another_jim wrote:The threading on the M3 is finer (about 5:3 as fine according to Andy's measure

This came direct from John Bicht, who said that the thread pitch is 1/32".

another_jim wrote: the barrel rotates very easily, unlike the spring loaded Mazzer system which tends to jerk a little. So grind adjustments can be made a lot finer. The drawback of the system is that one has the extra steps of loosening the lock screw and retightening it (firmly -- lots of torque on the barrel, and I've had slippage when I was careless tightening it)

But John also said that tightening the locking knob also changed the grind setting slightly, which could be a problem, I suppose.

One quick note about locking in the grinder dial knob. That knob has two jobs: to lock-in the dial, and to hold the bottom funnel. It is an extra locker in addition to the two screws and washers that hold it in place. I notice that at times, when I release that knob to adjust the dial, the funnel drops down a notch. This may take the wiper/funnel off alignment, and may cause the wiper to slightly hit the internal funnel walls when it spins.

To prevent this from happening, when I make an adjustment, I always hold the funnel up and slightly twist it as if I'm screwing it back into its groove, and then lock the knob.

Great reporting guys and I love the pictures Abe. Despite the eye bulging pricetag, I am tempted, really tempted.

Compared to the Mazzer Robur, the Mini seems slow. I wouldn't mind a slow grind so much if I weren't forced to stand their doltishly holding the portafilter. The Mazzer Mini E Doserless portafilter cradle handled this nicely (especially the "one hand" operation of the Type B). Which begs the question:

Q1: How long does the M3 grinder require for a double?

Terry had a nice looking portafilter rest machined from a block of aluminum at his SCAA booth. I looked at espressoparts.com and don't see it on sale, so it may still be in the prototype stage. Anyway, it was essentially a cutout cylinder with a ridge along the interior perimeter to accommodate the portafilter ears. Looking at the M3 grinder pictures, it appears the clearance under the exit is tight, which would make it trickier to fit in some sort of portafilter cradle.

Q2: What is the clearance underneath the grinder's exit?

For now I'll not dwell on the scary questions...

Q3: How much did this cost again? and Q4: How long does one wait for delivery?

HB wrote:Q1: How long does the M3 grinder require for a double?

18-20 secs.

Q2: What is the clearance underneath the grinder's exit?

~ 3.0"

There is no need for a stand to hold the P/F with the double spout P/F I use, it fits perfectly snug under the chute. However, if you use a bottomless P/F, a little square to hold it would be nice.

Q3: How much did this cost again?

I am not sure, but I know that they hold the deed to my house.

HB wrote: How much did this cost again?

The original price was $980, but the price is probably going to go up. They had to switch to a different (more expensive) machinist for some of the components.

HB wrote: How long does one wait for delivery?

At this point, probably not very long at all, they seem to have the parts supply situation under control.

Andy asked me to fix the grinder scale so it goes from 0 to 10 with 10 subdivisions per number. I've set it up to be printed at 200 pixels per inch, on a printer in landscape format (or at least 10.5 inches of usable space). At that sizing, the 0 and 10 positions ought to coincide when wrapped around just above the threads. If they don't for you, just resize the jpeg or psd in a photoeditor and reprint it at 200 pixels/inch (alternativetively you can not resize and reprint at a different pixel per inche setting -- this will be less accurate)

The scales are at:
http://users.ameritech.net/jim_schulman ... cale_2.jpg
http://users.ameritech.net/jim_schulman ... cale_2.psd

The psd file is 4 megs and can be tweaked (e.g. the metallic background can be eliminated or replaced if printing onto something fancy); the jpeg is 95%, 225Kb, and will print and resize acceptably.

I've tried to make the scales look compatible with the grinder's 19th Century English instrument look:



That's it for me painting any more scales or dials -- way too finicky for my temperament.

another_jim wrote:Andy asked me to fix the grinder scale....That's it for me painting any more scales or dials -- way too finicky for my temperament.

SURE, blame it on me!

Nice work, Jim!

Thanks for the scale Jim, nice Job. I created a similar one using word, but I think a more appropriate one would be a scale printed on translucent tape. I'll see what I can do about that.

If you d/l the psd, you can print it without the background on overhead plastic. If you haven't got a layering image editor, get Gimp or Pixia, both freeware, fairly decent, and read psd files.

another_jim wrote:
Hmm. Time to start weighing, I guess.

I've noticed when one zeros the grinder, getting a little burr contact, about 1 gram of grinds falls out. If this clears the burrs, there's a lot less lurking than the usual 10 grams in a commercial grind chamber.