| |
Main
Date: 14 Jun 2006 14:19:56
From: Poconos/VT/NY
Subject: Is ESNW's JoeGlo less toxic than Cafiza?
|
No matter how much rinzing and flushing you do after a backflush with
Cafiza like detergent I suspect the trace amounts of the chemicals
remain in the machine at least for some time. Considering that 'normal'
mainenantance schedule calls for a weekly detergent grouphead cleaning
I am looking around to see if there are safer choices out there. MSDS
on joe glo is posted here - http://www.joeglo.com/ and on Urnex Cafiza
is on www.urnex.com (but requires a password). Anyone with an oppenion?
Thanks.
|
|
| |
Date: 14 Jun 2006 14:34:01
From: daveb
Subject: Re: Is ESNW's JoeGlo less toxic than Cafiza?
|
what machine are you backflushing??
and why?
DAve
Saeco / Gaggia service SE
.
Poconos/VT/NY wrote:
> No matter how much rinzing and flushing you do after a backflush with
> Cafiza like detergent I suspect the trace amounts of the chemicals
> remain in the machine at least for some time. Considering that 'normal'
> mainenantance schedule calls for a weekly detergent grouphead cleaning
> I am looking around to see if there are safer choices out there. MSDS
> on joe glo is posted here - http://www.joeglo.com/ and on Urnex Cafiza
> is on www.urnex.com (but requires a password). Anyone with an oppenion?
> Thanks.
|
| |
Date: 15 Jun 2006 09:11:21
From: Poconos/VT/NY
Subject: Re: Is ESNW's JoeGlo less toxic than Cafiza?
|
Isn't weekly detergent backflush a part of everyone's maintenance
cycle? Water backflush to clear the particles in the system/detergent
backflush to remove the rancid coffee oils...
daveb wrote:
> what machine are you backflushing??
>
> and why?
>
> DAve
> Saeco / Gaggia service SE
>
> .
> Poconos/VT/NY wrote:
> > No matter how much rinzing and flushing you do after a backflush with
> > Cafiza like detergent I suspect the trace amounts of the chemicals
> > remain in the machine at least for some time. Considering that 'normal'
> > mainenantance schedule calls for a weekly detergent grouphead cleaning
> > I am looking around to see if there are safer choices out there. MSDS
> > on joe glo is posted here - http://www.joeglo.com/ and on Urnex Cafiza
> > is on www.urnex.com (but requires a password). Anyone with an oppenion?
> > Thanks.
|
| | |
Date: 15 Jun 2006 12:30:48
From: St. John Smythe
Subject: Re: Is ESNW's JoeGlo less toxic than Cafiza?
|
Poconos/VT/NY wrote:
> Isn't weekly detergent backflush a part of everyone's maintenance
> cycle? Water backflush to clear the particles in the system/detergent
> backflush to remove the rancid coffee oils...
Not here. In January, when Silvia has had a year of daily service with
no backflushing or detergents, I can put up some pictures of the removal
of the screen, which I expect will show that it is pretty clean.
Sounds incredible, yet after three years of daily service, the inside of
the screen on my Via Veneto scarcely needed wiping off. Water quality?
Technique? Dunno, but it does seem to be pretty much at odds with the
rest of the world's experience.
--
St. John
If there are epigrams, there must be meta-epigrams.
|
| | | |
Date: 15 Jun 2006 13:55:40
From: Randy G.
Subject: Re: Is ESNW's JoeGlo less toxic than Cafiza?
|
"St. John Smythe" <sinjen@n4vu.com > wrote:
>Poconos/VT/NY wrote:
>> Isn't weekly detergent backflush a part of everyone's maintenance
>> cycle? Water backflush to clear the particles in the system/detergent
>> backflush to remove the rancid coffee oils...
>
>Not here. In January, when Silvia has had a year of daily service with
>no backflushing or detergents, I can put up some pictures of the removal
>of the screen, which I expect will show that it is pretty clean.
>
>Sounds incredible, yet after three years of daily service, the inside of
>the screen on my Via Veneto scarcely needed wiping off. Water quality?
> Technique? Dunno, but it does seem to be pretty much at odds with the
>rest of the world's experience.
DAMN! The entire rest of the world must be doing something wrong! Help
us out, PLEASE! ;-)
Seriously, the only guesses that comes to mind am:
- under-dosing which puts the level of the coffee so low that it
doesn't get to the screen.
- Grinding too coarse and/or tamping too lightly which keeps the
pressure low so that when the 3-way relieves pressure there is nose
to carry coffee back through the group.
- poor dosing/distribution that has the same effect as the previous
guess
Randy "well.. I DID say they were guesses" G.
http://www.EspressoMyEspresso.com
|
| | | | |
Date: 15 Jun 2006 17:33:33
From: St. John Smythe
Subject: Re: Clean Screen (was: Is ESNW's JoeGlo less toxic than Cafiza?)
|
Randy G. wrote:
> Seriously, the only guesses that comes to mind am:
> - under-dosing which puts the level of the coffee so low that it
> doesn't get to the screen.
No, there's always an impression of the (hex head) fixing screw.
> - Grinding too coarse and/or tamping too lightly which keeps the
> pressure low so that when the 3-way relieves pressure there is nose
> to carry coffee back through the group.
25 - 30-sec. 1-1/2 oz pulls following a light tamp
> - poor dosing/distribution that has the same effect as the previous
> guess
I'd imagine not, or the "tiger" mouse tail wouldn't be as pretty.
I do have a pretty good idea of the reason, which I planned to share
after peeking at the screen in another 6 months or so.
--
St. John
|
| | |
Date: 17 Jun 2006 14:46:28
From: daveb
Subject: Re: Is ESNW's JoeGlo less toxic than Cafiza?
|
STILL WAITING FOR THE DOUBLE BLIND TASTE TESTING
this is just a riot.
Randy G. wrote:
> "St. John Smythe" <sinjen@n4vu.com> wrote:
>
> >Omniryx@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Still....there would seem to me to be a certain common sense argument
> >> to be made that brown grungy stuff in the lines cannot be great for
> >> flavor, whether it clogs valves or no.
> >
> >Of course, brown grungy stuff would affect the flavor only if it were
> >upstream of the brewhead. What would be the mechanism of the brown
> >grungy stuff getting in the upstream lines?
>
> The 3-way valve assembly is removed from the group, but it controls
> the water going to _AND FROM_ the group. These are diagramatic views.
> The arrows indicate the direction of water flow:
>
> ____________________________________________________________________
>
> BREWING (BREW SWITCH turned _ON_):
>
>
> from pump
> __________
> _______
|
| | |
Date: 18 Jun 2006 05:17:02
From: Omniryx@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Is ESNW's JoeGlo less toxic than Cafiza?
|
My dear God in heaven.....DOS pictures!!!
How old ARE you, Randy?
And, Dave, in the face of the empirical evidence, you're going to have
to find a stronger rejoinder than your most recent. :)
|
| | | |
Date: 18 Jun 2006 14:57:24
From: Randy G.
Subject: Re: Is ESNW's JoeGlo less toxic than Cafiza?
|
"Omniryx@gmail.com" <Omniryx@gmail.com > wrote:
>My dear God in heaven.....DOS pictures!!!
>
>How old ARE you, Randy?
>
Old enough to have written games using ASCII characters on a Vic20!
Really! Actually, old enough to have taught Jr. High kids how to write
ASCII games on a Vic 20! WHne the Vic 20 was new! Really!
But, I have just added a monsterous set of pages explaining how a
3-way valve works and why it needs to be backflushed. See the link on
my website under the "OTHER" section (in the right-hand pane)
entitled, "3-Way Valve How and Why."
Randy "maybe someone can read it TO him" G.
http://www.EspressoMyEspresso.com
|
| | | | |
Date: 19 Jun 2006 18:03:46
From: Steve Ackman
Subject: Re: Is ESNW's JoeGlo less toxic than Cafiza?
|
In <amib92h70e2ibi5u0tikb5juqqrjrmk9n5@4ax.com >, on Sun, 18 Jun 2006
14:57:24 -0700, Randy G wrote:
> "Omniryx@gmail.com" <Omniryx@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>My dear God in heaven.....DOS pictures!!!
>>
>>How old ARE you, Randy?
>>
>
> Old enough to have written games using ASCII characters on a Vic20!
> Really! Actually, old enough to have taught Jr. High kids how to write
> ASCII games on a Vic 20! WHne the Vic 20 was new! Really!
But... SPRITES!
Steve "300 baud teletype / paper tapes" Ackman
|
| | | | | |
Date: 19 Jun 2006 22:50:56
From: Paul Vojta
Subject: Re: Is ESNW's JoeGlo less toxic than Cafiza?
|
>Steve "300 baud teletype / paper tapes" Ackman
Poser! Teletypes were 110 baud.
--Paul Vojta, vojta@math.berkeley.edu
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 19 Jun 2006 22:17:03
From: Steve Ackman
Subject: Re: Is ESNW's JoeGlo less toxic than Cafiza?
|
In <e779og$1su1$1@agate.berkeley.edu >, on Mon, 19 Jun 2006 22:50:56 +0000
(UTC), Paul Vojta wrote:
>>Steve "300 baud teletype / paper tapes" Ackman
>
> Poser! Teletypes were 110 baud.
Right. The Commodore 64 modem was 300 baud...
The brain is still at 110 baud.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 20 Jun 2006 11:23:39
From: Brent
Subject: Re: Is ESNW's JoeGlo less toxic than Cafiza?
|
Paper tape, thats advanced, what about punchcards?
> >Steve "300 baud teletype / paper tapes" Ackman
>
> Poser! Teletypes were 110 baud.
>
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 19 Jun 2006 22:23:35
From: Steve Ackman
Subject: Re: Is ESNW's JoeGlo less toxic than Cafiza?
|
In <4fop43F1k4k0sU1@individual.net >, on Tue, 20 Jun 2006 11:23:39 +1200,
Brent wrote:
> Paper tape, thats advanced, what about punchcards?
Never used punch cards, but one of the machines
in the shop (used as a curiosity rather than in daily
use) required booting by toggling 16 bits at a time
followed by a set switch, for something like 150
byte program.
|
| |
Date: 15 Jun 2006 05:46:19
From: DavidMLewis
Subject: Re: Is ESNW's JoeGlo less toxic than Cafiza?
|
Poconos/VT/NY wrote:
> No matter how much rinzing and flushing you do after a backflush with
> Cafiza like detergent I suspect the trace amounts of the chemicals
> remain in the machine at least for some time. Considering that 'normal'
> mainenantance schedule calls for a weekly detergent grouphead cleaning
> I am looking around to see if there are safer choices out there. MSDS
> on joe glo is posted here - http://www.joeglo.com/ and on Urnex Cafiza
> is on www.urnex.com (but requires a password). Anyone with an oppenion?
The Cafiza-type cleaners are chemically very close to a jumped-up
version of automatic dishwasher detergent, from what I can see. You
have to rinse a lot to get the last of them out of the machine so that
there's no taste residue. Beyond that I'm not sure I'd worry about it.
Try your routine, then pull a blank shot into a cup, let it cool, and
taste the water. If you can taste anything, rinse more. My experience
is with Puro Caff, which is chemically similar to Cafiza; I have no
experience with JoeGlo.
Best,
David
|
| |
Date: 15 Jun 2006 21:05:55
From: shane
Subject: Re: Is ESNW's JoeGlo less toxic than Cafiza?
|
Anyone have any opinions about JoeGlo? I have a tub of it and it seems
ok, however, I do not have much basis for comparison. It seems similar
to Urex. My experience is limited, so I too am interested in opinions
from anyone else.
Shane
|
| |
Date: 15 Jun 2006 12:16:36
From: daveb
Subject: Re: Is ESNW's JoeGlo less toxic than Cafiza?
|
No, backflushing is not part of the routine -- especially with the low
use home machines [non-commercial] see. Any benefits from
backflushing are all imaginary.
and BTW, if you don't want to worry about the "toxic" leftovers from
backflushing -- don't do it!
Weekly: remove the basket, screen screw, etc. and soak it all with
the business end of the portafilter in hot cafiza / JoeGlo solution .
dunk a rag in the solution and wipe off the expsoed parts of the
brewhead until clean. wipe with a clean damp rag. rinse and
re-assemble.
"Backflushing" is a great keyword on this group -- ever popular.
Poconos/VT/NY wrote:
> Isn't weekly detergent backflush a part of everyone's maintenance
> cycle? Water backflush to clear the particles in the system/detergent
> backflush to remove the rancid coffee oils...
>
> daveb wrote:
> > what machine are you backflushing??
> >
> > and why?
> >
> > DAve
> > Saeco / Gaggia service SE
> >
> > .
> > Poconos/VT/NY wrote:
> > > No matter how much rinzing and flushing you do after a backflush with
> > > Cafiza like detergent I suspect the trace amounts of the chemicals
> > > remain in the machine at least for some time. Considering that 'normal'
> > > mainenantance schedule calls for a weekly detergent grouphead cleaning
> > > I am looking around to see if there are safer choices out there. MSDS
> > > on joe glo is posted here - http://www.joeglo.com/ and on Urnex Cafiza
> > > is on www.urnex.com (but requires a password). Anyone with an oppenion?
> > > Thanks.
|
| | |
Date: 15 Jun 2006 14:25:46
From: Mike Garner
Subject: Re: Is ESNW's JoeGlo less toxic than Cafiza?
|
In article <1150398996.489973.38130@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com >,
davebobblane@gmail.com says...
> No, backflushing is not part of the routine -- especially with the low
> use home machines [non-commercial] see. Any benefits from
> backflushing are all imaginary.
>
BTW, daveb is our resident "DON'T BACKFLUSH" crackpot.
Many others here do...
Mike
|
| |
Date: 16 Jun 2006 11:53:42
From: shane
Subject: Re: Is ESNW's JoeGlo less toxic than Cafiza?
|
Sorry, I did not intend to be snarly.
My issue was, I did not see one post in the thread actually addressing
the OP's original question. I was just trying to keep on topic. Oh
well, such is the nature of usenet :)
Shane
Omniryx@gmail.com wrote:
> Gosh, people are snarly.
>
> Will
> "The human capacity for self-importance is nearly boundless"
>
>
>
> shane wrote:
> > Anyone have any opinions about JoeGlo? I have a tub of it and it seems
> > ok, however, I do not have much basis for comparison. It seems similar
> > to Urex. My experience is limited, so I too am interested in opinions
> > from anyone else.
> >
> > Shane
|
| |
Date: 16 Jun 2006 06:27:38
From: daveb
Subject: Re: Is ESNW's JoeGlo less toxic than Cafiza?
|
Gosh, people are snarly. Will
"The human capacity for self-importance is nearly boundless"
Why yes they sure are! . [especially when discussing one of this
groups favored shibboleths = Backflushing] seems rather silly, does it
not?
(Of all the machines I have serviced for customers, NONE had a problem
because they had not been 'backflushed'. 2 did have serious leakage,
making the unit unusable -- CAUSED by backflushing -- based on the
admissions of the owners. I would never speak against a practice to
make a machine LESS reliable, or need service in order to obtain
business for myself.)
but back to my point -- I have been accused of LOWERING the tone of
this group by my snipping and sniping. and BTW NONE of the critics
EVER call me on the phone -- toll free.
Well, here you have it.
Dave
Saeco / Gaggia service SE
877 286 2833
Omniryx@gmail.com wrote:
> Gosh, people are snarly.
>
> Will
> "The human capacity for self-importance is nearly boundless"
>
>
>
> shane wrote:
> > Anyone have any opinions about JoeGlo? I have a tub of it and it seems
> > ok, however, I do not have much basis for comparison. It seems similar
> > to Urex. My experience is limited, so I too am interested in opinions
> > from anyone else.
> >
> > Shane
|
| |
Date: 16 Jun 2006 06:05:27
From: daveb
Subject: Re: Is ESNW's JoeGlo less toxic than Cafiza?
|
Hi,
Ive used both but like Joglo a little better as it does not foam quite
as much. BOTH do a good job.
Dave
shane wrote:
> Anyone have any opinions about JoeGlo? I have a tub of it and it seems
> ok, however, I do not have much basis for comparison. It seems similar
> to Urex. My experience is limited, so I too am interested in opinions
> from anyone else.
>
> Shane
|
| |
Date: 16 Jun 2006 05:29:27
From: Omniryx@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Is ESNW's JoeGlo less toxic than Cafiza?
|
Gosh, people are snarly.
Will
"The human capacity for self-importance is nearly boundless"
shane wrote:
> Anyone have any opinions about JoeGlo? I have a tub of it and it seems
> ok, however, I do not have much basis for comparison. It seems similar
> to Urex. My experience is limited, so I too am interested in opinions
> from anyone else.
>
> Shane
|
|
