Blind shaker better than WDT?? - Page 34

Beginner and pro baristas share tips and tricks for making espresso.
cmin
Posts: 1385
Joined: 12 years ago

#331: Post by cmin »

d3rw1n wrote: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.
ahhh I get what your saying, makes sense as your mixing than distributing. Yeah the Prime definitely needs distributing, if I just try shaking playing around and dumping in basket even ephq baskets it's a channeling spraying mess lol. Needs wdt no matter what.

I have thought of taking the wiper off the Prime out of curiosity to see what happens. May try that today.

Quester
Posts: 592
Joined: 8 years ago

#332: Post by Quester »

d3rw1n wrote:For the purpose of mixing (vigorous stirring) I'm pretty sure .4mm could be more effective than .25/.3mm.
For me, something much thicker works better for mixing. I use the Londinium WDT tool. It has thick wires and those circles on the end really move things around. But it's easy to control. I use a mixing/whisking motion with my catch cup at 45 degrees.

d3rw1n
Posts: 40
Joined: 1 year ago

#333: Post by d3rw1n »

cmin wrote:ahhh I get what your saying, makes sense as your mixing than distributing. Yeah the Prime definitely needs distributing, if I just try shaking playing around and dumping in basket even ephq baskets it's a channeling spraying mess lol. Needs wdt no matter what.

I have thought of taking the wiper off the Prime out of curiosity to see what happens. May try that today.
I always wish I could install such wiper but you're thinking of taking it off lol. If you can use the grounds as is I'm guessing the wiper might have helped with mixing/homogenising somehow.
Quester wrote:For me, something much thicker works better for mixing. I use the Londinium WDT tool. It has thick wires and those circles on the end really move things around. But it's easy to control. I use a mixing/whisking motion with my catch cup at 45 degrees.
This Londinium style WDT tool is the one included with my grinder (4 prongs, thick wires, circles on the end). It's indeed more effective for mixing. Unfortunately the included catch cup is a stainless one that is too tall for the tool. That's why I ended up with a mini whisk before finally settling with just tumbling the grounds inside the cup using the movement I described earlier.

PPapa
Posts: 188
Joined: 6 years ago

#334: Post by PPapa »

So do we need a double ended WDT...

I have both Londinium WDT (mixes and moves grounds well) and Sworksdesign 0.25/0.25mm (flattens well).

Once I'm back from holiday I can take a video of the two in action and do some experiments. I do grind into a tumbler but I'm not fan of shaking.

bznelson91
Supporter ♡
Posts: 252
Joined: 5 months ago

#335: Post by bznelson91 »

After having initial inconsistency with the blind shaker (coupled, I'm quite sure, with also being new to espresso making, Decent DE1PRO, all of it at once), I did many shots with "plain old WDT", and experimented with the blind shaker in terms of "seasoning". Here's what I did, using the MHW-3BOMBER model:
  • Grind some "burr seasoning" coffee at espresso range (basically, stale beans that would have otherwise been tossed)
  • Fill the shaker pretty much full, tapping on the counter to compact
  • Let it sit for a day or two untouched
  • Empty, wipe lightly with paper towel
  • Refill again, but invert, tap, and let sit again
  • Clean out with paper towel
At this point, I went ahead and used it using roughly the Hedrick method for a couple of Rao Allonge shots. They did get to 9 bar and looked good on pressure overall, so I feel fairly confident that the puck was fairly uniform. The taste was equal or better than WDT; I'm not going to claim one was the winner.

Perhaps most importantly, though, I measured retention after the last shot. Using an Acaia Pearl S 2021 (0.1g resolution), there was 0.1g difference between the dumped shaker and wiped visibly clean with a paper towel. I'm satisfied with this. There were no clumps or notable bits sticking to it anywhere, just mostly fines fairly evenly distributed on all parts.

YMMV, of course :) Is it better from a workflow standpoint than WDT? Maybe? I'll play around more.

Brad

boren
Posts: 1115
Joined: 14 years ago

#336: Post by boren »

Is there any point bothering to clean the shaker after each shot if its retention is about 1/30 of a gram?

Would you bother cleaning 0.04 gram of retention?

PPapa
Posts: 188
Joined: 6 years ago

#337: Post by PPapa »

Talking of Londinium vs Sworksdesign wdt needles... I'm going to experiment with double WDT for a bit, as I never liked a blind shaker and would WDT afterwards anyway.

d3rw1n
Posts: 40
Joined: 1 year ago

#338: Post by d3rw1n »

PPapa wrote:Talking of Londinium vs Sworksdesign wdt needles... I'm going to experiment with double WDT for a bit, as I never liked a blind shaker and would WDT afterwards anyway.
https://www.instagram.com/reel/C4Epuo3N ... RiMXdneg==

From what I read this is what WW used to do before they came up with a lid (blind shaker). If stirring with a stick is enough to give you the same effect as shaking your workflow should produce similar improvement to the shots. How are you finding the results so far compared to only using the Sworks WDT?

kye
Posts: 152
Joined: 3 years ago

#339: Post by kye »

Prior to experimenting with the blind shaker, I used to do a two step WDT:
- grind into dosing cup
- stir grounds with WDT tool for 10-30s to break up clumps
- pouring the grounds into the portafilter using the WDT tool (like you might pour cake batter from a bowl using a spatula) to make sure it's fluffy and evenly distributed in the basket
- WDT the top of the grounds in the portafilter
- tap gently
- WDT the top to even them out if the tap revealed un-evenness

When I switched to the blind shaker there was a notable difference in faster extractions etc, as other people observed. In my frustrations with the shaker, I moved back to my previous process, but added a step of stirring the grounds in the dosing cup with a spoon prior to using the WDT tool in the dosing cup. The use of the spoon retained the same effects as using the shaker.

From that, I can only conclude that stirring with a WDT tool isn't the same as shaking, but stirring with a spoon give the same (or majority) of the benefits of shaking.

User avatar
Jeff
Team HB
Posts: 6889
Joined: 19 years ago

#340: Post by Jeff »

:mrgreen:
I use a spoon to remove 0.5 g from the basket and toss it over my left shoulder. I get faster extractions. I can only conclude that throwing coffee grounds over my left shoulder gives the same benefits of shaking.
:mrgreen:

To some extent, I get it. I tried a shaker. I didn't find improvement with my coffee in EY that I considered significant. I'll probably try it again some day, just as I've re-tried previously rejected WDT tools and tapping approaches.