Experiment: 4 different distilling methods with same wash

[tjsc5f]

Run 1 still charge was 1.07 proof gallons (total alcohol). My hearts cut (62.5%) was 104 oz (3.1L), or 47% of total alcohol.
Run 2 still charge was 1.15 proof gallons. Hearts cut was 144 oz (4.3L), or 61% of total alcohol.
Run 3 still charge was 1.26 proof gallons. Hearts cut was 188 oz (5.6L), or 73% of total alcohol.
Run 4 still charge was 1.51 proof gallons. Hearts cut was 180 oz (5.3L), or 58% of total alcohol. NOTE: My typical pot still yield is between 35 and 45%, so this is an anomaly.

Did you happen to keep track of your heads and tails volumes for each run? Run 3 efficiency was epic, curious if it was primarily heads compression, tails suppression or both

[higgins]

...
Did you happen to keep track of your heads and tails volumes for each run? Run 3 efficiency was epic, curious if it was primarily heads compression, tails suppression or both

I always collect an equal amount in every jar. I use a formula to predict how much distillate I will collect, then divide that by 24 to get volume per jar and round up to nearest oz.

With the first 2 flute runs I was way off, only getting 17 and 19 jars. Then I realized that my formula to predict amt of distillate assumed that the abv of the collection would be about 60%, but on these runs it was about 89%, so naturally I got fewer jars. I adjusted my formula to use 89% for run 3 and collected 22 jars. So now I have to use the estimated ABV of the distillate in my formula.

As for keeping track of heads/tails, here's the data:
Run 1: 8 oz jars; 3 heads, 11 hearts, 3 tails, last jar was 45% ABV.
Run 2: 8 oz jars; 2 heads, 15 hearts, 2 tails, last jar was 52% ABV.
Run 3: 8 oz jars; 3 heads, 18 hearts, 3 tails, last jar was 53% ABV.
Run 4: 11 oz jars; 4 heads, 15 hearts, 4 tails, last jar was 43% ABV.

For the flute runs, I'm sure that heads compression and tails suppression both played into it. The first jar of each of the flute runs smelled like pure acetone, much more so than with a potty. And it was quite obvious when tails started coming over. Doing the cuts was interesting because when we went 1 jar past the good stuff it was really easy to tell, both going down to tails and up to heads.

[Dougmatt]

Thanks again for posting this Higgins and I continue to follow. I just read back through everything amd may have confused myself but where did the low wines used in run 4 come from? Was it the strip in run 1 or did you do a different strip? If different, what did you strip with the pot or the flute?

[higgins]

Thanks again for posting this Higgins and I continue to follow. I just read back through everything amd may have confused myself but where did the low wines used in run 4 come from? Was it the strip in run 1 or did you do a different strip? If different, what did you strip with the pot or the flute?

Run 1 was a single distillation using 4 gal (15.1 L) of beer from each of the 3 ferments.
I held back about 1.7 gal (6.4 L) from each ferment (total of 5 gal, 18.9 L).
I did 3 stripping runs on the remaining 34 gal (128.7 L) beer and combined the 3 strips together.
Run 2 was a single distillation of 2.8 gal (10.6 L) low wines mixed with the 5 gal (18.9 L) of saved beer.
Run 3 was a single distillation of 5 gal (18.9 L) low wines.
Run 4 was a single distillation of 6 gal (22.7 L) low wines.

The premise of this experiment is to see what differences the distillation methods create when using the exact same beer. Since I don't have a fermenter big enough to do a single mash, I decided to combine the beer from each mash in equal proportions, which is what I'd have if I actually combined all 51 gallons (193.1 L) of beer in a single vessel. This should eliminate any differences between the 3 individual ferments.

[higgins]

I have moved the 4 Badmo barrels for this experiment into The Attic for some occasional temperature cycling.

[higgins]

My 4 friends and I did our comparison tasting session yesterday afternoon.

First a synopsis of the 4 products. I did 3 identical wheated bourbon mashes totaling 51 gal (193 L) of distillers beer and mixed them together. I saved 17 gal (64 L) of beer for the 1x and 1.x runs and stripped the remaining 34 gal (129 L) into 14 gal (53 L) low wines.

• Run 1 was 12 gal (45 L) of beer thru 2 4" sieve plates (1x distillation)
• Run 2 was 5 gal (18.9 L) of beer mixed with 2.8 gal (10.6 L) low wines thru 2 4" sieve plates (1.x distillation)
• Run 3 was 5 gal (18.9 L) low wines thru 2 4" sieve plates (2x distillation)
• Run 4 was 6 gal (22.7 L) low wines thru 2" pot still (2x distillation)

Last week I made up 4 oz (120 ml) of each at 80 proof and labeled the jars 1 thru 4. Then I asked my wife to replace the labels with new ones using symbols, and create a sealed cheat sheet to tell me which is which after the session. The 4 jars were now labeled with symbols in random order: @, $, #, +. This was done so that I did not know which jar was which run, which would certainly have biased my opinions. I didn't unseal the cheat sheet until after all tastings and rankings.

At the session we each had 4 glasses marked with these symbols containing 1/2 oz (15ml) of each product. After we each went about our business tasting and discussing, I asked each to rank the products from best to worst.

The rankings:

   Taster 1:    +   #   $   @
   Taster 2:    $   +   #   @
   Taster 3:    #   $   +   @
   Taster 4:    #   $   +   @
   Taster 5:    @   #   +   $

Assigning 4 points for 1st, 3 for 2nd, 2 for 3rd, and 1 for 4th here are the totals:

   #:   16 pts 
   $:   13 pts 
   +:   13 pts
   @:   8 pts

NOTE: Tasters 1-4 are all long time brown likker drinkers. Taster 5 is a relative newbie. If we discard Taster 5's rankings, we have:

   #:   13 pts 
   $:   12 pts
   +:   11 pts 
   @:   4 pts 

So which symbol is which run? Here ya go ...

   @:   run 1 (2 plates 1x)
   +:   run 2 (2 plates 1.x)
   #:   run 3 (2 plates 2x)
   $:   run 4 (pot still 2x)

The 1x column stilled product was without question the least favorite.
The other 3 were close enough to call it a tie.

I have a 1 gal Badmo filled with each one, plus another 8 oz each white in a PTFE lined pint jar. We will repeat this process in a year or so, comparing and ranking the white, then comparing and ranking the 1 yr aged versions.

This project/experiment took quite a bit of time, but I learned a lot and I'm glad I did it.
Because of the small QUALITY difference between products from the 1.x column, 2x column, and 2x pot distillations, I'll probably choose a method based on QUANTITY produced. Most likely I'll work on 1.x column distillations for a while since that will reduce stripping runs.

[Steve Broady]

Very interesting and informative, Higgins. Thank you! I’m curious what it was about the 1x plated run that your inexperienced tater preferred. I find it intriguing that there’s such a stark difference of opinion on that one.

[higgins]

I had given each taster a note card and pencil and asked them to write stuff on each one. There were protests, but all wrote something.
On the 1x I wrote 'Strong aroma, corn-y, slight tails-like component. Strong flavor, sweet corn, slightly off (tailsy but not exactly)'. Another wrote 'unpleasant chemical aroma'. Taster 5 wrote 'lowest aroma, smooth mouth'.

So maybe taster 5's 'smeller' doesn't work as well as the rest of ours does.

I would have expected the 1x dist to have the most flavor and aroma of the column-stilled runs, and it did, but it had an off-putting aroma and flavor component that was similar to tails, maybe earthy-grainy-musty like. Once you get past that it was very good, and that might age out in a barrel.

I had a hard time choosing between the 2x pot and 2x col as my favorite (I didn't know which was what at time of choosing), finally choosing 2x col because it was slightly smoother.

I strongly suspect that the order of preference of the badmo aged versions a year from now will be quite different.

[tjsc5f]

This is great. Can't wait to see the aged results.

[haggy]

Very nice work. Well planned runs and excellent data. Congratulations.

[higgins]

Update: Not quite 1 year, but close enough!

All barrels were 4.25 qt badmos, medium toast, char 3.
Barrel #1 = 1x column
Barrel #2 = 1.5x column
Barrel #3 = 2x column
Barrel #4 = 2x pot

Last week I made up 94 proof samples of each barrel (90-95 proof seems to be the preferred strength for most members of our group), then labeled 4 empty bottles as A, B, C, D and asked my better half to pour the 1,2,3,4 into A,B,C,D in random order and put the written key into a sealed envelope.

Yesterday I took them to our BLAST session. There were 8 of us in total, with 4 of us having been involved in the initial white dog sampling. We sampled them in order, A thru D, and there were some considerable differences. Recorded comments were:

A = #4 (2x pot)	corn, buttery popcorn, sweet, warming, astringent
B = #1 (1x column)	a little buttery, a bit sweet, spicy
C = #2 (1.5x column)	corn, slight buttery, slight sweet, woody, aromatic
D = #3 (2x column)	corn, buttery, thin body, slight bitter finish.

...
I strongly suspect that the order of preference of the badmo aged versions a year from now will be quite different.

We didn't actually do any scoring as we did with the white dog, but the apparent order of preference was 2x column, 2x pot & 1.5x column (tie), 1x column. This is exactly the same order of preference as was the white dog, which surprised me somewhat. I actually preferred the 2x pot run - it had more flavor & was a bit more complex, but exhibited some 'young bourbon' character, whereas the 2x column run was the smoothest and seemed a bit more mature, but also a bit less complex, yet still flavorful.

As a result of this I'll split my bourbon runs between 2x pot and 2x column this year, and will revisit these 4 again next year.

[tjsc5f]

Thanks for the update higgins.
I have a feeling that 2x column will still be the crowd favorite next year, but by year 3 and beyond the others will start to dominate.

[Bkvance]

I can’t wait to hear the resulting taste tests, I’ve jumped into this sea with both feet and purchased a 26gal, dual heater 4” Flute system from Mile Hi and this is the kind of stuff I want to learn. Mr Higgins, what a cool write up and learning opportunity,

Cheers!

[Lowlyric]

Thank you for the experiment. Awesome read and very informative.

[higgins]

These have spent 19 months in badmo clones now and accompanied me to the SE Meetup this past weekend where they were sampled by 4 other HD'rs. I labeled each, then covered them with these 'symbol' labels so the tasting is blind. After we evaluated all of them the symbol labels were peeled off to reveal the real label. NOTE: these were barreled at 125 proof, but were at 132-133 proof when I took samples.

I won't speak for the others, but I'm still of the opinion that the 2x flute is the most drinkable right now. The 2x pot is a close 2nd. It tastes a bit young, but is more complex and will probably surpass the 2x flute within a year or so. The 1.5x flute batch was close behind, with the 1x flute batch being my least favorite. Hopefully the others who sampled them will make some comments.

I've made 5 more products using the flute since then: (3 bourbons, 1 rye, 1 rum). The bourbons and rye were pretty good off the still, so will mature faster (be drinkable sooner) than a pot run. The rum was a bit funky off the still, but had a lot of promise (2 gal TSC EH molasses + 20 lb panela). The flute also makes cuts a lot easier, but the resulting juice is just a bit too clean for me, even when I blended in a bit of the last heads jar and first tails jar. I'll go back to the potty for the next 3 or 4 bourbons and see how they compare.

As for continuing to use the flute ... I won't do any single runs (one and done) - that has been my least favorite of the 4 since day 1. And although I do get 50% more quantity with the flute, IMO the quality/character is a bit lacking. Using a flute is great for those who want maximum yield and a decent product fairly quick, but I'm satisfied with a third less juice with more character that takes longer to mature. I already have more than I'll ever drink, so yield takes a back seat to quality for me. Like Yummy's, my flute may end up getting dusty on a shelf or even become a part of someone else's kit - but it was fun to use and I learned something from it that I never would have learned otherwise.

[BlackStrap]

Thank You higgins for ...
1) creating the post & breaking down the process (in detail)
2) continuing to follow up. (looking forward to a continuation)

really good read, along with the comments

Be Safe & Have Fun
BlackStrap

[Steve Broady]

I was fortunate enough to be able to share in this experiment, and I agree with the results. For me, it was surprising how much of a difference the still made. None of them were bad, but there was a clear difference in quality between the one and done, double flute, and double pot runs.

Thank you Higgins for being inquisitive, doing the experiment, and most of all for being willing to share.

[Dougmatt]

I'm still of the opinion that the 2x flute is the most drinkable right now. The 2x pot is a close 2nd. It tastes a bit young, but is more complex and will probably surpass the 2x flute within a year or so. The 1.5x flute batch was close behind, with the 1x flute batch being my least favorite. Hopefully the others who sampled them will make some comments.

I was fortunate enough to sample these, and thank you Higgins for doing the experiment and allowing me to try them. I completely agree with the above sentiment based on my taste. The 2x flute is very drinkable right now and was my preference in this moment, however the 2x pot had more richness / flavor and I would expect it will ultimately be my preference. These were enjoyed fairly deep into a tasting session, and I unfortunately didn’t take specific tasting notes, so that’s about the best I can remember at this point.

[bilgriss]

Very interesting experiment. Thanks for sharing. It confirms my prejudices for the most part - so it's nice to know I'm not wildly off in fantasyland somewhere.

[PalCabral]

4way_exp.jpg
I've made 5 more products using the flute since then: (3 bourbons, 1 rye, 1 rum). The bourbons and rye were pretty good off the still, so will mature faster (be drinkable sooner) than a pot run. The rum was a bit funky off the still, but had a lot of promise (2 gal TSC EH molasses + 20 lb panela). The flute also makes cuts a lot easier, but the resulting juice is just a bit too clean for me, even when I blended in a bit of the last heads jar and first tails jar. I'll go back to the potty for the next 3 or 4 bourbons and see how they compare.

First, thank you for a fantastic experiment and write up. This is probably the best thread I've read on this forum, Higgins, and I've been plowing through so many threads these last three-four months. Hats off!

Very interesting results. I can't say I'm surprised that the 2x flute and the 2x pot still came so close, but I am surprised that the 1.x didn't meddle in the lead positions and that the one done was so far behind. For me, who's never been particularly interested in a plated column still, your experiment and its' results has at least re-enforced that I should continue my focus on pot still distillation and hone my skills here without distraction.

Reading this thread now is also extremely timely for me, as I am expecting a long awaited copper onion head this week. I've been planning to add a proper alambic copper dome to my still all along but was initially thinking it'd be something I'd add to my set up after the summer or next year. However, it's been a good year at work and I decided I deserved a birthday present. Just like your contemplations in your first post, I too have expectations what I "think" the onion head will do for my distilling, but I really don't know what I should expect. I am expecting a slightly higher proof at the start of the run, but will there be noticeably less smearing? I am expecting less tails showing up early in the hearts but will it be easier to cut? I expect more copper contact to the vapors but the million dollar question still is, will the quality be better?

I am thinking I will approach this new addition on mine similar to you. I have a spirit run for my wheated Bourbon coming up in two weeks time, maybe I'll run it in my current set up so that I can compare later with the spirit runs I will make with the onion? I am also unsure how I will best rig the modular still with the onion head. Should I shoot out to the PC straight off the top of the dome, or should I put a short or a longer riser on top of the dome? Etc.

I was going to ask you about your pot still set up in your experiment. Did you use the same modules as the flute but without any plates, or did you use a separate spool, or spools, for the pot still run? If the latter, how tall of a riser was your pot still for the experiment?

[higgins]

Pal,
Thanks for the kind words.

I'm still on the fence as to using my flute for bourbon or other whiskies/flavored products. I had hoped that it would make good stuff using one and done to save some time, but so far I've been rather disappointed in that one. I may need to do another 'one and done' batch just to be sure I didn't screw up the first one. I've done 3 more bourbons, a rye, and a rum on the flute since this experiment ... all double distilled. They are coming along nicely, but seem a little 'thin' to me so far.

For the pot run I used 20" of 2" Dia copper spools, 2 SS elbows, and a 2" x 20" copper shotty. For spirit runs I like to keep the shotty vertical, so the height was just needed to get my takeoff to a manageable height.

I strongly suspect the pot still run will end up being the best of the 4 by this time next year.

[PalCabral]

For the pot run I used 20" of 2" Dia copper spools, 2 SS elbows, and a 2" x 20" copper shotty. For spirit runs I like to keep the shotty vertical, so the height was just needed to get my takeoff to a manageable height.

I strongly suspect the pot still run will end up being the best of the 4 by this time next year.

Your riser is pretty similar to mine. I've got a 18" copper spool, 2" dia, mounted on top of a 4" long 4"-to-2" reducer, so all in all a height of 22". Just out of curiosity, why do you prefer the PC to be mounted vertical for the spirit run?

I am very interested to know the result of your next testing. Looking forward to your report!

[higgins]

I think a shotty that isn't mounted vertically can tend to pool at the top and smear a bit. It may not be that critical, but it is just one more little thing I can do that (I think) helps me make a better product.

That experiment was done in Aug 2023, so coming up on 2 years. I'll probably take them to one of my BLAST meetings in August for another evaluation.