Blind shaker better than WDT?? - Page 31

Beginner and pro baristas share tips and tricks for making espresso.
d3rw1n
Posts: 40
Joined: 1 year ago

#301: Post by d3rw1n »

Roo wrote:Sounds like the wrong design if a funnel is needed in between, perhaps a better design would incorporate the funnel feature?
Doesn't seem needed once you've gotten the hang of it. More like optional. I see the WW one here retains grounds too.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C3IQLItr ... NkeTQycmR1

erik82
Posts: 2206
Joined: 12 years ago

#302: Post by erik82 »

Roo wrote:Sounds like the wrong design if a funnel is needed in between, perhaps a better design would incorporate the funnel feature?
It's not designed to need a funnel, it's just been shown that with a funnel in between it works even better in distributing the grounds and keeping the mess to a minimum. As Lance shows it works better when you hold it somewhat higher.

Maak
Posts: 125
Joined: 4 years ago

#303: Post by Maak »

I think some of you are onto it. Everybodys unque combination of beans/roast/grind and location and equipment are what creates the biggest variant. Anything though that enables you to shake the grounds should get the basic effect.
In nearly 30 years of making espresso on commercial eqipment I have never seen coffee ground for espresso that will "swirrl" like in the WW video. In NZ its fairly humid so maybe thats it. Also the WW video shows a very coarse grind for espresso and a low dose. Obviously they will take advantage of as many variables as possible that shows their prodict well. I love the slow mo closeup on the patent :) .

Anything I use for a shaker will clog/cake slightly. My blind shaker has pretty straight internal sides and the hole at the bottom is 54mm, one of the bigest I've seen. I have to tap down very hard to get all the grounds out of the shaker but i would normally tap down anyway. There is still a fine layer of grounds left but a quick brush fixes that.

I do groom the top of the grounds in the portafilter as I'm left with a mild doughnut heap. I've used wdt tool or the edge of a dosing funnel to groom this ready for tamping. I should try just tamping.

Shaking has always given better results for me with any basket. Even the Pesado HE which I had given up on. Still my favourite is the MHW-3Bomber DEX basket, Im using the 22g basket with a 20g dose to get exrta headroom because I use a puck screen and have the old Lamarzocco screw in the shower to deal with.

Another thought is the type of grinder people have. I notice the ww conical has a tumbler not a shaker. Where grinds fall out of the bottom of a grinder I think they are shuffled around well like most hand grinders. Most flat burrs use centrifugal force with sweepers that then fire into a chute out one side of the burrs at speed, and I suspect this "sorts" the ground sizes into different locations in your tumbler.

If I don't shake, I notice a distinct difference if I rotate my tumbler while it's filling from the grinder to if I dont.

I think to me that a shaker with a 58mm bottom diameter, vertical sides at the exit and a larger internal volume would allow gentler shaking with less and side impact and easier exit. I guess I'll never know if this is correct unless I try it though.

d3rw1n
Posts: 40
Joined: 1 year ago

#304: Post by d3rw1n replying to Maak »

I think grounds from my conical look more like the WW video although not as coarse. I can somehow swirl them and they would still look fluffy. Unfortunately they have never been usable without prior shaking. That's why I've been shaking out of necessity since I got that grinder. It's more like tumbling the grounds inside the tall catch cup a few times and it's usually enough. I then carefully pour them into the basket, WDT and tamp. Before discovering the WDT needles I used to do horizontal taps but found WDT is just easier (never was really good at tapping).

I found grounds from my flat don't need as much shaking so I could dose directly to the portafilter followed by WDT. That said shaking them prior to WDT gives me better and more consistent results so I still do it. I was hoping I could get a better workflow from the blind shaker hence trying it out again. So far it's not really better, just different.

I've been using the Pesado HE basket exclusively for months now. Mainly because it's an expensive basket and it would be a waste not to use it. Also because I use top and bottom paper filter. Just makes it easy since the bottom filter is also 58mm. I wonder why you gave up on it.

Jonk
Posts: 2219
Joined: 4 years ago

#305: Post by Jonk »

d3rw1n wrote:I've been using the Pesado HE basket exclusively for months now. Mainly because it's an expensive basket and it would be a waste not to use it. Also because I use top and bottom paper filter. Just makes it easy since the bottom filter is also 58mm. I wonder why you gave up on it.
So far I've experienced worse results and lower extraction using a WW shaker as Lance instructed and the Pesado HE. I'm thinking the center mound isn't helpful combined with a basket that already extracts well from the sides.

Like Maak writes, it's all about the combination. I'm also using a bottom paper filter to keep the holes from clogging and with SSP MP/LS, light roasts and the Flair 58 it's already fairly problematic to get enough resistance from the puck. The shaker sure isn't helping there either.

d3rw1n
Posts: 40
Joined: 1 year ago

#306: Post by d3rw1n replying to Jonk »

I cannot measure EY so I can only compare based on taste & inspecting the spent puck. To me personally the best and most balanced shots still come from full WDT (even after pouring from the blind shaker). The spent pucks also look the most even (least amount of dark spots & often none at all). In my case I don't feel I really benefit from the blind shaker workflow since I'll have to do WDT anyway. That's why I reverted back to using a regular dosing cup for the shaking part.

IMO The center mound from the blind shaker is pretty good and much better than what you get from flipping the dosing cup but without further WDT I just cannot get it good enough (with the Pesado HE, haven't tried with the Pullman or VST).

I believe Lance was using the Sworks billet basket which might be similar to our Pesado HE. Never tried one so I'm not sure. But pretty sure he was grinding with DF64 Gen2 with stock burr (not SSP MP).

Jonk
Posts: 2219
Joined: 4 years ago

#307: Post by Jonk »

d3rw1n wrote:I believe Lance was using the Sworks billet basket
Nope, an 18g VST basket is mentioned in the DF64 video. I don't think the basket was specified in the first session but the footage is of a VST basket and the hole coverage is much less:


malling
Posts: 2936
Joined: 13 years ago

#308: Post by malling »

Jonk wrote:So far I've experienced worse results and lower extraction using a WW shaker as Lance instructed and the Pesado HE. I'm thinking the center mound isn't helpful combined with a basket that already extracts well from the sides.

Like Maak writes, it's all about the combination. I'm also using a bottom paper filter to keep the holes from clogging and with SSP MP/LS, light roasts and the Flair 58 it's already fairly problematic to get enough resistance from the puck. The shaker sure isn't helping there either.
I use 14-15g in the "Weber Unibasket" 16g version, also on a f58. Currently I'm mainly using the 83mm LS burrs with that machine, I'm about half way down on the usual range that I tend to use for espresso. The shaker is not the problem in combination with f58 in other words.

Your issue is likely down to your burrs, the LS and MP in 64mm have a noticeable limitation in range on loads of grinders, you need a very fine threaded adjustment mechanism with those burrs imho. I had my challenges with those burrs myself when using VST with bottom filter, can't imagine it get any better using those new basket with bottom filters.

Jonk
Posts: 2219
Joined: 4 years ago

#309: Post by Jonk »

Of course, they're even the brew focused V1's. A finer thread adjustment wouldn't help much, the problem is having to grind too close to 0. I can switch grinder or basket - also changing the combination :wink: - just saying there are cases where the blind shaker is not a helpful addition.

I need more time to play with it, but this is my suggestion for others to try: Skip the shake and just use the tumbler/shaker to form a center mound before tamping to isolate the differences. Perhaps this is how deep WDT "undo" the supposed benefits of shaking when used in combination with an unevenly extracting basket..

Maak
Posts: 125
Joined: 4 years ago

#310: Post by Maak »

So the variable missing in a lot of this discussion is..what style of bean/roast/espresso are you making. If your not chasing the same flavour, then techniques, although interesting, could well take you away from your target.

I'm not saying discussion is pointless at all, it's just certain concepts may only be apropriate for certain combinations of variables and desired results. Theres definitely not a one size fits all.

I drink black, medium roast 20g dose, 28-30g yield. sticky goey stuff. Thats just what I like. I think its bollocks that you dont need to tweak everything to perfection and thats only necesary for light roasts. I get how finnicky some light roasts can be, but everything can be improved. Many spro content creators describe a technique and then go on to say, "...but if your using medium or dark roasts it shouldnt matter or make much difference". But i still expreriment with it to see what it does for my set of variables

As to why the HE basket doesnt work for me. I dont like the results I get with paper filters. Although there are some positives, for me, It takes away from the viscosity and richness.
The idea of a basket that doesnt flex is great, the idea of a basket with the whole bottom used and straight sides makes sense even if its impossible to tap grounds out after.

I think the flow rate from the HE is just too fast for my prefered style of espresso. I have a bunch of IMS E&B with slightly more holes and slightly larger bottom area and slightly flatter bottom and slightly straighter sides. The bomber DEX still my fav. but so many to try and many are too expensive for a whim..

I have an easy test to see how the flow rate differes between baskets. Just run under a contant flow on your kitchen water tap. How far up the basket does it fill or does it even overflow. You can set you tap flow so the diference between baskets is greater. The effect is easier to see than running it in your espresso machine and weighing and timing to work out flow. Even with scales that automatically show flow rate.

On another note does anyone in this thread have experience with a WUG2 83a? considering an upgrade.PM me