by keno on Fri Nov 17, 2006 11:25 am
Mike,
I think your interpretation is a reasonable one. Here's the passage I was referring to:
Two apparently contradictory needs must be satisfied to prepare a good cup of espresso: on the one hand a short percolation time is required, while, on the other hand, high concentrations of soluble solids must be reached. Both requirements can only be attained if a close contact between solid particles and extraction water can be achieved. Thus, espresso percolation needs a plurimodal particle size distribution, where the finer particles enhance the exposed extraction surface (chemical need) and the coarser ones allow the water flow (physical need). [Andrea Illy and Rinantonio Viani (eds), Espresso Coffee: The Science of Quality, 2nd edition, Elsevier Academic Press, page 215, emphasis added]
Figure 5.4 on page 224 shows a typical distribution of particle sizes from 0.1 um to 2000 um by (1) frequency, (2) surface area, and (3) volume. The chapter devotes considerable discussion to how to measure grind fineness, including tactile feel (subjective method), sieving (doesn't work well), microscopic imaging, and laser diffractometry (best method).
The distribution by frequency is actually unimodal but very right skewed (so not a uniform distribution). But the distributions by surface area and volume are more uniform (because the larger particles make up a proportionally larger portion of the distribution by surface area and volume).
It would be interesting to see the distributions for different grinders (particularly comparing high quality grinders and lower quality) to see how they differ. I'm sure there is plenty of opportunity to conduct additional research in this area if anyone happens to have access to a laser diffractometer!
Cheers,
Ken
If not for coffee, I'd have no personality at all.