Maker Pro
Maker Pro

diy thermometer sensitivity

J

Jon Kirwan

Jan 1, 1970
0
I note that even at 78.24C on your web link that the vapour
fraction has dropped 5% already. I'd almost wonder if there
is a vapour sensor system you could arrange to measure in
situ and use this as feedback in closed loop control.

It seems almost easier that way, because you are talking here
about significant differences with only tens of milliKelvins
accuracy (not precision) differences. And, as already
suggested, even if you have a well calibrated temperature
measurement and the sensor(s) is(are) placed optimally, you
may also need atmospheric pressure and relative humidity
figures in there, as well. And tables to use in controlling
things. Or else you control those factors, too.

Thanks for the posts, by the way. I am not a chemist and I
had only vague notions of how difficult this distillation
process might be. I now have a much better appreciation for
it.

I should have added that I actually have a fiber optic sensor
system (uses phosphors for sensing temperature) that can work
well with fibers down to 10 microns in diameter (low mass)
and has a repeatable precision across instruments and sensors
of about 5 milliKelvins in the temperature range you are
discussing. (single sigma.) The accuracy, of course, is a
matter of calibration points, accuracies, and the software
and theory used to interpolate intermediary table values.

Jon
 
I note that even at 78.24C on your web link that the vapour

fraction has dropped 5% already. I'd almost wonder if there

is a vapour sensor system you could arrange to measure in

situ and use this as feedback in closed loop control.



It seems almost easier that way, because you are talking here

about significant differences with only tens of milliKelvins

accuracy (not precision) differences. And, as already

suggested, even if you have a well calibrated temperature

measurement and the sensor(s) is(are) placed optimally, you

may also need atmospheric pressure and relative humidity

figures in there, as well. And tables to use in controlling

things. Or else you control those factors, too.



Thanks for the posts, by the way. I am not a chemist and I

had only vague notions of how difficult this distillation

process might be. I now have a much better appreciation for

it.



Jon


Yup, there are many possibilities. When I was taking the Thermo classes I noticed all the data were at the atmospheric boiling points, and wondered what the compositions of the distillate would be if you simply allowed the material to evaporate at *room temperature* and collected the vapors (sitting in an ice bath). Then when I took the Mass Transfer classes I realized it would take a *really long time* waiting for it to all evaporate, and moved on.

Really neat stuff if you mix Electrical Engineering folks with Chemical Engineering folks!

Here's a pretty good overview of using distillation columns on ethanol.

http://www.demec.ufmg.br/disciplinas/eng032-BL/distillation.pdf

Note the 14 or so stair-steps on Page 278. Each one of those steps represents a "stage" in the column. Or, it would be the equivalent of doing a bench-scale distillation 14 times. (That's why a column is preferred; to saveenergy.)

Michael
 
J

Jon Kirwan

Jan 1, 1970
0
<snip>
Yup, there are many possibilities. When I was taking the
Thermo classes I noticed all the data were at the
atmospheric boiling points, and wondered what the
compositions of the distillate would be if you simply
allowed the material to evaporate at *room temperature* and
collected the vapors (sitting in an ice bath). Then when I
took the Mass Transfer classes I realized it would take a
*really long time* waiting for it to all evaporate, and
moved on.

Really neat stuff if you mix Electrical Engineering folks
with Chemical Engineering folks!

Here's a pretty good overview of using distillation columns
on ethanol.

http://www.demec.ufmg.br/disciplinas/eng032-BL/distillation.pdf

Note the 14 or so stair-steps on Page 278. Each one of
those steps represents a "stage" in the column. Or, it
would be the equivalent of doing a bench-scale distillation
14 times. (That's why a column is preferred; to save
energy.)

Michael

Thanks for the link. It was EXACTLY what I was looking for.
And I had already figured out, from walking through your
earlier table, that it would take maybe 10 steps to get to
95%, which I can buy as white lightening or everclear at the
store. I was beginning to wonder if mass manufacturing had
figured out something else that was less troublesome. Then
you gave me this. So the answer is 'no, they actually do it
that way and there is no shortcut.' 14 steps makes sense to
me.

I've known since high school that anything more than 95% is
very hard to keep around any length of time. If you so much
as open the bottle much, it "sucks" water out of the air and
dillutes. It also makes me understand the cost differences
between USP and CP.

Thanks, again. Very informative stuff about a common subject
most of us ill-appreciate.

Jon
 
On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 3:59:18 PM UTC-7, Jon Kirwan wrote:

....

Thanks for the link. It was EXACTLY what I was looking for.

And I had already figured out, from walking through your

earlier table, that it would take maybe 10 steps to get to

95%, which I can buy as white lightening or everclear at the

store. I was beginning to wonder if mass manufacturing had

figured out something else that was less troublesome. Then

you gave me this. So the answer is 'no, they actually do it

that way and there is no shortcut.' 14 steps makes sense to

me.



I've known since high school that anything more than 95% is

very hard to keep around any length of time. If you so much

as open the bottle much, it "sucks" water out of the air and

dillutes. It also makes me understand the cost differences

between USP and CP.



Thanks, again. Very informative stuff about a common subject

most of us ill-appreciate.



Jon


You're welcome! I'm glad you have an interest in the subject!

The stuff you get at the hardware store... it might be made from fermentation, or it might be made from petroleum. If petroleum, it is probably made from hydration of ethylene gas.

http://www.chemguide.co.uk/physical/catalysis/hydrate.html

Now that you mention it... there was a guy who recently invented a really cool membrane that would allow water to "evaporate" from an ethanol-water mixture, but keep the ethanol trapped in.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16747208
http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2012/January/graphene-oxide-membrane.asp

Not sure if it broke the 96% azeotrope. Either way, it's not like I can get my hands on that membrane, so I'm stuck trying to make ethanol from kitchen scraps. =)

Regards,

Michael
 
J

Jon Kirwan

Jan 1, 1970
0
You're welcome! I'm glad you have an interest in the subject!

I do. My wife actually wants me to be able to provide
tincture alcohol (95%) for the preparations we make for our
daughter's grand mal seizure control in the case of the
"apocalypse" (break down of general access to common
supplies.) [No, I'm not so worried. But if it comforts her to
know we can do it, then I don't mind demonstrating a
capability.]
The stuff you get at the hardware store... it might be made
from fermentation, or it might be made from petroleum. If
petroleum, it is probably made from hydration of ethylene
gas.

It's from the liquor store. Oregon as a state managed system.
We use it for tinctures (extraction solvent.)
http://www.chemguide.co.uk/physical/catalysis/hydrate.html

Now that you mention it... there was a guy who recently
invented a really cool membrane that would allow water to
"evaporate" from an ethanol-water mixture, but keep the
ethanol trapped in.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16747208
http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2012/January/graphene-oxide-membrane.asp

Not sure if it broke the 96% azeotrope. Either way, it's
not like I can get my hands on that membrane, so I'm stuck
trying to make ethanol from kitchen scraps. =)

Regards,

Michael

Crap. Even MORE to learn about!! And yes, I'd be in a similar
boat as you.

Thanks again!

Jon
 
On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 4:23:55 PM UTC-7, Jon Kirwan wrote:

....
You're welcome! I'm glad you have an interest in the subject!



I do. My wife actually wants me to be able to provide

tincture alcohol (95%) for the preparations we make for our

daughter's grand mal seizure control in the case of the

"apocalypse" (break down of general access to common

supplies.) [No, I'm not so worried. But if it comforts her to

know we can do it, then I don't mind demonstrating a

capability.]


Oh... if it for human consumption, be VERY careful. Typical yeast fermentation produces byproducts in small amounts: methanol (causes blindness and death), and "fusel oils" such as butanol (which make excellent vehicle fuelsby the way - better than ethanol). If I understand it correctly, the folks who make vodka, etc. know from experience to discard a certain amount of the first distillate liquid, which contain these. And they use batch stills... if you see "triple distilled" then you guessed it, they distilled the liquid three times...

A homemade continuous column would NOT remove the methanol and fusel oils, so be very careful.

How much do you need? Might be more efficient to stock up now before the apocalypse. (Which could be anything... giant earthquake in Seattle... somegeologists think that could happen... Yellowstone blowing up... North Korea getting lucky...)

It's from the liquor store. Oregon as a state managed system.

We use it for tinctures (extraction solvent.)











Crap. Even MORE to learn about!! And yes, I'd be in a similar

boat as you.


Yup, don't you have it when scientific progress advances faster than we canread.

Thanks again!



Jon


=)

Michael
 
G

George Herold

Jan 1, 1970
0
On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 12:36:25 PM UTC-7, George Herold wrote:

...







Haha, I plead the Fifth.  The closer I can get to the 95% EtOH-H2O azeotrope at around 78 degrees (seems like the exact number depends on which source you read 78.2? 78.3? 78.5? I give up)

I'm pretty sure, (though I don't know for sure... like if I did the
measurement) that the temperature will change with external pressure,
so What's your altitude, and is there a cold front passing through?

I'm thinking of water, where at higher altitudes, you've gotta boil
your eggs for more than 6.5 minutes, for that hard white, soft yellow
that I like.

George H.

, the better.  If I completely lose control and allow it to get as
high as 95 degrees, my column simplifies to a single-stage (allowing
way too much water in the distillate) and that completely defeats the
purpose of having a column.
 
G

George Herold

Jan 1, 1970
0
On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 12:36:25 PM UTC-7, George Herold wrote:

...




Yeah the charts are pretty.  The tables from Perry's Chemical Engineering Handbook are probably more useful in this context, however.

http://homedistiller.org/calcs/calc

Go down to "Equilibrium Data", Mass Fraction (g/g), and Vapour (y).

At 78.15 degrees you see the azeotrope (liquid and vapor have the exact same composition, 0.9558, or 95.58% ethanol).  That is my target.

As temperature rises a bit you see the vapor fraction of ethanol drops.  Even just at 79.8 degrees, less than 2 degrees above 78.15, the ethanol composition has dropped to 83%.  So the dessicant step later on has to work that much harder to make that ethanol dry.  (Trying to make a fuel here, not planning to drink it.)  As temperature rises to 95.5 degrees, well, you basically just made a single-stage distiller.  A beer mix will distill at around 95 degrees.  It's about 5% ethanol.  The vapor will be 34% ethanol or so, not quite concentrated enough to catch fire with a match.

How do you measure the ethanol fraction? (density?)
Seems to me you need to feed that 'signal' back to the thermal control
loop.

Say, isn't it legal to distill some of your own hooch in the US?
Maybe you need a permit/ license?

George H.
 
G

George Herold

Jan 1, 1970
0
I note that even at 78.24C on your web link that the vapour
fraction has dropped 5% already. I'd almost wonder if there
is a vapour sensor system you could arrange to measure in
situ and use this as feedback in closed loop control.

It seems almost easier that way, because you are talking here
about significant differences with only tens of milliKelvins
accuracy (not precision) differences. And, as already
suggested, even if you have a well calibrated temperature
measurement and the sensor(s) is(are) placed optimally, you
may also need atmospheric pressure and relative humidity
figures in there, as well. And tables to use in controlling
things. Or else you control those factors, too.

Thanks for the posts, by the way. I am not a chemist and I
had only vague notions of how difficult this distillation
process might be. I now have a much better appreciation for
it.

Jon

Yeah! That's what I figure.
(mind you I know nothing of chemistry.. but reading about Aezotrops on
wikipediea was fun.)
George H.
 
How do you measure the ethanol fraction? (density?)


For now I go by temperature, and whether it passes my "flame test" (put about a mL in a saucer and see if it ignites). Yeah density works too, but I collect so little, maybe 10 mL per half-hour.


Seems to me you need to feed that 'signal' back to the thermal control

loop.



Say, isn't it legal to distill some of your own hooch in the US?

Maybe you need a permit/ license?


Dunno, for the tiny (mL) volumes I'm making.

I saw maggots growing in my fermentation tank. No way I'm drinking that stuff.

M
 
I'm pretty sure, (though I don't know for sure... like if I did the

measurement) that the temperature will change with external pressure,

so What's your altitude, and is there a cold front passing through?



I'm thinking of water, where at higher altitudes, you've gotta boil

your eggs for more than 6.5 minutes, for that hard white, soft yellow

that I like.



George H.



Pretty close to sea level, within 80 ft or so

Yeah pressure variations look interesting too... I can easily get lost in the details, and I do (just look at this thread!)

M
 
J

Jon Kirwan

Jan 1, 1970
0
Oh... if it for human consumption, be VERY careful. Typical
yeast fermentation produces byproducts in small amounts:
methanol (causes blindness and death), and "fusel oils" such
as butanol (which make excellent vehicle fuels by the way -
better than ethanol). If I understand it correctly, the
folks who make vodka, etc. know from experience to discard a
certain amount of the first distillate liquid, which contain
these. And they use batch stills... if you see "triple
distilled" then you guessed it, they distilled the liquid
three times...

A homemade continuous column would NOT remove the methanol
and fusel oils, so be very careful.

How much do you need? Might be more efficient to stock up
now before the apocalypse. (Which could be anything...
giant earthquake in Seattle... some geologists think that
could happen... Yellowstone blowing up... North Korea
getting lucky...)

Hehe. I think 250 gallons would be enough to keep in storage,
I suppose. Might be the best way to go. I could set up an
above ground 250 made of food-grade steel and store it there.
I just don't like that much ethanol in one (explosive) place.
And I'm not sure what products might form over time, inside.
(I remember vividly a refrigerator door blowing off the
refrigerator in front of my face when just barely being
opened, due to a small can of ethyl ether exploding.
Afterwards, I learned about what products gradually develop
inside and that I shouldn't keep ethyl ether for longer than
about 6 months, to be sure about it. Each molecule and
storage method leads to different results, of course, but I'm
a little uncomfortable about 250 gallons of long-term stored
ethyl alcohol. I'd rather distill to need and merely maintain
that equipment than store the stuff for the "apocalypse." I
also prefer to learn to fish, than to be given fish,1 in such
cases.

I'm already aware of methyl alcohol contamination problems,
though I'm NOT well aware of how best to deal with it. That's
something else I will need to gather up, I suppose. Same with
the other alcohol byproducts, such as amyl alcohol. I will
have to learn how to both test for and remove them if I ever
get started on something like this. I'm dragging my feet
because there are so many other pressing issues and I don't
really like betting on horrible disasters in my future. I
don't mind the learning process, though, which is why I was
so interested here. Learning goes into my head, takes up no
space, keeps for a long time, doesn't go stale, and can get
brought into use when needed. Actual physical stuff costs
money, takes up room, can get broken or lost, needs
maintenance, etc.... even when it isn't needed or being used.

But my wife may want me to at least "demonstrate" some
capability here, someday. I simple chem lab experiment I can
do to show that I can get from A to Z, if needed someday.
Then I can just drop it and wait until "the apocalypse"
happens, if ever. And I will like knowing how, anyway. So I'm
not opposed. But you have taught me well just how much is
involved even doing just that little bit, so I will be
spending more time learning before I go jump off this cliff,
for sure.

When I decided to make rocket fuels as a teenager, I spent
many many hours studying chemistry manufacturing books on the
5th floor of our local 4yr university's library before taking
on ANY of the fuels at home. I never had a single dangerous
event take place. And I made mercury fulminate,
nitroglycerin, potassium nitrate and sugar glass, used
potassium chlorates (still have some), potassium perchlorates
(also still have some), picric acid, and you name it almost
(gunpowder, of course.) Made lots of fireworks, including
exploding rocket flares. Just getting a handle on making the
potassium nitrate and sugar melts required careful study, as
it needed to be melted at higher than 300C but had a flash
point at anywhere above about 400C. To achieve that on my
meager budget, I had to discover that H2SO4 boils around the
right temperature for my project and to set up a condensing
double boiler to avoid "hot spots" that might cause an
explosion. But of course I also had to worry about what might
happen, anyway, and if I were anywhere near an exploding
beaker (I used a florence flask and beaker system) of pure,
very hot H2SO4. So I used sand bags to protect me. Worst
moment of this experience was having to leave that protection
long enough to remove the florence flask (I hadn't figured
out an automated way I could afford, then.) I moved quickly,
of course.

I will take far less chances now and do far more research
first. And I can afford better arrangements, too.

I think I'll enjoy this experience even more, now that I
realize just how interesting it really is. It's harder, but
much more interesting and educational than I'd imagined
before.

Jon
 
On Thursday, June 13, 2013 12:10:38 AM UTC-7, Jon Kirwan wrote:

....
Hehe. I think 250 gallons would be enough to keep in storage,

I suppose. Might be the best way to go. I could set up an

above ground 250 made of food-grade steel and store it there.


That much, huh! Ok.

I just don't like that much ethanol in one (explosive) place.

And I'm not sure what products might form over time, inside.


Hmm... I'm not sure either. If it's 100% ethanol, airtight, I can't imagine any bugs being able to grow in that...

(I remember vividly a refrigerator door blowing off the

refrigerator in front of my face when just barely being

opened, due to a small can of ethyl ether exploding.

Afterwards, I learned about what products gradually develop

inside and that I shouldn't keep ethyl ether for longer than

about 6 months, to be sure about it. Each molecule and


Ah yes, ether is a special case. Our Organic Chemistry professor warned us that ether forms explosive shock-sensitive peroxides over time. A can of ether at a university lab killed a few medical students, IIRC.

storage method leads to different results, of course, but I'm

a little uncomfortable about 250 gallons of long-term stored

ethyl alcohol. I'd rather distill to need and merely maintain

that equipment than store the stuff for the "apocalypse." I

also prefer to learn to fish, than to be given fish,1 in such

cases.

Commendable.


I'm already aware of methyl alcohol contamination problems,

though I'm NOT well aware of how best to deal with it. That's

something else I will need to gather up, I suppose. Same with

the other alcohol byproducts, such as amyl alcohol. I will

have to learn how to both test for and remove them if I ever

get started on something like this. I'm dragging my feet

because there are so many other pressing issues and I don't

really like betting on horrible disasters in my future. I

don't mind the learning process, though, which is why I was

so interested here. Learning goes into my head, takes up no

space, keeps for a long time, doesn't go stale, and can get

brought into use when needed. Actual physical stuff costs

money, takes up room, can get broken or lost, needs

maintenance, etc.... even when it isn't needed or being used.


Yeah. Oh, and I was telling my buddies, once Obamacare kicks in there will be a lot of unhappy people, so maybe that's apocalypse enough for ya. (Riots, riot police, possible martial law...)

But my wife may want me to at least "demonstrate" some

capability here, someday. I simple chem lab experiment I can

do to show that I can get from A to Z, if needed someday.

Then I can just drop it and wait until "the apocalypse"

happens, if ever. And I will like knowing how, anyway. So I'm

not opposed. But you have taught me well just how much is

involved even doing just that little bit, so I will be

spending more time learning before I go jump off this cliff,

for sure.



When I decided to make rocket fuels as a teenager, I spent

many many hours studying chemistry manufacturing books on the

5th floor of our local 4yr university's library before taking

on ANY of the fuels at home. I never had a single dangerous

event take place. And I made mercury fulminate,

nitroglycerin, potassium nitrate and sugar glass, used

potassium chlorates (still have some), potassium perchlorates

(also still have some), picric acid, and you name it almost

(gunpowder, of course.) Made lots of fireworks, including

exploding rocket flares. Just getting a handle on making the

potassium nitrate and sugar melts required careful study, as

it needed to be melted at higher than 300C but had a flash

point at anywhere above about 400C. To achieve that on my

meager budget, I had to discover that H2SO4 boils around the

right temperature for my project and to set up a condensing

double boiler to avoid "hot spots" that might cause an

explosion. But of course I also had to worry about what might

happen, anyway, and if I were anywhere near an exploding

beaker (I used a florence flask and beaker system) of pure,

very hot H2SO4. So I used sand bags to protect me. Worst

moment of this experience was having to leave that protection

long enough to remove the florence flask (I hadn't figured

out an automated way I could afford, then.) I moved quickly,

of course.


That's amazing! You could create some jobs here in the USA with that knowledge! (Are you sure you went into the right field? Hahaha)

I will take far less chances now and do far more research

first. And I can afford better arrangements, too.



I think I'll enjoy this experience even more, now that I

realize just how interesting it really is. It's harder, but

much more interesting and educational than I'd imagined

before.



Jon


Yup.

Michael
 
On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 7:07:34 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:

....
Ceramic, roughly 0.1 uF, doesn't matter much.


Oh ok thanks!

....
You could software filter to smooth the noise out.



Average blocks of, say, 100 samples. Or make a continuous lowpass filter,



OUT = OUT + (IN - OUT) * K (in floats)



where K is small, like 0.01. In integer math, you can do an arithmetic

right-shift to approximate the multiply. >>7 is like multiplying by 1/128.


That's pretty amazing. Continuous low pass filter, huh? Trying to figure out why it works. Is it something like this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_smoothing

Thanks again for all your help John!

Michael
 
J

Jon Kirwan

Jan 1, 1970
0
<snip>
Say, isn't it legal to distill some of your own hooch in the US?
Maybe you need a permit/ license?

I did a little informal reading on the web about this
question (as regards the US, of course.) So take my tentative
conclusions with a huge grain of internet salt. ;)

It appears that federal law trumps state law (from what I
gather) and rules over this issue. Because of political
pressures, beer and wine makers were able to secure
exceptions under federal law for making home brews and wines.

Taxes on beer and wine are low, compared to taxes on
distilled liquors, I gather. So it may also be that it was
less of a loss for Congress' tax collection revenue stream
allowing that, as well, and so easier to secure exceptions.
Taxes on distilled liquors produced billions of dollars more
tax revenue, I gather, and arguments about the potential harm
from methanol and amyl alcohol and lead poisoning (metal
parts welded together, etc, assuming that a moonshiner would
use cheaper, more readily available materials instead of
getting appropriate laboratory equipment and/or teflon and
food grade stainless) allowed legislators to justify keeping
a strong hold on the tax revenues for hard liquors.

I found nothing yet about port, which is a fortified type of
usually blended wines. It may have it's own exemptions (in
either direction) on this issue.

What I did find is that if you are a "moonshiner" then you
need to secure at least one federal permit and pay taxes on
what you produce, even if only for personal use. I would
assume that if you sell any of it, that would be at least one
more permit, probably more fees, and probably inspections and
fees for that and who knows what else (appropriate bribes,
etc?)

Basically, if you distill for food purposes, you need a
federal permit. I don't know about "fuel purposes," though.
Congress appears to have given away huge subsidies for
ehthanol production for fuels, while insisting on retaining
huge tax revenues for food ethanol distillation. So it's
possible the laws are quite different. Or, it is possible
that to avoid people making "fuel" which they then drink,
that they've done something to close that loop, too. I have
come up with nothing on that particular topic (mostly because
I didn't dwell on it.)

Jon
 
J

Jon Kirwan

Jan 1, 1970
0
I just read that you can own a still and process alcohol, but
only if you're using the alcohol as fuel AND you have a
permit from the ATF.

Jon
 
J

Jon Kirwan

Jan 1, 1970
0
I also just read that in 2007 the feds collected an excise
tax of $2.14 for every 750 ml bottle of 80-proof spirits.
This compared with $0.21 for a bottle of wine (of 14% or less
ethanol) and $0.05 for a can of beer. To put some numbers to
it.

Jon
 
J

Jon Kirwan

Jan 1, 1970
0
More discussion here at this .gov site:

http://www.ttb.gov/faqs/genalcohol.shtml

They summarize the situation by saying that it's
"impractical" for a home brewer to produce distilled alcohol
for personal use because of "excise taxes", "extensive
application work", a required "bond" to be posted, owning
adequate equipment for required measurements, suitable tanks
and pipes, providing a separate building for the purposes
(required), detailed record keeping, and regular reporting
all required in 27 CFR Part 19.

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-id...rgn=div5&view=text&node=27:1.0.1.1.15&idno=27

They add that "spirits may be produced for non-beverage
purposes for fuel use only without payment of tax, but you
also must file an application, receive TTB's approval, and
follow requirements, such as construction, use, records and
reports." I've read elsewhere (Title 27, Part 19, subpart X,
section 19.678) that this also requires a bond to be posted,
though. Not sure about fees yet.

Jon
 
I did a little informal reading on the web about this

question (as regards the US, of course.) So take my tentative

conclusions with a huge grain of internet salt. ;)



It appears that federal law trumps state law (from what I

gather) and rules over this issue. Because of political

pressures, beer and wine makers were able to secure

exceptions under federal law for making home brews and wines.



Taxes on beer and wine are low, compared to taxes on

distilled liquors, I gather. So it may also be that it was

less of a loss for Congress' tax collection revenue stream

allowing that, as well, and so easier to secure exceptions.

Taxes on distilled liquors produced billions of dollars more

tax revenue, I gather, and arguments about the potential harm

from methanol and amyl alcohol and lead poisoning (metal

parts welded together, etc, assuming that a moonshiner would

use cheaper, more readily available materials instead of

getting appropriate laboratory equipment and/or teflon and

food grade stainless) allowed legislators to justify keeping

a strong hold on the tax revenues for hard liquors.



I found nothing yet about port, which is a fortified type of

usually blended wines. It may have it's own exemptions (in

either direction) on this issue.



What I did find is that if you are a "moonshiner" then you

need to secure at least one federal permit and pay taxes on

what you produce, even if only for personal use. I would

assume that if you sell any of it, that would be at least one

more permit, probably more fees, and probably inspections and

fees for that and who knows what else (appropriate bribes,

etc?)



Basically, if you distill for food purposes, you need a

federal permit. I don't know about "fuel purposes," though.

Congress appears to have given away huge subsidies for

ehthanol production for fuels, while insisting on retaining

huge tax revenues for food ethanol distillation. So it's

possible the laws are quite different. Or, it is possible

that to avoid people making "fuel" which they then drink,

that they've done something to close that loop, too. I have

come up with nothing on that particular topic (mostly because

I didn't dwell on it.)



Jon


I did a brief bit of research from ATF last night too, and noticed they classify a Small Plant as <10,000 gallons. No Nano plants producing ~10 mL. Ha. Also saw they need $1,000 posted in bond, I need security around my "plant" to deter theft, inspectors... interesting.

I *had* about 50 mL of >50% ethanol, but when I tried to dry it in a jar ofanhydrous magnesium sulfate, to my surprise and horror the MgSO4 absorbed the ethanol as well as the water (liberating quite a bit of heat as it did so), and now it's all a solid mass. In the future I should probably add the MgSO4 slowly into the ethanol, as we did in organic chemistry class decades ago.

Ultimately the ethanol is intended to be an intermediate. If I get it anhydrous I can use it to make biodiesel. So that throws another monkey wrenchinto the works.
 
I also just read that in 2007 the feds collected an excise

tax of $2.14 for every 750 ml bottle of 80-proof spirits.

This compared with $0.21 for a bottle of wine (of 14% or less

ethanol) and $0.05 for a can of beer. To put some numbers to

it.



Jon


I finally found some translations in plain English.

http://www.revenoor.com/pdf/catalog.pdf

"To produce alcohol fuel, the only requirement is a simple permit issued bythe Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau. It costs nothing and we knowof no one ever being turned down."

That is what I wanted to hear.

This is the site that first inspired me to proceed (they make ethanol from prison scraps):

http://running_on_alcohol.tripod.com/id10.html

and here is the form:
http://www.ttb.gov/forms/f511074.pdf

It is rather odd that on Question 11 they would ask for the capacity. How would I know what the capacity is unless I build it? Oh well. I can make about 10 mL in about half an hour. They want a 24-hour period? 0.1 gallons it is, then. I would put 0.127 but I fear some nitwit will read that as 127 gallons.

But a FREE form? Didn't think such a thing was possible.

Thanks!

Michael
 
Top