Sciencemadness Discussion Board - Moonshiners #2 Proofing: Myth or Reality

Moonshiners #2 Proofing: Myth or Reality

Zombie - 16-2-2015 at 01:06

Anyone that has seen the TV show or any Popcorn Sutton videos, has seen a fella shake a jar of "Shine" and say "Yup! This hare's 180 pruuf or better"

Anyone believe this?

I'll let you all think about it, and I'll tell you "Sumptin" fer real..."

I can proof a bottle to within 10 points by shaking it.
(Yes Blog. My mama's proud!)

Post up a video of you shaking a clear bottle of liquor at a KNOWN (not assumed) proof, and Lets see what happens.

[Edited on 16-2-2015 by Zombie]

Luke - 16-2-2015 at 03:28

whats the difference between known and assumed? Is an alcometer enough to prove the alcohol content?

Zombie - 16-2-2015 at 03:33

Yes. 100% correct.

blogfast25 - 16-2-2015 at 04:39

Quote: Originally posted by Zombie

Anyone that has seen the TV show or any Popcorn Sutton videos, has seen a fella shake a jar of "Shine" and say "Yup! This hare's 180 pruuf or better"

Anyone believe this?

Yes. But it remains an inaccurate method for ABV determination.

What's your point with this thread?

Zombie - 16-2-2015 at 04:58

Well, you have a pretty firm belief that thumpers can not work as advertised, and I was thinking what else fro "hillbilly lure" is surrounded by clouds.

While shaking a bottle may not be precise, is is close enough for drinking Whiskey.

Anyone here willing to take the time, can prove thumpers work, and I can prove that ABV can be proofed by shaking bottles.

No real point. Just having fun.

blogfast25 - 16-2-2015 at 05:04

Quote: Originally posted by Zombie

No real point. Just having fun.

You keep missing the REAL point, though: that thumper mythologies arise in part because people don't adequately test their assumptions and then conclude that 'it works'.

See also reams and reams of quack remedies, amulets, snake oil merchandise etc that whole hordes of people swear by.

Go on, admit it, you've got a 'lucky rabbit's paw' somewhere!

Zombie - 16-2-2015 at 05:09

Quote BlogFast:

"people don't adequately test their assumptions and then conclude that 'it works'."

I've been saying exactly that for 7 hours!

Blog, I love ya sir, and Honestly I respect you as well but you must have been a teacher or professor, or department head somewhere for far to long.

It's like asking for a raise up in here...

[Edited on 16-2-2015 by Zombie]

subsecret - 16-2-2015 at 05:15

Quote: Originally posted by Zombie

Anyone believe this?

[Edited on 16-2-2015 by Zombie]

Making an estimate is not unreasonable, but to correctly estimate the concentration seems a little bit optimistic. It would take a buttload of experience to be accurate to within 5 percent alcohol.

But if you checked yourself with an alcometer, I commend you on your skill.

blogfast25 - 16-2-2015 at 05:29

Quote: Originally posted by Awesomeness

[...]
but to correctly estimate the concentration seems a little bit optimistic. It would take a buttload of experience to be accurate to within 5 percent alcohol.

No, it f*cking well doesn't. There are plenty fairly accurate methods out there for EtOH determination. Even a good hydrometer, operated properly, would probably afford the needed accuracy.

[Edited on 16-2-2015 by blogfast25]

Zombie - 16-2-2015 at 05:39

10% is realistic. I have checked w/ a meter, and it's pretty impressive when a hillbilly says he has 160% liquor, and you shut him down w/ the shake of a bottle.

I've never tried it over the "net" tho. so it should prove interesting.

It's actually easy to learn.

Buy a bottle of EverClear 180 proof. Divide that into two equal bottles. Add 1 ounce of water to one, note the new proof, and shake it.
Note the size, and life span of the bubbles.

Now repeat with the pure product.

Add another ounce to the dilute bottle, and repeat the process.

The higher the proof, the larger, and longer lived the bubbles.
Lower proof = smaller, and shorter lived bubbles

By the time you finish drinking the bottles, you will have an eye for it, and recognize the different proof's by a shake or three. I usually judge on the second shake, and verify my instinct on the third.

Everybody's got to be good at something!

blogfast25 - 16-2-2015 at 05:42

Zomb, please BEHAVE!

subsecret - 16-2-2015 at 07:05

Quote: Originally posted by blogfast25

Quote: Originally posted by Awesomeness

[...]
but to correctly estimate the concentration seems a little bit optimistic. It would take a buttload of experience to be accurate to within 5 percent alcohol.

I'm talking about the taste test, not the hydrometer.

morganbw - 16-2-2015 at 07:47

A hydrometer is best but shaking and observing the bubbles has been going along for a long time. It is subjective but these guys get pretty damn good, including my father who spent time in a federal prison over moonshine.

Dang, I have a nice picture of an actual moonshine/thumper still that I wanted to share but I have not yet taken the time to figure out how to do the pictures.
It was from several years ago and the only time in my life that I witnessed this.

[Edited on 16-2-2015 by morganbw]

[Edited on 16-2-2015 by morganbw]

Zombie - 16-2-2015 at 08:44

My grandfather taught me. so between us... 137 years of shaking jars.

morganbw - 26-3-2015 at 06:32

Here is picture of a still in operation. It did not have a firebox because it was a temporary setup.

hyfalcon - 26-3-2015 at 07:18

Damn if that don't kinda look like Tickle on the left.

ave369 - 8-7-2015 at 23:48

In my country, moonshiners proof their product by burning it in a spoon. By the easiness or difficulty with which the fluid catches fire, by the appearance of the flame and the remains after it sputters out, an experienced moonshiner can tell the concentration of EtOH with a precision of 5%. I have this skill and can proof moonshine with strength from 35% to 90% with this method.

Here's a simplified guide:

* If it does not catch fire in any circumstances: it is 30% or less.
* If it catches fire for a short moment if it's pre-heated in a spoon with a match: 35%.
* If it catches fire if pre-heated in a spoon with a match, and burns for several seconds: 40% (vodka).
* If it catches fire without pre-heating and burns for some seconds: 45%.
* If it catches fire without pre-heating and burns for long, leaving a significant amount of oily, smelly water: 50%.
* If it easily catches fire and burns almost fully, leaving a damp stain of moisture on the spoon: 70%.
* If it readily ignites and burns out completely, leaving nothing: 90% and more.

And telling 55% from 65%, 70% from 80% is a matter of experience and skill, it cannot be really formulated as an algorithm.

[Edited on 9-7-2015 by ave369]

blogfast25 - 9-7-2015 at 10:31

The problem is not that these methods don't work but that for scientific purposes they are poor measurands. As recognised also by the ATF, of course!

aga - 9-7-2015 at 10:46

Fun idea Zombie, but pointless.

Guessing within 10% isn't as impressive in a scientific arena as being accurate to 0.1 w%.

A halfwit monkey (like me) with a calibrated ethanol refractomer will beat your Guess every time.

A sober scientist (such as bloggers) using this procedure http://www.outreach.canterbury.ac.nz/chemistry/ethanol.shtml
would wipe the floor with both of us.

Then we get down to GC, NMR etc at which point the notion of being amazed to get within 10% has long long gone.

blogfast25 - 9-7-2015 at 11:39

Quote: Originally posted by aga

A sober scientist (such as bloggers) using this procedure http://www.outreach.canterbury.ac.nz/chemistry/ethanol.shtml
would wipe the floor with both of us.

Actually, apart from the 'sober' bit, that's a bit debatable. Both refractometry and iodometry would beat 'bubbles' pants down in both accuracy and reproducibility. But between refractometry and iodometry it could be a close shave (assuming experienced analyst, 'correct' hardware etc).

There are of course ways of organising such contests. And with EtOH there's the added problem of Primary Standards: EtOH is inherently somewhat hygroscopic AND volatile, that makes preparing Standard Solutions somewhat difficult.

ave369 - 9-7-2015 at 23:17

There are, of course, better methods of measuring. One can use an alcometer on the final product. One can use a thermometer to measure the temperature of vapors going through the thumper, and get the current strength of the dripping distillate from this: it greatly helps to control the process of distillation. But if the thermometer is damaged or destroyed, and I still need to somehow control the still and know what's going on in it, the fire-spoon method helps.

And concerning telling foreshots and feints from the main batch, I don't know any more modern methods than smelling drops of the distillate.

[Edited on 10-7-2015 by ave369]

blogfast25 - 10-7-2015 at 03:54

Quote: Originally posted by ave369

And concerning telling foreshots and feints from the main batch, I don't know any more modern methods than smelling drops of the distillate.

[Edited on 10-7-2015 by ave369]

GC or GC/MS to identify non-EtOH components.