I often add water to my rum and whisky especially, or mainly, if the abv is over 42% but I never add water to a 40% bottling. I was sitting today with a nice Highland park 12 and unfortunately for a nice whisky it's bottled at 40. I didn't add water but thought 'would it bring more out if I added a few drops?' or would it just be a exercise in futility.
Of course it is probably a simple matter of try it and see but what do you guys do?
Water at 40%
-
Capn Jimbo
- Rum Evangelisti and Compleat Idiot
- Posts: 3550
- Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:53 pm
- Location: Paradise: Fort Lauderdale of course...
- Contact:
Good question!
And a real pet peeve here at The Project. I can't tell you how many times I see a self-designated "rum reviewer" who then say picks up a bottle of Wray & Newphews overproof, then proceed to struggle through the review exclaiming how "this one will put hair on your chest" with a macho "for the man's man only" attitude. Or like the Wolfboy who developed perhaps the most fakakte "methodology" I have - ever - seen. Wherein he "tastes" the vodka at freezing temperatures, followed by a test with sausage and munchies.
These "reviewers" could not possibly inhibit the tasting process any more than those. Taste this way, and you'll taste nothing.
The single malt guys long ago developed what is close to a standard protocol. First all - I mean all - spirits are tested at room temperature, or even warmed a bit with the hand. A careful initial impression at full strength for overproofs, with water then added in driblets to find the "sweet spot". A few automatically dilute to 40%, so that all spirits are compared on a level playing glass, er field.
How this works
Apart from the philosophy of a level playing field at 40%, there is another consideration. Chemically, even a few drops of water combine with the spirit in such a way as to release esters. If the flavors and aromas are there, they want to find them.
Thus even Ralfy has been known to add a few drops even to the 40 percenters to see what's really there. Overall though most really competent afficianados agree that the magic number is around 43%, which maxes out flavor while not overpowering the palate with alcohol. But I digress..
Oh yeah. How do Sue Sea and I proceed?
We trust the real experts and go with the taste full strength, and add water judiciously to find the sweet spot, especially with higher proofs. Rums at 40% and single malts in the mid 40's may be enjoyed undiluted, but your question reminds that water really should be a part of every tasting.
Best personal example: W&N Overproof. You will be amazed at what's in there that most quasi-reviewers have never experienced. You'll understand why Dave Broom calls W&N "the best overproof rum in the world".
And a real pet peeve here at The Project. I can't tell you how many times I see a self-designated "rum reviewer" who then say picks up a bottle of Wray & Newphews overproof, then proceed to struggle through the review exclaiming how "this one will put hair on your chest" with a macho "for the man's man only" attitude. Or like the Wolfboy who developed perhaps the most fakakte "methodology" I have - ever - seen. Wherein he "tastes" the vodka at freezing temperatures, followed by a test with sausage and munchies.
These "reviewers" could not possibly inhibit the tasting process any more than those. Taste this way, and you'll taste nothing.
The single malt guys long ago developed what is close to a standard protocol. First all - I mean all - spirits are tested at room temperature, or even warmed a bit with the hand. A careful initial impression at full strength for overproofs, with water then added in driblets to find the "sweet spot". A few automatically dilute to 40%, so that all spirits are compared on a level playing glass, er field.
How this works
Apart from the philosophy of a level playing field at 40%, there is another consideration. Chemically, even a few drops of water combine with the spirit in such a way as to release esters. If the flavors and aromas are there, they want to find them.
Thus even Ralfy has been known to add a few drops even to the 40 percenters to see what's really there. Overall though most really competent afficianados agree that the magic number is around 43%, which maxes out flavor while not overpowering the palate with alcohol. But I digress..
Oh yeah. How do Sue Sea and I proceed?
We trust the real experts and go with the taste full strength, and add water judiciously to find the sweet spot, especially with higher proofs. Rums at 40% and single malts in the mid 40's may be enjoyed undiluted, but your question reminds that water really should be a part of every tasting.
Best personal example: W&N Overproof. You will be amazed at what's in there that most quasi-reviewers have never experienced. You'll understand why Dave Broom calls W&N "the best overproof rum in the world".
-
Capn Jimbo
- Rum Evangelisti and Compleat Idiot
- Posts: 3550
- Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:53 pm
- Location: Paradise: Fort Lauderdale of course...
- Contact:
To be nit-nitpicky...
Yank, thanks for the comment. Were it that things were so simple. On the the tasters side, almost all the great tasters are proponents of the notion that after intial full strength tasting, that the judicious addition of water releases flavors, and not because it inhibits bad flavors. Esters form a gamut of flavors and it is not clear or even fair to call some of them undesireable (as you would for heads or tails). Indeed some pot distillers strongly feel that a bit of heads and tails belong in the distillate, and in small quantiies enhance the whisky. So much for the tasters/distillers views.
Chemically there is a great deal of controversy over why and how the addition of a bit of water is essential to complete a tasting, and to really understand fully a strong spirit at cask strength or higher. A famous work seems to have been done by a gentleman named John M. Conner in an article "Release of distillate flavour compounds in Scotch malt whisky". This is a highly technical article that requires a minor in Chemistry to really comprehend. The issues arise when other knowledgable try to interpret or extend his findings. One school, represented by blogger Martin Lersch (here) seems to interpret Conner's work thus:
Lersh's Hypothesis
1. Distilled malt whisky contains concentrations of esters, aldehydes and alcohols in long chains. There are both long and short chain esters. With the initial dilution with water to bottle strength the long chain esters and alcohols tend to clump into groups. The whisky is no longer homogenous, may even appear a bit cloudy, especially if non-chill filtered.
2. These long chain clumps are called "micelles" can also trap some short chain esters, alcohols and aldehydes. All of these - long chain and short chain - amount to trapped aromas and flavor.
3. Activity coefficient data suggest that the monodisperse solution behaves as an aqueous single phase. In contrast, solutions of higher ethanol content behave as a micro-emulsion and the rapid decrease in activity coefficients is the result of incorporation of esters into the ethanol aggregates. Lersch believes that some - just some - of these trapped esters are in his opinion, undesirable and names a few: "oily, soapy and grassy". Yank would add "nail polish". Even the original dilution that has trapped all manner of aromatic esters and aldehydes.
4. Another factor is wood aging and the wood extracts in the solution. Without going into detail, the author feels these extracts inhibit the ability of certain (not all) untrapped aromas from escaping so that you can nose them. Lersch doesn't say which, but if true, surely makes a case for spinning your dram before each sip.
5. It turns out that ethanol (alcohol) also forms different clumps or "micelles" to that also trap short chain esters, alcohols and aldehydes. Whew! Believe me this is simplified. What we have are aromas - some subjectively positive and some subjectively negative - trapped in clumps in the bottled single malt. So what does this school say that the addition of water accomplishes?
6. Lersch states that while the post addition of bits of water may encourage the long chain clumps, it also breaks up the (short) ethanol clumps and thus releases the short chain esters and aldehydes within, which can then escape as new aromas. Got that? Sure.
Thus his conclusion: "...the motivation for adding water to whisky is in fact to mask some aromas and release others!" He also claims that some cooling also helps (as more clumps tend to form at higher temperatures).
Is this bullshit or is this just one hypothesis?
Perhaps both. In the same article, another talented observer - Mirko Junge counters the author's position, and cites the original Conner research:
Junge states - again according to Conner - the addition of water simply releases releases all the trapped esters and aldehydes. Junge does agrees with Lersch regarding the release of aromas by a bit of cooling, and about the ihibiting effect of wood extracts, but for different reasons, and again based on Conner's seminal work.
Bottom Line:
1. Two very knowledgable experts disagree on the interpretation of the seminal work by Johnson.
Lersch's article believes that water is added "to mask some aromas and release others" based on his view of the different effect of added water on long chain vs short chain clumps. Junge believes that the whisky is a micro-emulsion and that added water simply releases the aromatic esters and alcohols.
2. They obviously respect one another, and are attempting to find a way to "converge" their differences. But in the end, Lersch admits his errors:
3. Yank, although I would agree that "some" of the esters are undesirable, I'd also point out that what is desirable or not is purely a subjective matter. And I've never seen the claim that a bit of water can be so selective as to be able to suppress just undesireable esters. If you have a source, please share it.
An interesting subject. For now I'm sticking with Junge.
*******
Capn's Logg: Johnson's seminal article is linked in Lersch's blog (linked near the top in red).
Yank, thanks for the comment. Were it that things were so simple. On the the tasters side, almost all the great tasters are proponents of the notion that after intial full strength tasting, that the judicious addition of water releases flavors, and not because it inhibits bad flavors. Esters form a gamut of flavors and it is not clear or even fair to call some of them undesireable (as you would for heads or tails). Indeed some pot distillers strongly feel that a bit of heads and tails belong in the distillate, and in small quantiies enhance the whisky. So much for the tasters/distillers views.
Chemically there is a great deal of controversy over why and how the addition of a bit of water is essential to complete a tasting, and to really understand fully a strong spirit at cask strength or higher. A famous work seems to have been done by a gentleman named John M. Conner in an article "Release of distillate flavour compounds in Scotch malt whisky". This is a highly technical article that requires a minor in Chemistry to really comprehend. The issues arise when other knowledgable try to interpret or extend his findings. One school, represented by blogger Martin Lersch (here) seems to interpret Conner's work thus:
Lersh's Hypothesis
1. Distilled malt whisky contains concentrations of esters, aldehydes and alcohols in long chains. There are both long and short chain esters. With the initial dilution with water to bottle strength the long chain esters and alcohols tend to clump into groups. The whisky is no longer homogenous, may even appear a bit cloudy, especially if non-chill filtered.
2. These long chain clumps are called "micelles" can also trap some short chain esters, alcohols and aldehydes. All of these - long chain and short chain - amount to trapped aromas and flavor.
3. Activity coefficient data suggest that the monodisperse solution behaves as an aqueous single phase. In contrast, solutions of higher ethanol content behave as a micro-emulsion and the rapid decrease in activity coefficients is the result of incorporation of esters into the ethanol aggregates. Lersch believes that some - just some - of these trapped esters are in his opinion, undesirable and names a few: "oily, soapy and grassy". Yank would add "nail polish". Even the original dilution that has trapped all manner of aromatic esters and aldehydes.
4. Another factor is wood aging and the wood extracts in the solution. Without going into detail, the author feels these extracts inhibit the ability of certain (not all) untrapped aromas from escaping so that you can nose them. Lersch doesn't say which, but if true, surely makes a case for spinning your dram before each sip.
5. It turns out that ethanol (alcohol) also forms different clumps or "micelles" to that also trap short chain esters, alcohols and aldehydes. Whew! Believe me this is simplified. What we have are aromas - some subjectively positive and some subjectively negative - trapped in clumps in the bottled single malt. So what does this school say that the addition of water accomplishes?
6. Lersch states that while the post addition of bits of water may encourage the long chain clumps, it also breaks up the (short) ethanol clumps and thus releases the short chain esters and aldehydes within, which can then escape as new aromas. Got that? Sure.
Thus his conclusion: "...the motivation for adding water to whisky is in fact to mask some aromas and release others!" He also claims that some cooling also helps (as more clumps tend to form at higher temperatures).
Is this bullshit or is this just one hypothesis?
Perhaps both. In the same article, another talented observer - Mirko Junge counters the author's position, and cites the original Conner research:
If this doesn't point out the problem of we amateurs taking a positions, nothing will. Let me interpret: this poster is saying that the author is wrong about his notion of free floating clumps, much like droplets of oil in water. The poster states that Conner himself states that it's really a "microemulsion - separate elements but so finely integrated that it is almost homogenous. Think a glass of milk.Conner: "Activity coefficient data suggest that the monodisperse solution behaves as an aqueous single phase. In contrast, solutions of higher ethanol content behave as a micro-emulsion and the rapid decrease in activity coefficients is the result of incorporation of esters into the ethanol aggregates."
Junge states - again according to Conner - the addition of water simply releases releases all the trapped esters and aldehydes. Junge does agrees with Lersch regarding the release of aromas by a bit of cooling, and about the ihibiting effect of wood extracts, but for different reasons, and again based on Conner's seminal work.
Bottom Line:
1. Two very knowledgable experts disagree on the interpretation of the seminal work by Johnson.
Lersch's article believes that water is added "to mask some aromas and release others" based on his view of the different effect of added water on long chain vs short chain clumps. Junge believes that the whisky is a micro-emulsion and that added water simply releases the aromatic esters and alcohols.
2. They obviously respect one another, and are attempting to find a way to "converge" their differences. But in the end, Lersch admits his errors:
3. Yank, although I would agree that "some" of the esters are undesirable, I'd also point out that what is desirable or not is purely a subjective matter. And I've never seen the claim that a bit of water can be so selective as to be able to suppress just undesireable esters. If you have a source, please share it.
An interesting subject. For now I'm sticking with Junge.
Lersch: "A very thorough comment there Mirko! You make a very good point about temperature and the fact that for a whisky “on the rocks”, the lower vapor pressure due to cooling is counteracted by the fact that the ethanol aggregates break up. I missed that point!
As you can see from the original post, I didn’t mention ethanol aggregates at all, only the aggregates formed by the long chain esters upon dilution which are mentioned in the introduction. But thank you for discussing the importance of the ethanol aggregates!
I certainly oversimplified matters a lot – which is probably noticeable from the fact that your comment is as long as the original blogpostBut thanks again for bringing additional aspects to my (and other reader’s) attention!"
*******
Capn's Logg: Johnson's seminal article is linked in Lersch's blog (linked near the top in red).
Last edited by Capn Jimbo on Tue Feb 19, 2013 10:15 am, edited 3 times in total.
My take on this is,
If it is a micro emulsion along the lines of absinthe then we can draw similarities to how absinthe is handled in terms of temperature and water. At room temperature the Absinthe with it's emulsion of oils and alcohols sits stable. When you put a glass of undiluted absinthe in the fridge or at low temperatures the oils clump together. When you slowly add chilled water the oils still clump together (and separate from the alcohol) but at a smaller size and at a more even rate which releases the aromas and flavours of the botanical oils from the high abv alcohol solution.
So if Whisky is chilled I could well envisage (pure conjecture without any qualifying facts) that certain properties are trapped and made unavailable to the taste receptors whilst some properties group together like on like and that becomes the dominating profile. If it is warm or at room temperature then the emulsion of esters and whatnot would probably be stable with some properties still unavailable due to temperature and the alcohol content of the emulsion (dilution ratio).
I would surmise that the factors are as such to get the perfect dram..
1) Temp of liquid, I really can't see that a cold liquid would give more than a room temperature or slightly above and in my wild uneducated thought process would lay my life savings (23 cents) on a smidgeon above room temp being the optimal range.
2) Alcohol content/dilution ratio, at higher levels we all know that flavours will just be ignored by our taste receptors as the alcohol will numb them.
3) The whisky itself, oils ain't oils. Who made it? How did they intend it to be enjoyed? How did they taste proof it? Did they allow heads and tails? And in what ratio's? All these things will vary drastically the perfect temp range and dilution ratio for each individual whisky.
I did read that ice was added to crap whisky to remove or dull the off flavours of rot gut. Which, as NCY pointed out, was probably acetone (nail polish remover) from the unscrupulous whisky/moonshine distillers not removing foreshots cleanly.
And Finally in answer to my own question, I did add water to the HP12 and it did not help at all. It dulled the flavours that were there. I would say that HP12 is at is most thinnest of dilution points as it is bottled and would even go as far as to say it is too thin. It is a nice whisky but has a flavour profile that leaves your tongue reaching for the promise that can't be fully delivered. I think if it was bottled at 43% or higher it would be a cracker. Unfortunately it's not...so it's not.
If it is a micro emulsion along the lines of absinthe then we can draw similarities to how absinthe is handled in terms of temperature and water. At room temperature the Absinthe with it's emulsion of oils and alcohols sits stable. When you put a glass of undiluted absinthe in the fridge or at low temperatures the oils clump together. When you slowly add chilled water the oils still clump together (and separate from the alcohol) but at a smaller size and at a more even rate which releases the aromas and flavours of the botanical oils from the high abv alcohol solution.
So if Whisky is chilled I could well envisage (pure conjecture without any qualifying facts) that certain properties are trapped and made unavailable to the taste receptors whilst some properties group together like on like and that becomes the dominating profile. If it is warm or at room temperature then the emulsion of esters and whatnot would probably be stable with some properties still unavailable due to temperature and the alcohol content of the emulsion (dilution ratio).
I would surmise that the factors are as such to get the perfect dram..
1) Temp of liquid, I really can't see that a cold liquid would give more than a room temperature or slightly above and in my wild uneducated thought process would lay my life savings (23 cents) on a smidgeon above room temp being the optimal range.
2) Alcohol content/dilution ratio, at higher levels we all know that flavours will just be ignored by our taste receptors as the alcohol will numb them.
3) The whisky itself, oils ain't oils. Who made it? How did they intend it to be enjoyed? How did they taste proof it? Did they allow heads and tails? And in what ratio's? All these things will vary drastically the perfect temp range and dilution ratio for each individual whisky.
I did read that ice was added to crap whisky to remove or dull the off flavours of rot gut. Which, as NCY pointed out, was probably acetone (nail polish remover) from the unscrupulous whisky/moonshine distillers not removing foreshots cleanly.
And Finally in answer to my own question, I did add water to the HP12 and it did not help at all. It dulled the flavours that were there. I would say that HP12 is at is most thinnest of dilution points as it is bottled and would even go as far as to say it is too thin. It is a nice whisky but has a flavour profile that leaves your tongue reaching for the promise that can't be fully delivered. I think if it was bottled at 43% or higher it would be a cracker. Unfortunately it's not...so it's not.
in goes your eye out
-
Capn Jimbo
- Rum Evangelisti and Compleat Idiot
- Posts: 3550
- Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:53 pm
- Location: Paradise: Fort Lauderdale of course...
- Contact:
From the distiller's viewpoint (thanks da'rum)...
I was editing my previous post when da'rum posted, so I thought it only fair to post anew. From the distiller's viewpoint heads - at least most of them - are discarded or accumulated for later runs. The bad guys are poisonous methanol, nasty acetone (Yank's "nail polish" aroma) and a few volatile esters.
Column distilling can very precisely fractionate the run and more cleanly separate these out. But pot stilling (single malts and some other spirits) is different. In all distilling there are simply not exact separation point of the various elements. The "heads" cross over and merge with the hearts for a bit, then at the end of the "hearts" there is likewise a crossover with the "tails". The art of distilling is not eliminating the heads completely, but deciding how much crossover is desirable. The master distiller does this by nose and by taste, and freqently samples the outflowing distillate during the crossover points. Although temperature gives a bit of warning, it's the master's tongue and nose that do the job.
It is a true art.
You should also know that there is indeed an ester called "ethyl acetate" that resembles Yank's "nail polish" aroma. But this one is mostly formed during fermentation - and thence diminishes and is removed by distillation and what minimal amounts may make it through to the distillate, then proceed to dissociate naturally and via wood aging.
I agree with da'rum that what is far more likely to be perceived as "nail polish" is not an ester, is not removed or blocked by water and is more likely real acetone - which is not an ester, is much more discernible and is the result of trying to capture too much alcohol by allowing more heads than desirable.
Bottom Line
For those who want to know a little more about what can slip through into your distillate, check this:
http://whiskyscience.blogspot.com/2011/ ... ation.html
Yank you'll note that acetone (not an ester) comes off early at about 57 degrees Celsius, while ethyl acetate comes off later at 77.1, just before the hearts (ethanol/alcohol) at 78 degrees. Please also note that it is acetone that is perceived as nail polish and rarely the ester etheyl acetate (which is generally perceived as pear and sweetness).
I was editing my previous post when da'rum posted, so I thought it only fair to post anew. From the distiller's viewpoint heads - at least most of them - are discarded or accumulated for later runs. The bad guys are poisonous methanol, nasty acetone (Yank's "nail polish" aroma) and a few volatile esters.
Column distilling can very precisely fractionate the run and more cleanly separate these out. But pot stilling (single malts and some other spirits) is different. In all distilling there are simply not exact separation point of the various elements. The "heads" cross over and merge with the hearts for a bit, then at the end of the "hearts" there is likewise a crossover with the "tails". The art of distilling is not eliminating the heads completely, but deciding how much crossover is desirable. The master distiller does this by nose and by taste, and freqently samples the outflowing distillate during the crossover points. Although temperature gives a bit of warning, it's the master's tongue and nose that do the job.
It is a true art.
You should also know that there is indeed an ester called "ethyl acetate" that resembles Yank's "nail polish" aroma. But this one is mostly formed during fermentation - and thence diminishes and is removed by distillation and what minimal amounts may make it through to the distillate, then proceed to dissociate naturally and via wood aging.
I agree with da'rum that what is far more likely to be perceived as "nail polish" is not an ester, is not removed or blocked by water and is more likely real acetone - which is not an ester, is much more discernible and is the result of trying to capture too much alcohol by allowing more heads than desirable.
Bottom Line
For those who want to know a little more about what can slip through into your distillate, check this:
http://whiskyscience.blogspot.com/2011/ ... ation.html
Yank you'll note that acetone (not an ester) comes off early at about 57 degrees Celsius, while ethyl acetate comes off later at 77.1, just before the hearts (ethanol/alcohol) at 78 degrees. Please also note that it is acetone that is perceived as nail polish and rarely the ester etheyl acetate (which is generally perceived as pear and sweetness).
-
Capn Jimbo
- Rum Evangelisti and Compleat Idiot
- Posts: 3550
- Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:53 pm
- Location: Paradise: Fort Lauderdale of course...
- Contact:
For the anal retentive...
http://whiskyscience.blogspot.com/2011/ ... ation.html
Component. . . Boiling point C. . .Odor
acetone 56,5 nail polish remover
glycerol 290 sweet
acetic acid 118 vinegar
Aldehydes
acetaldehyde 20,2 pungent fruity, green apple, metallic
furfural 161,7 almonds
Alcohols
methanol 65 sweetened ethanol
ethanol 78 ethanol
1-propanol 97 fruity
2-propanol 82,5 fruity
butanol 118 banana, solvent
amyl alcohols 102-138,5 sharp, burning
2-phenyl ethanol 219 floral, rose
Esters
ethyl acetate 77,1 pear,sweet
ethyl butyrate 121 pineapple
ethyl formate 54 rum, raspberry
hexyl acetate 171,5 fruit
Sulphur compounds
hydrogen suphide -60,3 rotten eggs
sulphur dioxide -10 burnt sulphur
dimethyl sulphide 37 cabbage, vegetables
Fatty acids
lauric acid 299 bay oil, soap
palmitic acid 351 waxy, creamy, soapy
http://whiskyscience.blogspot.com/2011/ ... ation.html
Component. . . Boiling point C. . .Odor
acetone 56,5 nail polish remover
glycerol 290 sweet
acetic acid 118 vinegar
Aldehydes
acetaldehyde 20,2 pungent fruity, green apple, metallic
furfural 161,7 almonds
Alcohols
methanol 65 sweetened ethanol
ethanol 78 ethanol
1-propanol 97 fruity
2-propanol 82,5 fruity
butanol 118 banana, solvent
amyl alcohols 102-138,5 sharp, burning
2-phenyl ethanol 219 floral, rose
Esters
ethyl acetate 77,1 pear,sweet
ethyl butyrate 121 pineapple
ethyl formate 54 rum, raspberry
hexyl acetate 171,5 fruit
Sulphur compounds
hydrogen suphide -60,3 rotten eggs
sulphur dioxide -10 burnt sulphur
dimethyl sulphide 37 cabbage, vegetables
Fatty acids
lauric acid 299 bay oil, soap
palmitic acid 351 waxy, creamy, soapy
Acetone is generally not in heads but rather in the fore shots the fore shots is where the really bad shit is and comes off the still first (as the name suggests).
The fore shots consists of highly volatile components (mainly acetone) with the lowest boiling points. It is one of the arts of running a pot still a slow as possible warm up period allows for better separation of these components.
I am not a professional distiller I have a small amount of theoretical knowledge and an equal amount of practical experience. An insight from a pro would be better when talking ester compounds.
Foreshots- discarded
Heads-re run or blended
Hearts-the good stuff
Tails- re run (although low alcohol content) or blended.
The fore shots consists of highly volatile components (mainly acetone) with the lowest boiling points. It is one of the arts of running a pot still a slow as possible warm up period allows for better separation of these components.
I am not a professional distiller I have a small amount of theoretical knowledge and an equal amount of practical experience. An insight from a pro would be better when talking ester compounds.
Foreshots- discarded
Heads-re run or blended
Hearts-the good stuff
Tails- re run (although low alcohol content) or blended.
in goes your eye out
ah you posted that as I was writing my last so they go together I suppose.
Cheers
PS those boiling points seem to be a mix of Fahrenheit and Celsius.
A still is normally shut down way before the temps reach 100°c
EDIT Ok just skim read the article, interesting that they run the still all the way to 1% which would put the shut down at about 100°c.
More reading required.
EDIT EDIT So he was talking about a stripping run to 1% and then a second spirit run. I still can't see how he's getting those temp ranges though.
Cheers
PS those boiling points seem to be a mix of Fahrenheit and Celsius.
A still is normally shut down way before the temps reach 100°c
EDIT Ok just skim read the article, interesting that they run the still all the way to 1% which would put the shut down at about 100°c.
More reading required.
EDIT EDIT So he was talking about a stripping run to 1% and then a second spirit run. I still can't see how he's getting those temp ranges though.
in goes your eye out
Geez I sleep through a chemistry lesson, reminds me of my days at Penn State LOL.
Actually I meant to say that adding water subdues the long-chain esters, which really simplifies what I had read a couple years back in a similar article to those you discussed in your posts.
I do remember having a couple of inexpensive Scotches (I don't recall which) when I first started drinking critically that had some npr aroma that were helped by adding water. Unfortunately, in some others - Glenlivet 12 yr comes to mind - adding water seems to subdue any taste at all.
Actually I meant to say that adding water subdues the long-chain esters, which really simplifies what I had read a couple years back in a similar article to those you discussed in your posts.
I do remember having a couple of inexpensive Scotches (I don't recall which) when I first started drinking critically that had some npr aroma that were helped by adding water. Unfortunately, in some others - Glenlivet 12 yr comes to mind - adding water seems to subdue any taste at all.
-
Capn Jimbo
- Rum Evangelisti and Compleat Idiot
- Posts: 3550
- Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 3:53 pm
- Location: Paradise: Fort Lauderdale of course...
- Contact:
