It's an old video that probably all of us have already seen, so it's not a fresh topic, but I think there's a lot of excellent and very valid points he's making in his espresso/extraction presentation. My title is sorta tongue in cheek, but I'm mainly curious if others now hold the same conviction, and if so, is it something they think they could detect/prove blindly? I'm sorta doubting it, if you grind fine enough and brew with a hot enough slurry, but I too, haven't tested it blindly.

I know siphon brewing can be a bit finicky at first, but I think it can be far more consistent (temp slurry wise) than most pour over methods, unless you glue the base of a PID Bonavida and kettle together and leave it on. I just think it would be an interesting topic to get fleshed out, since I am slightly doubting that he or many others would be able to correctly identify a brew that was made on one device over another.

Blinded and filtered similarly, I agree with you. I've had great siphon brews, but rarely.

The brashness of youth and inexperience. My final coffee evaluation step is always a Cona syphon brew, and after 30-odd years I can reliably predict results for espresso, filter and plunger from it. Some of the results I get may be technique but most of it is consistency and excellent coffee. Any flaws in the coffee are highlighted by the syphon, and you can't compensate for them with grind, temperature or pressure.

Alan

TomC wrote:... but I'm mainly curious if others now hold the same conviction, and if so, is it something they think they could detect/prove blindly? I'm sorta doubting it, if you grind fine enough and brew with a hot enough slurry, but I too, haven't tested it blindly.

Tom, suggest an entry time/point be provided. I know I won't watch 1:20 minutes of an espresso video to locate his comments on syphon.

And...what is Kaminsky's conviction? Can't put the the title of the post and "conviction" together from what is provided.

Thx. DB

PS. I am enjoying a Rwanda Mizozi co-op bean from a Yama 8-cup as I read this. I can say I probably disagree with him <grins>.

PPS. Alan's comments: I am trying to learn from brewed how well a coffee might work as an espresso. Maybe I will brew a coffee in the vacpot and then espresso to help learn the cross over.

I think BK intended it as a joke. It's not like he's spent years trying to make consistently perfect siphon brews.

There's a whole lot of technique involved in siphon brewing. If you're a traditionalist in the school of Japanese siphon brewers, there's a lot of strange psuedo-science involved too. It's over-complicated and unreliable. I've heard plenty of siphon users say that they're drawn to the finickiness of the process, even though not all of them are. Personally, I've had some really great siphons as well as some poor ones.

Also, I'm not convinced temperature stability is desirable. We want reduced extraction rates as extraction progresses, so declining agitation and temperature seem productive.

Boldjava wrote:Tom, suggest an entry time/point be provided. I know I won't watch 1:20 minutes of an espresso video to locate his comments on syphon.

And...what is Kaminsky's conviction? Can't put the the title of the post and "conviction" together from what is provided.

Thx. DB

Sorry Dave, 17 minutes in. It's brief.

I agree with Alan, and apparently also with BK's Helsinki audience.

+1 on Tom, a siphon is the most temperature stable of all the methods listed. Unless you dial down the heat manually, during the agitation phase the water in the lower chamber is at a level below the bottom of the upper funnel. It's volume is very low, heat is on, so it boils. The water suspended above it is not cooling significantly as it's temp is maintained by being in a glass vessel in relative thermal continuity with the carafe, which has it's temp fixed at 100 C as long as it contains water going through a phase change from liquid to gas. The steam escapes through the funnel, causes the agitation and further maintains the slurry temp.

The question of temperature stability as a potentially undesirable is also very interesting, as suggested by Jan that declining temperature may be beneficial to decrease extraction rate over time. I don't believe this automatically happens in a siphon. I do vary the fire during a siphon brew - when upper vessel full and after coffee added I trim the fire down very slightly, just hot enough to maintain positive pressure in the lower chamber. I don't think I can consider that a declining temp profile.

There sure is technique involved, but siphon brewing certainly isn't rocket science. Someone should make that lad a decent cup of coffee.

NoStream wrote:...We want reduced extraction rates as extraction progresses, so declining agitation and temperature seem productive.

I haven't seen this mentioned explicitly before, but I've come to agree. I like 50% prewets with turbulently poured boiling water and a gentle pour for the remaining slightly cooler water.

kaldi61 wrote:... I don't think I can consider that a declining temp profile.

...

Hear, hear.

There can be a variable temp with syphons. I play with a Thermapen and monitor the temps. I can hold a syphon right at 202° in the upper globve throughout my 1:50-2:00 brewing time before I take it off the burner for a 2:10 min descent to the lower globe.

TomC wrote: I know siphon brewing can be a bit finicky at first, but I think it can be far more consistent (temp slurry wise) than most pour over methods, unless you glue the base of a PID Bonavida and kettle together and leave it on

Manual pourover seemed remarkably consistent to me the few times I measured slurry temps.
Matt Perger - Reddit AMA brewing discussion