"no press" Aeropress - Page 2

Coffee preparation techniques besides espresso like pourover.
DamianWarS (original poster)
Supporter ♡

#11: Post by DamianWarS (original poster) »

coffeeOnTheBrain wrote:I had some success using 10g of coffee ground on 17 in a Comandante (it was Ethiopian so maybe finer for other coffee). I used 30ml bloom and a total of 200ml. To not agitated I used a Stagg X on top of the Aeropress, I guess a spoon will do as well. Most importantly I tried to level the grounds before bloom, after bloom and after the single pour. I used a few spins and a vertical hefty setting of the Aeropress on the cup to settle everything evenly. You know that you did it right if the water column is almost clear during brewing and the grounds are a nice flat bed after brewing.

The coffee was a little more intense then a pour over but really clear and nice to drink. The Tricolate is therefore the only interesting new dripper to me since the Stagg X.

PS: water just not boiling
I find nothing sticks to the plastic walls and I've even tried no agitation/bloom and still a flat bed. (and flat like I've used a tool to flatten it) It is more intense but no astringency at all and the brew temp is really stable so I've been going down to 85C and topping up with water if it's too strong. This method could be used in competition but that last little bit would have to be plunged out (because you have to use the plunger in competition) and you would have to watch the time.

coffeeOnTheBrain

#12: Post by coffeeOnTheBrain » replying to DamianWarS »

I struggled a bit with achieving a flat bed, would you elaborate a little about how you pour the water.

CafelatStore: home of Cafelat products online
Sponsored by CafelatStore
DamianWarS (original poster)
Supporter ♡

#13: Post by DamianWarS (original poster) » replying to coffeeOnTheBrain »

here is a pic of the bed and I intentionally did no agitation outside of pouring the water (not even a stir). There was also no bloom and just a continuous pour. I used a typical gooseneck kettle while spinning the aeropress to ensure everything got wet quickly and used 20g of coffee and 300ml of water. most of the drawdown was finished by about 3:30 but that last little bit took another couple of minutes and you could probably get away with plunging the last part. As you can see perfect flatbed with nothing stuck to the walls.


User avatar
baldheadracing
Supporter ♡

#14: Post by baldheadracing »

thirdcrackfourthwave wrote:Until I hear otherwise I won't try. My guess would be it is not as good as any pour over--there has to be a reason for the cone shape no?
The cone shape was developed to imitate the cup from a (Japanese) Nel drip, but without the maintenance and care required of a flannel cloth filter. As such, it has unrestricted flow, unlike traditional Mellita cones (which use a hole to restrict flow).

Nel drip methods evolved to get the best out of the low-quality dark roasted beans that were available in Japan after WWII.

Coffee has changed since then, so cone dripper techniques have changed. The cone remains due to inertia, not due to inherent technical superiority. After all, technique trumps design.
What I'm interested in is my worst espresso being fantastic - James Hoffmann

DamianWarS (original poster)
Supporter ♡

#15: Post by DamianWarS (original poster) » replying to baldheadracing »

That's an interesting evolution of the cone brewer. I would be interested in your sources. 1941 Peter Schlumbohm invents the Chemex but it doesn't seem he was influenced by the nel drip method of japan. Both Japan with the nel drip and the west's demand for coffee a boom hit after the war in Japan but the Chemex still predates this not only in its release but it's developed goes back a few years further (his patent predates the war) A German invented it but chemex was an American company and launched in NY and although it's not a V60 I would think the Chemex had more influence on cone brewers than the nel drip would. The nel drip to me is a problem perhaps cone brewers were trying to fix but I never considered them an influence in their design.

User avatar
baldheadracing
Supporter ♡

#16: Post by baldheadracing »

The Chemex is different because there are no ribs ... and the Chemex also uses a narrower cone in the relevant size.

As for nel, Google search:

https://kurasu.kyoto/blogs/kurasu-journ ... f-the-brew

https://www.hario.co.uk/blogs/default-b ... -hario-v60

https://global.hario.com/harios_99-history.html
What I'm interested in is my worst espresso being fantastic - James Hoffmann

jpender

#17: Post by jpender »

Melitta Bentz patented a cone shaped pour over brewer in the 1930s. Did she really pattern it after the Nel? The original Melitta paper filtered brewer (1908) was flat. Today Melitta claims a cone results in superior extraction. Of course they do.

A UC Davis study of cone vs flat found that they were different. But one better than the other? Not necessarily.

Versalab: maker and supplier of finest espresso equipment
Sponsored by Versalab
User avatar
baldheadracing
Supporter ♡

#18: Post by baldheadracing » replying to jpender »

The Melitta "trapezoidal cone" featured an exit hole that determined the flow rate. It replaced her previous column design.

A Nel drip and V60 and other designs rely on the pouring rate and grind size to determine the flow rate. The Melitta decouples this relationship. Thus, the Melitta might be easier to use for some.

As for better, good results can be attained with any reasonable design if one has the relevant skills and ancillaries. I was just replying to the person who was dismissing column brewing just because a column isn't a cone ...

... and then there is the espresso variation of this: straight-sided filter baskets vs. slope-sided baskets :mrgreen:
What I'm interested in is my worst espresso being fantastic - James Hoffmann

User avatar
EddyQ

#19: Post by EddyQ »

baldheadracing wrote:I was just replying to the person who was dismissing column brewing just because a column isn't a cone ...

... and then there is the espresso variation of this: straight-sided filter baskets vs. slope-sided baskets :mrgreen:
Thanks for that. I was thinking there was nothing technically superior to the cone, but did not know the history.

As for the Aeropress dripper, I like the idea. Would adding another paper filter on top be helpful at keeping even vertical flow? Just a thought.
LMWDP #671

DamianWarS (original poster)
Supporter ♡

#20: Post by DamianWarS (original poster) »

baldheadracing wrote:The Chemex is different because there are no ribs ... and the Chemex also uses a narrower cone in the relevant size.

As for nel, Google search:

https://kurasu.kyoto/blogs/kurasu-journ ... f-the-brew

https://www.hario.co.uk/blogs/default-b ... -hario-v60

https://global.hario.com/harios_99-history.html
Hario's introduction to the cone world as per your sources (which affirms my existing knowledge) was in the 80's with the Mini Coffee Dripper and it looked like a mini Chemex and it's a predecessor to the V60 and more specifically the form of their Decanter (the one Hoffmann likes) the mini and the decanter are very "Chemex" like with no ribs and its the added filter that has the "ribs". it's hard not to say they were influenced by the Chemex. Prior to the 80s I'm not aware of any cone brewers outside of the Chemex.

I understand that cone brewers are ribbed today and the Chemex is sort of in it's own category but I see no formal connection with the nel drip to ribbed pure cone brewers except that they are both made popular by Japan coffee culture. For example, the "kurasu.kyoto" source (as should be noted by the name) is in a specific Japanese context and a quote like "the most pervasive and preferred method of brewing coffee was the nel drip" should be taken within in a Japanese coffee culture vacuum not intended to mean "the most pervasive and preferred method" in the entire world which would be a wildly unsupported claim.

I'm not trying to be contentious and I get the nel drip is an early form of brewing coffee that predates modern pourover. Where it may be a part of the history of pourover and perhaps the next step in pourover progression in Japan but in function only, the form and design of the cone shape brewer seems to draw greater influences from outside Japan.

I also get this is completely off topic and just because I'm made the OP doesn't mean I have license to take the thread where I want it to go. I do find the history quite interesting. as it pertains to the OP I don't think that column brewing using the Aeropress makes better coffee or it's worth the added effort (mainly drawdown time) and cone brewers are probably better tools for pourover (mellitta/hario/kalita style cones). The main problem with the column brewing with the Aeropress is that as the water depletes the drawdown gets very slow wherewith cone shaped brewers this doesn't happen to the same degree (although it does happen). To speed it up you could do a quick plunge or simply keep the column of water topped up so it maintains a constant push force. When you get your desired brew volume just remove the Aeropress. it's a bit of a waste of water but it would help to keep the flow at a more constant rate.