barrel programs...can I buy and age my own barrel?

[gr8erdane]

Wouldn't the loss of the angel's share in your experiment increase the alcohol content on its own without adding the GNS?

[barturtle]

I think you have a point here Dane. However, the loss would be greater with the lower alcohol content(water molecule is smaller than alcohol and passes throught the wood easier) This could concentrate the flavors. But this concentration could be a positive also.

Only one way to find out.

[kbuzbee]

I think you are right about that, Dane. It happens to the big boys, why not to us??

Ken

[JeffRenner]

isn't a pint a measure of volume, not weight?

Yes, but since a US gallon of water weighs 8.33 lbs, Chuck's aphorism:

"A pint is a pound the whole world round."

is pretty accurate.

Of course, the metric system avoids these problems. Even a kid knows that a liter of water weighs 1000 grams, or a kilogram.

a pint of alcohol would have a different weight than a pint of water?

Ethanol is about 89% as dense as water, so a gallon of whiskey would weigh pretty close to 8 lbs, depending on proof. A gallon of barrel strength whiskey would weigh a bit less.

Jeff

[cowdery]

A lot of the questions people are asking are the reason we play the game...i.e., conduct the experiment.

Since it's impossible to get "barrel proof" whiskey except in the form of something like Booker's or Stagg, which would be pretty expensive for this experiment, a cheap BIB is probably the best compromise. Booker's and Stagg are already pretty well aged too and you probably want to start the experiment with something young.

Does it make sense to increase the proof with high proof GNS? Maybe. The higher proof spirit will be more effective as a solvent for dissolving barrel "goodies," but you'll be diluting the non-barrel whiskey flavors, which may be a negative as far as your final product. It also will no longer be straight whiskey, not that it matters from a legal standpoint, but in any experiment you want to limit your variables and aging a whiskey/GNS mixture is certainly a significant additional variable.

Worried about it aging "too fast"? How fast is "too fast" and why is "fast" "too fast," as in something negative? Wouldn't you want to get some identifiable changes as quickly as possible? I can't see any benefit in retarding the aging. Pick a location where you are going to get the greatest temperature extremes and let 'er rip. Remember, though, that it's the cycle of heating and cooling that changes the spirit. Getting it hot and keeping it hot doesn't get you anywhere.

[Gillman]

As a footnote to my own post, it occurs to me there are one or two people on this board or the other one who have Mattingly bourbon (still available after a fashion I believe in the form of Mattingly and Moore, or not long unavailable), McBrayer bourbon and Monticello rye. He could make a real 1885 blend, or at least, cocktail. Wow. But we have whiskeys today no doubt as good or better than those 3. I am sure the ones Fleischman used would not have been more than 3 or 4 years old, maybe one of them was 6-7. Certainly I'd go with young BIB whiskey as I said earlier and Chuck too, but a cask made up of Doug's many older bottles sounds fascinating to me, too. Just follow the percentages in the recipe I quoted (about 45% each bourbons and the rest, ryes) and let 'er rip. Don't worry about aging, based on this book, even 3 months gets improvement, eerything after that is gravy.

Gary

[kbuzbee]

A lot of the questions people are asking are the reason we play the game...i.e., conduct the experiment.

You're right, there, Chuck but my questions (and I assume those of other's) are just banging around ideas to give us some basis from where to start.

Your input is (as always) very valuable. From your last post, I'm thinking the porch may not be the best area for me as it doesn't get much temp variation. Surely not as much as the attic. I'll just have to deal with the inaccessabilty issue.

Ken

[tdelling]

> Wouldn't the loss of the angel's share in your experiment increase
> the alcohol content on its own without adding the GNS?

Maybe, maybe not... recall that in humid Scotland, proof goes *down*
with age. In the relatively dry US, proof goes up.

We can run some quick numbers... let's say we start at 90 proof,
and just for fun the 5% loss is 4 parts water loss for every 1
part ethanol loss. (45*0.99)/((45*0.99)+(55*0.96)) = 0.4576,
i.e. you've made it up to 91.5 proof in a year.

So you're better off starting at high proof if you want to age there.


Tim Dellinger

[tdelling]

> water molecule is smaller than alcohol and passes throught the wood easier

A popular misconception, but at least you're thinkin'! If that's the case
then how come proof goes down over time in Scotland? My understanding is
that the size of the molecule isn't really what's important here.

Yoahizawa et. at (J Agric Chem Soc Jpn 55: 1063-8, 1981) studied "Subastances
Evaporated Through Barrel of Whisky", and found the following losses over
a given time:

acetaldehyde 32%
ethanol 12.7 %
acetic acid 1.0%

These molecules are very close in size, but very different in barrel
permeability!


Tim Dellinger

[tdelling]

Just a little nit picking concerning your numbers:

> Yes, but since a US gallon of water weighs 8.33 lbs...

I seem to recall 8.63 pounds per gallon, putting you closer to 9 pounds
per gallon.

> Ethanol is about 89% as dense as water, so a gallon of whiskey would
> weigh pretty close to 8 lbs

I'm thinking ethanol is more like 79% of the density of water.
And don't forget that crazy "electrostriction"... mix 50 mL of ethanol
and 50 mL of water, and you'll end up not with 100 mL, but rather something
like 98 mL! The demonstration often really surprises people!

Your rough estimate still holds, though... you'll end up with about 8 pounds
per gallon for whiskey.


Tim Dellinger