bigabeano wrote: Jim wrote: they [the cet. par. espressos] both tasted the same cold

Plus, I don't see why two shots tasting the same when cold is so important, given that people generally drink hot espresso. I imagine your shots did not taste the same hot, which is more relevant.

This is the nub, and where you concede that extraction levels are only about 50% of the story.

In a triangle test of two different coffees or prep methods, i.e. where two cups are identical and the third is different, and the object is to see if the difference is tasteable, experienced cuppers will wait twenty minutes before trying the brews. Earlier than that all three cups will taste different. It is the cold taste that reveals the constants -- the coffee, the extraction levels. The earlier hot taste reveal dynamic factors, steep time, absolute coffee and water levels (as opposed to ratios) etc. etc. In espresso prep, a whole range of evanescent mouthfeel and quasi-taste factors, associated with the crema, are created. These are a large part of why people drink espresso, and they are not dictated by extraction levels.

I praised the VST baskets for creating baskets that allow for higher dosed espresso at finer grinds and therefore at both a proper extraction and with a punchy mouthfeel.

Which brings me to my final point. Why are you, Vince and Andy complaining about the study, and emailing me to take it down? Is there some sort of orthodoxy requirement that anyone who writes about their stuff has to agree with everything they claim or is fair game for this continued and nonsensical harassment?

For instance, the demand that I should have used extraction numbers in my study is not just impertinent but flat out impossible. Neither the refractometer, nor any other extant extraction measurement technology, can be used as an extraction controller; therefore extraction cannot be used as an independent and controlled variable in an experiment. It can only be used as a dependent variable that is measured and explained.

I wanted to explain shot volumes and taste on the basis of the barista variables -- the things I actually can control -- dose, grind, pressure, temperature, and shot time. As soon as extraction percentage becomes something that can be manipulated in the same way as these, I'll start seeing what playing with it does. And it's only at this point where the insistence that extraction be controlled like a current barista variable becomes possible. Until then, the Extract Mojo remains a QC tool and the baskets and tamper an accessory option, nothing more.

That is my opinion; please stop harassing me about it. I will not change my mind, and it makes you look ridiculous.

another_jim wrote:Which brings me to my final point. Why are you, Vince and Andy complaining about the study, and emailing me to take it down?

I'm actually really surprised by this. I originally had no desire to buy more baskets, and only became interested in picking up a VST basket or two after reading that study. The other benefits seemed like they'd be more useful in a cafe instead of at home, but Jim's post showed a clear benefit that I could get from these baskets that I hadn't even considered, and actually made them seem worth trying.

boar_d_laze wrote:Many of the large number using La Cimbali DT/1s? A lot of them drawing old-school 50/50 normales?

BDL

I'm assuming you're joking, yeah?

Bob_McBob wrote:I'm also curious about how you are supposed to calculate water loss ratio, which is a fairly important part of the formula used to generate the results. I've never seen much written about it online, and the feature was actually broken in the MojoToGo app for several months. If you go by the final beverage weight for a single cup brew, the variance in amount retained in the brewing device can significantly impact the results. For instance, the CCD retains a decent amount of liquid in the valve mechanism if you don't shake it out, and the Espro Press is basically impossible to get a reading on because of the amount of liquid retained under the filter. There is also a massive difference in retained liquid between a Turkish grind and a very coarse press pot grind. I basically never see anyone mention WLR or adjusting for it when discussing the EM.

Retained liquid is a generally important factor to consider, but I don't see how it's relevant to most applications of extraction yield calculations. If you're going by beverage weight (instead of water-in weight) for a filter brew, then it's critically important to any calculation. If you're calculating with brew water weight, it's going to be less relevant.

After all, a TDS measurement of a brew is a measurement of the total solids in the resulting beverage, extracted from all particles, through time. I don't know if it's more precise to call it an aggregate measurement, or an average measurement, but in either case, I'm of the opinion that extraction-yield is therefore generally over-valued as a metric.

It's very much like Agtron numbers (roast color) to determine roast quality. You can shoot for a certain whole-bean/ground "spread" (i.e., 5 pts between the whole-bean reading and the reading after it's ground), but it's never going to tell you if your roast is a good one. Extraction yield is calculated from a TDS measurement, and the "T" in TDS tells you that it doesn't care which dissolved solids you're talking about, whether they're sugars, caffeine molecules, chlorogenic acids, phenolic compounds, etc.

Sorry, don't wanna thread-jack.

malachi wrote:I'm assuming you're joking, yeah?

Not really. Just a couple of dispositive examples showing the equipment set and extraction ratios benefiting from a VST basket in the chain is not as limited as [you] asserted.

On the other hand, I'm not suggesting the sets and ratios are particularly large either. Jim's results hint that the baskets can be used to achieve a particular sort of taste profile in a wide variety of machines, and (IIRC) at a more dilute ratio than you suggested.

My conclusion is that I don't have anywhere near the data set required to even have a strong opinion much less a conclusion.

With respect,
BDL

Dear readers,
I'd like nothing more than to ignore this thread, but I'm quite offended by this statement:

another_jim wrote:Why are you, Vince and Andy complaining about the study, and emailing me to take it down?

That is a lie. Period. I haven't emailed Jim in years, and Andy and Vince are both offended that Jim would stoop to this level.

Scott

bigabeano wrote:The SCAA conducted formal tests in April of 2009 of the VST Coffee refractometer compared to the industry standard (AOAC) method of dehydration using an $18,000 microwave dehydration oven. The SCAA abandoned the old conductivity style TDS meter in favor of the VST Coffee Refractometer, which showed an accuracy and precision of +/- 0.02% as compared to their calibrated dehydration oven. They tested several units. Separately, the SCAE in Europe performed their own tests and analysis and adopted the VST Coffee refractometer in October of 2009 and made the announcement in Cafe Europa at HOST Milano. The Norwegian Coffee Association at the European Coffee Brewing Center in Oslo performed their own internal tests designed to compare the accuracy and precision of the VST Coffee & Espresso Refractometers against their traditional dehydration methods, in use there for some fifty+ years. They concluded the VST Coffee refractometer was as accurate as the dehydration methods, faster, and much less prone to user/laboratory error.

Thanks for the info; it's news to me. Is there a link or bibliographic reference?

As I said, I never doubted the utility of the Extract Mojo to give a coffee TDS reading, or its use for quality control in brewing on that basis. I had and continue to have two problems.

• Any indirect method of measuring extraction yield in the ground coffee via the TDS in solution has propagation errors. Even at a 0.02% level of accuracy, the extraction estimate comes in at +/- 1/4 percent range for weaker brewed coffees (anything less than +/-1/2 is fine). But that is without any errors at all in the water weight. If different brew methods are being compared, different levels of water may be retained in the ground coffee or wasted in the brewing equipment (e.g 3 way valves, wet filters etc) This creates systematic errors of unknown magnitude.
• The VST marketing implies that the Extract Mojo, the baskets, and now tamper will allow one to achieve repeatable, optimal shots and brews for all coffees and espressos. This is to be done by taking Extract Mojo readings of brews and shots until you hit on a brewing or shot making recipe that gets the optimum TDS and extraction levels.

So why do I have a beef with this?

Never, anywhere in any of these posts or arguments does anyone mention specific coffees or tastes. When Chris just posted that he prefers the VST baskets for certain coffees and grinders, you dismiss his experience, and those of the baristas' he interviewed, with a sneer about anecdotal evidence.

I love coffees, I love their outrageously different and individual smells and tastes. Even when that uniqueness is awful, it can be worthwhile; I'd rather have a Vietnamese Robusta that smells like an overturned hot dog cart (very rarely of course), then one that has been steamed and turned into a arid, Folgerized taste desert. I want to prepare each coffee so its tastes and smells are as individual and great as they possibly can be.

Therefore, I want to know why sometimes the same coffee can taste too sour, or too bitter, or even too sweet and bland. I have posted extensively on how to fine tune grind, dose, temperature, and brew or flow times to get the balance you want out of a brewed coffee or espresso shot. A few years back, I looked very hard at extraction, and ultimately found that knowing it was interesting, but did not make dialing in a coffee any easier. If tuning the actual taste of individual coffees is indeed easier by taking extraction readings with the Extract Mojo as an adjunct to carefully noting the actual taste balance; I would really like to learn how.

But the VST literature doesn't tell me this, nor do its defenders post it. Instead, their implication is that extraction data are not just an adjunct to taste; but more important than the judgment and taste of professionals or hobbyists. With the advent of the Extract Mojo, there is no longer any need for coffee professionals to waste their time tasting the coffee; just get the extraction levels right, and you are guaranteed to have the brew the public prefers.

To me, this is the beginning of the slide from specialty coffee to commodity coffee. A commodity coffee can have an optimal and maximally acceptable taste; a specialty coffee cannot. Every specialty coffee is ultimately a sequence of unique events, along with the adamant refusal to change this: it's a never again coffee, a never again roast, a never again prep, and a never again moment of tasting it. Any method for manipulating the taste must respect this defining reality, or it betrays the concept of specialty coffee.

And that's why my knickers are in a twist

My comments will in part mirror things Scott has already said.

another_jim wrote:After I requested the additional information I needed to complete the error propagation analysis, Vince asked me to break off the review and return the unit.

This is a lie, a pure, simple, deliberately manipulative lie. You did NOT ask Vince for more information; Vince did NOT ask you to break off the review and return the unit. What you DID say was this:

"Hi Vince, I received the Extract Mojo package and activated the software. This is a very well thought out set up! I'm glad to see it took the prize at the SCAA. Congrats. I'd like to help out on making this a commercial success, since I can already tell that measuring brew parameters in a straightforward manner is important."

Five months later, when you hadn't given any feedback, I emailed and suggested you send it to Dan, who had expressed definite interest. You said:

"It's a good idea. I've been buried in other projects and haven't had much of a chance to use the system."

THAT'S how the refractometer came to be passed on from you to Dan. Vince had nothing to do with it.

another_jim wrote: Why are you, Vince and Andy complaining about the study, and emailing me to take it down?

As Scott said, this is another pure, simple lie. The three of us never said anything of the kind. I told you I thought the study needed peer review, but that for personal reasons I wasn't going to do so. It is utter, vicious nonsense for you to claim that any of us told you to remove your study from the forum.

I'm sorry to note that Scott has decided to stick and run.

• Post vague objections to people's less than ecstatic posts about VST's products.
• When these are rebutted; continue with personal attacks
• Claim he has better things to do than talk to us, and run away (then why post in the first place?).

However, I do need to respond to being called a liar. This reply is going to be somewhat circumspect for reasons that will become clear. My purported lies are as follows:

About being asked to remove the thread from HB.

bigabeano wrote:That is a lie. Period. I haven't emailed Jim in years, and Andy and Vince are both offended that Jim would stoop to this level.

About not getting the information I needed to do the review of the Extract Mojo

Jim, this is false, and you know it ... My understanding was that the Extract Mojo system was specifically donated to H-B and sent to Jim for his use. After 5-6 months and no use, Jim apologized for not getting around to testing it, and at Andy's suggestion, sent it to Dan.

I'm not going to reproduce the emails with Mr Vince Fedele and Andy, my notes on phone calls, the non-disclosure documents I was asked to sign before beginning the Extract Mojo review, the conversations I had with Dan, or those with my legal acquaintances -- they all took place with the expectation of confidentiality.

Rereading these existing documents, and recalling the undiaried verbal exchanges, I realize that what I said could be called false if one is being rigidly, word by word, literal. However, they are an honest report of my commonsense understanding of Mr. Vince Fedele's and Andy's meaning.

If you look at this topic in conjunction with this announcement; you will be able to use the same commonsense understanding to infer that this thread, and its completely foreseeable ending in insulting accusations by Scott, is nothing more than a provocation. It is designed to elicit intemperate responses which can be used as a pretext for further legal threats from Mr. Vince Fedele.

Furthermore, it is my purely personal impression, which I invite everyone to judge, that Mr Vince Fedele is actively pursuing the elimination of all critical or even neutral comment about his products from the web, and that this series of posts by his proxies is a part of this campaign.

Therefore, while I will continue to comment on VST products whenever and wherever I please; I will no longer be responding to comments posted by Mr Vince Fedele or to the clique who've been copying my emails to each other. As they used to say in the alt.coffee days, PLONK.

I'm very disappointed by the direction this thread has taken. It has degenerated into personal attacks and has ceased to provide useful information to readers. Lots of heat, no light.

Before the posters think to themselves, "It's the other guy's fault", they should go back and re-read their posts, looking for what may be considered "incendiary" remarks. For example, the OP contained the phrase "tragic flaw". A response contained the word "apologists". While these phrases and words may or may not be accurate, and may look innocent on the surface, they are surely provocative. As the thead has continued, there have been more such words and phrases, resulting in an escalation of defensive responses and counterattacks, and the tone has become inappropriate for this site.

I think we all need to avoid incendiary remarks and focus as much as possible on the subject at hand. Data is great and opinions can be helpful (not every claim must be accompanied by scientific proof), but personal attacks and words that are guaranteed to provoke a reaction are simply out of place.

While I was greatly disturbed at the removal of a previous thread in response to a complaint from VST, and believe it was both a bad precedent and not helpful to VST's reputation, it's true that the title of the thread was provocative and ill-considered -- especially as no data was suppied to back up the implied assertion. The OP could easily have communicated the same information without the dig. Having realized this, I just changed the title of one of my recent threads because, in retrospect, I think it was unfair to the manufacturer of the product.

I'm all for free speech, but I think it's reasonable to expect a certain level of decorum on this board. Reread your posts before you hit Submit and make sure you're not directly or indirectly attacking someone.

I implore everyone to back off. There is actually useful information emerging from the discussion of the VST products, and I would like to learn more.

The object of the game is to help each other make great espresso. Civilized discourse is required to do that.