## Recommended Posts

I stumbled across the following article apparently published by American Distilling Institute

http://www.distillin...DF/chapter4.pdf

I have pasted one of the calculations below. It is attempting to show the maths used to dilute 70% abv to 53 gallons of 60%

"Example: Say, the hearts were 70% abv

Quantity of hearts = 53 X 0.6 / 0.7 = 45.43 gallons of heart

Quantity of pure water = 53 - 45.43 gallons = 7.57 gallons of pure water"

The maths is calculated to 2 decimal places so one should be able to assume it is accurate to 2 decimal places

This calculation has not allowed for volume shrinkage.

By my quick calculation, the amount of water to add is 7.98 gallon

Every second page of the article is headed

American Distilling Institute

If a beginner read those calculations they might wonder why bother with TTB tables or complex computer programs.

Could someone please find the source of that incorrect calculation and have it corrected or removed.

##### Share on other sites

The beauty of using this method is that nearly always leaves you high on the proof so multiple iterations are usually required putting you closer every time. Of course if you want it easy just download one of the android apps that does true proofing and blending calculations based on the ttb charts. Intoxicology has one for the iphone and android called Gauging Calc. Doing it by weight is so much easier also.

##### Share on other sites

Sherman, if people want to do the calcs with that formula that is OK as long as they understand the answer is usually going to be quite wrong.

My point is that ADI appears to have published a formula that gives an answer to 2 decimal places----IT DOES NOT--

This is not Home Distilling Institute

American Distilling Institute should be encouraging members to use the correct formula or download a good program.

Could someone please find the source of that incorrect calculation and have it corrected or removed.

##### Share on other sites

Ok so why are you be so dogged about it. I bet you could find this in Bill's books too. What difference does it make on how you get there? as long as you are within compliance. And your shot at HD was out of line. I am a professional consultant and teach this method to new start ups that cannot yet afford an IRS or dept of Ag approved scale. You have to consider your audience and not do a disservice on a technicality. As long as what is in the bottle is less than .5 proof below the stated proof all is good.

Sherman Owen

Professional consultant having gotten 6 distilleries going this year using both methods.

As long as the instrumentation is valid, how you get there is irrelevant.

##### Share on other sites

My apologies Sherman, I was certainly not intending to have a go at you personally by mentioning HD.

I have been to Limestone Branch and seen the wonderful job you did helping Steve get started. I have also watched several of your very interesting youtube videos.

Several hundred people have viewed this and no-one else seems concerned so I will leave this subject alone.

##### Share on other sites

As long as what is in the bottle is less than .5 proof below the stated proof all is good.

Hi Sherman,

Actually, the standard for 750 ml bottles is 0.15% proof variance. That amounts to 0.12 proof at 80 proof. That is on page 1-3 of the BAM, under "Alcohol Content."

##### Share on other sites

Yes my mistake I missed the one character when I was typing it.

##### Share on other sites

Hi Sherman,

Actually, the standard for 750 ml bottles is 0.15% proof variance. That amounts to 0.12 proof at 80 proof. That is on page 1-3 of the BAM, under "Alcohol Content."

Actually, Jedd you should look at the CFR 27 Section 19.356 Alcohol content and fill, parts c and d. You're allowed a 0.15 percent alcohol by volume variance for a 750ml bottle of spirits which equates to .3 proof. Per the example in part d, 39.85% by volume or 79.7 proof is acceptable. .3 proof is a lot easier window to hit than .12 proof

Phil is correct.

##### Share on other sites

As a vendor of the sort of software that Sherman refers to above I am obviously biased in favor of doing the calculations accurately the first time. Diluting is a time consuming exercise, and there can be a wait of a few hours between the adding of the water and achieving a stable proof reading. If you are in no rush, then there is no problem with doing it by trial and error using a Pearson Square calculator. But I certainly agree with PeteB that anyone advocating the simple calculators should at least point out the accuracy (or lack thereof) inherent in the method. Beginners have enough problems in achieving a good product, without having curved balls like this thrown in to make them doubt whether they are doing things correctly.

I see that Sherman is selling very nice 3-term controllers, and I think the use of that sort of equipment is a close parallel to using a proper diluting calculator. It is by no means essential to control your rig with an automatic controller like this. Many people do all the control by hand. The automatic controllers will give a more consistent product, and better economy of utilities. Those doing the control by hand need to understand that there will be more trial and error involved, just like for those doing their dilution calculations using short-cut methods.

In fact if you want to really go over the top you can combine the automatic control with accurate calculations. Some time back I was involved with a large distillery (3000 hectoliters per day) where we built the proofing calculations into the controllers to give the operators a realtime readout of the strength of the product coming off the top of the column. It works beautifully - but was rather expensive. Not every distiller wants (or needs) to throw \$30,000 at this problem.

## Create an account

Register a new account