to increase the limit to cope with liqueurs that are actually produced.

For the spirit used in maceration, I would imagine all the way up to GNS/Neutral level. Most lay-discussion on the internet focuses on using vodka, but that's only because 190 proof neutral spirit is only available to the public in some 36 states, and even then it might be a bit more difficult to find.

Yes.  But...

We must always guard against the danger of getting lost in the romanticism of nostalgia.

We can respect the old ways and be thankful that we have the ability to stand on the shoulders of giants, but that doesn't mean that we should not push the limits, leveraging new technologies and new techniques, to create new, unique, and better products than our elders had before us.  Just because they are the old ways, do not mean that they are the best ways.  Don't mistake my words, I'm not saying that a new way is better because it's new, or that an old way isn't the best way.  Just like our elders had the responsibility of growing and enriching their craft, so do we.  If it means an old way must go, it must go.  I believe the old artisans would approve.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who reads this article as being condescending.  I'm sure it wasn't written to come off as condescending, but it is nonetheless.

I admit, it's nice to look back on the good old days.  Everything was better back then, wasn't it?  Men were men, honesty was a virtue, and someone's word actually meant something.  Having studied neuroscience and cognitive psychology for many years, with a focus on emotion, memory, and cognitive bias, I can't help but read these kinds of nostalgic pieces and imagine how much of that retrospection was clouded by biases and flaws (or omissions) in our memories.  There is a well known cognitive bias called Rosy Retrospection.  Despite the cute name, it's the basis for those feelings of romantic nostalgia we have for the past.  However, it also means that perhaps the past was not how we remember.  

I still remember the taste of the champagne that I sipped after toasting with my wife at our wedding reception, or the taste of that whiskey me and the boys sipped when getting the news that there was a little one on the way, god it was so good.

The reality of it is, the good old days weren't.  I'm not complaining that our brains have a propensity to fade unpleasant memories, and retain (and even embellish) the good ones.  Life would be awful otherwise, wouldn't it?  But, the old stories come together, and history is written with these biases.  So when we look back, we need to understand that the negatives were probably omitted, and the positives are certainly more positive than they were.

So, now we get to the truth, let's be realistic here.

Commercial producers, even small ones, have been producing awful spirits for as long as people have been drinking them.  You would be remiss to simply assume just because some producer produced something seventy five years ago, it was absolutely fantastic, magical, unparalleled in quality and without compare.  Because, you know what, most of it was probably pretty bad.  Craft was probably the last thing in many of their minds.  Losing a batch to a raging bacterial infection meant your kids going hungry, so they produced it anyway.  I've tasted lots of very old product, you know, the kind with fancy scores and reviews, when people fawn over names, and was amazed that after dozens of years your could still taste the fact that they didn't bother to take much of a heads cut, hell, any cut at all.  The raw distillate was probably so god awful that it needed 25 years on oak just to be remotely drinkable.

What I don't understand is, why make these overly broad, sweeping assumptions about the new breed of craft producers?  Yet at the same time paying some kind of religious homage to those who came before?

Frankly, neither deserve it.

Taking it to the next level, anybody willing to chat about hearts cut percentage as a percentage of total yield/theoretical yield?

Probably a touchy subject.

Hot would make things easier, but if you don't have active cooling, you are going to have a heck of a time managing fermentation temperatures if you are pitching into a hot tank.

Do you have a pump?  Why not just pump from the bottom of the IBC to the top.  It probably wouldn't take more than 10 minutes to get a good thorough mixing and aeration.