Thanks for the update. I'm looking forward to the comparison testing, I expect that it would be a difficult task to under take.

I'll keep working on my dripper technique in anticipation. Good quantitative analysis.

Honestly, I am done reading distribution charts. It may tell some of the story but after swapping grinders around from a Bunn to a Preciso, I gave up reading them. The taste should be the deciding factor.

Get all the grinders set for the same size as judged by how fast the water flows through the grounds. Have a cupping session and determine how it stacks up.

^^^ Sure, but I'm also kind of curious about the sieving as well just for the sake of geeking out. Doug, do you have a machine to shake/vibrate the sieve stack?

Also, is it premature to ask for an updated estimate of when these will become available (and for how much)?

In general I agree about the distribution charts but there is the constant question of 'fines' and thoughts of sifting grinds for more even extraction that come up over and over. I suppose our somewhat informal analysis would satisfy my own curiosity as much as anything.
Admittedly we have spent the past month avidly following the ZPM/Kickstarter extravaganza for entertainment and edification. One unconvincing temp run, constantly shifting statements and overt demonstrations of espresso cluelessness did not dissuade the niche backers of that situation! The whole thing has resulted in our distaste for the "Trust us we know everything about everything" approach to presenting our little projects.

It is possible that over analysis will not help but I don't think it can hurt. Oh yes, we plan to use a dental lab vibrator (but if you pledge now we can buy a $3800 Tyler Ro-Tap and will send you a shot glass with no line and of course a preground bag o' beans!).

Hey Doug, when will the LIDO be available on Kickstarter? I will pledge fo sho!

But on side note, I hope you are paying serious attention to Kickstarter model as platform for launching new products.

orphanespresso wrote:It is possible that over analysis will not help but I don't think it can hurt. Oh yes, we plan to use a dental lab vibrator (but if you pledge now we can buy a $3800 Tyler Ro-Tap and will send you a shot glass with no line and of course a preground bag o' beans!).

This why I absolutely love you guys ... great products, a wealth of knowledge, integrity, and a phenomenal sense of humor

For methodology my suggestion is as follows.

Hypothesis: The higher the amount of fine particles of the outer roasted coffee kernel will shift the taste profile of the brewed coffee to be less desirable.

Method:
Grind a set amount of coffee by weight in each of the comparable grinders. A weight that will yield a volume of weight of each of the sieve particles sizes that will be thermally stable when brewed (est. 5g). For each grinder grind the set weight. Record the weights of each sieve grading to give a proportion of total weight. Than brew a set weight of the particles that match the expected conditions of brewing coffee and record the taste profile (1 to 10 scale of desirability of taste in a coffee). Then you can compare the proportions of the size particles produce by each grinder to the taste that grades of particles contribute to taste of the brew coffee to find which produces the most desirable brewed coffee.

*You wouldn't want to drink all that coffee it would take to preform the test at once it would probably be a health risk.

Thank you for the idea Tim, as I see that you specialize in plunger as you say in Oz. While laying out our test plan it has occurred to me that once we generate particle size distribution data as it relates to different burr settings on the LIDO (the grinder has a set absolute zero, which I can mark on each grinder) we can establish an actual particle size to adjuster relationship. I would think of it as the PPS (Predominant Particle Size) at any particular setting, such as the PPS at a setting of 2 turns back from zero = 800 microns, 1 1/2 back from zero = 600 microns, etc. (I am assuming a linear relationship) This would supersede all of the fine, medium fine, medium coarse, coarse relative terms and add an interesting element of precision of thought to the use of the grinder....of course it does not change the coffee but would enable one to think of the grind particle size in a slightly different manner.

How goes the testing?

I don't think the testing talked about here is overkill at all. I realize some people say all that matters is what it tastes like in the cup...however, that isn't a good excuse to bypass technical details (IMO).

Obviously, there are those coffee drinkers that don't care much and that approach is to be expected. However, for someone that is extremely interested and driven to know everything there is to know about coffee and the process (and improving things)..diving into the technical side of things is fruitful.