"Slow grinding" - Lance is back with another interesting hack - Page 3

Beginner and pro baristas share tips and tricks for making espresso.
coyote-1
Posts: 513
Joined: 2 years ago

#21: Post by coyote-1 »

Yeah, I've seen many allusions to the idea that large burr = better grind. And it would have to be because of a combo of all the factors:
1. Large burr at lower rpm = smaller burr at higher rpm. The number of 'teeth' passing each other in an amount of time, doing their work. Angle of burr teeth to each other on small vs large burr? Might or might not be a factor, depending on how they are cut.
2. Less packing. Keeps the burrs aligned; keeps the chopped bean particles interacting with burr teeth more than with each other. Allows the burr to turn at its desired rpm. Prevents heat damage to the ground coffee.
3. All that would create greater consistency in the grind.

Yes you'd have to have the grinder at a finer setting. I don't see where that would be a problem, because that would always be the case. If you're doing one dose at a time, a few times a day, especially with flat burrs heat would not be an issue.

erik82
Posts: 2192
Joined: 12 years ago

#22: Post by erik82 »

cpreston wrote:I wonder if this feed isssue might be part of the explanation why large burrs are generally said to taste better. I've never understood a really credible explanation for this before, outside of heat buildup in high volume grinding.
Than 83mm would be better than 64mm but it isn't. It isn't as simple as that. There's a lot more that needs to be taken into account for like burr geometry. I do think it's a trade of larger burrs being more consistent.

sandhillcrane
Posts: 4
Joined: 1 year ago

#23: Post by sandhillcrane »

h3yn0w wrote:The idea has been out there a while. eg James Hoffman has a video on it from a couple years ago. Some new grinders such as the Zerno come with adjustable augers to adjust the feed rate of the beans to your preference.
The auger on the Zerno is not adjustable in the way you're describing. The original version had a fast auger, which was replaced with a "medium" speed auger in the more recent batches. I believe they are still developing the "slow" auger. The augers are intended to be user-replaceable.

malling
Posts: 2917
Joined: 13 years ago

#24: Post by malling »

coyote-1 wrote:Yeah, I've seen many allusions to the idea that large burr = better grind. And it would have to be because of a combo of all the factors:
1. Large burr at lower rpm = smaller burr at higher rpm. The number of 'teeth' passing each other in an amount of time, doing their work. Angle of burr teeth to each other on small vs large burr? Might or might not be a factor, depending on how they are cut.
2. Less packing. Keeps the burrs aligned; keeps the chopped bean particles interacting with burr teeth more than with each other. Allows the burr to turn at its desired rpm. Prevents heat damage to the ground coffee.
3. All that would create greater consistency in the grind.

Yes you'd have to have the grinder at a finer setting. I don't see where that would be a problem, because that would always be the case. If you're doing one dose at a time, a few times a day, especially with flat burrs heat would not be an issue.
Your forgetting one crucial and often overlooked effect, with bigger burrs there simply put more physical surface area and because of that bigger burrs has those a potential much larger volume output. Additionally bigger burrs has larger space to and from the burrs which means it has less restriction through the line. The effect of that is that when going down in burr size the more a traffic jam you potentially is going to create with the same dose size, this is going to be multiplied the finer you grind, the effect of that is that the beans interact with each other to a much higher degree, where regrinding issues is one side effects, why slow feeding design likely have a bigger impact on smaller burrs.

Bottle neck is a big issue on smaller burrs. So while burr design matters we can't ignore the issue of volume restraint on smaller burrs. Mazzer themselves has made this a crucial part of the design of the Philos, according to them the feed to burr corresponds to the output those not creating the traffic jam. I'm looking forward when I get the chance to try the grinder in person, but if it overcomes this noticeably issue with small burrs, we might see a more reduced gap between the burr size.

I noticed that on filter I didn't notice much difference on the two Lab Sweet but going Espresso things started changing in favour of bigger versions, this can simply be explained by this issue.

coyote-1
Posts: 513
Joined: 2 years ago

#25: Post by coyote-1 »

The reaction on YouTube has been uniformly positive; virtually every respondent is saying that a) the grinds come out larger, and therefore they b) have to grind finer. And the quality of their espresso has gotten noticeably better as the grind size becomes more consistent.

Again, based on my own experience over the past year I'm not surprised. Of course, this might put a crimp in the prestige grinder market as folks realize they can save two grand or more by simply feeding beans slower.

Capuchin Monk
Posts: 1272
Joined: 15 years ago

#26: Post by Capuchin Monk »

coyote-1 wrote:Of course, this might put a crimp in the prestige grinder market as folks realize they can save two grand or more by simply feeding beans slower.
Then those companies will send out their "soldiers" to counter that info if you know what I mean... :wink:

malling
Posts: 2917
Joined: 13 years ago

#27: Post by malling »

coyote-1 wrote:The reaction on YouTube has been uniformly positive; virtually every respondent is saying that a) the grinds come out larger, and therefore they b) have to grind finer. And the quality of their espresso has gotten noticeably better as the grind size becomes more consistent.

Again, based on my own experience over the past year I'm not surprised. Of course, this might put a crimp in the prestige grinder market as folks realize they can save two grand or more by simply feeding beans slower.
Most of the respondents are using either hand grinders or 64mm burrs which is known from suffering by traffic jam and regrinding, as I wrote above, It is not really surprising you see a benefit on smaller burrs. On the larger the feedback is somewhat more mixed and mostly positive on horizontal mounted with larger doses which makes sense as it should take more coffee to create a similar effect as seen on smaller burrs, on same dose effect should be less, on my former EK43 I never really noticed much of a difference.

sympa (original poster)
Posts: 135
Joined: 1 year ago

#28: Post by sympa (original poster) »

Capuchin Monk wrote:Then those companies will send out their "soldiers" to counter that info if you know what I mean... :wink:
Not really necessary. People who spend large sums on equipment often become partisans as a way to justify their expenditure.

malling
Posts: 2917
Joined: 13 years ago

#29: Post by malling »

Capuchin Monk wrote:Then those companies will send out their "soldiers" to counter that info if you know what I mean... :wink:
Slow feeding is probably the single most faff thing you can probably introduce it get tiresome after awhile

coyote-1
Posts: 513
Joined: 2 years ago

#30: Post by coyote-1 replying to malling »

Not at all. See the "trap door"? I simply measure my beans for the shot, dump 'em in the hopper, and use that door to modulate the flow. Couldn't be easier. Takes less effort to do than to, say, post a one-sentence retort on a web forum.

Should I mention that this grinder came to me (brand new) for seven percent of the new price of your EK43? Nah, I won't mention that lol