RyanJE wrote:Jim, just curious, what RPM was the flat used at?
After all that quoting; that's the question? Not sure; Dominick did say he experiment with it and didn't get much difference.
another_jim wrote:After all that quoting; that's the question? Not sure; Dominick did say he experiment with it and didn't get much difference.
RapidCoffee wrote:Both flat and conical burrs produce bimodal espresso grinds. The finer the grind setting, the more fines are generated. It is possible that conical burrs produce more fines than flat burrs, but experimental evidence seems pretty weak on this score.
Can you explain what you mean by "cluster closer together"?
cpreston wrote:Re ease of adjusting conicals: as has no doubt been pointed out before, the conical geometry causes the burr gap to change less per increment of burr adjustment, so if the same threads were used, conicals would indeed need more adjustment rotation per unit of grind change than a flat.
another_jim wrote:There is no mystery on why this is -- coffees vary in brittleness and frangibility by bean type, roast, and age; and the output of conicals varies less with these input variations than does the output of flats. There is a big mystery on how this is -- what exactly is it about flats that makes them more sensitive to bean variations?
The grinder artisans producing large flat burr hobbyist grinders need to experiment with well designed augurs. Conicals do not need them, flats do.
redbone wrote:My statement was not based on empirical data by me but compiled through observation and feedback by me and from other users experience. Observation: Conical grinds through their shape appear to adhere closer together within a greater range of time and less affected by changes to the bean such as aging and moisture.