Puck prep study - Page 4

Beginner and pro baristas share tips and tricks for making espresso.
Stéphane
Posts: 8
Joined: 4 years ago

#31: Post by Stéphane »

Peppersass wrote:This makes me wonder whether the Hog could be a substitute for long, slow pre-infusion, ala the Slayer. The drop in dose is counter-intuitive to that idea, but the shot did run faster, which is consistent with possibly being able to grind much finer.

Stéphane, please post your info on procuring a Hog!
You can contact Joachim Morceau direcly via Instagram:

https://www.instagram.com/p/BzFjrPDoabI ... yjoo27c1m8

Joachim uses the Hog tool with a Slayer machine!

RobindG
Posts: 194
Joined: 5 years ago

#32: Post by RobindG »

Is nobody doing nutation with the tamper in the coffee puck?

Advertisement
DamianWarS
Posts: 1379
Joined: 4 years ago

#33: Post by DamianWarS »

RapidCoffee wrote:Stéphane Ribes recently posted a puck prep technique study on the (private) Decent Espresso web forum. I believe his findings deserve a wider audience, and he graciously gave me permission to repost them on H-B.

video
video showing visual uniformity of extractions

image
slide updated: further testing shows less consistency with no distribution

image

image

image

image

image

image

Notes:
* Visual uniformity of the extraction was rated in a poll of forum members (using the video without any technique labeling).
* Modified Rao "blooming" extraction profile incorporates a 20s pause after preinfusion.
* The Hog tool introduces an array of small channels into the puck, speeding up "pre"infusion. AFAIK it was first mentioned several years ago in a Perger "teaser" on BH.
* "Raking" the puck is the Decent Espresso term for a partial WDT (only stirring the top 25-50% of the puck). No, it doesn't make sense to me either.

Stéphane is one of the brightest lights on Decent Diaspora. I keep hoping he'll find the time to participate directly on H-B. :-)
Very cool video and a study in itself. Is this just a compare of 1 shot vs another shot? If so unfortunately these results would be anecdotal at best and you would need many shots of the same method analysed to see where it sits or any trends in the methods across a wide sampling. Puck prep doesn't guarantee results it just is more broadly consistent but any shot can still be a sink shot.

Swong46
Posts: 42
Joined: 6 years ago

#34: Post by Swong46 »

Here's a version I made by request of another user on the Decent forum. Currently working on further prototypes. Makes very straight and circular holes compared to some other photos I've seen when doing it manually. Has a lockout pin so don't stab random things on accident or damage the pins and can be used one-handed. I call mine The Porcupress, for porcupine press :lol:.








Charlemagne
Posts: 110
Joined: 5 years ago

#35: Post by Charlemagne »

Swong46 wrote:Here's a version I made by request of another user on the Decent forum. Currently working on further prototypes. Makes very straight and circular holes compared to some other photos I've seen when doing it manually. Has a lockout pin so don't stab random things on accident or damage the pins and can be used one-handed. I call mine The Porcupress, for porcupine press :lol:.
Wow, i love it! I'd love to adapt your design to the deep basket of my Robot.

lucasd
Posts: 107
Joined: 8 years ago

#36: Post by lucasd »

It would be nice to see this home made WDT tool ;)

lessthanjoey
Posts: 362
Joined: 4 years ago

#37: Post by lessthanjoey »

Are people doing this prior to tamping? Or after? I had thought prior initially but the puck prep study made me think perhaps it was after. I did a very simplified and poorly controlled experiment poking about 16 roughly-spaced holes in the puck post-tamping and was surprised that it didn't lead to channeling. The puck seemed to flow similarly if not slightly slower and better than without it.

Advertisement
Swong46
Posts: 42
Joined: 6 years ago

#38: Post by Swong46 »

I do it before. I'm sure after would work with the proper perforation depth and hole size. Video comparing it here and here

lessthanjoey
Posts: 362
Joined: 4 years ago

#39: Post by lessthanjoey replying to Swong46 »

Interesting, thanks.

I've been trying to extract a (for me) very light coffee (Counter Culture ASUVIM) and having a lot of issues doing so on my La Spaziale Mini Vivaldi. I have the mechanical preinfusion chamber so the time from pump start to pressure ramp is about 6 seconds, so still relatively limited preinfusion. Prior to "poking holes" I could get about 10g out of slow controlled flow and then the puck would just fall apart and I'd get the next 30g in <10s no matter how careful I was with puck prep (Doserless Super Jolly with SSP, 0.4mm needles in cork WDT, vertical tap to settle, tamp). Poking ~30 holes post-tamp using a single 0.4mm needle didn't entirely solve things but it helped a lot. Now I can get ~15g of clean flow and the 25g that follows takes more like 15s. It still looks like it's channeling but not nearly as bad as without the holes. Note that this is the first coffee I've had this light and all the medium roasts are totally fine and pour very controlled throughout the shot. I think this is a clear case of a coffee that would benefit significantly from a longer preinfusion and a pressure decline later in the shot but those are infeasible with my machine - hoping to order a Decent very soon as long as my wife gives the thumbs up for my birthday :). Are you planning to sell the porcupress? I have a 53mm basket now so wouldn't be interested quite yet, but assuming I do get a decent later in the year I'd be interested then.

one_good_coffee
Posts: 73
Joined: 3 years ago

#40: Post by one_good_coffee »

Peppersass wrote: A little surprising that the Londinium tool fared relatively poorly. I'd like to see more comparisons with different needle sizes and configurations (like the mini whisk I use.)
When you use it you can feel and see that's it's too big. You need to be pretty careful to stir in a circular motion and from bottom to top to end up with something that looks better than when you do nothing.

I'm not that surprised. The tool feels great in the hand, which to me is the main explanation to why people love it, but 0.7mm with big stuff at the end, compared to tiny particules of coffee?