jpender wrote:For a long time I've wished for a gizmo that would convert the Aeropress into a percolation brewer. I've imagined an attachment that would screw on in place of the end cap that contained a "basket" for the coffee, complete with a metal filter at the bottom and a shower screen at the top. Pretty much what the Kompresso is, I guess. Maybe it would work to craft a shower screen that one could place into the Aeropress from the top.

I suspect that getting a clean pour that doesn't disturb the grounds that are four inches down the barrel like you are describing isn't easy. Got any photos or video of this method?

Complete procedure is actually nothing else than standard espresso method, with blooming phase being preinfusion and water above grounds used for extraction phase. There are some YT videos doing essentially the same, for instance
I tried to do it like this yesterday, but there are several challenges. First one is that puck preparation of an extra deep "basket" isn't easy. Then putting paper filters above the coffee (instead of Melodrip) and making them to stay at place when the water is poured is very tricky (so using additional metal shower screen on them is certainly better) etc. And metal filter that I don't have would be better. So the result wasn't very good

To avoid running into these problems on 2nd attempt, I simply simulated the process with Flair, using low pressure around 1 bar (achievable with Aeropress) for about 3min, using the same grind, dose and water temperature as for normal espresso. In my case, 9g coffee for 23g output, water temperature around 93°C

Result was surely better than yesterday as there were no problems with disturbed puck. Got quite thick and oily beverage, correctly extracted that had some resemblance with espresso, but still quite different taste. Would be quite ok for milk drinks (actually, for a while I was making some lattes with Flair using 2-3 bar and 2 min extraction and they were ok) although not that enjoyable as espresso, but not that bad either. Depending on the coffee as well. However, making the extraction as perfect on Aeropress is much harder job ... so I don't see the point. If one wants to make acceptable espresso with cheap and light device, Kompresso is way better for that, especially having in mind that you need the grinder of at least double the price of Kompresso to get anything close to acceptable espresso ...

I didn't have a picture of me doing at espresso ratio, but here's a comparison between an AP filled with just water, and one with a coffee slurry at the bottom. In the picture, I was aiming for a more classic 1:15 ratio (coffee vs beverage weight). As you can see the liquid on top remains quite clear even though I typically pay less attention trying to keep the liquids mixing when I work with longer ratios.



Also, there is a picture of a bent spoon that I use to break the kettle stream, so when the water poured in contacts the water inside, it only moves horizontally.

Two things:

1. I tried using a Cafelat Robot shower screen on top of coffee bed (like the above video tbh). I even sanded one down to the right diameter, but at espresso sizes, it needed puck prep and dropping the screen perfectly horizontally, both were had to achieve in an AP. That's why I went with making a coffee slurry at the bottom, it's arguably a very uniform pre-infusion.

2. As the water to coffee ratio in the initial slurry increases, the slurry goes from insufficiently wetted, to sludge, to watery-ish. When it's in the sludge phase, the density difference between it and the water you pour on top helps keeping both separate.

I also found an old picture with aeropress "espresso" at 8.66% tds at 1:2.28.

With that said, ratios like 1:2 required me to grind fine enough to the point where I considered pressing too laborious (and I have a cafelat robot which is less work), but anything from 1:4 and above is good. It does lungo well, it does 1:10 for iced coffee well, it does 1:15 pure percolation well.

@Jonk, just press it.
I wouldn't bother with cutting filters at all, you can just trade a finer grind for shorter contact time.
Bloom, drip water with the melodrip, press.

zefkir wrote:...it needed puck prep and dropping the screen perfectly horizontally, both were had to achieve in an AP.

The video guy left out that critical part. I wonder if you could load it from the bottom with the screen already inserted with the modified plunger?

zefkir wrote:...and I have a cafelat robot which is less work

Well, yes, of course. I thought it was a little funny that at the end of the video the guy pulled a beautiful looking shot with his Robot and described it as tasting heavenly.

I guess it begs the question: Why?

Is it because someone can't afford an espresso machine? A Flair Classic costs less than $200, the price of about 8lbs of roasted coffee. So that can't be it. So is it for travel? A stock Aeropress can make a pretty darn good cup. Is it really worth it to go through all the machinations in your hotel room or whatever for a pseudo espresso instead? If you need an espresso that badly why not get a Flair Classic. They're designed for travel.

Maybe it's just because we can.

jpender wrote: I guess it begs the question: Why?

Actually, for me it started on the other end of the ratios. I was trying to get the perfect filter coffee. That is,

1. no clogging
2. no bypass
3. get water to flow evenly from a cylindrical coffee of uniform thickness
4. use clear water rather than a slurry of weak coffee as a solvent.

People have been using espresso machines with flow control to pull super long ratios high extraction shots for a while. They called it the espresso pour over, or shortened as the sprover, it was an attempt at manually replicating that. Then I started wondering how short can I go. And the answer was a lot shorter than I thought, actual espresso ratios at normal espresso yields.

I ended up not using that technique much because my pour overs are great and only require minimum attention whereas this requires some active focus even if I can extract higher and more uniformly.

I suspect that with a melodrip I would use it more, but getting a melodrip in Europe means paying half its price in shipping, taxes and handling fees. Which I refuse to do.

jpender wrote:I guess it begs the question: Why?

Is it because someone can't afford an espresso machine? A Flair Classic costs less than $200, the price of about 8lbs of roasted coffee. So that can't be it. So is it for travel? A stock Aeropress can make a pretty darn good cup. Is it really worth it to go through all the machinations in your hotel room or whatever for a pseudo espresso instead? If you need an espresso that badly why not get a Flair Classic. They're designed for travel.

Maybe it's just because we can.

Anyone having this discussion is also caffeinated. That could have something to do with it.

jpender wrote:The video guy left out that critical part. I wonder if you could load it from the bottom with the screen already inserted with the modified plunger?

Some kind of tongs would probably do the job with that kind of screen

Maybe simple solution would be making an oversized filter and folding the edges, then pushing it with some kind of dedicated tamper onto the puck. That way water wouldn't disturb the filter when poured in. That's at least what worked for me on Kompresso, instead of using original metal screen, to increase relatively small output of that device. But I didn't try here

Jonk wrote:I think many people just don't want to pay the ~$165-230 that a Flair costs. A mistake in my opinion, but before trying a proper espresso gadget how will people know? Kind of like sticking with a Hario Skerton and buying expensive beans..

How will people know what? If they aren't sure they'll like espresso or not they can go drink them at cafes. If they aren't sure if the Flair is worth the money they can read numerous reviews.

Jonk wrote:I can press several shots worth at once so it's a lot quicker and easier than using my Robot.

How big of a dose are you putting in the Aeropress?

Jonk wrote:...aren't your adventures with a moka pot a good example John?

I used moka pots because I believed that espresso machines were too expensive, took up too much counter space, demanded an equally expensive and space-consuming grinder, and required an inordinate amount of time to operate, maintain, and master. When I first learned about the Flair, and shortly thereafter the Robot, I realized that espresso was something I could do. If these machines and capable, affordable hand grinders had been around 15 years ago I would have never bought a Bialetti Brikka.

Jonk wrote:I think I have tried 60 grams so far.

With an espresso grind?