Methanol concentrate in the tails according an EC study

This hobby is fun & enjoyable, but it is not tiddlywinks. Be safe!

Moderator: Site Moderator

User avatar
Edwin Croissant
Swill Maker
Posts: 256
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 5:11 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Methanol concentrate in the tails according an EC study

Post by Edwin Croissant »

To be honest I never thought about home distilling as a licker store that never closes, goose eye. I can imagine that it must be tantalizing to have all those bottles with aging goodness on the shelf. I assume a fair part of those bottles never reach their predestined age :lol:

Buccaneer Bob, don't worry, I am not easily offended, no harm done :) I think that how you express methanol concentration is also region dependent, like the various ways to express alcohol strength and I agree with what you are saying that it's about taste and flavor and not strength. Anyhow I think when you are making rum, vodka, gin, whiskey etc. methanol is of no concern. I think that making your own is safer then drinking counterfeit liquor which you thought you bought for real. And your own, if I have to believe you guys, can be of much better quality then what is commercially available :)

I don't think that an unattended still is a good idea but I am certain that you can operate, with the same attitude as you operate a conventional still, an automated still a lot safer and more relaxed. Compare a fractionating still with a gas heater without a flame failure device. It need constant attention. Cooling water failure must be acted upon directly. Long distillation runs conflict with the human attention span. You will have to go to the bathroom at some point and there is always the possibility that you are disturbed. It is my humble opinion that a cooling failure device on a still is just as necessary as a flame failure device on a gas heater. So yes, with automated I mean safer and relaxed, not unattended. A still that shuts itself off when things go wrong, do the tweaking for you and signals when human intervention is required but not something to be left alone.

Regards

Edwin
"In all affairs, it’s a healthy thing now and then to hang a question mark on the things you have long taken for granted.”
Bertrand Russell
User avatar
cornsqueezer
Swill Maker
Posts: 279
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2011 5:26 pm

Re: Methanol concentrate in the tails according an EC study

Post by cornsqueezer »

A still that shuts itself off when things go wrong, do the tweaking for you and signals when human intervention is required but not something to be left alone.
This is a hobby, but it's also an art. The minute you remove a person inter acting with his/her still it's no longer a hobby and surely not an art anymore.
It kinda sounds like you are trying to design something that could be mass produced and "idiot proof" for the public to purchase.
User avatar
Jimbo
retired
Posts: 8423
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 1:19 pm
Location: Down the road a piece.

Re: Methanol concentrate in the tails according an EC study

Post by Jimbo »

Squeezer, some people are tinkerers and engineers at heart. Thats the art for them, solving those types of problems. Still (pun) valid. :) Im an engineer too, but run the simplest potstill imaginable haha, and choose to put my energy into the mash. We're all different.
In theory there's no difference between theory and practice. But in practice there is.
My Bourbon and Single Malt recipes. Apple Stuff and Electric Conversion
okie
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 258
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2012 8:33 am
Location: Lost in America

Re: Methanol concentrate in the tails according an EC study

Post by okie »

The moral of this story, as seen by a true okie, don't ferment fruit. Sick with flavor and make whiskey, scotch or rum. Toss fores, find your sweet spot with heads, and enjoy some tail. Everybody loves tail. I do. :P
Never try to argue or reason with idiots and morons, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
User avatar
Jimbo
retired
Posts: 8423
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 1:19 pm
Location: Down the road a piece.

Re: Methanol concentrate in the tails according an EC study

Post by Jimbo »

Sorry Okie, no capeeche. I love a good apple brandy as much as a good bourbon or single malt. Been making apple brandy since '95 and Im not dead yet. ;) Apple brandy, aged up on oak for a while is completely amazing. sweet caramelly apple goodness.

Folks tend to overstate this methanol thing and freak themselves and everyone else out. Ferment your fruit, and make your cuts on yoru run and youll be FINE.
In theory there's no difference between theory and practice. But in practice there is.
My Bourbon and Single Malt recipes. Apple Stuff and Electric Conversion
Schmicter
Bootlegger
Posts: 134
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 7:07 am

Re: Methanol concentrate in the tails according an EC study

Post by Schmicter »

+1 Jimbo. I run a simple neutral with some Welch's grape, its always easy and clean taste, and according to the first chart if I were to run 130 ltr down to ABV of about 50, which I expect I do because I cut it off (really don't like tails) and get 52-57% ABV, I would be adding an extra 1ml/100 ml after about 55 % ABV, and would have ran around 85 ltrs out of the 130 I started, so I don't think an extra 1 ml plus the middle run of methanol in 85 ltr isn't worrisome. besides when you dilute to 40% you are probably going to net less than 1 mls/100 ml in about 100 ltrs. according to the chart. So is a total of around 1 ltr/100 ltr too much methanol if you drink say 4 shots/day? I think that would be about .06oz of methanol/day
heartcut
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 2781
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2011 9:31 am
Location: Houston, Texas

Re: Methanol concentrate in the tails according an EC study

Post by heartcut »

Estimating from the first graph, taking only hearts, mean of 1.25% methanol to pure ethanol:
12.5 ml methanol per liter pure ethanol
5 ml methanol per liter of 80 proof
0.23 ml methanol per 1.5 ounce (44 ml) shot

OEL limits (Paine A, Davan AD. Hum Exp Toxicol. 2001 Nov;20(11):563-8) are:
"safe" = 2 grams/ day (8 x 1.5 ounce shots, same intoxication as 8 x 12 oz 5% beers)
"Toxic" = 8 grams/ day (32 x 1.5 ounce shots)


Oral LD50 values (enough to kill 50% of the test subjects) for methanol in animals are 0.4 g/kg in the mouse, 6.2 to 13 g/kg in the rat, 14.4 g/kg in the rabbit, and 2 to 7 g/kg in the monkey (Rowe and McCollister 1981).
So, for a conservative estimate for a monkey at 70 kg, it'd take from 177 to 620 ml of ethanol to give him a 50% chance of dying.
heartcut

We are all here on earth to help others; what on earth the others are here for I don't know.

W. H. Auden
John Barleycorn
Bootlegger
Posts: 128
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 10:16 am

Re: Methanol concentrate in the tails according an EC study

Post by John Barleycorn »

I've been following this thread with great interest and finally had the chance to download the document and look at the numbers myself. It's still not clear to me what the author was attempting to accomplish, but some of the calculations can be misleading.

For a wash that is run once through a pot still (what the author refers to as "raw distillate from mash"), the data shows what we have always expected: the concentration of methanol decreases as the run progresses. Here's a chart of the data taken directly from the study.
meth-conc.png
meth-conc.png (15.67 KiB) Viewed 9600 times
Now, if I were to take that very same data and represent it as ratio of pure methanol to pure ethanol, the chart would show a curve that starts out low and steadily increases. So with a simple mathematical slight of hand, I could potentially argue that a new danger has been discovered. But this ratio, from a practical perspective, is meaningless because we will never have a solution of just pure ethanol and methanol as our tails ... rather, we'll have a solution that includes a lot of water and other less volatile alcohols ... with all of the less volatile components at a relatively low abv. What's actually happening is no big deal: the concentration of ethanol simply drops off at a faster rate than the concentration of methanol ... and the concentration of methanol is already at very low levels. So for a typical single run through a pot still (or even a second pot run of low wines), nothing has really changed and there's no need to raise any new flags of alarm.

Now, the study doesn't do a very good job with terminology, nor does it even describe the methodology in enough detail to guarantee repeatability. But let's cut the authors some slack and assume they did everything right. If we look at the data for what appears to be a run of low wines through a plated column (what they refer to as "fine distillate from mash" ... with their definition of mash being equivalent to a "raw distillate" ... :crazy:), the methanol concentration does actually increase ... then decrease ... then increase ... then decrease again. It's not exactly what I would call "trending" and it's certainly not a behavior from which I would draw any broad sweeping conclusions (other than it does indeed vary). But one thing is clear, the concentration never gets much above 1 % v/v.

So take it for what it's worth. If it bothers you, avoid fruits. Personally, I'm not going to lose any sleep over the matter.

Regards,
--JB
User avatar
Jimbo
retired
Posts: 8423
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 1:19 pm
Location: Down the road a piece.

Re: Methanol concentrate in the tails according an EC study

Post by Jimbo »

Excellent. A voice of reason. Thank you JB. "... if it bothers you avoid fruits". haha right, and dont drink wine either. Personally, and after 18 years of making and drinking fruit brandies, im not losing any sleep either.
Last edited by Jimbo on Thu Jul 11, 2013 8:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
In theory there's no difference between theory and practice. But in practice there is.
My Bourbon and Single Malt recipes. Apple Stuff and Electric Conversion
rad14701
retired
Posts: 20865
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2007 4:46 pm
Location: New York, USA

Re: Methanol concentrate in the tails according an EC study

Post by rad14701 »

As has been pointed out many times, it isn't merely methanol itself within a mixture that is the issue, it is the concentration of pure methanol that is hazardous... And we have to remember that studies are only as good as the intended desired results... Give a large collection of datum to five different people and they could come up with at least five different conclusions depending on how they interpret those results... Keeping the testing methods and results in context is an important factor in not reporting misleading findings... And whether distilling a well cleared wash versus distilling on the fruit or grain also makes a tremendous difference... Essentially, the more flavor you shoot for the greater the amount of methanol that can be expected to carry over as well...
User avatar
Edwin Croissant
Swill Maker
Posts: 256
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 5:11 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Methanol concentrate in the tails according an EC study

Post by Edwin Croissant »

Thank you for your input John Barleycorn.
I think that you missed my reply to Buccaneer Bob as you write “it's certainly not a behavior from which I would draw any broad sweeping conclusions” When you look at the wrong ratio you will not find any similarity nor can you draw any conclusions. The relevance of showing the methanol / pure alcohol ratio is that it removes the influence of the alcohol strength so the graph show the same outcome for a simple or a fractional distillation and thereby giving a hint about the underlying mechanism as I wrote in my reply.

You write that: the data shows what we have always expected: the concentration of methanol decreases as the run progresses.

I have no idea who "we" is but from the the parent site and some of the comments on the topic: Death in Australia being linked to homemade spirits, it's clear to me what was expected:

Under: Removing the Methanol
Be ruthless about tossing the first 50 mL (off a 20L wash) that you collect, as this contains any methanol (causer of hangovers - small quantities, or blindness - larger quantities).

Under: Will I go Blind ?
A simple (but effective) rule of thumb for this is to throw away the first 50 mL you collect (per 20 L mash used) for a reflux still. If using a potstill, make it more like 100-200 mL. Do this, and you have removed all the hazardous foreshots, including the methanol.

From the mentioned topic:
One has to wonder whether these guys ended up drinking undiluted foreshots...
...found the fores jug and made way.
They concentrated methanol somehow in their brew, perhaps by re-use of heads;


So what was expected was that all of the methanol is removed in the first 50 – 200mL and according the EC study, the other graph from Serbia, the book Buccaneer Bob mentioned and a couple of other studies I found in the meantime this is regretfully not the case. Even if you look at the wrong ratio it is very clear that all of the methanol is not removed in the foreshots. In distillation nr. 5 from the EC study from the 119 mL methanol present in the mash, 9 ml ended up in the heads of 1L, 66 mL ended up in the hearts of 7,5 liter and 29 ml ended up in the tails of 5L.

You write that: there's no need to raise any new flags of alarm.
No new flags of alarm were raised, neither in the EC study nor in my messages, a little bit of knowledge (at least for me) was gained about the distillation process.

If you recycle tails in fruit brandies it is up to you to decide if your methanol intake is within safe limits, in the last 6 month I have gone through a lot of posts on several forums and have yet to read a post from a home distiller that lost his vision by drinking his own fruit brandy (although I doubt that there is any scientific value in that observation :) ).
"In all affairs, it’s a healthy thing now and then to hang a question mark on the things you have long taken for granted.”
Bertrand Russell
John Barleycorn
Bootlegger
Posts: 128
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 10:16 am

Re: Methanol concentrate in the tails according an EC study

Post by John Barleycorn »

The relevance of showing the methanol / pure alcohol ratio is that it removes the influence of the alcohol strength so the graph show the same outcome for a simple or a fractional distillation
The relevance of showing methanol/p.a. is because that's how it's specified in the European Council regulations (specifically g/hL), and it doesn't remove the influence of strength, it simply fixes it at 100% pure alcohol. The U.S. proof-gallon (1 gallon @ 100 proof) is the same idea as p.a., it's a regulatory measurement that has its roots in determining tariffs. As it turns out, it's convenient for purity specifications as well.

Regardless, maybe my point wasn't clear. The data for a single pot run clearly shows that the methanol concentration decreases as the run progresses, period. If you're uncomfortable with the idea that you may be ingesting methanol, then avoid fruit. Fair enough?

BTW: You may want to avoid orange and grapefruit juice as well since, according to the National Institue of Health, those juices have a higher average methanol concentration than wine. And if you want to avoid methanol altogether, then you'll need to give up all fruit juices, spirits, wines, beer, carbonated beverages, lentils, beans, split peas, etc. etc.

But let's keep things in perspective. According to the International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS), as little as 4 - 10 mL of methanol can cause permanent blindness (this does not account for metabolic inhibition from ethanol). In order to reach this point from the middle third of the pot run from the study (~0.35 %), you'd have to drink almost a liter of the distillate. If that's your thing, then it may be prudent to avoid certain brandies ... and perhaps seek help.

Like I said, take it for what it's worth.
User avatar
Edwin Croissant
Swill Maker
Posts: 256
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 5:11 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Methanol concentrate in the tails according an EC study

Post by Edwin Croissant »

...it doesn't remove the influence of strength, it simply fixes it at 100% pure alcohol.
Thank you for a good laugh, that's really funny :lol:

I'm personally not worried about methanol. For those of you that thought to remove all of the methanol by tossing out the foreshots I'm afraid that you where wrong. Reality is a bitch sometimes.

Happy distilling :)
"In all affairs, it’s a healthy thing now and then to hang a question mark on the things you have long taken for granted.”
Bertrand Russell
User avatar
Odin
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 6844
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 10:20 am
Location: Three feet below sea level

Re: Methanol concentrate in the tails according an EC study

Post by Odin »

I think that's the perfect summary of what we learned from this, Edwin!

Regards, Odin.
"Great art is created only through diligent and painstaking effort to perfect and polish oneself." by Buddhist filosofer Daisaku Ikeda.
Monkeyman88
Rumrunner
Posts: 739
Joined: Sun Sep 06, 2015 5:49 am

Re: Methanol concentrate in the tails according an EC study

Post by Monkeyman88 »

Confusing :-/
User avatar
shadylane
Master of Distillation
Posts: 10363
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 11:54 pm
Location: Hiding In the Boiler room of the Insane asylum

Re: Methanol concentrate in the tails according an EC study

Post by shadylane »

Slightly confusing but very informative.
Read it several times, Being half drunk at least one time, your reading it helps.
drmiller100
Rumrunner
Posts: 679
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:13 pm

Re: Methanol concentrate in the tails according an EC study

Post by drmiller100 »

Short summary: Methanol comes off quicker than anything else when you distill. However, to get it ALL out means that a teeny little bit does indeed come out throughout a run.

Longer answer: The first graph in this thread really is misleading and confusing as hell. The graph is from a three plate pot still. the left and upper scale shows it starts at 80%, which is REALLY danged good from a 3 plate still from 5 percent wash, and which causes me to call bullcrap.

Anyway, the lower scale shows of that 80 pecent of pure alcohol, 1 percent is methanol. Therefore, it STARTS out at .8 percent methanol.

And it shows the methanol comes off consistently for a while, which is more horse crap. Near the end the graph changes colors. The alcohol content tanks as the wash runs out of alcohol. Of the remaining alcohol, methanol is still in there. By the end of the run, they are pulling 5 percent alcohol, and 6 percent of the 5 percent is methanol, so we are talking .06*.05, or .003, which is .3 percent.

When you really look closely at the numbers, it shows methanol tends to come off earlier than the rest and tapers over time.

The reality is there is NOT very much methanol in there. So, when you boil, there is SO MUCH water and ethanol mostly water and ethanol comes out. There is so little methanol, what little there is comes out, but it takes a while. And they are using a dephleg which just flat refluxes some percentage of everything, and 3 plates, so little separation is occuring.

An analogy: So, there is a room. I walk half way across the room. Then I walk half way of what is left. Then I walk half the rest of the way. I do that a dozen times, I'm STILL not across the room, but I'm danged close. It is danged close, but there is still a little bit of methanol in there. Just like when you run a reflux still on 1 percent wash, it takes a LONG time to get that last bit of ethanol out of there, and it takes a long time to get the methanol out of there from any wash.

For methanol, Full reflux still is different. you boil and boil, and reflux collects the methanol at the top of the column. It concentrates it. Then you run it on out, and let the column collect it again. Full reflux you can get the methanol out early in the run. Half of a half of a half of a half times 30 plates equivalent times 20 minutes of boiling and pretty soon the methanol is MOSTLY out the top.
Now I know how you claim azeo so easy, it's based on a meat thermometer. :lol:
User avatar
der wo
Master of Distillation
Posts: 3817
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2015 2:40 am
Location: Rote Flora, Hamburg

Re: Methanol concentrate in the tails according an EC study

Post by der wo »

But if you water the jars down to drinking strength, in the first jars will be less methanol than in the last. Methanol per ethanol concentration. Thats the important point of the first graph of this thread. So if we want to reduce the methanol, we had to cut more tails, not more heads (if we trust the graph).

I don't think, a reflux column would act different than their 2 plates column.
In this way, imperialism brings catastrophe as a mode of existence back from the periphery of capitalist development to its point of departure. - Rosa Luxemburg
User avatar
thecroweater
retired
Posts: 6079
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 9:04 am
Location: Central Highlands Vic. Australia

Re: Methanol concentrate in the tails according an EC study

Post by thecroweater »

yeah IF you trust that study. its like this you get ethanol from the start of heads to the end of backins but mostly in the hearts , same with methanol except the concentration isn't in the heats but middle heads. Just an example of how to skew facts to arrive at a false conclusion :thumbup:
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin
User avatar
der wo
Master of Distillation
Posts: 3817
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2015 2:40 am
Location: Rote Flora, Hamburg

Re: Methanol concentrate in the tails according an EC study

Post by der wo »

Hm. I think I will read the whole pdf next days. 168 pages! I did only look the graphs and read the posts until now.
In this way, imperialism brings catastrophe as a mode of existence back from the periphery of capitalist development to its point of departure. - Rosa Luxemburg
User avatar
Edwin Croissant
Swill Maker
Posts: 256
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 5:11 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Methanol concentrate in the tails according an EC study

Post by Edwin Croissant »

Two and a half year later and with some more knowledge:

Water, methanol, ethanol, isoamyl alcohol etc. are polar. The electric charge is not evenly distributed over the molecule so these molecules attract each other like magnets. This is called hydrogen bonding. That is why they mix so well and separate so hard. It also explains their high boiling points. For instance ethanol, CH3CH2-O-H, en methoxymethane, CH3-O-CH3, have the same amount and type of atoms: two carbon, 6 hydrogen en one oxygen, but a boiling point difference of about 100 degrees Celsius. The reason for this is the position of the oxygen atom, the hydrogen atom attached directly to an oxygen atom in ethanol is capable of hydrogen bonding.

Now it happens to be that this bonding force between water and methanol (the “lighter” sibling of ethanol) is stronger then that between water and ethanol and that bonding force is again stronger then that between water and isoamyl alcohol (the “heavier” sibling of ethanol). It looks like the "heavier" the molecule, the weaker the bonding force with water is.

So in a mixture with a lot of water, some ethanol, and traces of methanol and isoamyl alcohol the ratio between isoamyl alcohol and ethanol is higher in the vapor then in the liquid. And for methanol it is the reverse, the ratio between methanol and ethanol is lower in the vapor then in the liquid. With other words, the volatility of isoamyl alcohol is higher then that of ethanol and the volatility of methanol is lower then that of ethanol when a large amount of water is present.

The game changer is the water, remove the water from the mixture and this behavior reverses, at 60+ %ABV the volatility of methanol is higher then that of ethanol and the volatility of isoamyl alcohol is lower. They started to behave more as expected.

I think that the discovery of this was made by Ernest Sorel in around 1890 when he was investigation the contamination of distillation columns with fusel oil. He noticed that the bad oils as he called them concentrated in the lower plates of the column in the beginning of the run and as the boiler content depleted started to contaminate the higher plates at the end of the run. Cleaning those columns was a labor intensive task. You can read more about this here.

There are a lot of nasty things concentrating in your fores but methanol is not one of them. In distillation nr. 5 from this EC study, from the 119 mL methanol present in the mash, 9 ml ended up in the heads of 1L, 66 mL ended up in the hearts of 7,5 liter and 29 ml ended up in the tails of 5L.

As there is hardly any methanol produced during a normal fermentation there is nothing to worry about, although it is a kind of funny to see one bullshit argument against home distilling: the methanol, is counteracted by another bullshit argument: a knowledgeable distiller throws the methanol away with the fores. This is however utterly bullshit and any person that tries to remove methanol from with methanol contaminated (denatured) ethanol by throwing away a large amount of fores will fail, and will produce a lethal drink.
Last edited by Edwin Croissant on Wed Jan 06, 2016 7:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
"In all affairs, it’s a healthy thing now and then to hang a question mark on the things you have long taken for granted.”
Bertrand Russell
User avatar
Jimbo
retired
Posts: 8423
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 1:19 pm
Location: Down the road a piece.

Re: Methanol concentrate in the tails according an EC study

Post by Jimbo »

Nice summary Edwin. Looks like we need to start undoing the false notion that methanol is removed in the fores/heads. But perhaps even more importantly is reinforcing that in the clean fruit and grain mashes we do, methanol is not a problem to begin with.
In theory there's no difference between theory and practice. But in practice there is.
My Bourbon and Single Malt recipes. Apple Stuff and Electric Conversion
drmiller100
Rumrunner
Posts: 679
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:13 pm

Re: Methanol concentrate in the tails according an EC study

Post by drmiller100 »

der wo wrote:But if you water the jars down to drinking strength, in the first jars will be less methanol than in the last. Methanol per ethanol concentration. Thats the important point of the first graph of this thread. So if we want to reduce the methanol, we had to cut more tails, not more heads (if we trust the graph).

I don't think, a reflux column would act different than their 2 plates column.
Your first sentence is incorrect I think. The first bit comes off at 80 percent alcohol. If we water the stuff down to say 40 percent, the ratio of ethanol to methanol remains the same - the line is flat.

On the last bit, it is coming off at 5 percent alcohol which is when the methanol percentage goes up as a FUNCTION of the ethanol. But you are not going to water down the 5 percent.

It really and truly is a very very misleading set of data.

I agree reflux will be different. I think even a pot still runs the way everyone thinks it does, and this is a giant red herring.
Now I know how you claim azeo so easy, it's based on a meat thermometer. :lol:
drmiller100
Rumrunner
Posts: 679
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:13 pm

Re: Methanol concentrate in the tails according an EC study

Post by drmiller100 »

Edwin Croissant wrote:
There are a lot of nasty things concentrating in your fores but methanol is not one of them. In distillation nr. 5 from this EC study, from the 119 mL methanol present in the mash, 9 ml ended up in the heads of 1L, 66 mL ended up in the hearts of 7,5 liter and 29 ml ended up in the tails of 5L.
Summary: Your data PROVES methanol is most concentrated in the heads

so, looking at ml of methanol per liter

heads: 9ml/ liter is 9
hearts: 66ml/7.5 is 8.8
tails 29/5 is 5.8

and you sort of LOST some methanol in here somewhere as your numbers don't add up. (119 vs 104)
and that is the most skewed, bullshit, messed up study I have ever seen, and you made this so incredibly complicated to prove some stupid theory of your's.
Now I know how you claim azeo so easy, it's based on a meat thermometer. :lol:
User avatar
Rastus
Site Donor
Site Donor
Posts: 694
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2012 4:27 pm

Re: Methanol concentrate in the tails according an EC study

Post by Rastus »

what sticks in my thinking after reading all of this ... as it applies to my simple little world:

i am doing ok and shall keep producing my rum and whiskey,

and if ever i score on fruits,
i will squeeze the juice out of it and ferment , minus the skins.

It was very thought provoking, and good to ponder as we enjoy our craft.

i eat the whole apple, even the seeds, now i have been told there is trace amounts of arsenic in apple seeds,
and so it is a good idea not to save a cup full of them and eat all at one time. I had been told of a chap that did so and died.
whether that is true or not, it goes the same with our methanol.

if we practice euro or American style cuts, we are still partaking a smaller fraction of the evil Methanol than we would if using a continuous still, or just drinking it as a wine or beer.

i do taste that sweetness in the heads portion and i wish that i could pull some of it into my product but i have been so leery
of the methanol and the burning tongue , and always shy away.

thanks for stirring up this older thread, good to bring it to the light for newcomers also... or those who are ready to metabolize the information.

regards
Last edited by Rastus on Wed Jan 06, 2016 11:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
She was just a moonshiner,
But he loved her Still
User avatar
Jimbo
retired
Posts: 8423
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 1:19 pm
Location: Down the road a piece.

Re: Methanol concentrate in the tails according an EC study

Post by Jimbo »

ha, hmm..... Ill be holding off on the aforementioned 'undoing any false notionhoods until you guys battle this shit out.

At the end of the day what I know to be true is methanol content is very low in properly fermented beverages, and ethanol is the metabolic antidote to methanol anyway. So I will continue to not give a shit about whatever insignificant amount of methanol we're flaming each other over here, and I will continue to talk noobs off the ledge when they come here panties lodged and panicky about methanol in their drink.
In theory there's no difference between theory and practice. But in practice there is.
My Bourbon and Single Malt recipes. Apple Stuff and Electric Conversion
drmiller100
Rumrunner
Posts: 679
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:13 pm

Re: Methanol concentrate in the tails according an EC study

Post by drmiller100 »

Jimbo wrote:ha, hmm..... Ill be holding off on the aforementioned 'undoing any false notionhoods until you guys battle this shit out.

At the end of the day what I know to be true is methanol content is very low in properly fermented beverages, and ethanol is the metabolic antidote to methanol anyway. So I will continue to not give a shit about whatever insignificant amount of methanol we're flaming each other over here, and I will continue to talk noobs off the ledge when they come here panties lodged and panicky about methanol in their drink.

ummmm, that is a hell of a simple, great solution.
Now I know how you claim azeo so easy, it's based on a meat thermometer. :lol:
User avatar
Edwin Croissant
Swill Maker
Posts: 256
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 5:11 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Methanol concentrate in the tails according an EC study

Post by Edwin Croissant »

The reason I started this topic was because of the discrepancy between the common belief that all of the methanol concentrate in the fores and that actual tests showed something completely different. Not just a little bit different but actually the complete opposite.
drmiller100 wrote:Summary: Your data PROVES methanol is most concentrated in the heads
No, it proves that the common believe that all of the methanol end up in the fores is plainly wrong.

Furthermore you are making the same mistake as John Barleycorn, it is not the ratio between methanol and the ethanol plus the water that counts, it's the ratio between methanol and only the ethanol. If you dilute the hearts with water your methanol concentration will decrease even further. But I see that as fraud.

Even with this mistake you can hardly say that a decrease of little more than 2 percent is significant so you are stretching the meaning of "most concentrated" quite a bit. It's something a spindoctor or a marketing man would do.
drmiller100 wrote:and you sort of LOST some methanol in here somewhere as your numbers don't add up. (119 vs 104)
It should be clear that not all of the ethanol and methanol ends up in the distillate, some is left behind in the boiler. Actually it would be very strange indeed if the numbers had added up, you can only make measurements with a certain accuracy.
drmiller100 wrote:and that is the most skewed, bullshit, messed up study I have ever seen, and you made this so incredibly complicated to prove some stupid theory of your's.
It is complicated but I do not see that as my problem. If you think the study is wrong please address that to the authors of this study with something that disproves these findings. Just opinion wouldn’t do.
"In all affairs, it’s a healthy thing now and then to hang a question mark on the things you have long taken for granted.”
Bertrand Russell
drmiller100
Rumrunner
Posts: 679
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:13 pm

Re: Methanol concentrate in the tails according an EC study

Post by drmiller100 »

Edwin Croissant wrote:The reason I started this topic was because of the discrepancy between the common belief that all of the methanol concentrate in the fores and that actual tests showed something completely different. Not just a little bit different but actually the complete opposite.
drmiller100 wrote:Summary: Your data PROVES methanol is most concentrated in the heads
No, it proves that the common believe that all of the methanol end up in the fores is plainly wrong.

Furthermore you are making the same mistake as John Barleycorn, it is not the ratio between methanol and the ethanol plus the water that counts, it's the ratio between methanol and only the ethanol. If you dilute the hearts with water your methanol concentration will decrease even further. But I see that as fraud.

Even with this mistake you can hardly say that a decrease of little more than 2 percent is significant so you are stretching the meaning of "most concentrated" quite a bit. It's something a spindoctor or a marketing man would do.
drmiller100 wrote:and you sort of LOST some methanol in here somewhere as your numbers don't add up. (119 vs 104)
It should be clear that not all of the ethanol and methanol ends up in the distillate, some is left behind in the boiler. Actually it would be very strange indeed if the numbers had added up, you can only make measurements with a certain accuracy.
drmiller100 wrote:and that is the most skewed, bullshit, messed up study I have ever seen, and you made this so incredibly complicated to prove some stupid theory of your's.
It is complicated but I do not see that as my problem. If you think the study is wrong please address that to the authors of this study with something that disproves these findings. Just opinion wouldn’t do.
You made a point that not all of the methanol ends up in the heads. I will absolutely agree I was not aware methanol can be in the hearts, and I now understand minute traces of methanol will in fact be in the hearts and tails. I thought the sharp smells in the foreshots were mostly methanol, and now I realize they are probably some other compound. I now realize I need to question some of my assumptions, and I am appreciative for that. thank you.

OTOH, there are problems with your arguments. You refuse to concede the point the heads contain MORE methanol by volume than the hearts and tails despite the study's clear conclusion. You obfuscate, deny, confuse, and attempt to hide this simple fact by making unnecessarily arguments with strawman conclusions.

Your denial of fundamental problems with the intrinsic data of the experiment means you are not willing to examine validity of the experiment. The experiment is flawed, I have demonstrated it, and you are picking and choosing which data you use and which you ignore. Your errors in logic are fundamental.

Finally, I would encourage you to run a still some day. Some of your imaginations are wholly without merit, and are fund mentally transparent if you were to actually RUN a reflux or continuous still.
As an example, fusel oils do NOT plug up a reflux still. They never have, and never will. If you had personally run a reflux still, you could know this, or you could take for evidence any of the hundreds of people who HAVE run a reflux still on this site, with NEVER a report of fusel oil plugging the column.

Fusel oils get run back down into the boiler in both reflux stills and continuous stills. If you had run a still, you could measure the boiler temps. If water boils at 100C, then if you run all the ethanol out of the wash, but the fusel oils are still in the wash, then the boiler will not be boiling at 100C - the fusel oils will cause the remaining wash to boil at some temperature less than 100C. You can use the reflux column to pull off each compound almost separately if you have the patience and a fine enough design.

On a continuous still, the fusel oils again run down into the boiler, and the boiler will boil at less than the boiling temp of Water.

Again, all of this is readily apparent if you RUN a still.

There is no difference between theory and reality until reality.

I have been blessed by an expensive education and a mind which understands theory very easily.

Because of that, I have the UTMOST respect for those who try, those who do. I will NEVER be as good a fabricator or artist or connoisseur or artisan as the vast majority of people here on this site, but I absolutely respect those who are, and those who share their information.
Now I know how you claim azeo so easy, it's based on a meat thermometer. :lol:
User avatar
thecroweater
retired
Posts: 6079
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 9:04 am
Location: Central Highlands Vic. Australia

Re: Methanol concentrate in the tails according an EC study

Post by thecroweater »

The sharp smell in the early foreshots are for the most part acetone, think pipe glue and nail polish remover
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin
Post Reply