Melodrip - increase or decrease extraction

Coffee preparation techniques besides espresso like pourover.
Acavia
Posts: 698
Joined: 4 years ago

#1: Post by Acavia »

Anyone know of any tests on whether a trickle pour, like the Melodrip, increases or decreases extraction.

The closest to a test I can find is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXfn13czBik

where the host found the use of Melodrip increased extraction considerably but it was only two cups. Some guess that it would lower extraction by reducing turbulence but others opine that it increases percolation by causing less channeling are more water to remain above the grounds to flow through more grounds.

Anyone know of tests - please link them if so.

Milligan
Supporter ❤
Posts: 1522
Joined: 2 years ago

#2: Post by Milligan »

Ive been using Melodrip extensively for a year or so. I go between using it and switching to traditional gooseneck pour on the same coffee to see the difference. I consistently get a longer draw down with the Melodrip. I find that it is helpful to use when doing multiple pours at small amounts like the Tetsu method. I usually start with a traditional pour to agitate the bed, swirl to level, and then do melodrip the rest of the time.

I do not have a VST so I can't speak for exact numbers. I do find it to be a useful tool for some coffees.

Acavia (original poster)
Posts: 698
Joined: 4 years ago

#3: Post by Acavia (original poster) »

Milligan wrote:I consistently get a longer draw down with the Melodrip.
Is slower draw down normal for a Melodrip?

I have not used one, but I have held a Stagg X over my V60 and Kalita and then poured the water into the Stagg X creating a shower over that pour-over. I assume it is basically doing the same thing. Using the Stagg X as a Melodrip, always causes my pour-overs to drain fast - really fast. I do not know why it would be different though.

jdrobison
Posts: 322
Joined: 11 years ago

#4: Post by jdrobison »

The Melodrip reduces agitation and, presumably, mitigates the occurrence of fines clogging up the filter. I use Melodrip regularly because it provides me with a more consistent drawdown time than not. All else equal, without the Melodrip my drawdown will choke and increase astringency and by how much it will choke is a guess each time. Perhaps my pour technique without without the Melodrip need improvement but, since adding it to my routine, the results are consistently much better.

Jonk
Posts: 2207
Joined: 4 years ago

#5: Post by Jonk »

Acavia wrote:Is slower draw down normal for a Melodrip?
Not in my experience. I usually do multiple pours and mainly use the melodrip to avoid long drawdown if I notice the brew is starting to slow down.

I mean, you can brew with significantly finer grinds if you use the melodrip for the whole brew, causing only minimal disturbance to the bed.

As for extraction yield I think it's more about making adjustments.. but I don't have an accurate refractometer either. My guess would be that the melodrip has a tendency to lower extraction if anything due to much lower agitation. That's only based on taste..

culturesub
Posts: 195
Joined: 6 years ago

#6: Post by culturesub »

A Melodrip should drastically increase extraction if use as intended- with finer grinds then beer kettle brews. If you're brewing with the same grind size, it will probably lower extraction(recipe dependant still). The point of it is the controlled agitation decreases fine mitigation, allowing for a finer grind without astringency. TLDR- if using a MD grind finer then you think you can, and if comparing a MD brew to a non MD brew, adjust grind accordingly for a proper a/b.

Jonk
Posts: 2207
Joined: 4 years ago

#7: Post by Jonk »

culturesub wrote:A Melodrip should drastically increase extraction if use as intended - with finer grinds [than bare] kettle brews.
This is probably true at least with a no/low-bypass dripper. I'm not convinced for say a regular V60, but again that's only judging by taste.

Milligan
Supporter ❤
Posts: 1522
Joined: 2 years ago

#8: Post by Milligan »

My slower draw down is likely an artifact of my specific pour style. I agitate the bed with a traditional pour for the bloom. Do a second bloom pour with melodrip and slight swirl to even the bed. Then use melodrip again for the rest of the pour. Takes 3-4min draw down depending on the coffee using 20g, 300ml, V60. My traditional pour over method is agitate the bed during bloom until 35s. Do a second bloom and wait until 1:10. Pour the rest in within 1:30-1:40. I usually get a 2:30-3min draw down. I actually think the fines are suspended and caught by the sides of the V60 filter paper with my traditional pour over technique whereas they stay in the bed with the Melodrip.

I'll play with it more since my results are not the norm.

braxtonjens
Posts: 104
Joined: 8 years ago

#9: Post by braxtonjens »

The MD is just a tool.

It can allow you to push EY if you want, by grinding finer, with less agitation.
It can prevent channeling and disturbing the bed too much.

It can prevent fines migration.

It can allow for easier column of water to accumulate over the grinds to do a "no bypass style" of brew.

Use the tool if you want and how you want.
“Coffee is always a good idea”
LMWDP #617

culturesub
Posts: 195
Joined: 6 years ago

#10: Post by culturesub »

It's absolutely true for v60, it's been around much longer then no bypass brewers and that's what it was designed to do.