Leveling tamper, distribution tool. One, both, or neither? - Page 2

Want to talk espresso but not sure which forum? If so, this is the right one.
User avatar
CarefreeBuzzBuzz
Posts: 3863
Joined: 7 years ago

#11: Post by CarefreeBuzzBuzz »

OK31 wrote:
Bottom line what I am trying to accomplish is save time on my process, make sure I'm doing the best way, using the least time and struggle and getting best outcome.

Thanks again and keep the thoughts coming. I'm sure there are others with questions.
Few thoughts. - I got the Levatamp and think it helps a lot so I agree with that strategy. That has helped a lot. Even with an old Macap M4 that isn't even stepless my shots have improved much with the level tamp. New grinder on the way.

Time in process - the other thing that has changed for me is to not focus on saving time, but rather the joy of experimentation, with my coffee prep time being some of my favorite moments of the day. There is no right or wrong, only learning.

I think Dick described a great path. I am sure I will try skipping the tamp at some point just to see.

Let us know what you decide.

Michael
Artisan.Plus User-
Artisan Quick Start Guide
http://bit.ly/ArtisanQuickStart

User avatar
bluesman
Posts: 1594
Joined: 10 years ago

#12: Post by bluesman »

Bret wrote:I've tried using the distribution tool as a tamper: did not work out favorably for me, and could require adjustment every time dose/grind size changes, so that's a deal breaker for me, and it doesn't provide any 'feel' to me about the tamp pressure (full compaction or not).
It does require adjustment (or confirmation that none is needed) for each bean, dose, grind etc. We recently switched to Nicoletti for our house blend (on recommendation of an HB post) because it's a small, local family business, Aldo Nicoletti takes a strong personal interest in his customers, and it's delicious. As the cost is reasonable, it doesn't change enough over a few days to make adjustments necessary, and we get it 2 days after roasting, we're very happy & have no desire to change - so standardizing is easy for us. It's harder for those who use more demanding beans.

I dial the grooming tool for our house beans and use a tamper on whatever else we try. This week, I dialed in and tamped some 1st-Cup Fattobene I got from Jim at 1st-Line last Thursday (another very nice, traditional style but slightly smoky espresso). If I find something else we want to keep around alongside our standard, I'll spend another $25 for a second tool & set it for that. But so far, we're fine with one house blend. Once the tool is dialed in for a bean or blend, there's no need for tactile feedback. Gently turn it while advancing to the basket rim and you're done. We don't use coffees that require daily change in dose or grind - if you do, you need the hands-on control you prefer.

User avatar
Spitz.me
Posts: 1960
Joined: 14 years ago

#13: Post by Spitz.me »

I found those twisty distribution tools to be more work than advertised. That would be fine if using the tool was consistently better than a WDT. It was not. I'm not sure how or why my experience is drastically different to many other use reports, but it is. I returned the tool and went back to WDT. I have mentioned that I also never found WDT to be consistently great, but I was more consistent with WDT.
LMWDP #670

brianl
Posts: 1390
Joined: 10 years ago

#14: Post by brianl »

I'll repeat but I found the EazyTamp Pro 5 star tamper to drastically speed up my process. IT has the leveler and a spring for pressure. This way I don't fuss over the tamp after it clicks, haha.

I grind into the basket and do a quick stir with a brush handle about the size of a chopstick. Not really for WDT but just because my grinder shoots in the same spot and i'm too lazy to fuss with making it land in the basket equally. I have a little shot glass that I sometimes grind into and just skip the brush thing.

after that I do a couple taps with my hand to level out the distribution and a slight tamp on my tamp stand to get the coffee grounds off the side of the basket. Then tamp! voila.

OK31 (original poster)
Supporter ♡
Posts: 499
Joined: 6 years ago

#15: Post by OK31 (original poster) »

Well noted on the easy tamp and the grooming tool. Would a vst basket make any sense for something other than standardizing the dose? I kind of get what it's for but then again not sure. Only considering this to get a second basket so I can use the stock bdb in the stock spouted pf and the vst or another basket in the bottomless. More options and if serving several guests can do two singles on spouted. So let's add basket type/size to the mix and suggest order in which to get these accessories.

Don't worry latte milk steaming tips questions will follow.

User avatar
Jake_G
Team HB
Posts: 4295
Joined: 6 years ago

#16: Post by Jake_G »

Several folks have commented on needing to adjust the puck grooming tool for bean changes and/or dose/grind setting adjustments. I find this interesting because many of us preach the virtues of the nickel test to determine what the correct dose is for our machines with a particular basket/coffee combination. The process goes something like this:

•Tare the empty portafilter
•Grind, dose, distribute and tamp
•Weight and record the weight of the beans in the PF
•Drop a nickel on top of the prepped puck and lock in
•Pull the PF and see if the nickel left a mark

If it left a heavy mark, drop the dose a bit and try again; you have dosed too much and risk channeling from puck fracture from dosing too much.

If it left no mark, you can dose a bit more, if you'd like.

If it left just a light witness mark, record the aforementioned weight as your gold standard dosing weight. And never deviate from it by more than 0.000001g for as long as you both shall live :wink:

I bring this up because setting the dose in this way ensures a certain puck height with a certain bean when tamping consistently. By staying consistent throughout our usage of a given basket/coffee combination, we eliminate a major variable.

Setting the grooming tool depth to create a puck that will pass the nickel test is no different, but it does feel different. It feels different because if we switch to a more dense coffee, the puck won't be sufficiently compacted when using the tool. Were we tamping, we would simply have a shorter puck for our go-to dose, and we would grind finer and chalk it up to "routine grinder adjustment" and pay it no real attention. But since using the distribution tool is a paradigm shift, we assume the tool depth is no-good and adjust it, or decide to return to tamping at the first sign of a problem.

In actuality, what we should be doing here is increasing (or decreasing, in the case of a less dense bean) the dose until the grooming tool is providing the same level of compaction as we would get when tamping. This means we need to keep a tamper around to check and ensure that the dose is sufficiently large to reach some minimum level of compaction when we switch coffees. This is the same as performing a nickel test when we switch coffees. The geometry of the group hasn't changed; why should our puck thickness/headspace? I think the grooming tool process goes something like this:

•Perform a nickel test as above, adjusting dose until a light witness mark is achieved
•Record this dose/coffee combination
•Adjust the grooming tool depth until out just touches the surface of a puck that passes the nickel test.
•Dose and groom, forgoing tamping until you switch to a new coffee

When switching to a new coffee, do the following:

•Perform a nickel test as above, adjusting dose until a light witness mark is achieved.
•Record this dose/coffee combination
•Groom the puck and forgo tamping

I have a sneaking suspicion that taking this approach, where dose is optimized such that we get a fully compacted puck that is consistently the same thickness, regardless of the bean, our shots will become more consistent for a given brew ratio, with potentially fewer grind changes when changing beans...

Also note that I refrained from using the term "distribution tool". It's a grooming tool. A dissecting needle or a bamboo skewer, or a Londinium tool is a distribution tool. What we're talking about is a grooming tool. After finally caving and trying WDT, I believe both are vitaly important to good puck prep. My grooming tool has a fixed depth of 8mm and needs no tamp to achieve a perfect pour when using WDT. However, a light tamp does compact the puck another 2mm and leaves my shower screen much cleaner than the 8mm tool alone. Based on this, I think a grooming tool set to a 10mm depth would be ideal for my machine.

What do all y'all think?

- Jake
LMWDP #704

pcrussell50
Posts: 4010
Joined: 15 years ago

#17: Post by pcrussell50 »

brianl wrote:I'll repeat but I found the EazyTamp Pro 5 star tamper to drastically speed up my process.
For two to six shots a day, speeding up my process has never been important to me. A process that produces the best results, far outweighs speed to me, no matter how much extra time it takes. I RDT and WDT every single shot, no matter what, whether it needs it or not simply because it can't hurt and might help. Oh and also the fact that the top dogs I follow here at HB do it, too.

-Peter
LMWDP #553

brianl
Posts: 1390
Joined: 10 years ago

#18: Post by brianl replying to pcrussell50 »

Good for you. My response was for the topic starter.

Besides, my process gets near perfect pulls every time without all the fuss. So what process is better?

User avatar
bluesman
Posts: 1594
Joined: 10 years ago

#19: Post by bluesman »

Jake_G wrote:Also note that I refrained from using the term "distribution tool". It's a grooming tool.
I'm not so sure about that, Jake. The sloping ridges on tools like the one I bought (shown below) shift the ground coffee around as they compress it during rotation. Particulate matter behaves like a fluid in many ways, including distribution under pressure - so the dose will redistribute & fill areas of lower resistance (i.e. voids and poorly packed foci) to capacity as those "vanes" push it around and in. That's the most reasonable explanation I can come up with for the consistent results once I set the depth for best results. I agree that pure, simple grooming tools don't do this.


Jake_G wrote:The geometry of the group hasn't changed; why should our puck thickness/headspace?
DIfferent coffees do best with different doses, puck thickness, headspace etc. Malabar Gold likes a lot of headspace, while Hairbender and Redbird do better for me with almost none and Nicoletti is in the middle. Doses also vary greatly, with 1st-Line's Fattobene giving me the same depth and intensity at 16 gm that takes 18 gm of Malabar in a 21 gm basket and 19 gm of Redbird in an 18 gm basket. So dialing in a grooming/distribution tool can require a fair amount of work to create / accommodate the right dose, puck thickness, headspace etc.

User avatar
JR_Germantown
Posts: 417
Joined: 18 years ago

#20: Post by JR_Germantown »

bluesman wrote:Particulate matter behaves like a fluid in many ways, including distribution under pressure...
Wait, not so fast there. If the particles are uniformly sized, spherical, and sufficiently lubricated, I think that might hold true. But ground coffee is like a junkyard of mixed sizes and shapes. There is initially some fluid-like behavior, but the particles will only move until they can't (we typically call that process "settling"). Once the particles have settled, movement can be detrimental--especially under pressure.

I shot a video using vibration to settle the grounds in a basket. The first second or so, the coffee pile appeared to melt (like a fluid) into about half its height. But as the vibration continued, fractures appeared (now like a solid).
Jack