From a few months back (for those who don't frequent Home-Barista) Interesting discussion on H-B here
First Post of discussion thread :
It's holy writ: espresso grinders need to be adjusted frequently and precisely. Holy writ is wrong; instead, you only need to adjust the grinder when you change the dose, the blend, or the style of shot (e.g. from ristretto to normale). All other grinder adjustments are a sign of sub-par technique.
How can this be? We all know that a grinder with too few grind settings will produce inconsistent shots, and we all know any cafe where grind adjustments are not allowed will have espresso that sucks. It turns out that frequent grinder adjustment is what economists and engineers call a 2nd best solution, something you do when the best solution is unavailable:
As the weather changes, as the coffee ages, as the static charges on the grinder wax and wane, the ground coffee becomes fluffier or less fluffy, and also more or less compressible.
These changes affect the density of the prepared puck.
So, if you dose by volume, it will vary the weight of coffee you use from shot to shot.
But the flow rate depends almost entirely on the weight of coffee.
So if you dose by volume, you will see frequent changes in the shot's flow, and have to make frequent grind adjustments.
Since these grind adjustments are retrospective and cannot anticipate how the ground coffee characteristics will change for the next shot; volume dosing will always be jittery, both in shot by shot flow rates, and in the compensating grind adjustments.
If you dose by weight, the jitters go away. Instead, the same dose from the same blend will always get you the same flow. Call this the principle of grind-weight invariance.
How do I know this? I first noticed it when I was doing the TGP. I could pencil in the grind settings on the grinders, come back to them four to five days later, and still be perfectly dialed in. You have to be more precise on the weight and the grind adjustment for smaller burrs or flats than for larger burrs or conical ones; but the principle of grind-weight invariance holds. Since then, for the past two years, I've been weighing doses. I've found, without exception, that when dosing by weight, once a blend is dialed in, it stays dialed in.
Consequently, I believe that the overwhelming reason for inconsistent shots in high end cafes is dosing by volume or grind time. Once they find a way to routinely dose by weight, the consistency of the shots will improve tremendously.
Jim Schulman
Tags:
Mike McGinness said:Some say it can't be done. Others find a way and make it happen.
For those that like to poo-poo Home-Barista.com and some of it's regulars you'd best think again. Who do you think invented the Scace Thermofilter? And invented the espresso machine torture test used to certify competition machines including up to the WBC? Wasn't one of the "big boys", nope, a lowly "home barista". Who do you think had WORKING variable pre-infusion and full variable profile pressure control espresso machines BEFORE Slayer or Strada even prototyped? Again a Home Barista. The technology readily exists to build a grinder that doses by weight. A grinder with virtually zero "throat grind hang". Coffee (and countless other comodities) packaging machines do much the same task everyday. It's a matter of either one of the "stuck in the grinder stone ages" manufacturers investing the R&D to make it happen or a new comer to the market. But it won't happen if there's not a perceived demand. Out of hand discounting the concept most certainly won't help make it happen.
Yes Brady, I've mentioned within .5g dose accuracy training. Timed grinding helps, but is a 2nd best solution. It is not as good (accurate) as a dose by weight grinder "could" be.
Maybe its going to take a home barista to make this happen. Heck, maybe that thread will make it happen.
Not to defend the lack of this product, but this is not an insignificant engineering challenge for a grinder. Time-based dosing is probably seen as "close enough" and is a simple plug-and-play solution using off-the-shelf components that does not negatively impact durability, reliability, or (for the most part) price. Remember too that we are a tiny portion of the market, and that concerns like ease of use and price sensitivity are real. They probably already have a dusty one sitting on the R&D shelf but don't feel like we'd buy it.
I've thought about how to do this quite a bit. To achieve a weight-dispensing grinder that performs better than a timer, you need a sensitive scale that is isolated from the vibration of the motor and burrs. This works against the "grinder on a scale" approach. It has to be accurate, which works against the "weigh the beans" approach. The arrangement needs to be rugged enough to hold up to regular bar use, which works against the "weigh the doser" or "weigh the portafilter" approach. It has to be as fast as current technology, which works against the "weigh the basket" approach. It also has to preserve the grind distribution, which works against "weigh into a container" approach. There'd have to be an easy way to calibrate too. Not so easy.
I think the best approach would be one that can be added on to an existing grinder - like the plug-in timers that the uber-geeks were using in the days before the Mazzer E. One of the tinkerers out their could make them, then once people were raving about it online the big boys will pay attention. Maybe a freestanding grounds hopper like the "e", only with a gate at the bottom. The support structure for that unit could have a load cell built in, and it could be easily isolated from the grinder. The gate could be opened over a portafilter to dispense the ground espresso... hmm too bad I don't have much free time... The tricky part is the sparky-bit - the part that reads the load-cell signal, compares to a setpoint, and triggers a relay to shut off the grinder. The rest is just parts...
So I guess I'm not saying that it can't be done - clever engineers and tinkerers can do just about anything. All I'm saying is that we shouldn't underestimate the amount of engineering effort that will be required OR overestimate the net improvement over existing technology that will be realized.
Let's ask - what sort of weight accuracy would you guys be satisfied with? If a "dispense 17.8g every single time" grinder existed, would you be interested?
Good discussion.
Interested? Not really as I don't think weighing to a .1 gram resolution is all that important. Being within .5-1 gram is plenty close for me.
But I disagree that most current commercial grinder designs are good candidates for modification. While Mazzers are great work horse durable grinders, every model including Robur E have the same big basic flaw, huge grind throat hang. This alone makes them poor candidates for any type of real grind dose accuracy, if you want fresh grinds accuracy. Have a lull in production and you've got to purge and waste damn near a whole double shot to clear the throat hang. Every Mazzer grinder is based on the stone age grinder usage method of filling the hopper so the horizontal grind path was mute, grinds hanging around in the chute path didn't matter since they were hanging around in the doser anyway. The E models did nothing to eliminate throat hang, just eliminated the doser, the basic grinder design remained the same. The only major production grinder that appears to deal with the grinds throat hang issue is the Nuova Simonelli Mythos. I say appears because I haven't had the opportunity to use one, going by their parts illustration showing near horizontal versus vertical mounted burr motor which would move the grinds downward from the burrs instead of horizontally through a chute like most other grinders, except the Versalab of course.
Interested? Not really as I don't think weighing to a .1 gram resolution is all that important. Being within .5-1 gram is plenty close for me.
The burrs are actually at an angle (around 45 degrees, iirc) from horizontal, which allows beans and grounds to flow nicely. It also has one of the shortest exit chutes I've seen. They did their homework.
never seen 7-8 seconds difference regardless of the bean/grind/etc), but in a true commercial setting eyeballing works just fine. No luxury of weighing the doses, so you just do the best you can to keep things consistent in order to achieve a certain standard and simply go with it.
... there should be... ... an art to espresso ... if every single extraction were flawless the human element would be removed from the experience.
Are you enjoying Barista Exchange? Is it helping you promote your business and helping you network in this great industry? Donate today to keep it free to all members. Supporters can join the "Supporters Group" with a donation. Thanks!
© 2024 Created by Matt Milletto. Powered by