RDT does nothing to improve taste. Yet with my grinders that lack clunky homogenizing devices, I do it every time. I don't have to. But it's more elegant (to me), than doing without. If I ever own a grinder with a clunky homogenizing device again, I will revisit RDT.

-Peter

I have to say better for what?

If it improves workflow and consistency then I say yes. If consistency improves the overall outcome of the espresso shot then I say.. double yes.

I use two completely different grinders every morning. An obnoxious Sette that drops beautiful fluffy grounds in the PF that need very little prep. It performs like this with a wide range of roasts. The Ceado E37S, when used with medium blends produces fluffy results but not so much with the light roasts and very fine grinds. This grinder is also a static generator. As a result, I need to put a lot more effort into my work flow before I can pull consistent shots (RDT and WDT). While this doesn't bother me, I have to say I have an appreciation for the fluffy grounds and wish I could get the same result no matter the grinder, roast, grind level etc.

So while I say yes, I also have to say no. You just can't have the same expectation in all situations.

RDT is special because it solves a specific problem caused by climate conditions. No harm finding a hackneyed workaround for an actual problem of static clinging grinds in a dry space. It's not really related too much to "fluffy grounds" and normal distribution since it's a weather related phenomenon that is clearly visibly a problem of coffee stuck all over the grinder. "fluffy" is certainly better, but that only matters if you can get the coffee out of the chute to begin with.

TheMadTamper wrote: to "fluffy grounds" and normal distribution since it's a weather related phenomenon that is clearly visibly a problem of coffee stuck all over the grinder. "fluffy" is certainly better, but that only matters if you can get the coffee out of the chute to begin with.

And even that is subjective. People who are steadfastly resistant to RDT, may choose to live with static cling in the grinder, rather than put up with what they perceive as the inelegance of RDT. This is why Kafatek publishes nominal figures of how much retention to expect with and without RDT. The latter number being higher of course. The user is free to choose his own path.

-Peter

I'd be hesitant to say that there are WDT or RDT opponents.

When we had a rather rare 10% RH (nose bleeds and headaches included) I RDT like crazy. But here humidity is usually higher than 60%. So usually I don't.

And WDT was a topic of my first post on HB. So I can say I am a fan. But I demand it if my grinder.

So not an opponent. At all. I'd say I am a fan.

I could imagine that some would oppose RDT for fear of rust or other moisture-related issues.

I used to wonder about that until it was pointed out to me that the oils in the coffee beans, even light roasted beans that don't have an oily sheen on the surface, protect against that.

-Peter

pcrussell50 wrote:People who are steadfastly resistant to RDT, may choose to live with static cling in the grinder, rather than put up with what they perceive as the inelegance of RDT. This is why Kafatek publishes nominal figures of how much retention to expect with and without RDT.

Who are these people who have a philosophical aversion to RDT? It seems like a straw man.

The Kafatek figures (where are they published?) must apply to their grinders under some nominal set of environmental conditions. My two hand grinders in my environment have a retention that is typically in the hundredths of grams. I doubt that the Kafatek numbers reflect that.

I did stir my grinds a couple times this morning. I thought, maybe it makes a difference. Even though when I've done back to back shots with/without stirring I saw no significant change, I still thought... maybe. It's a human thing, that sort of thought. It's part of what drives some athletes to develop nervous repetitive ritualistic motions. Rafael Nadal is a classic example, but a large percentage of baseball players exhibit this too. It's all about trying to do something that's hard to do well, repeatedly. You can't really figure out why it works sometimes and not others so superstition and ritual come into play. I'll bet at least 95% of baristas, home and otherwise, do this to some extent.

But with RDT it's right in front of your face.

Interesting question, but of of those I no longer ever ask myself since I've got my Monolith Conical. Weigh the beans, RDT, throw them in there, see grounds distributed into funneled portafilter, sometimes one tap to level, tamp, and enjoy perfectly even pours everytime. The joys of simplicity.

jpender wrote: Who are these people who have a philosophical aversion to RDT?

I dunno? Can I count the people who have posted in this thread who find RDT(or WDT) to be a disruptor to an elegant workflow?

What if you are of a mind that a workflow without RDT and WDT is inelegant? Maybe the pursuit of perfection in every detail, in addition to a form of excellence, is also a form a elegance?

jpender wrote:The Kafatek figures (where are they published?)

On their web site, of all places. In the same block of text where they mention they include an RDT spritzer AND a WDT tool with every grinder. And at the bottom, they say this:

We still recommend using at least WDT to aid in consistency and ensure that most shots you make will have good distribution and flow.

I agree with them. And I did before they even existed as a corporate entity.

HRC-E.B. wrote:Interesting question, but of of those I no longer ever ask myself since I've got my Monolith Conical. Weigh the beans, RDT, throw them in there, see grounds distributed into funneled portafilter, sometimes one tap to level, tamp, and enjoy perfectly even pours everytime. The joys of simplicity.

I hear you. I don't even tamp any more. I set one of my distribution tools to the right headspace, spin it down, and done.

-Peter