Blind shaker better than WDT?? - Page 33

Beginner and pro baristas share tips and tricks for making espresso.
erik82
Posts: 2206
Joined: 12 years ago

#321: Post by erik82 »

Capuchin Monk wrote:It's the coffee oil residue on the surface. I use paper towel and some rubbing alcohol to wipe the inside face of my aluminum dosing cup that came with my grinder. It slides grinds well for a few days. So I use this cleaning method every 4 - 5 days.
For me it's the other way around. When I've cleaned my blind shaker it's static like heel the couple of days after until seasoning happens. Same as why burrs produce less static when seasoned due to some coffee oils on them. So I tend to not clean the shaker so often as to have less static (and I do use RDT).

lukeap69
Posts: 81
Joined: 11 years ago

#322: Post by lukeap69 »

My experience as well.

bznelson91
Supporter ♡
Posts: 266
Joined: 5 months ago

#323: Post by bznelson91 »

Hmmm, maybe one needs to "season" with some junk coffee grinds, "rubbing them in" with paper towels or something. I have plenty of discarded beans, I should try this. I've noticed my 3Bomber shaker has gotten more "clingy".

Brad

romlee
Supporter ♡
Posts: 83
Joined: 2 years ago

#324: Post by romlee »

I wipe out my Craig Lyn shaker funnel 1 with a bar towel (microfiber) after each use. Very little to no retention or caking. Yes, RDT, one short spritz.

First 3 days of use there was a fair amount of retention/caking in the shaker and stopper. Then it began to ease up. I haven't yet found the need to clean it with detergent or alcohol or polish it. It seemed to take care of itself.
“Be curious, not judgemental.” T. Lasso

erik82
Posts: 2206
Joined: 12 years ago

#325: Post by erik82 »

You'll probably wipe out the gournds but not the oil with the microfiber cloth. That means you've also "seasoned" yours and ths less static. Try detergent and deepclean it and you'll see the static is back.

romlee
Supporter ♡
Posts: 83
Joined: 2 years ago

#326: Post by romlee »

Yep. Just the cloth.
“Be curious, not judgemental.” T. Lasso

cmin
Posts: 1392
Joined: 12 years ago

#327: Post by cmin »

d3rw1n wrote:
I found the effectiveness depends on the tool being used and how vigorous your mixing is. No matter how vigorous I was 0.25mm needles just couldn't get the job done. 0.3mm needles did a better job but still wasn't good enough for the grounds from my conical grinder. I found the Londinium type WDT tool that came with that grinder (with loop ends and thicker prongs) was more effective for mixing but not great for distributing after. If you just want to use one tool I'm guessing a WDT tool with slightly thicker needles like the Levercraft tool (0.4mm) could give you the best of both worlds.
See that's weird how experiences can vary, I thought the .4mm tools sucked including my Levercraft and had issues whether dark, med, or light roast with another .4mm tool which seemed to echoes others using thicker needles like that so never bothered with that needle size again. Vs .25 to .35 needle tools which work far better for me across all roast and doses. Whether flats or large conical (HG1 Prime).

Think the Swork Wdt even comes with .25 and .22?

kye
Posts: 152
Joined: 3 years ago

#328: Post by kye »

h3yn0w wrote:I don't own a refractometer so this is very anecdotal, but ever since the blind shaker video I've been experimenting with very vigorous WDT. I don't just mean deep WDT , I mean really whisking things hard and trying to elicit some form of vertical mixing and hopefully densification. A funnel is definitely a must for this.

When I do this , my shots do in fact run faster so something is changing vs my regular wdt. I would love for someone else to try this and report back.
It might have been me that said that stirring has similar effects to shaking. To me that seems to make sense - mixing up the grounds is likely to be a significant component (and possibly the only component) of what shaking is doing, and using a spoon etc to do it would be effective for that.
I'd be curious to see if anyone else can replicate this vs a blind shaker - my setup isn't consistent enough to draw conclusions yet. If someone does try it then comparing the shot times might be a good proxy for how similar it is?

tiji78
Posts: 34
Joined: 8 months ago

#329: Post by tiji78 »

quick feedback regarding my previous remarks and tests on WW Blind Shaker (the original)

1) a lot of static electricity
disappeared at 99%, just a mist of fines still sticking but really nothing. everything falls in the filter and fill the space.

2) extraction
after a short WDT+ tap before tamping twice (dynamometric Normcore) it is very regular in time and taste (I am using LM brew by weight)

how did I fix this? I changed the way I shake and followed the last video that WW has released. The shaking gesture, moving the cover in the opposite direction of the shaker seems to work very well for me. Direct pouring in pf too.

d3rw1n
Posts: 40
Joined: 1 year ago

#330: Post by d3rw1n »

cmin wrote:See that's weird how experiences can vary, I thought the .4mm tools sucked including my Levercraft and had issues whether dark, med, or light roast with another .4mm tool which seemed to echoes others using thicker needles like that so never bothered with that needle size again. Vs .25 to .35 needle tools which work far better for me across all roast and doses. Whether flats or large conical (HG1 Prime).

Think the Swork Wdt even comes with .25 and .22?
I think it's because our techniques can also vary. After all these manual WDT tools are pretty manual.

It's nice you don't need to mix the grounds from your HG-1 Prime. So far my experience with my large conical (Option-O HSM) always involves a two step process. Mixing/homogenising (blind shaker/dosing cup with lid/ mini whisk) followed by distributing (.3mm WDT/3D printed spirographic/moonraker). It's even suggested in the grinder's manual to always mix the grounds.

For the purpose of mixing (vigorous stirring) I'm pretty sure .4mm could be more effective than .25/.3mm. For the purpose of distributing I might agree with you it sucks as I feel .35mm is already a bit too thick for the way I use the tool to distribute the already mixed/homogenised grounds in the basket. .25mm is great but it bends too easily so I finally settled with .3mm.

With the flat (DF83) I can somehow skip the mixing step but found when included still gives me better and more consistent results.