jesawdy wrote:Greg-
Now that you've been at this awhile longer, I am curious to know your thoughts on whether pressure profiling based on volume rather than time is of more or less interest to you.
gscace wrote:The most successful general profile that I have come up with to date (I've now got an excel file with a bazillion profiles mapped out in it) is a pressure profile in which the pressure rapidly increases from some nominal start value to 9 bars at the group (elapsed time of 1 second from start to full pressure) with a short 9 bar soak, then ramps downward in a slow linear fashion (straight line degradation) to around 7 ½ bar, with a more rapid, second-order (curved downward) slope over the last few seconds to around 6 bar, arriving at 6 bar 30 seconds after initiation of the brew cycle.
HB wrote:Interesting, this sounds like brew pressure profile of a commercial spring-driven lever espresso machine.
another_jim wrote:Yeah.
A commercial spring will be 9 to 6 bar, declining linearly by volume (the spring force being determined by the remaining water in the cylinder. Given that the flow is increasing (linearly?), this means the time versus pressure profile is roughly a quadratic curve. It could be quite close to the profile you synthesized, even to the final declining curve.
It may sound like an anticlimax to "reinvent" the lever profile, but it's not. You've been able to explore a lot of possibilities, and do it with far more stable equipment, especially on temperature. It could be that the outcome of the work is not that commercial machines get full profiling motors, but motors with simpler controls that produce the optimal profile you discover, perhaps with a few simple adjustments.
gscace wrote:Actually the profile is continously curved. Lever machines are linear for the most part and look like a sawtooth. Maybe I'll get off my lazy yass and post an excel graph if I can figure out how to make the damn thing a picture for cryin out loud.
-Greg
gscace wrote:Recently folks have come up to me on the street, shoving their pudgy fingers in my puny chest, demanding to know that if pressure profiling meant deemphasizing the last portion of the brewing process, why not just stop brewing early? After I imagine breaking their finger with a deft marital arts-type motion...
HB wrote:Interesting, this sounds like brew pressure profile of a commercial spring-driven lever espresso machine.
another_jim wrote:Since you announced this, I've been trying to think of ways that would allow one to characterize more precisely how pressure variations affect taste and mouthfeel. After a lot of thought, I think the best route might be to find a coffee or roast that is undrinkable when done with a straight profile, and tasty when done with the pressure profile you like. If you can find one like that, it would be fairly clear how the profile affected the taste.
Ken Fox wrote:another_jim wrote:Since you announced this, I've been trying to think of ways that would allow one to characterize more precisely how pressure variations affect taste and mouthfeel. After a lot of thought, I think the best route might be to find a coffee or roast that is undrinkable when done with a straight profile, and tasty when done with the pressure profile you like. If you can find one like that, it would be fairly clear how the profile affected the taste.
Jim and I both have some prior experience in doing research in our earlier lives, and frequently discuss innovations and research attempts we see written about here and in other online venues. We are, in fact, planning to do an article sometime soon on the entire topic of performing coffee research at the enthusiast or small entrepreneur level.
A large corporation, like for example a drug company, can afford to hire legions of lower level researchers to do "basic science" research where interesting ideas are played with, without any specific goal, with the hope that they might stumble upon something. Even so, when a company like for example, Pfizer, has problems and they "reorganize," laying off thousands, who do you think are among the first people to be let go? Let me guess . . . . .
As individuals without unlimited time or resources, we are forced to be VERY focused in our work, or, our work will likely come to nothing.
If you look at the stuff that Jim and I have written up over the last few years, the "success" that it has achieved has been due primarily to choosing relatively small questions that can be answered in straightforward ways. I'd of course like to think that we are genuises and that this has allowed us to study rotary pumps and vibe pumps and preinfusion and freezing -- but the truth is that we asked simple questions and studied them in very simple ways. For example, if you take the freezing study, it was designed to prove or disprove the notion that freezing ruins coffee and or does not preserve it. Testing that is a very straightforward proposition, as opposed to testing what impact altering all aspects of the extraction pressure curve might do.
If you take temperature stability, another topic that has been debated A LOT, it has now been achieved to one degree or another on a number of different machines, either factory (Aurelia; maybe GS3) or with mods (Greg's modified Linea, my Juniors), yet no one has tested in a convincing way what impact the shape of the temperature profile has on espresso shot taste, or whether the whole exercise has much merit beyond knowing one has less variable brew temperatures.
As to pressure, I would submit that what you are trying to test, Greg, is an order of magnitude, maybe two, more complex, and it suffers from the problems in tasting temperature cure importance, in addition. As a result, unless your work becomes VERY focused, I think it is going to be very hard for you to conclude much of anything.
Adjusting and calibrating things like temperature and pressure are interesting, and they should be important, however they are coming at espresso making much in the way that basic science drug research comes at solving medical problems. You don't have enough time, enough lives, enough other people to do this stuff with, enough physical and monetary resources, to do enough testing with the variables you are presenting yourself with to have much hope of getting anywhere other than to say, "I changed this and that and the other thing and so and so was over and we both thought the shots were better." I hope I am wrong, but I don't see that sort of work going very far.
My suggestion would be to start with some very specific issue in espresso extraction, a problem, something you think can be fixed with one significant change in pressure profiling, then test that. I think this latter approach has the chance of bearing some fruit.
Good luck.
ken
gscace wrote:Well Ken I have to say that it's tough to prove almost anything in coffee it seems. I mentioned Jim and your work on the freezing thing to a coffee pro and got an answer that it was somewhat arrogant to say that across the board there would be no affect on coffee taste from freezing, and that the results would be more believable if someone whose palate had very proven credentials had done the blind tasting. So you see how it goes. If you're an amateur researcher in coffee you're always gonna have folks who try to poke holes in your work. It's prolly best to have a thick skin about it, because you can do the work, see a gain and then rant until your blue in the face and some folks won't get it. I'm cool with that.
Take temperature for instance, since you brought it up. We still don't know if a flat line profile is the best one. One can theorize convincingly that it ain't by invoking just a bit of heat transfer theory, but we aren't gonna know until someone builds a test machine that allows reproducible testing. And then there are still gonna be people that won't believe what you come up with. I think enough noise has been made about it so that we at least got folks building machines that have the ability to reproduce the same thing two time in a row. That at least makes it so that things are more consistent.
I suspect the same thing is true of pressure. We haven't investigated it much. Folks who have fooled with it see something to it, and people who have come to my house have seen something from it, although my attempt at blind testing failed miserably because my methodology was pretty piss poor. At any rate, if enough people see some benefit to it, and a couple of forward-thinking machine manufacturers investigate it, maybe we'll see it in machines of the future.
Regarding your last paragraph, I think I'm learning what can be improved by the profiling scheme. When I get more time, I'll see if I can't make a test that satisfies a fraction of the folks who care.
-Greg
Ken Fox wrote:La Tache
SL28ave wrote:*drool*, will I ever the chance? I do very often wonder what kind of shot it would taste like; probably doesn't exist yet... Jim, I just bought an intense CnDP Reserve Sixtine if we can manage to fit it in the midst of all the coffee we'll be drinking later this month
SL28ave wrote:Thanks, Ken. I will hold your word dear.
But when I see for the first time "ginger" in a wine description, from some Australian retailer-fanatic, I still wanna give this wine a go: "2004 La Tache: Floral, ginger, anise and red currents on the nose. In the mouth it is a silk cloth with floral print. Terrific shape, good volume and great cut on the finish.".... like a silk cloth with floral print! Wha? If I ever have the chance for a teaspoon of this wine, hopefully it'll be at the most delicate and perceptive moment of my life.
Sorry for the drift, Mr Scace. Back on topic.
Ken Fox wrote:Peter,
The problem is that this guy's "ginger" might just be your "soiled undergarments."
ken
p.s. not kidding