Playing with Pump Pressure: Parte Due - Page 2

Beginner and pro baristas share tips and tricks.
User avatar
AndyS

#11: Post by AndyS » Sep 16, 2007, 5:48 pm

erics wrote:I have read the particular sections of Illy's book you mention and, to be honest, I still trying to figure out what he is trying to illustrate.
Hi Eric:

Yup, we've all tried to figure out what the heck he was talking about. I explained my take on it in a previous thread.
-AndyS
VST refractometer/filter basket beta tester, no financial interest in the company

User avatar
erics

#12: Post by erics » Sep 16, 2007, 7:59 pm

Greetings Andy, Jim, Ian, Ken & Kirk -

Just so there's no mistake as to what I see - when one does a poor man's integration of one of his (Petracco's) curves, you end up with ~ 53 ml of espresso. I did the 5 bar curve because it happened to be the easiest one to "pick out" of the grouping. What I don't understand is why he did all this in 12+ seconds and not, say, 25 seconds. I also don't understand the really high flowrates he illustrates but enough on that.

Pressure profiling is interesting to me because I firmly believe it is a methodology that will enable one to get the most from the least. Strictly intuitively speaking, preinfusion is good, tapering off the pressure in the last third of the shot to prolong the onset of "blonding" is good.
Skål,

Eric S.
http://users.rcn.com/erics/
E-mail: erics at rcn dot com

User avatar
another_jim
Team HB

#13: Post by another_jim » Sep 16, 2007, 8:40 pm

erics wrote: I also don't understand the really high flowrates he illustrates but enough on that.
Does anyone know whether the peak of the pressure to flow curve remains at the same place for different grind settings? Perhaps the coarser the grind, the lower the flow peak (I can hardly imagine it being the other way around)
Jim Schulman

User avatar
AndyS

#14: Post by AndyS » Sep 16, 2007, 10:15 pm

erics wrote: when one does a poor man's integration of one of his (Petracco's) curves, you end up with ~ 53 ml of espresso. I did the 5 bar curve because it happed to be the easiest one to "pick out" of the grouping. What I don't understand is why he did all this in 12+ seconds and not, say, 25 seconds. I also don't understand the really high flowrates he illustrates but enough on that.
The 12 second part is easy. Petracco heard that double shots run 25 seconds. But in Italy they mostly pull singles, so he figured he had to cut the time in half. :twisted:

But seriously, the graph is a mess. Why did he choose 3, 5, and 7 bar when he states in the same chapter that 9 bar works best? And does he really believe the flow chokes down to zero after second 12?

But some parts do make sense, I think. If you look at his flowrates as water input to the portafilter, not as espresso exiting the spouts, it's fairly realistic for a double. My double shots take about 30 ml water input before flow begins, and 15-20 ml after that.

It's possible you really would get graphs that look like these if you used no gicleur at all. The initial "slam" up to 7 bar might actual result in a lower flow rate than the gentler slam up to 5 bar. Maybe. It wouldn't be that hard to test, but what's the point?
-AndyS
VST refractometer/filter basket beta tester, no financial interest in the company

User avatar
AndyS

#15: Post by AndyS » Sep 16, 2007, 10:21 pm

another_jim wrote:Ken has this really small 0.1 gram scale from Hongkong. You could put something like this under the cup, along with a timer, while you video the pour, to get a proper output volume estimate.
That may work, but there are two things to watch out for:
1. the cheap digital scales have a built in delay of 2-3 seconds
2. the kinetic energy of the falling espresso stream may give a false high reading (could be minimized by pulling into a shallow vessel that is as close as possible to the portafilter)
another_jim wrote:One suggestion: at this point you aren't looking for the best shot, just the way the system behaves. A wider range of pressure (e.g 4 bar for a low, and 14 bar for a high) may give a better idea of the curve.
Yes, I should do that soon.
-AndyS
VST refractometer/filter basket beta tester, no financial interest in the company

User avatar
AndyS

#16: Post by AndyS » Sep 23, 2007, 12:12 am

another_jim wrote:One suggestion: at this point you aren't looking for the best shot, just the way the system behaves. A wider range of pressure (e.g 4 bar for a low, and 14 bar for a high) may give a better idea of the curve.
Here are two series of shots run at a wider range of pressures. Each shot received a five second preinfusion at line pressure. The rest of the extraction (seconds 6-27) was performed with a rotary pump set to various pressures:

Image

Notes:
(1) The absolute peak is somewhat fuzzy here; it's somewhere between 8 and 10 bar. This curve depends on a lot of factors which probably make a blanket statement like "the maximum amount of espresso is extracted at X.X bar" suspect.
(2) Speaking of which, I want to repeat this experiment with little or no preinfusion. I speculate that going immediately to pump pressure (with no pump delay) and with no gicleur (ie, no flow restriction) may yield results similar to the ones that Eric posted from Illy's book. In other words, peak flow may be found at a much lower pressure. Key word is "may." :)
-AndyS
VST refractometer/filter basket beta tester, no financial interest in the company

User avatar
another_jim
Team HB

#17: Post by another_jim » Sep 23, 2007, 2:27 am

AndyS wrote:Here are two series of shots run at a wider range of pressures. Each shot received a five second preinfusion at line pressure. The rest of the extraction (seconds 6-27) was performed with a rotary pump set to various pressures:
Thanks for doing this. The results appear to be consistent for your machine, and perhaps inconsistent with Petraccho's results (hard to tell, with all the trade secret obfuscations in the book -- the graph doesn't deal with a regular extraction, but doesn't say exactly what it deals with).

The results are beginning to support a larger hypothesis of mine -- the Italians have done a lot of engineering, either in a scientific or a more seat-of-the-pants way (by this I mean just setting one variable at a time so it taste best with whatever else they are doing), and have more or less optimized their machines for the temperatures, pressures, doses, etc for which they are designed. This sort of fits in with the dosing experiments, what we are finding out about the way jets and HXs are tuned on the better machines, etc etc. Schomer's "mediocrity by design" piece is plainly wrong, at least for the better espresso machine and grinder companies. It may be possible to improve on what they have done, but probably not by simply changing the variables. The real problem of course is the same that obfuscates the Illy book in places -- In Italy, it seems absolutely everything is a trade secret; so they simply don't have anything like the information flow we have on this.
Jim Schulman

User avatar
AndyS

#18: Post by AndyS » Sep 23, 2007, 11:04 am

another_jim wrote:the Italians have done a lot of engineering....It may be possible to improve on what they have done, but probably not by simply changing the variables. The real problem of course is the same that obfuscates the Illy book in places -- In Italy, it seems absolutely everything is a trade secret; so they simply don't have anything like the information flow we have on this.
It's a shame that nearly everything we've "discovered" is probably just a rediscovery of something that's been known in Italy for 30 or 40 years. But since they're not talking, we still have to sweat the details to figure things out.
-AndyS
VST refractometer/filter basket beta tester, no financial interest in the company

User avatar
AndyS

#19: Post by AndyS » Sep 23, 2007, 9:39 pm

I guess many of you are sick of seeing a stream of graphs that don't answer the basic question, "How can I make better espresso?"

Me, too. But here's one last (maybe) graph. It compares shot-pulling with a rotary pump, with and without a gicleur (flow restrictor). Dose and grind were kept constant.

Nowadays most rotary pump machines (GS3, GB5, Synesso, etc) come with a gicleur that restricts the flow of water going to your portafilter so that the initial buildup of pressure takes 5-8 seconds rather than 1-2 seconds.

Interestingly, this initial slowdown makes the shot run far faster once full pressure is reached (see graph). It also means that baristas use a significantly finer grind on gicleur-equipped machines as compared to non-gicleur machines. How that affects the resulting shot is a mystery.

It's worth noting that gicleurs may be unnecessary on vibe-pump machines. Their slow buildup to full pressure mimics the action of a rotary with gicleur. Numerous studies, however, have shown that vibe pumps eventually cause hearing loss and may result in prolonged bouts of insanity.

There's also a shot on the graph that represents a non-gicleur shot that was preinfused with line pressure water (~3 bar) for five seconds before the pump came on. This had a similar effect to the gicleur shots.

Sometime soon when I get most of this preliminary stuff out of the way I'd like to compare the taste and texture of gicleur vs non-gicleur shots.

Image

Just kidding about the insanity part...maybe. :-)
-AndyS
VST refractometer/filter basket beta tester, no financial interest in the company

User avatar
Randy G.

#20: Post by Randy G. » Sep 23, 2007, 9:55 pm

AndyS wrote:....Numerous studies, however, have shown that vibe pumps eventually cause hearing loss and may result in prolonged bouts of insanity.
If you can't back up these claims with graphs and some hard, factual data, you should not make such comments about me unless you have met me... err.... never mind. :shock:

Thanks for the hard work, Andy. You have been on the forefront of such research for a good, long time and a lot of us are enjoying better espresso because of it...
Espresso! My Espresso!
http://www.EspressoMyEspresso.com