ds wrote:+1 and any other hand grinder. No matter how slow you grind, the static happens. A lot. Its simply nature of grinding coffee.

Didn't say no static. Said it seemed less static at low speed mainly since I notice substantially less clumps.

Also - didn't see much static in the Porlex. But since it is handheld it sort of WDT's everything. I'll try to hold it in a vise next time I use it.

TomC wrote:Unfortunately, this is all easily refuted by simply observing the HG-1 grinder. It's very slow rpm/speed and it's plagued by static retention.

Is it the slow speed that causes static retention or is it the grinder configuration? Or both?

My understanding is that the Versalab has high static retention without the little wiper installed. The RPM Is relatively low -- 500 RPM -- but the Robur and K10 motor speeds are about the same and I don't hear much about static issues with those grinders.

I would speculate that straight vertical-drop grinders all have problems with static, and that grinders with longer paths have fewer static issues, but there are exceptions like the Vario and K30.

Seems like this issue needs more study.

My guess is it's just the nature of certain output paths, but primarily, the coffee being cut, crushed and bounced off itself. I'm sure if it encounters any resistance on it's way out the grind path, it only locks onto itself and exacerbates the problem. Of the three K30's I've owned, they all had a tad more static than the K10 (Fresh), but even those weren't bad, just a tracing of residue for the most part. I imagine there's a lot potential for surface coatings advancements for this problem too.

I just bought an Anfim Super Caimano yesterday and I've seen the static clinging grinds at the output of the grind path from most other user photos.

It would certainly be interesting if Socratic Coffee would take a break on sieving espresso (not really a worthwhile scientific endeavor) and maybe approach this issue a bit more.

i am looking to purchase a grinder and top candidates are the Baratza Virtuoso, Baratza Precisio and the Breville Smart Grinder Pro (BCG820BSS).
I am a newbie, and frankly most of the conversation in this thread is over my head.

The last two are compared inthe graphs in an earlier post in this thread:
Grinder studies by Socratic Coffee

So far reading posts my impression is that the Baratza has better reputation than the Breville. I wonder, do these graphs imply the inverse - that the Breville is doing a better job than the Precisio in terms of grind quality?

Quality is often thought of in terms of taste and consistency of results - those graphs don't evaluate quality.
Some grinders had surprising particle distributions because there was a popular idea that particle distribution related to taste in a simple way. It doesn't seem that this is the case.

I think these test results are a fantastic and much welcome addition to the discussion on the differences in grinders. This is measurable data which is a huge benefit over many other discussion and musings on the issue that I have read.

Quality is often thought of in terms of taste and consistency of results - those graphs don't evaluate quality.

I guess this boils down to How should quality be measured and compared? I wish I knew the answer but I don't and these tests seem to be a good place to start.

If they can show that there is or isn't a correlation between taste and particle distribution great. How should consumers or shop owners decide which grinder to purchase? I am very interested in this question from a making coffee at home perspective (currently focused on brew method) and even purchased a set of 8" test sieves to do similar analysis. Any better ideas on how to differentiate based on quality? I have an k43, kenia, forte with steel burrs, virtuoso and lido setup in my house all ready to eat coffee. I'm not going to keep them all so something has to give. While I haven't done any blind taste comparisons between these grinders I can only imagine the comments would not be friendly if I posted my personal tasting notes.

WIth hand grinding, increasing speed increases static. That is easily testable by anyone who owns one. Grind a dose slow, then grind a dose as fast as you can. See which one spurts grinds all over the place.

The HG1 may be susceptible to static because of the materials, i.e. non-magnetic metal instead of wood. Also, is there a multiplying gear on the HG1? How many RPMs does it grind at?

Given that hand grinding probably produces a lower percentage of fines, it's worth looking into their function.

peacecup wrote:WIth hand grinding, increasing speed increases static. That is easily testable by anyone who owns one.

nope. not in my experience.

Is clumping a static related effect?

I started this thread knowing it'd spark some controversy as I myself, after almost a decade of nerding out about coffee, wasn't sure what to make of Socratic's results. It got a bit more controversial than I had hoped and was even locked down for a while but I'm glad it's been re-opened because if nothing else, it shows that grinders are still a bit of a mystery to all of us.

There are lots of working hypotheses and strong opinions but at the end of the day, we're all not really sure what to make of results like those published by Socratic.

I'm curious how we'll look back on all this in 5-10 years when, hopefully, the image will have become a lot clearer to all of us and we finally agree on what really makes a "good" grinder and what role particle distribution plays in that. I, for one, expect it to be one of the major factors but like a lot else posted in this thread, that's just a gut feeling. It may be too simplistic but it's where I'm at now.

Then again, I'm not selling my HG One because it looked "bad" in Socratic's test... so yeah... that's where I'm at anyways.