Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

big_sugi t1_jd61se5 wrote

Reply to comment by ECatPlay in Can you extract a fully concentrated liquid out of an ice cube (like Coca Cola) until there's almost no water left? by Froggiebuns

They’d sometimes get applejack up to 40% ABV, not just 44 proof.

The problem, which comes up with ice wine as well, is that you’re not just concentrating ethanol, which is a desirable toxin. You’re also concentrating undesirable toxins like methanol and aldehydes.

The same thing happens with stills that use evaporative distillation, but there they distiller can divert the head and tail (ie, the stuff that boils off first and the stuff that boils off last) and keep it away from final product. You can’t do that with applejack, which means it’s likely to be a wicked buzz if you choose to drink something at 40 abv

89

HoboTeddy t1_jd66vc7 wrote

Did you just call concentrated methanol a "wicked buzz" and not "poison that can make you blind"? Or am I missing something?

20

big_sugi t1_jd69th2 wrote

Depends how much you drink. The methanol is already in your cider or wine; applejack or ice wine just concentrates it, along with everything else that’s not water. That makes it easier to take in too much, whereas the sheer volume will slow you down from doing it with non-distilled alcoholic liquids.

Also, as to methanol specifically, the ethanol will help to inhibit the breakdown of methanol in the body into formate, which (I understand) is what’s actually toxic. That’s the reason that a bottle of scotch can actually be used to treat methanol poisoning.

The other stuff, though, isn’t neutralized in the same way.

I think, anyway. It’s been decades since I took a chemistry class, so I might be misstating some of the finer points.

39

galacticspark t1_jd6jt9r wrote

You’re correct. The gist is methanol in itself isn’t great for you, but it’s not terrible. The problem is the same enzyme in your body that detoxifies ethanol will actually change methanol into something incredibly toxic. The solution is to tie up as many of the ethanol-detoxifying enzymes as possible so that they never have a chance to interact with the methanol molecules, and you end up peeing out the methanol.

19

mikk0384 t1_jd7ocbt wrote

>The solution is to tie up as many of the ethanol-detoxifying enzymes as possible so that they never have a chance to interact with the methanol molecules, and you end up peeing out the methanol.

I thought it worked by slowing down the conversion of methanol to the more toxic compound so the body could keep up with the removal - keeping the concentration low by flattening the curve.

7

Indemnity4 t1_jdaez3d wrote

Competitive inhibition.

Both methanol and ethanol compete for access the limited amount of enzyme alcohol dehydrogenase.

Methanol is converted to a toxic compound formic acid or formate. That's nasty stuff and your body can't really clear it. It needs to effectively kill the affected tissue and remove that, which takes days to weeks.

Ethanol is slightly better at binding to the enzyme compared to methanol. So if you have 95% ethanol and 5% methanol, practically close to zero methanol is being converted by the enzyme.

Silly analgoy: myself and a really attractive woman are both trying to buy a drink at a bar from the same bartender. A long enough queue of attractive women and I'm never getting a drink. So I give up and go home.

Methanol and ethanol are both removed by urine (and breathing + sweating). So long as the methanol is still circulating and not reacting with the enzyme, you simply urinate it out.

2

lukabratzi_hatzi t1_jd6crwa wrote

I wonder what the equivalent of distilled is for fractional crystallization. Crystalled?

5

big_sugi t1_jd6cxn0 wrote

Why not just “crystallized?”

5

lukabratzi_hatzi t1_jd7m19d wrote

Haha, true. But since you are taking the byproduct of the crystallization process I thought it might be called something different.

2

big_sugi t1_jd7no3b wrote

I had the same thought. It depends on what you’re trying to capture/exclude.

The product of distilling is a distillate, so maybe crystallate? We need an etymologist here, stat!

2

scutiger- t1_jd834ri wrote

Crystillation sounds good to me. So crystilled?

2

dirtballmagnet t1_jd6c1kh wrote

Historically it appears to have been responsible for some pretty notorious indiscipline in any army that passed through the Valley of Virginia in the American Civil War. Like ill behavior beyond the usual drunken ill behavior.

I think weather permitting applejack to be made on the Blue Ridge and the forcible conscription of volunteers whose enlistments were running out led to a small revolt in early 1862, where an infuriated Stonewall Jackson sent an artillery piece to start firing solid shot into the mountainside where the revolting rebels were holding out.

One wonders if it had a hand in the dissolution of Hunter's army after the battle of Lynchburg, 1864, the surprise achieved at Cedar Creek later that year, or the intensity of the destruction of the Shenandoah Valley thereafter.

The source for the mini-revolt would be likely found in D. S. Freeman's Lee's Lieutenants, Vol. I. but I don't have it at hand.

6

ItsSillySeason t1_jd67bpp wrote

But if you pitch a champagne yeast, rather than natural fermentation, isn't it going to be producing just ethanol?

10

BurkeyAcademy t1_jd69eeg wrote

Champagne yeast, as with all yeast, produces mostly ethanol, but a little methanol as well. The amount of methanol isn't enough to affect you, unless it gets concentrated. The worst form of concentration is that it boils at a slightly lower temperature than ethanol (64.7°C vs. 78.3°C), and so comes off at a higher concentration in the beginning of the distillation process.

As to whether the icing concentration would do the same thing, I don't know, but I have some doubts.

29

big_sugi t1_jd6b9go wrote

It does. See https://serc.carleton.edu/teachearth/activities/180245.html

(The reference to methanol concentration is at the very end, right before the listing of references and resources.)

10

ItsSillySeason t1_jd6iyh1 wrote

Still (no pun intended), you aren't ever getting more methanol for your ethanol when concentrating. You're just taking out water. So a shot of apple jack isn't really any more dangerous than a glass of apple jack. Same for two, three, or four. The real problem would be that it's easier to drink a lot quickly, which is its own independent hazard, and one that comes with any high alcohol beverage. So if you're really concerned about it (and yet, making apple jack -- a head scratcher of a juxtaposition) go ahead and drink a glass of water with each shot of jack. In fact, you could melt the ice from the process and drink that. Heck mix it back in. Problem solved.

9

big_sugi t1_jd6jvs5 wrote

I don’t think the methanol is the primary concern; it’s just one of them. It won’t make you go blind, because of the ethanol consumption, but it won’t leave you feeling good either.

The net result of 40% abv applejack is something like the worst rotgut whiskey. It won’t make you go blind, and it probably won’t kill you—but it might well make you wish you were dead.

Drinking a glass of water with each shot would certainly help, just as it does when drinking large amounts of any spirit.

8

runslowgethungry t1_jd7nf46 wrote

Icewine, though, is traditionally made by pressing frozen grapes to produce a highly concentrated juice, then fermenting that. It's not produced by freezing an already fermented alcoholic liquid.

3

big_sugi t1_jd7yhoj wrote

Depends on the ice wine, but you’re right as to the German/Austrian-style eisweins.

2

runslowgethungry t1_jd80ozu wrote

I guess I've just never heard of anything being called "icewine" (or wine of any kind) that was frozen and concentrated after fermentation. There are a variety of alternative ways to achieve the initial concentration by freezing the fruit or the must, but that always happens pre-fermentation, not post-. That's one reason why icewines typically have lowish alcohol - the sugar content of the must is so high that the yeast can't fully ferment it.

3