Hi Tom!

Ah.... So I'm not senile yet. That's good news. Maybe I can let myself go over lunch today after

Well a trip to Liverpool might be a laugh - assume Eric is of the same opinion.

Otherwise.... who's local?

Is your Elektra happy again?

Hi Mike,

probably no other locals I'm afraid. Well at least not here on HB, maybe there's someone on TMC. Then again I might be wrong and talking rubbish.

There was nothing wrong with my Elektra after all, and the grinder seems to work perfectly, so we can try it out if you want. Being a flat burr though it's probably less sensitive to grinder dosing than conicals.

Regards,
dsc.

michaelbenis wrote:Jon's suggestion of dosing a bit more and dumping the first bit would skew the results in favour of the single-shot shots because they would be getting a longer grind than in true single-shot use.

Merry Christmas Mike!

Maybe we envision it differently. For example, when I grind 3 doses in a row I do not load them together. I start the grinder and drop in the first dose.....then after a few seconds I drop in the second dose (and so on). If I put in 3 doses together then the grind comes out too tight.

So my suggestion is to charge a single and grind through, and then add your weighed dose and use the grinds from that for the shot (assuming the grinds retention of the Nino is less than a single shot). In other words, you would need to start by grinding through an amount greater than the amount of grinds retained in the grinder between shots, and then grind your measured dose.

This would allow you to test freshly ground coffee each time as opposed to what has been retained in the grinder between shots. When we do it here I am going to sweep the grounds from the chute of the Robur-E and manually control the dose for much the same reason.

Does that make sense?

michaelbenis wrote:Ah.... So I'm not senile yet.

No, it seems that's me. I've shipped boxes to Tom in Surrey and Eric in Liverpool, and I got their addresses flipped in my mind. Ha, 250 miles apart. That's nice... it's worth it for science!

JonR10 wrote:So my suggestion is to charge a single and grind through, and then add your weighed dose and use the grinds from that for the shot (assuming the grinds retention of the Nino is less than a single shot). In other words, you would need to start by grinding through an amount greater than the amount of grinds retained in the grinder between shots, and then grind your measured dose.

The Nino will retain probably 0.5 grams of coffee if you use it in single dosed mode (and probably about 5 with a full hopper) where it pulses as much out. I'm thinking it's below the taste threshold, but I guess it wouldn't hurt to toss a couple of beans in before the real dose.

JonR10 wrote:No, not at all.
It seems to me that could favor one method over the other and skew the result.

Choosing the dose arbitrarily and then comparing how the two methods taste seems a better test. Both types would then be on equal, neutral, non-optimized footing.

Forgive me and don't take offense, but why bother?

I'd expect such a test to be as revealing as level matching two amplifiers @ 1k and playing easy listening 16k MP3s @ sonic wallpaper levels from an iPod.

I'd also vote against WDT and keep puck massaging to a minimum.

I don't see a problem with pre-selecting a dose. We're talking about a Robur, not a Rocky. This grinder is reputed to be among the most flexible grinders when it comes to dose. I think Jon's 'non-optimized' comment is a misnomer of sorts--he meant that pre-selecting the dose rather than choosing it when dialing in one of the grinders eliminates the possible advantage that one grinding style might have over the other from such a method of dose selection.

Why no WDT/puck grooming? I believe that the WDT is generally regarded as an excellent grinder equalizer, and it's also the way Jon uses his grinders. I wouldn't be opposed to not using the WDT in the test, but I also don't see the logic behind recommending against it.

RapidCoffee wrote:Many good ways to do this, and all could provide useful data points.

+1. I think the only dead set rules for a good test are that you be completely transparent about methodology and that you apply it consistently. I wouldn't be opposed to 'optimizing' each grinder to the dose that it seems to like best, but on the other hand it's one more variable to mess with, on grinders that ought to be pretty flexible across a range of doses. If we start varying dose and temp and x and y between the two, are we comparing single dosing vs. full-hopper dosing, or are we comparing dose w and dose z, etc.?

In the end, we just need to be able to pull pairs of good shots, compare them blind, and if we can consistently tell who's who, then we know something, and our criteria for identification will be meaningful. If we can't get consistent shots on one, that will show up in the test. If it's all just noise, we'll know that too. Our last test was inadequate, both in terms of being able to pull good shots and really on gathering enough data. Pulling sour shots was problematic not because the shots weren't good, but because the shots had such a singular overwhelming characteristic that it was difficult to appreciate much else. Lesson learned, hopefully.

Merry Christmas to you too, Ian.

cafeIKE wrote:Forgive me and don't take offense, but why bother?

Telling someone not to be offended doesn't change anything when you post to demean and dismiss:
Please don't take offense, but I find your stereo analogy invalid. You are essentially describing a barista competition, which would be useless for this test and a complete waste of time.


More than a few parties expressed interest in our experiment. Our little group will decide how we want to conduct our test, and (probably Nicholas) will report the procedure and results.

Of course you can debate all of it (with others) if you choose, I will refrain.

JonR10 wrote:Merry Christmas Mike!

Maybe we envision it differently. For example, when I grind 3 doses in a row I do not load them together. I start the grinder and drop in the first dose.....then after a few seconds I drop in the second dose (and so on). If I put in 3 doses together then the grind comes out too tight.

So my suggestion is to charge a single and grind through, and then add your weighed dose and use the grinds from that for the shot (assuming the grinds retention of the Nino is less than a single shot). In other words, you would need to start by grinding through an amount greater than the amount of grinds retained in the grinder between shots, and then grind your measured dose.

This would allow you to test freshly ground coffee each time as opposed to what has been retained in the grinder between shots. When we do it here I am going to sweep the grounds from the chute of the Robur-E and manually control the dose for much the same reason.

Does that make sense?

Yes it does. Absolutely. I hadn't realised what you meant. Thanks for explaining it in detail.

And Merry Boxing Day all! Do you have that in the States? It's Saint Stephen in Italy.....

Cheers

Mike

PS: Talking of Italy, a client sent me some Italian northern blend for Christmas which I - in awful snob mode - decided to use to season the new Nino. I opened it this morning. It looked and smelled rather nice. So of course I tried a shot. Or two. Or three. It's wonderful!

shadowfax wrote:+1. I think the only dead set rules for a good test are that you be completely transparent about methodology and that you apply it consistently.

That will also make it interesting for us to pool results across more than one set of testers.

Sharing a protocol if possible will make it easier for us all to understand what we are all experiencing.

I do want to stress, though, that I don't see the "UK tests" as being in competition with the "US tests". Very far from it.

Being a selfish beast I would, however, of course like to conduct the test at the dose/s I use most frequently, but I am also very curious to see what happens at the higher doses favoured across the pond.

One way or another, though, it looks like Tom will keep me in order

Cheers

Mike

Happy Boxing Day!
I hope St. Nick was good to you this year!
(A new Nino counts - you must have been good)

michaelbenis wrote:Being a selfish beast I would of course like to conduct the test at the dose/s I use most frequently, but I am also very curious to see what happens at the higher doses favoured across the pond.

I've been thinking about this...and it might work out to vary the dose on different pairs. I am also selfish and I am very curious to test our notion that singles would show a difference more than doubles.

I may have to practice doing singles, or get a guest barista to pull the shots