I have the older Kinu M47, with the catch up which is not screwed on. I understand they changed the adjustment mechanism to be more fine grained in the newer one. So my setting of "22" refers to 2 full turns + 2. You could express it as 2.2 I suppose. My Kinu doesn't seem to have any burr rub at any setting.

I used the sieve 1200. Vario creates less fines, because I can use an overall finer grind in Vario and have the same amount of fines compared to Kinu. The coarser the grind, the less fines are to be found. If I would calibrate the Vario & Kinu to have the same average grind size, you would find that in Vario more % of grinds would fall in the middle.

With my M47 V1 I was around 2.4 and with the V2 around 4.5. There's a big difference in the thread size.

Not so big, is 0.75 mm vs 0.5 mm in V2.
So two turns in V1 are exactly the same as 3 turns in V2.
The really big issue is the reference where you start counting turns, different for any copy of M47.
Without a zero point, where the burrs either barely rub or lock, any grinding numbers sharing is useless.

33% or 50% difference depending from what side your calculating is a pretty big difference. I don't know how well the zero point of the M47 V2 is comparable between grinders. Not having tested 100 grinders and settings I can't comment on that but think it's pretty close looking at their build quality. Barely rubbing and locking can also be very different depending on grinder alignment so I don't know if that's a better way to compare grind settings.

We've made a summary graph of some measurements for various grinders:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... 8FR9Cy1fjA

It's roughly a cumulative distribution graph, the steeper the curve the tighter the distribution is. EK43 there isn't directly comparable because it's dialled in for Clever, but it's the only measurement we've got so far.

EG-1 numbers would be great erik82, if you can get hold of some Kruve sieves

If someone in the Netherlands is willing to lend me a kruve sieve set I'll do the work and post the findings, no problem. For now I find them too expensive without the guarantee of a positive result. Still broke from buying the EG-1 .

Great efforts going on here, thanks for sharing!

Just some suggestion - instead of a vague description 'for drip'(which drip what protocol?) and different beans with different roast level(hence different bean brittleness and breaking patterns), is it worth while to standardize a method if this is going to be a collaborative effort?

Maybe something like using a small Hario v60 with a single pour(versus hand pour periodically), then using an easily accessible and standardized beans/roast like Illy(those little red can)? At least that way we can compare apple to apple with the effect of most (not all) variables minimized. Otherwise the result seems only valid for that beans for that particular person who carried out the test.

Some numbers are from MWJB (Feldgrind, Lidos, Porlex), and some are mine (Kinu, M47), we obviously used different beans but both are speciality-type beans. Regarding the recipe, we both use V60 02 and he typically does 6 small pours and I do 1 slow continuous pour. Yes it's not extremely scientific, but you can see that the hand grinders & Vario hit roughly the same mean, and differences between Kinu/Feldgrind/Lido are very small.

If the beans would matter that much, then a test done with Illy beans would be less useful for most of us

This is another way to visualize, courtesy of MWJB: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... 9DV9MO8MzU