Sciencemadness Discussion Board - "20 Year Old Rum in 6 Days?!"

"20 Year Old Rum in 6 Days?!"

careysub - 8-4-2015 at 10:38

http://www.wired.com/2015/04/lost-spirits/

Loptr - 8-4-2015 at 11:11

So, why not reflux with food grade molecular sieves? Doesn't the ester exist in equilibrium?

[Edited on 8-4-2015 by Loptr]

[Edited on 8-4-2015 by Loptr]

Amos - 8-4-2015 at 11:17

Awesome, thanks for sharing. I may have to start drinking when I'm older just because the chemistry and production are so alluring.

Loptr - 8-4-2015 at 11:30

I don't drink because I go from sober to way too drunk in half a second.

There is no middle ground nice buzz for me.

DraconicAcid - 8-4-2015 at 11:54

Quote: Originally posted by Loptr

I don't drink because I go from sober to way too drunk in half a second.

There is no middle ground nice buzz for me.

That's because you don't drink enough to build up your tolerance.

Chemosynthesis - 8-4-2015 at 11:59

Fascinating article.

Quote: Originally posted by DraconicAcid

That's because you don't drink enough to build up your tolerance.

Or a common SNP at the gene encoding his alcohol dehydrogenase, which would also serve to limit tolerance. He didn't mention aversion, so I am assuming an aldehyde dehydrogenase SNP is unlikely.

Loptr - 8-4-2015 at 12:02

Quote: Originally posted by DraconicAcid

Quote: Originally posted by Loptr

I don't drink because I go from sober to way too drunk in half a second.

There is no middle ground nice buzz for me.

That's because you don't drink enough to build up your tolerance.

I have had my fair share of a ruined next day, and even a couple times, a ruined day after that. Alcoholism also runs in my family.

No, thank you, but I will pass!

Loptr - 8-4-2015 at 12:04

Quote: Originally posted by Chemosynthesis

Fascinating article.

Quote: Originally posted by DraconicAcid

That's because you don't drink enough to build up your tolerance.

Or a common SNP at the gene encoding his alcohol dehydrogenase, which would also serve to limit tolerance. He didn't mention aversion, so I am assuming an aldehyde dehydrogenase SNP is unlikely.

What do you mean by aversion? I absolutely hate alcohol. Even when I drank, I hated it. It ruins the taste of anything else you are eating.

Is that aversion enough?

DraconicAcid - 8-4-2015 at 12:08

Quote: Originally posted by Loptr

I have had my fair share of a ruined next day, and even a couple times, a ruined day after that. Alcoholism also runs in my family.

No, thank you, but I will pass!

In that case, good idea.

Chemosynthesis - 8-4-2015 at 12:16

Quote: Originally posted by Loptr

What do you mean by aversion? I absolutely hate alcohol. Even when I drank, I hated it. It ruins the taste of anything else you are eating.

Is that aversion enough?

In the sense I mean, aversion is associated with increased acetaldehyde buildup due to metabolic pathway bottlenecking. This increases side effects from acetaldehyde, which is considered a primary cause of flushing, nausea, hangovers, etc. in acetaldehyde poisoning.

You are describing taste aversion, which is a type of aversion. This can be due to GPCR taste receptors and just simply not liking a substance, or it can be conditioned taste aversion, where you felt sick from excess consumption and psychologically associated the taste of alcohol with the negative effects. This is why you run into people who "can't drink tequila/bourbon/whatever anymore." For some reason, I have usually found it to be reported as tequila in my anecdotal experiences.

Loptr - 8-4-2015 at 12:25

Quote: Originally posted by Chemosynthesis

Quote: Originally posted by Loptr

What do you mean by aversion? I absolutely hate alcohol. Even when I drank, I hated it. It ruins the taste of anything else you are eating.

Is that aversion enough?

I understand what you saying. I have heard the tequila anecdotes as well.

Also, another thing I didn't mention is that I get a headache every time I drink, which is where I think my primary aversion to alcohol comes from. I tried smoking when I was a teenager and I would also get a headache.

I neither smoke nor drink anymore, and haven't done so in a long time.

Chemosynthesis - 8-4-2015 at 13:30

Interesting. Not sure what to make of that.

Quote: Originally posted by Loptr

So, why not reflux with food grade molecular sieves? Doesn't the ester exist in equilibrium?

I think, based solely on my reading, that the rate limiting step is the production of reagents from the wood barrels and the like. Increasing the kinetics of esterification would be helpful, but contingent upon this.

aga - 8-4-2015 at 15:28

I'm with Loptr on smoking and drinking, however i do both.

Neither is good or beneficial, in fact they work together to be seriously bad.

Zombie - 8-4-2015 at 16:50

This article, and process are nothing new in distilling.

What is new is the use of the word "science" in his explanation. Using charred sawdust expedites the aging process simply due to increased surface area.

Adding charred chunks of barrel staves in the vapor path during distillation also expedites the aging process.

To a trained connoisseur of aged liquors the difference is obvious. There is one process that time delivers that can not be replicated. The release of the more volatile acetone, and related lighter compounds such as Methyl isobutyl ketone.

These compounds release thru the wood in a process known as "The Angels Share".
You can add whatever you want to hootch but only time removes these "nasties" in a manner that can not be replicated in a "lab" setting.

It is a balancing act between the addition of esters from the barrel, and the evaporation of volatile compounds that can be , and actually are judged as part of what makes a beautiful liquor.

There are dozens of methods to speed the aging process. Everything from heat / cold cycles, Ultra sound, to microwave bombardment.

Only time can do what time does for liquor.

blogfast25 - 8-4-2015 at 17:18

Zombie:

Whether this particular technology can deliver it or not I really don't know but the chemical profile of something potentially as complex as whisky can be chemically engineered. It's really only a mixture, after all. Whether it's worth doing is another matter but drinkers will be interested in a good 'simulation', if the price is right.

Zombie - 8-4-2015 at 18:28

Yes sir. You are correct. You can replicate levels or "flavor profiles" in a lab.

You can also feed a duck to a goose.

Me personally... I like old fashioned barrel aged Scotch. It's rather difficult to reflect on the craftsmanship imparted, while sipping a dram in front of a roaring fire when beakers, and hairnets are in the image.

Just sayin'

szuko03 - 9-4-2015 at 07:00

When I was in college I would drink whatever whenever. Now the only way I use alcohol is as a solvent. However I feel CO is heading in the right direction

Morkva - 9-4-2015 at 09:46

The article indicates esterification is the principle of his invention.

https://books.google.com/books?id=qOjQAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA274

Chemosynthesis - 9-4-2015 at 12:27

Quote: Originally posted by Morkva

The article indicates esterification is the principle of his invention.

https://books.google.com/books?id=qOjQAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA274

The article also quotes a process called “oak catalyzed esterification,” yet refers to extracting volatiles from the wood, which isn't catalysis as described, so I'm a little dubious about the esterification itself being the rate limiting step, though the esterification is the overall chemical reaction.

Loptr - 9-4-2015 at 12:31

Who the heck cares when you have a claim such as this!

I would say it's more of a marketing ploy.

Chemosynthesis - 9-4-2015 at 12:35

^Pretty much what I am thinking. They did seem to dance completely around the removal of the lighter chain fusel oils Zombie mentioned. There could be potentially by a chromatographic separation of some kind, but showing their spectra (what kind of MS?) would have been nice. Not like anyone is going to copy your manufacturing process from your spectra.

blogfast25 - 9-4-2015 at 13:18

Quote: Originally posted by Chemosynthesis

There could be potentially by a chromatographic separation of some kind, but showing their spectra (what kind of MS?) would have been nice. Not like anyone is going to copy your manufacturing process from your spectra.

MS spectra on, erm... wired.com? It's not that kind of publication, lets say.

Quote:

But that’s really all that Davis can say publicly about the process until his patents are finalized.

It could all be good old hype of course but maybe the patents will throw some light on their technology.

Chemosynthesis - 9-4-2015 at 13:31

Quote: Originally posted by blogfast25

MS spectra on, erm... wired.com? It's not that kind of publication, lets say.

They don't have to publish it in the actual article itself, but a nice link to it on Lost Spirits' site would have been helpful since the Wired article mentioned its existence. I'm a stickler for my technical writing, but I try pretty hard as a general rule to have citations or extraneous "supplemental" data for anyone interested. I've been a tad slack on some of my postings here, but I try to cite things for the curious too, even though it's 'only a forum.'

The spectra does exist in their whitepaper. I haven't gone through it all yet, but I did take the extremely minor annoyance of finding it rather than having an author provide it for me. http://www.lostspirits.net/#!science-/c1kb3

Quote:

It could all be good old hype of course but maybe the patents will throw some light on their technology.

His patents are pending, so he can say more than is implied in the article, and it may actually be in his favor to do so to establish IP in public domain if he ever had to litigate. Probably part of why the white paper is published on his site. It does also indicate the esterification is more rapid than the extraction, as I expected, for anyone interested.

blogfast25 - 9-4-2015 at 17:07

Good find, CS. Will definitely have a look at that later, ta. Nice mood music, let no one dispute they're not trying to get a bit of a narrative going there.

[Edited on 10-4-2015 by blogfast25]

Dr.Bob - 9-4-2015 at 19:36

The problem with patents is that you only have to give enough data to replicate the concept, not to do it well. In theory, you must state the "best" method, but most people/companies purposefully avoid doing what they think is the best method until after they file the initial patent, such that the details are not very helpful. Then most places will either add more data at the last second, or file a new, improved patent once the first one publishes. So trying to use a patent to find the ideal way to enable a method will sometimes work, but often the patent is obsolete before it ever publishes. Many patents don't have anywhere near as much data as even J,. Med Chem or JOC requires. And often there are very vague instructions, and very poor yields. The best patents are the process ones from companies once they have an issued patent, approved drug, or little competition, as then they are more likely to try to protect the best process.

And many companies have used chemistry to try to make good beverages, some are better than others. Two buck (now $3-5) Chuck is not bad (the Merlot at least) for a cheap wine, as they mix multiple wines to get the optimal end mix of various acids, flavors, etc. They may even adulterate it with certain flavors and concentrates to make it more balanced or taste better. But it won't likely taste as good as a great Merlot from a good vineyard that costs $100 a bottle. Just depends on your taste to cash ratio. Mine is not so high.

Templar - 21-4-2015 at 07:18

So I saw one chemical engineer mentioned, and it wasnt the pioneer of this "process". Im a little skeptical...

No chemists either

Zombie - 21-4-2015 at 09:29

I'm with you Templar.

Has anyone run across the 159 times distilled Vodka? http://drinksint.com/news/fullstory.php/aid/2543/Buffalo_Tra...

Not to change the subject but. It turns out that all distilleries have heads, and tails left from distillation. The heads are high proof acetone, and keytone(s). The tails are fuesil oils. Well eventually you have to do something with these. The heads a usually sold off to processing plants and used to make other chemicals.
The tails are dumped. Just like waste water.

The fella from Jim Beam (i think) Harlen Davis Wheatley, decided to combine these two, and have his night crew baby sit a running still 2 nights a week. They had some 4000 gallons of crap that can not be drank, and kept distilling it until all of the nasties were gone.

Mind you now... This is nothing more than ethanol. EtOH that took a YEAR to clean up. He attempted to sell this for 3 grand a bottle!!! calling it 159 times distilled pure vodka.

Real drinkers saw right thru this, and the brand failed. I can now buy this swill up at a place called Fish Camp Restaurant right here in town. for 20 bucks a bottle.

The production of Hootch is shrouded in ignorance, and that is what these snake oil guys are counting on.

Loptr - 21-4-2015 at 12:32

That is one heck of a sales ad. You have to at least ask yourself why 159 times? I have heard of triple distilled Vodka, but 159, why the large jump in numbers.

[Edited on 21-4-2015 by Loptr]

Zombie - 21-4-2015 at 14:22

Because the ethanol percentage was soooooo low it took that many distillations to remove all the other compounds.

You're starting with 2-3% ABV in 4000 gallons of fuesils, and water. so you are talking about approx 100 gallons recovered in the end.

In a three plate still that takes quite a few runs no matter what the diameter of the plates.
The whole deal was an experiment to see IF he could find a market for an otherwise "waste product". Like Fluoride as a human supplement.. That one worked.

There's more on this "hootch" around the net.

[Edited on 4-21-2015 by Zombie]

blogfast25 - 21-4-2015 at 15:09

Quote: Originally posted by Zombie

Not to change the subject but. It turns out that all distilleries have heads, and tails left from distillation. The heads are high proof acetone, and keytone(s). The tails are fuesil oils. Well eventually you have to do something with these. The heads a usually sold off to processing plants and used to make other chemicals.
The tails are dumped. Just like waste water.

Fusel oils have value. They contain higher alcohols, like amyl alcohol. I doubt VERY much that large distillers would not sell their fusel on to specialist processors.

You mean ketones. Acetone (IUPAC: propanone) is the simplest of all the ketones.

Zombie - 21-4-2015 at 15:40

Quote: Originally posted by blogfast25

Quote: Originally posted by Zombie

You have to take a tour of one of these large distilleries. It is interesting for sure.

The "Heads" are collected, and stored for sale / shipment but once the cut off point is reached in the liquor distillation (generally from 40% ABV down to 20% ABV) they collect a small portion of the tails. Generally down to 10% ABV, and use this portion for blending back some of the flavors that are concentrated here..

Now comes the fun. The distillery floor (in some older distilleries) is sloped into drains, and the pots are opened.

Near boiling water / tails flows like a river.

In modern distilleries it is all plumbed in so what happens in both cases is the waste is charged to the facility in their waste water bill. Just like home.

I assume there is not enough value in the fuseils to collect, and keep the spent wash.

Heads yes. There is money there.