coffee-forum.net
Promoting coffee discussion.

Main
Date: 21 Apr 2007 14:55:44
From: godzilla
Subject: Attempt at scientific approach
Today, I decided to take a more scientific approach to my espresso making.
Along with my order of green beans received yesterday from Intelligentsia,
I included a 1/2 lb. of their Black Cat espresso blend, which some have
spoken highly of here.

Guessing at how much ground coffee would be lost in my Macap grinder,
I weighed out almost 18 grams of beans, which produced 14.2 grams of ground
espresso out of the chute. Pretty close first guess.

Then, I made my double shot the usual way in my ancient Estro Vapore. which
has never quite gotten up to the optimum temperature for brewing.
The result was a little over one ounce of espresso topped with a full half
inch of crema. It would be unfair to make a comparative judgement based upon
just one sample, but the initial taste and texture seemed thinner than what
I am accustomed to with the Malabar Gold that I have been home roasting.
However, the aftertaste became sweeter and sweeter than while drinking it.

Incidentally, I am favorably impressed with the service from Intelligencia.
They use the more expensive type of bags that stand up to pack the green
beans, which facilitates scooping it up for weighing before I roast. Also,
they stamp the date of packing on the bag, and the date of roasting for
their espresso, which only comes pre-roasted and is not available in green.

As I stated in an earlier post, I consider their system of listing the real
price that they charge for beans plus the actual UPS charges to be honest,
instead of the ambiguity that some other companies practice.

Over the next few days, I will get to sample the three different coffees
that I roasted this morning.

Happy drinking to all,

Godzilla




 
Date: 27 Apr 2007 22:55:58
From: jim schulman
Subject: Re: Attempt at scientific approach
On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 14:55:44 -0500, godzilla <godzilla@monsters.org >
wrote:

>Guessing at how much ground coffee would be lost in my Macap grinder,
>I weighed out almost 18 grams of beans, which produced 14.2 grams of ground
>espresso out of the chute. Pretty close first guess.

Scinece includes both observation, and some logic and commonsense to
interpret your findings.

If every time you ground 18 grams, you got 14.5 out, your grinder
would eventually explode from the accumulated 3,5 grams leftovers.

In other words, on average, once the grinder hits equilibrium, you'll
get as much coming out as you are putting in. This conclusion requires
no observation, just logic and faith in the laws of conservation.

The only questions are:

1. How much of what is coming out is stuff you put in yesterday?
2. How much weight variation is there shot to shot? E.g. You put in 18
grams 3 times in a row, and you get out 17.5 grams, 17 grams, then
19.5 grams.


  
Date: 28 Apr 2007 13:43:14
From: Randall Nortman
Subject: Re: Attempt at scientific approach
On 2007-04-28, jim schulman <jim_schulman@ameritech.net > wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 14:55:44 -0500, godzilla <godzilla@monsters.org>
> wrote:
>
>>Guessing at how much ground coffee would be lost in my Macap grinder,
>>I weighed out almost 18 grams of beans, which produced 14.2 grams of ground
>>espresso out of the chute. Pretty close first guess.
>
> Scinece includes both observation, and some logic and commonsense to
> interpret your findings.
>
> If every time you ground 18 grams, you got 14.5 out, your grinder
> would eventually explode from the accumulated 3,5 grams leftovers.
>
> In other words, on average, once the grinder hits equilibrium, you'll
> get as much coming out as you are putting in. This conclusion requires
> no observation, just logic and faith in the laws of conservation.


Oh come on -- you are completely ignoring the other *obvious*
possibilities that the machine is excreting grinds through some unseen
orifice, leading to some highly caffeinated rodents and/or
cockroaches, that the grinds are being vaporized and dissipated into
the air (be careful of the second-hand caffeine), and that low-temp
nukulur fusion is occuring, the energy output of which is being fed
back onto the power grid.

--
Randall
And I haven't even gotten to the gremlins and garden gnomes.


 
Date: 27 Apr 2007 22:04:34
From: Jeff
Subject: Re: Attempt at scientific approach
* godzilla wrote, On 4/21/2007 3:55 PM:
...
> Guessing at how much ground coffee would be lost in my Macap grinder,
> I weighed out almost 18 grams of beans, which produced 14.2 grams of ground
> espresso out of the chute. Pretty close first guess.

What happened to the other 3.8 grams? I appreciate that a small
amount might be left in the grinder, but 3.8 grams seems like an awful
lot, and in any case this should come pretty close to "steady state"
within a few shots. Am I missing something here?



 
Date: 21 Apr 2007 20:06:10
From: Barry Jarrett
Subject: Re: Attempt at scientific approach
On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 14:55:44 -0500, godzilla <godzilla@monsters.org >
wrote:

>Today, I decided to take a more scientific approach to my espresso making.


NO!!! GO BACK!!!

STEP AWAY FROM THAT RABBIT HOLE!!



--barry "maniacal laughter from deep down in the warren"



  
Date: 23 Apr 2007 18:20:38
From: Espressopithecus (Java Man)
Subject: Re: Attempt at scientific approach
In article <4lrk23tf24p34mt4jgrmag8et10unfkc5t@4ax.com >, barry@rileys-
coffee.com says...
> On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 14:55:44 -0500, godzilla <godzilla@monsters.org>
> wrote:
>
> >Today, I decided to take a more scientific approach to my espresso making.
>
>
> NO!!! GO BACK!!!
>
> STEP AWAY FROM THAT RABBIT HOLE!!
>
That looks very funny from down here at the bottom. ;)

Rick


   
Date: 23 Apr 2007 19:20:10
From: Barry Jarrett
Subject: Re: Attempt at scientific approach
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 18:20:38 GMT, Espressopithecus (Java Man)
<rickk@letterectomyTELUS.net > wrote:

>> NO!!! GO BACK!!!
>>
>> STEP AWAY FROM THAT RABBIT HOLE!!
>>
>That looks very funny from down here at the bottom. ;)


there's a bottom?




    
Date: 23 Apr 2007 23:38:58
From: Espressopithecus (Java Man)
Subject: Re: Attempt at scientific approach
In article <pn1q23teakqjipu5vtjlqruq7gu135nv1d@4ax.com >, barry@rileys-
coffee.com says...
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 18:20:38 GMT, Espressopithecus (Java Man)
> <rickk@letterectomyTELUS.net> wrote:
>
> >> NO!!! GO BACK!!!
> >>
> >> STEP AWAY FROM THAT RABBIT HOLE!!
> >>
> >That looks very funny from down here at the bottom. ;)
>
>
> there's a bottom?
>
Uh-oh! Until you've hit bottom, there's no hope of recovery!

Rick