Home Distiller

I know bubbling ozone through water can get rid of bad flavours making non potable water safe for drinking and taste good.

Will bubbling ozone through an alcohol get rid of any off flavours or speed up any
aging etc. ???

Is it safe to do so?

Also will bubbling ozone through townwater before fermentation improve the product?

Thanks in advance for any advice.

I'm sippin on a real traditional recipe that doesn't use ozone. I'd skip it...

I haven't done it by I've thought about it.

Ozonating would only be one part of the aging process, you would still have to distress age on oak. After distress aging on oak though, the spirit is fine and wouldn't need ozone. (distress aging only takes about a month)

"One drink of wine, two drinks of gin, and I'm lost in the ozone again" Commander Cody

OK back to the topic.

I'm just LMAO with all this "distress aging"...

I'm so glad that someone with credentials said that first.

I've felt the same way, but didn't wanna get dumped on.

The Chemist wrote:I'm just LMAO with all this "distress aging"...

Why? I have tried aging both ways. I certainly find putting spirit into and out of the freezer (about 48 hours for a full cycle), along with shaking, and letting a little air in (between cycles), produces a product which is much better, than simple "oaking". I have not barrel aged for years, but I do not see the need to. I simply produce a better starting product, and let it air overnight, then age for a month or 2 in and out of the freezer, and what I end up with is very fine indeed (much better than some "exact" same product which simply sat on the same oak for 6 months, and certainly as good, or better than most any commercial product I have tried).

I find it to have better color.
I find it to have better smell.
I find it to have better flavor. (Mouth feel is the same)

Not sure why you are LMAO about it.

H.

Due to Confidentiality Agreements which I have voluntarily entered into, I can't present the data that I have to refute the whole notion.

So I will content myself with LMAO, and try not to harrass those who think they're accomplishing something by it.

The Chemist wrote:Due to Confidentiality Agreements which I have voluntarily entered into, I can't present the data that I have to refute the whole notion.

So I will content myself with LMAO, and try not to harrass those who think they're accomplishing something by it.

My testing was certainly "not" scientific (since it was way too small a test to be assured of "valid" results).

I simply took 4 jugs (at about 2/3 full, 4L jugs). I put in 2 different amounts of oak (same amount in 2, same amount in the other 2, the difference being how much heavy charred oak added). Then 2 jugs (1 of each "amount" of heavy char), were put in the corner of my basement. The other 2 were aged in and out of the freezer.

The 2 in/out of the freezer colored up much faster, and certainly had a much better oak flavor, and better overall flavor. Also, they "finished" at about 6 weeks to 2 months, while the "control" set was far from "finished" at 2 months. NOTE I did agitate the 2 which were in/out of the fridge at each cycle (prior to putting into the freezer).

I do know that my test was not a scientific "test", but for my own use, it has changed my mind about how to age my product.

NOTE I was surprised that the jugs which had more "medium" char, colored up better than the ones with more heavy char. I was not expecting that, but that was what I saw. Both the "distress" and the control showed that behavior. Also, the jugs with more medium char, had a stronger oak flavor/aroma.

All of my oak for this test, was staves from a used JBeam barrel, split into 3/8" thick strips, and charred on the BBQ grill.

H.

I know what made the difference...I'm certainly not saying there wasn't one. But it ain't what you think...damn the lawyers!!!

Yes indeed Chemist. Damn the lawyers! What is the difference?

rezaxis wrote:Yes indeed Chemist. Damn the lawyers! What is the difference?

I agree. Screw the lawyers! Tell us!

(Seriously, how many of them are going to search here?)

BW Redneck wrote:

rezaxis wrote:Yes indeed Chemist. Damn the lawyers! What is the difference?

I agree. Screw the lawyers! Tell us!

(Seriously, how many of them are going to search here?)

Problem is, is that once something is typed here, (i.e. ON the internet), it is in black and white, pretty much forever. If there is something you would rather not have linked to you, then you better damn not say (or post) it on the internet. Even in these "semi-anon" forums, things said can easily come back to haunt people long after they have posted it.

H.

I would think the med char was just easyer for product to soak through.We all know charring a steak keeps flavors in it .Id say woods be the same.So more char better sealed wood is.Less char the less sealed.So way woods cut charred and sized would have more to do with reaction to product then temp differances.Movement helps only with blending product Course Im only a layman to such things.

tater wrote:I would think the med char was just easyer for product to soak through.We all know charring a steak keeps flavors in it .Id say woods be the same.So more char better sealed wood is.Less char the less sealed.Course Im only a layman to such things.

One thing I did notice, was that some of the "heavy" toast, was pretty much just charcoal (pretty thin strips). The medium was nice an brown, and still lots of wood left.

I expected that there would be more color (and more smoky flavor) from the heavy, but it certainly was not that, from my experience in this small test.

H.

Husker wrote:
Problem is, is that once something is typed here, (i.e. ON the internet), it is in black and white, pretty much forever. If there is something you would rather not have linked to you, then you better damn not say (or post) it on the internet. Even in these "semi-anon" forums, things said can easily come back to haunt people long after they have posted it.

H.

But If a "guest" gave a logical argument against distress aging it would be worth reading and forming your own opinion. Husker, sounds scientific enough for me, if the exact cause of decreased aging time is unknown (as chemist seemed to imply) but it still works...Then it's good enough for me.

I certainly wish one of these highly informed guests would post something about this.

I would like to start by saying Chemist is not a guest on here he has been around longer than any of us in this thread other than Tater. Look at his join date. As far as his credentials go, all I can say is he has been respected on here for at least 6 months before I signed up. Furthermore I can't believe you guys would wish for him to potentially sacrifice his livelyhood over this topic.
I will say, I have to agree with him based on a test I performed of my own fruition. Just a little over a year ago, I made a bunch of UJSM, which consisted of 4 generations worth of single runs, combined and ran 1 more time. I took the spirit, put 2 gallons in a brandspankinnew Independent Stave barrel, and 2 gallons in glass with cork stoppers with (6) 1x1x6 pieces of heavy charred white oak per gallon. (no the glass aging was not 2 gallons in the same container, which is my only regret) I put all containers in the same 2 square feet of my shed.
1 year later, I had results. The barrel aged product has a much deeper color and is much smoother than the glass aged with sticks. The glass aged product is indeed a nice drink, but its what i bring out when theres people at my house. My friends and family get the barrel aged product.
I plan to do this again with all grain product when I can get another new barrel and have the time to put to it. Will also try to let it go longer than a year next time.

Just my 2 pennies

An anonymous guest could pretty much just sign up and post and then disappear back into the ether, none the wiser I think. Maybe I'm wrong though... :D

if it were only that simple... these crazy intertubes leave all kinds of tracers...

distress aging is doing something to the spirit... that could be all kinds of things, some maybe not so good... some good... i've played around with different kinds of distress aging and found I didn't need it. didn't really agree with my concept of aging... but thats a whole other story...

I have to agree hillbilly, chemist has some good advice on here... glad to see him posting again.

Anonymous guest wrote:An anonymous guest could pretty much just sign up and post and then disappear back into the ether, none the wiser I think. Maybe I'm wrong though...

That was what I was implying, not that chemist is a guest, I have read many of his posts and value his opinion, which is why I would like it in this case...But there are in fact tracers left behind as pointed out, but i think in this case that verges on paranoia, but I don't know the whole story so my opinion is worth little....

i havent posted in a while so take it easy on me.

i did a strippin run and i put it all in these gallon jars you get from
W. world. i ended up with 2 different jars. The 1st jar i figure is approx. 60-65% and the second jar mainly tails35-45%.

i put about the same amount of oak in both of these jars. The oak is from barrels from the co-op and they were tagged Seagrams light whiskey.

They were light charred i guess9 the charr less than an 1/16" deep.

After a few days of oaking the higher proof jar is colored up nice(darker)
the lower proof is light colored. This happened in about the same ammount of time if i were distress aging in the frigerater. i dont do the freezer.

Dont know much maybe this will help though.

I'd like to figure the relevant aging so I can quit feeling guilty about not having enuf room for the babies milk.

mikeac wrote:

Anonymous guest wrote:An anonymous guest could pretty much just sign up and post and then disappear back into the ether, none the wiser I think. Maybe I'm wrong though...

That was what I was implying, not that chemist is a guest, I have read many of his posts and value his opinion, which is why I would like it in this case...But there are in fact tracers left behind as pointed out, but i think in this case that verges on paranoia, but I don't know the whole story so my opinion is worth little....

The kind words are appreciated. I could circumvent the internet tracers--thats not a worry--but it would still be wrong to divulge information that I've promised not to...

It puts me in a pickle here, sometimes, but it's just a fact of life. Sorry guys, but sometimes all I can do is a little "pointing"...

I have done a lot of experimenting with aging over my 30+ years of making alcoholic beverages. I have used different woods, different char levels and different amounts of time.

I can nearly duplicate most store bought brands. Ask wineo about some of my aged stuff, he can tell you I can do it right, but it takes time

It is all related to surface area and time. I calculated the volume to surface area, the temperature fluctuation and the ABV of most of the commercial products. I have been able to match them and because of my better cuts best them. I have several friends that are taste testers at Brown Foreman and Beam Global. I value their opinions and they help me to improve my processes.

I just gave wineo a whole bunch of very fine brands for infusion. They are all alligator char. This is the really deep char. The development of the tannin and the vinillin is great. The one thing you can't get from the glass aging is the concentration of the liquid. Only certain volatile compounds can go through white oak. Nothing goes through glass. But I have been able to nearly duplicate the long aging process using PETE. Water will go through it.

I also buy a lot of barrels from Kevin Cooperage. These are excellent quality barrels. I have gotten to know these guys at Kevin well enough that they let me take my pick of the best.

The Jim Beam barrels that were only used for three years make wonderful aging barrels. But better then that, the oak I get at Sonora Kentucky from the Amish is better. It has a better flavor profile.

Aging is an art. It can't be rushed.... much. It takes about 90 days even for vodka to settle down. There is something about the reactions happening inside the container that makes a real difference. Fresh alcohol will never be as good as aged alcohol even if it is pure grain at 190 proof.

I've had my say. I can't say if I hit on any of the answers that The Chemist knows. But I can tell you the reason that most laws will not allow labeling to specify a certain name before the aging is complete, is to make damn sure that the quality conforms to the minimum standards, and does not give the regional name a bad reputation.

very interesting and informative reading. now if i can practice what y'all preach i'll be in fine shape

pintoshine wrote:Aging is an art. It can't be rushed.... much. It takes about 90 days even for vodka to settle down. There is something about the reactions happening inside the container that makes a real difference. Fresh alcohol will never be as good as aged alcohol even if it is pure grain at 190 proof.

What container do you age vodka in? Does it need to breathe? Would a glass bottle with a cork stopper do the job?

pintoshine wrote:I have done a lot of experimenting with aging over my 30+ years of making alcoholic beverages. I have used different woods, different char levels and different amounts of time.

If only I woulda started this hobby instead of buying the product as a young hillbilly. Oh well, better late than never.
So far things are going well and it is very rewarding when you pull something out of the shed and taste the fruits of your labor after waiting a good period of time.
My makins are way better than anything i ever purchased back then.

What an interesting thread this is!!

I personally believe that distress aging can speed things up but, I had some thirty half gallon glass flagons with screw caps of various spirits stashed away in an area which had a fairly constant temperature and it just didn't improve much at all for over two years. I really thought I should distill it all again because I'd somehow stuffed up. It had a nasty 'bite' to it. Someone in here suggested I put them in a dark place in the shed, without caps where climatic changes would affect it, to remove the caps and give them an occasional shake. This I did and the results were astounding!!!

These days I don't bother with distress aging as the product I had thought was donkey piss is now better than store bought stuff so I can afford to make a batch and age it in the shed knowing that it doesn't matter how long it takes because it can sit in the shed for a couple of years while we drink the previous 'slops'. I've said it before but it bears repeating, aging is more difficult to master than producing the original etho.

Not a very scientific approach I admit, but it is a little less work so I'll stick to this procedure from now on. I've just got a one gallon barrel and my next 'experiment' will be to age some brandy in it to compare with oak in glass jars to experience for myself the difference, if any.

As I said, this is an interesting thread.

pintoshine wrote:It is all related to surface area and time. I calculated the volume to surface area, the temperature fluctuation and the ABV of most of the commercial products.

What were your results relating to surface area? I went along this path some time ago and I think my conclusion was 100 square inches of wood per gallon, but this seemed wrong to me. I now use just sort off use what I think looks about right and it seems to work, but I would like to be a bit more precise.

if aging liquor is like aging beer and wine in wood one of the aspects missed in using wood chips or staves shoved into a glass bottle is the oxygen interchange. Barrels act as a barrier/filter to oxygen hitting the liquid.

The interaction between char(coal), wood, oxygen and beer/wine is where the magic lies. Putting wood chips into a glass bottle deprives your liquid of Oxygen which it needs to age properly and leaving the top open doesn't regulate the oxygen interchange and doesn't allow for oxygen/wood/liquid to all meet in one place. This is an extremely important aspect to aging beer or wine on wood.

I have no experience with liquor but I suspect that it is a similar problem with trying to age in a bottle with wood tossed in. I've toyed with the idea of using a large mouth jar and creating a wooden top for it so that I can get the proper interfacing of wood/oxygen/beer but there is no way to get enough surface area with this approach. I think I may be stuck with looking for old barrels. I just can't imagine getting enough beer together to age in a full barrel, much less spirits!

The other problem with using wood chips is that once charred there isn't enough wood content left for extraction so it does take larger pieces of wood if you want any sort of effect.

I know that some folks who make sour beers use conical pieces of wood stuck into a carboy far enough to contact the beer. The wood is inoculated with brett or whatever bug they want. This way the beer wicks up the wood and the air gets in through the wood.