endlesscycles wrote:Actually, the distinction likely IS the difference.

I read the post, including the section which included Matt's speculation on "solubility," and the comments -- including yours. And I doubt it.

The minimum burr gap (i.e., the grinder setting) performs a "sifting" function and determines the maximum particle and peak modal size, particularly with large flat burrs. If it doesn't, everyone who claims the superiority of flat burrs -- and the EK43 in particular -- has some 'splainin' to do.

Perhaps your point is well taken. If you've got a bunch of laser size scan distribution plots which show that different beans produce different size particles at the large end of the distribution chart, I'll happily admit that what I though was intuitively obvious was sheer wrong headedness on my part.

Rich

boar_d_laze wrote:
The minimum burr gap (i.e., the grinder setting) performs a "sifting" function and determines the maximum particle and peak modal size, particularly with large flat burrs. If it doesn't, everyone who claims the superiority of flat burrs -- and the EK43 in particular -- has some 'splainin' to do.

Rich

Sorry, how is this relevant to EK43 specifically? We're discussing 2 coffees at the same setting, same grinder...not 2 coffees through different grinders. You keep claiming "superiority" for EK43, everyone else says it does something "different", including the manufacturer.

A burr gap only determines a certain grind distribution for coffees that break up in the same way - less brittle coffees will make less fines, pulling up the average particle size, compared to more brittle coffee. In turn, extract less at that setting.

The whole point of the statement we're discussing is how to determine which coffee has the faster rate of dissolution in a practical, rule of thumb test, without the need for laser diffraction. If you need laser diffraction to validate the theory (as you suggest), it would seem natural that you have some laser diffraction results to debunk it too.

Doubt it (we're all free to take advice as presented, or not), but doubting it whilst implying a technical argument, rather than just intuition, would be better backed up with some further info.

samuellaw178 wrote:I have not played with EK, or well aware about EK43 roast. But based on the assumption & hypothesis, yes.

Taken from Matt's posts:
"A developed coffee has been roasted in such a way that ........its structure has been broken down enough for water to be able to enter and dissolve its flavours (soluble). "
"Underdeveloped coffee displays those undesirable "green" flavours and is less soluble.."
"If you grind different coffees at the same setting and make espressos, you'll quickly find out which coffees are less soluble by the shot times. (faster = less soluble)"

If you buy the points he presented and piece those together, the EK43 coffee is underdeveloped.

I think that is a misinterpretation of his statements.

1. He was not comparing different grinder shot times but the flow rate of various beans at the same grind. A change in grind size and type would also affect flow rate independently of the beans solubility. Therefore you can not say that because the ek43 requires finer grinds the coffee is underdeveloped, but that if you compare flow rates using the same grind settings on your ek43 you can compare dissolution rates of various coffees.

2. He did not say that there was only one fixed desirable development level, and left open the possibility of a range of developed roasts.

3. We need more context. Recently perger wrote about artisanal roasters under developing coffees and in particular roasting coffees so poorly developed that they look fine but the interior is so green you can not break the bean with your fingers. This post appears, imo, to be an elaboration on that previous comment and is therefore directed more at how to identify those extreme and other poorly developed roasts. Ie) without proper equipment to evaluate a resulting espresso for extraction, Perger proposes that one method (probably inexact at best but better than nothing) would be to compare the flow rate of different beans on the same grinder and setting (and machine pressure etc). If one bean is way faster than other known well developed beans it is most likely underdeveloped.

This makes sense if you are using an automatic i.e. volumetric dosing. The weight of the final shot will be a function of the coffee absorbed and water in the cup, as a volumetric machine delivers close to the same amount of water, in theory the weight will be a function of dissolved solids. Therefore, it should be possible to keep a detailed journal on volume/weight of water, shot time, grind size, dose weight, bean age, temperature settings, and final weight utilizing an automatic machine, and have very repeatable results.

Down below is an article from La Marzocco on a volumetric premise. In their experiment they only altered grind size to keep the time the same using volumetric shots. Their results showed it was significantly better at controlling yield levels/consistency. http://www.lamarzoccousa.com/tag/extraction-yield/

This is going to be my approach when dialing my incoming machine in. I plan to keep a detailed journal on all facets of preparation including grind adjustments relating to shots pulled. My overall hope, is that by the 2nd shot any coffee tastes good and by 3-4 shots it is my ideal. Assuming this works, I may be be dropping money on the Acaia lunar and automating/improving much of this process. Although if I am lucky, by time it comes out I may not need it.

I also am fairly confident you can measure effective grind retention in a timed on demand grinder utilizing a precise scale and some math. I plan on figuring my purge amount by doing this. I know it is not going to be precise, but if I can get it within 1 gram I will be happy.

boar_d_laze wrote:The minimum burr gap (i.e., the grinder setting) performs a "sifting" function and determines the maximum particle and peak modal size, particularly with large flat burrs. If it doesn't, everyone who claims the superiority of flat burrs -- and the EK43 in particular -- has some 'splainin' to do.

I don't think the sifting hypothesis is well supported by the grind size distribution. The modal grind diameter of EK43 is 295.5 um and the largest grind diameter detected by the laser diffractometer is 800~ um. I would expect a sharper drop after the modal grind size if the hypothesis is close to reality, not a drop that takes 500 um. This is more speculation than science.

boar_d_laze wrote:If you've got a bunch of laser size scan distribution plots which show that different beans produce different size particles at the large end of the distribution chart, I'll happily admit that what I though was intuitively obvious was sheer wrong headedness on my part.

Different beans have different flow rates at the same grind setting. The simpliest explaintion would be they have different grind size distribution. A more brittle bean may lead to a finer grind size distribution, hence the different flow rates. Any mechanical engineers here?

MWJB wrote:Sorry, how is this relevant to EK43 specifically? We're discussing 2 coffees at the same setting, same grinder...not 2 coffees through different grinders. You keep claiming "superiority" for EK43, everyone else says it does something "different", including the manufacturer.

I must respectfully disagree with you. From the few blog posts I have read, I do feel (i.e. personal opinion) like Mr. Perger is trying to prove that EK43 is superior than other grinders. Furthermore, I feel like he is trying to deny that he is trying to prove that EK43 is superior but I don't know where I get this feeling. I must say that opinions on the EK43 is very polarised; people either adore it or are very skeptical that it makes better espresso. I personally have only tried one espresso brewed using EK43. It was excellent but I think the hype seems a bit bigger than the quality of the espresso in my opinion.

thomas5267 wrote:From the few blog posts I have read, I do feel (i.e. personal opinion) Mr Perger is trying to prove that EK43 is superior than other grinders. Furthermore, I feel like he is trying to deny that he is trying to prove that EK43 is superior but I don't know where I get this feeling. I must say that opinions on the EK43 is very polarised; people either adore it or are very skeptical that it makes better espresso. I personally have only tried one espresso brewed using EK43. It was excellent but I think the hype seems a bit bigger than the quality of the espresso in my opinion.

I agree he is supporting the pre-existing idea that the EK-43 is capable of good tasting, higher extraction yields (it either is, or isn't - this can be proved) & "clarity", which he prizes (he has also mentioned lower wastage). Surely that's only superior if it aligns with your preference? It certainly seems to be his, you may not share it.

You were the first person in this thread to mention the EK-43, I don't recall it being central to the topic in hand, nor to the Hustle article. Is there any grinder that is unanimously regarded as 'the superior' grinder? I'm not sure opinions are polarised, just like anything else, some folks think it's great & want to shout about it, other folks are happy with other grinders...any specific model of grinder would be the target of scepticism if declared the 'only one worth having'.

Yet another variable that needs to be looked at is the composition of the roasted bean. Different roast levels not only affect how the beans disintegrates while moving through the grinder, changing particle size and shape, but changes the chemical compounds available at the surface for dissolution. A simple example would be that sugars dissolve better than charcoal carbon. The makeup of the ground bean is going to change the solubility nearly as much as the surface area available to the solvent.