## 3 Results and Discussion
### Analytical Results  
On the other hand, for the mass processing from the tank where the pneumatic system was used, it was found that the active power consumption of the draining-pressing line was more regular over time, stabilising at values between 8.0 kW and 14.0 kW (Figure 13). In total, the first line operated for 230 min, with an average power consumption of 8.9 kW, whereas the second line operated for 165 min, with an average power consumption of 11.78 kW. It is, therefore, clear that the second line processed a more homogeneous mass, allowing all sections to be processed continuously, without interruption, in a shorter time and \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Parameters** & **Compressor** & **Extraction Group** &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Pressing Draining** \\ **Line** \\ \end{tabular} & **Total Value** \\ \hline Average active power absorbed & 25 kW & 1.57 kW & 11.78 kW & / \\ Electric consumption & 2.6 kWh & 1.23 kWh & 32.4 kWh & 18.23 kWh \\ Specific energy & 0.0026 kWh/hL\_must & 0.0012 kWh/hL\_must & 0.0430 kWh/hL\_wine & 0.0240 kWh/hL\_wine \\ Wine obtained & / & / & 760 hL & 760 hL \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Energy parameters of the unification line in which the pneumatic system was used during the fermentation phase. Figure 13: Electric power absorption of the draining–pressing line: the mass unloaded from the fermenter in which the pump-over was carried out (**left**) and the mass unloaded from the fermenter in which compressed air was used (**right**). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Parameters** &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Pump-Over Group** \\ **(Pump + Diffuser)** \\ \end{tabular} & **Extraction Group** & **Drain-Pressing Line** & **Total Values** \\ \hline Average active power absorbed & 11 kW & 1.16 kW & 8.9 kW & / \\ Electric consumption & 197 kWh & 2.12 kWh & 34.1 kWh & 233.22 kWh \\ Specific energy & 0.200 kWh/hL\_must & 0.0021 kWh/hL\_must & 0.046 kWh/hL\_wine & 0.320 kWh/hL\_wine \\ Wine obtained & / & / & 740 hL & 740 hL \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Energy parameters of the unification line in which the system of pump-over during the fermentation phase was used. with lower total energy consumption (Tables 3 and 4). On the other hand, the first line worked discontinuously, leaving the pressing section idle for a long time, to which, during the last 80 min, a high flow rate of very compact and poorly draining marc was fed, requiring high pressures in the draining section to extract the wine, with equally high-power consumption. Despite the lower average power consumption values, the draining-pressing line, which processed the mass from the fermenter where the cracking took place, consumed slightly more energy: 34.1 kWh or 0.046 kWh/hL compared to 32.4 kWh or 0.043 kWh/hL (Tables 3 and 4). In addition to the aforementioned advantages, a higher liquid content at the time of draining and pressing may lead to a greater presence of solids in the wines that are to ferment slowly, with a consequent increase in the formation of lees in the tanks and the necessity to rake off the lees more often. The overall results are, of course, influenced by the very low energy consumption during the vinicification phase using the pneumatic system (Table 4): 18.23 kWh and 0.024 kWh/hLvine for the pneumatic system, i.e., more than ten times lower than the line using pump-over (233.22 kWh and 0.32 kWh/hLvine). During the experimental trials, the fermentations stopped when similar parameters were reached in both wine tanks (Table 7), corresponding to a \"ready-to-drink\" wine. It is, therefore, a product intended for medium market placement, to be obtained in a short time and at a low total cost. From this point of view, the analysis in Tables 5-7 shows that the parameters of the start of fermentation (Table 5) evolve faster in the tank where the pneumatic break of the cap is realised, with the clarification parameters being reached 24 h before the second tank (Table 7).