Sciencemadness Discussion Board

Have I made drinkable ethanol from metylated spirits

Craftbrewer - 27-9-2014 at 21:20

I thought I would share my simple experiment of making drinkable ethanol from methylated spirits as of interest to anyone.

In Australia, I used a clear brand as my starter. Diggers Methylated Spirits. The bottle and spec sheet state 95%ethanol, <5% water. I assumed from this the ethanol is sourced from natural fermentation and distillation then the denaturing agents added.

http://www.recochem.com.au/index.php/products/consumer_produ...

Contacting the manufacturer, They would not state what they were, BUT were very persistant that their methylated spirits had no toxic ingredients to humans. Over here companies are worried about being sued as they know drunks drink the stuff, so make it " non-toxic".

OK lets look at the facts

In methylated spirits, what they do is add basically three categories of additions.

1. Sometimes a colouring agent to tell you not to drink it.
2. an agent that smells terrible to tell you dont drink it.
3. an agent that tastes terrible so you dont swallow it.

So I set up a good fractional column and gave it a go

1. There is no Methanol in it. It is about 95% ethanol, The temperature racing and sitting at a flat 78.5C right thru the distillation
2. Do the fractional distillation and in the remaining wash (I collected 90 percent of the volume), leaves a hydrocarbon that smells very much like thinners used in car paint.
3. Add acid and fractional distill and you remove a salt crystal that is the main bittering agent

The important bit

4. The remaining is all ethanol and one minor agent and it has a very fruity/floral smell.
5. Add water to this at 50% ethanol strength, and the compound comes out of solution (it goes cloudy)
6. It is non toxic by the way, leaves a extremely slight tingle at the front of the mouth, and is quite pleasant.


BITTERESS

Utterly no problem here. a simple acid addition, renders the bitterness agent a salt, and it wont distill out. The final product is not bitter at all, in fact very drinkable in terms of bitterness. Dare I say it, any alcoholic could drink themselves silly on the stuff.

FLAVOUR

Now the fun begins. This is where we get into some chemistry.

No matter whether its a fractional distil, or many distils, a compound comes thru that is described by all I test as " sweet smelly, a cross between thinners, and roses, or a taste like medicine."

Now lets look at separating and identifiying the flavouring compound, and even removing it to make pure drinking ethanol.

Again lets look at the facts
1.Digger insist all there metho is NON TOXIC to humans
2. Then the flavour that is distilled even thru fractional distillation means its has properties similar to water and ethanol. Totally solubile (Miscible in ethanol), comes out of solution in water at certain level (insoluble)
3. I can separate a crystal at minus 18C from a solution of 43% distillate , BUT that might be water.
4. I cant rule in or out either an ester or an aromatic hydrocarbon.
5. Smell is always described as sweet, and not petrol like. Various descriptions from fruity, floral to slight solvent-like.

Lets look at an ester.

Its probably industry based, strong, and as stated non Toxic

BUTYL ACETATE – its good, fruity, and used in industry. Its a known solvent, and totally soulble in ethanol, poor in water it seems. While fruity hasn't been described by people, its not a stretch to imagine that as a smell. One problem is the boiling point, 128C, well outside the normal distillers range.

Its also clear we could be dealing here with an aromatic hydrohydrocarbon with an azeotrope that matches and even combines with the water/ethanol azeotrope, and thus impossible to separate thru normal distillation, no matter how refined you make it. So thats leads to you the benzene family of hydrocarbons. So what molecules do match ALL the things we know about what we have distilled. Eliminate those that smell like petrol and its industry and you remove most. Then find ones that smell sweet, and have boiling points arround 80C (ethanol) Only one really falls into place.

But lets deal with one mentioned a lot

BENZENE – it fits the bill. Impossible to separate from water/ethanol mixture, boiling point right in the range of home distillers. However two main problems.

1. Its smell and flavour is described as petrol smells. thats not what one gets. It just doesn't smell like that.
2. Its toxic to human health, and Diggers have insisted they dont have any toxic compounds to human health.

so that can be ruled out

BUT the contenter that raises it head and fits the bill

CYCLOHEXANE

Most interesting compound, a deviritive of benzene.

It ticks all the boxes
1. Non toxic to humans
2. described as sweet, fruity, alderhyde, permume, slighty solvant
3. will bind to ethanol/water distillation, impossible to separate thru normal distillation
4. used in distinfectants, soaps, detergents and household chemicals to give a pleasant flavour, very safe
5. freezes at 5 c, boils at 80c (ethanol boils at 78C)

It just ticks all the boxes. Well almost, flavour described as petrol=like, which is rather obscure. Is those describing it as slightly solvent cover that bill, I just dont know. Some decriptions have detergent like smells, and its not that at all. Objectively cant rule this in or out, BUT overall to me this is the compound I have to separate

So two contenders
Butyl acetate and cyclohexane. I favour cyclohexane, as its physical properies match well to water/ethanol, it is not soluble in water, so the cloudiness. We do havean aromatic hydrocarbon, its has a noticable smell, and is safe to consume. BUT we also now have a way to remove it, no matter which it is.

next is how to remove it

OK How to remove the cyclohexane, thus making basically ethanol and water.

Lets revise the critcal facts

1. in ethanol, cyclohexane is totally soluble.
2. in water, cyclohexane is totally insoluble.

So when we dilute our distilled ethanol with water to about 43% ethanol, being soooo much water there, the cyclohexane comes out of solution and forms a haze. This haze is an emulsion (like fat in milk, extremely small droplets thru out the liquid.) Being an emulsion, we now can actually "see" the cyclohexane, so if we remove the haze, we remove the cyclohexane.

Now I was looking at various methods of removing an emulsion and there are a few, BUT wanted a backyard science method of doing it. I found two very simple methods. One I have tried with great success and detail below. The other I am still yet to test so will report when that is ready

And to go weird on people here are two facts about olive oil

3. cyclohexane is miscible with olive oil
4. ethanol/water mixes dont disolve in olive oil

What this means is cyclohexane will disolve with olive oil, no matter what the concentration is of either. So if I add olive oil, it will float on the surface, and absorb some of the cyclohexane that makes contact with it. If I shake the bottle, more will make contact with it and be absorbed. BUT only so much will over time.

Mow apply a little bit of lateral thinking and you will see where this goes.

Ethanol and water are also are miscible. Leave ethanol and water in a glass and over time, the ethanol evaporates and your left with water. Put olive oil over ethanol and water and it seals it from the atmosphere, and very little evaporates. BUT if its an olive oil and cyclohexane mix, well it still stops the ethanol evaporating, as its mixed with the water, but the cyclohexane can evaporate.

Thus the olive oil absorbs the emulsion of cyclohexane, and evaporated it to the atmosphere at the same time. my 5 litres of 43 percent hazzy distilled ethanol totally went from you couldn't see thru it to light haze in a day, and clearish in two days to totally clear in 3 days. The olive oil was simply decanted off.

The end result was very clean, no sign of the cyclohexane taste at all. Perfectly drinkable vodka. A further dilution down to 10 percent showed utterly no haze at all, meaning I had removed ALL the cyclohexane (or at least to below taste threshold levels).

So there you go, a very simple method that worked a treat.

Thought I would share this

blogfast25 - 28-9-2014 at 04:10

Whatever you do with your end product (sell it or consume it yourself) have it at least analysed by a competent and independent laboratory.

It's a nice post but you're at risk of trying to bend reality into what you want it to be, without straightforward empirical evidence on the composition of your end product.

"Ethanol and water are also are miscible. Leave ethanol and water in a glass and over time, the ethanol evaporates and your left with water." for instance shows you know less than you think you do. Water and ethanol form a azeotrope at the high end of ethanol content: water and ethanol can thus not be separated beyond the azeotrope with mere evaporation of distillation. It's one of the best known azeotropes in the world, BTW.

Don't take this the wrong way but I wouldn't consume your product if my life depended on it, w/o some legit certificate of analysis. No one else should either.

You make some other categorical statements:

”There is no Methanol in it. It is about 95% ethanol, The temperature racing and sitting at a flat 78.5C right thru the distillation”

W/o analysis you can’t be that certain.

”BITTERESS

Utterly no problem here. a simple acid addition, renders the bitterness agent a salt, and it wont distill out.”

There are quite a few bitterants out there. W/o knowing which one is in the bought product how can you be so sure of your statement?

You may well be right about all these things but it seems to me there's a lot of wishful thinking in your post.


[Edited on 28-9-2014 by blogfast25]

HeYBrO - 28-9-2014 at 04:10

Now just test it with HPLC!

Edit: blogfast beat me

[Edited on 28-9-2014 by HeYBrO]

IrC - 28-9-2014 at 04:24

You mentioned Butyl Acetate but not Ethyl Acetate which is often used to denature ethyl alcohol.

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

Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denatured_alcohol

From this: "Different additives are used to make it difficult to use distillation or other simple processes to reverse the denaturation. Methanol is commonly used both because its boiling point is close to that of ethanol and because it is toxic. Another typical denaturant is pyridine. Often the denatured alcohol is dyed with methyl violet."

I wonder if you considered any of these alternatives before arbitrarily deciding it must be cyclohexane. Since you stated the source was from fermentation for some industrial purpose (non drinkable) I also wonder if you considered they might allow higher concentrations of fusel alcohols than what they would allow for alcohol produced for consumption.

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

From this: "Excessive concentrations of some alcohols other than ethanol may cause off-flavors, sometimes described as "spicy", "hot", or "solvent-like". Some beverages, such as rum, whisky (especially Bourbon), incompletely rectified vodka (e.g. Siwucha), and traditional ales and ciders, are expected to have relatively high concentrations of non-hazardous alcohols as part of their flavor profile. However, in other beverages, such as Korn, vodka, and lagers, the presence of other alcohols than ethanol is considered a fault.

The compounds involved are chiefly:

2-methyl-1-butanol - sometimes called "active" amyl alcohol
isoamyl alcohol - also known as isopentyl alcohol
isobutyl alcohol - one of the least toxic of the butanols.
n-propyl alcohol

During distillation, fusel alcohols are concentrated in the feints or "tails" at the end of the distillation run. They have an oily consistency, which is noticeable to the distiller, hence the other name "fusel oil". If desired, these heavier alcohols can be almost completely separated in a reflux still. Freeze distillation, on the other hand, does not remove fusel alcohols."

Some of these possibilities do give various flavors to the alcohol. While chemistry is not my strong point I mention these alternatives because you seemed to jump to a conclusion arbitrarily without giving consideration to the points I make here. Or at least you did not mention looking at these alternatives.

xfusion44 - 28-9-2014 at 04:50

@OP

Nice experiment, but why not rather make your own ethanol, by fermenting the sugar? This way you would be at least sure, that there's no toxic denaturants.

blogfast25 - 28-9-2014 at 04:57

During Prohibition a test for methanol in various bootleg alcohols was developed by Alexander Gettler (the famous American toxicologist). It relies on methanol being converted to the acrid formaldehyde (methanal). Here’s a version from a google book:




[Edited on 28-9-2014 by blogfast25]

hissingnoise - 28-9-2014 at 04:58

Quote: Originally posted by xfusion44  
@OP

Nice experiment, but why not rather make your own ethanol, by fermenting the sugar? This way you would be at least sure, that there's no toxic denaturants.

Just ethanol and acetaldehyde, both of which are also toxic . . .

blogfast25 - 28-9-2014 at 05:02
Quote: Originally posted by xfusion44  
@OP

Nice experiment, but why not rather make your own ethanol, by fermenting the sugar? This way you would be at least sure, that there's no toxic denaturants.


His is a short cut: 2 - 3 weeks of fermentation, then rectifying to 95 % azeotrope.
Quote: Originally posted by hissingnoise  
Just ethanol and acetaldehyde, both of which are also toxic . . .



Acetaldehyde? Huh? During digestion yes, but during fermentation?

hissingnoise - 28-9-2014 at 06:59

Just me assuming some oxidation occurs in the mash . . .

SimpleChemist-238 - 28-9-2014 at 07:04

testing for methanol is easy, just heat a copper wire and place it in then smell and see is it smells like formaldehyde. this method was used during probation in america to test alcohol if it was safe.

hissingnoise - 28-9-2014 at 07:10

Quote:
this method was used during probation in america to test alcohol if it was safe.

And didn't work particularly well then, by all accounts!

vmelkon - 28-9-2014 at 07:46

Quote: Originally posted by blogfast25  

Quote: Originally posted by xfusion44  
@OP

Nice experiment, but why not rather make your own ethanol, by fermenting the sugar? This way you would be at least sure, that there's no toxic denaturants.


His is a short cut: 2 - 3 weeks of fermentation, then rectifying to 95 % azeotrope.
Quote: Originally posted by hissingnoise  
Just ethanol and acetaldehyde, both of which are also toxic . . .



Acetaldehyde? Huh? During digestion yes, but during fermentation?


I think that acetyldehyde does form but not 100% sure. Anyway, some aldehyde does form. You can do a aldol condensation by adding NaOH, letting it dissolve and let it sit for 1 day.

A yellow oily liquid forms and sits at the bottom.

And perhaps products from acyloin condensation?
http://www.perfumerflavorist.com/flavor/research/4236701.htm...


This enzyme was first discovered in bakers yeast. It is responsible for the break down of alcohols into aldehydes and ketones.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_dehydrogenase

As for the ketone part, is it possible that it form propanone, the simplest ketone? I don't know.

So when you make ethanol via the fermentation method, you might get some acetyldehyde and propanone as well.

[Edited on 28-9-2014 by vmelkon]

Oxirane - 28-9-2014 at 08:05

If you guys have any neat tricks to remove MEK from ethanol, I'm listening. :)

Texium - 28-9-2014 at 08:05

Sometimes acetaldehyde will form in small amounts during fermentation, but it is usually undesirable and will only be present in noticeable amounts if there was something wrong with the fermentation. It adds a green-apple-like flavor and aroma.
Also, acetone, not propanone, is the simplest ketone.

Amos - 28-9-2014 at 08:28

Quote: Originally posted by zts16  
Sometimes acetaldehyde will form in small amounts during fermentation, but it is usually undesirable and will only be present in noticeable amounts if there was something wrong with the fermentation. It adds a green-apple-like flavor and aroma.
Also, acetone, not propanone, is the simplest ketone.


Heh.
Acetone IS propanone.

Texium - 28-9-2014 at 08:41

Quote: Originally posted by No Tears Only Dreams Now  
Quote: Originally posted by zts16  
Sometimes acetaldehyde will form in small amounts during fermentation, but it is usually undesirable and will only be present in noticeable amounts if there was something wrong with the fermentation. It adds a green-apple-like flavor and aroma.
Also, acetone, not propanone, is the simplest ketone.


Heh.
Acetone IS propanone.
...

(facepalm)

blogfast25 - 28-9-2014 at 08:41

Quote: Originally posted by hissingnoise  
And didn't work particularly well then, by all accounts!



Hmmm... going by PBS' 'The Poisoner's Handbook', an excellent documentary about the lives and works of Alexander Gettler and Charles Norris, it actually worked rather well. Unfortunately some of the authorities had come up with a plan to combat methanol poisoning from bootlegged alcohol by further increasing the amount of methanol in denaturated ethanol. According to the story the deaths by methanol poisoning shot up proportionally!

Detection of methanol in drinking alcohol with the copper wire method works well because methanal and ethanal smell significantly differently.

[Edited on 28-9-2014 by blogfast25]

hissingnoise - 28-9-2014 at 09:05

Quote:
Unfortunately some of the authorities had come up with a plan to combat methanol poisoning from bootlegged alcohol by further increasing the amount of methanol in denaturated ethanol. According to the story the deaths by methanol poisoning shot up proportionally!

Wow ─ 'some authorities'?

The words "bastards" and "complete" fairly spring to mind . . .

Craftbrewer - 28-9-2014 at 11:35

Quote: Originally posted by IrC  
You mentioned Butyl Acetate but not Ethyl Acetate which is often used to denature ethyl alcohol.

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

Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denatured_alcohol


I wonder if you considered any of these alternatives before arbitrarily deciding it must be cyclohexane. Since you stated the source was from fermentation for some industrial purpose (non drinkable)


There was nothing arbitrary about choosing cyclohexane. I was n't going to list every possible chemical out there and the reason why it was eliminated. I only went for those that fit the bill. Remember it has to fit the physical profile of what I have observed, and match the taste profile.

Ethyl acetate was considered (and in low concentrations I would not mind, as it found in wine), BUT it soluble in water and always described as " pear like" or " very fruity". That does not match what I got.

It was good thought thou. Like cyclohexane, impossible to separate from ethanol/water in distillation. There are a lot of paper on the addition of cyclohexane as an additive to ethanol to denature it. All are about the safety of it if comsumed.

It forma a tri azetrope, ie ethanol/cyclohexane/water and repeated distillation will actually increase its concentration.

cyanureeves - 28-9-2014 at 11:58

for pete's sake dont drink it and risk blindness or death.i made strong ethanol using aluminum tubing and real corn mash and smelled so wonderful.i used a steel can as a still and i'm sure it was poisonous but boy was i tempted to drink it.i once drank a substance that had detonium as a bitterent and it was horrible,i think its called detonium but i'm not sure.

blogfast25 - 28-9-2014 at 12:05

Quote: Originally posted by cyanureeves  
for pete's sake dont drink it and risk blindness or death.i made strong ethanol using aluminum tubing and real corn mash and smelled so wonderful.i used a steel can as a still and i'm sure it was poisonous but boy was i tempted to drink it.i once drank a substance that had detonium as a bitterent and it was horrible,i think its called detonium but i'm not sure.


What makes you so sure it was poisonous? Decent moonshine, properly distilled is not substantially different from what whiskey makers distil.

I think you meant 'denatonium'.

Craftbrewer - 28-9-2014 at 12:54

Quote: Originally posted by cyanureeves  
for pete's sake dont drink it and risk blindness or death.i made strong ethanol using aluminum tubing and real corn mash and smelled so wonderful.i used a steel can as a still and i'm sure it was poisonous but boy was i tempted to drink it.i once drank a substance that had detonium as a bitterent and it was horrible,i think its called detonium but i'm not sure.


too late, made some gin out of it. I made the sacrifice for the sake of science and inebriation and its all good on that front.

More on that latter

Craftbrewer - 28-9-2014 at 13:02

Quote: Originally posted by blogfast25  

You make some other categorical statements:

”There is no Methanol in it. It is about 95% ethanol, The temperature racing and sitting at a flat 78.5C right thru the distillation”

W/o analysis you can’t be that certain.

”BITTERESS

Utterly no problem here. a simple acid addition, renders the bitterness agent a salt, and it wont distill out.”

There are quite a few bitterants out there. W/o knowing which one is in the bought product how can you be so sure of your statement?

[Edited on 28-9-2014 by blogfast25]


Think about the experiment and the facts.

Methanol.

1. Diggers insist from numerious sources other than me that there metho is non - toxic to humans
2. The fractional column just did not stop, slow or even glitch at anywhere at Methanols boiling temp, it shot to Ethanols temperature and sat there.
3. In Australia, if its toxic to humans it must be listed. Nothing on the bottle nor spec sheet.

Will test for methanol, BUT no real need. Its not there.

Bitterness agent.

It aint there in the distilled product. Its been drunk by quite a few people (for analysis ) and no-one finds any bitterness what so ever,

It has been removed.

Craftbrewer - 28-9-2014 at 13:15

Quote: Originally posted by xfusion44  
@OP

Nice experiment, but why not rather make your own ethanol, by fermenting the sugar? This way you would be at least sure, that there's no toxic denaturants.


But that's the point.

make a sugar mix and distil, and its both VERY time consuming and you have a host of potentially toxic chemicals in the mix. , When you use those Turbo Yeasts, its even worse.

Methanol, acetone, acetaldehyde, Higher alcohols are all there and in many very noticeable. Do the distil of this toxic mess wrongly, and you concentrate these, and yes even kill some-one, that happens every year around the world in the thousands.

Least with non-toxic metho, I have at least the potential to make a far safer drink, that is quite pure. If anything is toxic, or at toxic levels, well the manufacturer by law has to either state it, or make it notable so one doesn't drink it.

So far in general no-one hasn't found any substantial fault with what I have done, BUT ears are open.

As a final clean, I plan to mix and separate liquid carcoal in the mix to be totally anal. Just to get that last little bit.

Craftbrewer - 28-9-2014 at 13:19

Oh, The safety warning ie don't try this at home bit!!!!!

Metho around the world has a wealth of things added to it to denature it. Many are indeed quite toxic (methanol) or cancer causing (benzene). This experiment I did I picked my mark on the metho that was " more safe" than most.

I wouldn't do this on metho in countries where they add just about anything to the metho.

aga - 28-9-2014 at 13:45

The Truth is Out.

CraftyBruce is going to this much trouble to get a decent beverage cos Fosters really is that bad.

Mesa - 28-9-2014 at 14:59

Nah, Fosters is just the shit we export to the rest of the world because nobody here will touch it.

Oxirane - 29-9-2014 at 01:18

Ethanol brewing and distilling is a very easy task to do. The main problem is that good information is scarce and you must be critical. Alcohol making is one of those myth-filled things where stupid and drunk people dominate.

Alcohol fermentation is odorless with active carbon water clogs. I have once brewed 200 liters of alcohol in an apartment and there was zero odor. This liquid is then filtered through sand and distilled with long, preferably at least 1000mm reflux column with glass. This way you can control the temperature by 0.1C intervals and you can be certain that you only get the pure ethanol-water fraction with 94-96% concentration.

I could say that ethanol making for common chemist or guy is not time consuming, but equipment-intensive to be efficient. You need to get plastic barrel for fermentation and water clogs and activated carbon, filtering equipment and hand pump(gravity) to move the liquid and a steel drum and distilling column.

Ethanol in here is denatured with pyridine and MEK. Impurities are so minor that it will do well for most amateur synthesis, but it certainly is not palatable. It is so expensive though that if any more than few liters would be needed, making it self is worth it.

blogfast25 - 29-9-2014 at 04:27

Quote:
Think about the experiment and the facts.


I have, obviously. The fact remains you’re willing to imbibe something that hasn’t been analysed.
Quote:
make a sugar mix and distil, and its both VERY time consuming and you have a host of potentially toxic chemicals in the mix. , When you use those Turbo Yeasts, its even worse.

Methanol, acetone, acetaldehyde, Higher alcohols are all there and in many very noticeable. Do the distil of this toxic mess wrongly, and you concentrate these, and yes even kill some-one, that happens every year around the world in the thousands.


So much waffle presented as fact here.

Turbo yeast is just a marketing term. They don’t work any faster in my experience. There also is no reason to believe they produce “a host of potentially toxic chemicals in the mix”. If you know better, present peer reviewed evidence to that effect.

As regards the rest of your statement, talk about turning the world on its head!!!

Thousands worldwide, myself included, brew wine and beer from a variety of fermentables, totally safely. Now Craftybugger comes around and tells us to do it from a particular brand of methylated spirits!

Oh, wait, no he doesn’t:
Quote:
Oh, The safety warning ie don't try this at home bit!!!!!


Five exclamation marks, no less...

I think you suffer from a bad case of confirmation bias.


[Edited on 29-9-2014 by blogfast25]

Craftbrewer - 29-9-2014 at 12:15

>>>>>>>So much waffle presented as fact here.

Turbo yeast is just a marketing term. They don’t work any faster in my experience. There also is no reason to believe they produce “a host of potentially toxic chemicals in the mix”. If you know better, present peer reviewed evidence to that effect.<<<<<


Now this tells me you really don't know much about brewing. Turbo yeast is not a marketing term, Its a specially " bred" yeast, has a high tolerance of alcohol above normal yeast, around 20% alcohol, and ferments sugars quicker than normal yeast. One method used to protect it from the high alcohol content is the high level producing of acetone.

As the ethanol levels get higher, they will also produce much higher levels of your " fusals"

Do I need peer reviewed literature, NOPE!!!!! its out there freely available. Do the advanced brewing course if you want to learn more, NOT what this thread is about.

And while thousands do make there alcohol thru fermentation, there is also thousands dieing each year from not distilling it properly.

AND THATS A FACT.

Just like distilling these washed properly to avoid death (like in prohibition), why cant you see there can be nothing wrong with doing it from other sources if you know what your doing.

Have confidence with chemistry.

[Edited on 29-9-2014 by Craftbrewer]

blogfast25 - 29-9-2014 at 12:34

Quote: Originally posted by Craftbrewer  
Turbo yeast is not a marketing term, Its a specially " bred" yeast, has a high tolerance of alcohol above normal yeast, around 20% alcohol, and ferments sugars quicker than normal yeast. One method used to protect it from the high alcohol content is the high level producing of acetone.

Do I need peer reviewed literature, NOPE!!!!! its out there freely available. Do the advanced brewing course if you want to learn more, NOT what this thread is about.

And while thousands do make there alcohol thru fermentation, there is also thousands dieing each year from not distilling it properly.

AND THATS A FACT.



You just waffle on and on and on w/o a shred of evidence being presented. No wonder you believe in your own superpowers.

Show me peer reviewed evidence for Turbo yeasts being more resistant to alcohol than normal strains. Not marketing materials, not 'Jack on the home brew forum told me so', but actual HARD evidence.
Quote:
And while thousands do make there alcohol thru fermentation, there is also thousands dieing each year from not distilling it properly.

AND THATS A FACT.


Because you say so? Again where's the hard evidence for that?

"Put up or shut up", as Newton said to Hooke. And learn to spell while you're at it.


Little_Ghost_again - 29-9-2014 at 12:51

The truth about Turbo yeast is it wasnt bred to matabolise sucrose! I cant remember which sugar it is bred to use (I will go find out).
My dad has a paper in for review (due to be published December), Yes it has a high tolerance to Ethanol but the matabolsm is completely different.
I will go see if I can get him to post details here, but generally for Ethanol Turbo yeast is a bad choice. Actually if you ferment to conclusion and then add 0.3% sucrose/lactose to any yeast culture you will find active yeast appear, you can use these to start other cultures and eventually you can get resistant strain. But I am not the Biologist he is so I cant tell you why at the moment sorry

Craftbrewer - 29-9-2014 at 13:14

Wont put up nor shut up, nor continue a topic not related to this thread.

BUT I will get back on topic with more observations.

1. The absorption of the aromatic hydrocarbon (one still presume cyclohexane) when you add olive oil is VERY exothermic -generated a lot of heat. It shows the olive oil is at least doing something, and is not just sitting there.

Of course many possible causes, BUT one is its showing its actually absorbing something. Could it be cyclohexane.

2. I collected some olive oil of a sample of distilled ethanol, as it was still active clearing out our unknown hydrocarbon (cyclohexane???) Put that in a glass so I could compare that oil oil to the one on the ethanol.

Two observations, backed by independent blind testing.

Boths oils originally went hazy, and both cleared over time. The one in the cup cleared real quick (one assuming the cyclohexane all evaporated out)

Originally both oils had that unusual smell, (interesting one stated it smelt like peppermint oil) BUT the one in the cup after two days the smell in that was totally gone. By a few days, the one in the cup was like the oil you buy, BUT the one in the ethanol jar still had that smell.

Take this how you like it. To me it shows the oil is absorbing the compound that is causing the problem, and it seems it is leaving the oil as well.

Further information on observations that support its cyclohexane.



[Edited on 29-9-2014 by Craftbrewer]

aga - 29-9-2014 at 13:21

Whoah dude !

So you're saying that Olive Oil reacts/clears one or more contaminants in the ethanol ?
Proof being that it gets hot ?

Suppose the Test is if i go get some pretty pure ethanol and some olive oil.

Be right back ...

Edit:

Done that. Pure Ethanol + Olive Oil does nothing much.
Mixed well it forms an emulsion, and looks like a really good vinagrette.
No heating.

Tried Toluene as well, no heating. Odd emulsion, almost dissolved.
Got no cyclohexane to test with.

So Ethanol alone doesn't immediately react with Olive Oil exothermically.

Must be something else then ...

[Edited on 29-9-2014 by aga]

Artemus Gordon - 29-9-2014 at 13:22

Quote: Originally posted by hissingnoise  
Quote:
Unfortunately some of the authorities had come up with a plan to combat methanol poisoning from bootlegged alcohol by further increasing the amount of methanol in denaturated ethanol. According to the story the deaths by methanol poisoning shot up proportionally!

Wow ─ 'some authorities'?

The words "bastards" and "complete" fairly spring to mind . . .



This is America we're talking about. To quote the 'grandfather' of the modern Republican party, Barry Goldwater:
"... moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."
... assuming "justice" means "hurting people we deem to be outside our little circle of friends", which is the way most Republicans would define it.



[Edited on 29-9-2014 by Artemus Gordon]

blogfast25 - 29-9-2014 at 13:23

Quote: Originally posted by Craftbrewer  
Wont put up npr shut up, nor continue a topic not related to this thread.

BUT I will get back on topic with more observations.

1. The absorption of the aromatic hydrocarbon (one still presume cyclohexane) when you add olive oil is VERY exothermic -generated a lot of heat. It shows the olive oil is at least doing something, and is not just sitting there.

Of course many possible causes, BUT one is its showing its actually absorbing something. Could it be cyclohexane.

2. I collected some olive oil of a sample of distilled ethanol, as it was still active clearing out our unknown hydrocarbon (cyclohexane???) Put that in a glass so I could compare that oil oil to the one on the ethanol.

Two observations, backed by independent blind testing.

Boths oils originally went hazy, and both cleared over time. The one in the cup cleared real quick (one assuming the cyclohexane all evaporated out)

Originally both oils had that unusual smell, (interesting one stated it smelt like peppermint oil)m BUT the one in the cup after two days the smell in that was totally gone. By a few days, the one in the cup was like the oil you buy, BUT the one in the ethanol jar still had that smell.

Take this how you like it. To me it shows the oil is absorbing the compound that is causing the problem, and it seems it is leaving the oil as well.

Further information on observations that support its cyclohexane.



It's VERY related to this topic, you just don't have what it takes to 'put up'.

If the absorption of cyclohexane into olive oil is so exothermic then that can be easily tested. I'll do it for you if you like, I've got 99.5 % cyclohexane. It seems unlikely though (to be exothermic): mixing of organics is mostly driven by Entropy, not Enthalpy.

Collect enough of the alleged cyclohexane, run a density and a BP. Compare to listed values. Better still: a Raman IR.

[Edited on 29-9-2014 by blogfast25]

blogfast25 - 29-9-2014 at 13:26

Quote: Originally posted by Little_Ghost_again  
I will go see if I can get him to post details here, but generally for Ethanol Turbo yeast is a bad choice. Actually if you ferment to conclusion and then add 0.3% sucrose/lactose to any yeast culture you will find active yeast appear, you can use these to start other cultures and eventually you can get resistant strain. But I am not the Biologist he is so I cant tell you why at the moment sorry


Can you also ask him if he's heard of the 'home brew deadly pandemic' our OP is alleging?

I've also heard about massive human resurrections going on in Africa right now, perhaps that's true as well?

Craftbrewer - 29-9-2014 at 13:34

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/deaths-of-thre...

Just to point out it happens all the time

[Edited on 29-9-2014 by Craftbrewer]

blogfast25 - 29-9-2014 at 13:35

Quote: Originally posted by Artemus Gordon  
Quote: Originally posted by hissingnoise  
Quote:
Unfortunately some of the authorities had come up with a plan to combat methanol poisoning from bootlegged alcohol by further increasing the amount of methanol in denaturated ethanol. According to the story the deaths by methanol poisoning shot up proportionally!

Wow ─ 'some authorities'?

The words "bastards" and "complete" fairly spring to mind . . .



This is America we're talking about. To quote the 'grandfather' of the modern Republican party, Barry Goldwater:
"... moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."
... assuming "justice" means "hurting people we deem to be outside our little circle of friends", which is the way most Republicans would define it.



[Edited on 29-9-2014 by Artemus Gordon]


BTW, I got that part of the story from PBS's excellent 'Prohibition' doc. I think the bastards genuinely believed increasing methanol content in denatured alcohol would provide a deterrent to bootleggers/redistillers. Considering how that market worked obviously not...

Artemus Gordon - 29-9-2014 at 13:51


Ehhh, I don't think those dead Aussies were distilling their own mash. More likely they were trying to clean up denatured alcohol:

(from <a href="http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-05/fyi-can-drinking-moonshine-really-make-me-go-blind">here</a>.)
Methanol is a byproduct of alcohol distillation, but only forms in tiny, non-toxic amounts during regular distillation, and anyhow it is easy to separate and discard from the first few ounces of alcohol that drip from the condenser. These first few ounces contain other so-called "foreshots"--low-boiling-point compounds that come out of the still first. Methanol is among these compounds (others are acetone, aldehydes, and other undesirables) that impart unappetizing flavors to perfectly good moonshine. Any distiller worth his salt will discard these at the start, eliminating methanol (which also leads to nasty hangovers in small doses, by the way) from the equation.

So where does the methanol that causes blindness come from? It's not the alcohol itself you need to be worried about so much as the distiller. Methanol--also known as wood alcohol--is cheap, and its physiological effects on the body are the same as ethanol's, at least at first. Unscrupulous moonshiners will actually add methanol to their product to up the potency. And when they do so, the results can range from slightly unhealthy to absolutely deadly.


[Edited on 29-9-2014 by Artemus Gordon]

Craftbrewer - 29-9-2014 at 13:55

Quote: Originally posted by blogfast25  
Quote: Originally posted by Craftbrewer  
Wont put up npr shut up, nor continue a topic not related to this thread.

BUT I will get back on topic with more observations.

1. The absorption of the aromatic hydrocarbon (one still presume cyclohexane) when you add olive oil is VERY exothermic -generated a lot of heat. It shows the olive oil is at least doing something, and is not just sitting there.

Of course many possible causes, BUT one is its showing its actually absorbing something. Could it be cyclohexane.

2. I collected some olive oil of a sample of distilled ethanol, as it was still active clearing out our unknown hydrocarbon (cyclohexane???) Put that in a glass so I could compare that oil oil to the one on the ethanol.

Two observations, backed by independent blind testing.

Boths oils originally went hazy, and both cleared over time. The one in the cup cleared real quick (one assuming the cyclohexane all evaporated out)

Originally both oils had that unusual smell, (interesting one stated it smelt like peppermint oil)m BUT the one in the cup after two days the smell in that was totally gone. By a few days, the one in the cup was like the oil you buy, BUT the one in the ethanol jar still had that smell.

Take this how you like it. To me it shows the oil is absorbing the compound that is causing the problem, and it seems it is leaving the oil as well.

Further information on observations that support its cyclohexane.



It's VERY related to this topic, you just don't have what it takes to 'put up'.

If the absorption of cyclohexane into olive oil is so exothermic then that can be easily tested. I'll do it for you if you like, I've got 99.5 % cyclohexane. It seems unlikely though (to be exothermic): mixing of organics is mostly driven by Entropy, not Enthalpy.

Collect enough of the alleged cyclohexane, run a density and a BP. Compare to listed values. Better still: a Raman IR.

[Edited on 29-9-2014 by blogfast25]


Oh please do and totally disprove me.

Test your sample of cyclohexane. Importantly do some double blind tastes with ppm samples in vodka. See when its detected, and see what people describe as what they taste.

While your at it test for being miscible with olive oil too.

You should have a ball disproving everything I have said

Craftbrewer - 29-9-2014 at 14:03

Those guys died from methanol poisoning from a MASH distill. I present facts as you like and you still ingot the FACTS

And back on topic, I say again. You state you have access to near pure cyclohexane

So

Oh please be scienific and totally disprove me as a good researcher would.

Test your sample of cyclohexane. Importantly do some double blind tastes with ppm samples in vodka. See when its detected, and see what people describe as what they taste.

While your at it test for being miscible with olive oil too. And of course, why not repeat my experiment in a vert controlled way with Cyclohexane and ethanol and see what happens.

I await your results with interest

You should have a ball disproving everything I have said

Artemus Gordon - 29-9-2014 at 14:04

My last post is all squished over to the right side of the screen. Is that due to too many nested quotes?

Craftbrewer - 29-9-2014 at 14:08

no idea, it went that way and I cant stop it ------fixed it

[Edited on 29-9-2014 by Craftbrewer]

[Edited on 29-9-2014 by Craftbrewer]

Little_Ghost_again - 29-9-2014 at 14:58

There has been some strange deaths with fermenting Ethanol, a lot though is what you call home made wine. Some people assume you can take ANY plant and make wine from it (most to be fair you can), but some of the plants contain all kinds of alkaloids etc and some are soluble in Ethanol.
Now I dont know if this is an accurate example but there have been people that make wine from foxgloves! I have no idea if digitalis is soluble in Ethanol but thats the kind of thing I mean.
I can say that having seen (I am looking at some in a folder now) Gas chromatographs of fermentations that there is all kinds of stuff in them but nothing that nasty from straight sucrose (nothing with big peaks I can see).
He is away until tomorrow but I will get him to give me the low down on it. His paper isnt actually on the yeast as such, the yeast was being used in something to do with Embryology and vaccines (please dont ask Its way over my head). But anyway they use yeast a great deal in the work they do, nothing to do with Ethanol production as such, but obviously everything they do is documented and measured etc. So as a kind of by product of there work they get a great deal of information of yeast species.
Its a fascinating organism. I would have thought that apart from using a stupid choice of plant material to make wine from, that most deaths are actually from denatured stuff.
Unrefined sugar often works better in some ways (so I am told), from what I can remember of the conversation its easier to separate by fractional distillation because some of the metabolites make the Ethanol easier to isolate. maybe something to do with stopping Azeotropes forming or maybe different??
I dont really know now as it was a couple of weeks ago and much of it sailed way over my head lol.
on the plus side on my other name I had I showed a pic of all the different TLC plate types I have, well now the 2 wavelength UV light turned up today!!
So if I can work out which plate to use and what solvent etc, then I can do some TLC stuff on my Ethanol batch (the new one). The lamp was meant for minerals but its great!! Some the plates glow green under short lengh UV, and glow kind of dark under the longer one, I think it also has a built in filter system so I can use it without a shield (I need to check).
I would be really up for doing some TLC on fermentation mixes, I think there are 8-9 full box's of different whatman plates, so with help I should be able to get some reasonable results. I also can get access to the GC/MS every other week on a Monday (when I am off school)

Craftbrewer - 29-9-2014 at 15:13

Quote: Originally posted by Little_Ghost_again  
The truth about Turbo yeast is it wasnt bred to matabolise sucrose! I cant remember which sugar it is bred to use (I will go find out).
My dad has a paper in for review (due to be published December), Yes it has a high tolerance to Ethanol but the matabolsm is completely different.


Side issue, I make a lot of rum out of fermented molasses. If I make a wash out of Beer yeast I get a 10% ethanol wash - maximum. Wine yeast pushes it to 15% and a Turbo yeast wash gets it over 20%

BUT the taste and hangovers are totally different, all things being equal
1. beer yeast makes a very clean rum, nice tasting, requires little aging
2. Wine yeast produces so interesting flavours, main one is a little alderhydye. Still ok mind you again little aging
3. Turbo Yeast really makes some flavours that are not nice. More methanol comes off by the way, quite significant, BUT definite some compounds are made that require aging over a year or two to dumb down to acceptable levels.

Equally hangover intensity goes up with the higher alcohol washes. The yeast will be under osmotic stress no doubt, what leaks out who knows.

Again, it shows we have no idea whats those wonderful creatures fart and wee out of them

[Edited on 29-9-2014 by Craftbrewer]

Chemosynthesis - 29-9-2014 at 15:35

Quote: Originally posted by Artemus Gordon  
Quote: Originally posted by hissingnoise  
Quote:
Unfortunately some of the authorities had come up with a plan to combat methanol poisoning from bootlegged alcohol by further increasing the amount of methanol in denaturated ethanol. According to the story the deaths by methanol poisoning shot up proportionally!

Wow ─ 'some authorities'?

The words "bastards" and "complete" fairly spring to mind . . .



This is America we're talking about. To quote the 'grandfather' of the modern Republican party, Barry Goldwater:
"... moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."
... assuming "justice" means "hurting people we deem to be outside our little circle of friends", which is the way most Republicans would define it.



[Edited on 29-9-2014 by Artemus Gordon]


Can we leave politics out of this and stick to science? Anyone who wants to go blaming parties should look at the resolution voting record, the repeal administration, and the history of the prohibition party, before posting, and please keep it to Whimsy. There is a reason I don't go in there. I just want the science here.

Craft brewer, without definitive analysis, I would be very hesitant to guess at what denaturant is in your ethanol. You admit you didn't go through every possible one here for us to see, but that is how scientific peer review works. You post all your reasoning and methodologies for us to see exactly what you did and pass judgment. Have you considered using a qualitative test for ketone presence in your distillate, such as forming an adduct?

Craftbrewer - 29-9-2014 at 15:51

>>>>>>Craft brewer, without definitive analysis, I would be very hesitant to guess at what denaturant is in your ethanol.<<<<

Trying very hard NOT to guess, but I will admit this is backyard science at work. Trying hard to use simple logic on observations and what we know they use as denaturants in metho.


>>> You admit you didn't go through every possible one here for us to see, but that is how scientific peer review works.<<<<

True, BUT the list so far that I have excluded is over 50 compounds long. Many not even denaturants, just benzene derivatives. In all honesty, I would have thought with the experiments I have said done, the procedures and observations, one could do there own search of likely chemicals and rule them in or out.


>>>> You post all your reasoning and methodologies for us to see exactly what you did and pass judgment. Have you considered using a qualitative test for ketone presence in your distillate, such as forming an adduct?<<<<<

Would be happy to do such, if I could test for the formation of that adduct. To do this, I need for instance a logical starting chemical to set the reaction in process.

One doesn't just blindly add x to y and hope z pops up.

Happy to do any test if I have the ingredients. suggestion welcome.

Will look at possible adducts I can test for

Chemosynthesis - 29-9-2014 at 16:21

Quote: Originally posted by Craftbrewer  

Would be happy to do such, if I could test for the formation of that adduct. To do this, I need for instance a logical starting chemical to set the reaction in process.

One doesn't just blindly add x to y and hope z pops up.

Happy to do any test if I have the ingredients. suggestion welcome.

Will look at possible adducts I can test for


Check out patent US 2813905 A. I have performed similar adduct formations in the past, but you essentially add excess sodium bisulfite, filter our your insoluble ketone adduct, and then degrade it to return the ketone. This will provide strong evidence of a ketone while allowing some purification for further tests such as density, boiling point, specific gravity, etc. In the absence of an adduct, you could look into converting some of the cyclohexane into cyclohexanone and then re-testing. In the absence of spectroscopic/metric instruments, I would find this very convincing.

Craftbrewer - 29-9-2014 at 16:51

>>>>Check out patent US 2813905 A. I have performed similar adduct formations in the past, but you essentially add excess sodium bisulfite, filter our your insoluble ketone adduct, and then degrade it to return the ketone. This will provide strong evidence of a ketone while allowing some purification for further tests such as density, boiling point, specific gravity, etc.<<<<

That I can do, for as a brewer I have heaps of the stuff lying arround


>>> In the absence of an adduct, you could look into converting some of the cyclohexane into cyclohexanone and then re-testing. In the absence of spectroscopic/metric instruments, I would find this very convincing.<<<

You read my mind, as its boiling point makes it dead easy to separate via distillation. Wasn't quite sure how to do this as to oxidise it, one add O2 but evaporates it

Oh shit, brain fart

People are now describing the flavour now after the olive oil addition and shaking (as I stated it before ) as pepermint and solvent like.

Guess what the descriptor is for cyclohexanone is, exactly that. Now I wonder if by shaking the ethanol, with the oil, I have oxidised the cyclohexane to cyclohexanone.

Gee one more piece of the puzzle in place

Chemosynthesis - 29-9-2014 at 17:18

Quote: Originally posted by Craftbrewer  


You read my mind, as its boiling point makes it dead easy to separate via distillation. Wasn't quite sure how to do this as to oxidise it, one add O2 but evaporates it

Oh shit, brain fart

People are now describing the flavour now after the olive oil addition and shaking (as I stated it before ) as pepermint and solvent like.

Guess what the descriptor is for cyclohexanone is, exactly that. Now I wonder if by shaking the ethanol, with the oil, I have oxidised the cyclohexane to cyclohexanone.

Gee one more piece of the puzzle in place


I would be kind of surprised if you oxidized the cyclohexane into cyclohexanone in olive oil. I would suggest chlorination, SN2 reaction with a hydroxide, then oxidation with permanganate. To be fair, you could perform a Lucas test on the secondary alcohol and convince me. The name eluded me as it is highly antiquated nowadays, but it is fairly simple with HCl and ZnCl2.

Craftbrewer - 29-9-2014 at 19:09

>>>>>I would be kind of surprised if you oxidized the cyclohexane into cyclohexanone in olive oil. <<<<<

Minor clarification as I worded it badly. What I meant to say I oxidized some cyclohexane into cyclohexanone when I added the olive oil and shook it. The oxidization didn't occur in the oil, it occurred in the ethanol/water solution.

Just saying and putting it out there where the peppermint oil smell that has suddenly appeared came from.

Further again, I have two people repeating this experiment to see if the results are the same. I have made sure they DONT shake the ethanol water mixture too much.

Both report the cloudiness then clearness after olive oil addition. Still to do the blind taste test to see what they have.



[Edited on 30-9-2014 by Craftbrewer]

Chemosynthesis - 30-9-2014 at 00:18

So, please correct me if I am wrong, your current working hypothesis is that you oxidized the suspected cyclohexane into cyclohexanone from atmospheric oxygen? If not, where do you believe the oxygen would come from?

This would seem very unusual to me. I started looking up NIST thermodynamic values, but decided not to bother, as the activation energies would confound even favorable exothermic values. The reasons I would be skeptical of a cyclohexane oxidation are as follows:
1. The proposed reaction would be entropically unfavorable in the balanced equation. You start with molecular oxygen and cyclohexane, and end with cyclohexanone. As you didn't see any hydrogen loss, I would suggest temporarily assuming for the sake of argument it combined wifh something else. That is a net loss in entropy, and so unlikely in ambient conditions.

2. The activation energy must be high. If you add potassium permanganate to cyclohexane, you do not see green indicative of the manganate ion as you do upon addition to either cyclohexene or cyclohexanol. Permanganate is a strong oxidizer, and would be expected to react much more readily than oxygen in ambient conditions. Instead, intermediate steps are necessary to achieve this reaction with permanganate.

So if you were to keep this hypothesis, I would be under the impression it would only seem reasonable if you believed an unknown catalyst of some sort were also in your alcohol, which would be worrisome from a health perspective.

Basing chemical analysis off of taste or olfaction (which influences taste), is not a definitive measure, as roughly 25% of individuals in the U.S. alone over age 53 appear to be olfactorally impaired (Murphy C, Schubert CR, Cruickshanks KJ, Klein BE, Klein R, Nondahl DM. Prevalence of olfactory impairment in older adults. JAMA. Nov 13 2002;288(18):2307-12.).

Transient olfactory and gustatory disorders can occur with infection, seasonal allergies, aging, pharmaceutical use, neurological damage, nasal polyps, etc. A wide range of dynamic factors, including hormones, affect the sensation of taste through cellular signaling, and thus it is not the best presumptive test for a substance. I would be very interested in seeing some physical data, a qualitative test for the presence of a functional group you expect, a negative control, and if you want to go above and beyond, perhaps a chemical reaction to a derivative of your presumed product, then a repeat of physical and qualitative testing, if possible. In the absence of spectroscopic/metric testing, this would essentially convince me beyond doubt.


If your testing doesn't support the current hypothesis, perhaps a test for an ester could be done. The only appropriate method that comes to mind would be to hydrolize to a carboxylic acid and use a carbonate/bicarbonate salt to check for liberation of carbon dioxide in an acid/base reaction.


[Edited on 30-9-2014 by Chemosynthesis]

forgottenpassword - 30-9-2014 at 01:00

Obviously claims of cyclohexane oxidation are a nonsense, but the method of extracting it (or any alkane) with oil is perfectly reasonable.
Despite what the label says, I would imagine that anything called "metho" and sold as "methylated" spirits does actually contain methanol/methyl alcohol.
You seem to have taken the manufacturer's claims that it is non toxic to USE to mean that it is non toxic to DRINK. Unless you made it plain that you were speaking of drinking it, I think that it is safe to assume that you were talking at cross purposes.
If you intend to drink a lot of this, you should definitely get it professionally analysed, or at least test it for methanol as recommended by others.
I am entirely confused by your claims of "very exothermic" extraction of cyclohexane by oil. It makes no sense whatsoever. Nor does your claim of oxidising (supposedly) cyclohexane to cyclohexanone.


Please describe the "VERY exothermic" reaction that you observed when you added oil. How hot did it get? Your statement is quite unbelievable. It seems to be a blatant lie.


[Edited on 30-9-2014 by forgottenpassword]

Chemosynthesis - 30-9-2014 at 01:26

Quote: Originally posted by forgottenpassword  
Obviously claims of cyclohexane oxidation are a nonsense, but the method of extracting it (or any alkane) with oil is perfectly reasonable.
I am just trying to show him how I view the proposal as I understand it since he appeared to dispute earlier scepticism displayed by both IrC and Blogfast25, and gave us a run through of his thought processes in the original post. The latter suggests to me that he might be open to socratic discussion rather than my usual approach. Normally I would post all about bad lab practice and toxicities, especially when sharing substances of unknown purity or identity with others, but it appears that ship has sailed.

Quote:

You seem to have taken the manufacturer's claims that it is non toxic to USE to mean that it is non toxic to DRINK. Unless you made it plain that you were speaking of drinking it, I think that it is safe to assume that you were talking at cross purposes.
This is an excellent point. I am not Australian, and generally just ignore foreign legalities as they have no bearing on me, but I suspect craft brewer is referencing the Work Health and Safety (WHS) Regulations, which I just glanced over. If this is the case, they do appear to be describing only acute toxicities or hazards risked by exposure to chemicals or products within the scope of intended use only. Much could be said about that from a toxicological perspective.

blogfast25 - 30-9-2014 at 04:05

Quote: Originally posted by Craftbrewer  
Those guys died from methanol poisoning from a MASH distill. I present facts as you like and you still ingot the FACTS



Nowhere in the article does it state MASH. It is in fact vague and very short on details. As always you report very sloppily, then claim it's 'fact'.

Nor does it constitute the kind of pandemic you were painting in broad brush strokes. If 'thousands' were affected by it, it would be in the news constantly and the forums would be buzzing with it. Turbo yeast would be banned from use in home brewing.

I will run the cyclohexane tests later on.

I find it rather funny that someone claims to have found cyclohexane w/o even possessing a reference sample of that material.

[Edited on 30-9-2014 by blogfast25]

blogfast25 - 30-9-2014 at 04:11

Quote: Originally posted by Craftbrewer  

Guess what the descriptor is for cyclohexanone is, exactly that. Now I wonder if by shaking the ethanol, with the oil, I have oxidised the cyclohexane to cyclohexanone.

Gee one more piece of the puzzle in place


Gee-whiz, how much LOWER can you lay bar for the burden of proof, huh?

Do you know how hard it is to oxidise cyclohexane to cyclohexanone?

Little_Ghost_again - 30-9-2014 at 05:30

Hi
I have a copy of what will be published, now I know technically you could argue it isnt published yet therefore its not valid...... To the best of my knowledge it has been reviewed and awaiting printing deadlines.
My dad has circled the bits I can use and scribbled over the bits I cant (not yet anyway). Its a fair bit of typing so I will try and do it later. If you have questions after your gonna have to email my dad as i dont get 3/4 of what is written :D.

But in simple terms what I can work is, Turbo yeast will only convert upto 13.4% ETHANOL with SUCROSE used. After that it gets funny and starts making a whole list of other things. This is not the case however with different sugars, I will post those figures later and as soon as its published I will come back and link to the journal.

blogfast25 - 30-9-2014 at 06:07

Thanks, Little_Ghost.
Quote: Originally posted by Chemosynthesis  
This would seem very unusual to me. I started looking up NIST thermodynamic values, but decided not to bother, as the activation energies would confound even favorable exothermic values. The reasons I would be skeptical of a cyclohexane oxidation are as follows:
1. The proposed reaction would be entropically unfavorable in the balanced equation. You start with molecular oxygen and cyclohexane, and end with cyclohexanone. As you didn't see any hydrogen loss, I would suggest temporarily assuming for the sake of argument it combined wifh something else. That is a net loss in entropy, and so unlikely in ambient conditions.

2. The activation energy must be high. If you add potassium permanganate to cyclohexane, you do not see green indicative of the manganate ion as you do upon addition to either cyclohexene or cyclohexanol. Permanganate is a strong oxidizer, and would be expected to react much more readily than oxygen in ambient conditions. Instead, intermediate steps are necessary to achieve this reaction with permanganate.



The oxidation of cyclohexane to cyclohexanone is likely to be very exothermic, see for instance propane to propanone, (NIST values):

Propane ΔH<sub>F, liquid</sub><sup>0</sup> = - 119.8 kJ/mol

Propanone ΔH<sub>F, liquid</sub><sup>0</sup> = - 249.4 kJ/mol

But the activation energy is prohibitive. Higher temperature, a much stronger oxidiser (than oxygen) and a specific catalyst might do it.




[Edited on 30-9-2014 by blogfast25]

Chemosynthesis - 30-9-2014 at 06:57

Agreed; thanks, LittleGhost!
Quote: Originally posted by blogfast25  

The oxidation of cyclohexane to cyclohexanone is likely to be very exothermic, see for instance propane to propanone, (NIST values):

Propane ΔH<sub>F, liquid</sub><sup>0</sup> = - 119.8 kJ/mol

Propanone ΔH<sub>F, liquid</sub><sup>0</sup> = - 249.4 kJ/mol

But the activation energy is prohibitive. Higher temperature, a much stronger oxidiser (than oxygen) and a specific catalyst might do it.




[Edited on 30-9-2014 by blogfast25]


Yes, I was hoping to convey that with my post. I believe I had hit every point. The requirement for an unknown and contaminant catalyst alone was meant to cause hesitation at the consumption of uncharacterized product. (edit: assuming an actual oxidation as his working hypothesis, solely for the sake of argument.)

I was going to get into Hess's Law for craft brewer to see how I think about reactions, enthalpy being where I tend to start, but thought better of it as it may have just been confusing and was around 4am in my region at the time. Explaining catalysis without getting into transition states, comparing them to the intermediates in the reaction scheme I proposed, and then confounding the exothermic mixing (likely not reaction) in terms of enthalpies of mixing was not something I wanted to bother with seeing as how I haven't had a response yet and don't want to seem too pedantic.

Also, I felt posting a half reaction as cyclohexane to cyclohexanone might not be giving craft brewer enough credit, as one could theoretically argue the other half of the equation (where did the oxygen come from?) may offset the negative enthalpy, making the sum endothermic. How that would be reasonable would obviously be debatable, but it is possible, and so so I chose to avoid it due to its irrelevance. And yes, I know arguing such would be thermodynamically counterproductive, but I want to see how craft brewer views the situation thermodynamically, and then kinetically in light of permanganate, a much stronger oxidizer as you noted, not oxidizing cyclohexane.

Thermodynically, this is also why I was careful to try to state that craft brewer did not note the evolution of hydrogen gas, as this could be used to argue zero sum entropy, which could appear more favorable than decreasing entropy under standard lab conditions (lack of pressure).

Again, I am not trying to suggest this is reasonable, but I think we both know you can make the math say whatever you want in the absence of data. The last thing I want to is have someone infer that I find it reasonable to succuss cyclohexane with enough force to cause spontaneous atmospheric oxidation and the byproduct water, which would be close to zero sum entropically, cloud up the oil due to differences in refraction indices, be exothermic, and yet still so fanciful as to make me regret typing it right now.

[Edited on 30-9-2014 by Chemosynthesis]

blogfast25 - 30-9-2014 at 08:38

Thanks Chemosynthesis, super thorough.

Ok, here’s my experiment. In four clean test tubes was loaded:

1. 2 ml cyclohexane 99.9 %
2. 2 ml pure ethanol (a Sigma Aldrich standard material)
3. and 4. 2 ml of freshly bought extra virgin olive oil each

All tubes were cling filmed and immersed in a cup of RT water for 30 minutes for temperature equalisation. The temperature read 22.9 C, just prior to carrying out the experiments.

Experiment 1:

The contents of 1. was added to 3. with gentle stirring using the thermo couple as stirring rod. The cyclohexane dissolved in the olive oil effortlessly. The end temperature was 22.2 C, so no exotherm. As I expected the dissolution of cyclohexane in olive oil is purely entropy driven, not enthalpy driven.

Experiment 2:

To 2. were added 5 drops (about 0.25 ml) of cyclohexane 99.9 % and the mixture gently stirred. No exotherm was observed.

That mixture was added to 4. This of course did not form one phase: the alcohol sat neatly on top. Intense stirring caused a suspension of the two liquids, presumably with transfer of the cyclohexane into the olive oil phase. The final temperature was 20.3 C, so no exotherm either.

After a few minutes the phases separated out very cleanly.


General view at start:



Cyclohexane 99.9 %:



Craftbrewer needs to go back to his exotherm to confirm that it is actually there.


[Edited on 30-9-2014 by blogfast25]

Craftbrewer - 30-9-2014 at 10:42

>>>>Craftbrewer needs to go back to his exotherm to confirm that it is actually there.<<<<

Mate

thanks for doing the experiment. Really appreciate it. The exothermic observation was just that, an observation without an actual thermometer. The solution felt real warm after the addition, BUT obviously that must be a mistake, even drunken fact, who knows.

Good to see the oil oil actually does what its susposed to by the way, so overall everything is still very much on track. Just eliminated one varable.

Craftbrewer - 30-9-2014 at 10:58

>>>>>>So, please correct me if I am wrong, your current working hypothesis is that you oxidized the suspected cyclohexane into cyclohexanone from atmospheric oxygen? If not, where do you believe the oxygen would come from?<<<<

This is what I am throwing out there for understanding. Orginally the ethanol/x/water mixture did BOT HAVE a peppermint smell (as described by others). More sweet/ slighty fruity/solvent.

The addition of oil oil, dilution with water, shaking and a few days and a distinct peppermint smell is there. No mistake.

Further that smell is now only in the oilive oil, NOT in the ethanol mix when the olive oil is decanted off. Whats left is a very clean ethanol smell.

Now that's where this ends as what I know, Speculation starts after this and all the stuff about cyclohexane, as its the candidate at present that " fits the bill".


>>>Basing chemical analysis off of taste or olfaction (which influences taste), is not a definitive measure, as roughly 25% of individuals in the U.S. alone over age 53 appear to be olfactorally impaired (Murphy C, Schubert CR, Cruickshanks KJ, Klein BE, Klein R, Nondahl DM. Prevalence of olfactory impairment in older adults. JAMA. Nov 13 2002;288(18):2307-12.).<<<<

As a brewer smell and taste tests are VERY important, if not critical in out brewing process. The people doing the testing are BJCP trained tasters, they know their flavours. That said, I know what you mean. I am supersensitive to diacetyl, yet totally blind to many phenols

I go by the masses


>>>> If your testing doesn't support the current hypothesis, perhaps a test for an ester could be done. The only appropriate method that comes to mind would be to hydrolize to a carboxylic acid and use a carbonate/bicarbonate salt to check for liberation of carbon dioxide in an acid/base reaction.<<<

Will do, in fact I prefer an ester, solely on the drinking safely angle. I haven't ruled it out by the way, just need to fully explore the cyclohexane angle first, ALL THE POSSIBILITIES, why it can or cant be it, and so on, then onto esters.

Craftbrewer - 30-9-2014 at 11:10

>>>>Obviously claims of cyclohexane oxidation are a nonsense,<<<<

Just throwing it out there as a possibility. Its looking shaky




>>>.
Despite what the label says, I would imagine that anything called "metho" and sold as "methylated" spirits does actually contain methanol/methyl alcohol.<<<

That I disagree, Yes in the past it was methanol, then contained methanol, and that's whats the public expect. Now the name methylated spirits is such a common name, the public wont where a name change, and companies wont want to lose market share. So they can change the denaturant, even remove methanol, and will still call it Methylated spirits.

I am extremely confident there is no methanol in it.

(ne says as he goes blind, reals over and dies)





>>>You seem to have taken the manufacturer's claims that it is non toxic to USE to mean that it is non toxic to DRINK. Unless you made it plain that you were speaking of drinking it, I think that it is safe to assume that you were talking at cross purposes.<<<

The James Hardy experience over here as sent companies in a panic (basically selling asbestos products, knowing its in their products, even warning people). They got sued to the hilt. At least in the western countries, companies are moving to non toxic metho, as they know the drunks, bums, suceptable (and mad idiots) are drinking it.

If a company knows this, they must take ALL precautions in what they put in it. The burden of proof has changed.


>>>> Please describe the "VERY exothermic" reaction that you observed when you added oil. How hot did it get? Your statement is quite unbelievable. It seems to be a blatant lie.<<<<

I'll wear that one on the chin. Logic says it cant be exothermic, do know why I thought this. Should have done more before blurting that one out.

Craftbrewer - 30-9-2014 at 11:12

>>>>Gee-whiz, how much LOWER can you lay bar for the burden of proof, huh?

Do you know how hard it is to oxidise cyclohexane to cyclohexanone? <<<

I only threw it out there as a possibility.

I have a peppery /solvent smell I cant explain, and its now only in the olive oil. It made sense at the time. Good idea, BUT as stated looks a little shaky.

Craftbrewer - 30-9-2014 at 11:16

>>>>But in simple terms what I can work is, Turbo yeast will only convert upto 13.4% ETHANOL with SUCROSE used. After that it gets funny and starts making a whole list of other things. This is not the case however with different sugars, I will post those figures later and as soon as its published I will come back and link to the journal.<<<<

Gee, back to wine yeast, or even yeast used for sake. I can push them to 15-16%.

As for other things, I know lots of methanol gets produced, and even more acetone too. I I personally don't like using it, so keen for the results

Craftbrewer - 30-9-2014 at 11:24

>>>Nowhere in the article does it state MASH. It is in fact vague and very short on details. As always you report very sloppily, then claim it's 'fact'.<<<<

You wanted proof that its occurring, I give it. Wont go any further. These guys were using Turbo yeast by the way. They kept the first running chock full of methanol. What happened as they got drunk, they forgot which bottle they kept the first running and drunk it. That's the story.

>>>Nor does it constitute the kind of pandemic you were painting in broad brush strokes. If 'thousands' were affected by it, it would be in the news constantly and the forums would be buzzing with it. Turbo yeast would be banned from use in home brewing.<<<

There is no pandemic, Russian die by the thousands thru poor distillation, And of course people are dropping dead in Indonesia from poor distillation, including a healthy dose of tourists. Including Aussies. Turbo yeast is safe if you do it properly. And remember these buggers should not be distilling, so the yeast aint in fault persay.

And yes, plenty of media when weddings in India end up with half the guests dies from methanol poisoning.

Its spread soooo thinly around the world it goes under the radar, and acceptable.

Like gun killings, and road death, all normal, nothing to see here

hyfalcon - 30-9-2014 at 11:31

Temperature control essentially eliminates any problem with methanol. The BP of methanol and ethanol are so far apart that there shouldn't be any contamination as long as proper boiling points are used and cuts made when they change.

blogfast25 - 30-9-2014 at 11:45

Quote: Originally posted by Craftbrewer  
Gee, back to wine yeast, or even yeast used for sake. I can push them to 15-16%.

As for other things, I know lots of methanol gets produced, and even more acetone too. I I personally don't like using it, so keen for the results


You measured the ABV? If so, how?

Same with methanol/acetone: how did you ascertain/measure this?
Quote: Originally posted by Craftbrewer  
You wanted proof that its occurring, I give it. Wont go any further. These guys were using Turbo yeast by the way. They kept the first running chock full of methanol. What happened as they got drunk, they forgot which bottle they kept the first running and drunk it. That's the story.


There is no pandemic, Russian die by the thousands thru poor distillation, And of course people are dropping dead in Indonesia from poor distillation, including a healthy dose of tourists. Including Aussies. Turbo yeast is safe if you do it properly. And remember these buggers should not be distilling, so the yeast aint in fault persay.

And yes, plenty of media when weddings in India end up with half the guests dies from methanol poisoning.

Its spread soooo thinly around the world it goes under the radar, and acceptable.

Like gun killings, and road death, all normal, nothing to see here



The article says nothing about Turbo yeast.

The rest is more of your trademark ‘I know’. If it's under the radar, how come you know about it?

And I have pixies in the back of my garden, because ‘I know’.

I think you experiment was quite interesting and some of your reasoning sound. But your evidence base is flimsy and you're all too happy to accept that. Not scientific...

Craftbrewer - 30-9-2014 at 13:05

>>>>The article says nothing about Turbo yeast.

The rest is more of your trademark ‘I know’. If it's under the radar, how come you know about it <<<<<

Well when your in the industry you take an interest in these things, so a quick talk to the my police contact got me the information.

The Govt wanted to scare the public with all the home distillation going on, so the media release was tailored for that purpose. And reporters nowadays are on a 24 hour cycle, so no investigation, just print the police statement.


>>>> And I have pixies in the back of my garden, because ‘I know’.<<<

Nah, The "salties" have eaten all mine, its a shame really, a little bit of pixie dust would have saved me in my ethanol/water distillate. It would have cleared it nicely


>>>>>I think you experiment was quite interesting and some of your reasoning sound. But your evidence base is flimsy and you're all too happy to accept that. Not scientific...<<<<<

Oh agree its not totally scientific. Its on the first step thou. Observation of what goes on, form an opinion of what might be going on, test with further observations, That's as far as I have got.

Haven't form the theory or hypothesis yet. Still exploring the observations. Haven't tested repeatibity, nor even try to disprove any hypothesis, (how can one if I haven't nailed it down yet.

Then again I could adopt a simple budhist approach - there are things in life that never can be explained, so don't worry about them.

Craftbrewer - 30-9-2014 at 13:36

Blogfast 25

There is one experiment that you haven't carried out - it would definitely rule out a number of things

1. Mix a drop of cyclohexane in a few ml of ethanol and mix. It should dissolve totally
2. Add water of say equal volume. That should make the mixture cloudy, as the cyclohexane goes out of solution
3. Add a couple of drops of olive oil and mix.

Measure temperature and more smell after a day. Any sign of temperature rise, OR peppermint/solvent smell.

Worth a go

Craftbrewer - 30-9-2014 at 17:37

And another update, as the experiment is repeated by others.

The significance of the peppermint/solvent aroma may be due to the brand of Olive oil used. Sampled another two similar methods, and definitely no peppermint/solvent smell.

So maybe something in the olive oil, depending on brand thus composition of aromatics, maybe causing that smell, especially mixing with our mystery x compound.

On the otherside, again all report the same add water cloudiness, add oil, clears. Spirit very clean tasting.

Craftbrewer - 30-9-2014 at 17:41

Separate post on Turbo Yeast and my Carbon treatment.

Got my Turbo Carbon, basically super fine carbon added to a Turbo yeast wash during fermentation. Read thru the propaganda, and basically they state its to mop up all the byproducts of specifically turbo yeast fermentation.

Make that what you like BUT!!!!!!!!!!

adding a small amount to the ethanol/water mix as a final cleaning up of the distillate. As its quite clean wont need much. Should be interesting especially as it also contains sulphites-

will be fun to taste test

blogfast25 - 1-10-2014 at 03:42

Quote: Originally posted by Craftbrewer  
Blogfast 25

There is one experiment that you haven't carried out - it would definitely rule out a number of things

1. Mix a drop of cyclohexane in a few ml of ethanol and mix. It should dissolve totally
2. Add water of say equal volume. That should make the mixture cloudy, as the cyclohexane goes out of solution
3. Add a couple of drops of olive oil and mix.

Measure temperature and more smell after a day. Any sign of temperature rise, OR peppermint/solvent smell.

Worth a go


I'll definitely do that, probably tonight.

Little_Ghost_again - 1-10-2014 at 04:48

Looking on ebay one company in particular has all kinds of turbo yeast and makes a lot of claims.
They recommend the use of charcoal, from the little I know I would think when you measure by hydrometer then yes you get a high alcohol reading, but I wonder how much of that is actually ETHANOL?
I would really like to set up some experiments with different yeasts and sugars, maybe if I can talk my dad into taking the resulting samples into work and running them through the CG and other stuff there it might show whats in them.
Alchotech mention Dextrose, but I still doubt that would give great results. I will keep using bakers yeast ;), yes lower production of Ethanol but it does some benefits :D.
The other thing that makes a difference is the water, low oxygen content is good, purging the vessel with CO2 (2 days before adding yeast) also gives better results.
I cant yet quantify better (not allowed yet). I was going to post what I could, but its going to leave more questions than answers. So probably better I wait until its actually printed then I can link you to a full paper. Only 1/3 of the paper relates to yeast though.
The other paper I want to link to is more about yeast, I am waiting for the ok to post a link. Last thing I want to do is get my dad into trouble, they publish loads of papers and some they release free of charge. Other papers are from research that they are paid to do by others, apparently these papers need permission to be released.
You guys will know way more about how publishing papers work than me! I assumed once it was reviewed etc then the people that wrote it could do what they want with it, but I am told this is not always so!

blogfast25 - 1-10-2014 at 06:04

Quote: Originally posted by Little_Ghost_again  
Looking on ebay one company in particular has all kinds of turbo yeast and makes a lot of claims.
They recommend the use of charcoal, from the little I know I would think when you measure by hydrometer then yes you get a high alcohol reading, but I wonder how much of that is actually ETHANOL?

I would really like to set up some experiments with different yeasts and sugars, maybe if I can talk my dad into taking the resulting samples into work and running them through the CG and other stuff there it might show whats in them.
Alchotech mention Dextrose, but I still doubt that would give great results.


That is a very good question. No home brewer that I know of determines ethanol content by analysis (GC or iodometry). Density is only a rough guide. A bit of excess sugar will probably skew density results.

Charcoal to remove certain stuff is of course folly: that stuff should not be there to begin with, unless you're making bioethanol fuel, in which case it doesn't matter much.

Re. dextrose, I see no a priori reason why any saccharide based fermentable would be much better or worse than the next one. Again, home brew fora will overflow with 'information' on that topic, none of it evidence based, of course.

[Edited on 1-10-2014 by blogfast25]

blogfast25 - 1-10-2014 at 07:59

Quote: Originally posted by Craftbrewer  
Blogfast 25

There is one experiment that you haven't carried out - it would definitely rule out a number of things

1. Mix a drop of cyclohexane in a few ml of ethanol and mix. It should dissolve totally
2. Add water of say equal volume. That should make the mixture cloudy, as the cyclohexane goes out of solution
3. Add a couple of drops of olive oil and mix.

Measure temperature and more smell after a day. Any sign of temperature rise, OR peppermint/solvent smell.

Worth a go


I've decided not to do this because the outcome is predetermined: ethanol is a solvent for cyclohexane, water is a solvent for ethanol and water is an anti-solvent for cyclohexane. So adding water to an ethanol-cyclohexane mixture will push the cyclohexane out, nothing to see here.

So mixing with water would definitely be a way to drive out water insoluble denaturants, like cyclohexane and some esters.

But I noticed something else on yesterday's tube 4: the ethanol floating on the olive oil appeared to have picked up colour. Today I sucked it off with a dropper pipette and yes, the alcohol is now coloured urine yellow.

Olive oil is of course not a pure substance (the pure triglyceride would almost certainly be colourless), so something has migrated from the oil into the ethanol.

It might be advisable to try and extract the denaturants by means of undecane (or higher) or even a good, clean grade of mineral oil (100 % paraffinic) to avoid that problem. Follow up with a distillation.

And working with cyclohexane and its odour, at least two types of substances spring to mind that are quite different yet smell very similarly to it: t-butanol (and 2-methyl-2-butanol) and C7 to C9 fatty acids. I'm not claiming they are used as denaturants, only that they smell similarly to cyclohexane.

The only way to unveil the identity of the denaturant(s?) w/o advanced analytical techniques is to extract a sufficient quantity of them and isolate them by distillation from the extractant. Then some fairly simple tests might be used. Esters will for instance saponify with alkali (the saponification number will give clues about the chain length and MW)

[Edited on 1-10-2014 by blogfast25]

Craftbrewer - 1-10-2014 at 12:27

>>>>>I would think when you measure by hydrometer then yes you get a high alcohol reading, but I wonder how much of that is actually ETHANOL?
That is a very good question. No home brewer that I know of determines ethanol content by analysis (GC or iodometry). Density is only a rough guide. A bit of excess sugar will probably skew density results.<<<<

Not only home brewers BUT most small scale professional brewers. Brix readings and density readings and correlating the two would be the most one would do. Only the big boys who pay excise, and thus see a need to get it exactly right analyise to that depth.

That said plenty of literature and analysis on " normal yeast" shows this method is quire relyable and accurate. Push a yeast beyond its natural tolerance, and osmotically shoke it, that's about 5% ethanol, and then things slide.

The simple observation that turbo yeast makes sooooo many unusual compounds, makes me wonder in the simple alcohol cals of normal person does, just how much is methanol, and higher alcohols when they do the density readings and brix readings.

Thus I was a little shoked to here turbo yeast does worse than wine and sake yeast, at a mear 13.5%. With careful yeast management, I can achieve this with normal " beer Yeast" BUT its hard work.

Thus I await with interest the results of said paper mentioned.

Craftbrewer - 1-10-2014 at 12:34

>>>>I've decided not to do this because the outcome is predetermined: ethanol is a solvent for cyclohexane, water is a solvent for ethanol and water is an anti-solvent for cyclohexane. So adding water to an ethanol-cyclohexane mixture will push the cyclohexane out, nothing to see here.

So mixing with water would definitely be a way to drive out water insoluble denaturants, like cyclohexane and some esters.<<<

Pity you didn't follow it thru, while some results were definitely predetermined, I was curious to put to bed the exothermic reaction, did the olive oil remove all the haze, and the smell of the olive oil. and ethanol water mix.

Unfortunately for me the exothermic observation has raised its ugly head, as another has observed it. Said the addition of the small amount of olive oil to the ethanol/water/haze mix did get warmer. I need to distill more metho to do more rigerious experiments to see what the hell is going on here.



>>> But I noticed something else on yesterday's tube 4: the ethanol floating on the olive oil appeared to have picked up colour. Today I sucked it off with a dropper pipette and yes, the alcohol is now coloured urine yellow.<<<<

I would have expected that, however the ethanol water mixture doesn't do that. Obviously the strength of ethanol is too low, as bottle remain clear, doesn't mean some absorption is not occurring, just that I cant see any colour.



[Edited on 1-10-2014 by Craftbrewer]

blogfast25 - 1-10-2014 at 13:01

Quote: Originally posted by Craftbrewer  

Pity you didn't follow it thru, while some results were definitely predetermined, I was curious to put to bed the exothermic reaction, did the olive oil remove all the haze, and the smell of the olive oil. and ethanol water mix.



You can safely put the exotherm to bed, Crafty: unless there was some chemical activity that's not obvious, nothing in the actual mixing can cause any enthalpy releases in this system.

I'll see about the haze thing tomorrow.

Craftbrewer - 1-10-2014 at 13:17

<<<<You can safely put the exotherm to bed<<<<<

I'm sure your right. Last question to put this to bed.

You wouldn't generate heat forcing " the haze" out of the ethanol solution, or the simple absorption into oil

after this I'm ignoring this heat generated thing as an excitable thing people think they feel.

Bit like love

[Edited on 1-10-2014 by Craftbrewer]

Craftbrewer - 1-10-2014 at 14:21

>>>>>Charcoal to remove certain stuff is of course folly: that stuff should not be there to begin with, unless you're making bioethanol fuel, in which case it doesn't matter much.<<<

This got me wondering what Charcoal removes, and of course activated carbon.

Quick search found a paper where active charcoal removes quite a few hydrocarbons not good for one.

Studies regarding the Benzene, Toluene and o-Xylene Removal from waste water.

Its certainly wouldn't harm one to add a small amount to end product just to be safe


Craftbrewer - 1-10-2014 at 14:28

>>>>And working with cyclohexane and its odour, at least two types of substances spring to mind that are quite different yet smell very similarly to it: t-butanol (and 2-methyl-2-butanol) and C7 to C9 fatty acids. I'm not claiming they are used as denaturants, only that they smell similarly to cyclohexane.<<<

Nice to know as I haven't smelt cyclohexane. Of course cant be the denaturant, as it doesn't fit the physical observations, BUT its good for a reference to what people smell.

smells and taste are real hard to define to others without a reference smell or taste to fall back on.

Simple exercise - describe the taste of an apple to some-one without mentioning apple. I know what the answer will be

aga - 1-10-2014 at 15:13

This is all nuts.

Freeze the original denatured ethanol, then distill it, or vice versa.

Then move on to isolating just the Ethanol, or at least removing *some* of the stuff that makes you puke (obviously not all of the ethanol).

So far it's not Science is it ?

Fred's Whiffometer versus Bill's isn't really reproducible.

If this ends well, yet Isolation of the denaturants turns out to be more expensive than some yeast and a bag of sugar, it's all bollocks innit ?

aga - 1-10-2014 at 15:46

Quote: Originally posted by blogfast25  
I sucked it off with a dropper pipette and yes, the alcohol is now coloured urine yellow.

Despite the Fnarr Fnarr, you have discovered a route to bypass all the stumbling about, arguing, fighting and vomiting.

Ethanol ==> Urine

bypassing all the regrettable side effects.

You are Nominated for a Nobel Prize, certainly.

Craftbrewer - 1-10-2014 at 15:53

I would have thought this is a prime candidate for the

IG NOBLE PRIZE

Craftbrewer - 1-10-2014 at 19:32

And in yet another interesting experiment.

The used Olive Oil smelt ok, so decided so see what happens when you heat it right up in a pot (real hot)

Well I got yet again another smell of peppermint/solvent with " the worse half" stating it definitely smelly perpermint. After a minute that just went away and again it smelt like very hot olive oil.

I can only assume whatever the compounds absorbed into the oil, well they have disappeared and been boiled off.

This experiment continues. Interested to see whats its like when it cools again

Craftbrewer - 1-10-2014 at 21:08

Keeping all in the loop.

Boiled a cupful of ordinary olive oil and a cupfill of olive oil over the distillate. Definitely a smell difference, which would indicate the olive oil on the distillate definteky aborbs something.

With a good amount I went right to smoking it, and got the kitchen really aromatic. With that a got a real good smell of what was coming off. Interesting the physical boiling of the distillate olive oil. Vapour bubbles on the surface, about the size of a very small pea, and a very noticeable "pop" sound as they well popped. Never seen that before in Olive oil that real hot. Bubble unlike water vapour would actually sit there for minutes at a time, then pop. They eventually disappeared as I neared smoking temps (probably all the compound has been vapourised)

Change peppermint to a bitter/sweet smell, and sort of petrol like, sort of isopropanol like BUT it wasn't either, I keep going back to solvent like, BUT again its not that either as such. Boy is this annoying. The smell is distinctive, just cant nail it.

Anyway both oils are cooling, no appreachable smell from either now. they just look and smell like hot olive oil.

More as they cool.

[Edited on 2-10-2014 by Craftbrewer]

Craftbrewer - 1-10-2014 at 21:30

And as they now drop below 40C, BOTH have that characteristic oily olive oil smell. Finger taste test has them also identical.

Will have to organise a double blind taste test, BUT whatever was in there, its gone, and also it seems no noticeable reactants either.

On the surface, the olive oil absorbed " the haze" and one can evaporate it out of the oil quite easily, making the olive oil reusable (for the next batch).

edit - forced cooled both, and both were that classic burnt olive oil taste and smell when you use it in a deep fryer for instant. Its just olive oil nothing else noticeable

For your information

[Edited on 2-10-2014 by Craftbrewer]

aga - 1-10-2014 at 23:38

If you've got a stack of this denatured stuff, measure some on ml, and measure some Other oils as well, like corn oil, baby oil etc.

See if they all do the same thing.

Maybe you got peppermint olive oil.

blogfast25 - 2-10-2014 at 08:48

Quote: Originally posted by Craftbrewer  
On the surface, the olive oil absorbed " the haze" and one can evaporate it out of the oil quite easily, making the olive oil reusable (for the next batch).



'Not 'on the surface' but very actually. The denaturant(s) are likely to be low boilers, at least with respect to olive oil. Evaporating off whet's been absorbed by the oil is thus a jiffy.

That's why I keep telling to use it as a way of collecting the denaturant(s). Treat several bottles of the Ozzie Metho with the same, smallish quantity of olive oil, prolonged shaking each time. This should give an olive oil that's fairly well 'loaded' with the mystery stuff.

To capture it you wouldn't even have to distil properly. Just load the oil in a oversized, longish text tube, heat the end where the oil is and mildly cool the other (open) end: the mystery stuff will come of the oil and condense in the colder part of the 'apparatus'.


[Edited on 2-10-2014 by blogfast25]