Is body of espresso on the DE1 thinner? - Page 9

#81: Post by **appfrent** » June 11th, 2019, 4:23 pm

another_jim wrote: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.

Sorry, I wasn't clear either.
Its not as simple as this, but, for constant number of particles, higher the scattered light, higher the turbidity. You can see that it is a log scale. Even though there are exactly same number of microscopic particles may be present, solution would be much clearer for smaller particles. So when large particle are removed, by filtration or coagulation or coprecipitation (egg/gelatin for consumme) the solution appears clear even though plenty of microscopic particles are there. The decline is by power of 6 for particles smaller than few hundered nm.

#82: Post by **another_jim** » June 11th, 2019, 6:18 pm

Got it. This means the critical size of particles (be they fats, oils, sugars/carbs, or cellulose) that create a stable crema are also the same size that create the visible turbidity wine and beer makers want to remove. Given the weave of filter paper; this should be determinable.

Ground coffee fines range from 10 to 100 microns. From your graph, removing these particles would cut light scattering from a million to ten thousand of whatever erudite unit is on the y axis. That steel mesh filtering removes regular grind particles, while paper filtering removes fines, is the conventional wisdom of the coffee community. So is a brew whose light scattering is 10,000 erudites clear, whereas one with a million erudites turbid?

Of course, you mentioned that the paper filter traps more than fines, it also traps oils and proteins. So, I guess the experiment of adding a paper filter to the bottom of the basket doesn't distinguish them or their relative contribution to crema production.

#83: Post by **yakster** » June 11th, 2019, 6:39 pm

cunim wrote:Whoa there JayBeck. Now that is interesting - the bit about finer grinds reducing mouthfeel. I did not know that. Is this an informal observation or is it something everyone (except me) knows?

That would explain a lot. When I ran the E61 with boiler pressure preinfusion (usually about 30 sec), I found I had to grind considerably finer. I also noted a thinner mouth feel but I kept doing it because it made modern coffees drinkable (don't like sour). With the DE1, I am always using some sort of fancy preinfusion. Same reason. I will have to try the classic E61 profile and see if that changes the mouth feel from "a bit thin" to normal.

I seem to recall people saying that other long preinfusion/finer grind machines (like the Slayer) also tend to decrease mouth feel. I've also seen the opposite so I don't know what to believe about that.

Something everyone knows? Not sure. It's a common recommendation with lever machines to coarsen the grind when someone is looking for thick shots and not getting them. It seems counter-intuitive, but too fine a grind on a home lever does reduce mouthfeel.

#84: Post by **NelisB** » June 11th, 2019, 7:06 pm

TomC wrote: 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.

What coffee and grinder do you use?

June 11th, 2019, 8:27 pm

Countless coffees including home roasts. But for the most part, Monolith MAX and occasionally MonoCon.

#86: Post by **TomC** » June 11th, 2019, 8:30 pm

smite wrote:
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?

Creme collapses in some cases almost to the point that it's hardly there, if I let it sit that long. But the ones I let sit that long are light roasted bright coffees, which are ground finer and have very little crema to begin with. I don't have an issue with well developed darker roasts, a quick stir and I'm sipping on them right away.

#87: Post by **appfrent** » June 11th, 2019, 8:39 pm

another_jim wrote:Got it. This means the critical size of particles (be they fats, oils, sugars/carbs, or cellulose) that create a stable crema are also the same size that create the visible turbidity wine and beer makers want to remove. Given the weave of filter paper; this should be determinable.

Ground coffee fines range from 10 to 100 microns. From your graph, removing these particles would cut light scattering from a million to ten thousand of whatever erudite unit is on the y axis. That steel mesh filtering removes regular grind particles, while paper filtering removes fines, is the conventional wisdom of the coffee community. So is a brew whose light scattering is 10,000 erudites clear, whereas one with a million erudites turbid?

Of course, you mentioned that the paper filter traps more than fines, it also traps oils and proteins. So, I guess the experiment of adding a paper filter to the bottom of the basket doesn't distinguish them or their relative contribution to crema production.

That is mostly correct.
However, crema is a difficult beast. I know that proteins and detergents make stable foam when mixed with oils. I know plants have compounds like saponins, that essentially foams like soap. So my guess is proteins+saponin like compounds+oils+ CO2/gases(from grinds)+ hot water under pressure = crema. All those ingredients are going to be there irrespective of particle size. I think, the only importance of particle size here could be that they be fine enough to release enough gases under pressure but not so fine that no gases are left to release. Volatile oils and CO2 are the most unstable of these ingredients. Of course all this is speculative drivel I was hoping to avoid. One of the mad HB scientists should purge CO2 into puck of oil sprayed stale grinds and test this drivel.

#88: Post by **NelisB** » June 12th, 2019, 5:22 am

TomC wrote:But for the most part, Monolith MAX and occasionally MonoCon.

Nice!

#89: Post by **luca** » June 12th, 2019, 8:11 am

truemagellen wrote: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.

I'm not sure if I was one of the people thinking you were nuts back then, but I would like to know what these remarks are based on.

RE: "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."

The transparent portafilter videos show that during extraction, the ground coffee in the basket pressed down by the water and the headspace is full of water that looks clean throughout the shot. Only once the shot is stopped does the water in the headspace become cloudy and the puck expand to press against the showerscreen (if it does). This would seem to refute the turbulence theory. Can't remember what preinfusion was used in those videos, though.

RE: "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."

Ken, Jim et al did a rather rigorous blind comparison of vibe and rotary la cimbali juniors probably a decade ago now. I can't find the link, but I remember the bottom line being that they couldn't pick a difference. Don't get me wrong, though - I definitely think that the almost inaudible purr of a rotary pump or the changing pitch of a gear pump sound infinitely more satisfying than the racket of a vibe pump and I'd love them to be superior, it's just that I haven't seen actual evidence to suggest they are.

If you're argument is that it's self-evident that there must be disturbance because vibe pumps generate lots of tiny pulses, I'd point out that between the pump and the coffee, many vibe pump machines probably have a good deal of stretchy teflony/plasticky tubing and/or boilers that might contain compressible air, so I don't think it's enough to prove that there are pulses at the pump; for the theory even to hold weight, you'd have to make some argument that those pulses aren't negated by all of the intervening stuff such that they are an issue at the coffee.

#90: Post by **truemagellen** » June 12th, 2019, 11:10 am

Thank you for responding to my post. Viewing the cloudy water was a good idea. We accessed the puck and compared taste and mouthfeel. We could never get the mouthfeel or taste just right on a vibratory pump machine but it is critical to know we were not profiling the shot like the Decent