Why don't pros use the WDT? More advanced distribution techniques? - Page 3

[Teme]

Teme, you may be right about the fines settling to the bottom, but they at least do so in a uniform manner during redistribution (WDT) if that's the case. It may be a case of which is an overriding factor- fines mixed in the puck in the vertical plane, but not evenly spread out horizontally (a definite no-no), or evenly spread out along the bottom- I'm sure some are still suspended in the middle somewhere, and not ALL on the bottom. It does work with the cheaper grinders, especially those with doserless features- I'm guessing the mini-e's are the exception there.

That is exactly what I noted above. I don't dispute that the WDT could be helpful in some cases, but noted that there MAY also be an issue to consider. I did not claim that ALL the fines would end up at the bottom of the filter, but I did imply that the WDT may not be a substitute to a grinder that distributes properly in the first place. Ray, if I understand correctly, you have moved from a Rocky (doserless?) to a Kony? Out of curiosity, what is your experience with regards to the grinds distribution from the Rocky (with WDT) vs that from the Kony (without WDT)?

As for the Mini-E, my experience is that it does have distribution issues of its own although they are a bit different from those on a doserless Macap or Rocky. But these distribution issues and the fact that I would also like a faster grinder (among other things) have me looking for an upgrade...

Br,
Teme

[TimEggers]

You raise some very good points Teme. I do look at the usefulness of the WDT with objectivity and I believe your questions are quite valid and most interesting. I don't find anything wrong with looking at the aspects of pulling a shot and as you note I also feel it's vital to making progress as a barista. My questions were more along the line of how does one know then they are over analyzing? I agree that there are simply times to pull the shots, as there will always be some variables beyond human control. But that does not mean that one should not look deeper into their technique or the process as a whole.

I'd love to have a way to test your questions on the effects of the WDT. I wonder how one would go about testing that? Where's Jim Schulman when you need him?

[Teme]

You raise some very good points Teme. I do look at the usefulness of the WDT with objectivity and I believe your questions are quite valid and most interesting. I don't find anything wrong with looking at the aspects of pulling a shot and as you note I also feel it's vital to making progress as a barista. My questions were more along the line of how does one know then they are over analyzing? I agree that there are simply times to pull the shots, as there will always be some variables beyond human control. But that does not mean that one should not look deeper into their technique or the process as a whole.

Thanks Tim. How does one know when they are over analyzing? Hmm... that's a good question. One thing is for sure, IMO it should be fun...

I'd love to have a way to test your questions on the effects of the WDT. I wonder how one would go about testing that? Where's Jim Schulman when you need him?

I will probably try and explore this as well when I have time. I guess one could pull shots of the same volume, same shot time, same brew pressure, same brew temp, same coffee from the same batch, ground at the same fineness and analyse both the pucks and the shot taste. I would think that with proper technique even the dose would be the same, i.e. the only difference would be the distribution technique. Not sure if this would work, but I could try. I guess Jim would know the answer off the top of his head

Br,
Teme

[RapidCoffee]

I am not disputing the usefulness of the WDT and I agree that if one does not mind the procedure, it will help in overcoming at least some of the weaknesses of clumping grinders. My point is that it may not be a perfect substitute for a grinder that distributes the ground coffee better in the first place.

I'm in complete agreement here. The fact that baristas must resort to thwacking the doser, rotating and tapping the PF, stirring the grounds, mid-dose tamps, etc. etc. clearly indicates that grinder technology is in serious need of improvement. Perhaps even more so than espresso machine technology, since we all tend to agree that the grinder is more important.

While I'd love a Mazzer Robur, I don't believe an espresso grinder for home use should dominate the kitchen and cost thousands of dollars. Simple changes to the geometry (notably a straight drop from the burrs to the filter basket or doser) could greatly improve clumping and distribution issues on existing grinders.

I'm delighted that so many have found the WDT to be useful. But I'd be even more pleased if it was eventually made obsolete by advances in grinder technology.

[JR_Germantown]

On my Tranquilo, a little more airflow would help tremendously. As the ground coffee exits the chute, it doesn't have enough momentum from the burrs. It comes out in clumps. I have forced air through it while grinding and had very little clumping. Too much air, OTOH, would blow the grounds right out of the filter.

I have an idea for how to remedy this, but it's still just an idea.

Jack

[Rainman]

That is exactly what I noted above. I don't dispute that the WDT could be helpful in some cases, but noted that there MAY also be an issue to consider. I did not claim that ALL the fines would end up at the bottom of the filter, but I did imply that the WDT may not be a substitute to a grinder that distributes properly in the first place. Ray, if I understand correctly, you have moved from a Rocky (doserless?) to a Kony? Out of curiosity, what is your experience with regards to the grinds distribution from the Rocky (with WDT) vs that from the Kony (without WDT)?

Yes, I had a doserless Rocky. The Kony is pretty incredible in terms of the "fluffiness" that everybody talks about- I don't do anything other than sit there w/ portafilter in hand and start flipping the doser lever (which I never did before- always ground into another container), level it off and tamp- done. The weird thing is the difference in pour times I'm getting between my i-Roasted stuff and some of the Black Cat blend I ordered from Intelligentsia; the grind setting on the Kony is a little more than a 90 degree turn of the adjustment collar for the latter. I know it's like comparing apples to oranges, but I don't remember having anywhere that big of a difference in grind settings between those two coffees w/ the Rocky to produce the same pour times (maybe just 2 or 3 clicks). Mostly, I think fluid bed roasters just dehydrate the bean more than professionally drum-roasted coffees do- at least that's been my observation... I borrowed a Hottop from a neighbor a few weeks ago, and had nearly identical results (had to open up the grind collar to achieve the same pour).

As for the Mini-E, my experience is that it does have distribution issues of its own although they are a bit different from those on a doserless Macap or Rocky. But these distribution issues and the fact that I would also like a faster grinder (among other things) have me looking for an upgrade...

Br,
Teme

I've contemplated buying the doserless funnel for the Mini-e and creating a back panel plate (since the one created for the Mini is about a cm too short for the Kony), but hesitate.. that upgrade alone would cost $150 just for the funnel, and the possible alteration of the grind kinda concerns me. For now, I'm just dealing with the mess.. which isn't too bad, I guess- I'm not too old to modify my obsessive, neatnik behavior

Does that help, Teme?

Ray

[Rainman]

I'm in complete agreement here. The fact that baristas must resort to thwacking the doser, rotating and tapping the PF, stirring the grounds, mid-dose tamps, etc. etc. clearly indicates that grinder technology is in serious need of improvement. Perhaps even more so than espresso machine technology, since we all tend to agree that the grinder is more important.

While I'd love a Mazzer Robur, I don't believe an espresso grinder for home use should dominate the kitchen and cost thousands of dollars. Simple changes to the geometry (notably a straight drop from the burrs to the filter basket or doser) could greatly improve clumping and distribution issues on existing grinders.

I'm delighted that so many have found the WDT to be useful. But I'd be even more pleased if it was eventually made obsolete by advances in grinder technology.

Absolutely- If I hadn't felt the need for a grinder upgrade (my Rocky was 7 yrs old), and that much money just burning a hole in my pocket, I probably would have waited another 2-3 yrs to see what shows up on the home market for the conicals. I'm really sold on that, but as you see, I've made several mods to mine already (although I kinda like a grinder that's taller than me sitting on the shelf-- it's rather imposing where I have it, and there's ample room over there clear to the ceiling).

Ray

[Teme]

While I'd love a Mazzer Robur, I don't believe an espresso grinder for home use should dominate the kitchen and cost thousands of dollars. Simple changes to the geometry (notably a straight drop from the burrs to the filter basket or doser) could greatly improve clumping and distribution issues on existing grinders.

I agree on the size aspect of the Robur. I wish there was a conical burr, grind on demand, clumpless grinder that was less than 20" tall with a hopper. The Casadio Instantaneo is getting close but it is so ugly that I cannot imagine having it in my kitchen (it must the ugliest grinder ever produced - by some margin). I hope that the rumours that Mahlkoenig is working on a conical version of the K30 are true...

I'm delighted that so many have found the WDT to be useful. But I'd be even more pleased if it was eventually made obsolete by advances in grinder technology.

Oh yes. My thumbs up for both!

Yes, I had a doserless Rocky. The Kony is pretty incredible in terms of the "fluffiness" that everybody talks about- I don't do anything other than sit there w/ portafilter in hand and start flipping the doser lever (which I never did before- always ground into another container), level it off and tamp- done.

I've contemplated buying the doserless funnel for the Mini-e and creating a back panel plate (since the one created for the Mini is about a cm too short for the Kony), but hesitate.. that upgrade alone would cost $150 just for the funnel, and the possible alteration of the grind kinda concerns me. For now, I'm just dealing with the mess.. which isn't too bad, I guess- I'm not too old to modify my obsessive, neatnik behavior

Does that help, Teme?

No, it doesn't help. It just makes me want a new grinder even more - and one that doesn't currently exist

The Kony is very desirable, but it is still too large (=tall) in my opinion. The modification that you are contemplating sounds interesting. I do understand the hesitation due to cost and potential grind distribution/clumping issues, though. If you do decide to go ahead, you could also add an external grind timer and you'd end up with a Kony-E

Br,
Teme

[Rainman]

No, it doesn't help. It just makes me want a new grinder even more - and one that doesn't currently exist

The Kony is very desirable, but it is still too large (=tall) in my opinion. The modification that you are contemplating sounds interesting. I do understand the hesitation due to cost and potential grind distribution/clumping issues, though. If you do decide to go ahead, you could also add an external grind timer and you'd end up with a Kony-E

Br,
Teme

I was wondering if some sort of grind timer was possible.. I was thinking of maybe a foot-switch. Most of the ones available in the US at hardware stores are too low amperage- like 5 amps, I think- so it wouldn't work, but I'm sure somebody out there somewhere makes something more robust for that sort of application... just gotta locate it. The main switch on the side is rather big and not exactly meant to be turned on/off all that often (not that it would break, but I will probably develop a "grinders wrist" type of repetitive motion injury at the next party we have if enough people want espresso drinks!

[AndyS]

I think fluid bed roasters just dehydrate the bean more than professionally drum-roasted coffees do

Hard to believe there could be a lot of difference, since roasted coffee moisture content is in the low single digits (although coffee cooled with water at the end of the roast can be a bit higher).

I don't doubt your grind is different between drum roasted and air roasted coffee, but there's probably another explanation for it besides moisture content.

[Rainman]

I do live in the southwestern US (avg relative humidity is 4-5% during the dry parts of the year at the highest temps of the day, and upwards of 35% during the coolest times- except during the monsoon season; that blows the entire humidity curve, but accounts for just a few weeks of the year). I think relative humidity plays a bit part in some of this, but I'm sure the bean itself (and whatever storage container people use) may be an overriding factor in containing the essential oils and other volatile compounds in coffee beans. From most of what I've read and heard, these compounds are fairly sensitive to environmental conditions (whether via heat transfer during roasting or humidity/lack of humidity during storage). Not sure what you mean by "coffee cooled by water"?

Andy, can you clarify?

Ray

[AndyS]

Not sure what you mean by "coffee cooled by water"

Some commercial roasting operations cool the beans at the end of the roast with a water spray. If properly metered, the water evaporates and doesn't significantly affect the moisture content (MC) of the beans. If too much water is used, however, some liquid water remains and obviously raises the MC.

[Rainman]

Then what do you think can explain the difference in my grind settings? Somethings definitely up, there. I'm a complete amateur at this, so any words of wisdom are most useful to me. I know what I like, and have been reasonably successful within the confines of my home environment for several years using a variety of different technologies (by my tastebuds)- but it's probably a far cry from doing this sort of thing professionally. I think Teme alluded to this above talking about overanalyzing these sorts of concerns, which is very easy to do when each of us are sitting at home (in an uncontrolled environment) analyzing our own shots and reporting our findings here. I'm willing to bet that some of you guys would generate some bitter-beer faces tasting my espresso, but to me they seem pretty good (I honestly don't know). I think because of all of the variables involved, the only real way to figure out if we're on the right track is to travel around a bit and sample good espresso elsewhere (funny, but it's usually in colder, coastal cities where it's very cloudy and rainy)- I've never seen more espresso machines in operation than at gas stations in the state of Washington- here, in Tucson, we have Bunn coffee makers at best!

Ray

[another_jim]

The weird thing is the difference in pour times I'm getting between my i-Roasted stuff and some of the Black Cat blend I ordered from Intelligentsia; the grind setting on the Kony is a little more than a 90 degree turn of the adjustment collar for the latter. I know it's like comparing apples to oranges, but I don't remember having anywhere that big of a difference in grind settings between those two coffees w/ the Rocky to produce the same pour times (maybe just 2 or 3 clicks). Mostly, I think fluid bed roasters just dehydrate the bean more than professionally drum-roasted coffees do- at least that's been my observation.

Actually a false conclusion from observing the finer grind required by air roasted beans. The moisture content in fast roasters (like most air roasts) is slightly higher during and just after first crack, when the beans hit their "glass phase," where the cellulose acts like a liquid and the bean expands rapidly. This creates a slightly softer, less brittle bean out of faster roasters. So a finer grind is required to get the same quantity of fines (it's the fines that regulate the flow).

Very soft beans, like monsooned malabar, require ultra-fine grinds, while some aged Sumatras are so soft that one can't get a good pour from an SO shot even at the point when the beans stop feeding. Ultra-high grown beans, on the other hand, tend to be more brittle, and require coarser than average grinds.

[another_jim]

I'd love to have a way to test your questions on the effects of the WDT. I wonder how one would go about testing that? Where's Jim Schulman when you need him?

The discussion so far is on track -- stirring any mix of fine and coarse particles will tend to settle the fine ones at the bottom (salt in the peanut jar is an example). WDT presumably works because it anticipates the fines migration that happens in ordinary prep pucks, thereby reducing the window when cracks form.

The simplest and most convincing test would be with a laser particle sizer. Remove samples from the top and bottom of a non-wdt puck, and the distributions should be close to the same. Remove samples from top and of a wdt puck, and the fines will all be at the bottom.

Barring that, the indirect test is to presuppose that the fines control the espresso flow (this is the current idea in the literature). If most fines have migrated in a WDT puck, removing the top half won't much affect the shot flow; whereas in a non-wdt puck, this procedure would produce gushers. Start with wdt and non-wdt grinds and packs that produce equal shot flows. scrape off equal weights (say 5 to 8 grams) off the top of each, and time the resulting flows. If WDT works by anticipating the fines migration, it's flows will be a lot longer, close to the intact puck's, than the non-wdt pucks mistreated in this way.

[AndyS]

The moisture content in fast roasters (like most air roasts) is slightly higher during and just after first crack, when the beans hit their "glass phase," where the cellulose acts like a liquid and the bean expands rapidly. This creates a slightly softer, less brittle bean out of faster roasters. So a finer grind is required to get the same quantity of fines (it's the fines that regulate the flow).

I wonder if this is the phenomenon behind the unusual requirements of Gillies espresso beans, which seem to require an ultra-fine grind. Something about Gillies's Lilla roasters?

[RapidCoffee]

The simplest and most convincing test would be with a laser particle sizer. Remove samples from the top and bottom of a non-wdt puck, and the distributions should be close to the same. Remove samples from top and of a wdt puck, and the fines will all be at the bottom.

I actually suggested this (somewhat jokingly) to Teme in a PM. Hmmm... would it be possible observe the migration of fines while stirring in a glass container? Certainly be a lot easier than slicing pucks...

[another_jim]

I wonder if this is the phenomenon behind the unusual requirements of Gillies espresso beans, which seem to require an ultra-fine grind. Something about Gillies's Lilla roasters?

I noticed it on their 5 points; I assumed that it was because they had an aged indo in there (it would explain the price they are charging, and the nicely complex low end tastes). If it's also the case for their other blends, then it could be the roaster.

It's easy for me to tell on my own roaster, since I frequently get green and roasted samples -- my roast always need a finer grind, and it's so regular (0.35 on the 10 point scale on the Versa), I usually can figure it out without any test shots.

[AndyS]

I noticed it on their 5 points; I assumed that it was because they had an aged indo in there (it would explain the price they are charging, and the nicely complex low end tastes). If it's also the case for their other blends, then it could be the roaster.

I noticed on one of their "Dark" blends and also their Espresso do Brasil (no Indo).

[LeoZ]

This is only an observation after judging three barista championships in the past 12 months. During the competitions and the workshops that precede them, judges spend days in close quarters with the competing baristas and some national champions who work in the workshops. It is my impression that the secret ingredient in their barista technique is updosing. 18 grams in a double L/M basket is considered normal by most of the baristas I worked with. At times the impression of the shower screen screw on the spent puck is so deep, it forms a small crater. The updosing is so severe, that in all three competitions the L/M technicians needed to replace the dispersion screen halfway through the competition on all the machines. The baristas will go up to 19 & 19.5 grams at times. There are a couple of reasons for doing it, one of which is compensating for less than perfect distribution & tamping. If the machine can take it, updosing evens out deficiencies in canted tamps, and hurried up distribution. It has to do with the coffee being pressed evenly down by the shower screen. We did some experiments with canted tamps on updosed shots: The spent pucks looked perfectly level. Because of that, judges pay very close attention to leveling the shot and no longer take a leveled puck after the shot as evidence of a good tamp.

Funny thing is, low dosing, that is 13-14 grams, will also produce a shot free of channeling even with less than perfect distribution, but for a different reason. Such shot pucks end up being a dough like mesh during the shot with self healing properties which close any gaps during the shot.

Overdosing however can be severely punishing when it comes to taste, and it is all coffee dependent of course. I suspect that the great number of imbalanced shots we got in the GLRBC has to do with overdosing.

well doesnt that go against everything jim schulman taught us with his article!

what kind of flavor profile is 'award winning' by judges? is it anything close to what european espressos would taste like? i get quite different flavors from the 2 techniques.