Small 2 gal container = 53 gal Barrel for Aging

[OINC-Kegger]

I have had great success with aging small batches with oak and getting very good whiskeys. I would really like to age my bourbon and scotch for a long time. Like 4 years for my bourbon and 7 to 12 years for my scotch. But I don't want to do a 53 gallon batch and aging in a small barrel just doesn't work as we all probably know by now. A couple of years ago, I pondered this and thought, maybe a container with wood only on the ends would reduce the surface-area of the oak. I diddled with the math and was surprised at what I found.

Any container which has oak only on the ends and an inert body, will have the same surface-area to volume ratio as a 53 gallon barrel if it's length is just over 8 inches long. It makes no difference the shape of the ends, they can be round, triangle, square, rectangle or the shape of the State of North Carolina. As long as the body is of a constant cross-sectional area, does not act as part of the aging media and the oak is used only on the end caps, then the surface-area to volume ratio is the same.

I submitted my idea to the US Patent Office and it is not Patent Pending. I would like to pursue the idea further to see if anyone else likes it and if so, bring it to market. I have several designs, one for wine, one for whiskey and one for show. The wine container is a 13x13x8 inch box (OD) made from food grade HDPE. It will hold 5 gallons. Because wine is lower in alcohol and aged typically 6 months to 2 years on oak, the HDPE will work. The whiskey container is an 8-1/2"ID stainless steel container, open at both ends. It has a flange and requires a gasket (silicone, EPDM or FEPT). , I have two designs. One is a 2 gallon container with a stainless steel body, silicone or EPDM or PTFE gasket and two oak ends. More expensive because of the stainless steel but I don't think the HDPE will work for aging 80 proof for 3 to 12 years. I have concerns about the gasket but it will only be 0.10 inch thick (or less) when compressed. he third design is a 1 gallon container made of clear poly-carbonate and oak ends. It boasts a spigot and decorative stand. It is to display your wine or liquor and allow it to continue to age as you drink it.

I am looking for any comments on the overall idea and particularly the two designs for the whiskey. I have concerns about the stainless steel, gasket material (as mentioned) and of course the poly-carbonate design.

The following attachment describes in detail the math involved. Even if you are not interested in the designs, I think you will enjoy my discussion about the Johannes Kepler optimum wine barrel proposed in the early 1600's.

[Bigbob]

This should be interesting.... Silicone and plastics are not welcome as alcohol tends to leach the nasties out of them. You have a good idea though.

[Worm_Drippinz]

Another note:


It does matter what the ends diameter to length are. if your looking for a matching surface area compared to a distillery barrel, an 8 inch long tube with a 4inch diameter will differ from an 8 inch long tube with a 12" diameter.

An 8 inch diameter tube 3 feet in length will differ from the same diameter tube that is only 8 inches in length.

(We are talking about the surface area of the end caps in relation to distillate inside).


I see what your shooting for but the "any 8" length" does not compute.

[OINC-Kegger]

OK, you say two different things. Your second statement is correct. An 8 inch diameter tube 3 feet length will differ from the same diameter tube that is only 8 inches in length. No question there.

Your first statement is what your intuition says but it is not correct. An 8 inch long tube with a 4 inch diameter has the same surface-area to volume ratio as an 8 inch long tube with a 12 inch diameter. (oak only on the ends) Look at the math. It is very simple.

The area of the oak ends is 2A (two ends). The volume is A x L (length). Therefore: Sa/V = 2/L The areas in the denominator and numerator cancel. If you take the surface-area to volume ratio of a 50 gallon barrel (something like 0.25 square inches per cubic inches), then the length is (2 / 0.25 inches squared per inches cubed) or 8 inches.

For your 12 inch diameter tube, the area of the ends is 226 square inches (two times pi R squared). The volume is 905 cubic inches. The surface-area to volume ratio is 0.250. For your 4 inch diameter, the surface-area is 25.13 square inches and the volume is 100.53 cubic inches. The surface area to volume ratio is 0.250. And this the same as a barrel in the 50 gallon size range.

[Worm_Drippinz]

Yes, but you are leaving out the volume of liquid in the tube in relation to the surface area you are shooting for.


The surface area for that example IS the same, but the numbers of the volume of distillate you want to age changes which alters the equation.


You have to change the diameter of the tube in relation to length or else it is thrown off.

[Worm_Drippinz]

I will make it simple- if you have a dump truck with dirt in it,


The dump bed is 8 ft wide by 14 ft long and 8 ft high. if the dirt is the same consistancy, moisture content and composition and compaction on each load...by decreasing the height of the bed by two feet on the second load, the volume changes but the surface area on the top and the bottom does not.

[der wo]

You know corenes oak lids?
http://homedistiller.org/forum/viewtopi ... =4&t=44034
Without any sealing material.

From my experience WITH STICKS, calculations from the surface area or other parameters does not fit in practice.
I have the feeling, you have to test it in practice a few years before selling it. If it leaks, if you taste the stainless steel after years and if the surface calc was ok.

[Swedish Pride]

While the idea is neat i feel you are over-complicating it.
I can not see a reason why the maths can not be applied to an oak stick and just throw it in a gallon jug, cork stopper to seal like so many do now.
boom , saved me some money for more copper and grains!

[Badmotivator]

I have had great success with aging small batches with oak and getting very good whiskeys. I would really like to age my bourbon and scotch for a long time. Like 4 years for my bourbon and 7 to 12 years for my scotch. But I don't want to do a 53 gallon batch and aging in a small barrel just doesn't work as we all probably know by now. A couple of years ago, I pondered this and thought, maybe a container with wood only on the ends would reduce the surface-area of the oak.

Nice! I like the way you're going with this. Your post provoked me to write up what I have done so far. I have also been working on a similar idea, but without gaskets or threaded rod. Hope this helps: http://homedistiller.org/forum/viewtopi ... =4&t=60032

[OINC-Kegger]

I appreciate all the input. Over complicating is probably right. In my limited time in this hobby (a little over 3 years), I have found that most of the changes in what I taste happens in the first 6 to twelve months. After that, the changes are more subtle. Aging in glass with oak works great. But there must be some reason they age scotch for 12 years (or more). It might just be a marketing ploy but I would like to find out. The wood allows oxidation. For wine this is very important. For whiskey maybe not so much but for the old whiskeys I think it probably contributes something. I am not giving up my current processes but I would like to see if aging in a container that allows oxidation to occur makes a difference.

In this light, I was thinking about the thickness of the ends. A large barrel has a pressure gradient. My smaller diameter container will have less pressure at the bottom. Since the pressure gradient is linear, I was thinking that reducing the thickness of the oak proportionally might be a good idea. Just something to over complicate a little more.

[OINC-Kegger]

Nice! I like the way you're going with this. Your post provoked me to write up what I have done so far. I have also been working on a similar idea, but without gaskets or threaded rod. Hope this helps: http://homedistiller.org/forum/viewtopi ... =4&t=60032

That is really good. Thanks.

So tell me, does it work? One comment on this topic concerned using stainless. Have you detected any metallic taste? I also like the elimination of the gasket. I was able to get some designs working without the gaskets but I was afraid of the long term whether they would leak. Have you had any problems there?

[OINC-Kegger]

I will make it simple- if you have a dump truck with dirt in it,


The dump bed is 8 ft wide by 14 ft long and 8 ft high. if the dirt is the same consistancy, moisture content and composition and compaction on each load...by decreasing the height of the bed by two feet on the second load, the volume changes but the surface area on the top and the bottom does not.

You are correct. But don't change the height, keep it a 8 feet. Bring half a load and it will cover half the area if the height is the same.

[Badmotivator]

Hope this helps: http://homedistiller.org/forum/viewtopi ... =4&t=60032

So tell me, does it work?

My pseudo-barrels are still pretty new. I can't promise that they work as intended as aging machines. They do seem to be containing the spirit.

I just tasted the older one and can't detect any metal flavor. I'm super-optimistic but not ready to declare it a unqualified success (time alone will tell) or end the development.

[cob]

The whiskey container is an 8-1/2"ID stainless steel container, open at both ends. It has a flange and requires a gasket (silicone, EPDM or FEPT). , I have two designs. One is a 2 gallon container with a stainless steel body, silicone or EPDM or PTFE gasket and two oak ends. More expensive because of the stainless steel but I don't think the HDPE will work for aging 80 proof for 3 to 12 years. I have concerns about the gasket but it will only be 0.10 inch thick (or less) when compressed. he third design is a 1 gallon container made of clear poly-carbonate and oak ends. It boasts a spigot and decorative stand. It is to display your wine or liquor and allow it to continue to age as you drink it.

I am looking for any comments on the overall idea and particularly the two designs for the whiskey. I have concerns about the stainless steel, gasket material (as mentioned) and of course the poly-carbonate design.

your concerns are all addressed in rule #8

please don't sample from containers containing these products.

[OINC-Kegger]

your concerns are all addressed in rule #8

please don't sample from containers containing these products.

Thanks. Post http://homedistiller.org/forum/viewtopi ... =4&t=60032 helped a lot with the problem with the oak ends. This post shows that I should be able to get a good seal without using the gaskets so no plastic.

I am still worried about the stainless, even though it is not listed in rule 8. Reading up more on this in other forums, I have concluded that my idea requires an inert body and the stainless is not inert. It is fine for short term storage and processing, but for long term I don't think so. There is a continuous reaction going on where the chromium oxide sloughs off and the surface of the stainless repairs itself. The process becomes even more complicated when we consider just sitting there for 12 years with only slight action if we rotate the container. The required reaction stops and any contaminates, even so slight, could leach out. I have not given up on my idea, just rethinking the solution.

Other comments are still encouraged.

[scout]

But there must be some reason they age scotch for 12 years (or more). It might just be a marketing ploy but I would like to find out. The wood allows oxidation. For wine this is very important. For whiskey maybe not so much but for the old whiskeys I think it probably contributes something.

Whisky is aged a minimum of 6 years (part of the laws governing scotch) 12 year old is aged for smoothness, not added flavor. 25 year old is aged for even more smoothness, Since scotch is never aged in "new" wood it takes the six years for flavonoid infusion to fully occur. From that point on it is more about the bite being taken out than anything else.

The only problem I see with your idea is that you have forgotten that the shape of a cask is not a straight tube, they are larger in the middle than at the ends, if you made a cylinder cask with the same dimensions as a 53 gallon cask end, your tube would contain around 7 gallons less than a cask. Also, casks are not left to sit in one position they are turned at least one quarter turn every three months, part of the reason is to keep the wood wetted, the other reason is to move the whisky inside the cask so it all gets touched by the wood. Your idea is sound as long as you do make the contents move about on a regular basis, if the contents sit stagnant it would take a long time for all the contents to be touched properly by the wood ends. Glass would be your best cylinder material, borosilicate glass to be exact, it is totally inert and has nothing leachable, unlike all metals.

If you think about the aging process, once the contents are at the smoothness you desire, it is time to bottle anyway. So if you are using small casks and the contents have reached the flavor profile and smoothness you want, why keep it in the wood any longer? just bottle it up and enjoy. To determine how much less time a small cask will take compared to a 53 gal. cask, just do the math for the size difference, that ratio will apply to the length of time reduction for reaching the same profiles of flavor and smoothness.

[OINC-Kegger]

Whisky is aged a minimum of 6 years (part of the laws governing scotch) 12 year old is aged for smoothness, not added flavor. 25 year old is aged for even more smoothness, Since scotch is never aged in "new" wood it takes the six years for flavonoid infusion to fully occur. From that point on it is more about the bite being taken out than anything else.

The only problem I see with your idea is that you have forgotten that the shape of a cask is not a straight tube, they are larger in the middle than at the ends, if you made a cylinder cask with the same dimensions as a 53 gallon cask end, your tube would contain around 7 gallons less than a cask. Also, casks are not left to sit in one position they are turned at least one quarter turn every three months, part of the reason is to keep the wood wetted, the other reason is to move the whisky inside the cask so it all gets touched by the wood. Your idea is sound as long as you do make the contents move about on a regular basis, if the contents sit stagnant it would take a long time for all the contents to be touched properly by the wood ends. Glass would be your best cylinder material, borosilicate glass to be exact, it is totally inert and has nothing leachable, unlike all metals.

If you think about the aging process, once the contents are at the smoothness you desire, it is time to bottle anyway. So if you are using small casks and the contents have reached the flavor profile and smoothness you want, why keep it in the wood any longer? just bottle it up and enjoy. To determine how much less time a small cask will take compared to a 53 gal. cask, just do the math for the size difference, that ratio will apply to the length of time reduction for reaching the same profiles of flavor and smoothness.

Absolutely correct on the approximation of the barrel by a cylinder. The equation for my simple "tube" that Sa/V = 2/L is only as accurate as the tube is uniform in area. The equation works and to whatever accuracy you can determine the Sa/V of a real barrel to determine the length of the equivalent wooden end only container.

I know the aging works with glass and oak, even using small barrels. And it is great. But I disagree on an acceleration factor using a small barrel. I have tried that with wine and it does not work. For whiskey, the two studies I read about found it did not equal aging in a large barrel. The extra time allows oxidation and other changes that require time, not just oak. The studies did not say the results in the small barrel were bad. A small barrel gives good, maybe even better results, but not the same as aging a longer time in a larger barrel.

I agree on the glass and that is what I am looking at now as the only solution. Rotating etc. all part of trying to duplicate the process.

Thanks for the input.