Almost certain. The variation within unfiltered samples is much smaller than their distance from the "real" readings. Even the very lowest unfiltered samples taken were nowhere near the highest filtered readings. Your actual distance may vary depending on grind (mine is extremely fine, which may push my filt/unfilt difference to the higher side) and coffee, but it's probably not what anyone else is measuring as 25%.catalinH wrote:What are the chances when I take 3 readings of TDS and they all vary less than .05%(eg 9.72,9.73 and 9.76) and I pick the lowest one each time that all of them are wrong every time?
This means that all my samples are murky, filled with fines that artificially increases TDS seriously overestimating EY.
Also reading the same >25% consistently doesn't make it any more real at all if you're consistently failing to measure it with the correct processes, because the error is consistently in the direction of mensuring far too high. And other people measuring 25% or 27% or whatever percent shots while using proper methods just isn't relevant to what yours measure in any way.
Not really seeing that. The precision and accuracy wasn't any worse than VST filters, and I don't see any reason to think we'll be getting the same actual "numbers on the display" systematic difference rather than similar margins as a percent of the actual reading, which would put it below the resolution of the .01% screen. I'll probably do a whole experiment for it eventually, but I'm not planning it very soon since it's going to take like $80 worth of VST filters and I don't really like any immersion methods in the first place.namelessone wrote: Centrifuge seems good enough for espresso, perhaps not for cupping QC or similar activity (0.05% TDS is still significant at immersion ranges).
Maybe in the next few days I'll do a quick one with just like 3 trials instead of 20 just to see if it holds up to basic scrutiny, and can set up a big test later.