On my CMA lever, I pull partway to get low flow for a long and slow flush, more to make better use of the water (more contact time = less heat going down the drain), but I suppose it accomplishes the same thing, for the most part (except or filling the chamber with water). A blank PF loosely inserted could get that.

Does the same technique work on the Strega?

Fwiw, I get a TON of flow from the group when the lever is all the way down - I have the unrestricted check valve on the neck of my group.

tekomino wrote:So why post anything at all then? I can generate some random charts on some temperatures and post them for people to discuss

Peter, when you decide to post something you have to count on being questioned about methods and how you were measuring things. Going to "I am not going to waste time to further elaborate my charts or the methodology" just shows that you don't care about what you've done, so why should we pay any attention to it at all?

Dennis, I don't agree with you on this.

In fact, if you read carefully into my original post, you could find most part of your questions answered. That's why I don't want to waste time to answer you simply because you don't read before asking. I was not writing a PhD thesis and in fact when I did the test, I had no intention to post it out at all. You may also don't pay attention to the random influence by flushing on brew temperature, but then your conclusion about Strega cutting out flavor extremes according to your so called 150 test shots, to me, had become meaningless because you had actually brewed at random temperature.

another_jim wrote:The second shot effect and flushing

Eric's work needs to be appreciated when talking about flushing routines. There are cycling components in most espresso machines, as well as random bits and pieces heating up or cooling down. All this activity usually means that the second and subsequent shots from idle taste better than the first. Flushing routines are, in essence, meant to get the machine into its multiple-shots-in-a-row groove.

On the Strega, the group head heaters cycle at a 3 to 3.5 minute rate when idling. When making a shot, the hot water will go through the neck and probably shut the heaters down, since the neck will get heated above 205F. On the first flush or shot, you will be heating the group up. On subsequent shots done asap, in a two minute cycle, my guess is the heaters will stay off, or only run for short periods. But if you do shots at a slower rate, the heaters will kick in unpredictably, the HX temperatures will also be somewhat varied, and you'll get inconsistent brew temperatures.

I think you've made a very valid point here. Fluctuation showed in Eric's chart also suggested that the brew head temperature should be more vigorously controlled if consistence and repeatability in brew temperature is the next objective to achieve.

...

Dennis, this is exactly why I think it's time wasting to debate or discuss any further. Your physics lesson is unnecessary because I knew it. But it's nice to have someone spending time to explain it here. As said, most of the answers to your questions were already in my original posts. But since you don't really read into a post and think before you ask or make your statements on something, I'd like to save time repeating or elaborating. I've no intention to persuade you, or in any effort you would consider my charts are of any use to you. So, you can simply ignore them. Thank you.

Oh by the way, if you have spare time, mind elaborating how you had brewed each and every of your 150 test shots at known or at random brew temperature? Of course you must know all the brew parameters including but not limited to brew temperature/brew pressure/boiler reading/exact flush pattern/exact amount of water flushed/brew time/water hardness/grind setting fluctuations over the ten days with all 150 shots all the way. You must know everything and have detailed log on each shots or otherwise you could not arrive at your unprecedented taste defects observation that Strega could violate your laws of physics and cut away the extremes in taste profiles while some other machines won't.

How about we flush this thread to cool it down a bit? I think those last parting shots were a little bitter...

sekihk wrote:As said, most of the answers to your questions were already in my original posts.

Right, like repeating something 3 times will make it come true. Now you don't even have basic comprehension abilities... I am out of this thread.

Thank you Dennis. At last you still didn't read before posting anything.
Oh by the way if you still read this thread, where're the details concerning your 150 test shots? I am still waiting to see how you did your 150 "tests" to arrive at your current opinion about Strega trimming the extremes in favour profiles. Ignoring my same question 3 times also won't make your claims sound (you didn't type details concerning any of the brewing parameters of the 150 "tests" shots, did you?).

Listen up: there is a scientific etiquette to making and assessing claims. The stake is usually how widely a result can be generalized. So questions on the exact way the results were generated should be cheerfully asked and answered. There's simply no other way to find out how to interpret any results

If it turns out there was a hole in the procedure, or that it has only very narrow relevance, the person posting the claims should be happy to find this out. If it turns out that after strong inspection, the results have wider relevance, the skeptics should be just as happy -- after all, the more we know, the better the coffee.

It is very bad form to insinuate fraud or bad faith -- take that stuff off line. (I know that sounds like the pot calling the kettle black, and I am aware of my own lapses in this. My apologies)