It did not address tamping of less than nominal grinds distribution. That is a problem that should have been addressed. Lets be clear... they proved only that increased puck compression had no negative effects.
I will continue to use 60 pounds of puck compression following the application of WDT grinds distribution for several reasons: because Nate Bakke advises it, I can do so without deleterious ergonomic effects, and it has no measurabe negative effects if the SocraticCoffee study is to be believed.
aecletec wrote:As an engineer, perhaps you would be interested in a more evidence based approach than anecdote?
This group is helping dispel the myths of old.
http://socraticcoffee.com/2015/07/the-i ... xtraction/
But this is not a new idea, https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en# ... _cpGrcXVcY
Michael Teahan's work has already been mentioned.
I'm not in favor of nutating tamping. Additionally, 60 pounds is not 'super compressing.'
Either nutating or vibratory methods can cause fines and larger grinds to segregate into separate groups within the puck. That is not a good situation.
Additionally, nutation under pressure can concievably create friction, thus interactive grinding, within the population of grinds.
h3yn0w wrote:If you want a super compressed tamp, IMO the best option is a nutating tamp. Doesnt require 60 lbs of pressure , and it will slow down the shot , and has the added benefit of eliminating donut extractions. Unfortunately the puqpress can't do this.