Tamp pressure does matter - Page 3

Beginner and pro baristas share tips and tricks.
Charlene
Posts: 416
Joined: December 13th, 2016

Postby Charlene » Dec 27, 2016, 11:00 am

Thanks, but I read that study previously.

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.

h3yn0w
Posts: 470
Joined: October 29th, 2010

Postby h3yn0w » Dec 27, 2016, 11:52 am

Charlene wrote:Thanks, but I read that study previously.

It did not address tamping of less than nominal grinds distribution. That's 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 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.



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 from each other. Not a good situation.

Additionally, nutation under pressure can concievably create friction, thus grinding, within the population of grinds.


Re: "super compressing". Forgetting about semantics, the point is - What is the difference between 60 lbs and 30 lbs, if it's not additional compression and compaction with the result of slowing down the water flow?

Re: nutation - it will slow down flow, if that is desired. and had some added benefits which I've noted. Now, I see you've raised concerns about fines distribution and friction and segregation of particals, etc. Is there any research or data to back this up or are you just speculating? Have you done similar analysis on a 60 lb tamp?

I find it odd that you are set on solutions that can only be accomplished by an automated puqpress. (E.g. Precision tamping adjustments of 2 pounds, or tamping at 60 lbs of pressure).

Charlene
Posts: 416
Joined: December 13th, 2016

Postby Charlene » Dec 27, 2016, 6:54 pm

The grinder setting should dictate the rate of extraction, no?

The SocraticCoffee study showed no direct correlation between tamping force and extraction rate.

h3yn0w wrote:Re: "super compressing". Forgetting about semantics, the point is - What is the difference between 60 lbs and 30 lbs, if it's not additional compression and compaction with the result of slowing down the water flow?


Again, it is not about water flow rate, per se. Tamping is about puck compression optimization for uniform extraction following the act of optimizing grinds distribution.

h3yn0w wrote:Re: nutation - it will slow down flow, if that is desired. and had some added benefits which I've noted. Now, I see you've raised concerns about fines distribution and friction and segregation of particals, etc. Is there any research or data to back this up or are you just speculating? Have you done similar analysis on a 60 lb tamp?


I have a barista tool that is new to the US espresso scene. Of course I'm going to experiment with it.

Nothing I do with it is beyond your ability to duplicate with a manual tamper and a bathroom scale.

h3yn0w wrote:I find it odd that you are set on solutions that can only be accomplished by an automated puqpress. (E.g. Precision tamping adjustments of 2 pounds, or tamping at 60 lbs of pressure).


Edit: The mechanically inclined could make a manual equiv of my electric adjustable force tamper and likely, for less than $50... add a spring and spring compression indicator with a mounted ruler marked off in pounds...

This bottle capper is Italian and retails for $39.95. Beat the system, I say.



In my opinion, the maker of PuqPress has quite the nerve to charge so much for their tamper. Obviously, they can get it selling to folks like me with physical challenges and to espresso bars. That leaves the average home barista out in the cold. I hope competition will drive down the price. Lot of folks don't have a grinder in that high price range.

thecoffeefield
Posts: 387
Joined: January 28th, 2016

Postby thecoffeefield » Dec 27, 2016, 8:51 pm

Charlene wrote:This bottle capper is Italian and retails for $39.95.


That bottle capper idea is very smart. I'm going to look into it.

User avatar
HB
Admin
Posts: 17121
Joined: April 29th, 2005

Postby HB » Dec 27, 2016, 10:09 pm

Charlene wrote:Obviously, they can get it selling to folks like me with physical challenges and to espresso bars. That leaves the average home barista out in the cold.

There are less expensive options like the Macap CPS Dynamometric Tamper. There's also DIY instructions such as An auto- tamper for do it yourself home machinists and Hydraulic Espresso Tamper (makezine).
Dan Kehn

Charlene
Posts: 416
Joined: December 13th, 2016

Postby Charlene » Dec 28, 2016, 5:36 pm

thecoffeefield wrote:That bottle capper idea is very smart. I'm going to look into it.

Please keep us posted on this project, Gabe. This is perhaps a good business opportunity as well for you.

HB wrote:There are less expensive options like the Macap CPS Dynamometric Tamper. There's also DIY instructions such as An auto- tamper for do it yourself home machinists and Hydraulic Espresso Tamper (makezine).

Thanks for posting this, Dan.

Let the force be with us as a community of baristas.

 
Sponsored by counterculturecoffee.com
www.counterculturecoffee.com: coffee driven people, people driven coffee