Something I will point out regarding the phenomena of static electricity. There are literally reams of printed scholarly and technical material relating to the elimination or control of these static charges and from a practical application point of view they are not worth the paper they are printed on. There are 100s of years of writings on the subject.

As an example all modern power generating facilities sit on a complex ground plane mat that is 1 to 3' below the surface and its purpose is to provide a true ground reference so that plant instrumentation and relaying is not affected by static charges. It sorta works sometimes.

A casual reading of this thread bears this out as the experiences for a given activity are not symmetrical.

It's very interesting that the HG-1, according to the test, did not have the grinding consistency as the other grinders. It may help to explain why its flavor profile is in the same family as the Lido 3, at least with medium/dark roasts and the Espresso Forge V2.

This may challenge the notion that the more consistent the particles the better the grinder. Perhaps a grinder that does not heat up (cook) the beans is more desirable than a grinder that grinds all particles at the same size but heats up the beans while grinding.

Just a thought.

It's very interesting that the HG-1, according to the test, did not have the grinding consistency as the other grinders. It may help to explain why its flavor profile is in the same family as the Lido 3, at least with medium/dark roasts and the Espresso Forge V2.

This may challenge the notion that the more consistent the particles the better the grinder. Perhaps a grinder that does not heat up (cook) the beans is more desirable than a grinder that grinds all particles at the same size but heats up the beans while grinding.

This the unfortunate part about Socratic playing science. There is nothing inherently wrong with them doing unreplicated work using one grinder of each brand, and then throwing this information out on the web as if it were science. The problem is that people interpret it as such and begin making inferences about grinder brands, burr sizes, grinding speed, etc. based on ONE sample.

The figure with the HG-1 particle size distribution is meaningless in terms of making any general inferences.

peacecup wrote:There is nothing inherently wrong with them doing unreplicated work using one grinder of each brand, and then throwing this information out on the web as if it were science.

Well, there is something wrong if its represented as science, which its not. My understanding of science is:

Science is a systematic enterprise that creates, builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

or

a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject.

. These studies are akin to recording daily temperature by hour on random days in year and it is not science. Its observation, that's all...

Well, that's true. If they were calling it science that would be wrong, but they're not. Others are unfortunately. But they did write somewhere that one of them was a scientist, which does rather skew public opinion.

This the unfortunate part about Socratic playing science

If they were calling it science that would be wrong

Could someone please help me understand what science is and how to do science? Focused on the context of coffee would be great, especially as opposed to playing science. Specifically I would love to read any scientific studies on grind quality and particle distribution based on scientific experiments and observations.

the problem is that people interpret it

this statement implies a problem with those interpreting the observations and not those making it.

So far, I've only seen " Data blitz" Instagram posts on these grinders... "shorter, less detailed blurbs where we put out an interesting observation or data. Their intent is to get feedback or start a dialogue. Many of our Instagram posts would fall into this category."

There hasn't been a full write-up on the Socratic Coffee site since August.

http://socraticcoffee.com/2015/04/approach/

dqbrew wrote:Could someone please help me understand what science is and how to do science? Focused on the context of coffee would be great, especially as opposed to playing science. Specifically I would love to read any scientific studies on grind quality and particle distribution based on scientific experiments and observations.

Science, can be split into the linguistic meaning of the word (rather useless), or to the practical aspects of the "scientific method", which is a method of inquiry into observed phenomena. Many people mix the terms "science" with the "scientific method", which makes discussions futile...

Usually the scientific method would entail observing something, creating a hypotheses of how or why it works as observed, testing the hypothesis, and letting peers review your work. The hypothesis works as long as it isn't nulled (hence all the strange models of the Atom from Thomson to Rutherford were the scientific hypothesis considered true in their days but since replaced by better hypothesis).

Of course in the context of coffee, and specifically grinding, we are talking about the scientific method. What we see - can we model it, and come up with a hypothesis of why it works and can we make it better.

IMHO - Coffee has two sides - the organoleptic side with the hedonic response - it is difficult to turn that into science; albeit it is okay to measure preferences (like the brewing control charts). But preferences ain't science... And then there is the technical aspects of coffee growing, processing, roasting and extraction, some of which can be improved upon by understanding how it works.

So if, for example, you are able to show that for a good sampling of grinders, you are able to increase EY for a specific EBF by aligning the burrs - that would mean burr alignment is critical to increasing EY. It would make the process predictable.

Whether higher EY is better - that is hedonics.

As for Socratic? Measuring some stuff and putting it out there may pique someone to come up with a theory - or it may lay some theories to rest. For me, the data is incomplete. What ends up in the portafilter is simply not the same as what ends up in the sieve. Once shaken, the distribution of the grinds (if not their particle size distribution) changes considerably.

peacecup wrote:This the unfortunate part about Socratic playing science. There is nothing inherently wrong with them doing unreplicated work using one grinder of each brand, and then throwing this information out on the web as if it were science.

It isn't science if it doesn't have a hypothesis or a theory attached to it. Measuring stuff isn't science.

Measuring stuff to prove a theory or hypothesis is science.

For Socratic to play science they'd need a hypothesis or theory. I haven't seen one.

Edit (for clarity): I am not against measurements nor science. Just the concept of mixing the two up (as if science is measuring stuff and vice versa). The former may lack a purpose (we measure because we can) - but the latter can't be without a purpose (a theory to disprove).

Some strong points made here and there's nothing wrong with a bit of discussion - after all that's what forums are for!
It might be a bit late to say "before we all get carried away" but a common saying in some scientific circles to unsubstantiated claims or developing data is "I'll wait for the paper." Maybe that's a good attitude to take