Arco by goat story - Page 10
-
- Posts: 4
- Joined: 3 years ago
Definitely! Impossible to draw any real conclusions here but still comforting knowing they're on the right track in general terms I guess
I guess we'll find out if they pull off the prototype to production migration in 6 months
I guess we'll find out if they pull off the prototype to production migration in 6 months
-
- Posts: 1379
- Joined: 4 years ago
"motorized Kruve"? I like to see how you did that.PeterTheGoat wrote: We currently don't have sieves bigger than 1100 microns at the office on our motorized Kruve sifter, but those will suffice to prove this point.
-
- Posts: 5
- Joined: 3 years ago
It's probably not really a Kruve, but a professional machine that uses sieve analysis to determine the particle distribution. The concept is similar to a Kruve, but the sieves are moved mechanically.
-
- Posts: 5
- Joined: 3 years ago
Agreed.Co(fe)^2 wrote:Definitely! Impossible to draw any real conclusions here but still comforting knowing they're on the right track in general terms I guess
I guess we'll find out if they pull off the prototype to production migration in 6 months
I'm a backer of this project too. Reading through the Kickstarter comments gives me the feeling that some backers have too high expectations of the grind quality. I think it's unfair and unrealistic to expect this grinder to beat a Niche or to perform significantly better than other grinders with the same burr set. The detachable hand grinder is a fun and unique concept, but it also means that time and money has to be spent on engineering challenges other than sheer grind quality.
Don't get me wrong, there's enough to like about this grinder next to a potentially very decent grind quality (detachable hand grinder, aluminum body, small footprint, low retention, magnetic catching cup that fits your portafilter, etc). I just think we should not expect a revolution in grind quality here.
-
- Posts: 37
- Joined: 3 years ago
It most definitely is a Kruve clamped to a pivoting jig, that is driven by a stepper motor with an eccentric shaft on it and a 1 minute timer in the program that drives the motor. So we get a consistent shaking amplitude similar to that of hand sifting with a consistent sifting time. Better (more consistent) for comparing things than hand shaking a Kruve and easy and cheap enough to build.jvannistelrooy wrote:It's probably not really a Kruve, but a professional machine that uses sieve analysis to determine the particle distribution. The concept is similar to a Kruve, but the sieves are moved mechanically.
You would be surprised. Comparative advertising is not allowed (especially not on here) so I will not elaborate on this topic other than that I don't think that the coffee world really needs a grind quality revolution. The quality of grind that can be achieved with several good mills on the market is superb and it also determines flavor profiles of coffee the way you like it. Try and sift all the fines out of an espresso and make the shot without them and tell me how you like that espresso (you won't like it) or even do that with pour over (you won't like that either - I've tried it and it tastes weird). So it's not a race to get zero fines or something like that.jvannistelrooy wrote:Agreed.
I'm a backer of this project too. Reading through the Kickstarter comments gives me the feeling that some backers have too high expectations of the grind quality. I think it's unfair and unrealistic to expect this grinder to beat a Niche or to perform significantly better than other grinders with the same burr set. The detachable hand grinder is a fun and unique concept, but it also means that time and money has to be spent on engineering challenges other than sheer grind quality.
Don't get me wrong, there's enough to like about this grinder next to a potentially very decent grind quality (detachable hand grinder, aluminum body, small footprint, low retention, magnetic catching cup that fits your portafilter, etc). I just think we should not expect a revolution in grind quality here.
-
- Posts: 5
- Joined: 3 years ago
I agree with you Peter. I didn't mean to downplay the grind quality you aim to deliver with Arco and I realize that fines are essential for a good espresso. If I didn't think Arco could deliver good grind quality, I wouldn't have backed the project.
-
- Posts: 84
- Joined: 6 years ago
I'm most interested in the hand grinder for travel (Aeropress and/or pour-over) which, at the moment, is about US $150. What others would you recommend considering without spending a fortune?another_jim wrote: given the many others at this level, I'm not holding my breath. I wish them luck.
Also I haven't been able to find specs regarding size and weight. Any idea if they are buried in this thread or where to find them?
Thanks!
Joel
-
- Posts: 1379
- Joined: 4 years ago
I've always thought putting it on a vibrating surface would do well, large particles should migrate upwards and small downwards, I've considered rigging my phone into a continuous vibrate mode and just putting the kruve on top to see what would happen.PeterTheGoat wrote:It most definitely is a Kruve clamped to a pivoting jig, that is driven by a stepper motor with an eccentric shaft on it and a 1 minute timer in the program that drives the motor. So we get a consistent shaking amplitude similar to that of hand sifting with a consistent sifting time. Better (more consistent) for comparing things than hand shaking a Kruve and easy and cheap enough to build.
in the world of extraction theory, the more consistent you're grinds are the finer you can go without negative over-extracted tastes, the finer you can go, the more extraction you have which then gives you the option of enjoying higher extracted coffee or dosing down/adding bypass (the later would make more coffee to drink per gram). If coffee tasted weird after sifting some may be deterred by sifting, where others would argue you didn't go fine enough. I think a particle distribution chart would help to be more objective then we can make a comparative analysis ourselves without you violating any rules.PeterTheGoat wrote:You would be surprised. Comparative advertising is not allowed (especially not on here) so I will not elaborate on this topic other than that I don't think that the coffee world really needs a grind quality revolution. The quality of grind that can be achieved with several good mills on the market is superb and it also determines flavor profiles of coffee the way you like it. Try and sift all the fines out of an espresso and make the shot without them and tell me how you like that espresso (you won't like it) or even do that with pour over (you won't like that either - I've tried it and it tastes weird). So it's not a race to get zero fines or something like that.
-
- Posts: 37
- Joined: 3 years ago
Large amplitude shaking is better than vibrating for sifting coffee because you will get a lot of abrasion of the particles with vibrating the sieves that will create a whole lot of fines and a false result.DamianWarS wrote:I've always thought putting it on a vibrating surface would do well, large particles should migrate upwards and small downwards, I've considered rigging my phone into a continuous vibrate mode and just putting the kruve on top to see what would happen.
-
- Posts: 1379
- Joined: 4 years ago
good to note. I keep using my organic large amplitude shaking arms attached to my body.