| |
Main
Date: 09 Sep 2006 20:27:51
From: jim schulman
Subject: My Espresso Lab and a Plug for Dave B (Dave713, hitechespresso.com)
|
On Friday, I got the major components of my new espresso lab,
"Treatment Group" and "Control Group," two PIDed Silvias courtesy our
favorite pesky poster, Dave B. No, I'm not quite ready for the strait
jacket; there's method to my madness.
WHY DAVE B?
This turned out to be a good move. Dave sells ready made PIDed Silvias
at or below the cost for which one can get a new machine and the
PIDing parts; despite everyone's scepticism, he does do enough volume
to get and pass on the discount. I sent him the check, got the two
machines, each double boxed, well packed, and UPS football proof, two
week later.
The PID uses a T-type surface sensor mounted to the thermostat bracket
with lots of heatsink compound, an SSR mounted inside the vertical
part of the case, and a Cal3200 series controller mounted in a box
between the group and steam arm (thin eared PF handles that require to
be turned far will slide under the box). The workmanship is excellent,
the look plain-jane straightforward, suiting the Silvia just fine.
I've always wondered about this TC postion, but it turns out to be
good -- the dead time between blipping the pump and a response on the
temperature is about 4 to 5 seconds, not much worse than a well.
The Cal3200 is a nice controller for this application, takes its time
autotuning and finds the right parameters. It uses a very overdamped
TLC style algorithm, which is fine for preventing a lot of overshoot
and hunting. One can find the programming PDFs on line if one wants to
play. Turns out that Dave knows his business; all the various tuning
methods have advantages and drawbacks, the one he uses is good for
non-geeky people who want the control to settle and aren't standing
there with a stopwatch. Since I have a stopwatch, I settled on a
faster, more oscillating ZN tuning, with a little off the edge,
figuring I'd be flushing the group for cleanup during the first
overshoot in any case.
For those contemplating an electronic thermostat for this app. Don't
-- PID control absolutely required. I set the controller on on/off
with a 0 deadband, and the machine cycled from 5F below to 15F above
the setpoint, probably no better than the stock Tstat.
Somewhere along the supply chain of these machines, someone did the
pressure mod, so the machines are at 10 bar each against a
blindfilter. Thank you, whoever it was.
In any case, as far as I'm concerned, Dave offers a very good service
to the amateur community with his PIDing business. If only his posting
style were as classy.
WHY TWO SILVIAS?
Given the Silvias price and 800 watts, how can I do better if I want
two groups for side by side tasting on a kitchen countertop? This is
cheaper, less room and less electrical stress than any two grouper,
even used. While the Silvia doesn't seem a stellar shot puller; in
PID, pressure modded guise, it offers relatively consistent
performance at a good price.
WHY TWO GROUPS?
I'm basically out of the machine modding and testing game. The leading
edge of espresso machine mods has gotten very high tech indeed:
temperature and pressure profiling rather than just stabililty;
probably soon to be joined by closer study of water paths and what's
going on inside the puck. This is research for people with access to
serious engineering resources and knowhow, the Gregs, Andys, Seans and
Linos; but not me.
In any case, my thing has always been taste testing. My frustration
when testing coffees, grinders, baskets, tamping methods for espresso
etc, is that I couldn't do side by side comparisions. Hence the two
group "lab."
The first thing I'll want to test is the reliability of taste testing
itself. If I make identically dosed shots of identical coffee from the
two Silvias, how different will they be? What is the smallest
difference one can detect on two coffee blends, grinds, tamps, doses,
etc? Is side by side better than successive tries? Is blind more
accurate than non-blind tasting? It would be nice to know what it
takes before one can say espresso variant A is better than espresso
variant B.
|
|
| |
Date: 10 Sep 2006 10:02:18
From: daveb
Subject: Re: My Espresso Lab and a Plug for Dave B (Dave713, hitechespresso.com)
|
Thanks Jim!
Dave
112
877 286 2833
jim schulman wrote:
> On Friday, I got the major components of my new espresso lab,
> "Treatment Group" and "Control Group," two PIDed Silvias courtesy our
> favorite pesky poster, Dave B. No, I'm not quite ready for the strait
> jacket; there's method to my madness.
>
>
>
> WHY DAVE B?
>
> This turned out to be a good move. Dave sells ready made PIDed Silvias
> at or below the cost for which one can get a new machine and the
> PIDing parts; despite everyone's scepticism, he does do enough volume
> to get and pass on the discount. I sent him the check, got the two
> machines, each double boxed, well packed, and UPS football proof, two
> week later.
>
> The PID uses a T-type surface sensor mounted to the thermostat bracket
> with lots of heatsink compound, an SSR mounted inside the vertical
> part of the case, and a Cal3200 series controller mounted in a box
> between the group and steam arm (thin eared PF handles that require to
> be turned far will slide under the box). The workmanship is excellent,
> the look plain-jane straightforward, suiting the Silvia just fine.
>
> I've always wondered about this TC postion, but it turns out to be
> good -- the dead time between blipping the pump and a response on the
> temperature is about 4 to 5 seconds, not much worse than a well.
>
> The Cal3200 is a nice controller for this application, takes its time
> autotuning and finds the right parameters. It uses a very overdamped
> TLC style algorithm, which is fine for preventing a lot of overshoot
> and hunting. One can find the programming PDFs on line if one wants to
> play. Turns out that Dave knows his business; all the various tuning
> methods have advantages and drawbacks, the one he uses is good for
> non-geeky people who want the control to settle and aren't standing
> there with a stopwatch. Since I have a stopwatch, I settled on a
> faster, more oscillating ZN tuning, with a little off the edge,
> figuring I'd be flushing the group for cleanup during the first
> overshoot in any case.
>
> For those contemplating an electronic thermostat for this app. Don't
> -- PID control absolutely required. I set the controller on on/off
> with a 0 deadband, and the machine cycled from 5F below to 15F above
> the setpoint, probably no better than the stock Tstat.
>
> Somewhere along the supply chain of these machines, someone did the
> pressure mod, so the machines are at 10 bar each against a
> blindfilter. Thank you, whoever it was.
>
> In any case, as far as I'm concerned, Dave offers a very good service
> to the amateur community with his PIDing business. If only his posting
> style were as classy.
>
>
>
> WHY TWO SILVIAS?
>
> Given the Silvias price and 800 watts, how can I do better if I want
> two groups for side by side tasting on a kitchen countertop? This is
> cheaper, less room and less electrical stress than any two grouper,
> even used. While the Silvia doesn't seem a stellar shot puller; in
> PID, pressure modded guise, it offers relatively consistent
> performance at a good price.
>
>
>
> WHY TWO GROUPS?
>
> I'm basically out of the machine modding and testing game. The leading
> edge of espresso machine mods has gotten very high tech indeed:
> temperature and pressure profiling rather than just stabililty;
> probably soon to be joined by closer study of water paths and what's
> going on inside the puck. This is research for people with access to
> serious engineering resources and knowhow, the Gregs, Andys, Seans and
> Linos; but not me.
>
> In any case, my thing has always been taste testing. My frustration
> when testing coffees, grinders, baskets, tamping methods for espresso
> etc, is that I couldn't do side by side comparisions. Hence the two
> group "lab."
>
> The first thing I'll want to test is the reliability of taste testing
> itself. If I make identically dosed shots of identical coffee from the
> two Silvias, how different will they be? What is the smallest
> difference one can detect on two coffee blends, grinds, tamps, doses,
> etc? Is side by side better than successive tries? Is blind more
> accurate than non-blind tasting? It would be nice to know what it
> takes before one can say espresso variant A is better than espresso
> variant B.
|
| |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 05:06:57
From: I->Ian
Subject: Re: My Espresso Lab and a Plug for Dave B (Dave713, hitechespresso.com)
|
On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 20:27:51 -0500, jim schulman
<jim_schulman@ameritech.net > wrote:
>Is side by side better than successive tries?
You're having a modification done by an E, N & T specialist as well?
|
| |
Date: 10 Sep 2006 20:43:22
From: Dogshot
Subject: Re: My Espresso Lab and a Plug for Dave B (Dave713, hitechespresso.com)
|
jim schulman wrote:
>
> The first thing I'll want to test is the reliability of taste testing
> itself. If I make identically dosed shots of identical coffee from the
> two Silvias, how different will they be? What is the smallest
> difference one can detect on two coffee blends, grinds, tamps, doses,
> etc? Is side by side better than successive tries? Is blind more
> accurate than non-blind tasting? It would be nice to know what it
> takes before one can say espresso variant A is better than espresso
> variant B.
I really admire the work that you and a few others are doing in this
area. Now that you are getting a handle on the production end, I see
some possibility for work on the measurement side. First off, I think
the dependent variable could be more clearly defined and tested. For
example, many of the tests to date use a design that asks for the
'best' choice, which implies preference. A possible weakness that I
see in the design, and possibly the results as well is that using
preference as a dependent measure shows little more than individual
differences between raters. If I remember correctly, you and Ken had
slightly different results in your vibe/rotary test, which may be the
individual differences in your preferences.
Looking at the WBC protocols, there are very few measures of quality
that address the taste of the espresso. The mearures that are there
are summary measures that capture overall impressions of balance, etc.
I think that there is real room for improvement, and one place to start
could be the rating process used in cupping. I realize that it quickly
becomes overwhelming to rate each shot along a series of criteria
(bitterness, acidity, sweetness, etc.), but these types of granular
measures would show over the long run systematic differences in the
variables that are being tested, assuming that raters are able to
properly rate the scoring form. These lower level measures would also
show what individuals prefer (sweeter vs balanced vs whatever).
Some interesting questions that are outstanding are:
1) Are preferences universal? It would be expected that a group of
enthusiasts could agree on good versus not good espresso (nominal), but
would there be ordinal agreement?
2) What is it about changes in machine design that influence
preference? Does a different pressure profile affect the bitterness
component, the mouthfeel, or the overall balance, or all of these
attributes of the taste?
As an experienced cupper and espresso drinker, you (Jim) are in a very
good position to construct a rating form that defines and captures the
flavour aspects of espresso. You could also include an overall summary
measure of preference.
I suggest then that a random coefficient model (like HLM) could be used
to examine the effects of higher level attributes (machine level
differences) and lower level attributes like bitterness, sweetness,
astringency (the flavour aspects) on preference. Essentially, this
model would examine the intercept and slope terms summarizing the
relationship between preference and flavour aspects for each machine
(or pump, etc.). The variance in the intercept term reflects the
between machine differences in preference after controlling for the
flavour aspects, whereas the variance in the slope term reflects the
way in which the relationship between the flavour aspects and
preference varies across groups.
Basically, I am suggesting the development of a broken-down measure of
preference, and a different method of analyzing the relationships
between preference, the broken-down measure, and machine-level
differences.
Mark
|
| | |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 14:55:43
From: jim schulman
Subject: Re: My Espresso Lab and a Plug for Dave B (Dave713, hitechespresso.com)
|
On 10 Sep 2006 20:43:22 -0700, "Dogshot" <ralphtoyou2003@yahoo.ca >
wrote:
>As an experienced cupper and espresso drinker, you (Jim) are in a very
>good position to construct a rating form that defines and captures the
>flavour aspects of espresso. You could also include an overall summary
>measure of preference.
Thanks.
Basically, the rating part of tasting coffees or espresso is pretty
uncontroversial, although people tweak the formats all the time. What
is missing, AFAIK, is a guideline for tasting that yields repeatable
results with the same certitude as cupping regular coffees, and that
remains inexpensive enough so that any small roaster and many amateurs
can do it (rather than being something only an expensively setup lab
can do).
Why is rating coffee or espresso for quality relatively
uncontroversial?
My (seemingly annual) lecture on "objective quality:"
When companies do consumer tests, they ask foir simple preference.
Food science departments and presumably industry research uses
volunteers who are trained and tested for a day or two. They usually
give quality ratings, sometimes on several dimensions, which are
quasi-objective. Coffee cuppers, wine tasters, beer raters, movie
critics etc all try to go for "objective quality ratings."
Tasting or critical scores of any kind are unavoidably about quality.
Calling a good taste "flavenoid euphoretic index (0-10)" doesn't make
it any less about quality, it just adds a layer of pompous BS. Quality
scores become objective or at least quasi-objective when the raters
don't indulge in personal preferences.
For instance, I'm not as much a personal fan of Central as I am of
East African coffees. However when I rate these, I judge them on their
own merits and suspend my personal preference (usually by comparing
them to an appropriate reference). This means I may prefer to drink an
85 point Rwandan to a 90 point Costa Rican, even if I gave those
ratings myself. This is not easy. I think I get most of the way, but
if one compared my scores to that of a cupper with the opposite
preference, there'd probably be a 1 or 2 point systematic difference.
This is why one has multiple tasters on a jury.
The key to becoming objective or "quasi-objecive" is to know very well
what one's idiosyncratic personal preferences are in detail, so one
can compensate when judging. My prefence for East Africans derives
from a particularly preference of chocolatey and mollases like roast
flavors to caramel or nutty ones, and to a big preference for estery,
winey middle and dark fruit to lighter citrus ones. Everyone who rates
anything does this sort of thing automatically. I discovered my
idiosycracies by tasting and rating coffees, then comparing my ratings
to those of experienced cuppers, and calibrating my scores. In other
words, I did exactly what the volunteers in a food science lab are
trained to do, or what a cupping jury does in the calibrating session.
The procedure and training methods are the same for every form of
tasting, and have ben independently derived many times. So the
procedure should be credited with delivering results as objective as
possible given the nature of the activity.
There is one aspect of rating taste that this procedure leaves open,
and that yields the most fascinating questions of all. It's way to
involved and off-topic to go into here, but huge respect points for
anyone who can figure out what it is from reading this.
End of lecture
|
| | | |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 22:14:18
From: Barry Jarrett
Subject: Re: My Espresso Lab and a Plug for Dave B (Dave713, hitechespresso.com)
|
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 14:55:43 -0500, jim schulman
<jim_schulman@ameritech.net > wrote:
>The procedure and training methods are the same for every form of
>tasting, and have ben independently derived many times. So the
>procedure should be credited with delivering results as objective as
>possible given the nature of the activity.
>
and for anyone who's interested, there's the flippingly expensive
"Sensory Evaluation Practices", ISBN 0-12-672690-6.
--barry "or just come visit and read my copy"
|
| | | | |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 19:06:25
From: jim schulman
Subject: Re: My Espresso Lab and a Plug for Dave B (Dave713, hitechespresso.com)
|
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 22:14:18 GMT, Barry Jarrett
<barry@rileys-coffee.com > wrote:
>
>and for anyone who's interested, there's the flippingly expensive
>"Sensory Evaluation Practices", ISBN 0-12-672690-6.
It's down to $67 used on Amazon.
Thanks for introducing me to this whole new sub-discipline (industrial
sensory assessment of everything from drinks to tissue paper)
I just got the companion volume:
Sensory Evaluation Techniques, Third Edition (Hardcover)
by Morten C. Meilgaard, Gail Vance Civille, B. Thomas Carr
We can swap once I've read it.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 00:33:09
From: Barry Jarrett
Subject: Re: My Espresso Lab and a Plug for Dave B (Dave713, hitechespresso.com)
|
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 19:06:25 -0500, jim schulman
<jim_schulman@ameritech.net > wrote:
>I just got the companion volume:
>
>Sensory Evaluation Techniques, Third Edition (Hardcover)
>by Morten C. Meilgaard, Gail Vance Civille, B. Thomas Carr
>
i also have Coffee Flavor Chemistry....
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 19:48:41
From: jim schulman
Subject: Re: My Espresso Lab and a Plug for Dave B (Dave713, hitechespresso.com)
|
On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 00:33:09 GMT, Barry Jarrett
<barry@rileys-coffee.com > wrote:
>i also have Coffee Flavor Chemistry....
Me too, a big thumbs down from me; but maybe my chem knowledge is
substandard. The Clarke and Vitzthum edited volume "Coffee: Recent
Developments, is more fun; although not all that recent.
|
| |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 20:00:54
From: Dogshot
Subject: Re: My Espresso Lab and a Plug for Dave B (Dave713, hitechespresso.com)
|
Dogshot wrote:
> Marshall wrote:
> > On 12 Sep 2006 18:01:44 -0700, "Dogshot" <ralphtoyou2003@yahoo.ca>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> > You seriously think processed food companies don't research consumer
> > preferences before spending millions on producing and marketing their
> > products? You think consumer taste preference isn't important in which
> > products succeed? If you research this subject even a little bit, you
> > will see how wrong you are.
> >
> > Marshall
>
> ...or they (processed food companies) have access to resources that allow them to control a whole bunch of variables that we have difficulty with in our setups. In either case, I don't think the reason for using a measure of simple preference translates from Kraft's labs to the espresso-lover's basement tests.
Mark
|
| |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 19:51:29
From: Dogshot
Subject: Re: My Espresso Lab and a Plug for Dave B (Dave713, hitechespresso.com)
|
Marshall wrote:
> On 12 Sep 2006 18:01:44 -0700, "Dogshot" <ralphtoyou2003@yahoo.ca>
> wrote:
>
>
> You seriously think processed food companies don't research consumer
> preferences before spending millions on producing and marketing their
> products? You think consumer taste preference isn't important in which
> products succeed? If you research this subject even a little bit, you
> will see how wrong you are.
>
> Marshall
You make a good point Marshall. It's obvious that food companies spend
money researching consumer preferences; my point is that if their
interest is in a simple overall measure of preference (as suggested
earlier), then I suspect their interest in consumer preferences lies in
how many, rather than what is the basis of the preference.
Mark
|
| |
Date: 12 Sep 2006 18:01:44
From: Dogshot
Subject: Re: My Espresso Lab and a Plug for Dave B (Dave713, hitechespresso.com)
|
jim schulman wrote:
> On 10 Sep 2006 20:43:22 -0700, "Dogshot" <ralphtoyou2003@yahoo.ca>
> wrote:
>
>
> My (seemingly annual) lecture on "objective quality:"
>
I completely agree with you about the usefulness of subjective
measures. My concern lies in achieving some degree of inter-rater
reliability with a measure of overall preference. Given the variety in
preferences for brew parameters, blends, roasts, etc., it seems very
unlikely that given two equally well-made but different shots, there
would be conformity in an overall measure of preference, except at the
individual level.
I don't know much about consumer research, but it is my impression
that the main interest companies have in consumer taste impressions is
to obtain information like '30% of consumers tested preferred our
product to the competition'. Inter-rater reliability is of little
consequence in this situation, whereas it is highly relevant to a study
that attempts to discern whether a certain machine treatment (like a
pump) is associated with better espresso.
Given the complexities involved in achieving a completely predictable
and transparent setup, I think that a multi-dimensional (subjective)
measure of taste would provide a measure with much less error, and
offer improved opportunity for the un-funded researcher to make some
headway in this area.
Mark
|
| | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 02:30:51
From: Marshall
Subject: Re: My Espresso Lab and a Plug for Dave B (Dave713, hitechespresso.com)
|
On 12 Sep 2006 18:01:44 -0700, "Dogshot" <ralphtoyou2003@yahoo.ca >
wrote:
>I don't know much about consumer research, but it is my impression
>that the main interest companies have in consumer taste impressions is
>to obtain information like '30% of consumers tested preferred our
>product to the competition'.
You seriously think processed food companies don't research consumer
preferences before spending millions on producing and marketing their
products? You think consumer taste preference isn't important in which
products succeed? If you research this subject even a little bit, you
will see how wrong you are.
Marshall
|
| |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 06:28:07
From: Alan
Subject: Re: My Espresso Lab and a Plug for Dave B (Dave713, hitechespresso.com)
|
That picture in the thread is exactly what is in my Silvia which is
around a year old. It kind of is an adjustable OPV.
There are two hex nuts on the OPV. The nut on the back (towards the
boiler side) is actually moveable and not attached to the boiler, so,
in theory, if you backed off the hosebarb fitting and tightened the hex
nut on the boiler side you would be lowering the pressure.
I sadly discovered this last night as I tried unscrewing my fitting. I
grabbed onto both the hex nut and the round boiler fitting with the
vice-grip that I was using to back up my wrench and ended up stripping
the hex nut halfway down somehow. Oh well.
By the way, the consequence is that the old washer trick no longer is
really necessary.
Phil P wrote:
> Maybe it hasn't reached all markets yet, but apparently this guy bought
> one in Europe in January with the adjustable PRV. Wade through the
> banter and there's a photo of it in this thread:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/kc2gl
>
>
> daveb wrote:
>
> > NOT adjustable, Phil
> >
> > Dave
> > 116
> >
> >
> > Phil P wrote:
> > > jim schulman wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Somewhere along the supply chain of these machines, someone did the
> > > > pressure mod, so the machines are at 10 bar each against a
> > > > blindfilter. Thank you, whoever it was.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I understand that newer silvias come with an adjustable pressure relief
> > > valve, though I don't know what the factory setting is. Maybe rancilio
> > > do read a.c afterall?
|
| |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 04:15:27
From: Phil P
Subject: Re: My Espresso Lab and a Plug for Dave B (Dave713, hitechespresso.com)
|
Maybe it hasn't reached all markets yet, but apparently this guy bought
one in Europe in January with the adjustable PRV. Wade through the
banter and there's a photo of it in this thread:
http://tinyurl.com/kc2gl
daveb wrote:
> NOT adjustable, Phil
>
> Dave
> 116
>
>
> Phil P wrote:
> > jim schulman wrote:
> > >
> > > Somewhere along the supply chain of these machines, someone did the
> > > pressure mod, so the machines are at 10 bar each against a
> > > blindfilter. Thank you, whoever it was.
> > >
> >
> > I understand that newer silvias come with an adjustable pressure relief
> > valve, though I don't know what the factory setting is. Maybe rancilio
> > do read a.c afterall?
|
| | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 11:27:20
From: Coffee for Connoisseurs
Subject: Re: My Espresso Lab and a Plug for Dave B (Dave713, hitechespresso.com)
|
See http://www.coffeeco.com.au/newsletter/july2006.html . Factory setting is
11 bar.
--
Alan
alanfrew@coffeeco.com.au
www.coffeeco.com.au
|
| | | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 13:36:32
From: jim schulman
Subject: Re: My Espresso Lab and a Plug for Dave B (Dave713, hitechespresso.com)
|
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 11:27:20 GMT, "Coffee for Connoisseurs"
<alanfrew@coffeeco.com.au > wrote:
>See http://www.coffeeco.com.au/newsletter/july2006.html . Factory setting is
>11 bar.
That's the one I got. It looks adjustable, but how far, which depends
on the spring and how deeply the unit is threaded, I don't know. Both
the machines I got registered 10 bar at the group.
It's odd that the US Vendors haven't talked this up some; since it
saves people who want to do a mod a lot of time and some money.
|
| |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 03:52:20
From: daveb
Subject: Re: My Espresso Lab and a Plug for Dave B (Dave713, hitechespresso.com)
|
NOT adjustable, Phil
Dave
116
Phil P wrote:
> jim schulman wrote:
> >
> > Somewhere along the supply chain of these machines, someone did the
> > pressure mod, so the machines are at 10 bar each against a
> > blindfilter. Thank you, whoever it was.
> >
>
> I understand that newer silvias come with an adjustable pressure relief
> valve, though I don't know what the factory setting is. Maybe rancilio
> do read a.c afterall?
|
| |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 03:50:12
From: Phil P
Subject: Re: My Espresso Lab and a Plug for Dave B (Dave713, hitechespresso.com)
|
jim schulman wrote:
>
> Somewhere along the supply chain of these machines, someone did the
> pressure mod, so the machines are at 10 bar each against a
> blindfilter. Thank you, whoever it was.
>
I understand that newer silvias come with an adjustable pressure relief
valve, though I don't know what the factory setting is. Maybe rancilio
do read a.c afterall?
|
| |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 11:53:41
From: daveb
Subject: Re: My Espresso Lab and a Plug for Dave B (Dave713, hitechespresso.com) and pressure changes
|
Jim,
I don't think US vendors wanna talk it up -- it would encourage users
to do things like strip out the brass parts, like a poster on this
thread did. -- or other damage.
dave
116
jim schulman wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 11:27:20 GMT, "Coffee for Connoisseurs"
> <alanfrew@coffeeco.com.au> wrote:
>
> >See http://www.coffeeco.com.au/newsletter/july2006.html . Factory setting is
> >11 bar.
>
> That's the one I got. It looks adjustable, but how far, which depends
> on the spring and how deeply the unit is threaded, I don't know. Both
> the machines I got registered 10 bar at the group.
>
> It's odd that the US Vendors haven't talked this up some; since it
> saves people who want to do a mod a lot of time and some money.
|
| | |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 15:50:46
From: jim schulman
Subject: Re: My Espresso Lab and a Plug for Dave B (Dave713, hitechespresso.com) and pressure changes
|
On 13 Sep 2006 11:53:41 -0700, "daveb" <davebobblane@gmail.com > wrote:
>Jim,
>I don't think US vendors wanna talk it up -- it would encourage users
>to do things like strip out the brass parts, like a poster on this
>thread did. -- or other damage.
For those inclined to start disassembling it and adding washers, it's
worth mentioning, since they don't need to.
|
| |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 11:45:12
From: daveb
Subject: Re: My Espresso Lab and a Plug for Dave B (Dave713, hitechespresso.com)
|
thanx, Roque!
:-)
dave
877 286 2833
116
Rogue wrote:
> Nice to see a good word from yet another credible source for dave's
> PIDed machines and his service.
>
> Dave's taken abuse on this group from his very first post here, but
> it's always been clear to me that he has been providing a welcome
> service to home baristas at a fair price.
|
| |
Date: 13 Sep 2006 10:37:35
From:
Subject: Re: My Espresso Lab and a Plug for Dave B (Dave713, hitechespresso.com)
|
Nice to see a good word from yet another credible source for dave's
PIDed machines and his service.
Dave's taken abuse on this group from his very first post here, but
it's always been clear to me that he has been providing a welcome
service to home baristas at a fair price.
|
| |
Date: 14 Sep 2006 09:49:13
From: Phil P
Subject: Re: My Espresso Lab and a Plug for Dave B (Dave713, hitechespresso.com) and pressure changes
|
I see sivia now comes with a free cat too ;o)
Alan wrote:
> Indeed.
>
> I figured out what I did wrong. There was an o-ring between the lock
> nut and the boiler side of the OPV. When I grabbed the lock nut and
> started turning the barbed fitting off I screwed that o-ring underneath
> the lock nut which made it very hard to get off.
>
> Anyway, I posted pictures of the removed OPV fitting (ignore the
> missing hose-barb, I tapped it 1/8" OPV after cutting it off, also
> ignore the fact that the o-ring and lock nut are cut) and a couple of
> the boiler side of the OPV where you can see, sort of, that the threads
> don't start until pretty deep in. The boiler side engages the lower
> threads of the barbed fitting and the lock-washer engages the upper
> threads.
>
> Pics at
>
> http://amunter.thinkhost.com/images/opv.jpg
> http://amunter.thinkhost.com/images/opv2.jpg
> http://amunter.thinkhost.com/images/opv3.jpg
>
> jim schulman wrote:
> > On 13 Sep 2006 11:53:41 -0700, "daveb" <davebobblane@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Jim,
> > >I don't think US vendors wanna talk it up -- it would encourage users
> > >to do things like strip out the brass parts, like a poster on this
> > >thread did. -- or other damage.
> >
> > For those inclined to start disassembling it and adding washers, it's
> > worth mentioning, since they don't need to.
|
| |
Date: 14 Sep 2006 05:57:27
From: Alan
Subject: Re: My Espresso Lab and a Plug for Dave B (Dave713, hitechespresso.com) and pressure changes
|
If the above links don't work try
http://www.amunter.thinkhost.com/images/opv.jpg
http://www.amunter.thinkhost.com/images/opv2.jpg
http://www.amunter.thinkhost.com/images/opv3.jpg
no idea why the first ones worked earlier and they don't now.
Alan
|
| |
Date: 14 Sep 2006 05:10:12
From: daveb
Subject: Re: My Espresso Lab and a Plug for Dave B (Dave713, hitechespresso.com)
|
What e-mail?
DAve
877 286 2833
Godzilla wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 10:37:35 -0700, wrote:
>
> > Nice to see a good word from yet another credible source for dave's
> > PIDed machines and his service.
> >
> > Dave's taken abuse on this group from his very first post here, but
> > it's always been clear to me that he has been providing a welcome
> > service to home baristas at a fair price.
>
> It is strange that he doesn't even answer an e-mail inquiring about his
> products and services if he is serious about running his business. ;-)
>
> Godzilla
|
| |
Date: 14 Sep 2006 04:23:46
From: Alan
Subject: Re: My Espresso Lab and a Plug for Dave B (Dave713, hitechespresso.com) and pressure changes
|
By the way, I bought mine in 11/2005 from 1st-line, so they were
shipping with them at least that early.
Alan wrote:
> Indeed.
>
> I figured out what I did wrong. There was an o-ring between the lock
> nut and the boiler side of the OPV. When I grabbed the lock nut and
> started turning the barbed fitting off I screwed that o-ring underneath
> the lock nut which made it very hard to get off.
>
> Anyway, I posted pictures of the removed OPV fitting (ignore the
> missing hose-barb, I tapped it 1/8" OPV after cutting it off, also
> ignore the fact that the o-ring and lock nut are cut) and a couple of
> the boiler side of the OPV where you can see, sort of, that the threads
> don't start until pretty deep in. The boiler side engages the lower
> threads of the barbed fitting and the lock-washer engages the upper
> threads.
>
> Pics at
>
> http://amunter.thinkhost.com/images/opv.jpg
> http://amunter.thinkhost.com/images/opv2.jpg
> http://amunter.thinkhost.com/images/opv3.jpg
>
> jim schulman wrote:
> > On 13 Sep 2006 11:53:41 -0700, "daveb" <davebobblane@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Jim,
> > >I don't think US vendors wanna talk it up -- it would encourage users
> > >to do things like strip out the brass parts, like a poster on this
> > >thread did. -- or other damage.
> >
> > For those inclined to start disassembling it and adding washers, it's
> > worth mentioning, since they don't need to.
|
| |
Date: 14 Sep 2006 04:13:25
From: Alan
Subject: Re: My Espresso Lab and a Plug for Dave B (Dave713, hitechespresso.com) and pressure changes
|
Indeed.
I figured out what I did wrong. There was an o-ring between the lock
nut and the boiler side of the OPV. When I grabbed the lock nut and
started turning the barbed fitting off I screwed that o-ring underneath
the lock nut which made it very hard to get off.
Anyway, I posted pictures of the removed OPV fitting (ignore the
missing hose-barb, I tapped it 1/8" OPV after cutting it off, also
ignore the fact that the o-ring and lock nut are cut) and a couple of
the boiler side of the OPV where you can see, sort of, that the threads
don't start until pretty deep in. The boiler side engages the lower
threads of the barbed fitting and the lock-washer engages the upper
threads.
Pics at
http://amunter.thinkhost.com/images/opv.jpg
http://amunter.thinkhost.com/images/opv2.jpg
http://amunter.thinkhost.com/images/opv3.jpg
jim schulman wrote:
> On 13 Sep 2006 11:53:41 -0700, "daveb" <davebobblane@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Jim,
> >I don't think US vendors wanna talk it up -- it would encourage users
> >to do things like strip out the brass parts, like a poster on this
> >thread did. -- or other damage.
>
> For those inclined to start disassembling it and adding washers, it's
> worth mentioning, since they don't need to.
|
|
