I strongly feel that the craft distilling industry deserves worse terms of payment, when ordering stills and fermenters and mashers. Yes, you read that correctly: worse instead of better. Why? Let’s dive in deeper.
When you purchase a still, the manufacturer will inform you about their terms of payment. These terms basically tell you when to pay what percentage of the total acquisition sum. Usually, there are two or three terms. Always an initial downpayment (to take your order into production) and a final downpayment (usually upon delivery), and sometimes there is a payment in between (for instance upon completion of the actual build).
Given the above, a 30%/70% payment scheme sounds like a better deal for you than a 70%/30% payment scheme, right? I mean, in the first example you only pay 30% to place the order and start the manufacturing process. In the second example, you have to pay much more up front. Sorry to throw a bucket of cold water your way, but considering the 30%/70% order the better deal is actually wrong!
When considering the build of a new still, a still manufacturer basically has to judge the answers to three questions:
What are the direct costs of building the still?
What are the indirect costs of building the still?
Does the selling price, and the terms of payment, cover both direct and indirect costs?
Direct costs can be directly attributed to the still the manufacturer contemplates building. Think “material” and “labor hours”. Examples of indirect costs are “rent” and “finance”. The rent of the building and the budget for the finance department are fixed costs. Even when no still is built, these costs need to be paid.
Of course the price of goods sold, and the terms of payment, need to cover both direct and indirect costs. Where that is not the case, that company runs a severe risk of bankruptcy. When a company’s price covers more than the direct and indirect costs, a profit is realized and a return on investment is established.
How does this translate to terms of payment? Quite easily, actually. The first downpayment, that basically triggers the start of the manufacturing process of your still, should cover the direct costs. The final downpayment should cover the indirect cost and result in a profit margin.
Now, with that knowledge in mind, what does that “advantageous” 30%/70% deal tell you? Here are some answers:
If 30% covers the direct costs, this manufacturer must use sub-standard materials or workforce, or:
If 70% is needed to cover indirect costs and make a profit, for sure those profits are excessive;
If 30% does not cover the direct costs and no excessive profit is realized, this payment scheme means that the manufacturer is pre-financing your order.
A low initial downpayment means that the manufacturer’s quality too low, that his profits are too high, or that he is in financial trouble and needs to pre-finance orders (building inventory for which there are no paying customers yet).
Do you feel any of the above is good for you, as a distiller, considering to place an order? Would you like to pay more for an inferior product, or excessive company profits? Are you comfortable doing business with a company that pre-finances your order at its own expense? We all know who pays those pre-financing costs, right?
I guess the answer to the above questions is “no”, isn’t it. The only good thing that can come from a 30%/70% payment proposal, is that there may be room to negotiate the price downwards … but that may increase the other risks mentioned above.
So what about the aforementioned “less advantageous” 70%/30% terms of payment, where you need to invest more up front? What does that tell you about the manufacturer you consider ordering with? Here we go:
If 70% covers the direct costs, this manufacturer must have low overhead and focus on quality, or:
If 30% is needed to cover indirect costs and create a profit, that profit for sure can’t be excessive;
This manufacturer does not have to pre-finance orders, does not experience loss of demand, and probably runs a sound financial organization.
The only downside to doing business with a still manufacturer that has 70%/30% terms of payment, is that there isn’t going to be room for downward price negotiation …
We stack our columns on top of our boilers, here, at iStill. We don’t do side-mounted, off-set, floor-mounted columns. Many still manufacturers do. Why do they offer off-set columns and why don’t we? Let’s dive in deeper …
Why some manufacturers provide off-set columnstills
The reason why still manufacturers offer off-set columns is simple. By placing the column next to the boiler, instead of on top of that boiler, the total still is lower. And lower stills fit in places with lower ceilings. There you have it: the reason for off-set columns is to allow distillers with height-restricted distilling halls to get a still anyhow.
Before we dive in at what costs off-set columns come, let’s see how they are build. A deeper dive on the engineering behind off-set column potstills, so to speak.
Engineering an off-set column still
As the liquids are brought to a boil inside the boiler, gasses are produced that – normally – would travel vertically upward. Because, in an off-set column design, the column does not sit directly above the boiler, these gasses have to be rerouted from the top of the boiler to the bottom of the off-set column. This is done via the so-called vapor return line (see picture underneath).
The vapors are presented to the off-set column just below the lowest plate, at the column entry point (see picture below), via the aforementioned vapor return line, that usually runs at the back of the column downwards. From there, the gasses travel upwards and are redistilled on the plates above.
The processed and higher proof gasses now exit the column at the column exit point, from where they are transferred to the product cooler. The now distilled spirit leaves the still at “product out”. The reflux, that is created during the refining process, exits the column at the base of that column, via the reflux return line. Please note that, for the reflux to be able to flow back to the boiler, the off-set column still needs to be raised from the floor.
Traditional, off-set column still design …
Why we do not offer off-set column stills
There are three major reasons why we do not design, produce, or sell off-set columns at iStill. They have to do with the influence this design has on:
Vapor flow separation;
Vapor speed acceleration and deceleration;
Boil distribution and vapor production localization.
I’ll explain each of these subjects in a dedicated paragraph in the remainder of this iStill Blog post, before I finish up with how the iStill handles ‘m and then some conclusions. But first I’ll need to explain laminar vs. turbulent gas flow to you; and why this is key to an optimized still design.
Laminar vs. turbulent gas flow
Laminar gas flows are smooth and streamlined, whereas turbulent flows are irregular and chaotic. In distillation, in order to create high-quality spirits, we need to separate the right amount of heads and tails from the hearts faction. The better we control the amount of heads and tails that can smear our hearts, the higher quality our newly made spirits will be.
Heads, hearts, and tails – or any mixture of ‘m – come over at different vapor speeds. If you distill at lower vapor speeds, heads will come out first, with hardly any hearts contamination. If you distill at higher vapor speeds, tailsy alcohols and esters come over earlier. Higher vapor speeds result in more tails smearing into hearts at an earlier phase of the distillation process.
A laminar gas flow is constant, efficient, and well-organized. A turbulent gas flow is variable, inefficient, and easily mixes headsy, heartsy, and tailsy components all together, because of the vapor speed differences in that turbulent environment! An optimized still design therefore aims to create a laminar gas flow, where a sub-optimal still design creates a turbulent gas flow. An optimal still design offers stable vapor speed so that you, the craft distiller, get to decide on cuts. A sub-optimal still design offers all kinds of vapor speeds. It presents you with de facto smearing, instead of empowering you to make better spirits by controlling the amount of smearing you look for in a certain spirit!
We have now established the overall goal of still design: a great still offers the craft distiller a laminar gas flow, which results in control over smearing. We also defined what makes for a bad still design: a bad still offers the craft distiller a turbulent gas flow, that offers a predefined, high amount of smearing. With that in mind, let’s see why off-set columns suck.
Laminar vs. turbulent columns …
Vapor flow separation
Vertical lines or pipes result in a steady vapor flow upwards. But when we start to bend those lines, something weird happens: the vapor flow starts to separate from the line wall. And as flow separation sets in, turbulence is created at the corners. Vertical columns and lines allow for laminar gas flow, where bended columns or pipes or lines result in vapor turbulence. What we can learn from this? Straight pipes perform better!
Bended lines lead to vapor flow separation in the corners …
If you take another look at the traditional, off-set still design, please count the number of bends the vapors have to deal with. There are seven corners, seven turbulence creators the vapors have to deal with:
The vertically rising vapors from the boiler are pulled into the vapor return line at a 90 degree corner;
The now horizontally traveling vapors are directed downwards in another 90 degree corner;
The now vertically descending vapors enter the column at the column entry point … horizontally;
Once they get spit out from the vapor return line they bent another 90 degrees: upward in the column;
After they are processed in the column, the now vertically rising vapors are pulled towards the cooler at 90 degrees;
The now horizontal vapor flow is once more cornered via a 90 degree bend downwards into the cooler.
That is a total of six times 90 degrees or 540 degrees. That equals a whopping one-and-a-half spin in total! Imagine the associated turbulence that these bends create. And how that turbulence disrupts the otherwise laminar gasflow … smearing heads, hearts, and tails into one another. And that’s just with six out of the seven corners mentioned. The seventh will have to wait a bit. First, I want to dive into the influence of vapor speed acceleration and deceleration.
Vapor speed acceleration and deceleration
A pipe that’s vertical and of the same constant diameter will support equal vapor speeds throughout its design. But vapors that travel through pipes or columns of varying diameter will speed up in the narrow sections, while slowing down again at the wider parts of the design. Like this:
A straight pipe of overall equal diameter results in equal vapor speeds and laminar gasses. A pipe with bottle-necks results in a wide variety of vapor speeds, resulting in a much more turbulent gas flow.
If you take another look at the picture of the traditional, off-set still design above, how many bottle-necks do you see? How many reductions and expansions do you count. Here are six:
Boiler to riser (reduction => vapor speed increase);
Riser to spat ball (expansion => vapor speed decrease);
Spat ball to vapor return line (reduction => vapor speed increase);
Vapor return line to column (expansion => vapor speed decrease);
Column to cooler (reduction => vapor speed increase).
We can count a total of six bottle-necks, where vapor speeds slow down (and increase pressure) and then speed up again (resulting in lower pressure). It is easy to see how these rapid and huge changes in vapor speeds create tremendous amounts of turbulence. And there’s just five of these events mentioned above. The sixth and final one will have to wait until we dive into boil distribution and vapor production localization, which we will do underneath. Oh, wait, first we need to look at the double pile-on effect!
Intermezzo 1: the double pile-on effect!
Remember how bends create vapor flow separation? Guess what ultra-high vapor speeds do in bends? They separate even more. Easy to imagine, if you envision racing cars trying to make a corner on the circuit that they are racing: the faster the cars go, the more will crash and not make it through the corner!
What the double pile-on effect is here? Fast moving vapors result in more vapor flow separation. It’s an easy equation. As a rule of thumb vapors that travel twice as fast, cause twice the turbulence. Let’s do some calculations!
A straight round column of 20 centimeters diameter has a surface area of 10*10*3,14 equals 314 cm2. In order not to make the calculations too complex, let’s assume the vapor speed in that column to be X km/h. Now, let’s look at what happens if we push the vapors from a 20 centimeter diameter pipe into a 2 centimeter line (for example from the riser or spat ball into the vapor return line). What do you expect? A 10 time increase of the speed inside the vapor return line? Read on to be amazed …
The surface are of the 2 centimeter diameter pipe is 1*1*3,14 equals 3,14 cm2. The pipe can handle only 1% of the throughput of the 20 centimeter column it got fed from! The speed in the pipe is therefore (leaving pressure build-up, with its own cascading effects on turbulence, outside of this picture) be 100 times higher than in the column … resulting in a 100x larger amount of turbulence AKA uncontrolled smearing!
Do you start to see why a traditional, off-set still design is sub-par? Why it underperforms? How and why it results in unwanted – because uncontrolled – smearing of heads, hearts, and tails? And how one fault can aggravate another to the extend that they reinforce one another, causing even more issues combined? Bends create turbulence. Speed variations create turbulence. High speeds and bends combined result in higher turbulences than the two contributing factors on themselves. If not, if it is not yet clear, please read this iStill Blog post again. If you do get it, please continue.
Gas trajectory in black, reflux in red, spirit produced in green, beer or wine in yellow …
Boil distribution and vapor production localization
An even distribution of the boil results in an even production of vapors over the complete surface area of the boiler. Even vapor production leads to a stable gas-bed above the liquids, from which the riser/spat ball/column (in fact: the cooler) can draw. A stable gas-bed, in other words, empowers a laminar gas flow. An unstable gas-bed results in turbulence.
Now take a look at the reflux return line on the traditional, off-set still design in the picture all the way up, at the beginning of this article. That reflux, that is returned from the column to the boiler via the reflux return line, is quite a bit cooler than the liquids in that boiler. First of all, because the reflux is higher proof than the boiler contents. Secondly, because the reflux liquid has been managed by an uninsulated copper (very conductive!) still … cooling it down even further, before it re-enters the boiler.
The problem? The colder reflux is returned to the boiler at the side. This results in the left side of the boiler contents being cooled. The consequence is that the left 25 to 30% of the boiler does no longer boil and does not produce gasses. Only the remaining 70 to 75% of the boiler (the middle and right side) produces gasses. Where do these gasses go? In an optimal design straight up into the riser or column. But that’s not the case here!
As the left side of the boiler in the above design does not produce vapors, the gas-bed above the liquids is unstable. The vapor pressure is higher in the middle and the right upper side of the boiler, than it is at the non-productive left part of the boiler, resulting in the gasses taking a turn to the left, and filling that void, before they can enter riser or column!
There you have it: there is another bend in the vapor flow (number seven!) and there is another speed differentiator (number six!). And these two are very important, because they exert a tremendous influence. Why? Because they happen in the boiler. Where the primary gasses are produced, that directly distill off the taste rich beer or wine. It’s not just the bends and speed differentials that severely hamper the ability for this still to produce high-quality spirits, it is already compromised from the get-go, from the initial evaporation cycle onwards. Another double pile-on effect? For sure! And remember: garbage gasses in equals garbage liquids out!
Intermezzo 2: how the iStill produces a laminar gas flow
The iStill is designed to provide stable vapor speeds, so that the craft distiller can decide (and control!) the amount of heads and tails smearing into his hearts faction. Allow me two examples to elaborate. A fruit brandy needs fruit forward flavors, that are heads associated. These flavors are fragile. More fragile than tails-associated flavors. The craft distiller would want to distill slowly, with low vapor speeds, so that he can perfectly control the heads faction and the amount of smearing into hearts, without having the tailsy flavors coming over too soon.
Another example about that same craft distiller that now wants to make a whisky. He wants some heads smearing to provide his whisky with a fruity front-of-mouth taste. He does want a lot of back-end flavor, that the tails provide. he will choose for a higher power setting and higher vapor speeds in order to achieve that. If he has an iStill, that is, because with a traditional still one cannot really influence vapor speeds that much.
So, how do we make sure we deliver a laminar gas flow? Let’s use what we learned above. First, we do not have bends. Gasses travel up, get cooled down via the column cooler, and are scooped out on their way down. The gasses simply ascend, until they are converted back to liquid phase, and then they fall down. Did I already mention that the iStill provides a gas trajectory without any corners? So … instead of seven turbulence creators … we have none! Instead of seven uncontrollable smearing causative agents … iStill has zero.
Speed variations? We have one instead of six for the old and traditional still design. The only speed variation we have is when gasses get sucked up into the column, from the gas-bed underneath. And as our gas-bed is non-disturbed, that’s just fine.
Does iStill have a stable gas-bed? Yes it does! The reflux that we create in the column falls back through the center of the column into the center of the boiler! And it only does so after being further rectified and heated up in the reflux capacitor, so that the reflux, as it enters the boiler, has the exact same temperature and does not disturb the boil.
A lineair column without bends or restrictions …
Gas trajectory in white, reflux in red, spirits produced in green, beer or wine in yellow …
They suck because they provide seven places where vapor flow separation creates huge amounts of turbulence. Even a traditional copper column with a column mounted directly on top of the boiler would limit the number of turbulence causes to three or four, rather than seven, like the off-set model gives you.
Off-set, floor-mounted columns suck because they they have six vapor speed acceleration and deceleration zones, that – each and every one of them – are six more causes for more turbulence. And you know by now how turbulent gas flow screws up your cuts, right?
Finally, off-set columns – via their side mounted reflux return line – significantly disturb the formation of a stable gas-bed for the column to draw from. From the first evaporation onwards, the whole distillation process is already compromised as the column is fed not by a steady stream of laminar gas, but by a fluctuating and turbulent gas-bed.
Why does iStill not sell an off-set, floor-mounted column to help with height-restriction?
We all self-indulge from time to time, and so should we. As entrepreneurs, as business owners, as creators of fun spirits, as risk-takers and care-givers, we deserve a pat on the shoulder. And if there isn’t anyone around to do us that courtesy, well, we’ll pat our own shoulders. Nothing wrong with that. Not at all. But now that it reaches industry levels, it starts to annoy me.
What am I talking about? About craft distillers down-talking Big Alcohol and singing their own praise. “We are better because we are craft!” Oh, really? Are you really better? And if you are, at what? Probably not at marketing, right? And shall we start with a definition of “craft”, please?
Some say “craft” is small. Most representative and governing bodies agree. You are craft if you stay below certain production volumes. In my definition, that’s “small”, and not by definition “craft”. But if you feel there are inherent benefits to being small, well, I guess you might have a different opinion than I do. Okay, I can live with that. I can live with that, as long as you don’t grow! As long as you stay small! Because if “craft” equals “small”, then smaller is better, and growing your business is not an option.
Weird? Yeah, it is a weird position to take, because it is a completely wrong definition to start with. We should all enter the industry with the goal to grow our business, through great product and even better marketing. If your goal isn’t to grow your business, why the heck would you invest time and money? If you want to spend time and money on something you enjoy doing, then that “something” is called a hobby. Hobby distilling, not craft distilling.
So we already established that size matters and that craft does not equal hobby, so what is it? Before we dive into what it is, shall we elaborate a bit on what I strongly feel it is not?
“Hand-made! That’s what craft distilled is! Hand-made spirits!” Really? I don’t think so. What does “hand-made” mean at all? Yeast created alcohol. Your still concentrated it into spirits. Your pallet, hopefully not your hands, decided on cuts and smearing and flavor. Or did you use your hands to manually pump liquids from one container to another one? Nope, “hands-made” is pretty much meaningless, here.
“Traditionally! Craft distilled stands for spirits that are distilled traditionally!” Hm – again – really? Fruit brandy has been “traditionally” distilled on plated column stills since the 1870’s. Because fruit brandy, before the invention of plates, was pot distilled for many centuries, should we all go back to that technology? And while we are at it, why copper? The first stills were made from clay, so may I suggest clay as a prerequisite? You want to be a craft distiller? Okay, but you need to use a clay potstill over a wood fire! If not, well, then you are mainly using the term “traditional” as an opportunist argument to probably allow your decisions “in” and others “out”. If only the world would work like that, wouldn’t we all be the kings of our own big and splendid, yet under-populated castles?
Here is an easy one, that I think we can all agree on: if you mix and blend outsourced spirits, you are not a craft distiller. I am not judging here. Maybe you are a master blender or craft blender, but a blender it is. Blending is not distilling.
Why talking about blending is important? Because of two reasons. First, if we take North America as an example, around 80% of the craft distillers buy in whiskey, maybe blend it, maybe barrel it, but certainly label, bottle, and sell it and call it “craft distilled”. So I am told.
Secondly, craft distillers selling blended spirits … does that mean you are still a craft distiller? Or did you now loose that title altogether? The reason I ask these questions is that I believe this is where we can find the beginning of an answer: is the distiller “craft” or is his spirit “craft”? Let me explain why that might be an important consideration via an example, that I am sure heats the argument up quite nicely.
I am convinced Jim Beam was a craft distiller. I present this as a fact, not as my opinion. What’s a fact as well, is that Jim Beam Whiskey is not craft distilled anymore.
When Jim whipped up his first batch of whiskey, it was his idea, his recipe, his creation. Heck, since he didn’t exactly consider that “craft” should stand in the way of “growth”, he made a huge success out of it. So he wasn’t just good at distilling, he was very good at marketing. As craft distilling should be about “craft” and craft stands for profession, metier, trade, it is as much about making a drink successfully as it is about making the drink a success. In short? He ticked all the boxes and deserves to be called a craft distiller. Given his success, master craft distiller.
Jim Beam Whiskey is no longer craft distilled, because the recipe and production procedures have changed. From 45% to 40% and from potstill to continuous still, to name but two. Those changes came about by a company changing its policy, not by a craft distiller, let alone the original craft distiller, changing procedures. In other words: even if Jim Beam as a corporation hired another craft distiller, say Johnny Cooper, and even if they gave him carte-blanche, it would never have remained craft distilled Jim Beam Whiskey. They could have renamed it Johnny Cooper’s, though.
A craft distiller is a distiller that crafts his spirits successfully. It is that simple. He (or she) created the (idea for a) recipe, produced the spirit, and sold it successfully. Creation, production, and sales form the triple foundation of craft. Successful creation, production, and sales, that is!
A blacksmith or a carpenter of old would be considered craft, because they created, produced and sold an iron fence or a beautiful wooden cupboard. Without sales it wouldn’t be a profession but a hobby. Without creation, it would be reproduction. Without in-house production, it would simply be outsourcing.
There you have it: the only definition for “craft” we should apply to ourselves. We are craft distillers as long as we create recipes for drinks, produce these drinks successfully, and then sell them so we can create and produce some more.
A craft distilled spirit is created, produced, and marketed by a craft distiller at his distillery. A person at his location, not a corporation at any location.
A craft distillery is the workplace of the craft distiller. It is the location where he or she creates recipes, produces spirits, and sells bottles from.
The sailing ship effect happens when a new technology enters an industry, that prompts advancement in the existing technology. As the existing technology is now challenged by that new technology, the older technology – in a final push – tries to improve in one last effort to stay meaningful.
Why the sailing ship effect is important? Because it is applicable to the craft distilling industry, with the iStill technology rapidly replacing the old and traditional potstill and plated still technologies.
This iStill Blog post investigates how the sailing ship affects new and old technologies, and if the efforts of the older technology to start innovating will make a difference. First with some examples, then with some lessons learned, and then onwards to a solid prediction of how the sailing ship effect will play out in the craft distilling industry as that can inform us on the futurology of distillation technology!
Historic example of the sailing ship effect: steam locomotives
Railroads were an amazing innovation. They helped unlock whole countries, by improving logistics and enabling trade. The first trains, we are talking early 1800’s here, had steam engines, because that was the only engine option available. But the beginning of the 1900’s saw the introduction of new propulsion systems. Electric and diesel train propulsion systems were more efficient, safer, and had less environmental impact.
As the new diesel and electric (and diesel-electric) technologies ingressed in the railway industry, we saw a short revival of steam locomotion innovation. The steam locomotives became more efficient and more aerodynamic, but of course not enough to off-set the huge deficiency it started with: steam locomotives were only 11% efficient, where electric and diesel locomotives offered much higher efficiencies of 20% and 28% respectively.
A late design steam locomotive, that – via aerodynamica – tries to keep up with newer technologies …
Another example of the sailing ship effect: record players
The late 1800’s saw the invention and introduction of the phonograph, AKA the first record player. Over the century that this technology ruled, record players slowly became better and better. Until the year 1982, when Sony introduced the first CD player.
As the CD player rapidly replaced the record player in the 1980’s, record player producers augmented their rate of innovation in an attempt to turn the tide. They improved the ease of operation of their record player, and even added CD player-esque options such as front loading. But in the end it was trivial and futile. By the 1990’s the new CD player technology had almost completely replaced the older record player technology.
One of the last generic attempts to innovate on record players …
A final example of the sailing boat effect: wooden shoes
The Dutch, up until 60 years ago, mostly walked on wooden shoes. They were cheap, the wood was readily available; wooden shoes were the go-to choice of footwear for the lower and middle classes. The higher classes walked on leather shoes, as they could afford the expensive, hand-made, often one-off pairs of them. It for sure helped distinguish them from the working classes!
Due to industrialization, relocation, and ready-made standardization and scaled-up production processes, shoes became very affordable almost over night. Guess what the lower and middle classes in the Netherlands all of a sudden could wear? Yes, leather shoes instead of wooden shoes! How the wooden shoe industry reacted? By designing wooden shoes that looked like leather shoes. See underneath for an example …
Cause and effect
Why did the builders of steam locomotives and record players go on an innovation frenzy? Because they saw the markets for their products being replaced by newer, more capable products rapidly. Under great pressure everything becomes fluid. Even big, mature industries, with well-divided markets, and just a few oligopolistic providers, all of a sudden – due to a technological break-through they did not invent and didn’t expect – could be disrupted.
A higher rate of innovation was needed for the existing technology to keep up with the newer and better technology. So we understand the cause of the sailing boat effect, but how about the effect? How come we do not see much improved steam locomotives reigning the railways as a century and a half ago? Why do we not still have access to amazing, mass-produced and low-priced record players that won the battle against CD players? And why did wooden clogs go out of fashion?
That has everything to do with Van Eijk’s Amended Law of the Diffusion of Innovation. Let’s dive in deeper!
The Amended Law of Diffusion of Innovation (TALDI)
TALDI teaches us that any technology has a 30% innovation potential at every doubling. As the production of a car doubles, the engineers learn so much that they can apply what they learn in order to make that car cheaper, better, or a combination of both. In other words: the 30% innovation potential, that results from doubling the production of that technology, can be used to drive production costs down for that technology, or to further improve upon the technology, or a combination of both.
Newer technologies in general already provide innovations that result in either lower production costs (CD’s versus records) or better features (electric locomotives are much stronger than steam locomotives). But that’s not why they win in the long term. Or why the old technology, that’s starting to innovate, now that it is under pressure, looses out eventually. The real reason has to do with the number of production doublings they can generate … in order to harvest the benefits of multiple of those 30% improvements!
TALDI: an example
Cars with petrol engines have been around for over a century. During that time, about 1,450 million of them have been produced. The first car produced was followed by the second, resulting in the first doubling and a 30% improvement potential. The third car yielded learnings too, but less significantly so. It took until the fourth car was produced, that another doubling was achieved … and another potential 30% improvement potential was unlocked. The third doubling was at eight cars, the fourth at 16 cars, and the fifth at 32 cars.
This implies that the 32nd car had an improvement potential of 5*30% = 150%. It could be made 150% better or a whole lot cheaper or any combination of the two. And in reality the improvement potential is even bigger as a new 30% builds on previous 30% improvements. The trend of growing innovation potential is not lineair but exponential!
How many doublings does it take to get to 1,450 million cars? It takes 31 doublings, resulting in a huge improvement of the end product (or the efficiency with which it is produced). Today’s cars are 10 times better than the first ones, and their addressable market is – due to continuous cost cuts – a 1000 times bigger.
Now, let’s introduce the electric car. Let’s say that so far 5 million have been produced. They are pretty good. More efficient than their petrol counterparts, but also more expensive to build or buy. Let’s call it a draw for now, where both score one point. An ex aequo at the moment.
Internal combustion engine manufacturers are starting to feel the heat from electric cars, and start to rapidly innovate. But what significant improvements can they make in an industry that already saw 31 doublings of their innovation potential? For internal combustion engines to improve by 30%, another doubling needs to take place. In other words: another 1,450 million petrol cars have to be build and sold! If that is to happen at all, it will take the better part of another century for sure … resulting in an annual innovation level of 30% divided by 100 years = 0,3% per year only.
Let’s compare that to the 5 million electric cars. They can improve by 30% when 10 million cars have been produced and sold. That will probably take place in a year from now, opening up another 30% improvement potential for electric cars. If electric car manufacturers use that potential for price reduction, all of a sudden the electrical car is 2-0 ahead, relative to the internal combustion car.
Do you see what’s happening here? New technologies win out not so much based on their initial improvements, but especially as they have much more room to improve at a much faster rate for a prolonged period of time! New technologies win out because they improve much faster than the old ones.
Intermezzo
A case can be made not only that the innovation frenzy of older, threatened technologies is futile, but that no actual real innovation takes place at all. Given the 0.3% annual innovation potential, that we calculated above, that would make sense. So what DO we see happen, if it is not really any substantial innovations from threatened yet established technologies?
A deeper dive into the innovation frenzy of dying technologies, teaches us that most of what – at the surface – appears to be innovative, is actually simply copy-cat behavior. Look at the last innovative steam locomotive, for example. They changed the look to make it appear closer to the more aerodynamic diesel and electric locomotives. Yes, it improves efficiency a bit, but not because of an innovation inherent to the steam locomotive industry. Instead, they simply stole a technological advancement from the new technology (improved aerodynamica) and – with very limited success – added it to their own technology, hoping that the superficial (instead of structural) change would stem the tide!
Did you take a closer look at the picture of the last innovative record player, that I shared above? Is it truly innovative, or have the engineers simply tried to add the front/top loading design that already existed for stereo cassette players and CD players to their outdated record players? The “innovations” that the older record player technology invents, isn’t really an invention, but an adaptation of an innovative design that belongs to the newer replacement technology.
Wooden shoes are the easiest to interpret situation. Their only “innovation” is that they started painting the clogs to resemble leather shoes. Again: imitation instead of real innovation. All in line with the very, very limited 0.3% annual innovation potential that older, established technologies have.
A deeper dive on the craft distillation industry
We have seen our “competitors” add PLC’s to their traditional potstills and plated stills, as a way to innovate and counter the new distilling technology that iStill introduced to the craft distilling industry. But that is quite an in vane kinda move, because trying to automate an inaccurate solutions doesn’t make the inaccuracy, that is inherent to the still’s design, go away. In summary? In summary, this means that their units do not get better, but they do get more expensive. PLC’s on traditional stills serve only one goal: they allow these manufacturers to have their stills look more like iStills. They can pretend they are now automated too.
We have seen another “competitor” add our copper foam technology to further enhance the surface area of their already copper columns. A certain amount of copper may catalyze the sulphuric compounds that result from poor fermentation protocols, but more copper is not better. More copper is simply more toxic, more expensive, and more hours of cleaning. In summary, this attempt at innovation results in this still producer’s units becoming more expensive, but not better. And again: it is copy-cat behavior that allows this manufacturer to say they have complied to (one of) our technological break-throughs.
There is even an example of pure mimicry, that I can share. As you know, the iStills are insulated and our insulation is black in color. One Italian still manufacturer decided, just like the wooden shoe manufacturers in the Netherlands did, some 60 years ago, to make their stills look more like iStills … by painting their boiler black!
The reason why manufacturers of traditional stills want to mimic our innovations is because the new iStill technology takes over their market shares. It is basically their admission that we are winning and that they are failing!
The reason why they do not succeed at achieving any real-world innovations, is because of the huge amount of traditional stills that have already been produced. It would take another century or more to double total production just once, resulting in the aforementioned 0,3% improvement potential per year, where iStill will probably double its production again in the next three years, giving us (and you) a 10% improvement rate every year.
We are already the best distilling technology out there. Our iStills can make any drink to perfection, in stead of just one to mediocracy. The iStills can even mash and ferment. They use 75% less energy and 80% less manual labor, while producing a bigger portfolio of better quality spirits at much lower costs. The iStills are designed to last a lifetime; they do not need maintenance or replacement parts, like traditional stills do. And iStill – as a company – is uniquely set-up as an innovation organization, rather than a production organization, so that we can fully reap the benefits of our higher rate (about 30 times higher per year: 10% vs 0,3%) of innovation!
The effect of our new technology on the craft distilling industry
The Amended Law of the Diffusion of Innovation learns us that iStill is already better, far better than the older and still existing technologies of plated stills and potstills. But more importantly: a simple calculation shows that the degree of annual innovation the iStill technology can benefit from, while moving forward, is 30x that of the competing older technologies.
As the new iStill technology is already much better, and will improve even more at a much faster rate, the certainty of this new technology taking over and completely replacing the existing technologies is pretty much 100%.
Any new distiller should know this. In fact, any craft distiller – new or existing – should contemplate the implications of this outlook into the future. The single positive outcome of that contemplation is this: “With the new iStill technology, I can produce a wider variety of spirits at a better quality for a lower price, taking the fight to Big Alcohol, while growing my revenue and profit!“
Another outcome of that contemplation can be defined negatively, for those unwilling to change from records to CD’s or from steam to electric locomotives: “If I do not change to the new iStill distillation technology soon, the craft distillers that did, will come after me, as they can produce a wider portfolio of spirits that are of higher quality then mine, yet cost much less to produce!“
If you want to discuss your future in the craft distilling industry with me personally, please reach out via Odin@iStillmail.com
“Future-proofing” is a business practice that encourages sustainable models and strategic plans to guarantee a company’s longevity. It is essential to know how to adapt, optimize, and plan for future events. And as many future events are unknowns, a flexible repertoire of actions is needed to respond to opportunities and threats as they arise. Examples? See underneath:
When costs go up, are you able to lower them and save money, as a counter-measure? If your best-selling spirit stops selling, can you switch to another product quickly and without major investments? What happens when your master distiller quits? Are you able to keep producing your recipes or are you in dire straits? Does your distillery need regular maintenance and how do you work around the associated down-time? What about warranty and spare part delivery, if one of your production tools breaks down?
How iStill helps
iStill aims to make distilling easier. Future-proofing your distillery is at the essence of what our technology brings to the market. In this iStill Blog post, the first one in a series, I’d like to dive into how we do that and how it benefits the craft distilling industry.
Today’s topic? Retrofit ability. “Retrofitting” describes the design and manufacturing process whereby new options can be added to existing or older equipment. Retrofit ability extends the versatility of any machine, and therefore has a huge and positive impact on future-proofing your distillery. Equipment that cannot be upgraded or updated with new options becomes obsolete quickly. Equipment that can be retrofitted is adaptable and helps you manage future threats and opportunities.
The industry’s take on retrofit ability
The traditional manufacturers of distillation equipment do not support retrofit ability. If you order a still, they like you to order it full-options. Under the veil of improved versatility, this practice allows them to maximize turnover and profit. Newly designed options don’t fit on existing machines, so if you want the latest tech (in as far as traditional manufacturers deliver anything new), you need to buy a completely new system. Again, a strategy based on their self-interest of turnover and profit maximization at the costs of your bank account.
iStill’s take on retrofit ability
iStill believes retrofit ability is essential for future-proofing your distillery. All of our options, therefore, can be retrofitted. This way we save you money that you can spend on other priorities. And when your priorities shift, in the future, any option we offer can be retrofitted to your existing iStill. Not only does this strategy prevents us from focussing on turnover and profit maximization, it also allows you to update the specs of your distillery as the future lays out its challenges and opportunities.
On a deeper level, our retrofit ability strategy signals that we are here to help you, by providing tools that are future-proof, that serve you only when you need them, and that cost you money only after you made some in the first place. It places you and your needs center stage, which is a sound and healthy basis for a future customer-supplier relationship, instead of the second hand car sales mentality so many of our “competitors” display.
Do you want to add an agitator system later? No problem with our retrofit ability strategy …
Packed columns are incredibly versatile. Take all the liquids it produces out of the column, and it performs like a potstill, which is great for taste-rich spirit production. Send part of the produced liquids back down the column as reflux, and the column’s packing starts to further purify and strengthen the product you are distilling.
A well-designed packed column offers the best of both worlds: it can make the most taste-rich, high-ester pot distilled whisky and rum, as well as the most neutral vodka. And anything in between, like a lighter style rum, or a single pass Irish whiskey. “Singe pass” as “instead of you needing to distill the whiskey thrice”!
The importance of column packing
A well-designed column needs the best column packing. The column packing, that sits inside the column, catches the reflux and further rectifies it. The better it rectifies, the better it is, for two simple reasons:
Better rectification control results in a more efficient and more flavor-stable production of taste-rich spirits;
Better rectification control results in purer vodka and GNS.
Some two decades ago, the Mendeleev Institute invented SPP. This stands for “spiral prismatic packing” and its invention revolutionized both alcohol distillation and oil fractionation. Why? Because this new column packing was way more effective at strengthening and purifying alcohol (and oil derivatives) than the plated columns that had been used up until that time. How much more effective? About an order of magnitude better.
On iStill and column packing
In our beginning years, iStill used SPP in its columns. But as time progressed and as our columns became bigger, SPP more and more felt like the limiting factor, when optimizing our column designs for even more flavor and ABV control.
So we set out to design our own column packing, specifically aimed to improve the performance of our bigger columns, like on the iStills 500, 1000, 2000, and 5000. The column packing that iStill designed is called HCP, which stands for “helicon column packing”. It is both heavier, bigger, and stronger than SPP. It also has a different shape, which is optimized for alcohol distillation.
The results were quite spectacular. Our HCP hugely improved column performance over SPP, in our bigger iStills with their our bigger diameter columns. We developed a 10×10 mm Helicon Column Packing as well as a 15×15 mm version for biggest stills.
An experiment on column packing
At the end of 2023, we thought up a fun experiment: would our HCP beat SPP, where the latter shines? In smaller diameter columns? Here’s what we did: we filled the column of an iStill Mini with SPP, and then filled the boiler with 10 liters of 10% alcohol. To get (quite) some reflux, we added POM nr. 2. Power setting? We put the power manager at 50% or 2 kWh.
We then repeated the exact same run with iStill HCP in the column instead of SPP. The exact same boiler filling of 10 liters at 10%. POM nr. 2, and 50% or 2 kWh of power. The results? The outcome is quite shocking. See the graph underneath:
The SPP run is in green. The top line depicts the temperature readings of T3, the bottom line shows what thermometer (T4) measures. iStill’s HCP is shown in purple and blue. Purple is T3, blue are the readings of T4.
This is what we can conclude from the graph:
SPP, at the beginning of the run, cannot control temperatures: they rise to almost 87 degrees Centigrade;
HCP, at the beginning of the run, perfectly controls the temperatures in the column: they don’t breach 79c;
This is a difference of almost 10 degrees Centigrade, resulting in:
SPP needing either prolonged stabilization time or creating huge heads contamination issues into hearts;
Where HCP prevents uncontrolled heads smearing into hearts, even without stabilization;
Resulting in more control over flavor and shorter, more efficient runs;
HCP maintains lower temperatures than SPP, proving that HCP offers more distillation cycles than SPP;
This results in better control over ABV and higher yield, as less reflux is needed, with HCP than with SPP;
With iStill’s HCP, T3 and T4 temperatures are grouped closer together than with SPP;
This indicates a more stable column and better rectification qualities for HCP;
The SPP line is ragged, where HCP shows a very smooth one;
The SPP line is higher than HCP, especially at the end of the run, signaling HCP provides better tails control;
All of this teaches us that HCP provides a more stable and controlled run …
With a much more predictable, repeatable, and reproducible flavor composition.
Let’s now look at the table and see if we can learn more:
These are the additional conclusions, that we can make, when looking at the table above:
The run with HCP is indeed more stable and better rectified;
The run with SPP takes much longer: the production of 490 ml takes 25 minutes;
The run with HCP is much shorter: the production of 490 ml takes 14.5 minutes;
iStill’s HCP is 72% faster than SPP;
The ABV with iStill’s HCP is 93,4%, where SPP only delivers 85,8%;
This teaches us that HCP offers about 5 additional distillation cycles to a column, when compared to SPP.
Conclusions
HCP hugely outperforms SPP in yield, production speed, and overall run efficiency (72%);
HCP outperforms SPP in rectification: it offers 5 additional distillation cycles for a standard column size;
HCP outperforms SPP in ABV: 93,5% instead of 85.8%;
HCP outperforms SPP in alcohol and flavor stability, as well as in run reproducibility;
HCP hugely outperforms SPP in the way it controls heads smearing as well as tails smearing.
iStill’s HCP is the new king on the mountain. SPP revolutionized column distillation, and we are grateful for the amazing efforts of the Mendeleev Institute. In no small manner, our invention, iStill’s HCP, stands on the shoulders of SPP. But as it does, it outperforms SPP on all key measurements. And not by a tiny margin. HCP, in short, is the best column packing in the world. And you can own it and use it … if you purchase an iStill! For more information or to place your order, please reach out to odin@istillmail.com!
If you use your iStill to distill a base whiskey beer or rum wine of around 8% into finished product, how much can you produce? This simply depends on the size iStill you have (a bigger iStill produces more, obviously) and on how often you run it (more runs equal more output).
Underneath we developed two scenario’s. The first one takes a leisurely approach to distilling whiskey or rum. The second one goes all out and tries to find the maximum outputs for each and every iStill.
We’ll finish this iStill Blog post with a price comparison of production costs: iStill vs. traditional still.
A leisurely approach to producing whiskey or rum
Taking it easy, with one run per day and five runs per week, the iStill 500 can help you produce 2.500 bottles of whiskey or rum per month. The iStill 1000 doubles your output to 5.000 bottles per month. The iStills 2000 and 5000 produce 10.000 and 25.000 bottles per month respectively.
Going all out
Maximizing the production output with your iStills, result in much higher numbers. With two runs per day and seven runs per week, the iStill 500 can help you produce 7.000 bottles of whiskey or rum per month. The iStill 1000 doubles your output to 14.000 bottles per month. The iStills 2000 and 5000 produce 28.000 and 70.000 bottles per month respectively.
iStill Copper Waffles are proprietary designed and manufactured round copper foam discs that replace copper columns. Copper in the vapor path catalyses sulphuric compounds that may have developed during improperly managed and controlled fermentations.
Even though better fermentation control is the real solution to a bad ferment, copper can help clean up a suboptimal fermentation. At least partly. That’s where copper distillation columns come into play.
But … but copper columns are high-maintenance. They are expensive to purchase and difficult to clean. Think about 2 to 3 hours of additional manual labor per day. Think about the application of aggressive and toxic substances, to clean out your copper column and to make sure copper rust formation and copper particle contamination does not become an issue.
Copper is a heavy and heavily reactive metal after all. You do not want copper to end up in your craft distilled spirits.
So, our solution has been that we advise Stainless Steel columns and that the distiller can add iStill Copper Waffles to the lowest part of the column. Two waffles have more copper surface area than a complete copper column. The waffles are much less expensive and do not need hours of cleaning per day. A win/win-situation.
But copper does corrode. Even our copper waffles. Copper oxidizes, both the copper in columns as well as the copper in our waffles. This means that copper wears out. And as we hate wear-and-tear, we are working on a solution. iStill is working on procedures to rejuvenate the Copper Waffles.
How? By use of electrolysis. The first step cleans out the brown, dirty, and oxidized copper. The second step replaces it with new copper! Yes, you heard that correctly: we are working on a protocol that completely rejuvenates your iStill Copper Waffle! More info on that in Q1 2024.
A brown, dirty, and oxidized copper iStill Waffle …
The cleaned and rejuvenated iStill Copper Waffle …
As we are big on automation and software, we felt asking Artificial Intelligence to design an iStill would make sense. Or at least … create an interesting outcome. Here’s what AI came up with.
What do you think about these AI-designs? What can we learn from them, if anything? Please share your opinions underneath!
Methanol, or wood alcohol, is toxic. Therefore, strict regulations are in place on how much methanol certain spirits can contain. Spirits that contain too much methanol will be recalled … and the craft distiller that produced the contaminated drink can be fined.
As not all spirits categories are created equal, methanol levels are differentiated for different drinks. Gins may contain just a very little. The tolerance for fruit brandies is much higher, as the production of schnaps involves a lot of pectins and other wood-related substrate. How high? 0.66% of alcohol by volume (ABV) is the limit. In other words: all fruit brandies must have a methanol percentage no higher than 0.66% at a total ethanol ABV of 40%.
The problem
As we recently visited the BrauBeviale tradeshow in Germany, we learned that fruit brandy producers, of which there are many in southern Germany, struggle to meet these requirements. Some see their product, and even the medals that they won with their fruit brandies and even gins, revoked because the methanol levels are too high.
Is it purely a fruit brandy issue? Due to the wood-containing substrate? No it is not. The rules for gin, for example, are much more strict, much tighter. Today we heard about a German gin producer, running a traditional German copper still, that got his gin recalled because it had too much methanol in it! One could say that his GNS supplier delivered crap. Something that he could have prevented, had he tested the GNS upon delivery.
The cause
What do these failing distillers have in common? The ones that are in trouble, because they can’t control their methanol levels well enough? They all use traditional distilling equipment. Traditional equipment isn’t very good at separating out headsy components like methanol. They cannot concentrate them well enough at the beginning of the run, resulting in a methanol-infected gin or fruit brandy hearts cut.
The solution
iStill’s Hybrid Column Technology is amazing at compacting headsy components. So … theoretically iStillers should perform better on methanol content. But do they really? Today the iStill Laboratory tested an iStill-fermented and -distilled pear fruit brandy. The outcome? It only contains 0.05% of methanol. The best scoring fruit brandy ever! Our methanol levels are over ten times lower than most fruit brandies produced on traditional equipment.
The support we give to the craft distilling industry
Do you want to test your GNS, your gin, your whisky or fruit brandy on methanol? The iStill Laboratory delivers these tests to craft distillers, starting February 1st 2024. How it works? You send us a bottle of your product, we test it and inform you. The costs? EUR 75,- per test. Non-iStill customers pay EUR 125,-. If you want to pre-order, please reach out to Veronika@iStillmail.com.
Distilling pear fruit brandy with the iStill
The iStill-produced pear fruit brandy saw a 1.5x distillation approach, 35 minutes of heads stabilization, and a heads cut temperature of 80 degrees Centigrade. The iStill 2000 Hybrid was used for both fermentation and distillation. The hearts cut was 60% strong and then got diluted to 40% pre-bottling.
iStill-produced pear fruit brandy …
With the lowest methanol level ever recorded for fruit brandy …
The iStill Blog 