TheNovaMan Posted April 8, 2013 Share Posted April 8, 2013 Does anyone have the measurements of these small barrels? If they're just scaled-down versions of 53 gallon barrels, the surface area to volume ratio will be the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowdery Posted April 8, 2013 Share Posted April 8, 2013 Does anyone have the measurements of these small barrels? If they're just scaled-down versions of 53 gallon barrels, the surface area to volume ratio will be the same.They're just scaled-down versions of 53-gallon barrels.Please don't disturb the small barrel people by giving them facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNovaMan Posted April 8, 2013 Share Posted April 8, 2013 I literally laughed out loud at that!!! :slappin: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoMobourbon Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 Does anyone have the measurements of these small barrels? If they're just scaled-down versions of 53 gallon barrels, the surface area to volume ratio will be the same.Hmmm. I'm not sure, but I don't think so. Middle school math was a long time ago...but...I'm pretty sure that if area is length squared and volume is length cubed, (lets say we are dealing with cubes), than volume will decrease faster than surface area, making for a higher surface area : volume ratio.*Example (let me try this): If you have Barrel A, 64 cubic foot oak cube full of whiskey, say, then you have a cube of 4ft x 4ft x 4ft, right? The surface area of Barrel A is 96 square feet (4x4x6); the surface area to volume ratio is 3:2.Then, let's say Barrel B is an 8 cubic feet of whiskey in a 2ft x 2ft x 2ft oak cube. The surface area of Barrel B is 24 square feet (2x2x6), so the surface area to volume ratio is 3:1. SA : V of Barrel A (64 cubic feet) is 3:2, whereas SA : V of Barrel B (8 cubic feet) is 3:1. Right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNovaMan Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 Well I'll be hornswaggled, you're right. The surface area goes by the square, and the volume goes by the cube, so the larger container of the same shape will always have less surface area per volume. I was somewhat hesitant to post my SA/V post, and I should have run more calculations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
p_elliott Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 (edited) Problem is this is all just bad math, bourbon just doesn't get it's flavor from the char on the surface. It gets the majority of it's flavor from the inter layers of the wood that have been caramelized. Small barrels the staves are too thin to get much of any caramelized wood flavors out. Edited April 10, 2013 by p_elliott Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigtoys Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 found a site selling bourbon barrels to collect rain. diameter in middle bigger (24") than top and bottom (21"). I made it a 22" cylinder to simplify. for surface area, I included to top and bottom (of course). my cylinder came out to 59 gal--close enough to not start over. SA : V ratio was 0.23736 in the middle, if you make an 18" tall barrel (half height, half volume), then the SA : V ratio was 0.29--not as much of a difference as with cubes if you make it 9" tall (about 15 gal; don't know if a barrel can be made like that, just theory), then SA : V ratio is 0.4 arbitrarily, if you make to top/bottom diameter 16" (radius 8"), then the height would be 17" to also give a 15 gal cylinder. the SA : V ratio of this is 0.37 I wonder what the dimensions of those mini barrels they sell with white dog to age at home are; it would be interesting (fascinating?) to calculate the SA : V ratio of that for kicks, too. at this point, I grow frustrated and tired. but, you're welcome for these calculations.:skep: sounds like a graph solution, but there should be dimensions of a smaller barrel that would give the same SA to V ratio.....I think. I need a drink now, but I have to go to work at 4 pm....off tomorrow. Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowdery Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 I have no objection to the thread drift but I want to remind people what the original question was: "How long does it take to make good bourbon." The operative word here is "bourbon." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dohidied Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 4 years and a day. If the bottle doesn't say "straight" it doesn't taste right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squire Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 At that age it could also be called Jack or Jim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoMobourbon Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 Problem is this is all just bad math, bourbon just doesn't get it's flavor from the char on the surface. It gets the majority of it's flavor from the inter layers of the wood that have been caramelized. Small barrels the staves are too thin to get much of any caramelized wood flavors out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loki993 Posted April 11, 2013 Author Share Posted April 11, 2013 I have no objection to the thread drift but I want to remind people what the original question was: "How long does it take to make good bourbon." The operative word here is "bourbon."Eh, It's fine when I said bourbon its because the site is bourbon centric. Whiskey in general is ok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squire Posted April 11, 2013 Share Posted April 11, 2013 Well, yes, Bourbon is what we're about but I think the inquiry applies equally well to other whiskys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts