Home Distiller

carbohydratesn wrote: There's plenty of urea in many washes

Just wondering where this Urea comes from? As far as I'm aware the only way Urea gets into a wash is if someone adds it to the wash.
I've yet seen a recipe on any of the distilling forums that recommends its use, for the very reason that you should not use it as a yeast nutrient.

Saltbush Bill wrote:

carbohydratesn wrote: There's plenty of urea in many washes

Just wondering where this Urea comes from? As far as I'm aware the only way Urea gets into a wash is if someone adds it to the wash.
I've yet seen a recipe on any of the distilling forums that recommends its use, for the very reason that you should not use it as a yeast nutrient.

Yeast also produce urea during fermentation, more so when they are stressed.

Drunk-N-Smurf wrote:

Saltbush Bill wrote:

carbohydratesn wrote: There's plenty of urea in many washes

Just wondering where this Urea comes from? As far as I'm aware the only way Urea gets into a wash is if someone adds it to the wash.I've yet seen a recipe on any of the distilling forums that recommends its use, for the very reason that you should not use it as a yeast nutrient.

Yeast also produce urea during fermentation, more so when they are stressed.

Correct and for some reason it seems to be quite prevalent with grain mashes
Salty check around there are a few recipes that call for "fertilizer"

Nitrogen use should be carefully monitored as excessive nitrogen causes more urea production. Fertilizers, dap, etc shouldn't be used if not used properly. If your one of those folks who throws in "just a little more for good measure" then your using it wrong. If your throwing it in just to be sure, again, your doing it wrong. If anything you should only suppliment if your having problems with your ferment. Or if you know your ferment is nitrogen deficient. Sometimes the residual nitrogen absorbed from the farmers fertilizing is all you might need. Which is why the fda suggests knowing the nitrogen content of your ingredients.

I used to use up to 3 cans of tomato paste for my rum ferments as nutrients in a 40gal wash, I've been reducing it over time, and now I find my ferments are just fine with as little as 1/2 a small can, so it takes less than one might think to keep the yeast happy.

Here salty here's one I replied to Satan's Wash

Another relevant article pertaining to the chemical cocktail produced by our beloved stills.

http://whiskyscience.blogspot.com/2014/10/copper.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" rel="nofollow

The Butchers Apron wrote:Another relevant article pertaining to the chemical cocktail produced by our beloved stills.

http://whiskyscience.blogspot.com/2014/10/copper.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" rel="nofollow

Yeah bud that link has been done to death all over this and several other forums

The Butchers Apron wrote:Another relevant article pertaining to the chemical cocktail produced by our beloved stills.

http://whiskyscience.blogspot.com/2014/10/copper.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" rel="nofollow

So, Butchers Apron, after you read that article, what did you get from it?

So sorry, mate. It won't happen again. What I do conclude is that these different studies will allow us to design stills that will reduce the amounts of unwanted chemicals.

There's no need for the sarcasm. If you don't like what I post don't read it. It was an honest mistake.

Butchers Apron...don't let him get to you, it is a discussion. He has a controversial point of view.

Your conclusion is the obvious and correct conclusion. "What I do conclude is that these different studies will allow us to design stills that will reduce the amounts of unwanted chemicals." I agree...

However there are "Traditionalist" here that take offense to that conclusion. They want to use methods and make a product as close to the original as possible.

I am willing to make room for both. If you want to drink cyanide and EC's it is your right to do so. I may even agree it has a distinct taste.

But I feel you have the obligation to educate new members about every aspect.

There have been a lot of retorts about all the commercial distilleries that use Copper Product Condensers...yeah and more than that use plastic hoses, plastic funnels, plastic catch vessels and glass jugs during collection. I've been to 14 distillery tours and have seen much that would get blasted here. We're not supposed to be about the money. We're supposed to be about the pure product.

http://homedistiller.org/forum/viewtopi ... 3&start=30
http://homedistiller.org/forum/viewtopi ... =1&t=53217

Very heartily agreed on every point.

I try to talk with people over the Internet as I would in person. Even with large distilleries there is an evolution of equipment and methodology. I have a traditional copper pot still myself, but if I could modify it in a way to reduce Fusels and other unwanted chemicals why wouldn't I.

I have a plane to catch, will talk again next month



Cheers

DAD300 wrote: There have been a lot of retorts about all the commercial distilleries that use Copper Product Condensers...yeah and more than that use plastic hoses, plastic funnels, plastic catch vessels and glass jugs during collection. I've been to 14 distillery tours and have seen much that would get blasted here. We're not supposed to be about the money. We're supposed to be about the pure product.

I think you're missing a couple of key points here DAD300. The commercial example I gave exports to the EU and Russia. Testing is required by law. They wouldn't be able to sell a drop if they exceeded ethyl carbamate standards. Additionally, wineries have been dealing with EC issues for decades, and they certainly don't use copper condensers. My point is, the pathways to EC are numerous and complex. Telling a noob he's A-OK as long as his condenser is stainless after he added a quadruple dose of urea based yeast nutrient to his mash is a disservice. It's also worth noting that in NZ, where home distilling is legal, there's a movement to ban urea based nutrients from the homebrew stores - not copper condensers.

Anyone who's truly concerned about EC shouldn't have any issues dropping $150 on a test. That's my $0.02.

I didn't miss them, I just get hung up on the idea that any of these issues are more acceptable than the other. You either spread all the knowledge or none. I agree that over doing some kind of nutrients are bad and would never counsel someone to use Urea. It's not o.k. to blast away at ethanol exposure to synthetics, and decide to not educate about copper alone because it is traditional.

And while I have no intention of having products tested, I've read far too many papers that prove EC's. I also think this is just as important as no synthetics. And agree it is important to tell the noob to not get carried away with the nutrients.

It's an easy education and an easy fix. Copper on the Ascending side is a positive design feature, removes multiple bad components, and the precursors of EC's. Copper on the Descending side is a negative and reacts to form EC's, deposits copper in your distillate where it will be consumed and continues to react and promote EC's.

DAD300 wrote:I just get hung up on the idea that any of these issues are more acceptable than the other. You either spread all the knowledge or none.

Nailed it. Precisely why the subject of this thread is problematic. Change it to "I vote to "out" ethyl carbamate from the homedistillation process!" and you've got a winner. Then present as many of the causes as possible, including fruit, yeast selection, nutrients, *and* copper's role as a catalyst in EC production.

I didn't start this post, but jeezzzz...LOL...don't help them!

You get the idea here...you nailed it. Understanding copper in a still is as important as any of the other components. And I have went out of my way to not want all copper out...just the GD take off and Descending side...

If you didn't have a still and I could show you how to procure and build a SS still cheaper, faster and with no soldering, a still you could add all the copper you waned to the ascending side...would you?

I get hung up on it, because the Traditionalist want to bury the subject! And nobs get copper boka/liebig instructions without a warning label!

I know there are a few who would stick to copper because they want the look of copper. And again, if they understand it...fine.

DAD300 wrote:If you didn't have a still and I could show you how to procure and build a SS still cheaper, faster and with no soldering, a still you could add all the copper you waned to the ascending side...would you?

If you can show how that can be done without welding, and remain cheaper and easier than soldering copper, have at it as I'm sure some novices would be thrilled...

rad14701 wrote:

DAD300 wrote:If you didn't have a still and I could show you how to procure and build a SS still cheaper, faster and with no soldering, a still you could add all the copper you waned to the ascending side...would you?

If you can show how that can be done without welding, and remain cheaper and easier than soldering copper, have at it as I'm sure some novices would be thrilled...

I second that.

Soldering stainless is almost as easy as copper. You just need the right flux, and to clean it up and go at it again if it doesn't work the first time.

You want it to be easier than copper, though? It's worth the very small bit of extra work. Copper is easier to work with, stainless has different properties and is a little harder to work with.

Building a bok is harder than building a pot still. Would you refuse to build one of those until it's easier than making a simple pot...?

They have different purposes and different complexities. Some will accept that difficulty, and some will not. That's their choice to make.

Some novices only feel comfortable starting with a pot still. But many start with building a reflux rig first anyway, because that's what they want to make.

Do any of the stainless proponents here have any suggestions for how a home distiller can manufacture a worm from stainless? Seems to me the only "easy" solution for a stainless product condenser is a Liebig, and some folks don't want one.

DAD300 wrote:I didn't start this post, but jeezzzz...LOL...don't help them!
You get the idea here...you nailed it. Understanding copper in a still is as important as any of the other components. And I have went out of my way to not want all copper out...just the GD take off and Descending side...
If you didn't have a still and I could show you how to procure and build a SS still cheaper, faster and with no soldering, a still you could add all the copper you waned to the ascending side...would you?
I get hung up on it, because the Traditionalist want to bury the subject! And nobs get copper boka/liebig instructions without a warning label!
I know there are a few who would stick to copper because they want the look of copper. And again, if they understand it...fine.

Gee whiz some people don't get it, there is nothing wrong with stainless steel in the descending path but neither is there any problem with copper and here is the reason stated over and over and over and over again. If there is adequate copper in the ascending path it will not matter what is in the descending path it really is that simple, if there is an inadequate amount of copper eg an all stainless still, then that still is not suitable for producing any consumable product. You are asking people to warn noobs about a problem that does not exist unless they have an inert still , then they have a still with potentially serious problems. Any cyanides, urethane, sulphides and sulphur compounds are going to pull straight through that sucker, something that will not happen with a copper or mostly copper still, recognizing this undisparageable fact does not make you some sort of luddite, it makes you informed

The Butchers Apron wrote
There's no need for the sarcasm. If you don't like what I post don't read it. It was an honest mistake.

no sarcasm inferred I happen to really like that blog a lot I was just letting you know it has been posted and discussed on here many times should you wish to search and read the discussions

My point is copper is the most important material in a still, to argue for its removal from the distilling apparatus simply shows a deficiency in understanding the distilling process and the very important roll copper plays in that roll.
Now if you were to propose that fully inert stills should not be discussed on the forums I think you might have a very valid argument heck you could even use most of the same links

thecroweater wrote:Gee whiz some people don't get it, there is nothing wrong with stainless steel in the descending path but neither is there any problem with copper and here is the reason stated over and over and over and over again. If there is adequate copper in the ascending path it will not matter what is in the descending path it really is that simple

Copper in the ascending path does not stop any urea or cyanide that might travel to your distillate. There shouldn't be much of those - but if there is, copper won't stop it. It can't.

Copper absolutely *can* be harmful in your descending path - especially in the presence of urea or cyanide compounds. It does matter.

thecroweater wrote: My point is copper is the most important material in a still, to argue for its removal from the distilling apparatus simply shows a deficiency in understanding the distilling process

Nobody is arguing from its removal from the distilling process. You are fighting a straw man.

Do any of the stainless proponents here have any suggestions for how a home distiller can manufacture a worm from stainless? Seems to me the only "easy" solution for a stainless product condenser is a Liebig, and some folks don't want one.

It is difficult to construct a worm from stainless. You will either have to make yourself a pipe bender, or use another design. There are *so many* condensers you can make, you aren't limited just to a Leibig.

Corrugated stainless tubing could be used to make a worm. The ridges would hold some distillate, but they would not allow any harmful pooling. I would just use another style of condenser. A super-easy one to make is a Dimroth condenser, with CSST twisted around itself inside a keg spear or other similar SS tube. It takes almost no effort.

Your options with SS are nearly limitless, a worm condenser is simply a bad choice for stainless unless you have the heavy machinery required to sloooowly bend an extremely long hard tube into a spiral. If you can do that, you'll have the sturdiest worm condenser ever

I don't think we can ever get a concise answer until the product from.our very stills are tested, there are so many different factors involved with tests from a lab, commercial and hobby scale.

carbohydratesn wrote:

thecroweater wrote:Gee whiz some people don't get it, there is nothing wrong with stainless steel in the descending path but neither is there any problem with copper and here is the reason stated over and over and over and over again. If there is adequate copper in the ascending path it will not matter what is in the descending path it really is that simple

Copper in the ascending path does not stop any urea or cyanide that might travel to your distillate. There shouldn't be much of those - but if there is, copper won't stop it. It can't.
Copper absolutely *can* be harmful in your descending path - especially in the presence of urea or cyanide compounds. It does matter.

thecroweater wrote: My point is copper is the most important material in a still, to argue for its removal from the distilling apparatus simply shows a deficiency in understanding the distilling process

Nobody is arguing from its removal from the distilling process. You are fighting a straw man.

Read the thread title champ and maybe the thread No copper is not the problem, the only way it could be a problem is if the only copper component was the take off and then it would still help with sulfide compounds removal . If you want to talk about the small amount of EC that is going to not be at an unsafe level unless you make a urea based wash then i can assue you it is formed in the ferment not magically made by copper, it is however removed by copper

THANK YOU googe!

thecroweater wrote:...

About to cross a line me thinks!!!

carbohydratesn wrote:

thecroweater wrote:...

Being offensive will not change the fact that what you wrote was not the truth and i did not reply to convince you as i doubt that could be possible. You wrote a post that contained statements that were not factual and if no one refutes that then some noob may come along and be mislead by it. Bullshit needs to be deleted of refuted and I prefer to refute it