Has anyone here experimented with small scale continuous stirred reactor ferment

Lafras-H

Hi all, I feel I have nailed my 22mm continuous still project. So now I am thinking about continuous fermentation.
Absolutely it is easier to make a batch in a 55-gal barrel. I have two and alternate between them, so by the time the first one is finished the next one has had plenty of time to get done and clear by itself. No fuss.
...but I like doing things differently and have been thinking about an apartment setup that could keep my small continuous still running with 10L wash per day in the tiniest of spaces.
I am thinking about an experimental setup like a stirred reactor:
5L to 10L air-tight container (4 tubes in/out).
10L sugar water container: 1070 to 1090 SG + Buffer solution 4.0 PH(possibly nutrients).
Peristaltic pump to pump sugar water in at a rate of 10L per day (1 tube in ).
Peristaltic pump to pump air (oxygen) (same tube as sugar water)
A 1-micron water filter inside the container and with an outlet tube (1 tube out).
a diaphragm pump to circulate the wash(1 tube in, 1 tube out).Method:Make 5 Litre wash with a lot of yeast (50g to 100g yeast maybe more), let it ferment out.. few hours
Fill the reactor, and connect the pumps.
The circulation pump will keep the mixture about homogeneous.
The PH buffer in the sugar water will keep the PH at 4.0.
The oxygen pump (slow rate) will grow new replacement yeast.
Dead yeast will be food for new yeast.
The sugar water pump, oxygen pump and CO2 production will push finished
ferment through the filter and out the tube, keeping the yeast back.
A heater and Temperature sensor can be connected to the circulation system to keep the temperature at say 30CThe finished ferment will have a little of the diluted input sugar water.
The biggest concern would be off flavours in the filtered wash due to so much yeast...
but maybe if the yeast/feed ratio is just right it may be enough to prevent the off flavours.
If this could work, it would make my entire fermentation and distillation setup,  600mm deep x 300mm wide by 300mm height.

Has anyone here experimented with something like this?
Thanks

jonnys_spirit

Not completely following this. Can you draw a schematic?
I’d think batch ferment/clear every few days would work better. Yeast trub will probably clog your filter unless i’m missing something.
Cheers!
-j————
i make stuff i break stuff
water into whiskey into water
just getting started in home distilling - been drinking for decades
16g copper pot still, 10l alembic, and a column or two
————

Lafras-H

gfftc4mueev.png

6 is the container
5 is the water filter
3 is the sugar water feed in
2 is the fermented wash out from the inside of the filter
the circulating pump out sucks air from 4  and blows it out at 1

I agree batch ferment works better, but I like experimenting and would like to see if I can make it really small.
Yeast trub - I read about "immobilized" yeast in other experiments, this seems like the filter may simply act like immobilized yeast.
Also, the overall amount of yeast should remain constant, ideally, new yeast should be 'bud' at the same rate as old yeast die,m and then consume the dead yeast as food.   
How to balance this may be quite tricky.

Lafras-H

lqbczeveeus.png

This is the size / layout I have in mind.

Ben

It does seem like just running a 70l ferment each week would be easier. If you want to continuously ferment you are going to need more than one vessel. Main fermenter for yeast activity, secondary brite tank for settling, 3rd tank for holding and bulk storage. Ferment would need to be mostly complete before moving to brite tank. You are going to have a bunch of work to do dialing in gravity and nutrient to keep yeast count stable.
Filtering yeast from an active ferment is a big deal, takes a ton of filter media. This is the filtration system Coors brewery uses, that is a stack of filters, not just one...

i1jrsjw1cde.jpg

Why stir it? Active ferment moves around pretty good.

The Germans traditionally run a constant ferment in the larger breweries:
Multiple primary fermenters, pitch yeast to first ferment, once it reaches high krausen, top crop your active yeast to start another fermenter, that goes on perpetually. Krausening yeast allows you to regulate yeast count, and gives you yeast that are at the peak of activity and health.
I would guess with sugar washes you would need at least 3 fermenters going, could be more depending on how much sediment you want in your brite.
Transfer completed ferment to brite tank for clearing. You could use one brite tank for 4-5 batches.
Transfer from brite tank to bulk holding vessel, or still.
Boil yeast sediment from brite tank and save for additional wash nutrient. Good nutrient regimen is going to be key, it will help ensure your pH stays in control and off flavors/esters don't build up.
It would certainly give you something to do every day. There would also be forgiveness if you needed a day not to mess with it.
Never mind, doesn't make sense at our scale... keep your 55 gallon fermenters

ycn0mi03qb0.gif

:)

Lafras-H

" running a 70l ferment each week would be easier" Agreed, Running a 200L ferment once every few weeks is even easier.  I have the space, I have 2 x 55Gal barrels (3 actually just using 2 atm).
But my experiment is about doing the equivalent in the size of a 20L countertop microwave...for those people that do not have the space.
I agree, what you describe is a "Repeated Fed-batch" fermentation, it requires multiple fermenters, and for what I am trying to achieve it makes zero sense.
What I am talking about is a continuous stirred reactor, google if you are unfamiliar with it.

"bunch of work to do dialing in gravity and nutrient to keep yeast count stable."
Yep, this is going to be the challenge to figure out how to make this simple.

Lafras-H

from the Coors brewery,
This actually looks like a "plug flow reactor" ...dunno for sure but that is very big...10L a day would be tiny.
p.s. during the ZA covid lockdown and alcohol ban I used to filter 55 gal barrels a plenty using the same filter as I had no time to wait for it to clear....(don't ask me why).

Ben

It can look like whatever you want, but it is their filtration stack. https://www.loc.gov/item/2017688904/
I am still confused on why you want to use a stirred reactor for a fermentation vessel... These are usually used for converting solid wastes to gasses? Can you explain why you want to constantly stir a sugar wash? Also how do you make it continuous?
You only want oxygen in the wash for reproduction phase, after that you do not want to introduce any more oxygen.Last edited by Ben on Wed Nov 16, 2022 8:31 am, edited 1 time in total.:)

jonnys_spirit

I might suggest three tanks?
1 - Sugar water - maybe with some nutes/etc. Top this up every so often. Airlock to keep it isolated.
2. Active ferment tank. 1 week allows ferment to complete and clear a little. Perhaps leave 1/3-1/5 volume from last ferment.
3. Clearing/finishing tank. Allows further clearing and/or supplies continuous still feed..
Use some float valves to trigger pumps and calibrate it such that approximately a week from new wash into fermenter and drawing fermented & cleared into continuous still...
Could tune it a bit with timing and triggers and capacity... So it's batch ferment but automated'ish.. Just keep the supply tank topped up as needed and clean the system as needed..
Cool idea!
Cheers,
jonny————
i make stuff i break stuff
water into whiskey into water
just getting started in home distilling - been drinking for decades
16g copper pot still, 10l alembic, and a column or two
————

Lafras-H

Ben,
I dunno what that image is, but I take your word for it...if it is just filtration it is filtering how many gallons per hour? I am looking at filtering 10L a day, how would that scale down? I have used the same method to filter wash before for a 50mm continuous still, at about 10 times this rate, and processed many many barrels without cleaning the filter... I do not think that is going to be the issue.... stopping the process and letting the filter sit unused for a few days and rot would be an issue - I have had that happen. Then maybe some cleaning /sanitation protocol would be needed.
Even though the wash does equalize, the rate may be too slow. Stirring is not my Idea it seems to be what lab size reactors do...maybe it is not needed. I dunno.
The feed pumps 1070 sugar wash into a solution at 990 and has a high population of yeast, it dilutes to maybe 901(?) the resultant output is 991, the yeasties get to work on the rest of the volume and bring the average 991 that back down to 990. But this happens continuously.
As yeast die (7 days) you intro duce a small amount of oxygen at a constant rate so new yeast is generated.
jonny
What you describe is a "Repeated Fed-batch" fermentation, it requires multiple fermenters, and extra labor or automation, the CSTR reactor I describe is much simpler.

Ben

I don't think you want constant stirring. The yeast do a good job of keeping things moving on their own. No need to risk introducing oxygen after reproduction phase is complete, this is a great way to get spoilage.
The threshold of yeast is the alcohol limit. What you are describing sounds like step feeding. It will only get you so far before the yeast hit toxicity. The recommended 1.070 starting gravity outputs a wash around 10% if it finishes dry. That is about the reasonable limit before you start to get off flavors.
It can be done to an extent, I have step fed beer up to 23%, but that was a specialized yeast, in a near perfect environment and took months to complete. It was also a beer, to be consumed as beer. Not a sugar wash made for distillation.
Stirred reactor is great for taking off gasses, I see no benefit to it in an alcohol situation, you still have no way to take the alcohol out and make the environment suitable for yeast.:)

Lafras-H

The stirring does not introduce oxygen, it takes the existing CO2, from the top and pumps it to the bottom (This is called an airlift reactor if it is in a tube...which may be needed or not), I do not actually know if this is an issue...alternatively it can just take wash from the top and pump it to the bottom...then it is more like a CSTR (with the impeller outside the tank).
The only oxygen in the system is introduced by a dedicated pump and controlled to control the amount of budding to replace yeast...this may need an "incubator" section that is not so exposed to the stirring. ...TBD.
No, it is not step-feeding.  The alcohol % remains constant, as it increases it is drawn off and diluted by the new sugar water coming in.
The whole idea of a CSTR is it is in a constant state. Same Gravity and same ABV in the whole tank....since it is mixed.
This is all new to me so I may have some things completely wrong...I answer as best I have learned by reading papers and watching a lot of vids.
Ref:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Imm ... _226728632

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ful ... 02/jib.205

Ben

You are definitely confused...You are really complicating a process that works just fine without a whole lot of intervention.
Fermentation is not some slow, non-moving thing that happens from the bottom or top of a fermenter in a yeast cake. During high krausen the inside of a fermenter looks like a tornado, yeast is not settled during fermentation, it is in suspension. As fermentation slows things begin to settle more, but it is still the yeast that are actively suspended doing the work. They know how to be where they need to be.
Introducing excess oxygen is not useful for what we are doing. It is a way to force more biologically produced gasses out of solution, and increase the propagation phase duration. Oxygenate you wash at pitch time, pitch the proper amount of yeast, the rest will be taken care of naturally.
Stirring an active ferment is going to at best force CO2 out of solution, which is probably not a good thing.  The yeast need co2, both as a blanket and to acidify the environment, this keeps competing and potentially harmful (to the consumer) bacteria at bay.  You are trying to apply a tech that is not suitable, not in scale, not in application. We aren't harvesting co2, we are harvesting alcohol, the co2 is an unfortunate and necessary byproduct.
The reactor you are talking about is specifically designed to force gasses out of solution so they can be harvested, and keep the mix homogeneous, it is the wrong tech for the job. All those little tubes and bottles coming out of the reactor are there to facilitate gas collection. There are no solids of any significant size in a sugar wash, and it is already as homogenous as it needs to be. There are no significant areas of low or high gravity or alcohol, especially not in a 10l ferment.
You are not talking about continuous fermentation, all you are doing is batch fermenting and putting a fancy sounding label on it: if your ferment is at 0.990 that is a completed ferment, ready for further processing, that ferment is done.
There is no active yeast in the cake during the main ferment, active yeast is suspended, and/or working from the top, which is why you top crop if you want to maintain active fermentation. The yeast that settles out in an active fermentation is dead. In your final cake from a settled ferment only the thin, top layer is optimally viable yeast, the rest is byproduct solids, dead, mutated, underperforming or inactive yeast.
The reason you weren't getting filter clogging is that you were not working with an active ferment, you were working with one that was already complete and most of the yeast had already settled out.
Not to sound like a complete dick, but if you really don't understand basic fermentation science, and have never even watched a fermentation as it is happening it is going to be extremely hard for you to improve the process. Start by watching this video.

Here is what's going on: in the bottom layer of the fermenter there is trub (you don't have it in the same way in a sugar wash, but this was a good visual illustration), it is a mix of hops, grain and some yeast. In the middle you can see stuff swirling around, that is active yeast, some of the trub and the wort itself. In the top of the fermenter the foam is a mixture of proteins, grain solids, hops and yeast.

P.s.
Step 1 of designing a good product is why: identify and understand the problem, how does the product solve the problem.:)

Steve-Broady

This whole thing sounds a bit like a Keurig for vodka to me. Want alcohol, but you can’t be bothered to buy it, don’t want to invest the time to make it properly, and don’t mind spending a bunch of money on a magic box to do it all for you? Have we got the product for you! And after you buy the device, you can spend loads of money on our special pasteurized sugar water pods too. DRM included at no extra charge! Coming soon: sugar water with malt extract so you can pretend you’re making whiskey. Trust us, we’re sure you won’t know the difference.
Sorry, I just don’t understand the point of this as a product. As an intellectual exercise, it’s definitely interesting. But you’ve stated that the goal is to make a countertop microwave sized box that makes vodka constantly and automatically. Even if you can solve all the technical problems, and get over all the manufacturing hurdles, and get through all the red tape, I don’t see the market. A person would have to drink A LOT of vodka to justify the cost. If they’re really just morally opposed to paying tax on alcohol, chances are they’re already here and making their own stuff like the rest of us. That means it’s probably better suited to some sort of commercial food/beverage service or entertainment environment. But now you’re getting into regulation, sanitation, taxation, not to mention the question of legality, all of which you’ll have to address before anyone will buy the first unit.
The only other “legitimate” justification I can see for bringing this to market is, like Keurig, to sell an overpriced device which requires the use of overpriced supplies (which of course are patented and therefore must come from you), for the purpose of extracting as much money out of consumers who have plenty of disposable income and not enough common sense. Granted, there are a a lot of those out there. And there are a lot of products and markets to cater to them.Steve, you’re way behind time. This is not 38, but it’s old 97. You must put her into Spencer on time.

shadylane

pitu2pvtll5.gif

      Filtering yeast out of a wash might be easier said than done.

Lafras-H

Thanks Ben,
I agree with all you say about batch fermentation ...it is the opening line of my opening post "Absolutely it is easier to make a batch in a 55-gal barrel."  I know all of this I have been making ferments for over two years now, but that is not the point of my post here... I asked: "Has anyone here experimented with small-scale continuous stirred reactor fermentation?"
I like learning new things and when I read the paper "Immobilized yeast reactor system for continuous beer fermentation (laboratory scale)" I was intrigued and could not find any posts about it, here on HD - which is very unusual..normally searching HD answers all my questions.
These reactors ARE used in industry in brewing beer, so why not experiment with them in home distilling? I did not 'invent' the method, it is described in the paper(I did have the idea of using the filter though - which may be a bad idea). Maybe I should have posted the paper in the opening and made it just a discussion about the paper.
My point is your critique is not really leveled at little ol' me but rather at the researchers that did the experiments and published the paper.
Yes, but the yeast is still alive, if you introduce more sugar it will convert it, if you take out some of the ferment it will dilute the ABV.
I mean was there a time in HD past when the first posts about reflux columns were shot down in favor of pot stills? It does not make sense.
I doubt I am the first to read this paper (or many similar ones) and want to check it out, also there are a lot of pro's here so maybe someone works with such reactors in their day job. Hence my post.
Step 1 identify and understand the problem) It is not a universal problem, but for some people, 55Gal fermenters are too big for an apartment setup, and running multiple buckets are a PITA.
Thanks, Steve Broady,
I am always reluctant to assign motives to people's actions... let them do as they wish, it does not bother me.
As to my motive, firstly I love distilling and love trying new ideas, so as soon as I could not find anything about it searching HD, I jumped straight into the opening post. I had just learned about CSTR (continuously stirred tank reactors and airlift reactors), consumed as much as I could find about it, and presented the idea...reading it back it looks like I suggested I came up with the idea, but I presumed to be addressing an audience that knew about continuous stirred reactors or would at least google what it was. Instead, every post is about how batch fermentation works. I should have opened by discussing the paper, instead of my ideas on making an experiment.
I wonder if the first post of the bokka designs to make management easier was met with : "Want alcohol, but you can’t be bothered to buy it, don’t want to invest the time to make it properly, and don’t mind spending a bunch of money on a magic box to do it all for you?"
Secondly, yes I am an embedded developer, whatever I do I always see it there is a way to make a useful product or at least a product that is useful for some people. Lots of people do this, why presume it will be like Keurig, to sell an overpriced device which requires the use of overpriced supplies? Why can it not be a reasonably priced device that can fit in your apartment?
Yep, I make a lot of neutral and I do a lot with it, I also give away a lot to friends and they always ask for more...but I don't think any sort of commercial food/beverage service would find two bottles of 43% a day of any use.

Saltbush-Bill

In that case would it not be more productive to ask the same question on some of the many beer brewing forums that exist on the WWW. ?
Seems to me that  those guys are going to be more interested in a process used in the beer brewing industry.

Lafras-H

It does not mean they cannot be used in distilling. But yes It seems it is quite unknown here so probably going to post about it in a few other places.
Although if it is unknown here on HD, I doubt I will find other hobby sites with experience with it...I may get lucky.

Steve-Broady

I apologize if you thought I was trying to assume your motives. My intention was to say that I can’t quite understand them. Certainly, the whole thing is fascinating from a technical standpoint. I just don’t see the need for this as a consumer grade product.
Two bottles a day is a lot of booze. I drink more liquor than many of my friends (but they drink far more beer and wine, personal preferences), but I doubt I could even find a use for that much vodka. And actually, I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of smaller bars and venues are going through about that on average, considering that they’re also pouring a lot of other things as well. About the only person I know who could even come close to using that much vodka, and could also afford the machine to make it, is a professional scientist and functional alcoholic with a strong preference for vodka, and even she could probably only drink half of that. Not exactly the greatest market niche, I’d say, and I don’t think she’d be interested in making her alcoholism even easier than it already is.
Why do I assume it would be like a Keurig?  Because I look around at the market for other niche convenience appliances and that’s what I see. They tend to be expensive, usually as cheaply made as is possible, typically produce an inferior product or result, and are seemingly designed primarily for the purpose of separating affluent consumers from their money. A lot of them have embedded electronics for reasons which only make sense to the people who think everything needs embedded electronics, regardless of whether it actually works any better. Also, I would guess that the quality of product will be average at best, since you can’t make cuts by taste in an automated electronic system. You’re forced to go by either volume or temperature, or possibly ABV if you’re able to measure that directly. That might work for a very carefully controlled system where you know or control the exact temperature, yeast strain, sugar and nutrient concentration, time, and every other aspect of the operation. That means you’re going to have to sell prefilled sugar water and yeast pods, which is a great money maker but a significant added expense and waste for the user. But you can’t let them supply their own, or they WILL screw it up and then you’re dealing with customer complaints and/or warranty issues. All of that adds up to something akin to a Keurig.
An automatic vodka maker would be a very niche product, to say the least. It’s also only going to be suitable to a very small market, where people are affluent enough to afford it and where distilling at home is legal. That means you have to charge more because you can’t amortize the fixed costs over millions of units. It’s going to be complex, which means it’s going to be more expensive. It’s going to use a lot of customized components, which means it’s going to be more expensive. All of that adds up to a pretty hefty price tag, I suspect.
Who is your target customer? Someone willing to spend a lot of money on a single purpose appliance, and who wants enough vodka to make it worthwhile. My guess is that it would take a couple hundred bottles to break even, which is far more than I ever see myself buying, and probably more than I’ll ever produce. But then, I prefer something with some flavor, and everyone’s taste is different. And it gets a lot worse if the customer also has to buy the supplies from you as well, which I suspect is the only way to make the thing work.
So no, I don’t know your motives. But if this is a well thought out plan for an actual product, then I have trouble seeing it as a product which I or most people will actually want to buy. I do love things like this, though. My wife and I get lots of entertainment out of seeing reviews for them and then looking them up and laughing at the price tag, wondering who in their right mind would actually buy such things. There are a great many things in this world that make me think that just because you can doesn’t mean you should. This feels like one of them. I could be wrong, of course, and I wish you the best of luck with it, but I would hate to see you going blithely down a path that will ultimately end in frustration, if not worse. If I am wrong, and you’ve got the experience and data to satisfy yourself of that fact, then by all means, carry on! And if you’re just doing this to entertain yourself, then acknowledge that to yourself and have fun with it. Just my advice, of course, which is worth exactly what you paid to get it.Steve, you’re way behind time. This is not 38, but it’s old 97. You must put her into Spencer on time.

squigglefunk

I have experimented with CSRF but my arms got tired

Lafras-H

Steve, Thank you for your detailed and thoughtful response.
Although we are of the topic here...
Do you see the same market issue for the airstill? I mean it is a consumer-grade product. Because I see a small continuous still addressing a similar market....and they do seem to have a market. I have read many posts of guys spending so much time making turbo washes and airstill'n them only to either be disappointed with the product or frustrated with the amount of effort just to get some. Likewise for crappy silcone-infested Chinese pot stills. I think more people are discouraged from the hobby by using that kind of stuff. I think a good easy-to-use small continuous still can only be good for the hobby.
Yes, Two bottles a day is a lot of booze...how many bottles can your still make a day? That is the maximum capacity so you don't have to run it full-time or at full speed. I currently do run it full speed because I am experimenting with lots of flavors, oaks, and gins and I give away a lot also. The target was that it would be more than enough for four people.
It has embedded electronics for reasons that make sense, as you know you have to babysit a normal still, sometimes just a change in the weather will affect your reflux and you need to adjust it...there is no way a human could possibly keep a 22mm continuous still running...its worse than riding a unicycle in a hurricane...it just won't work.
My manufacturing cost is currently way too high so the selling price is 399USD, but I hope to reduce that by half within 12 months. Do you think 199USD is an unreasonable target price?
I think the quality of the product it makes is actually quite good for a good reason, and people I share with agree but they are no connoisseurs so if you are very picky maybe you will not like it. I promise it is much better than you will ever get from an airstill. In my design, you do make 'cuts' by taste. The default recipes produce 'decent' products but to get the best, you take sample jars in the run and you adjust the ABX of the heads and the tails you want to remove, then you compare your jars to find your sweet spot and set that for the rest of the run.
But there is a second reason I believe my continuous still actually produce a superior neutral product to a batch distillation...you see your pot brings to boil all the gunk in your wash and keeps it at boiling point for an extended period of time, I think that can create many off flavors ( Also some nice flavors for whiskeys, etc) but in my continuous still, the bulk gunk of the wash boils for only a very short duration, thus avoiding creating off flavors. I can even run freshly fermented wash that has not started clearing and it still tastes pretty good...with just a hint of yeast.
So the notion of needing "prefilled sugar water and yeast pods" just stinks, as much as... turbo yeast. i.e. prefilled yeast and nutrient pods. No thanks... I make a perfect ferment with nothing more than bakers yeast, lees, and shells.
Apart from the clan wars on whether column stilled whiskeys etc should even be called whiskey, due to my design, my continuous still can distill in the range of 60% to 90%. So it can hit that 66% mark easily. It comes with three preloaded recipes Water,90%, and 66%. So I am sure it will not make a great whiskey, in part for the same reason it makes a great neutral. But you can try, and maybe in the future, there will be other cool ways users will find to make other cool stuff.
So, I am really keen to hear your feedback, especially regarding my continuous still also addressing the airstill market. Am I missing something?

HDNB

      Filtering yeast out of a wash might be easier said than done.dunno Shady, that Coors set up looks easy. bet you could weld one up in a few....yearsI finally quit drinking for good.
now i drink for evil.

Lafras-H

hi Shady, HDNB,
The actual filter I used before was this type :
PP1001BB114mm x 251mm (4.5” x 9.875”)1 micron
https://www.globalwatersolutions.com/pr ... t-filters/
I did not even use it in a filter housing, just plugged up the two holes and drilled a 5mm hole for a tube in the one plug...let it sit in the barrel of the wash did not even need to hold it under. It saturated and floated just under the surface The wash came through almost as clear as water.
So when I read the paper describing the process my mind immediately jumped to a shortcut of this filter to immobilize the yeast.

stillness

This seems interesting to me.  I have no idea what a bioreactor is, but I'm going to read up on it when I get a sec.
I've been curious about continuous fermentation in the past.  All my thoughts involved multiple vessels.  Doing it all in one seems better, but also I don't see how it works.
I'm assuming the same flow in as out... So, 10L/day input and 10L/day output?  And you'll always lose some sugar down the drain, right?  Pretty much aim to set the flow rate to match the fermentation speed, so that although you're constantly adding a sugar wash, the abv never changes.
Where does the input come from?  A larger vessel (defeats the purpose)?  Mixed on the fly?  Kureg cups?

z2twzhhsox0.gif

Anyways, keep us posted on any experiments and heed not the naysayers.
Also,
The bioreactor video felt like a parody.  Can there be a few more tubes and pumps added to that thing?!  I think the super safe sampler was my fav part.  My still is going to get a super safe sampler upgrade.

Lafras-H

Hi stillness,
Yes, you have it right, the idea is that in one second you are feeding in sugar at say 1080, which then gets mixed (quickly) so it raises the entire ferment from say 990 to 991, and dilutes the 10%abv to 9.9%abv. The output will then be at 991 and 9.9%abv (tiny waste sugar), and the yeast just gobbles up the new sugar and the next second restores the balance to 990 10%. But instead of it being such discrete numbers I used for illustration it is continuous. The numbers are for illustration only - I don't know the exact numbers.
Yes the sugar water input comes from another vessel, but It can be small. My estimated total of 20L size device with the same or less labor of a 3x 25L  Batch fed operation. In an apartment that can make a difference.
I hope to build it over the weekend and will post updates.
Yea, the bioreactor video is like medical quality, my plan is way cruder. Read the papers they are way more useful.

Ben

Would you please? I am really interested in reading it.:)

Lafras-H

It is in a post a while up, but here it is again
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ful ... 02/jib.205   - lots of detail
The first is just direct access.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Imm ... _226728632
For the second one, you can get to just follow the links and select that it is for your own private research.

Steve-Broady

I’ll try to answer as best I can. If I have missed one of your questions, I most humbly apologize.
Comparing your continuous still to an air still feels a bit wrong to me. It’s like comparing a drip coffee maker to an espresso machine. Yes, they both make coffee, but they are very different things. Primarily in the level of automation and lack of control, or conversely in the complexity if you do give the user much control. Also, I’m not convinced that the air still is all that good for the hobby in general. I have a feeling that it’s not large enough to be practical, which makes getting any appreciable quantity (or quality) out of it will be a lesson in frustration. I see a corollary here with photography. Point and shoot cameras increased the number of photographs taken, but I don’t think they did much for the hobby of serious photography. While some photographers could and did use them to good effect, they just weren’t good enough or versatile enough to give a new user a real feel or appreciation for the hobby.
The Chinese stills are somewhat different in my opinion. Yes, they’re cheap, and riddled with problems, but they’re also just large enough and just good enough to give someone a real taste for the hobby. In the photography analogy, they’re more akin to the inexpensive knockoff plastic SLRs or viewfinder cameras that at least gave someone a little control over what was going on, and felt more like the real thing.
I may be misunderstanding your goal here. As I understood it, the idea was to make a black box that you feed sugar and water into and get alcohol out of. Now I’m wondering if you’re thinking of something else. Perhaps with a lot more user controls which will allow configuration, while handling all the difficult bits automatically. I’m not certain that would really be desirable to many people, since if you want that control there are better and simpler, or at least cheaper, ways to get it. But I freely admit that I am generally dissatisfied with automation, and prefer manual controls. Manual transmission cars, all manual cameras, tools that just do the job I bought them for and don’t try to think for me. While I won’t go into what I do for a living, I will say that automation is a major bone of contention and a constant frustration in my industry, and anyone with any skill or knowledge of the subject agrees that it’s not even close to what a decently trained human can achieve with ease.
Regarding price, I once dug into the possibility of manufacturing a small run of items for another hobby. What I learned was that what I could build for myself for $100, I could not manufacture for less than $500 unless I scaled up to many thousands of units, if not millions. Making one of a thing is easy. Making one million of a thing is also easy. Making one hundred of a thing is a nasty spot in the middle that’s not at all easy, which means it’s not cheap. I readily admit that you could have far more knowledge on that subject than I do, and that the numbers you’ve given could represent real world prices. I’m also skeptical, because I’m old enough to have seen a lot of niche market things made by hobbyists which someone confidently said they could sell for $X, but which actually ended up selling for closer to $10X, if at all. Looking at things like espresso machines, which I would guess have similar levels of complexity and materials cost, they seem to be several times the prices you’ve mentioned, and they have the advantage of a much larger market. With all that said, I would be very impressed to see such a machine on the market for ~$200, and might even consider one myself for the sheer novelty of it.
I believe that you are getting good results with very simple ingredients, and see no need to force a user to use anything predetermined. However, remember who you’re aiming this product at. They can and will do something egregious, like filling it with honey, maple syrup, or even oatmeal and corn in an attempt to make whiskey. Whereas with the air still, they make zero attempt to be involved with the fermentation, you’re talking about a device which does. Therefore, unless you have some way of controlling what goes into the machine, there’s no telling what’s going to happen inside it. That could definitely be interesting, but it’s not something I’d want to deal with as a manufacturer, retailer, or technician. While you are getting good results with your recipe, how confident are you that I could get the same results? I might have different sugar, it’s likely that I have different yeast, and I am almost guaranteed to have different water chemistry. In my still, I can correct for that at every step. In fact, it happens by default. If you don’t account for those variables, then you’ll have to control what goes into the machine in order to have any control over what comes out.
You compared your two bottles a day output to the potential maximum that my small pot still can make. Without knowing how your machine works, I don’t know how good it would be at running at 1/4 capacity, or 1/10 even. With a batch process such as I and most hobbyists use, that’s trivial. If I want to make less, I just don’t ferment as much. But if you have a continuous process, how much are you able to slow it down without having problems?
I don’t want to seem overly negative or dismissive. As I’ve said before, it’s a really fascinating idea on a purely technical level. I just have a hard time believing that this is a viable product, even if it would be a neat one. Maybe I’m wasting your time with things you’ve already figured out, and I’m just too skeptical. But I’d like to think that something I have to say has a modicum of merit, and if nothing else it leads you prevent a problem that you might otherwise have had. I’ll leave you with a favorite saying of my father. “The trouble with making anything foolproof is that fools are so damned ingenious!” Remember that the more automated a tool is, the more success depends on the user using it in the right way, and the less thought they’re likely to give to how they’re using it. It’s automatic, after all.Steve, you’re way behind time. This is not 38, but it’s old 97. You must put her into Spencer on time.

Ben

You should re-read the section on "results and discussion", in that section they talk about immobilization of the biomass, it is a key feature you missed.
They are also using an airlift reactor, not a stirred reactor... Can you please explain why you think stirring is an advantage?
You should also re-read the section on maturation time. This is not something that happens overnight, although I don't think it directly parallels what we are doing since they are working with a lager. Either way, what is coming out of their reactor is not ready for consumption, and although they don't state it explicitly I don't think fermentation is actually complete when they are transferring, this seems more like an inoculation device than an actual fermentation chamber ( I could be wrong on that, I wish there was more data on the gravity readings vs time). And that makes sense, since it is actually a continuous fermentation device. As much as you might like the term, taking yeast from one ferment and moving it to another does not make what you are doing continuous, it is just batch fermenting with a hip label.
In order to use their reactor lift tech (which from the look of the paper is still developmental) you are going to still need 2 tanks, so all you are doing is adding immense expense to a product, when the same amount of space could be utilized for 2-3 single fermenters of the same size as a reactor.
Can you please post links to the commercial breweries that are using this? I can't find any examples.:)This is the big hiccup with the whole program. You CANNOT get good product from a single run through a continuous still of this scale. ABV isn't high enough, there isn't enough volume off the still to actually make cuts with. And adding that to using wash from a rushed ferment it is a recipe for rotgut.  
You can't make a little metal box make cuts, this is a hobby for operators, not someone who wants to input sugar water and receive vodka with no interference.not sure if you looked at his website, but you will see you can turn "1 kg of sugar into 2 bottles of Vodka with almost no effort" from a one and done run of TPW - he even links to this forum so you can get the recipes, etc. Apparently it is all done with sensors and computer code to make the cuts and somehow even adjusts to the local weather/temp/barometric pressure, etc
https://www.myvodkamaker.com/collections/all

Bensquigglefunk

Steve, Thanks for the feedback.
To be clear keep what I have finished developing i.e. my 22mm continuous still and what is a brand new fermentation experiment as two separate things.
I do not see them ever being one machine, more like the fermenter would be standalone or an addon; something that stands behind or next to the still (or even under it).
The idea is not quite as radical as 'a black box', I don't think you can make it foolproof...you can make it easy to get a decent product, but you will always need care and attention to get the best. There is still some skill and experience involved. I wish I could post the user manual here then you could see the levels of control the user has, but the admin is picky about self-promotion (you can find it on my landing page if you search).
Taking the coffee machine analogy, and presuming the price difference between a drip coffee maker to an espresso machine, is say $100 to $200. Do you not think if the drip coffee maker took a whole afternoon's labor to brew just one cup, that the espresso machine would take a decent share of the home coffee market?
Regarding price, yes my starting price is 2x for this same reason, initial costs are much higher....I hope it does not make people think it is an overpriced Keurig. The east can probably make it for 1/4 the price and sell it for a similar price to the air still.
Ben,
As far as I can tell, the biomass has to be immobilized to stop it from being pumped out of the reactor, I use the shortcut of the filer to achieve the same...dunno if it will work.
My experiment is far from ideal, I do not have the shaped tank required for effective air lift...I think they are shooting for very high efficiency, I hope we can get it working well enough even if it has less efficiency. Maybe experiment 2 or 3 will tune the requirements. I certainly cannot go and spend big cash on an actual airlift reactor.
Maturation time - yes, the paper is on beer fermentation so I expect it would not be exactly the same requirement for sugar wash. I don't know what post-process may be needed... that is the point of experimenting.
I think it is possible to reduce the space from 75 liters to 20 liters, with a lot less fuss...If the experiment show this is not possible then fine...it is still fun to try.
I thought they mentioned example commercial operations in the Daniel P. Silva paper, but with a quick skim I could not find it, but I have read so much it could have been elsewhere.
Respectfully absolute claims like those seldom age well.

Lafras-H

Hi squigglefunk
No, I do not claim to  "adjust to the local weather/temp/barometric pressure"... at least it should not (please point it out so I can fix it)...it is a feature on the todo list but it is not part of the system yet...
The main landing page has a lot more info than the product page. - Including the user manual I referred to earlier.

Lafras-H

This is the big hiccup with the whole program. You CANNOT get good product from a single run through a continuous still of this scale. ABV isn't high enough, there isn't enough volume off the still to actually make cuts with. And adding that to using wash from a rushed ferment it is a recipe for rotgut.  
You can't make a little metal box make cuts, this is a hobby for operators, not someone who wants to input sugar water and receive vodka with no interference.not sure if you looked at his website, but you will see you can turn "1 kg of sugar into 2 bottles of Vodka with almost no effort" from a one and done run of TPW - he even links to this forum so you can get the recipes, etc. Apparently it is all done with sensors and computer code to make the cuts and somehow even adjusts to the local weather/temp/barometric pressure, etc
https://www.myvodkamaker.com/collections/allI have read the link, it used to be his "location" it is a big part of what started my skepticism of the entire thread...
I love that he is claiming to get that great results off of TPW and then slams it in this exact thread. It's genius.
I wonder if he has actually happily consumed something off this miracle still, one and done fantastic piece of equipment. My guess is no.:)

Ben

Hi squigglefunk,
Please tell me where I say "adjusts to the local weather/temp/barometric pressure"... that is a feature on the todo list but it is not part of it yet. I will have to remove such a claim.
The home page has more detailed info than the product page, including the user manual mentioned before.

Lafras-H

They sure don't, except when theory never gets disproven, which I believe is called fact in the "scientific community". It has been proven here, many times. Never seen someone say "I am really glad I stepped down to a tiny wash from a big one, sure makes things easier", although the opposite has often been true.
Can you explain further how you are making cuts digitally, and where the cuts go? This is some truly groundbreaking work, you don't need to sell this little machine, that tech will fetch you more money than you can ever spend, from big companies who's only goal is to make the same thing, every single time... the ones that have entire flocks of master distillers who are trying to do exactly that. And if you can make something truly delicious from one and done you are reinventing the entire industry.
Still waiting to links of this in a commercial setting. I would love to be wrong about this. I see the airlift reactor as a really useful tool for inoculations in a large scale brewery. Still can't fathom why you would want or need a reactor for 10 or 100l of sugar wash.:)

Ben

sorry I thought I had read something to the effect of that on the page, I don't see it now. My mistake!

squigglefunk

This is an outright lie. 1kg sugar in a perfect environment will only produce 1500ml (2 bottles) of liquor at 39.2%, that means no cuts, no losses and still not strong enough to actually be vodka. Realistically I don't think you could even get one bottle of any quality out of 1kg, not with hobby scale losses. Whoever owns that site should be ashamed, they are clearly trying to take advantage of people who don't know any better.
I don't think whoever is trying to sell this myvodkamaker thing has ever actually distilled anything. Its a straight up cash grab, and worse its using the HD site to try and build some sort of credibility.
This is another device that is going to hurt newbies in the hobby, and make the entire hobby look shady. Shameful.Last edited by Ben on Thu Nov 17, 2022 11:47 am, edited 1 time in total.:)

Ben

I tried to work the numbers in my head because it seemed a bit far fetched to me too, but numbers make my brain hurt and the whole website was kind of making my brain hurt so I left it at that.

squigglefunk

I tried to work the numbers in my head because it seemed a bit far fetched to me too, but numbers make my brain hurt and the whole website was kind of making my brain hurt so I left it at that.I used beersmith calculator

:)

Ben

I liked this part:
"Vodka is a low-calorie liquor with no carbs, fat, or sugar, and no nutritional value for that matter. If you’re on a diet or just want to drink without an overload of calories, vodka is a good choice."
So apparently we make diet drinks now? I guess I can see where that’s technically true, if you’re comparing it to heavily sweetened liqueurs, cocktails, beer, or wine, but it feels awfully deceptive to me. As someone who is carefully tracking everything I eat and drink, I can tell you that no alcohol is free of calories!Steve, you’re way behind time. This is not 38, but it’s old 97. You must put her into Spencer on time.

Steve-Broady

ah I see! regardless, you still have the STEM grasp of distilling going on that makes me want to curl up and cry because of aforementioned brain hurty.

squigglefunk

If I am using alcohol to diet I just drink till I vomit, negative calories, then pass out naked next to the toilet, shivering on the cold tile burns off even more. Problem solved!:)

Ben

vodka with a carrot swizzle stick and some rice crisps for breakfast and lunch and then a sensible dinner! the new slim fast plan!

squigglefunk

ah yes see there goes Mr Bill Nye the Distilling guy using entropy for weight loss!

squigglefunk

vodka with a carrot swizzle stick and some rice crisps for breakfast and lunch and then a sensible dinner! the new slim fast plan!Replace the carrot with celery, because that’s even lower calorie. Then add a little tomato juice for lycopene, hot sauce for antioxidants (and probiotics, if you like it fermented like I do)… maybe a dash of Worcestershire sauce for flavor, and you’ve got something!Steve, you’re way behind time. This is not 38, but it’s old 97. You must put her into Spencer on time.

Steve-Broady

Ben,
Thanks, I will fix that. I re-did the numbers, but with so many things going on somewhere in the copywriting I slipped up...it is a trivial mistake. Do you really think my plan is built around lying to people about half a kg of sugar...come on?  (edit: it now says "a kg of sugar to make a bottle of vodka". Enough allowance for losses I think).
On my side desk right now: One WIP, that was test running today, and on the right side one of my earlier prototypes that I use for my normal own production.

eaqsjuhj2ui.jpg

Here is an earlier prototype before I had the idea to spiral the column:

qrq34fy0x25.jpg

Here is the 50ml column I decommissioned in favor of my 22mm prototype, I think the distiller's mold attests to just how much I have put through this still...(it is all repainted now)

xayg2sdjsj4.jpg

Cash grab? Really? Do you think the website reflects a company out to do a cash grab? If it was a cash grab it would not be a one-man startup that even f's up even simple copywriting! Rather it is an extremely high-risk attempt at trying to make something that does not suck as much as having to load and unload batches of sometimes hot wash.
Hurt newbies????!
I have done everything I can to make it the safest device possible! I freaking set the nozzle/spout on fire to ...guess what..it self extinguishes. As it burns the temperature of the nozzle rises the burn rate increases to where the burn rate exceeds the production rate...How will your T500 or air still hold up to that test?  I have tilted it upside down to simulate a complete spill onto my hand... guess what 50ml hot water stings like a b* but not as much as overturning 4 liters...because guess what? Airstill and small pot still users do that shit all the time( handle hot wash).
No friends, it is not innovation that is stopping the hobby from being legal, it is sh* like a DIY'er hanging a freaking glass thumper over an open burner supported only by the lid... it is perceptions like that, that makes the entire hobby look shady and that perception is the reason the hobby stills are not legal...
/rant, but it is not nice to be called names.Last edited by Lafras-H on Thu Nov 17, 2022 1:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Lafras-H

Steve,
Oh, for a laugh you quote it out of context? I agree out of context it is silly...in context, it is quite sensible.
It is in the FAQ, it is a question I get all the time when you tell people it is made from sugar...It is not even my words it is a quote in quotation marks from an article that includes the statement "Last medically reviewed on October 17, 2016".
How is the following misleading in any way?...tell me I will fix it.
FAQ:
Q: With so much sugar, won't it be fattening? A: No, the yeast eats all the sugar and secretes alcohol - "Vodka is a low-calorie liquor with no carbs, fat, or sugar, and no nutritional value for that matter. If you’re on a diet or just want to drink without an overload of calories, vodka is a good choice." - https://www.healthline.com/health/food- ... s-in-vodka
In case you think it is just a link to some random shit site that will say anything: "Healthline.com, the flagship site of Healthline Media, has passed WebMD.com as the number one ranked health information site in the U.S." “Healthline.com is the most read online health website because we make it a priority to deliver expert advice in human terms,”
https://apnews.com/article/san-francisc ... 56e975ba04

Lafras-H

Yes, a cash grab, you have a product, in prototype phase with a ton of claims that you can't back up, for sale. In fact the unit shows in stock, and the site is ready to take paypal. That is pretty much the definition of a cash grab. You are using misleading language throughout your sale site, and using this site as some sort of credibility.
FYI your legalities page is incorrect, are you willing to be liable for that? Do you think someone gives a shit that you copied and pasted misinformation? Nope, you published it on a for-profit site, you are responsible for vetting it.
Hurt newbies: for sure. You don't have to do physical damage to harm someone, but you certainly are doing that as well:
You are also pushing people to run a still unattended which is physically dangerous, and directly in violation of the rules of this site, and against common sense.
You are claiming people are going to make a drinkable product from singlins, with no cuts, no foreshot removal, that actually is physically dangerous. If you knew the first thing about distilling you would be acutely aware of this. Not to mention what the stuff is going to taste like. Do you really think someone is going to pursue this hobby if all they can make from their $400 still is something that tastes terrible and gives terrible hangovers? Don't you see how that hurts the hobby and the individual?
You say directly on your website: "Other appliances require you to spend a whole afternoon loading and unloading many pots full of potentailly hot wash to do many stripping runs followed by spirit runs and maybe some filtering" you are claiming your product can easily make something better than pot still, with no cuts, no danger, and no work. When someone receives this thing and realizes it is only "maybe" useful as a stripping still (I'm not sure, there is nothing on your site about what type of still it actually is) they are going to be upset and feel taken advantage of. That is harmful to them and the hobby. The fact you can't see it is awe inspiring.
If you are going to bring a product to market, and make claims, and take money from people you better be certain you can back up those claims.
Your entire site is just other peoples information and a bunch of YOUR claims, which you don't substantiate anywhere, there is no info on your tech, I can't even tell how this thing is supposed to be continuous, there is no how it works, no data on what it is actually producing, the proof capabilities, run times, power usage, electronic interface, pump types... nothing. I mean for fucks sake there is not even a power cord in your photos, no mention of 110-220v, no mention of fuel, does the thing run on Jesus' tears or what?:)