Distilled. (Edit 2)

[cidermaid]

Hi Tom, thank you for your thoughts I always appreciate the time and the input that others offer me.

I do not take any offence, however I would say that you do seem to be having a few negative moments recently....in fact it would appear that my poem caused sufficient distress to cause you to repeat your comments three times...a well accepted literary device to underline a point...so I’m thinking you didn’t like it then!

I guess crappy poetry can do that to a man, so fair enough if your lair is littered with such.

Normally, at this point I would humbly submit with genuflexion to your considerably greater skills in the use of both poetic endeavours and literary devices, However it must be my age, because recently I have  become quite garrulous.

So I am going to do a first and answer back in assertive tones on this one.

(I know bravo for me!) 

[b]Distilled  [/b](Editited before comments)[b] edited
[/b]

A ring of tears form,

drop back, drops. Singular ring   drops would be silly.  singular ring, multiple drops.  See ref in good old wikipedia "tears of wine"   Alcohol legs cling to the side of a glass.  Individual drops form/ rise and fall and re-form due to the unique surface tension behaviour properties of  alcoholic spirit.
 
re-form.


Caught at the neck of a glass condenser,
freshly formed pearls
vaporise. I don't really see what the advantage is of line breaks being so inconsequentially chosen. "vaporise" would be so much better if it was kept with pearls.   I could actually concede that vaporise could be placed on the line above to some effect...but then this was not a random word slplatter gun effect as you might suppose, but rather was a determined decision to try and cause a sound effect in the read to simulate the phisical behaviour of the condensate droplets as they coalesce at the spalsh back neck of the condensor feed pipe...in that there is a definable pause moment.   (It was also a deliberate line choice for emphasis on the under metaphor image of the transient nature of pearls of love).   Does it work?  Perhaps, perhaps not, you might well be right on this point. I was undecided either way and kept switching it back and forth.
Gravity fed legs collect Are the legs "collecting" as in "grouping" or as in "gathering". If gather then say gather. If you insist on grouping then I am not sure of the imagery and how it relates to "run in spirals" Either way it is an odd picture. I can tell you see it but the last two lines in this stanza only add to the enigma. I guess what I am saying is you are making the simple complex. Is that your aim? Perhaps a Liebig condenser is too much...at least you cannot see inside the metal version!   Hmm.  Yes the dropplets  collect.  (I would take a grouping or gathering to be suggestive of organisation or inteligent cooperation.  Is it your suggestion that I personify the alcoholic distilate?... because i think this would be distinctly odd!).  The condensate is rapidly cooled at the head of the vertical glass coil condensor. The surface tension properties of the distilate cause it to collect in tear drop / pearl sized droplets which then rapidly fall through the coils in a series of waves / curtains.   the first run off will have a higher proof (ABV) reading and would likely pass the gunpowder test, but this explosive nature is soon dissapated by the subequent droplets.  During the test a point is reached when the "legs" as they are sometimes refered to, become more water than alcohol.   (At this point there is no further need to run the distilation and the flask can be made up to height with distilled water....
and run in spirals,
a falling curtain of surface tension
to prove the gunpowder test.

Unwatched the boiling flask ...unwatched?...so how do you know...and would the result be the same if watched. We are talking distillation not quantum mechanics.   ....however this point can be easily overlooked in a busy lab.   Unwatched? - well yes the point of who  can then make an observation about this is semi valid...but me thinks this is just being pedantic for the sake of it.   It could equally be taken as an observation about what happens not what is happening in this case.   In fact could not  the whole poem be taken as observational notes in the past tense?  (I am sure you will hasten to correct me in my wrongness here)
flames the remains.
Whorls of water
bleed and diffuse into the mix.
The final proof,
at the digital density meter bench,
reads weight by volume.On balance, yes to the methodology but the mixture of science and sentiment is a complex draft.

I prefer to simply count the tears
as they rise and fall in my wine glass. Why a wine glass?I though we were distilling not brewing?   The whole brewing industry uses the standardised sampling glasses for flavour evaluation.  The process described above is in a laboratory setting, hence the gunpowder referance and the scientific instrument mentions.   The first and last lines are linked to both personal consideration / consumption by a singular person. 
To conclude my refutation thoughts: - In my tiny little confused mind, I have directly lifted what I see on a daily basis in the lab at the cider works, where we make cider (as opposed to brewing it) and then blend for quality, (in the same way that they do at a winery or distillery) the end product is tested for amongst other things - alcoholic strength, by distilling a sample and testing the distilate.  I then linked these images with that delightful little picture on the wikipedia page to conjour up this pitiful attempt at a poem about these things, with a love / relationship methaphor thrown in for good measure.

Under proof

                     there is no spark. Correct   so I'm left unsure if this was a clever dick comment as referanced below, designed to make a quip about the lack of spark in this poem, or if in fact this is a token nod to encouragment, to suggest that there was a line in the poem you actually did not activly dislike
....I can only call it as I see it. The peom might well be open to individual assesment and considered rubbish - readersperogative darling.
 However, the under-supporting information is understood and observed on a daily basis, albeit by a un-scientific mind, of dubious intelect.
  
Too much information in this reply?  I blame it on the varacity comment, cidermaids are odd creatures - must be all those legs they keep testing. 
Seriously though,I just want to say that i do take your comments to heart...I actually listen to and value what you have to say, (sad but true) and overall...it's all good. 
Thank you.


Don't take my clever-dick comments to heart....but as soon as we introduce the scientific endeavour in to poetry  we tend to bend veracity verse. That's ok...but I can only call it as I see it.
Best,
tectak



original as posted

Distilled

A ring of tears form,

drop back,
 
and re-form.

Caught at the neck of a glass condenser,
freshly formed pearls
vaporise.
Gravity fed legs collect
and run in spirals,
a falling curtain of surface tension
to prove the gunpowder test.

Unwatched the boiling flask
continues to flame the remains.
Whorls of water
bleed and diffuse into the mix.
The final proof,
at the digital density meter bench,
gives a reading of weight by volume.

I prefer to simply count the tears
as they rise and fall in my wine glass.

[/url]
[url=//uk.pinterest.com/pin/create/extension/]
[url=//uk.pinterest.com/pin/create/extension/][/url]