Grinders particle size flat vs conical
-
- Posts: 2146
- Joined: 12 years ago
Did some testing today with a Mazzer Mini (58mm) and the HG One and found a pretty large difference in particle size. When I grind with the Mini the particles look more like powder whereas the particles of the HG One are a lot bigger. The difference is maybe 2 whole digits on the Mazzer scale. These 2 grinds give the same shot in time and volume using 18grams of the same beans with my Strega.
When I want the same size particles with the HG One as with the Mini I completely choke the Strega. Is it normal that particles of large conical burrs are so much different then particles of smaller flat burrs?
When I want the same size particles with the HG One as with the Mini I completely choke the Strega. Is it normal that particles of large conical burrs are so much different then particles of smaller flat burrs?
- Mohammad
- Posts: 61
- Joined: 12 years ago
AFAIK, yes, your HG One produces more fines than your Mini and therefore provides the required resistance at a coarser grind setting. IMO, that's why your Mini will more often give you the chocolates/smokiness/etc while your conical will more often give you the light fruits/flowers/etc.
- homeburrero
- Team HB
- Posts: 4863
- Joined: 13 years ago
Check out this post. Large conical vs flat burrs: Consistency and pour characteristics?
Pat
nínádiishʼnahgo gohwééh náshdlį́į́h
nínádiishʼnahgo gohwééh náshdlį́į́h
-
- Posts: 2146
- Joined: 12 years ago
Thanks for the link. It does give some insight in my question but doesn't really give an answer to it.
The HG One is more consistent and tastes better than the Mini but I didn't expect this big of a difference in particle size. The answer probably will be more fines produces by the HG One as given in the post of Mohammad.
The HG One is more consistent and tastes better than the Mini but I didn't expect this big of a difference in particle size. The answer probably will be more fines produces by the HG One as given in the post of Mohammad.
-
- Posts: 63
- Joined: 12 years ago
Yes definitely a larger grind particle variation - strange thing is, not ALL conicals have the same variation in particle size. I know from personal experience that the Macap conicals have a much narrower particle distribution range and the result is a much brighter shot than Robur burrs (at least from the "e" models that I've used). Shots from 71mm Mazzer burrs on the Robur e, tend to have a wider range of particle size distribution, and result in more low notes (chocolates, molasses). Schomer has a good article in his blog at http://www.espressovivace.com, that discusses at length this vary topic. I don't have the direct link but if you click on "schomers blog" on the lower left that should get you to the index.
-
- Posts: 518
- Joined: 13 years ago
Would you so kind as to share the data you derived when quantifying the varying particle distribution ranges of the Robur and the Macap conical? That would be very interesting to a lot of us, as would the data from your tasting tests that resolved the large differences in resulting shot brightness that you cite - thanks!coffeesnob1 wrote:...I know from personal experience that the Macap conicals have a much narrower particle distribution range and the result is a much brighter shot than Robur burrs...
-
- Posts: 63
- Joined: 12 years ago
Sorry, no raw data, just taste and visual observation after having used both for more than a year with side-by-side comparison. Take it for what it's worth - no science here.
- RapidCoffee
- Team HB
- Posts: 4995
- Joined: 18 years ago
You can find particle size distribution plots here:
Titan Grinder Project: Particle size distributions of ground coffee
Been a while, but I recall the MXK producing a brighter shot, while the Robur was more balanced. The flat burr Super Jolly grinds generated a narrower large particle peak than the conicals, with fewer fines. But it's not evident that the MXK peak is narrower than the Robur peak; in fact, the wet analysis shows the opposite.
Titan Grinder Project: Particle size distributions of ground coffee
Been a while, but I recall the MXK producing a brighter shot, while the Robur was more balanced. The flat burr Super Jolly grinds generated a narrower large particle peak than the conicals, with fewer fines. But it's not evident that the MXK peak is narrower than the Robur peak; in fact, the wet analysis shows the opposite.
John
-
- Posts: 63
- Joined: 12 years ago
I'm wondering what, if any, differences there would be between an electronic v.s. dosered model Robur? I haven't had the opportunity to have 2 side by side but I do believe the e's do produce a different particle distribution - can anyone confirm this?
-
- Posts: 518
- Joined: 13 years ago
Yes - I remember that too - thanks John. I was assuming the more direct Robur comparison to the M7K with the 68mm burrs as opposed to the smaller MXK model. The two entered "indistinguishable" territory IIRC, so the finality of coffeesnob1's observation piqued my interest.RapidCoffee wrote:...Been a while, but I recall the MXK producing a brighter shot, while the Robur was more balanced. The flat burr Super Jolly grinds generated a narrower large particle peak than the conicals, with fewer fines. But it's not evident that the MXK peak is narrower than the Robur peak; in fact, the wet analysis shows the opposite.
If the 71mm e-Robur produces, as coffeesnob1 suspects, a different distribution than the dosered Robur, then - especially if compared to the 63mm MXK - the differences could be that much magnified, especially if side-by-side for such an extended period. [Note: typos regarding Robur types and mms corrected: my apologies.]