One stops worrying about bottle boundaries. One buys magnums. ("A difficult size, too much for one but not enough for two.") There is a faint mellowing effect by the next day, but nothing like the effect of oxygen.
We sometimes deliberately skip argon. In Italy you know you're tight when friends serve yesterday's wine. Those wines need the abuse. Most wines don't handle the abuse of an open day well.
Scale matters. There are $300 units made of cheap plastic aimed at wine "connoisseurs". The cartridge is the same size I'd carry mountain biking, to fill one inner tube on an emergency basis. That's supposed to last 50 bottles? How stupid does the manufacturer think I am?
Yes, argon is heavier than air, but there's this thing called diffusion. There's argon in the air around us; if argon cleanly separated from air and formed a bottom layer, we'd all suffocate when we lay on the floor. Obviously, we don't. Put it together.
I'm reminded of Thomas Keller's Bouchon Bakery cookbook taking heat for proposing 350 ml of water for bread steam, poured onto 30 lbs of thermal mass such as an aluminum disk in a cake pan. That also generates enough steam to displace the volume of an oven threefold. A commercial bread oven depends on serious steam for the first few minutes; this is a home approximation. People liked the idea of spritzing 10 ml of water from a plant spritzer, and were offended Keller did the science. They were just genuflecting.
One can wait months to obtain medical grade argon. It's the same process, only tested to confirm the fact that the process doesn't introduce toxins.
My wife is a practical engineer; she indulges every exploration like this. Some take. This one took. A standard after-dinner question is "Did you argon the wine?"
I'm known there for a "smoke pot" system for controlling smoke, and doing the math on creating steam for bread.
As a mathematician, I'm best known for my "seven shuffles" card shuffling work with Persi Diaconis, the computer algebra system "Macaulay" (too much C code), and being the math consultant for "A Beautiful Mind".
I really shouldn't blog. I'm still trying to come up with an understandable proof of the Poincare Conjecture.
I love Hacker News
By the way, curious about your reference to Italy and wine in the above comment. I'm from Italy and thought you could be from there, or at least had an experience in Italy.
He got the idea of acrylic nails to make his (our) hands longer like Nash. I'd be out in the village drinking with friends, and they'd point out my hands, describing the story. No one bought it. Then I'd say I was a Barbra Streisand impersonator. That I could sell, there was probably one in every bar down the street.
I got my nails done at the same NJ salon that Edie Falco used for the Sopranos. The woman who had promised to do the work was on a Caribbean cruise, so she phoned in. She asked me if I was doing anything else on the film besides being Russell's hand double? I told her I was also his love double.
"Will you be needing an extension for that too?"
> I told her I was also his love double.
In stitches right now. Did you get to hang out with Russell Crowe, Paul Bettany and Jennifer Connelly? Must be fun being a celeb :D
EDIT: you are in the pen ceremony as well! Wow I need to rewatch this urgently, it's definitely one of my favorite movies and I'll be on the lookout for the cameo :)
EDIT: I was born in 1992, watched it in theaters when I was 9. Time flies.
So what was it? The article seems to end on a cliffhanger.
Art made an error entering a longitude by hand. It moved the spot 200 yards, so instead of pointing this out I updated the script (mistake #1). Day of filming, Art tells me they caught the mistake, and had overnighted a corrected slide just in time. The "wrong" slide matching the script in Russell's trailer was two hours away. There was no question in Akiva's mind that we should get it. We sent a driver.
Now, I knew Ron Howard would be asking me which slides were which, when we filmed the crucial scene. I asked Art so I could move slides as needed, and was told the head of Art had spent all day positioning them. I innocently found the head of Art to ask him to relay his permission.
Oops. In front of dozens of crew he eviscerated me, telling me I was assuming too great a role, I was just a consultant, I should learn my place. (My role had indeed expanded. There's too much to do on a film.)
After we each had a word with Akiva, I discovered that the soon-arriving "wrong" slide was already in perfect position for filming. I had needlessly prevailed in a confrontation I could have avoided (mistake #2).
During preproduction I had offered to Russell that if he ever wanted to use me in a joke, I was game. Russell had missed the festivities so far. Rehearsing at a map table, he feigned not knowing where one of the locations was. The room froze for what seemed an eternity; he didn't mind. I snuck up silently to point on the map. He bellowed "Fuck off! I'm acting!" and turned to match my grin.
No one laughed. Anyone surprised I hadn't already quit that day was sure I'd quit now. Russell had no idea. He came to me later, wondering why no one laughed, he thought that was funny. I told him, "I thought it was funny. Who cares what anyone else thinks!"
We then spent half a day filming in front of the now-arrived "wrong" transparency matching the script in Russell's trailer. It turned out that Russell had memorized the coordinates (I hadn't). Yikes.
Akiva and I gave each other a silent hi-five look over this. Right call, getting a driver. This could have gone badly. So many decisions on a film set are a game of chance.
I even patched things up with the head of Art. The cinematographer Roger Deakins discovered that if he pulled down the slides the wall made a great backlight. The crew could only restore the original slide pattern because I'd made a chart. There was a strong pattern to the slide colors; this would otherwise have lead to continuity gaffes that many viewers would have noticed. So it appeared at first that I was the heathen about to destroy this artwork, when I was the person in the room who saved it.
For the library scene late in the film, Nash is starting to make sense. I consulted with a few people actually thinking about the Riemann hypothesis. ("Working" on it is staring into the sun.) For those blackboards, they advised me to borrow from Pierre Deligne's work in characteristic p. I made sure that missing definitions prevented anyone from actually proving the boards were wrong. "Freeze-framing the DVD" was a stock phrase for us on the set, but in fact people mostly paid attention to the acting.
As a first year graduate student, I was struck by the similarities between covering spaces in my topology course and field extensions in my algebra course. Asking Barry Mazur in the hallway, he quite mystically intoned that everything is connected. That was the basis for the student approaching Nash in the library. Russell Crowe completely winged his long response at the table. I was seriously impressed.
Earlier, I got pilloried by some for the Harvard Lecture Hall scene where Nash is institutionalized. Hey, it comes with the territory. Nash associating spacetime with the quaternions? Brian Greene gave me such a great look when I tried this line on him that I knew we had to use it. It is crazy, and the scene required crazy. Nevertheless, complex quaternions can model geometries used in physics. The quaternions and octonions extend the complex numbers, one could look there to better understand the Riemann hypothesis. The quaternions are most famously used by game developers for efficient rotations, and one keeps seeing references (here on HN!) to the octonions as deeper. I was at a tech dinner party in Berkeley where various gamers including the founder of Second Life swarmed me to share a moment "Oh! The octonions!"
For the porch scene in question, where Nash is still pretty gorped, I had him playing with a visual notation for continued fractions. The Riemann zeta function doesn't even converge where one wants to understand its zeros. Continued fractions exhibit different convergence properties, somewhat like the light cast in a a park with trees. So I could imagine a gorped Nash obsessing on continued fractions.
And to add to the others, you should really blog about all this, or write a book.
Obviously you should use food rated argon if you want to be safe. It's just going to be more expensive and harder to source.
My sense is that I'd be better off avoiding all plastics (not feasible in this world) than waiting for food-grade argon. But yes, this is a decision each person should make.
Ah yes, the common problem all of us face in our daily lives.
“If you want to be safe” doesn’t really jive with “extremely limited risk.”
Of course it does. To put it bluntly, it is extremely likely that any bottle of industrial argon is actually food safe because it's produced in basically the same condition that food safe argon. The main impurity while producing argon is oxygen. The main difference between industrial and food safe argon will be how their container is handled but argon as an environment is not really suited to bacterial development.
If you don't feel okay taking this risk, you can buy food grade argon which, well, is guaranteed to be food safe.
Also, don't get me wrong, I'm specifically talking about argon there. I would never use industrial distilled water or ethanol with food for example. That would be risky. I have heard of people using industrial CO2 to carbonate beverage. That makes me uneasy because CO2 is a good solvent.
I've had a wine that, although initially intended as a cooking wine, tasted fantastic 4 weeks after opening it.
Argon might last for longer than one day, which is a plus! But I tend to finish the bottle within a day or two, so N2O works fine for me.
The beginning of the article asserts that oxidation is one of the primary causes of wine going bad, then completely dismisses vacuum systems, which remove most oxygen out of the bottle. Scientifically, this MUST be superior to simply replacing the cork (or screw cap in Australia).
I’ve found that if I open the bottle and pour two glasses and immediately seal and vacuum (most of) the air out, I can get about 2-4 days of the wine tasting good stored at room temperature, versus about 1 day simply replacing the lid.
I even drank a wine after 10 days that, while not great, was still drinkable. It was like a 2 day open bottle roughly.
Why must this be the case? This is a genuine question, not a pure objection.
Consider two oxygen levels, o_1 and o_2, where o_2 << o_1 due to vacuum removal. Consider a set of chemical reactions that occur between wine and the surrounding environment. Of oxygen, glass, trace chemicals, cosmic rays, astological auras, etc. Let ℜ be the set of chemical reations that affect phenomenological quality (flavour) (presumably negatively, as a just-opened bottle of wine is at the peak of quality and can only degrade).
Why must it be the case that o_2 is the limiting factor for all, or even some, of the elements of ℜ? What if another quantity (surface area, pressure, etc) limits the pace or extent of the reaction, and just as much degradation occurs with partial vacuuming (o_2) as without (o_1)?
Perhaps you or someone else is a wine chemist, professional or amateur, and can enlighten me. Until that point, there are more things in heaven and Earth, dear dhsysusbsjsi, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
In the end, though, I think most people discover that those pumps do help preserve the wine for significantly more time.
I went with the Eto for a few reasons. One was price (pays for itself after a few bottles of wine), but the main reason was that it's so much simpler with fewer moving parts and there are no cartridges to replace. And it works well. I recommend the stainless steel version. Happy customer.
As others have stated, losing more volatile aromas into the head space of the bottle is the larger consequence of these devices.
but you should be aware that these tanks are pressurized to 2500 psi (in the states), and that can get pretty dangerous.
use a new regulator with an overpressure release valve.
myth busters did a segment where they chopped the top valve off a tank - it shot all 100lbs of steel through a cinderblock wall.
"Yes, argon is heavier than air, but there's this thing called diffusion."
What has diffusion to do with it? Nothing. Most diffusion effects in our life are negligible because of convection.
I had to check how much argon costs. It is indeed not very expensive. Why do you need medical grade? What "toxins" do you expect?
This is an overkill for 99% of the population. Does your wife ask "Did you argon the olive oil?" too?
It's easy though. Tell them what you're doing, and take their advice.
I cut the 10' hose in half, and promptly lost one of the halves. I set up the cut end so it was inches away from fitting into a bottle on the shelf, for dispensing.
Here's a photo: https://komodokamadoforum.com/topic/8968-funky-old-cow/?tab=...
After the obligatory lecture on medical grade argon versus what I was buying (no difference besides a title), the guy tried seven times to talk me up from a 20# tank (which they don't always have) to a 40# tank (smallest standard size, same price to refill). I kept telling him I wanted to stay married. Then the tank ended up in the "middle shed" with the chamber vacuum sealer. When I went for a refill I reminded him of this hilarious conversation, and upgraded to a 40# tank that's still going strong.
I displace air from primary fermenters using CO2 and have had good success ... I would be open-minded to switching to argon but wonder if there is a reason ...
But note that re: safety, if you need an inert gas, CO2 is usually your safest option. Why? Unlike other inert gases, you have a decent chance of detecting CO2 intoxication. For most people, excess CO2 is very unpleasant, giving you a chance (NOT a guarantee!) to recognize the hazard and escape. Meanwhile, if your body is short of oxygen because an inert gas leak has reduced O2 concentrations in the room you are in, there's a very good chance that won't notice and at some point will just pass out suddenly and die. Our bodies just don't have the ability to detect a lack of oxygen directly; we evolved to detect an excess of CO2 instead.
Now, I don't want to fear monger: you can certainly handle nitrogen and argon safely with some care and common sense. I myself used to work with liquid helium in large enough quantities to need an O2 alarm. But all things being equal, I'd use CO2.
People with COPD need not apply.
CO2 intoxication is unpleasant for us because the baroreceptors in our arteries can detect when the partial pressure of CO2 is too high. This is the feeling you get when you hold your breath. You have somewhere between four and ten minutes of oxygen supply in your blood, but it becomes unpleasant within the first minute because CO2 is building up instead of being exhaled.
People with COPD always have an abundance of CO2 in the bloodstream because their alveoli don't exchange gases correctly. They likely wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
Just saying. Your argument is sound and generally true, but it's true not for everyone.
Important safety difference. You'd still need to be careful, but unless you're lying on the floor...
(Carbonating to 1 atm does not produce much fizz — it only produces any at all because the CO2 offgasses as the drink warms, but bubbles and the taste of carbonation are different phenomena.)
One of the tricks to CO2 canisters is that CO2 liquefies around 6 atm at room temperature, so a canister of CO2 will maintain that pressure until the liquid CO2 is depleted. Dry ice produces about 1 atm of vapor pressure (obviously) which matches the vapor pressure you get when displacing air.
Carbonation (in the sense of making the wine fizzy) will not happen unless pressure is used to drive the CO2 into the wine. You need a supersaturated CO2 solution to get fizzies.
Simply, I put a bottle under the SodaStream nozzle and give a few puffs of CO2 to be confident that it's displaced most of the air.
I do this with normal drinking wine sometimes, but more often things like vermouth that I don't open daily.
Argon is a bit less soluble in wine. But both are used by professionals.
It is said that CO2 can carbonate your wine. If you haven't experienced this, you're fine. I know no reason to actively prefer CO2 to argon, if one is making a free choice.
1atm of (normal air) displaced by 1atm of CO2 is not going to lead to any carbonation ...
That would be desirable for champagne but most likely not for wine.
They do make cans of wine... I know it's a crazy idea, but my friend who likes wine loves the single serving size.
Pretty sure that isn't the only brand I have seen.
A bottle is obviously better long term.
For a joke, my family got me a 750ml glass a couple of Christmases ago. I have yet to use it.
I can drink a bottle myself lunch to bed on a weekend, but not every weekend.
The real interesting use for the Coravin is for when you have a number of the same bottles and you want to taste it over time to see how it ages. Buy a case, set it down and Coravin a bottle and taste it every year to see the progression.
Anyway wine is a fun thing to get into as long as you understand that $$$ does = best. I have had some $1000 bottles that are amazing wines, but not more amazing then a $100 bottle. The exception would be some very very old bottles 30+ years, but that is an acquired taste as old wine is very different from the normal today to 10 years that most people drink.
Run it on an old iPad mounted by the cellar door. It took weeks to put all the data in the first time.
I use an application called CellerTracker. It’s a great app. I have an old iPad mounted in a stand next to the door of the cellar and make sure to record what gets drunk.
1. Drink as much as you want.
2. Pour small clean marbles into the bottle until the level of the wine is near the top again.
3. Put cork back in.
I don't like the idea as I don't need a 14th thing to carefully sanitize. Instead, I just displace the headspace with CO2 and have had good success with that.
No brewery would ever put glass marbles into a primary fermenter. As a professional brewer we routinely try to have the beer touch as few items as possible, post chill, due to sanitation risks. Not only would marbles be a nightmare to sanitize (tiny chips or cracks would not be properly sanitized), its a logistical nightmare to later get them out to clean the tank. Tanks are cleaned in place with a pump and spray ball method without ever opening the tank. Getting excessive hops out is enough work much less marbles.
Breweries purge any air out of a tank with Co2 before filling, for multiple reasons, but since Co2 is heavier than air it will settle on top of the unfermented wort as it is gently transferred into the fermentation tank thus removing the need for any kind of marbles or headspace reduction.
A second major reason this would not be done is that when beer ferments it needs extra headspace as the yeast in an ale ferments on top of the beer. A hefeweizen will routinely create a yeast layer about 10-15% of the height on top of the liquid. So if this space was blocked it would be forced out the top, which for most modern breweries would create a large mess into the floor drains and lead to the yeast count being too low reuse.
On the flip side I would be very interested to know of a brewery doing this and why.
Yes, I cannot imagine this method being used in serious retail production.
There is nothing that can grow during fermentation in beer or wine that will hurt you. It will just taste terrible, or unplanned.
In lower abv fermentation such as kombucha or fermented vegetables. Molds can be a risk if the starting medium is not low enough ph, or high enough salinity.
Printmakers sometimes float a layer of water on top of partially used ink to stop it polymerizing. I suspect that floating a layer of oil on top of wine might have some undesirable side effects
I love starting a meal with a refreshing glass of Caprese salad dressing.
Isn't there an even more obvious idea though - use a smaller bottle or a vessel that can be shrunk to the right volume?
I've used displacement, vacuum sealing, CO2 via my breath and argon. Argon works the best and is the easiest.
Not strictly true, some air does get back in the wine bag, even with the best boxes I've bought. But not enough to spoil the wine before I've manage to polish it off :)
It all depends on the wine you want to drink in the moment. As my brother once pointed out when our mother passed away, there's drinking whisky and funeral whisky.
I think you're in more agreement with GP than you realise - as I read it they're saying it's a good system, but we (collectively/on average/'Big Wine') don't want it to change, so box wine is mostly at the low end.
Naked (vintner in the UK, and I think recentlyish launched in the US too) has started doing some boxes though, so some of the more popular (and again, cheaper, but it's a higher starting point than a supermarket) stuff they sell is starting to be available boxed instead of bottles.
I think Naked actually does all the bottling itself in the UK, so if it's popular it'll probably be quite easy for them to expand (i.e. bag and box more instead of bottling it) maybe just needing agreement from the vineyard.
I would have quite mixed feelings about it becoming standard though, even if I know it's better on paper.
> There aren’t any bagged wines worth drinking.
I have tried most and haven’t found any
Whether it’s actually “better” in any real sense is debatable. But wines are certainly distinguishable
Haven't really found a box/bag red that I like enough to keep buying. Instead I keep a bottle of some sort of red on hand so I can have a 1/2 glass with whatever food I cook that night.
Additionally, I order cases of more unique wines from b21 and keep it on hand for special occasions.
Also, your comment is US centric. I lived in Italy for several years and the boxed wine was fantastic. Same quality as bottled, fixes the issues presented, and viewed as better for the environment.
It's a trick I've seen suggested elsewhere before, and one that I've used often myself — it certainly beats paying a hefty sum for a Coravin or VacuVin!
Jim Beam even sells a 750ml plastic hiker bottle. If Beam isn't your thing, you can always use it as a decanter for your preferred poison once you've finished the OEM liquor.
Quelle horreure! With all due respect, that sort of container will spoil the wine in other ways after a very short time.
He is the kind of fascinating winemaker that does not even have electricity in his cellars so I doubt he would go for inert gas storage in lieu of re-corking it.
I think I managed to do a full week tasting just once, with a lot of discipline. It was an interesting experience with his wine, but in my experience the optimal temporal span for tasting a single wine is no more than a few hours.
If you have tanin heavy wine, you might need to air it for 1-2 hours before drinking. Fortified wines can stay good for weeks after opening.
It's hard to go down much, when you start low enough. /s
Boxed wine is ideal for that one glass you want with your lunch. I wish we had more variety of it around here.
You've just killed my latent curiosity for life in Canada. I already suffer enough in the UK.
> Boxed wine is ideal for that one glass you want with your lunch.
I agree there.
"Whatever you do, please don’t buy a VacuVin or anything resembling such a device that allows you to “pump out the air from the bottle.” These devices just don’t work as advertised. Sure, they remove some air, but not enough to truly protect the wine."
So I guess we'll just finish the bottle!
For a $12 thing, it's not a huge investment to get one and see for yourself whether it works or not.
That may be the case, but I can assure you that a very inexpensive "brake bleed kit" with a vacuum gauge attached will, indeed, vacuum the headspace and maintain that vacuum.
Again, you have a gauge with mmHG or whatever and you can verify that the vacuum is unchanged.
I speak elsewhere in this HN thread about displacing air in primary fermenters with CO2 but I have also removed air with a hand vacuum (brake bleed kit).
That said, reading about the eto has sent me down a rabbit hole on Amazon. I’m seriously considering ordering a wine squirrel now!
What I have noticed is that some bottle necks are slightly too large or of a weird form for the corks, letting the vacuum escape. When everything is OK the cork makes a pleasantly sharp "ssssshhhhup" sound when releasing the vacuum. For some bottles there's just a faint sloppy "shh" or perhaps even nothing, and for sure the taste isn't optimal then.
After pumping I always put the bottle to the fridge. If storing a pumped wine at room temperature I suppose the wine would quickly end up tasting like donkey.
Then later, when it's time, I open the cork and let the wine warm up (!) to the required temperature.
A pumped wine won't hold for months of course, but I've kept more robust red wines up to a few weeks max, and they are OK for my tastebuds.
So, after any decanting and airing I usually test the bottle with the pump + cork, to see that it gets sealed properly, if I plan to pump it.
Probably all Frenchmen and Italians are rolling their eyes and writhing in agony now but hey, it works for me...
Fun fact: while it is said that whisky doesn't need to breathe, I always find freshly opened bottles somewhat disappointing and do think they get a little bit better over the first week open and then stay at the level for long times.
- age of the wine (old one usually doesn't remain good after one day)
- type of wine (red or white, varieties of grapes): tanic wines last longer.
- how good of a year it was (it mostly affect how well the wine will age, but also how long it can stay open)
Also oxygen have a big effect on wine, but it's not always a bad one: most Bordeaux (especially young ones) are better after having been exposed to oxygen around one hour before drinking (in a decanter), and sometimes they even get better by the next day!
If your horizon is “finish same day”, buy what you like. This is the only horizon acceptable for frequently oaked varieties (like Cabernet Sauvignon), highly alcoholic varieties (like GSM), or bottom shelf supermarket wines.
If your horizon is “finish next day”, this is optimal for complex but light varieties such as Pinot Noir, Chardonnay. No technology needed.
If your horizon is “finish in 3-5 days”, the best bet is to buy unfiltered (and un-fined) wine. Generally the bottle fermentation continues and the flavors change over time. These have a lot more funk. With unscientific certainty, I posit this must be how the ancients enjoyed their wine!
If your horizon is “finish the next weekend”, then start looking at the technologies in this thread.
If your horizon is “finish within the month”, buy 375ml, then see above.
And as a PSA, generally avoid added sulfites. Wine is alive! Embracing its natural state extends the lifespan of drinkability. No technology should be needed.
My winemaker contacts winced when I said I like my gamay and pinot noir chilled but I do.
Chilled Gamay is a great way to end a hot day.
Brett I more associate with Cote Rotie Syrah. In small amounts it adds smoky bacon flavours. I like it.
Restaurants and wine bars who sell high end wines. These Coravin type devices have enable people to order expensive Burgundy or Barolos etc by the glass which were previously not offered by the glass as the unit economics weren't there. It's been a real boon for wine aficionados and wine bars alike. Also wine reps reseal bottles with gas as they generally pour glasses for their accounts and then put the opened bottle back in their trunk for the next account to sample. You would not reseal a $10-20 dollar bottle of wine.
Even with the bottles that leave two pours, at expiration, we are making a few dollars but not enough to keep the lights on.
I love wines for their tastes but I hate even slightest feeling of alcoholic intoxication, as a result I drink it in doses so small an opened bottle usually lasts about a year for me. I bloody wish all wines were avilable in 0.2 liter bottles...
And I’m completely baffled by the downvote earned by my GP.
It seems like it would be more than the seal since recorking a bottle still creates a decent seal (but traps all the air).
Yea I had another comment agreeing with another OP downvoted. Seemed odd to me as well.
“ If you want a longer shelf life, you can buy your own canister of inert gas, and spray that into the half bottle (or even the full bottle) to displace the oxygen. These canisters aren’t cheap, and there’s no real way to know when you’ve sprayed enough gas into the bottle, so most people overshoot out of an abundance of caution, and they don’t end up being great value for the money.”
It probably depends on the gas that is used. Argon is probably best, because it’s heavier than Oxygen. So a even small amount should form a seal just above the wine.
However, gravity’s effect on any gas will be minor.
I don't drink much wine so I have bottles in the fridge that have been there up to a year. When using the gas, I think the decay is more related to how often the bottle is opened and poured. So a bottle that I gas-treat after the initial opening seems to be happy to sit for quite some time. Subsequent treatments are not as effective.
But if the combustion particles can be controlled, there’s no reason this wouldn’t work.
Sounds like an innovative idea!
> Air-activated hand warmers contain cellulose, iron, activated carbon, vermiculite (which holds water) and salt and produce heat from the exothermic oxidation of iron when exposed to air. They typically emit heat for 1 to 10 hours, it usually takes 15-30 minutes to start to heat up, although the heat given off rapidly diminishes after 1–2 hours. The oxygen molecules in the air react with iron, forming rust. Salt is often added to catalyze the process.
It's not going to be perfect, of course, you're only burning things - tons of oxygen is left over, it's an imperfect process on its own. Achieving a perfectly-deoxygenated environment isn't the goal though, extending the wine is.