I’ve seen references to capna equipment on this site but most of it was theorital discussion. I’ve recently demo’d Their units (the ATLAS and Ethos6) and came away extremely impressed. My biggest concerns however are
Efficiency- Capna’s claim is basically they circulate cryo ethanol over raw material 5 times with no aggigtation and with this they achieve a 98.6 efficiency. Small variance to this number doesn’t concern me but if this is wildly inaccurate the equipment is basically worthless to me.
The other issue is capna’s biggest claim to fame is a complete closed loop system direct to ffe or rv with no exposure to the atmosphere. However, to truly hit efficacy numbers you need to add on a fugue that is NOT part of the closed loop environment. So how does this work? Doesn’t removing the bio mass, putting it in the fuge and re adding the solvent to the main solution ruin this?
Any actual feedback from people who have used the equipment is welcomed
I’ve consulted with a lab that had one. they found it too small. they were doing bucket tek in three 15gal conical fermenters instead. the Ethos 6 just sat in the corner looking sad. (yet for some reason it was plugged in and cold).
looks like two of the four that were for sale have sold.
I understand the size concerns. They have a much larger unit now that can process 80lbs/hours. I’ve seen it run, I know these numbers are legitimate and would more than meet our needs. My concern is on actual efficiency. 80lbs/hour is useless to me if it is producing an inferior product or require a lot of extra work to meet our standards
What I’d like to understand is how they claim 98% extraction efficiency while only claiming 85% solvent recovery?
Capna offers a centrifuge to assist in removing more of the suspended solvent but wouldnt the transfer essentially null and void the cold extraction efforts?
@Cannachem I came across your discussion about Capna’s Ethos 6 unit in another thread - would you be able to help answer some of our questions about the unit?
Spoke with Capna again this morning to bring up this point. Their answer to this was, the 85% recovery rate is just based off of running the system as is (just pressing go and nothing else) they claim they have a procedure to increase that recovery rate by basically running the system dry, just pushing negative pressure through the raw material to “squeeze it” to capture the left over solvent.
I’ve seen the demo on site at capna labs and wasn’t impressed by any means compared to other options available… I’ve also visited labs where they were also sitting unused and replaced by more efficient equipment…
That’s not going to increase the recovery substantially. “Pushing negative pressure” is a fancy hand-wavey way of saying pulling vacuum. There’s a good reason no one else bothers with that.
From an engineering perspective, for our purposes, there isn’t a much better way to get the solvent out of the biomass other than a centrifuge.
I would agree, so the follow up to that is what are the negative effects of breaking the closed loop and putting the raw material through the fuge and adding back to the main solution. Any risks of degregation or are they minimal
Your fire marshall might have something to say about you hauling biomass that’s dripping with ethanol around in an open area.
Why would you design (or buy) a “closed loop” system with a massive defect rather than re-engineer it or find one that already does what you need?
I spent many months trying to decide between the Capna or the Delta units. In the end I came to the conclusion that they are both too flawed for our purposes/the $ investment at our scale.
i have heard that Evolved Extractions in Pitt Meadows has a etho centrifuge device coming to market as well. going to show it off at the Lift show in Van, in early january.
The ethos 6 has the capacity of processing 14lb per hour and also incorporates an etoh chilling capability built into the system using a chiller. There are available centrifuges that can 4x the throughput i.e @Photon_noir new “ace” in conjunction with bbl tanks or other methods to hold and soak solvent. I’m not here to knock a company just stating factual info…Seems like Extraction equipment is like an iPhone that’s updated and optimized monthly
I guess my answer to this is I haven’t found a comparable system that can process 40lbs in under 30minutes and spit out a final product that is a light yellow and in no need of winterization. Also, the ease of use of the system means minimal training necessary which makes the lab easily scalable. I haven’t used a fuge before I know there is some cheap solutions and if the only downside here is toss in the raw material and give it a quick spin that didn’t seem like a big price to pay for me to give up all the other benefits. Perhaps you have just found a much better overall solution to which I’d love to hear about
I have used one. The material is pretty much sopping wet when you remove it. Not a lot of fun without a centerfuge… I can’t imagine why someone would choose it over a Cup. The built in chiller is nice but that’s just a $15k Fisher -80 freezer ($8,500 used).
I would be curious to as what that is. The whole system runs on vaccum. You vacuum charge the collection vessel then open a valve and it pulls the ethanol from the biomass vessel. You run a 1 gallon rinse at the end of the cycle. I have charged the chiller collection vessel over 10’times trying to pull as much residual ethanol out but the material is always quite wet. They have redesigned the biomass vessel, the original ones had a lip at the bottom where tapers in and that was holding residual ethanol. We don’t have the upgraded vessel. I am curious if it would help.
What exactly are you trying to make with these systems? Crude or high quality dabbing extracts?
What is your desired throughput goal for the lab?
Your other post talked about having both a type 6 and type 7 license at your lab. I would assume the type 6 is for making crude/distillate and the type 7 is for high quality hydrocarbon extracts, right? IMO, ethanol is for making crude oil only.
I would recommend you be careful here.
Ethanol extraction really is dead simple. It doesn’t need to be overcomplicated and overpriced like a lot of the systems marketed toward cannabis are.
Capna’s claim about being “closed loop direct to ffe” is not special and the efficiency/recovery data is just marketing B.S. as well.
Also, your whole answer to wakawakalj’s point #3 sounds like big trouble to me for multiple reasons. I think you have bought into Capna’s marketing hype too much and don’t understand the hands-on, technical aspects of extracting.
If the manufacturers really stick by their marketing material, they should have no problem signing a service agreement with guaranteed production and efficiency targets, and a 100% refund if those targets aren’t met. If they’ll agree to that, giv’er a try. Otherwise, I suggest anyone looking at an ETHOS system do some deeper due diligence into actual user experiences with those systems. (Hint: note how many have been listed for sale just on this site.)
I know of more than manufacturer that has signed agreements like that and had to take machines back at the end of the day.
Of course, they never revised their marketing material because those are not the standard terms and with multiple months worth of orders in the hopper it doesn’t matter to them - they just re-sold the units to another punter.
Equipment manufacturers in this industry have little to no incentive to improve their designs because of the massive demand. If you make something that is even marginally not terrible, you will have lineups of people waiting to throw money at you. If that’s the situation, why would you bother improving or re-engineering your systems?
Yes, that’s short term thinking, but that’s this industry in a nutshell. Fuck next year, I’m worried about today!
Disclaimer: I have no experience with the Capna system, never used one myself. They seem like nice people when I talk to them at conferences and expos. This is entirely my opinion, and I’m not directly affiliated with any other equipment manufacturer (I have however done some consulting work in the past with various parties doing not dissimilar things).
