PeteB

Ok, so has anyone else tried to solve Will's challenge. No one has even said if they think I am correct--or not. I must say it was a good excercise for my old brain, I have heard mental exercises help stave off alzheimer's. Open the following attached PDF if you would like to see the easy way to solve it with AlcoDens Wills challenge solved with AlcoDens - edited.pdf

Only in America could you get away with that.

I have tried on several occasions to add a photo to my profile but keep getting "Failed to set a new photo" Could someone instruct me how to do this please?

I have the same problem in another accounting package In the past I have been sending off the gross priced invoice, then editing my copy by splitting the sale into product with no tax then putting extra lines for the taxes. That way I can pull up a report of the taxes. I wouldn't want to do it that way if I had a lot of sales Just recently I have decided to itemise and show the taxes straight up so the customer knows where his money is going.

Hi Will, I did not receive your Excel spreadsheet last year, if you sent it, it has got lost in the never-never. I would still like to see it, just for the brain exercise. info@belgrovedistillery.com.au I know you are a fan of blending by weight (mass). I totally agree that the final physical blending is much easier and more accurate when done by mass, (for small distilleries) but the calculations are not necessarily easier. In the last example above you can see it took me about twice as many lines to do the calcs if I converted to mass at the start. The fewest calculations were in the first example where I used volumes right to the second last line, then did just one conversion to mass. The TTB table 6 should have extra columns in mass (I assume that is what your spreadsheet has) For others reading this post, if blending is done by weight (mass) on a good set of scales, then the temperatures of the components does not matter.

Will, I am not sure what you meant by the above. I have now re-familiarised myself with using TTB tables so I might be able to answer now. EDIT a few hours later---------- OK Will, I found what you were refering to, 0.71 is the ratio of alcohol to water and is correct I copied-typed the equation from an Excel spreadsheet and made a typo, sorry. The maths is correct, just the copy has the 1 missing.

With this version I have converted everything to weight (mass) before I start the calcs. It requires more calculations but it may make it clearer to some people From table 6, 100 gallons of 83 proof contains 41.5 gal of pure alcohol and 61.99 gallons of water ( at 60 F) 1 gal pure alcohol weighs 6.6097 lbs 1 gal pure water weighs 8.32823 lbs 100 gal 83 pr will contain 41.5 X 6.6097 = 274.3026 lbs alcohol and 61.99 X 8.32823 = 516.267 lbs water in a total weight of 790.5695 lbs Proportion of alcohol by weight is 274.3026/790.5695 = 0.346968 Proportion of water by weight is 516.267/790.5695 = 0.653032 We have 603.2 lbs of 83 proof which contains 603.2 X 0.3469 = 209.273 Lbs alcohol And 603.2 X 0.65303 = 393.8745 lbs water Now what are the proportions of alcohol and water in the 135 pr we are to add? Table 6 again, 100 gals of 135pr contains 67.5 gal alcohol and 36.02 gal of water Convert to lbs as above and we get 0.597952 of alcohol and 0.402048 of water We also need to know the proportions of alcohol and water in the final proof of 86 proof Table 6, 86 pr = 43.0 alc and 60.56 of water, multiply these gallons by lbs per gal as above And we get weight proportions of 0.360419 for alcohol and 0.639581 for water Now we add X lbs of 135 pr to the 603.2 lbs of 83 proof to get 86 proof X lbs of 135 pr is made up of 0.597952*X lbs alcohol and 0.402048*X lbs water We now have 209.273 lbs of alcohol from the 83 proof plus 0.597952*X lbs alcohol from the 135 pr Ie. 209.273 + 0.597952*X of alcohol And 393.8745 + 0.402048*X lbs water The ratio of alcohol to water, in the 2 lines just above, is the ratio of alc to water in the 86 proof 86 proof is 0.360419 of alcohol and 0.639581 of water therefore (209.273 + 0.597952*X) / (393.8745 + 0.402048*X) = 0.360419 / 0.639581 = 0.563523 209.273 + 0.597952*X = 0.563523*(393.8745 + 0.402048*X) 209.273 + 0.597952*X=221.9573 + 0.226563*X 0.597952*X - 0.226563*X = 221.9573 - 209.273 0.371389*X = 12.6843 X = 12.6843 / 0.371389 = 34.15365 lbs of 135 proof Including the original 603.2 and the final weight will be 637.35 lbs same answer again

Just answering this part of your query, When using Alcodens with "Proof" units the program automatically sets at 60F. There is a temperature correction window also which corrects hydrometer readings taken at other than 60F, but for this problem that was not needed.

Here is a slightly different way of solving the second part edit (sorry if I have confused some but I missed off the first 5 lines when I cut and pasted, all here now) From Table 4 we know that 83 proof has 0.12648 WineGallons/lb We have 603.2 lbs, so there must be 76.2927 WGs From Table 6 we see that 83 proof contains 41.5 volumes of alcohol and 61.99 vols of water 76.2927 *41.5/100 = 31.6615 and 76.2927 * 61.99/100 = 47.2939 We have 31.6615 gallons alcohol and 47.2939 gallons water in the 603.2 lbs 83 proof – Let the mass of 135 proof spirit added be X lbs From Table 4: 135 proof is 0.13402 WG/lb ð We have to add 0.13402 * X wine gallons of 135 proof From Table 6: 100 gals of 135 proof is 67.5 gals of alcohol and 36.02 gals of water (divide these gals by 100 for 1 gal) This means we are adding 0.675 * 0.13402 * X = 0.09046 * X gallons of alcohol And 0.3602 * 0.13402 * X = 0.04827 * X gallons of water So the total alcohol we will have, in volumetric terms, will be 31.6615 plus 0.09046X gallons The total water will be 47.2939 plus 0.04827X gallons Also from Table 6 we know that 86 proof contains 43 vols alcohol and 60.56 vols water. This tells us the volumetric ratio of alcohol to water is 43/60.56 So (31.6615 + 0.09046X) / (47.2939 + 0.04827X) = 43/60.56 = 0.7100 31.6615 + 0.09046X = 0.71 * (47.2939 + 0.04827X) 0.05619X = 1.9172 X = 34.12 lbs Final weight is now 34.12 + 603.2 = 637.32 lbs

It is 12 months since I did the calcs so I can't remember, but I did not take the easy route and use Alcodens with any of the the posted calcs, only tables. I also solved the same problem using weights and got the same answer (slight rounding errors)but found there were less calculations in this case when I used volumes. Normally weights are easier but not in this example. Like I said, it was 12 months ago and I have basically erased from my memory the use of TTB tables. Proof gal, wine gal, imperial gal, farenheight, proof temperature they play tricks with my brain when I get tired. WHEN ARE YOU GUYS GOING METRIC? I assume the .7 or .71 refers to "in a vacuum" or "in air", I fairly sure I would have used the vacuum columns. EDIT OK Will, I found what you were refering to, 0.71 is the ratio of alcohol to water and is correct I copied-typed the equation from an Excel spreadsheet and made a typo, sorry. The maths is correct, just the copy has the 1 missing.

My solution to Wills challenge From Table 4 we know 135 proof contains 0.18093 ProofGallons/lb, so in 350 lbs we have 350 X 0.18093 = 63.3255 PGs After adding water the mass is now 603.2 lbs, but no more PGs were added so we have 63.3255 / 603.2 = 0.10498 PG/lb From Table 4 we see this PG/lb corresponds to 83 proof.....................= First part of answer In the 603.2 lbs 83 proof we have 31.6615 gal alc + 47.2939 gal water –from Tables To fix it add X GALLONS of 135 proof Each gallon 135 contains 0.675 gal alcohol + 0.3602 gal water {(Table 6) / 100} Final gallons when fixed will be 31.6615 + 0.675X galls alcohol and 47.2939 + 0.3602X galls water 1 gal 86 proof has 0.43 gals alc and 0.6056 gals water, 0.43/0.6056 = 0.71 (alcohol to water) 31.6615 + 0.675X / 47.2939 + 0.3602X =0 .71 (edited) 0.71(47.2939 + 0.3602X) = 31.6615 + 0.675X 33.58103 + 0.25576X = 31.6615 + 0.675X 1.191 = .419X X = 4.5773 gallons ……………………. 135 proof = 0.13402 gall / lb 4.5773 / 0.13402 = 34.16 lbs of 135 to be added Scales should now read 34.16 + 603.2 = 637.36 I quite enjoyed the mental challenge, I proved to myself I understand how it is done, but never again It is so much easier with a program I use called Alcodens.

They would be very different, just ask someone who makes "scotch style" single malts in different types of re-use barrels.

Thanks Coop and Jedd. I will certainly investigate both bulk and bottle options. On the Australian market bulk sales give a quick return but most if the profit is in botteling and marketing, I don't know where your best margins are. I do have an importer in mind, met him at Louisville, but I did not realize the importer arranges the COLA. I will wait for any more suggestions. I will PM you Jedd or if you wish, email your cell number to info@belgrovedistillery.com.au Pete

Firstly, thanks to organisers and delegates at the ADI Louisville Conference, I had a fantastic time, The feedback I received about my "White Rye" was very positive. It seems as if it is quite different from anything currently in US, so I am thinking there might be a sales opportunity, although I only have a very small distillery. I assume I need to get my bottles and labels approved by TTB I think you have strict bottle sizes even for imports! I don't beleive Australian labels have the correct information. I had a search around their web site and got totally confused. Could someone please point me at the best place to start with TTB. Pete Bignell Belgrove Distillery

Just a quick comment, you should be able to write a simple formula that will give you the mash temperature without using "solver" tool

Well done Steve. I visited your distillery yesterday with a small group pre ADI Conference. The tradition of the fermentation in barrels was great. We don't have anything like that at home. It took a few minutes to figure out your combo mash heater/ beer still. Very efficient setup. Thanks for spending the time with us.

Any suggestions please for accommodation either side of conference. I am OK for conference but need a couple of days before and after

I agree with Classick. It does smell very nice. I put some rye heads in the washer tank. In the winter when the fumes get sucked in through the heater they smell delicious. The nasty smelling fraction of the heads must have flashed off before entering the heater. I am keeping my windscreen cleaner, but that is because I like the smell. Don't know what the cops would think if I got pulled over for a breath test

You may well be right Nick. The tails causing misting may only be someones theory that someone else has put out up as fact. All I know is I trust my nose more than the demisting test the way I have been using it

Kristian has a good option, especially since you are already in sales. A friend dropped by my distillery last week. He has just started production himself, but to get some cash flow he purchased a mature barrel of whisky and is bottling it under an independent label. When he calculated the potential profit from the barrel he wondered why he built the distillery. The biggest prifit was in the marketing. But this distillery does attract the customers.

I know distillers here in Tasmania have used that test but I don't think they use it regularly. I did try it when I first started but found my nose was giving me a better indication of the end of the heads. I was finishing the heads off too early with the demist test. From my research it appears that the demisting test is not directly telling you when the heads have finished, but telling you when the heads have flushed out the tails from the previous run. It is actually testing for leftover TAILS. When the previous run is finished there are some long chain fatty acids and other "gunk" left on the copper in the vapour path. These are flushed out by the heads in the next run, and they cause the cloudiness when diluted with water. The fatty acids are probably all flushed out before the heads have finished, this may be why I consider my nose a better indicator than the demisting test.

Has anyone heard of this person Ian Asbury, Intern Indulge Spirits p: 503.893.5426 e: ian.m.asbury@gmail.com He sounds interested in purchasing some of my spirits, but something about his request makes me want to ask around first. I assume the phone number is from US. I tried to ring but only got automated voice. He may be a very good contact but I wanted to ask first. Pete

Good one Curtis. But what is "what I do"? Maybe they are very light bags of grain you are stacking!

Thanks for that Ned. I will give air a try. As for cheap in-line air filters, it is common practice in this part of the world for divers to use "modess sanitary napkins" stuffed into a piece of pipe. I have seen a lab air test and they work very well. If the air is good enough to breathe under pressure then I assume it should be good enough for yeast.

I do not oxygenate other than wort splashing into the fermenter, I shall watch this discussion and hopefully learn something. What are you fermenting? I assume it is grain since you are sparging. Can someone please explain why additional oxygen is needed. Thanks