We don't need no stinkin' tamper! - Page 2

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

Postby tegee » Feb 22, 2018, 3:44 pm

bluesman wrote:I think it goes CW because the slope up to each of the 3 vanes seems longer and more gradual on the leading side if turned that way. The more gradual slope seems to me to be more likely to let the ground particles flow and spread out, rather than pressing them into the puck irregularly. And for righties (which is most of us), CW seems to be the more natural way to turn it.

I'm about to make my second cap of the morning, so I'll try it CCW.

[EDIT] As expected (which rules out any scientific merit to this little experiment...), I find no difference in the cup with CCW rotation of the tool on the puck. It does leave a bit of loose ground coffee on the surface. CW rotation leaves a perfectly smooth top. It did feel a bit awkward or unnatural to rotate it counterclockwise, though.


Thanks for sharing this insight on what appeared to be a stupid question....but as they say there is no ??? question:-).

gus6464

Postby gus6464 » Feb 26, 2018, 2:48 pm

I am using the Joe Frex level tamper which is one massive heavy piece of aluminum. Would I benefit using this distribution tool you think?

Image

User avatar
cannonfodder
Team HB

Postby cannonfodder » Feb 26, 2018, 4:48 pm

We (team HB) have been saying this for years. The least important part of the prep is the tamp. Far more important is the distribution. Light tamp, heavy tamp, does not matter as long as the grounds are evenly distributed for uniform density puck and whatever tamp you use is level and consistent be it light or heavy. You cannot fix bad distribution with a tamp, but can ruin a good distribution with a tamp.
Dave Stephens

Séb

Postby Séb » Feb 26, 2018, 10:46 pm

I really like mine and on my lever machine i can just use this tool without tamping and still get the same cup result.

Image
Image
Image

User avatar
lancealot

Postby lancealot » Apr 10, 2018, 8:22 pm

Thanks to everyone for posting. I am going to give this a go. For me, less stuff to do on my way to lock n load is good! I did 3 shots between this afternoon and evening and they all came out great.
Here's how I roll and here is what I did to modify it to "We don't need no stinkin' tamper" mode. WDNNST mode.

I usually go with 5lbs of the same bean at a time.
- Dial it in using a bottomless PF.
- While dialing in, WDT and tamp with the tamper that came with my BDB. I tamp to full compaction, whatever that is to me...
- After dial in, I tamp with the BDB tamper and then set the depth of the puck style tamper for that dialed-in coffee and dose.
- Then I set the leveling tool to as shallow as I can get away with.
- Pull with a bottomless for a while and make subtle changes till it is all consistent. Vacillate between bottomless and spouted pf's. Vacillate between WDT and not.

WDNNST mode:
So, I am working with Red Bird now. I did all the above. But I adjusted the leveling tool till it is about 2mm shallower than the puck tamper was set at.
I pulled 3 beautiful, tasty shots that were consistent with themselves and with the shots I pulled earlier using the above method.

I've put the tamper away and committed to the bottomless for the next few days.

User avatar
redbone

Postby redbone » Apr 11, 2018, 10:45 am

I purchased a KafaTek leveling tamp (Levtamp) version a few months ago for my 74 LPE. Not the least expensive but it was the best fitting at 49.5mm for my IMS baskets. Tested the levtamp for weeks and compared results to my Macap dynamometric tamper. They both have similar results but I felt that the levtamp robbed some grinds during the twisting and I stopped using it. The level tamper also took more time versus my stationary tamper. The Mapcap tamper retained very little grinds by comparison.
I could see a levtamp being beneficial for grinds that are uneven or clumpy but not otherwise and prefer my tamper.

Typical level tool has tapered blades and an uneven surface that can trap grinds post spin \ twist. The adjustable base is held within an outer housing. This allows for base depth adjustment. The gap between the base and housing often holds grinds as there is a step between them. One can argue that I'm too conscience on my dose but it's more about accumulative unnecessary loss of grinds and the added mess and time.

Tamp pressure doesn't matter. Or does it?
Between order and chaos there is espresso.
Semper discens.


Rob
LMWDP #549

User avatar
lancealot

Postby lancealot » Apr 16, 2018, 2:12 pm

I found myself with the day off and I did a small test.

Method:
Keep coffee, grid, dose, temp and yield fixed.
Coffee: Redbird espresso, froze at 7 days. thawed overnight. Opened and dumped into hopper 1/2 hour before this test.
Used a BDB with preinfusion at 6 seconds and preinfusion power at 70%. 197 degree temp. Used a bottomless portafilter and a BDB double basket.
Grinder is Ceado E6p V2
Dose: 18g
Yield: 30g
Measure tamping depth by tapping, grooming with tool lightly and hand tamping. Adjust puck tamper to the depth of the hand tamped bed and take measurement with vernier caliper from puck tamper.

Trials:
1) Grind into portafilter. WDT with funnel and dissecting needle, groom to 10mm. x2
2) Grind into portafilter. Groom to 9mm, tamp to 11mm. x2
3) Grind into portafilter. WDT with funnel and dissecting needle groom to 10mm. x1

I pulled all shots consecutively, taking notes and setting them out to cool before tasting.

Trial Results:
1) Both pulls were nearly identical in looks. Started at 7 seconds with a few drips, off center, that formed into a centered stream after about 3 more seconds. Dark, turning blond at about 25 seconds but still striping. 40 seconds to get to 30 grams for both.

2) Both pulls looked different but had similar issues. Started around 7 seconds and quickly formed into a single stream. The stream on both pulls was off center and had areas that obviously flowed faster from different sections. The fast flowing sections (assumed channels) were from different sections in the 2 different pulls. Blonding started earlier than the ones in #1 above. First shot took 36 seconds, second took 33 seconds.

3) Observations were same as #1 above but shot took 38 seconds to reach 30 grams.

Taste:
I didn't let them cool to a uniform temperature. But I cleaned up while they all cooled and took a few sips of each. Tasing was not blind. They tasted mostly the same. In milk or water, i do not think I could tell them apart. The shots that pulled longer, #'s 1 and 3, were "juicier" with a more pleasing acidity, while the other shots had a sharper acidity. None were what I would call bitter. This is consistent with how I like and pull redbird. I like it pulled around 34-38 seconds with this dose and yield.

Still thinking about what this all means.

User avatar
lancealot

Postby lancealot » Apr 20, 2018, 11:48 pm

Switched to a medium roasted blend yesterday. Everything has changed. I cannot get it to pull pretty with this method. I have tried a lot of different combos of dose, depth, and PI.

Edit. Seems that the coffee was too fresh. This was at 4 days or so. After 7 days, the coffee is behaving better then the other blend. Pretty pulls at 0 pre-infusion, 7 seconds @70%, and 15 seconds at 63%. GTG.