Experiment: 4 different distilling methods with same wash

[higgins]

I started out in this hobby almost 3 years ago with an interest in Bourbon, Scotch, Rum ... flavored products. My first batch (I was an AG brewer for 25 years) was an AG bourbon, which turned out pretty good even though my mashing efficiency was only 45%. I've made 21 batches since (my mashing efficiency has since improved to around 75-80%), with all the whiskeys being AG. That would be 11 bourbons (mix of hi rye, low rye, wheated), 4 single malts, 1 malt whiskey (64% malt, 24% corn, 12% wheat), and 1 Irish whiskey (50/50 malted/unmalted barley). All were made with a strip/spirit run protocol on a home built 2" pot still using much of the same equipment I used to brew AG beer for years. I've also made 2 rums and 2 brandies, and a couple of batches of Shady's sugar shine for neutral for Gin.

I've been pretty happy with my results so far, but being a hands on kind of guy I recently decided to build a 4", 3 sieve plate flute. I ran my latest bourbon batch using this for the spirit run (2.0 dist). This batch (same size as previous bourbon batches) produced more final product than if I used the pot still, and the quality seemed to be pretty good. It took about the same amount of effort as using a pot still. But by producing higher ABV requiring more dilution, the end product MAY not be quite as flavorful as a pot stilled product, but a direct comparison would be needed to be sure.

So that got me to thinking ... there are several ways to use a flute:

• 1.0 distillation using fermented wash.
• 1.x distillation using a mix of wash and low wines.
• 2.0 distillation using low wines

And of course you can use a pot still.

So which method produces the best product? Ask a dozen people and you'll get a dozen different answers. And what the hell is 'the best product' anyway? FOR ME it is the best tasting product I can produce with a reasonable investment in time and effort. I would happily sacrifice some quantity to get a better product (like keeping the cuts narrow). I would also sacrifice some time to get a better product (like keeping a lower takeoff rate to improve separation instead of a high takeoff rate to reduce time commitment). I MAY also sacrifice a 'little bit' of quality to either make significantly more product, or spend significantly less time doing so.

So I set out to find out which method produces the best product FOR ME. Time for an experiment

Mash bill: 64% corn, 24% wheat, 12% malted barley. 3 mashes produced about 51 gallons of fermented wash at 9% ABV. Stripping 34 gallons produced 14 gallons low wines at 25% ABV.

• Run 1: 12 gallons wash thru flute with 2 plates
• Run 2: 5 gallons wash, 2.8 gallons low wines thru flute with 2 plates
• Run 3: 5 gallons low wines thru flute with 2 plates
• Run 4: 6.2 gallons low wines thru pot still.

Each run should produce a gallon or more of product at 62% ABV. The same group of 5 people will be doing the cuts on each one, and after all 4 runs are complete we will blind taste and evaluate the end result of each. Once we've ranked the 4 from best to worst we'll reveal what method was used for each, and I will use that info to decide which method to use going forward.

Each of these will go into a 4 qt Badmo barrel, med toast, char 3, and we will do periodic blind taste tests to see how they are affected by time in a barrel.

Run 1 has been done, 5 gallons of fermented wash was reserved, and the rest has been stripped.
Runs 2, 3, & 4 will happen within the next few weeks.

[LordL]

This will be very interesting to follow! Looking forward to part two!

[jonnys_spirit]

Following here too!

Interesting to also see how the different methods may integrate better over time aging in the badmo.

Cheers,
jonny

[Swedish Pride]

Love this.

I know you already did the first run so my advice is about late.
That said , how do you manage to run two perf plates without faffing.
I found that two are so much more work to keep loaded than three.

If I was a betting man I'd wager all plated run will supersede the pot run up until about a year.

Keep us posted

[BoilerMaker]

The contribution from barrels might mask differences between methods. So perhaps keep some white from each run, to use later when comparing?

[Steve Broady]

I’m really curious to see how this one goes as well. As you said, there are plenty of opinions out there about which method is best, but I haven’t seen a lot of side by side comparisons.

[higgins]

The contribution from barrels might mask differences between methods. So perhaps keep some white from each run, to use later when comparing?

BoilerMaker, I was already planning to save some white for that, but thanks for mentioning it since I neglected to do so.

...
there are plenty of opinions out there about which method is best, but I haven’t seen a lot of side by side comparisons.

Steve, I'm sure there will be samples at the next SouthEast Meetup, assuming we do it again.

Run 2 is on Tuesday.

[Wildcats]

I'll be following this as well. Thanks for taking the time to put this together. Can't wait to hear your results man. Nice work sir.

[Kareltje]

Very nice.

[Deplorable]

I too will be following along as I contemplate building a flute.

[Demy]

Interesting. I also experiment when I can. I also recommend putting young distillate aside and tasting that too... young distillate is not influenced by wood.

[Swedish Pride]

I too will be following along as I contemplate building a flute.

Do it anyway.
It's fun to build and it's a fantastic tool, great if you need help with cuts, makes them so much easier.
Also IMO, it needs less time on oak than a potty stilled drink

[Deplorable]

I too will be following along as I contemplate building a flute.

Do it anyway.
It's fun to build and it's a fantastic tool, great if you need help with cuts, makes them so much easier.
Also IMO, it needs less time on oak than a potty stilled drink

Oh, I'm going to, I'm just putting it all together in my head now as I look through the build threads and decide if I'm going to build individual sections or a sieve plate tree. I'm really leaning towards 3 or 4 sections plus the defleg. A lot more work, but in the end having the flexibility will be worth it.

[Wildcats]

I too will be following along as I contemplate building a flute.

Do it anyway.
It's fun to build and it's a fantastic tool, great if you need help with cuts, makes them so much easier.
Also IMO, it needs less time on oak than a potty stilled drink

Oh, I'm going to, I'm just putting it all together in my head now as I look through the build threads and decide if I'm going to build individual sections or a sieve plate tree. I'm really leaning towards 3 or 4 sections plus the defleg. A lot more work, but in the end having the flexibility will be worth it.

Excited!!! I'm sure I speak for us all. Can't wait to see you get started on your build!! Go man go!!!

[higgins]

I did Run 2 yesterday morning using 2 plates just as I did with run 1.

I used haggy's plate reflux column calculator spreadsheet to estimate power and takeoff rate for 2 sieve plates. I ran it at 2350W and 2.2 LPH takeoff, which the spreadsheet calculated as optimal, and it calculated an 80% initial ABV, with hearts coming off at 79%, and 3.5 hrs distillation time until tails. I calculated that at that ABV I would need 23 jars with 8 oz (240 ml) in each one.

My actual collection was 19 jars. I got an initial ABV of 91%, and it only dropped to 89% thru jar 16, which is much more like what you'd expect with 3 plates. Other than ABV, all other predictions from haggy's spreadsheet were very accurate. I've been chatting with him and he thought that my still configuration (RC coil as dephleg) may be such that it is causing it to look like an additional plate.

Anyone who followed my build thread (in my sig line) saw that I adapted my 2" CCVM to add three 4" plates (1 was removed for this experiment) and use the 2" RC coil as a dephleg. The top is sealed, but the entire path to the output remains open to atmosphere so no issues with blowing myself up.

There is about 5" of coil extending below the takeoff port of the tee and into the sight glass, and this had a lot of reflux dripping off even with a takeoff rate of 2.2 LPH. I also have an additional 8" of SS spools below that. There is no packing between the top plate and the takeoff.

I'm a little concerned that I may be leaving some flavor behind with such a high takeoff ABV. But I won't change it for run 3 because I don't want to introduce another variable into the product comparison. I just want to understand why I'm getting such a high ABV so I might make changes after this experiment is done.

Some folks have said that it is hard for them to keep 2 plates loaded, but I have not had that problem with this configuration.

Could it be that the RC is producing enough reflux to act like a third plate (this would explain the higher ABV)? Could the increased vapor speed above the plates have an effect? If I decided to replace the RC with a dephleg, would a 2" x 10" 4 tube shotgun condenser (no baffles) above the top plate work? I don't have access to any 4" copper, but do have a 12" piece of 2" I could use (2" of it to make end plates).

[tjsc5f]

What kind of flow rate are you pumping through your RC, and what is the temp of the water going into the RC?

[Swedish Pride]

I get 91 with 2 plates as well, adding a third made it more stable and kept 91 for longer but to bump the ABV I need to run slower.

I also have a coil as my RC but the rest of my build is fairly left field so not sure if we can attribute the RC for the ABV commonality.

Now, the important question is, what's the taste like

[higgins]

What kind of flow rate are you pumping through your RC, and what is the temp of the water going into the RC?

Flow rate was about 375 ml/min for the most part. A few times during the 3 hour run it varied a bit, up to 400, down to 350, but was corrected pretty quickly. It sure is nice to have an adjustable flow meter to tweak the flow and know what the rate is - IMO much better than to nudge a needle valve, estimate (or measure) how much the output increased, and wait until the still tells you what you did, possibly before having to do it again because I moved it too far, or not enough.

I'm on a well, and my 10 gal (38 L) storage tank is 60 feet (18 m) from the still, so the temperature out the faucet varies depending on how long the water has been in the tank. Given the slow flow rate I'd estimate roughly 65F (18.3C). The water can get considerably colder when I'm running it full blast for more than 5 minutes. But it never runs anywhere near that. I have a 25 psi (172 kpa) regulator on the faucet feeding the RC flow meter to smooth out the "on at 30 psi, off at 50 psi" nature of the well. Its not perfect, but it works pretty well .

If I need to make it even better, I'll feed well water into my 30 gal (113 L) fermenter, moving it to the RC flow meter with a submersible pump, but won't recirculate. I'll just keep an eye on the water level and add more as needed.

I get 91 with 2 plates as well, adding a third made it more stable and kept 91 for longer but to bump the ABV I need to run slower.

I also have a coil as my RC but the rest of my build is fairly left field so not sure if we can attribute the RC for the ABV commonality.

Now, the important question is, what's the taste like

My first flute product (3 plates, 9% open area) was a hi rye bourbon (24% rye), and it seemed to have less flavor than I was used to with strip/spirit run pot stilled white dog. This one is a wheated bourbon so for runs 1 and 2 I removed one plate and covered some holes with an SS washer in the 2 remaining plates to get open area of 7%). I was trying to get a lower ABV and more flavor, but that didn't seem to happen.

I'll be doing Run 3 tomorrow.

[rubberduck71]

Following this thread with much interest!

My buddy just recently got a 6x4" bubble plate column, while I'm playing around with a double thumper configuration. Due to work life schedules, we haven't gotten around to comparison runs...

[higgins]

Runs 3 and 4 done.

Now to cut 2, 3, and 4, and then blind compare them. Lots of folks are pretty busy the next few weeks, so it may be late September before we get that done.

[higgins]

I went ahead and made the BadMo clones (4.25 qt, 4 L) for this experiment.
I'll keep at least 12 oz (350 ml) white of each one and put the rest in one of these.

The one at bottom left has a larger recess. That head was ever so slightly undersized, and may be a pint less, so I adjusted my jig for the rest. The nice thing is that 2 of these heads were salvaged from ones that I had cut too small when making 8.25 qt versions. I also use saved T-tops from liquor bottles as bungs, but only if they are genuine cork.

[Wildcats]

Nice work on the BadMos!!! I'm sure the ageing process will make some fine drinking stock.
Thanks for sharing. Cheer's

[HDNB]

genuine cork isn't great for long term storage, it degrades. i have bottle of 7 year old white i bought as a comparison to what i was making. (mine was better) it has been sitting for all that time, missing an ounce or two. I looked the other day, there was a bunch of shit in the spirit so i had a closer look and that cork was no longer a solid, one piece natural cork. just disintegrated.

synthetic shank is preferred by industry for spirits. if you want avoid the whole synthetic thing, just put a wood bunk in.

[NZChris]

I've just checked two natural cork bungs that have been used for barrel proof rum in glass in an artificially tropical climate since 2014 & 2015. There is some deterioration, but they don't need replacing yet.

[Saltbush Bill]

Ive lost some very good bottles of Vintage Port and also bottles of fairly expensive Scotch Whisky due to corks going to shit.
I don't trust them as far as I can throw them any more.
Anything over about ten years and you need to be keeping a close eye on them from my experience.
I cant see it being a problem in Badmo clones as your looking at them regularly and will notice any deterioration before it becomes a problem.

[The Baker]

I have re-corked a lot of port.

Geoff

[higgins]

The experiment is progressing along quite nicely. 2 of my cuts friends were available yesterday, so we sat on the sun porch in 72 degree weather and did the cuts on the last 3 runs.

I came into this a bit biased. My expectations were that run 4 (pot still) would have the most flavor, run 1 next, then 2 and finally 3. I must say that during the cuts on runs 2 and 3 I experienced a lot more flavor than I had expected. And then on run 4 the flavors were not that much more prominent than run 2 or 3.

All 4 runs are now cut, proofed down to 62.5%, four 4 qt Badmos (they hold 112 oz, 3.3 L) are filled, and 12 oz (350 ml) white dog of each saved in pint jars with PTFE liner in cap. I have not tasted the blended white dog from any of these runs.

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.

I was quite impressed with the increased proportion of the hearts on the flute.

After filling the Badmos and the pint jars, there was some left over of runs 2 (20 oz), 3 (64 oz), and 4 (56 oz). I decided to combine those (140 oz, 4.1 L) and add 4 charred sticks.

I want to wait until all 4 of my friends are available to do the comparison tasting between the product of the 4 runs. That will be mid-late September.
I'll make up 4 jars of 100ml at 35% ABV, label them with numbers 1 thru 4, then my wife will replace the numbered labels with new random 2 digit number labels, keeping a cross reference. The 5 of us will be presented the jars with new numbers on them so we will be blind as to which is which. We will each have 4 glasses with 20 ml as we taste and compare. We will try to rank them, and try to name differences between them.

[Wildcats]

Man you never disappoint!!! Great write up. I appreciate the time and effort to put this all together!

Will definitely be following this. Looking forward to hearing your results.

[Twisted Brick]

Great experiment, Higgins. Your approach and data reporting are of much value.

I'm certainly looking forward to group's assessments.

[Deplorable]

Continuing to follow with anticipation.
Intriguing observations thus far.