coffee-forum.net
Promoting coffee discussion.

Main
Date: 18 Jan 2007 22:01:23
From: jim schulman
Subject: Cracking into the Extraction: when and where the espresso puck brews.
Andy and I have been sticking our noses into pucks. Andy has posted
some of his work at:
http://www.home-barista.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2402

I've posted some of mine under this thread's name at
http://www.home-barista.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3173

Comments appreciated.




 
Date: 20 Jan 2007 07:50:17
From: stereoplegic
Subject: Re: Cracking into the Extraction: when and where the espresso puck brews.
i agree. very nice work.

bernie wrote:
>
> Excellent, excellent, excellent. Fuggetaboutit whether or not it
> leads immediatly to improved shot design, grinders, etc. This is the
> stuff of which better espresso will be made. Thanks to youse guys.
> Bernie



  
Date: 20 Jan 2007 15:50:22
From: I->Ian
Subject: Re: Cracking into the Extraction: when and where the espresso puck brews.
On 20 Jan 2007 07:50:17 -0800, "stereoplegic" <stereoplegic@aim.com >
wrote:

>i agree. very nice work.

AS ALWAYS


 
Date: 20 Jan 2007 08:13:19
From: bernie
Subject: Re: Cracking into the Extraction: when and where the espresso puck
jim schulman wrote:
> Andy and I have been sticking our noses into pucks. Andy has posted
> some of his work at:
> http://www.home-barista.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2402
>
> I've posted some of mine under this thread's name at
> http://www.home-barista.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3173
>
> Comments appreciated.

Excellent, excellent, excellent. Fuggetaboutit whether or not it
leads immediatly to improved shot design, grinders, etc. This is the
stuff of which better espresso will be made. Thanks to youse guys.
Bernie


 
Date: 19 Jan 2007 10:33:02
From: DavidMLewis
Subject: Re: Cracking into the Extraction: when and where the espresso puck brews.

jim schulman wrote:
> Andy and I have been sticking our noses into pucks. Andy has posted
> some of his work at:
> http://www.home-barista.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2402
>
> I've posted some of mine under this thread's name at
> http://www.home-barista.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3173
>
Hi Jim,

It's wonderful research, although there are a couple of things I find
surprising. One is that the TDS numbers are so different at time zero.
That implies that a lot of extraction is happening during the initial
saturation of the puck. The other can-o-worms in terms of the grinder,
which only occasionally gets mentioned, involves the _shape_ of the
ground coffee particles, not just their size. Clearly, the farther from
spherical the particles are, the higher their surface-to-volume ratio
and the more they could be expected to extract, until you got to a
scale where surface tension impeded the interaction. My guess is that
grinders produce particles that are anything but spherical, and even
within particles of roughly the same size and shape the way that cell
walls are exposed might well differ. Anybody got an SEM handy?

Best,
David



  
Date: 19 Jan 2007 12:59:09
From: jim schulman
Subject: Re: Cracking into the Extraction: when and where the espresso puck brews.
On 19 Jan 2007 10:33:02 -0800, "DavidMLewis" <DavidMLewis@mac.com >
wrote:

>The other can-o-worms in terms of the grinder,
>which only occasionally gets mentioned, involves the _shape_ of the
>ground coffee particles, not just their size.

The Illy chapter implies that the shape is more or less dictated by
the coffee's cell structure. Coarse particles are one or more ball
like cellulose cell walls with solutes on the inside. Coarse particles
are cell fragments, presumably coated on their interior surfaces with
solutes.

The coarse partciles don't only have complete cells, but remaining
parts of the wall of fragmented cells, which stick out. These can lock
together with other particles, in a sort of 3-D jigsaw puzzle. It is
quite conceivable that different grinders can produce slightly
different ways for them to occur, which would have consequences on how
the particles aggregate and resist flow of water or fines.


 
Date: 19 Jan 2007 07:08:22
From: daveb
Subject: the espresso puck brews.
AFAIK -- "total dissolved solids"

whew!

dave


JulesG wrote:
> Pardon my ignorance, but what does TDS mean ?



 
Date: 19 Jan 2007 07:05:44
From: daveb
Subject: Re: Cracking into the Extraction: when and where the espresso puck brews.
Simple is better. I've nver agreed with foxy more than on this one.

Dave
210
Ken Fox wrote:
> "jim schulman" <jim_schulman@ameritech.net> wrote in message
> news:ldg0r2hn8atlp8tib6f5n1ndl2a99nq409@4ax.com...
> > Andy and I have been sticking our noses into pucks. Andy has posted
> > some of his work at:
> > http://www.home-barista.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2402
> >
> > I've posted some of mine under this thread's name at
> > http://www.home-barista.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3173
> >
> > Comments appreciated.
>
> Jim and Andy,
>
> Please forgive me for these comments, which come after having labored
> through all 3 pages of comments on Andy's thread and Jim's sterling post:
>
> What we have here is what I'd define as classic, "solutions in search of a
> problem." Once again, excuse me.
>
> I don't doubt the usefulness of "basic research," but I think it would make
> more sense and be ultimately more useful to start out with some sort of
> definition or demonstration of what is a good shot and not a good shot -- as
> defined by TASTING, and then to take the good shots and the bad shots and
> try to determine (maybe with these same tools) why the good shots are good
> and the bad ones are bad. Instead, what you are doing is making some
> observations that are essentially discriptive, but divorced in reality from
> a real world situation in which a shot is good or a shot is bad and "why is
> this?" Obviously, I'm being too simplistic.
>
> If the idea is to determine what makes a good short shot and what makes a
> good long shot, then by all means make some of each (and some bad ones, too)
> and then try to figure out why. But what we have here is both interesting
> and of limited utility. I hope it produces something but I have my doubts.
>
> ken



 
Date: 19 Jan 2007 04:20:37
From: JulesG
Subject: Re: Cracking into the Extraction: when and where the espresso puck brews.
Pardon my ignorance, but what does TDS mean ?



 
Date: 19 Jan 2007 14:04:59
From: Ken Fox
Subject: Re: Cracking into the Extraction: when and where the espresso puck brews.
"jim schulman" <jim_schulman@ameritech.net > wrote in message
news:ldg0r2hn8atlp8tib6f5n1ndl2a99nq409@4ax.com...
> Andy and I have been sticking our noses into pucks. Andy has posted
> some of his work at:
> http://www.home-barista.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2402
>
> I've posted some of mine under this thread's name at
> http://www.home-barista.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3173
>
> Comments appreciated.

Jim and Andy,

Please forgive me for these comments, which come after having labored
through all 3 pages of comments on Andy's thread and Jim's sterling post:

What we have here is what I'd define as classic, "solutions in search of a
problem." Once again, excuse me.

I don't doubt the usefulness of "basic research," but I think it would make
more sense and be ultimately more useful to start out with some sort of
definition or demonstration of what is a good shot and not a good shot -- as
defined by TASTING, and then to take the good shots and the bad shots and
try to determine (maybe with these same tools) why the good shots are good
and the bad ones are bad. Instead, what you are doing is making some
observations that are essentially discriptive, but divorced in reality from
a real world situation in which a shot is good or a shot is bad and "why is
this?" Obviously, I'm being too simplistic.

If the idea is to determine what makes a good short shot and what makes a
good long shot, then by all means make some of each (and some bad ones, too)
and then try to figure out why. But what we have here is both interesting
and of limited utility. I hope it produces something but I have my doubts.

ken




  
Date: 19 Jan 2007 11:13:36
From: jim schulman
Subject: Re: Cracking into the Extraction: when and where the espresso puck brews.
On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 14:04:59 -0700, "Ken Fox"
<morceaudemerdeSnipThis@hotmail.com > wrote:

>Instead, what you are doing is making some
>observations that are essentially discriptive, but divorced in reality from
>a real world situation in which a shot is good or a shot is bad and "why is
>this?" Obviously, I'm being too simplistic

It's easy to explain the tides; it's hard to explain them correctly if
you've never seen the moon.

We're not making **some** observations, but **new** observations.
I've done a lot of correlating espresso taste to shot factors. So far,
my main conclusion is that I'm mostly using the wrong factors and that
I need better ones.