1 Group Espresso Machine's Thermal Stability Test - Page 2
-
maxmar
- Posts: 29
- Joined: 8 years ago
I have transcribed Dan's temperature test for the La Marzocco Linea Mini (see his 2nd video). The procedure Dan has followed is another one as we have used above but it gives you still an idea on what the Linea Mini's thermal stability is:
So taking a look at Shot 2 and Shot 3 the machine roughly varies between 198.3 °F (= 92,4 °C) and 200.5 °F (= 93,6 °C).
Note: I have cut off the thermometers' first readings to make the more interesting temperatures better visible. All temperatures are available with the raw data:
So taking a look at Shot 2 and Shot 3 the machine roughly varies between 198.3 °F (= 92,4 °C) and 200.5 °F (= 93,6 °C).
Note: I have cut off the thermometers' first readings to make the more interesting temperatures better visible. All temperatures are available with the raw data:
Shot 1 Shot 2 Shot 3 Shot 4 Shot 5 Shot 6 Shot 7 Shot 8
153.9 163.5 157,0 158.6 165.1 161.1 153.9 155.9
155.2 166.3 165.9 160.7 168.5 165.3 158.6 164.4
180.8 177.7 176.3 186.9 186.3 174.5 174.9 192.7
194.5 191.8 186.9 195.6 194.8 190.5 187.5 195.6
197.2 194.3 194.8 198.2 196.2 195.7 195.3 197.9
198.2 197.2 196.7 197.7 198.1 197.8 196.5 198.1
198.9 198.4 196.8 198.3 198.7 198.1 197.1 198.5
199.2 199.1 197.2 198.7 198.9 198.3 197.4 198.8
199.5 199.3 197.5 198.9 199.2 198.9 197.7 199.1
199.7 199.5 197.9 199.2 199.4 199.3 197.9 199.2
199.9 199.8 198.2 199.5 199.5 199.5 198.2 199.3
200.1 199.9 198.3 199.6 199.6 199.6 198.4 199.4
200.2 200.1 198.4 199.7 199.7 199.7 198.6 199.5
200.3 200.2 198.4 199.9 199.7 199.8 198.8 199.5
200.3 200.3 198.3 199.9 199.9 199.9 198.9 199.4
200.4 200.4 198.3 199.9 199.8 199.9 199,0 199.4
200.5 200.5 198.4 200,0 199.8 199.9 199.1 199.3
200.4 200.5 198.4 200,0 199.8 199.9 199.3 199.2
200.5 200.5 198.5 200,0 199.8 199.9 199.4 199.1
200.6 200.5 198.5 199.9 199.7 199.9 199.3 199,0
200.7 200.4 198.5 199.9 199.7 199.9 199.4 198.9
n.a. 200.3 198.4 199.8 199.7 199.8 199.5 198.9
n.a. 200.3 198.3 199.7 199.6 199.7 199.5 198.9
n.a. 200.2 198.3 199.5 199.5 199.7 n.a. 198.9
n.a. n.a. 198.3 199.5 199.5 199.7 n.a. 198.7
n.a. n.a. n.a. 199.3 199.5 199.6 n.a. n.a.
n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 199.4 199.5 n.a. n.a.
-
maxmar
- Posts: 29
- Joined: 8 years ago
I have taken Devin's (indend007) raw La Marzocco GS/3 data from above to generate an enlarged graph so the Linea Mini is easier comparable to the GS/3 (even if the LM is shown in Fahrenheit and the GS/3 in Celsius). Judge for yourself 
:
Haha, if you have pots of money please buy me a GS/3
!
:Haha, if you have pots of money please buy me a GS/3
!-
nuketopia
- Posts: 1305
- Joined: 8 years ago
You know, if you put both of these in the same units (celsius vs. fahrenheit) and put the graphs on the same scale, they don't look very different.
Also, since the data were collected in different ways, I don't think it is a fair comparison between the two.
Also, since the data were collected in different ways, I don't think it is a fair comparison between the two.
-
maxmar
- Posts: 29
- Joined: 8 years ago
Linea Mini, now in Celsius, using the same scale as used for the GS/3:
. As I said: "it gives you an idea".
Data:
Unfortunately, this is the only data that we havenuketopia wrote:Also, since the data were collected in different ways, I don't think it is a fair comparison between the two.
. As I said: "it gives you an idea".Data:
Shot 1 Shot 2 Shot 3 Shot 4 Shot 5 Shot 6 Shot 7 Shot 8
67,7 73,1 69,4 70,3 73,9 71,7 67,7 68,8
68,4 74,6 74,4 71,5 75,8 74,1 70,3 73,6
82,7 80,9 80,2 86,1 85,7 79,2 79,4 89,3
90,3 88,8 86,1 90,9 90,4 88,1 86,4 90,9
91,8 90,2 90,4 92,3 91,2 90,9 90,7 92,2
92,3 91,8 91,5 92,1 92,3 92,1 91,4 92,3
92,7 92,4 91,6 92,4 92,6 92,3 91,7 92,5
92,9 92,8 91,8 92,6 92,7 92,4 91,9 92,7
93,1 92,9 91,9 92,7 92,9 92,7 92,1 92,8
93,2 93,1 92,2 92,9 93,0 92,9 92,2 92,9
93,3 93,2 92,3 93,1 93,1 93,1 92,3 92,9
93,4 93,3 92,4 93,1 93,1 93,1 92,4 93,0
93,4 93,4 92,4 93,2 93,2 93,2 92,6 93,1
93,5 93,4 92,4 93,3 93,2 93,2 92,7 93,1
93,5 93,5 92,4 93,3 93,3 93,3 92,7 93,0
93,6 93,6 92,4 93,3 93,2 93,3 92,8 93,0
93,6 93,6 92,4 93,3 93,2 93,3 92,8 92,9
93,6 93,6 92,4 93,3 93,2 93,3 92,9 92,9
93,6 93,6 92,5 93,3 93,2 93,3 93,0 92,8
93,7 93,6 92,5 93,3 93,2 93,3 92,9 92,8
93,7 93,6 92,5 93,3 93,2 93,3 93,0 92,7
n.a. 93,5 92,4 93,2 93,2 93,2 93,1 92,7
n.a. 93,5 92,4 93,2 93,1 93,2 93,1 92,7
n.a. 93,4 92,4 93,1 93,1 93,2 n.a. 92,7
n.a. n.a. 92,4 93,1 93,1 93,2 n.a. 92,6
n.a. n.a. n.a. 92,9 93,1 93,1 n.a. n.a.
n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 93,0 93,1 n.a. n.a.
-
keno
- Posts: 1409
- Joined: 18 years ago
+1nuketopia wrote:Also, since the data were collected in different ways, I don't think it is a fair comparison between the two.
And it would be interesting to see the results for the Linea Mini with 0.6 mm restrictor versus the 0.8 mm. Bet the former would look more uniform.
-
maxmar
- Posts: 29
- Joined: 8 years ago
Just stumbled upon a >10.5 years old GS/3 thermal stability test by the master himself, Gregory Scace. I guess I read somewhere else that the GS/3 has been updated throughout the years but still it is an impressive machine for such a long time.
gscace wrote:Brew temperature reproducibility is +- 0.48 degrees F. Stability is +- .87 degrees F
-
maxmar
- Posts: 29
- Joined: 8 years ago
...and here's some data Doug (cinergi) has provided us 2005 (uh oh) for the Synesso Cyncra:
cinergi wrote:a reproducibility score of + - .36F and a stability score of +- .93F
-
nuketopia
- Posts: 1305
- Joined: 8 years ago
We can't make valid comparisons of data that was not collected in the same manner.
The data on the LMLM is entirely anecdotal and invalid.
The data on the LMLM is entirely anecdotal and invalid.
-
maxmar
- Posts: 29
- Joined: 8 years ago
Larry, I think we have different expectations regarding this thread .
Yours seems to be to post data that is totally comparable with each other, using the same test procedure, with the same measurement devices, graphed with the same scale etc. That's of course fine.
Mine is more to just collect thermal stabilities of different machines so that we have a place where one can get an impression on how these great machines behave - each for itself. Even if the machines were tested with different variations of the WBC procedure you can get very good ideas on how easy it is to pull reproducible and temperature-stable shots with them.
Besides, a lot of money and time has gone into testing, collecting this data, and sharing it visually appealing with the community. We do not want to forget that. So thanks to these contributors!
BTW, I have a neutral position. There's no bashing against any machine. So at least to me, there's no need to "defend" such a great machine as a LMLM. I would be glad if I could own it!
.Yours seems to be to post data that is totally comparable with each other, using the same test procedure, with the same measurement devices, graphed with the same scale etc. That's of course fine.
Mine is more to just collect thermal stabilities of different machines so that we have a place where one can get an impression on how these great machines behave - each for itself. Even if the machines were tested with different variations of the WBC procedure you can get very good ideas on how easy it is to pull reproducible and temperature-stable shots with them.
Besides, a lot of money and time has gone into testing, collecting this data, and sharing it visually appealing with the community. We do not want to forget that. So thanks to these contributors!
BTW, I have a neutral position. There's no bashing against any machine. So at least to me, there's no need to "defend" such a great machine as a LMLM
. I would be glad if I could own it!