StillSmart

I would try to wean yourself off these high % washes. ... And turbo's.

Try the lentil or the kale recipe.

Hi Mash, you may be right. Tried the kale wash twice. Had trouble keeping it active through to end of ferment thus yield was very low.

It seems both turbo and non turbo have their pro’s & cons. I have a friend who is a retired Chemist who spent his career working in distilling alcohol (he knows what I am doing and offers me advice). I recently asked him about kale and he asked a colleague in Holland to do some analysis and said kale wash could be quite high in methanol and other stuff non desirable. I can reproduce his reply detailing his results in full if anyone is interested?

The WOW wheat wash worked quite well and was very clean. Might give that a go again next.

I would bet good money that the scientist's results do understandably show methanol but that we are in the region of 20% of what is in commercially produced and sold drinking alcohol. (without checking my vague recollection, commercial has 2% by volume of what is unsafe ie it would take x50 to be dodgy and our product is more like 0.4%). It would take someone to drink 5 litres of vodka in a night for methanol to be an issue and obviously much less of even the best alcohol would kill long before eyesight failed due to methanol.

Makum101 reported,

“I recently asked him about kale and he asked a colleague in Holland to do some analysis and said kale wash could be quite high in methanol and other stuff non desirable.”

This raised an issue for me that I have pondered for some time.

Has any research been done on the adjuncts and nutrients which might possibly produce the most or, the least methanol?

Alternatively, is methanol production a standard and unchangeable by product of fermentation, the relative volume unchanged by the ingredients used?

'could be quite high in methanol and other stuff non desirable.'


It could be.......On the other hand it could not be, too.

For mine is is simply one of the cleanest washes I've ever come across. Plus it is clean running as well - gives a very neutral neutral.
So, I don't waste my time with trying any other of the latest whizzo washes, whatever they may be.
Just as I don't waste my time furthering my knowledge on dodgy turbo practices that have their prime purpose in shifting money from my pocket to the purveyors pocket......
Or even load my wash up with a heap of sugar so I can spend hours agonising over is it or isn't it?......

Ive just run the 9 bag wash. It stopped short - 1.005 and tasted a bit sweet but I ran it anyway.

After following Almanac's method I collected 1350 mils and it came out 5% stronger at 55%. Very clean smelling and tasting. Got another strip on now and will do a spirit run tomorrow with the proceeds.

What I find with the C48 is it gets cleaner the more sugar I use. However there is very little difference between the 8 & 9 versions. Thus given the difference in yield against the extra 8 days to ferment plus refrigeration, I dont think the extra gain is worth it.

@pakapoo. Each to their own. there is no wright or wrong way. Just different ways of getting to the same outcome

makum101 wrote:
@pakapoo. Each to their own. there is no right or wrong way. Just different ways of getting to the same outcome

That is so very true!
I will defend anyone that applies themselves, and comes up with a wash or distillation method that pleases them, while using intelligence, even if it is not a path that I would follow.
We are all different. Thank someone.

Robert.

@pakapoo. Each to their own. there is no wright or wrong way. Just different ways of getting to the same outcome [/quote]

Completely agree.

What I do find a little strange is after consideration, apparently, all that was gleaned was a could be answer....
Guess even chemists aren't what they used to be.......

packapoo wrote:'could be quite high in methanol and other stuff non desirable.'


It could be.......On the other hand it could not be, too.

For mine is is simply one of the cleanest washes I've ever come across. Plus it is clean running as well - gives a very neutral neutral.
So, I don't waste my time with trying any other of the latest whizzo washes, whatever they may be.
Just as I don't waste my time furthering my knowledge on dodgy turbo practices that have their prime purpose in shifting money from my pocket to the purveyors pocket......
Or even load my wash up with a heap of sugar so I can spend hours agonising over is it or isn't it?......

Very well put.

A didn't reply, because I wonder if my freeze stripping improves/changes the neutrality.

I too like to keep every pound (£) a prisoner and do not think heaps of sugar are not required.. indeed it's better no to.

A didn't reply, because I wonder if my freeze stripping improves/changes the neutrality.

[/quote]

Indeed....I think you'd need to consult a chemist to determine that....
Could be a couple of folks nearby who could point you....

packapoo wrote:
Indeed....I think you'd need to consult a chemist to determine that....
Could be a couple of folks nearby who could point you....

---------

Okay. Ive got the message

It's not in doubt that fruit washes (and those using vegetable nutrients) will produce a small amount of methanol while sugar washes will produce less or none.

It's also not in doubt that the amount of methanol is well within safe limits even without discarding any foreshots or heads, but that it's still common sense to make good cuts both for safety and taste reasons.

The amount that every guide on this and every site recommends to discard is more than adequate to remove virtually all methanol for even an impure wash run once through a very inefficient still.

Google will confirm that any deaths or blindness over many years have come from batches of cheapo backstreet sold deliberately contaminated/adulterated ethanol that has had methanol or other crap added to increase strength or reduce cost.

I can't find a single report of anyone dying or going blind from their own produce ie where they knew what they'd made.