Is body of espresso on the DE1 thinner? - Page 8

#71: Post by **smite** » June 11th, 2019, 11:25 am

Amazing discussion. I have been thinking a good deal about this since my 1st post on the subject and have to ask what is probably a basic question for this esteemed community to consider.

Is an espresso machine like the DE for example even with its variable levels of control, which can emulate only certain characteristics of other machine extractions still constrained by its very design? So while we can change and data log many variables such as pressure, flow, temperature, etc. to emulate what we perceive other machines are doing, it will still always be constrained by its own physical design and never truly emulate these other machines 100%. This is not intended as a criticism in any way.

It just means some of us have been thinking about the wrong questions and comparing machines/extractions that simply cannot be compared. The real value of this machine is not in the ability to emulate other machines but in the ability make the best use of the design with all of those data points and configurable variables to extract the best possible coffee using it as designed.

#72: Post by **TomC** » June 11th, 2019, 11:46 am

another_jim wrote: One question about paper filtration. It is used to clarify and remove cloudiness from brews of all kinds, coffee, wine, beer, consummes, etc. If the sediment passes through, how do they clarify?

This is an engaging topic, one of the best reads we've had in a while, so I'm stoked to see so many thoughtful contributors.

Jim to your question about clarity, I can speak of filtrating of substances that remove trace amounts of gas, and the product after the membrane filter is certainly more clear. Although they're primarily for particulate filtration, you can often see large forming bubbles on the inlet side, working their way back when flow is stopped. Ignore the 5 minute mark where he purposely attempts to purge the lines so there's no oxygen trapped unnecessarily in the beer to be filtered.

This video isn't the best, but it gives and idea of what a plate filter does with beer. I think when I relate something like this to coffee, I feel pretty confident that I could run a murky looking semi-opaque French Press thru a plate filter and still have very transparent brew coming out the other side.

And my pocket science observations has always been that my Linea and Speedster can give thick mousse like shots with ease. My 53mm Leva is next in line still creating unctuous thick foamy shots. The DE1 makes much, much thinner, but most often better tasting shots.

I would beg for someone to build an portafilter adaptor that lets me fit a 53mm basket into the standard DE portafilter, just for playing around and testing pet theories

#73: Post by **appfrent** » June 11th, 2019, 12:16 pm

another_jim wrote: One question about paper filtration. It is used to clarify and remove cloudiness from brews of all kinds, coffee, wine, beer, consummes, etc. If the sediment passes through, how do they clarify?

Depending on pore size of filter paper, sediments (very large chunks) do get cleared. But they are too heavy to be part of stable crema anyway. By definition, sediments settle down by gravity when solution is left undisturbed. It's colloidal suspension (particles that neither dissolve, nor settle down) that leads to refraction/diffraction of light and hence reading on refractometer. Of course, in practice, people do swirl and sip, so sediments could also add to body. To be honest, if I let my espresso sit a while I do not see much sediments settling down, so impact is going to be minimal.
So, maybe any machine/method/grind setting forcing more colloidal fines out of grind would add to body as measured by refractometer. Crema/mouthfeel has more variables into play and harder to predict.
Afterthought:
Strength = solubles + colloids
Body = colloids (+ foam/emulsion?)
Mouthfeel = foam/emulsion (+ colloids?)
Flavor = All of above + whatever is already there on tongue

#74: Post by **AssafL** » June 11th, 2019, 12:25 pm

(actually it was mentioned previously) Regarding mouthfeel, one major cause of mouthfeel in other foods wasn't suggested: hydrocolloids. Basically long chain starches that come from different plants (like flour).

An interesting aspect of espresso mouthfeel is that it tends to become less thick as it cools down. While most hydrocolloids thicken as the solution cools, there are a few hydrocolloids that become thicker with rising temperature. CMC is one (a cellulose).

#75: Post by **crunchybean** » June 11th, 2019, 12:39 pm

AssafL wrote:Regarding mouthfeel, one major cause of mouthfeel in other foods wasn't suggested: hydrocolloids. Basically long chain starches that come from different plants (like flour).

An interesting aspect of espresso mouthfeel is that it tends to become less thick as it cools down. While most hydrocolloids thicken as the solution cools, there are a few hydrocolloids that become thicker with rising temperature. CMC is one (a cellulose).

I did in post #14

#76: Post by **RapidCoffee** » June 11th, 2019, 12:40 pm

smite wrote:Is an espresso machine like the DE for example even with its variable levels of control, which can emulate only certain characteristics of other machine extractions still constrained by its very design? So while we can change and data log many variables such as pressure, flow, temperature, etc. to emulate what we perceive other machines are doing, it will still always be constrained by its own physical design and never truly emulate these other machines 100%.

Yes, I believe this is the case. The DE1 can emulate the extraction profiles of other machines, but the shots will not be identical. With apologies to A.C.Clarke: this is not magic, just insufficiently advanced technology. We do not yet have a complete understanding of all the variables that impact espresso extraction. Subtle differences in pump pressure, headspace, water dispersion, basket hole patterns all influence the extraction, and there's a limit to what you can accomplish with profiling.

TomC wrote:The DE1 makes ... thinner, but most often better tasting shots.

My experience as well.

#77: Post by **smite** » June 11th, 2019, 1:00 pm

RapidCoffee

Agreed. Shots on the DE1 do taste different with many of them being better. To me that difference is especially true when speaking of "thinness" or body.

I know this isn't scientific, but I recall overhearing a conversation about 45 years ago some Italian espresso barista (family connection) types commenting on the "type and level of shine" and the "oiliness of a shot" as it pours and rests in the cup telling you right away if it would be good. The premise was that less shine and oil = less good.

Personally, I have noticed a difference in the shine of the shots from pull to pull that seems to correspond to the level of body and mouthfeel. More oil and shine seems to align with greater body, crema and resulting mouthfeel.

I know this is a bit out there but is a way to measure the level of shine? Is there value in looking at topic from this perspective?

In simple terms what techniques can we use to increase or adjust the level of shine?

TomC

Going back to your other thread and very helpful tip on letting shots rest. Do you notice a difference or change in body or shine as it cools?

#78: Post by **CwD** » June 11th, 2019, 1:27 pm

RapidCoffee wrote:Subtle differences in pump pressure, headspace, water dispersion, basket hole patterns all influence the extraction, and there's a limit to what you can accomplish with profiling.

The pump pressure differences can be figured out and accounted for (be it with different firmware or more powerful hardware), baskets can be used in different machines, and water dispersion is more right/wrong than preference. I can't say if the Decent will ever be there, but a machine with full ability to copy any profile (maybe something like Duvall that can pull off 30ml/s) and ideal water dispersion will be able to copy ANY machine, and where it can't copy because of water dispersion flaws (yes, flaws, not differences, it's perfect or it's not), objectively best it at it's own game.

#79: Post by **truemagellen** » June 11th, 2019, 1:33 pm

Those were part of the lever revival 10+ years ago will understand these terms that you can dig up from our discussions years ago about the magic of a lever (particularly spring lever)...I wont go into a history lesson on the old italians who figured out the holy grail recipe for espresso around WWII:

Column of Water
Turbulence

This is a brief summary and I'm sure the same people who thought we were nuts back then will come in to debate it again.

Pump based espresso machines disturb the puck through heavy turbulence at the beginning of the shot as water flows through the grouphead into the puck.

Rotary pumps that have a low pressure preinfusion reduce this but then maintain the high flow and pressure throughout the shot which is why puck preparation is critical to creating an ideal shot in these machines.

Vibratory pumps disturb the puck throughout the shot, not with high flow turbulence but with ultrasonic turbulence. This is creates a ever so slightly loose shot and reduced thickness/mouthfeel.

A Lever does a very low pressure infusion then creates an almost turbulence free 'column of water' extraction that not only maintains the integrity of the puck but the spring in a spring lever tapers the pressure so even if your puck is not prepared perfectly it is very forgiving and reduces channeling due to the lack of turbulence.

So thus the Slayer, the Strada, and now the Mina with Rotary pumps managing similar characteristics to the Spring Lever are achieving results that are equal to and in many cases beyond a spring lever except puck preparation is still critical to achieving those results as the 'column of water' does not exist with these machines.

#80: Post by **another_jim** » June 11th, 2019, 3:11 pm

appfrent wrote:By definition, sediments settle down by gravity when solution is left undisturbed. It's colloidal suspension (particles that neither dissolve, nor settle down) that leads to refraction/diffraction of light and hence reading on refractometer.

I think I wasn't clear (no pun intended). Paper filtered coffee, poured into a glass, is clear, colored but transparent rather than cloudy. Mesh filtered coffee is not. "Fining" wine or beer, or "clarifying" consumme, also removes turbidity and makes for a colored but transparent beverage. So what is oit that is being removed when I clarify or fine something in my kitchen? (BTW, consumme isn't paper filtered, but clarified by mixing in some egg white into the hot broth, stirring while it hardens, then running the broth through a cheese cloth.