StillDragon® Community Forum

Welcome!

Be part of our community & join our international next generation forum now!

In this Discussion

Whiskey Helmet

2»

Comments

  • edited September 2017

    @rossco said: I didn't comment because we are all trying to learn as much as we can, and I didn't want anyone to get upset. I am obsessed with single malts. I don't think it is really possible to replicate highland or Islay methods at home.

    Not looking to argue, but can you elaborate on exactly why replication might be impossible? I'm asking because I recently found out that I have access to a peat bog, peat, water, and all, and the owner wants to play whisky games.

    Anyway IMO much of the discussion has been extraneous because, even though some single malt distillers use a single pot, most of them use a line of three, they are all different sizes and shapes for specific reasons. Probably a plate still could be closest to approximate that at home, but we would struggle to match their fermentation techniques. Even triple distilling with a pot would only approximate because of the interaction of the different shaped pots.

    If you're thinking that you'd just take the output from the first still and put it into the second, taking that output and putting it into the third, could you describe the work flow considering all 3 stills are very close to the same size? It doesn't seem likely to me, but I may be out to lunch (which I actually am, once a day).

    Thanks for posting the plates diagram grim, we understood this effect as soon as the first modular components appeared and we added more plates. That is why hybrids, and experiments with different types of packing happened almost immediately.

    Cheers for the chemical analysis Smaug, interesting, I'll need some time to research and really understand the effect of the fractions.

    If you can be bothered to watch some in-house videos (there are heaps out there), check out what the operator is doing. Also take notice of the depth of understanding that these people have of their craft.

    Are you finding those videos on the distillers websites?

    Zymurgy Bob, a simple potstiller

    my book, Making Fine Spirits

  • edited September 2017

    Hi Bob,

    Not looking to argue, but can you elaborate on exactly why replication might be impossible?

    Ok so the diversity of the methods is staggering, I have focused on Islay methods, however they are similar to the highland methods. If you know a distillery that is different to this, I know heaps too.

    Obviously drying and malting uses peat, and on Islay is done by hand, you could do this bit. Mashing they have 'first water' mash, 'second water' sparge and 'third runnings' water through to pick up the peat barley flavour which is used for the next mash.

    Grain and temperature choice are critical for the style of the whisky. Just from experience, ale malt 65degC will be closer to a lowland JW flavour, while highland needs a Mantus or pale malt and 63degC mash. Their water, its brown on account of it comes from the peat bogs, I have found veiled references to the difference this makes to the flavour. I suspect the boil it but do not filter because of the contribution to flavour, with some distilleries this could mean lowering the ABV of the final product as well. Laphroig went as far as buying the whole catchment, peat bog and all.

    The scotts refer to their fermenters as 'pacs' they are often wood, wide and shallow and located in the basement. They ferment in winter, at about 2deg and the yeasts are happy to chug away at those temperatures. Interestingly many use commercial yeasts, notice the plural. Some of these and they are available. 72hrs will be about it for the longest ferment, they think the wash will develop off flavours if left longer. What they distill looks like cat vomit.

    If you're thinking that you'd just take the output from the first still and put it into the second, taking that output and putting it into the third, could you describe the work flow considering all 3 stills are very close to the same size?

    Mostly they use three stills in descending volume probably as the volume drops after each distillation, the spirit still often has the name of the distillery on it, not sure why. They are not close to the same size in many distilleries. They pump from one to the next. I would be guessing on the workflow, they are not continuous so I have always assumed that each batch is distilled separately in each still. They are single malts, so each batch needs to be separate. We buy single malts and individual bottles vary depending on which part of the run the barrel they were in originally came from, we had a bottle of Laphroig LORE the other night that was headsy, and I bought a bolttle of Talisker that definitely included tails.

    Their heads cut is way narrow and they divert what they cut into the next batch. I think it is a defining feature of the style and why they need to leave it 18years in a barrel. Bit like grappa, you need the heads for it to taste right. Much of the character of their spirit comes from the choice of barrels.

    Are you finding those videos on the distillers websites?

    Yes, there are also whisky fanatics out there, some of the videos are just tasting. Bruichladdich did a really interesting series on their process. Youtube has heaps I just chase them through to the source.

    Final note, Just to define next level frothing, I distill 60-5 litres in an 84litre boiler and use a 4" 600mm spool with a sight glass under and over to monitor froth levels, doesn't matter about whether it is a pot or trays. Although there is 6kw available it will puke up the column and out the condenser at anything more than 2.6-2.8kw, even with boiler conditioner. If you think about it, no ProCaps, really low levels of activity on the plates, super long runs. Needing a controller and the constantly watch the column.

    A whisky helmet is not bling, it would be really useful and is part of the design for a reason. Also my reading suggests the lyne arm is very important in flavour determination.

  • Nice post Roscoe.

    StillDragon North America - Your StillDragon® Distributor for North America

  • A great post Grim. I'm not sure that theory matches up with reality though. When I started building up my bubbler I couldn't separate the foreshots even after running super slow and taking off 6 litres from a 50 litre boiler. That was with 5 plates. It wasn't until I had 7 plates that I could remove all the fores in 3 litres.

  • Not sure I follow.

  • Cuts are an interpretation. No?

    StillDragon North America - Your StillDragon® Distributor for North America

  • I'll propose Grim's Conjecture:

    The greater the number of distillation stages, the more objective the cut will be. The fewer the stages, the more subjective.

    Get 10 people in a room to make a pot still cut, you will likely get 10 widely varying opinions. Do the same thing with a dozen plates, and those 10 opinions will be much more tightly clustered.

  • edited October 2017

    It could be operator skill as well @grim, heads/tails compression requires a couple of adjustments.

  • Kinda goes full circle for many folks coming out of the HD circuit. By that I mean the novice distiller, upon learning about cuts will more often than not be super vigilant about finding that center cut and staying as close as possible to that center profile.

    The (novice) distiller initially seems unwilling to dip their toe toe into the deeper (either side) end of the flavor pool. Finally happens when the distiller grows weary (and more confident) of sampling insipid finished product. At that point the opinions start to form and expand.

    But I agree for sure that pot stilling is far more subjective,,,,,Artful.

    StillDragon North America - Your StillDragon® Distributor for North America

  • Get 10 people in a room to make a pot still cut, you will likely get 10 widely varying opinions. Do the same thing with a dozen plates, and those 10 opinions will be much more tightly clustered.

    Funny, but my experience is the opposite. When I was a strict amateur potstilling something new, or maybe even something I knew well, just for the fun of it, I used to have cut-making parties, where friends would come over to help me make the cuts an a series of sample from one run. I was always struck by the fact that, experienced or neophyte, agreement on "pitch or keep" was just about unanimous, and only ever happened (occasionally) at the head-heart or heart-tails boundary sample.

    Zymurgy Bob, a simple potstiller

    my book, Making Fine Spirits

  • edited October 2017

    Hi All,

    So what is the benefit of a Copper Helmet on a small still (120 liters or less)?
    ie: Copper Whiskey Helmet 4 x 2 @ StillDragon Australia

    Will it give you a great whiskey? or its just for show?

    Is there any math to support an item like this?

    Cheers
    Tuner

  • @TUner not trying to sound rude, but did you read through the thread?

  • @TUner, A copper helmet on it's own accord is no guarantee that whiskey will be improved.

    The expansion chamber itself will indeed offer an extra measure of protection against potential foam ups, but I suspect with enough heat input the user could still overwhelm the chamber with foam especially if there is not ample head space in the kettle.

    At that size I suspect any added surface area would impact attenuation so minimally that it may not be measureable? We do not have a side by side test result.

    Definitely long on cool factor however.

    We do like the small recipe development systems to mimic the vapor path of the larger systems as closely as possible so that there will at least hopefully be a lesser impact on the profile of the finished product once the recipe is scaled up to commercial volumes if you see my meaning?

    StillDragon North America - Your StillDragon® Distributor for North America

  • edited October 2017

    @Unsensibel said: TUner not trying to sound rude, but did you read through the thread?

    Sorry yes I did .. but I am unclear - My read, is that the Helmet info given is for a Large Still with Helmet aka: Main Stream production. Not sure if this could be used in the smaller Proto Production Still, as comparison examples to each still is not linearly? Am I off key with this?

    Cheers Tuner

  • @Smaug said: TUner, A copper helmet on it's own accord is no guarantee that whiskey will be improved.

    Definitely long on cool factor however.

    Thanks - Quote "so minimally that it may not be measureable?" - that is my thinking, Yes on the very "COOL" looking.

Sign In or Register to comment.