RapidCoffee wrote:IIRC, the rationale for a super-light tamp is based on multiple lever pulls. The second (third? fourth?? ) pull sucks air through the puck, creating opportunities for channeling. One might speculate that a loosely-packed puck is less prone to cracking. Are there any other benefits of a super-light tamp?

The rationale for super-light tamp on domestic lever machines is not related as much to multiple lever pulls as to preinfusion. And I never do more than two pulls. I do a partial pull to preinfuse on the .8 bar Cremina w/ 50mm basket dosed 11-12g and then a full pull; on the Ponte Vecchio I do two pulls when using the 45mm double basket almost full of coffee, 6mm headroom; on the Peppina 45mm basket dosed to near full, 6mm headroom, I might do a series of little pulls to preinfuse (no boiler pressure) and then a full pull.

Remember the 4 Ps (not the 4 Ms ).

A packed puck prevents preinfusion from boiler pressure alone (if p-stat is around 1.0 or less, and where "packed" implies too densely packed). Vintage domestic lever basket geometry (taller narrower baskets relative to a standard 58mm basket) results in a relatively taller column of ground coffee. A loosely yet adequately packed (tamped) puck helps the preinfusion along. If one overdoses the puck, a Fellini preinfusion may be in order to augment boiler pressure preinfusion, even with a very light tamp.

The overarching principle: you want the preinfusion to take effect before the infusion under full brew pressure.

Regards
T

Tim,
Thank you for the simple plainly worded explanation! It helped me understand the reasoning for a light tamp/leveling in a lever machine basket. That information seems to hold true for all my lever machines. Level or mound the grind slightly in the basket and then set the head space with the tamper. There is almost no force applied. Now the Astra with an HX is a different story and the common wisdom/information seems to be mostly valid for it.
Cheers
Richard

timo888 wrote:The rationale for super-light tamp on domestic lever machines is not related as much to multiple lever pulls as to preinfusion.
...
A packed puck prevents preinfusion from boiler pressure alone (if p-stat is around 1.0 or less, and where "packed" implies too densely packed).

One nice thing about lever machines: you have complete control over preinfusion. I start my manual lever pulls with gentle pressure, until the bottom of the basket is covered with beads of espresso (with a NPF), or until the first drops appear (with a regular PF), and then ramp up the pressure. Spring levers do not allow you to increase the pressure, but you can resist the spring until preinfusion has occurred, and only then fully release the lever.

This has nothing to do with boiler pressure. You can preinfuse with virtually any amount of pressure, up to the maximum the lever is capable of applying, regardless of how hard you tamp. Preinfusion may take longer with a harder tamp, but you can certainly get complete preinfusion.

In practice, my best lever shots invariably result from single pulls on both the Elektra MCaL spring lever (49mm basket) and the Pavoni/Gaggia manual levers (51mm basket). This is independent of tamping pressure. Machines with really small baskets may benefit from multiple pulls, but I cannot speak to that.

Psyd wrote:Ike;
First of all,

thanks for a well considered reply. BTW, Chris, the name's Ian. {All responses are to the community at large}

Psyd wrote:'zero effect' is a personal observation, not a scientific proven statement. In other words, hogwash if you compare kit, situation, temperature, pressure, altitude, day of the week, whatever, as Randy suggests.

Ever the contrarian, until everyone can duplicate "this begat that", on similar equipment if you like, all claims are unproven. We agree that a lot of what's purported as essential is hogwash.

Psyd wrote:We've already answered the question of why some of these things are done. It's to make up for lacks in the kit, or to insure consistency in technique, and in some cases, because we like it.

OK, then say so. Don't blather on about 8 years of making crap, inconsistent espresso with a MissThis / MrThat combo using unproven arcana and recommend the neophyte take the same path using completely different equipment.

Psyd wrote:You don't really have to like, understand appreciate, or even believe some of the reasons that we've given you, but at some point you really have to stop suggesting that they are useless in such a general way.

Please then document how anything other than a simple flattening of the coffee improves the cup in a specific way so that it can be posted in the FAQ and referred to every n00b with a problem. More than half the votes are for Important or Very Important. Surely, not all are just 'believers.'

Psyd wrote:We've already grasped that they aren't for you, but no one is trying to sell 'em, we're just making suggestions to inexperienced noobs with marginal kit,

Sorry, but that's just not true, unless everything below a Syncra and a Robur is 'marginal.'

Psyd wrote: the ones that work stay around.

Until proven to work, only belief perpetuates them...

Psyd wrote:Have some folks drunk the kool-aid and taking them on as a new religion? Undoubtedly. It was ever thus.
Have others forgotten the cause and effect relationship between what they do and what they drink? For sure, people have short attention spans, for the most part.
Are these 'artsy fartsy manoeuvre' helpful? In the right situation with the right guy and the right kit, youbetcha!
Should we be selling these as gospel? No, you're right. That's just as wrong-headed as to suggest that they are all useless and voo-doo.
Telling us that you ran a horse every day for a year and it was fast, so we should all run Quarter Horses on our tracks anywhere anytime is just as bad as them telling us that Arabians are the only horses to run. As far as we know, you live in a rain forest and that partic'lar pony had two great mudders for dame and sire, and can't get out of his own way on dry turf.
Preach cause and effect. Teach experimentation. Teach what these things can and cannot do for your cup. But to teach that everything that is done in the name of getting better 'spro is wrong when there are a lot of us out here that have different experiences ain't making friends or influencing people, and it sure ain't building up and street cred, either.
I hear what you're saying, but you're taking the wrong tack in my opinion. Examine your technique, examine the source, and compare. That's good. Suggesting that everyone make coffee your way because you get great results with your technique is just as wrong when you say it as when they do.
Your this close to helping quite a few folk that are having issues following the 'way'. Don't overshoot and substitute the 'way' for another 'way'.

Amen

RapidCoffee wrote:One nice thing about lever machines: you have complete control over preinfusion. ...

This has nothing to do with boiler pressure. You can preinfuse with virtually any amount of pressure, up to the maximum the lever is capable of applying, regardless of how hard you tamp. Preinfusion may take longer with a harder tamp, but you can certainly get complete preinfusion.

[emphasis added]

Not clear what the antecedent to "This" is, in the statement above. But the amount of boiler pressure does play a part in preinfusion on lever machines, whether spring or manual; the boiler pressure might be at .7 bar or at 1.5 bar; the greater the pressure, the more forcefully the water is pushed to the puck.

The piston can be used to send water to the puck, too; you can pull gently on the manual lever, or restrain the lever in the case of a spring machine, as you mentioned.

On the piston upstroke, the boiler and piston cylinder become a continuum and the boiler pressure pushes water out to, and possibly through, the puck. If the puck is densely packed and/or overdosed and/or the basket is tallish and narrow (e.g. 45mm), you may or may not get a saturating preinfusion with boiler pressure alone; it will depend on the amount of boiler pressure. As I wrote in the Lusso First Impressions thread, at 1.5 bar you are likely to see drops in the cup when you push the lever down to make the piston retract; but at 1.0 bar you probably won't, using the same grind and dose and tamp.

Regards
T

I stand corrected. Obviously boiler pressure plays a role in preinfusion by setting a minimum pressure. However, I do not get adequate preinfusion in a reasonable amount of time (say, under 10 seconds) with boiler pressure alone on my lever machines. Increasing boiler pressure is out of the question; the brew temp gets too high, and taste suffers. An overly coarse grind allows the puck to saturate, but this "cure" is also worse than the disease from a taste standpoint. I've never been a big fan of lungo pours.

I'm aiming for preinfusion at 3-4X the boiler pressure on my machines (~0.85 bar boiler pressure seems to yield best results, taste-wise). Most of that preinfusion pressure is achieved by gentle pressure on the lever, not boiler pressure. I hope that clarifies my earlier comment.

Back on track:
Although I can get a decent pour with little or no tamp, I prefer the results with a good firm tamp, regardless of which machine I'm using. It could be that I haven't given the ultralight tamp style a real chance, but my initial impressions simply haven't justified much further exploration. There is certainly no requirement for a light tamp in order to properly preinfuse the puck. If there is, the vast majority of E61 users are operating their machines incorrectly.

cafeIKE wrote:Ever the contrarian, until everyone can duplicate "this begat that", on similar equipment if you like, all claims are unproven. We agree that a lot of what's purported as essential is hogwash.

Yer still missing the point. the birth of these techniques that you ridicule through ignorance have been as solutions. As I pointed out, some solutions have been applied wily-nilly, and adopted as gospel, but that doesn't make them any less useful, just miss-applied.
Railing against the actual ritual makes you seem like the whacky one, if observed by someone who has used that particular ritual to solve an issue successfully.
What you really want to be changing is the misapplication of an otherwise useful tool.

Lemme give you and example. I'm a sound engineer, and I used to do a lot of live music in small, intimate venues. I also did installs, repairs, whatever. One new venue has an issue with their installer, and talks to one of my clients. I get the call, the sub-woofers are huge and enormous and powerful, but aren't driving this small club the way that they were advertised in the shiny brochure. I show up, do a little investigating, and discover that the polarity on a connector had been reversed. I show this to the club owner, reverse the connector, and fir up his system. As the sound is rearranging and re-shaping his internal organs, a smile crosses his face. The next day, I get a call from my customer complaining that the trick I pulled on his friend wasn't very nice, and that his system is deficient. I show up and listen, and it's thin and wan. Come to find out that he heard that I reversed the polarity of one of the subs and increased the low-end by a factor of ten, so he tried it.
We all know where this is going, but the point is that the solutions are for particular problems. If you're not having those particular problems, chances are the solutions isn't going to have the same results for you as for someone who is.
But pointing to the solutions and suggesting that it has no use is just ignorance.

"Ignorance" would mean I'd never tried any. Believe me, I've tried them all.

Here's a short list. Please fill in the problem solved. This must be a defect removed from the cup.
Specifically :

polishing -
tapping after tamping -

*sigh*
Where were you when we discussed those! I know, they create more problems than they solve. The tapping and polishing are both cleanliness issues with potential to create extraction issues. I'm not saying that either are worth it, but that doesn't mean that they do create extraction issues either.
Polishing, for me, keeps the stray grounds in the basket or in the knock-box. I like it. It doesn't create extraction issues for me. So, if it serves me a useful purpose and it doesn't cause me problems, how do you justify calling me names and suggesting that I'm practicing useless gyrations?
I could understand if I suggested that polishing was necessary, or that it accomplished some magic even surface that created a surface tension that allowed the entire top of the puck to wet consistently, or some such, but I don't. And, I'd support the exposure of such claims without any proof, too.
Ignorance is simply the lack of exposure to experiences and facts. You've tried things with your kit, and your skills. This makes you knowledgeable and conversant on your kit, at your skill level. You're still ignorant of how their kit differs in technique. I know, the word usually has really negative connotations, but I meant it literally.
Before you criticize someone's technique, you should pull a doppio on his kit.

I'm just saying that there is a possible use for all of these techniques (with notable exceptions) and some are more useful than others. My Astoria comes out of the gate like Thor's hammer. She prefers a tamp. The Silvia isn't very pleasant to an untamped puck all the time (but, then again, she don't like tamped ones to well, either!) and the Factory can take it or leave it.
Tamping allows me to be less awake for the first cuppa of the day, and so that I can stay consistent (and not jog the grinder about throughout the day) I do it consistently.
I'm a firm believer in simplifying the process, and I agree that one should discard all superfluous attentions. I'm an apostle to that church, but like all religious movements, there is always a guy that takes things a bit too far, and then there's a pile of burning books, and the whole thing goes to ruin.
You need too proseletyze discarding unnecessary additions to the ritual, but to offer the blanket statement that no one needs any of these is painting with a brush too wide to be useful.
I get what your saying; Why do it if it doesn't improve the result, and potentially harms it?
Because, my brother, some of us have different experiences thatn you, different skill levels, and different kit.
Teach experimentation, as you have with the tamping. Teach comparison of technique. It's a simple opticians trick; Like this... or like this? This one? Or is this one better?

Psyd wrote:I'm a firm believer in simplifying the process, (...) I'm an apostle to that church, but like all religious movements, there is always a guy that takes things a bit too far, and then there's a pile of burning books, and the whole thing goes to ruin.

Very true & very wise words! It's not what one believes in or claims that makes one a fanatic, it is the way one believes or claims that does.