Davis Coffee Center Tests Flat vs. Conical Filters - Page 2

Coffee preparation techniques besides espresso like pourover.
namelessone

#11: Post by namelessone »

I found the slides from a previous presentation which I think refers to the same research:

https://scanews.coffee/podcast/40/demys ... 8-lecture/

and the slides are here:

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/ ... educed.pdf

I listened through the podcast and I think this study is basically garbage, they don't prove anything except some correlation between sensory perception and EY and that different coffees roasted differently taste different (not even the same coffee roasted two ways!). Who would have thought? The two different coffees were a blend from Starbucks and a "single origin Columbia" from Peets.

They underextracted 100% of the flat bottom brews (some as low as 9% EY and maximum only at 16%) and also half of the conical (Melitta style brews). They were using the Breville Precision brewer with Melitta cone or a basket.

I'm shocked this research got any funding, makes Matt Perger's pseudoscience look like astrophysics.

Mbb

#12: Post by Mbb »

I like them calling r=0.5 , or less, a significant correllation.

Yep, only the cone even worked. Flat bottom all underextracted...badly.

They were only comparing apples and oranges, and the oranges were rotten.

Im still laughing.

They are in good company though. We paid a university group $50,000 to do some advanced computational modeling of a reactor for us. 4 phd post-grad students, 4 mo work. It took one month to run a model once built. It tracked hundreds of thousands of discrete points as they moved around the vessel. They wasted first month of simulation by doing it with agitator running backwards . ..no concept. Then they had significant correllation coefficients for a variable of 0.28 to 0.35....unbelievable.

User avatar
doubleOsoul

#13: Post by doubleOsoul »

yakster wrote:I wonder if they'll discuss this at the Friday talk.

Royal Coffee Lab & Tasting Room
If I didn't have the hosting thingy (lol) tomorrow, I would have driven in for that talk tonight. I was at the Royal yesterday doing a tasting for a Sumatra micro lot and a Burundi. The space is really nice as is the coffee lab and staff are great too. I'm pretty happy they are just a block or 2 away from where I sometime rep (slep) supplements. Parking is h*ll as usual but that's Oakland.

User avatar
homeburrero
Team HB

#14: Post by homeburrero »

namelessone wrote:I found the slides from a previous presentation which I think refers to the same research:

https://scanews.coffee/podcast/40/demys ... 8-lecture/

and the slides are here:

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/ ... educed.pdf
I listened through the podcast and I think this study is basically garbage, they don't prove anything except some correlation between sensory perception and EY and that different coffees roasted differently taste different (not even the same coffee roasted two ways!). Who would have thought? The two different coffees were a blend from Starbucks and a "single origin Columbia" from Peets.

They underextracted 100% of the flat bottom brews (some as low as 9% EY and maximum only at 16%) and also half of the conical (Melitta style brews). They were using the Breville Precision brewer with Melitta cone or a basket.

Mbb wrote:They were only comparing apples and oranges, and the oranges were rotten.
I agree with the above - looks like poor science. I'll wait and read the promised scientific paper if it ever gets published but I don't expect to learn much. Disappointing considering all the effort that went into this.

There was a Scott Rao Instagram post/rant last night about their Friday talk - here's an HB topic specific to that: This time Rao's right
Pat
nínádiishʼnahgo gohwééh náshdlį́į́h

Mbb

#15: Post by Mbb »

Interesting that breville apparently wanted to know which tasted better, their cone or flat bottom. My understanding is machine has different settings for each......

namelessone

#16: Post by namelessone »

If this is how Breville is testing their machine, it doesn't give me much confidence to be honest..

RyanJE

#17: Post by RyanJE »

Mbb wrote:Interesting that breville apparently wanted to know which tasted better, their cone or flat bottom. My understanding is machine has different settings for each......
It has different baskets designed for different size batches and it states that very clearly in the manual. The flat bottom is for much larger batches of coffee than the cone they include. This is a major oversight by the people who conducted this review.

I wish it was done with a V60 vs. Kalita 185 on something like a pour steady or Marco SP9. And also somewhat dialed in first to actually extract the coffee!
I drink two shots before I drink two shots, then I drink two more....

Mbb

#18: Post by Mbb replying to RyanJE »

But how would that benefit Breville? :roll:

It's understandable that to compare apples to apples they thought they had to keep everything the same, because, well, not doing so throws a lot of major variables in to play. They probably hoped it would be close enough.

User avatar
happycat

#19: Post by happycat »

I challenge you to abandon this echo chamber and contact the author and have a real constructive conversation, either hosted here in a new thread or at least reported back here.

That would be in the spirit of scientific discourse.

In that discourse, I further challenge you to focus on argument rather than opinion (if you're relying on logical fallacies, it's opinion).

You can turn your concerns into a constructive conversation about coffee research.
LMWDP #603

malling

#20: Post by malling »

How on earth can you spend so much energy, money and time and somehow still manage to end up with what best can be described as a "paper" of embarrassing low quality, that you should never consider publishing. Frankly it doesn't even deserve to be labelled poor science, heck I'll questioning if it's science at all. I'll for once give Rao the credit that this is indeed nothing less than rubbish.