The exploding Krups FND1 espresso maker

coffee-forum.net
Promoting coffee discussion.

Main

Date: 08 Jun 2006 00:48:16
From: Alan
Subject: The exploding Krups FND1 espresso maker

About a year ago a friend (?) gave me a brand-new Krups espresso/cappuccino
maker (Type FND1). One thing I noticed right away was that Krups had
"integrated" the steam valve into the on/off switch, necessitating
un-plugging the machine in order to release the pressure through the steam
nozzle. (And yes, the instruction manual specifically indicates you have to
un-plug it to release pressure --- when you turn to "steam" or "coffee"
position, you're also turning on the heating element).

That poor design feature and minor annoyance aside (which could get to be
pretty major if you use your machine daily), the 3rd or 4th time I used it
(strictly according to the manual), the basket/handle assembly --- which had
been snugly in place --- exploded out of its seat, smashing into the carafe
below, sending glass, hot coffee, and hot coffee grounds all over the
kitchen. I went back to using my older Krups model 871 which sensibly
separates the steam valve from the on/off switch and which does not explode.

I don't know what possessed me, but a few weeks ago I thought I'd give the
Krups FND1 another try. I got out the manual, followed instructions to the
letter, and ---- BOOM!! ---- basket and handle shot off the machine again.
I e-mailed Krups about it and got a form-letter reply telling me to include
my purchase receipts when I mailed it to their "repair" facility. Checking
out the Krups web-site, it looks like they no longer manufacture the FND1,
but have another model, the FND111, which looks just the same and has the
same poorly designed "integrated" steam valve/on-off switch.

Has anyone else had that experience with the FND1, or any other Krups model,
for that matter?

Date: 08 Jun 2006 05:01:16
From: Dan
Subject: Re: The exploding Krups FND1 espresso maker

Randy G. wrote:
> "Alan" <in_flagrante@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >About a year ago a friend (?) gave me a brand-new Krups espresso/cappuccino
> >maker (Type FND1).
>
> From the web, it appears that the FDN1 is a steam machine so few here
> will have any more tan a cursory experience with it.

Maybe the explosion is caused by tamping the grounds then...

Date: 08 Jun 2006 08:32:32
From: Randy G.
Subject: Re: The exploding Krups FND1 espresso maker

"Dan" <daniel_roach@hotmail.com > wrote:

>
>Randy G. wrote:
>> "Alan" <in_flagrante@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >About a year ago a friend (?) gave me a brand-new Krups espresso/cappuccino
>> >maker (Type FND1).
>>
>> From the web, it appears that the FDN1 is a steam machine so few here
>> will have any more tan a cursory experience with it.
>
>Maybe the explosion is caused by tamping the grounds then...
>
Since the steam force does not approach that which a pump can achieve,
it possibly a matter of the PF not being properly locked into place
because of something like a dirty gasket, worn basket, bent ears on
the PF or brewhead, etc.

Randy "no thanks" G.
http://www.EspressoMyEspresso.com

Date: 08 Jun 2006 04:56:37
From: daveb
Subject: Re: The exploding Krups FND1 espresso maker

as with many (but not all) KRUPS products, they are not worth buying
-- let alone repairing....

the minimum price of entry for any kind of a reall espresso machine is
around $150.00 -- not less

Use this as a planter for a starter coffee tree?

Dave
pomposity unrestrained.

Alan wrote:
> About a year ago a friend (?) gave me a brand-new Krups espresso/cappuccino
> maker (Type FND1). One thing I noticed right away was that Krups had
> "integrated" the steam valve into the on/off switch, necessitating
> un-plugging the machine in order to release the pressure through the steam
> nozzle. (And yes, the instruction manual specifically indicates you have to
> un-plug it to release pressure --- when you turn to "steam" or "coffee"
> position, you're also turning on the heating element).
>
> That poor design feature and minor annoyance aside (which could get to be
> pretty major if you use your machine daily), the 3rd or 4th time I used it
> (strictly according to the manual), the basket/handle assembly --- which had
> been snugly in place --- exploded out of its seat, smashing into the carafe
> below, sending glass, hot coffee, and hot coffee grounds all over the
> kitchen. I went back to using my older Krups model 871 which sensibly
> separates the steam valve from the on/off switch and which does not explode.
>
> I don't know what possessed me, but a few weeks ago I thought I'd give the
> Krups FND1 another try. I got out the manual, followed instructions to the
> letter, and ---- BOOM!! ---- basket and handle shot off the machine again.
> I e-mailed Krups about it and got a form-letter reply telling me to include
> my purchase receipts when I mailed it to their "repair" facility. Checking
> out the Krups web-site, it looks like they no longer manufacture the FND1,
> but have another model, the FND111, which looks just the same and has the
> same poorly designed "integrated" steam valve/on-off switch.
>
> Has anyone else had that experience with the FND1, or any other Krups model,
> for that matter?

Date: 07 Jun 2006 22:32:15
From: Randy G.
Subject: Re: The exploding Krups FND1 espresso maker

"Alan" <in_flagrante@hotmail.com > wrote:

>About a year ago a friend (?) gave me a brand-new Krups espresso/cappuccino
>maker (Type FND1).

From the web, it appears that the FDN1 is a steam machine so few here
will have any more tan a cursory experience with it. Basically, it is
useful to open envelopes and to use as a backup machine to steam milk
for parties, but not much more than that. Beiung that they sell for
about $45 retail it is hardly worth the effort to put a stamp on it to
send it for repair. The FND111 sells for even less!

My advice- Take off the steam knob, fill the tank with mulch, and
plant begonias in it.

Randy "has thrown out better coffee makers" G.
http://www.EspressoMyEspresso.com

Date: 09 Jun 2006 09:06:07
From: Jack Denver
Subject: Re: The exploding Krups FND1 espresso maker

While these are not the world's greatest coffee brewing devices, they
usually do not explode in the way you describe. It's possible that there was
some defect in the one you received, but it's much more likely that (despite
your insistence that you followed the directions) there was some defect in
your technique - in other words "operator error", which is the cause of most
accidents of all types - machines are very consistent but humans are not.
Perhaps Krups can still be blamed for instructions that are less than clear.

I'm not sure what the lack of a separate on/off switch has to do with your
explosion problem. From what you describe, the explosion did not occur while
you were trying to remove the PF while the machine was under pressure.
Rather, you say that the PF spontaneously launched. Most likely the PF was
not really properly secured in the head (again despite what you say). In
pump driven machines (which do not really differ in their method of securing
the PF in the head - i.e. bayonet "ears") the pressures achieved by the
pump (up to 15 bar) are far greater than those possible in the Krups even if
the basket was clogged and steam pressure was allowed to rise to the maximum
before the safety valved opened (somewhere in the range of 3 bar) and yet
the PF does not normally blow off those machines.

Did you torque the PF tightly into the head - in small machines like this it
is really a two handed operation - you need one hand to hold the machine
still while you tighten the PF securely with the other. The open/closed
indicators that are sometimes found on the finger guards are worthless - you
need to be a "human torque wrench" and judge the tightness by feel - you
don't want to break the handle off the PF but you do want it nice and tight.
Also, overfilling/tamping the basket can lead to a situation where it's not
possible to tighten the PF because the compressed coffee cake acts as a
solid wedge. In a steam machine you should not be tamping the grounds at
all.

"Alan" <in_flagrante@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:ktKhg.47179$Lm5.3907@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
> About a year ago a friend (?) gave me a brand-new Krups
> espresso/cappuccino maker (Type FND1). One thing I noticed right away was
> that Krups had "integrated" the steam valve into the on/off switch,
> necessitating un-plugging the machine in order to release the pressure
> through the steam nozzle. (And yes, the instruction manual specifically
> indicates you have to un-plug it to release pressure --- when you turn to
> "steam" or "coffee" position, you're also turning on the heating element).
>
> That poor design feature and minor annoyance aside (which could get to be
> pretty major if you use your machine daily), the 3rd or 4th time I used it
> (strictly according to the manual), the basket/handle assembly --- which
> had been snugly in place --- exploded out of its seat, smashing into the
> carafe below, sending glass, hot coffee, and hot coffee grounds all over
> the kitchen. I went back to using my older Krups model 871 which sensibly
> separates the steam valve from the on/off switch and which does not
> explode.
>
> I don't know what possessed me, but a few weeks ago I thought I'd give the
> Krups FND1 another try. I got out the manual, followed instructions to
> the letter, and ---- BOOM!! ---- basket and handle shot off the machine
> again. I e-mailed Krups about it and got a form-letter reply telling me to
> include my purchase receipts when I mailed it to their "repair" facility.
> Checking out the Krups web-site, it looks like they no longer manufacture
> the FND1, but have another model, the FND111, which looks just the same
> and has the same poorly designed "integrated" steam valve/on-off switch.
>
> Has anyone else had that experience with the FND1, or any other Krups
> model, for that matter?
>

Date: 10 Jun 2006 01:11:44
From: Alan
Subject: Re: The exploding Krups FND1 espresso maker

"Jack Denver" wrote
> While these are not the world's greatest coffee brewing devices, they
> usually do not explode in the way you describe. It's possible that there
> was some defect in the one you received, but it's much more likely that
> (despite your insistence that you followed the directions) there was some
> defect in your technique - in other words "operator error", which is the
> cause of most accidents of all types - machines are very consistent but
> humans are not. Perhaps Krups can still be blamed for instructions that
> are less than clear.
>
> I'm not sure what the lack of a separate on/off switch has to do with your
> explosion problem. From what you describe, the explosion did not occur
> while you were trying to remove the PF while the machine was under
> pressure. Rather, you say that the PF spontaneously launched. Most likely
> the PF was not really properly secured in the head (again despite what you
> say). In pump driven machines (which do not really differ in their method
> of securing the PF in the head - i.e. bayonet "ears") the pressures
> achieved by the pump (up to 15 bar) are far greater than those possible in
> the Krups even if the basket was clogged and steam pressure was allowed to
> rise to the maximum before the safety valved opened (somewhere in the
> range of 3 bar) and yet the PF does not normally blow off those machines.
>
> Did you torque the PF tightly into the head - in small machines like this
> it is really a two handed operation - you need one hand to hold the
> machine still while you tighten the PF securely with the other. The
> open/closed indicators that are sometimes found on the finger guards are
> worthless - you need to be a "human torque wrench" and judge the tightness
> by feel - you don't want to break the handle off the PF but you do want it
> nice and tight. Also, overfilling/tamping the basket can lead to a
> situation where it's not possible to tighten the PF because the compressed
> coffee cake acts as a solid wedge. In a steam machine you should not be
> tamping the grounds at all.
Jack ----

Thanks for your thoughtful comments regarding the exploding FND1, but I
would like to point out a few things: (1) I never said that the lack of a
separate on/off switch had anything to do with the explosion --- I'd
mentioned that as an annoying side issue. (2) As for the "operator error"
explanation, I'd like to point that (a) I'd indicated I'd used the machine
successfully 3-4 times prior to the "explosion" and (b) I'm not really a
novice: I've operated a professional pump-driven espresso machine in a
restaurant, I've owned an operated steam-powered stovetop models (Atomic),
and have had successfully used an earlier steam-powered Krups (871) ---- all
without incident, and I am aware of how tightly the basket assembly needs to
be engaged and torqued. (3) As for your assertion that one shouldn't be
tamping the grounds at all in a steam machine, that's simply not true.
Actually, if one is to achieve decent steam pressure for milk-foaming, one
MUST tamp the grounds slightly (the key word is "slightly"). In any case,
prior to the "explosion", the same slight tamping of the same grind of
coffee had been successful 3-4 times with the FND1. (4) I'm literate enough
and have enough common mechanical sense to be able to follow directions no
matter how poorly written.
If I'd suspected that the explosion had occurred as a result of any of the
possibilities you'd mentioned, I wouldn't have taken the time to write to a
newsgroup regarding what I considered to be an extraordinary event.

> "Alan" <in_flagrante@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ktKhg.47179$Lm5.3907@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
>> About a year ago a friend (?) gave me a brand-new Krups
>> espresso/cappuccino maker (Type FND1). One thing I noticed right away
>> was that Krups had "integrated" the steam valve into the on/off switch,
>> necessitating un-plugging the machine in order to release the pressure
>> through the steam nozzle. (And yes, the instruction manual specifically
>> indicates you have to un-plug it to release pressure --- when you turn to
>> "steam" or "coffee" position, you're also turning on the heating
>> element).
>>
>> That poor design feature and minor annoyance aside (which could get to be
>> pretty major if you use your machine daily), the 3rd or 4th time I used
>> it (strictly according to the manual), the basket/handle assembly ---
>> which had been snugly in place --- exploded out of its seat, smashing
>> into the carafe below, sending glass, hot coffee, and hot coffee grounds
>> all over the kitchen. I went back to using my older Krups model 871
>> which sensibly separates the steam valve from the on/off switch and which
>> does not explode.
>>
>> I don't know what possessed me, but a few weeks ago I thought I'd give
>> the Krups FND1 another try. I got out the manual, followed instructions
>> to the letter, and ---- BOOM!! ---- basket and handle shot off the
>> machine again. I e-mailed Krups about it and got a form-letter reply
>> telling me to include my purchase receipts when I mailed it to their
>> "repair" facility. Checking out the Krups web-site, it looks like they no
>> longer manufacture the FND1, but have another model, the FND111, which
>> looks just the same and has the same poorly designed "integrated" steam
>> valve/on-off switch.
>>
>> Has anyone else had that experience with the FND1, or any other Krups
>> model, for that matter?
>>
>
>

Date: 09 Jun 2006 21:24:32
From: Jack Denver
Subject: Re: The exploding Krups FND1 espresso maker

I'm not sure what the point was of notifying this particular newsgroup.
Steam toys (as they are usually known around here) are not something that
almost anyone who is a regular poster here would use or recommend to others
in any event (though many of us got started with them before we knew
better). Not the Krups brand and not any other brand. If for some reason
you cannot afford a pump machine and good grinder (which is really what you
need to make espresso) then the next best thing for strong coffee is
probably a moka pot and not a steam toy. If you want to steam milk then
there are stand alone steamers or you can get the kind of steam toy that has
a blind filter or a valve to block off the head.

"Alan" <in_flagrante@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:k%oig.42586$4L1.30509@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Jack Denver" wrote
>> While these are not the world's greatest coffee brewing devices, they
>> usually do not explode in the way you describe. It's possible that there
>> was some defect in the one you received, but it's much more likely that
>> (despite your insistence that you followed the directions) there was some
>> defect in your technique - in other words "operator error", which is the
>> cause of most accidents of all types - machines are very consistent but
>> humans are not. Perhaps Krups can still be blamed for instructions that
>> are less than clear.
>>
>> I'm not sure what the lack of a separate on/off switch has to do with
>> your explosion problem. From what you describe, the explosion did not
>> occur while you were trying to remove the PF while the machine was under
>> pressure. Rather, you say that the PF spontaneously launched. Most
>> likely the PF was not really properly secured in the head (again despite
>> what you say). In pump driven machines (which do not really differ in
>> their method of securing the PF in the head - i.e. bayonet "ears") the
>> pressures achieved by the pump (up to 15 bar) are far greater than those
>> possible in the Krups even if the basket was clogged and steam pressure
>> was allowed to rise to the maximum before the safety valved opened
>> (somewhere in the range of 3 bar) and yet the PF does not normally blow
>> off those machines.
>>
>> Did you torque the PF tightly into the head - in small machines like this
>> it is really a two handed operation - you need one hand to hold the
>> machine still while you tighten the PF securely with the other. The
>> open/closed indicators that are sometimes found on the finger guards are
>> worthless - you need to be a "human torque wrench" and judge the
>> tightness by feel - you don't want to break the handle off the PF but you
>> do want it nice and tight. Also, overfilling/tamping the basket can lead
>> to a situation where it's not possible to tighten the PF because the
>> compressed coffee cake acts as a solid wedge. In a steam machine you
>> should not be tamping the grounds at all.
> Jack ----
>
> Thanks for your thoughtful comments regarding the exploding FND1, but I
> would like to point out a few things: (1) I never said that the lack of a
> separate on/off switch had anything to do with the explosion --- I'd
> mentioned that as an annoying side issue. (2) As for the "operator error"
> explanation, I'd like to point that (a) I'd indicated I'd used the machine
> successfully 3-4 times prior to the "explosion" and (b) I'm not really a
> novice: I've operated a professional pump-driven espresso machine in a
> restaurant, I've owned an operated steam-powered stovetop models (Atomic),
> and have had successfully used an earlier steam-powered Krups (871) ----
> all without incident, and I am aware of how tightly the basket assembly
> needs to be engaged and torqued. (3) As for your assertion that one
> shouldn't be tamping the grounds at all in a steam machine, that's simply
> not true. Actually, if one is to achieve decent steam pressure for
> milk-foaming, one MUST tamp the grounds slightly (the key word is
> "slightly"). In any case, prior to the "explosion", the same slight
> tamping of the same grind of coffee had been successful 3-4 times with the
> FND1. (4) I'm literate enough and have enough common mechanical sense to
> be able to follow directions no matter how poorly written.
> If I'd suspected that the explosion had occurred as a result of any of the
> possibilities you'd mentioned, I wouldn't have taken the time to write to
> a newsgroup regarding what I considered to be an extraordinary event.
>
>> "Alan" <in_flagrante@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:ktKhg.47179$Lm5.3907@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
>>> About a year ago a friend (?) gave me a brand-new Krups
>>> espresso/cappuccino maker (Type FND1). One thing I noticed right away
>>> was that Krups had "integrated" the steam valve into the on/off switch,
>>> necessitating un-plugging the machine in order to release the pressure
>>> through the steam nozzle. (And yes, the instruction manual specifically
>>> indicates you have to un-plug it to release pressure --- when you turn
>>> to "steam" or "coffee" position, you're also turning on the heating
>>> element).
>>>
>>> That poor design feature and minor annoyance aside (which could get to
>>> be pretty major if you use your machine daily), the 3rd or 4th time I
>>> used it (strictly according to the manual), the basket/handle
>>> assembly --- which had been snugly in place --- exploded out of its
>>> seat, smashing into the carafe below, sending glass, hot coffee, and hot
>>> coffee grounds all over the kitchen. I went back to using my older
>>> Krups model 871 which sensibly separates the steam valve from the on/off
>>> switch and which does not explode.
>>>
>>> I don't know what possessed me, but a few weeks ago I thought I'd give
>>> the Krups FND1 another try. I got out the manual, followed instructions
>>> to the letter, and ---- BOOM!! ---- basket and handle shot off the
>>> machine again. I e-mailed Krups about it and got a form-letter reply
>>> telling me to include my purchase receipts when I mailed it to their
>>> "repair" facility. Checking out the Krups web-site, it looks like they
>>> no longer manufacture the FND1, but have another model, the FND111,
>>> which looks just the same and has the same poorly designed "integrated"
>>> steam valve/on-off switch.
>>>
>>> Has anyone else had that experience with the FND1, or any other Krups
>>> model, for that matter?
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Date: 10 Jun 2006 03:07:25
From: Robert Harmon
Subject: Re: The exploding Krups FND1 espresso maker

You might want to switch to decaf for a while Jack! Steam toys as you call
them are actually capable of making a pretty decent coffee. And this group
is 'alt.coffee', not 'alt.espresso', and anyone with a coffee related issue
should be welcomed, not ridiculed. FYI - I use a Krups 972 (I think that's
right) that's been converted to 12V on my boat & with good beans it makes
espresso worthy of the name.

Robert H.

"Jack Denver" <nunuvyer@netscape.net > wrote in message
news:FqKdncM7CIvOghfZnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@comcast.com...
> I'm not sure what the point was of notifying this particular newsgroup.
> Steam toys (as they are usually known around here) are not something that
> almost anyone who is a regular poster here would use or recommend to
> others in any event (though many of us got started with them before we
> knew better). Not the Krups brand and not any other brand. If for some
> reason you cannot afford a pump machine and good grinder (which is really
> what you need to make espresso) then the next best thing for strong coffee
> is probably a moka pot and not a steam toy. If you want to steam milk
> then there are stand alone steamers or you can get the kind of steam toy
> that has a blind filter or a valve to block off the head.
>
>
>
> "Alan" <in_flagrante@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:k%oig.42586$4L1.30509@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>> "Jack Denver" wrote
>>> While these are not the world's greatest coffee brewing devices, they
>>> usually do not explode in the way you describe. It's possible that there
>>> was some defect in the one you received, but it's much more likely that
>>> (despite your insistence that you followed the directions) there was
>>> some defect in your technique - in other words "operator error", which
>>> is the cause of most accidents of all types - machines are very
>>> consistent but humans are not. Perhaps Krups can still be blamed for
>>> instructions that are less than clear.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure what the lack of a separate on/off switch has to do with
>>> your explosion problem. From what you describe, the explosion did not
>>> occur while you were trying to remove the PF while the machine was under
>>> pressure. Rather, you say that the PF spontaneously launched. Most
>>> likely the PF was not really properly secured in the head (again despite
>>> what you say). In pump driven machines (which do not really differ in
>>> their method of securing the PF in the head - i.e. bayonet "ears") the
>>> pressures achieved by the pump (up to 15 bar) are far greater than those
>>> possible in the Krups even if the basket was clogged and steam pressure
>>> was allowed to rise to the maximum before the safety valved opened
>>> (somewhere in the range of 3 bar) and yet the PF does not normally blow
>>> off those machines.
>>>
>>> Did you torque the PF tightly into the head - in small machines like
>>> this it is really a two handed operation - you need one hand to hold the
>>> machine still while you tighten the PF securely with the other. The
>>> open/closed indicators that are sometimes found on the finger guards are
>>> worthless - you need to be a "human torque wrench" and judge the
>>> tightness by feel - you don't want to break the handle off the PF but
>>> you do want it nice and tight. Also, overfilling/tamping the basket can
>>> lead to a situation where it's not possible to tighten the PF because
>>> the compressed coffee cake acts as a solid wedge. In a steam machine you
>>> should not be tamping the grounds at all.
>> Jack ----
>>
>> Thanks for your thoughtful comments regarding the exploding FND1, but I
>> would like to point out a few things: (1) I never said that the lack of
>> a separate on/off switch had anything to do with the explosion --- I'd
>> mentioned that as an annoying side issue. (2) As for the "operator error"
>> explanation, I'd like to point that (a) I'd indicated I'd used the
>> machine successfully 3-4 times prior to the "explosion" and (b) I'm not
>> really a novice: I've operated a professional pump-driven espresso
>> machine in a restaurant, I've owned an operated steam-powered stovetop
>> models (Atomic), and have had successfully used an earlier steam-powered
>> Krups (871) ---- all without incident, and I am aware of how tightly the
>> basket assembly needs to be engaged and torqued. (3) As for your
>> assertion that one shouldn't be tamping the grounds at all in a steam
>> machine, that's simply not true. Actually, if one is to achieve decent
>> steam pressure for milk-foaming, one MUST tamp the grounds slightly (the
>> key word is "slightly"). In any case, prior to the "explosion", the
>> same slight tamping of the same grind of coffee had been successful 3-4
>> times with the FND1. (4) I'm literate enough and have enough common
>> mechanical sense to be able to follow directions no matter how poorly
>> written.
>> If I'd suspected that the explosion had occurred as a result of any of
>> the possibilities you'd mentioned, I wouldn't have taken the time to
>> write to a newsgroup regarding what I considered to be an extraordinary
>> event.
>>
>>> "Alan" <in_flagrante@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:ktKhg.47179$Lm5.3907@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
>>>> About a year ago a friend (?) gave me a brand-new Krups
>>>> espresso/cappuccino maker (Type FND1). One thing I noticed right away
>>>> was that Krups had "integrated" the steam valve into the on/off switch,
>>>> necessitating un-plugging the machine in order to release the pressure
>>>> through the steam nozzle. (And yes, the instruction manual specifically
>>>> indicates you have to un-plug it to release pressure --- when you turn
>>>> to "steam" or "coffee" position, you're also turning on the heating
>>>> element).
>>>>
>>>> That poor design feature and minor annoyance aside (which could get to
>>>> be pretty major if you use your machine daily), the 3rd or 4th time I
>>>> used it (strictly according to the manual), the basket/handle
>>>> assembly --- which had been snugly in place --- exploded out of its
>>>> seat, smashing into the carafe below, sending glass, hot coffee, and
>>>> hot coffee grounds all over the kitchen. I went back to using my older
>>>> Krups model 871 which sensibly separates the steam valve from the
>>>> on/off switch and which does not explode.
>>>>
>>>> I don't know what possessed me, but a few weeks ago I thought I'd give
>>>> the Krups FND1 another try. I got out the manual, followed
>>>> instructions to the letter, and ---- BOOM!! ---- basket and handle
>>>> shot off the machine again. I e-mailed Krups about it and got a
>>>> form-letter reply telling me to include my purchase receipts when I
>>>> mailed it to their "repair" facility. Checking out the Krups web-site,
>>>> it looks like they no longer manufacture the FND1, but have another
>>>> model, the FND111, which looks just the same and has the same poorly
>>>> designed "integrated" steam valve/on-off switch.
>>>>
>>>> Has anyone else had that experience with the FND1, or any other Krups
>>>> model, for that matter?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Date: 09 Jun 2006 23:50:48
From: Jack Denver
Subject: Re: The exploding Krups FND1 espresso maker

This is an endless and old debate here. Whatever you make in a steam toy
(and it can be pretty good if you have a good grinder and the knowledge to
operate the machine - but most people who own steam toys have neither), it's
not the same beverage that is made by extraction at 9 bar. So we need
different names for the different drinks - if you call them both espresso
you're only confusing things, which is exactly what the steam toy
manufacturers are trying to do, with the result that many people buy steam
toys thinking that they are buying devices that will brew "espresso" "like
you get at Starbucks" but they never do.

Alan is certainly welcome to post here but I don't think his "warning"
persuaded many people here not to buy steam toys as they had no intention of
buying them in the first place. You're right that this is alt.coffee but
maybe it should be called alt.good.coffee, so that any device that brews
good coffee is open to discussion. Discussions about percolators, steam
toys, etc. don't usually get very far here because they are inferior devices
and there's no good reason to buy them when there are better methods
available (on a boat may be an exception). All brewing methods are NOT
created equal.

BTW, this is not some snooty "if you have to ask you can't afford it" thing.
Low end pump espresso machines can cost not much more than steam toys if you
shop around, but the coffee they produce is vastly better. I wish I could
say the same about grinders but no one has really produced a cheap but
effective espresso grinder that I know of, unfortunately.

"Robert Harmon" <r_h_harmon@Zhotmail.com > wrote in message
news:NHqig.3991$lf4.3834@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> You might want to switch to decaf for a while Jack! Steam toys as you call
> them are actually capable of making a pretty decent coffee. And this group
> is 'alt.coffee', not 'alt.espresso', and anyone with a coffee related
> issue should be welcomed, not ridiculed. FYI - I use a Krups 972 (I think
> that's right) that's been converted to 12V on my boat & with good beans it
> makes espresso worthy of the name.
>
> Robert H.

Date: 10 Jun 2006 15:49:45
From: Alan
Subject: Re: The exploding Krups FND1 espresso maker

"Jack Denver" wrote
> This is an endless and old debate here. Whatever you make in a steam toy
> (and it can be pretty good if you have a good grinder and the knowledge to
> operate the machine - but most people who own steam toys have neither),
> it's not the same beverage that is made by extraction at 9 bar. So we
> need different names for the different drinks - if you call them both
> espresso you're only confusing things, which is exactly what the steam toy
> manufacturers are trying to do, with the result that many people buy steam
> toys thinking that they are buying devices that will brew "espresso" "like
> you get at Starbucks" but they never do.

You're certainly welcome to your opinion that espresso produced at 9 bars is
superior to espresso produced at a steam-driven 1-1.5 bars, but you're in
danger of being labeled a revisionist historian if you try to co-opt the
word "espresso" when you insist that the brew produced at a pressure lower
than 9 bars is not espresso. It wasn't until the 1940's that piston/pump
espresso technology developed (I believe Achille Gaggia got a patent on it
in 1948). Are you going to insist that what a couple of generations of
espresso-drinkers were drinking before that just wasn't espresso? You may
well say so in a subjective and figurative sense, but to insist on it
literally is a bit like saying a car isn't a car unless it's got at least
200 horsepower.

Date: 10 Jun 2006 17:11:09
From: sprsso
Subject: Re: The exploding Krups FND1 espresso maker

Alan,
Check your history a little closer. Bezzera invented the first
commercial espresso machine in 1901. In 1933, Francesco Illy produced
the first pressurized machine using compressed air. I believe Gaggia
got his spring-loaded piston patented in 1955. If there was no
difference between steam pressure and pump/piston pressure, why would
the recognized experts over the last 100 years strive for 9 bars? You
might get a copy of illy's book on espresso quality and learn before
you argue....al

On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 15:49:45 GMT, "Alan" <in_flagrante@hotmail.com >
wrote:

>
>"Jack Denver" wrote
>> This is an endless and old debate here. Whatever you make in a steam toy
>> (and it can be pretty good if you have a good grinder and the knowledge to
>> operate the machine - but most people who own steam toys have neither),
>> it's not the same beverage that is made by extraction at 9 bar. So we
>> need different names for the different drinks - if you call them both
>> espresso you're only confusing things, which is exactly what the steam toy
>> manufacturers are trying to do, with the result that many people buy steam
>> toys thinking that they are buying devices that will brew "espresso" "like
>> you get at Starbucks" but they never do.
>
>You're certainly welcome to your opinion that espresso produced at 9 bars is
>superior to espresso produced at a steam-driven 1-1.5 bars, but you're in
>danger of being labeled a revisionist historian if you try to co-opt the
>word "espresso" when you insist that the brew produced at a pressure lower
>than 9 bars is not espresso. It wasn't until the 1940's that piston/pump
>espresso technology developed (I believe Achille Gaggia got a patent on it
>in 1948). Are you going to insist that what a couple of generations of
>espresso-drinkers were drinking before that just wasn't espresso? You may
>well say so in a subjective and figurative sense, but to insist on it
>literally is a bit like saying a car isn't a car unless it's got at least
>200 horsepower.
>

Date: 10 Jun 2006 19:13:19
From: Alan
Subject: Re: The exploding Krups FND1 espresso maker

Date: 10 Jun 2006 20:07:01
From: sprsso
Subject: Re: The exploding Krups FND1 espresso maker

Actually, I may have to eat my words. While David's point is well
taken that what we know as espresso today is well -defined, especially
in Italy and here, steam-driven drinks were referred to as espresso
until the 40's. Certainly it has been redefined since then, and
steam-driven machines can no longer produce what we now call espresso.
All the modern literature defines espresso as produced by
high-pressure percolation.
illy's book, the most definitive study ever done of espresso, and
recognized as the standard in this industry, has very specific
temperature and pressure requirements for the production of espresso,
much of which has been adopted by the Italian governmental standards.
Steam driven brewing is no longer defined as espresso.
So, I submit that if you want to call what you brew in a steam-driven
machine espresso, go ahead. It has not been recognized as such for at
least 5 decades. The most important thing is to enjoy your coffee.
Check this out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espresso ....al

On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 19:13:19 GMT, "Alan" <in_flagrante@hotmail.com >
wrote:

>
>"sprsso" wrote
>
>> Alan,
>> Check your history a little closer. Bezzera invented the first
>> commercial espresso machine in 1901. In 1933, Francesco Illy produced
>> the first pressurized machine using compressed air. I believe Gaggia
>> got his spring-loaded piston patented in 1955. If there was no
>> difference between steam pressure and pump/piston pressure, why would
>> the recognized experts over the last 100 years strive for 9 bars? You
>> might get a copy of illy's book on espresso quality and learn before
>> you argue....al
>
>And you may want to read what I wrote a little more closely.
>At no point did I say that there was no difference between the two
>"espressos".
>My one and only point was that one simply cannot say that espresso produced
>at a lower bar is not espresso. I'm not "arguing" what is better or worse,
>nor what is "real" or "true".
>
>I'm merely saying that you can't change the language to suit your personal
>views. If you do so, you're not using language, you're using an idiolect.
>Period.
>
>>
>> On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 15:49:45 GMT, "Alan" <in_flagrante@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Jack Denver" wrote
>>>> This is an endless and old debate here. Whatever you make in a steam
>>>> toy
>>>> (and it can be pretty good if you have a good grinder and the knowledge
>>>> to
>>>> operate the machine - but most people who own steam toys have neither),
>>>> it's not the same beverage that is made by extraction at 9 bar. So we
>>>> need different names for the different drinks - if you call them both
>>>> espresso you're only confusing things, which is exactly what the steam
>>>> toy
>>>> manufacturers are trying to do, with the result that many people buy
>>>> steam
>>>> toys thinking that they are buying devices that will brew "espresso"
>>>> "like
>>>> you get at Starbucks" but they never do.
>>>
>>>You're certainly welcome to your opinion that espresso produced at 9 bars
>>>is
>>>superior to espresso produced at a steam-driven 1-1.5 bars, but you're in
>>>danger of being labeled a revisionist historian if you try to co-opt the
>>>word "espresso" when you insist that the brew produced at a pressure lower
>>>than 9 bars is not espresso. It wasn't until the 1940's that piston/pump
>>>espresso technology developed (I believe Achille Gaggia got a patent on it
>>>in 1948). Are you going to insist that what a couple of generations of
>>>espresso-drinkers were drinking before that just wasn't espresso? You may
>>>well say so in a subjective and figurative sense, but to insist on it
>>>literally is a bit like saying a car isn't a car unless it's got at least
>>>200 horsepower.
>>>
>>
>

Date: 10 Jun 2006 23:24:03
From: Alan
Subject: Re: The exploding Krups FND1 espresso maker

"sprsso" <acritzer@cfl.rr.com > wrote in message
news:on8m82tqug5a9vv0cd5imgqs03j6cvonu8@4ax.com...
> Actually, I may have to eat my words. While David's point is well
> taken that what we know as espresso today is well -defined, especially
> in Italy and here, steam-driven drinks were referred to as espresso
> until the 40's. Certainly it has been redefined since then, and
> steam-driven machines can no longer produce what we now call espresso.
> All the modern literature defines espresso as produced by
> high-pressure percolation.
> illy's book, the most definitive study ever done of espresso, and
> recognized as the standard in this industry, has very specific
> temperature and pressure requirements for the production of espresso,
> much of which has been adopted by the Italian governmental standards.
> Steam driven brewing is no longer defined as espresso.

Actually, to set the record straight, the Italian government has not shown
an interest in promulgating standards for espresso. There is, however, a
private organization which is called the "Istituto Nazionale Espresso
Italiano", (an organization which supports itself by selling impressive
"Certificatos" to qualifying restaurants and bars in Italy and is
headquartered in Brescia). Mindful of the fact that "Espresso" also refers
to that which is produced from low-bar steam-driven machines, even the
Istituto is not so bold as to have set standards for "*Espresso*", although
they have established standards for what they choose to refer to as
"*Espresso Italiano*" among which is: "Pressione di immissione dell'acqua 9
bar � 1". (see http://espressoitaliano.org/doc/EIC%20-%20Ita%20-%20LQ.pdf).
I submit that whether it comes from a steam-driven or piston-driven machine,
it is still called "*espresso*" and continues to be recognized as such and
defined as such. If you want to specify that which is produced at 9 bars
(plus or minus 1, according to the Istituto), go ahead, follow the
Istituto's guidelines and call it "*Espresso Italiano*".
And to keep the record straight, I'm arguing a **language usage issue**
here, not the superiority of one method over another.

> So, I submit that if you want to call what you brew in a steam-driven
> machine espresso, go ahead. It has not been recognized as such for at
> least 5 decades. The most important thing is to enjoy your coffee.
> Check this out.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espresso ....al
>
>
> On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 19:13:19 GMT, "Alan" <in_flagrante@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"sprsso" wrote
>>
>>> Alan,
>>> Check your history a little closer. Bezzera invented the first
>>> commercial espresso machine in 1901. In 1933, Francesco Illy produced
>>> the first pressurized machine using compressed air. I believe Gaggia
>>> got his spring-loaded piston patented in 1955. If there was no
>>> difference between steam pressure and pump/piston pressure, why would
>>> the recognized experts over the last 100 years strive for 9 bars? You
>>> might get a copy of illy's book on espresso quality and learn before
>>> you argue....al
>>
>>And you may want to read what I wrote a little more closely.
>>At no point did I say that there was no difference between the two
>>"espressos".
>>My one and only point was that one simply cannot say that espresso
>>produced
>>at a lower bar is not espresso. I'm not "arguing" what is better or worse,
>>nor what is "real" or "true".
>>
>>I'm merely saying that you can't change the language to suit your personal
>>views. If you do so, you're not using language, you're using an idiolect.
>>Period.
>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 15:49:45 GMT, "Alan" <in_flagrante@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Jack Denver" wrote
>>>>> This is an endless and old debate here. Whatever you make in a steam
>>>>> toy
>>>>> (and it can be pretty good if you have a good grinder and the
>>>>> knowledge
>>>>> to
>>>>> operate the machine - but most people who own steam toys have
>>>>> neither),
>>>>> it's not the same beverage that is made by extraction at 9 bar. So we
>>>>> need different names for the different drinks - if you call them both
>>>>> espresso you're only confusing things, which is exactly what the steam
>>>>> toy
>>>>> manufacturers are trying to do, with the result that many people buy
>>>>> steam
>>>>> toys thinking that they are buying devices that will brew "espresso"
>>>>> "like
>>>>> you get at Starbucks" but they never do.
>>>>
>>>>You're certainly welcome to your opinion that espresso produced at 9
>>>>bars
>>>>is
>>>>superior to espresso produced at a steam-driven 1-1.5 bars, but you're
>>>>in
>>>>danger of being labeled a revisionist historian if you try to co-opt the
>>>>word "espresso" when you insist that the brew produced at a pressure
>>>>lower
>>>>than 9 bars is not espresso. It wasn't until the 1940's that piston/pump
>>>>espresso technology developed (I believe Achille Gaggia got a patent on
>>>>it
>>>>in 1948). Are you going to insist that what a couple of generations of
>>>>espresso-drinkers were drinking before that just wasn't espresso? You
>>>>may
>>>>well say so in a subjective and figurative sense, but to insist on it
>>>>literally is a bit like saying a car isn't a car unless it's got at
>>>>least
>>>>200 horsepower.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

Date: 11 Jun 2006 03:34:01
From: D. Ross
Subject: Re: The exploding Krups FND1 espresso maker

Date: 11 Jun 2006 11:54:16
From: Alan
Subject: Re: The exploding Krups FND1 espresso maker

"D. Ross" wrote
(alan wrote)
>

Date: 11 Jun 2006 21:27:21
From: D. Ross
Subject: Re: The exploding Krups FND1 espresso maker

Date: 11 Jun 2006 23:35:11
From: Alan
Subject: Re: The exploding Krups FND1 espresso maker

"D. Ross" wrote
(alan wrote)
>

Date: 12 Jun 2006 03:52:35
From: D. Ross
Subject: Re: The exploding Krups FND1 espresso maker

Date: 13 Jun 2006 00:51:12
From: Alan
Subject: Re: The exploding Krups FND1 espresso maker

"D. Ross" wrote
(alan wrote)
>

Date: 13 Jun 2006 01:25:46
From: D. Ross
Subject: Re: The exploding Krups FND1 espresso maker

Date: 14 Jun 2006 02:11:51
From: Alan
Subject: Re: The exploding Krups FND1 espresso maker

"D. Ross" wrote
> I do not understand your obsession here. If you prefer to think that the
> coffee enthusiasts on these forums, as well as the experts and historians
> of
> coffee (Illy, Bersten, et al) are all wet or overly pedantic, then you
> certainly have that right to your beliefs, but it does not seem to me a
> constructive use of anyone's time to start arguments of this nature on
> this
> newsgroup.
>
> - David R.

I'm disappointed that you view my inquiry into what appears to be
idiosyncratic usage of language as an "obsession". I think perhaps you're
being overly defensive because you've perceived me to be attacking your
beliefs in the superiority of one method of espresso production over
another. Your opinion is not only eminently defensible, I also happen to
agree with it. Espresso (to my taste, anyway) produced at 9 bars or so
*does* taste better than that produced at 1-1.5 bars. I can even
understand the degree of enthusiasm with which you hold this opinion and
wouldn't find it at all strange or inappropriate if you were to adopt a
little animal-farmish type mantra "9 bars good, 1 bar bad."
I did, however, take issue with what I considered your rather fast and loose
handling of language in your attempt to co-opt the word "espresso" for use
only with 9-bar espresso. Inasmuch as it amounts to a rewriting of history
and a re-orientation of meaning, it smacks of arrogant Stalinist historical
and linguistic revisionism. If Bezzera were alive today, how do you think
he would react to you telling him: "Pffft! You think you made *espresso*!?
You poor, deluded fool!" Would he be offended? Would he think you'd lost
your mind? To say that *figuratively speaking* 1- bar espresso is *not*
espresso is fine, but to say it *literally* is quite another. I find it
amusing that since your assertion doesn't quite square with historical and
linguistic reality, you've even taken it upon yourself to bend reality a bit
by rewriting history and re-christening the Atomic Espresso maker an
"Atomic Moka pot". Your enthusiasm is admirable, but I have a feeling that
were Gaggia aware of your rather idiosyncratic use (and you must admit it's
idiosyncratic --- your meaning of "espresso" is quite at odds with the
meaning employed by the vast majority of speakers, English as well as
Italian), he'd be rolling over in his grave, laughing his ass off.
Having said that, I am aware that it is common for small groups of hobbyists
to develop their own language which can be at variance with that spoken by
the general population, both as a shorthand means of communication as well
as a means of group-identification. By no means do I fault you for it. I'd
merely been making inquiries into and preliminary observations about the
specifics of your lexicon. That was it.

P.S. I would have liked to engage you in a discussion of why you felt it
important to distinguish between "vapor-pressure" and "steam-pressure" (it's
been a while since I had Physics, but I believe they're one and the same) in
your explanation of a "Moka pot", but I have the distinct feeling that I'd
be trying your patience, so I'll let it go . . .
It's been fun and informative --- think I'll go make a demitasse of 1.5-bar
whatchamacallit.

Date: 14 Jun 2006 10:23:21
From: Steve Ackman
Subject: Re: The exploding Krups FND1 espresso maker

In <HfKjg.24106$VE1.20344@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com >, on Wed, 14 Jun
2006 02:11:51 GMT, Alan wrote:
>
> I did, however, take issue with what I considered your rather fast and loose
> handling of language in your attempt to co-opt the word "espresso" for use
> only with 9-bar espresso. Inasmuch as it amounts to a rewriting of history
> and a re-orientation of meaning, it smacks of arrogant Stalinist historical
> and linguistic revisionism.

The subject of another thread may be helpful here.

At one time, if someone said the word "antifreeze"
it would be understood all around that he was talking
about the methanol you buy at the auto parts store to
add to your radiator. When ethylene glycol came on
the scene it was often referred to as "permanent
antifreeze" but the word "antifreeze" by itself
could refer to either. After methanol was no longer
sold for that purpose, "antifreeze" had just one
meaning again. Now it meant ethylene glycol.

For at least the last couple of decades, propylene
glycol has been marketed as RV antifreeze and, for
well over the last decade, as automotive antifreeze
as well. Today, the word is once again ambiguous as
it commonly refers to both classes of glycols (not
to even mention the newer Organic Acid Technology
stuff that's appearing now).

When people today talk of antifreeze, do you accuse
them of co-opting the word for their own arrogant
purposes? Are they guilty of Stalinist historical and
linguistic revisionism?
If you say "antifreeze" today, who will infer your
meaning if that meaning is the 1930's reference to
methanol?

/antifreeze/s//espresso/

Date: 14 Jun 2006 14:57:55
From: Barry Jarrett
Subject: Re: The exploding Krups FND1 espresso maker

On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 10:23:21 -0400, Steve Ackman
<steve@SNIP-THIS.twoloonscoffee.com > wrote:

> When people today talk of antifreeze, do you accuse
>them of co-opting the word for their own arrogant
>purposes? Are they guilty of Stalinist historical and
>linguistic revisionism?

no, they're guilty of being "out of season".

--barry "it's 'coolant' now"

;) ;)

Date: 14 Jun 2006 12:02:45
From: Steve Ackman
Subject: Re: The exploding Krups FND1 espresso maker

In <cs80929vd8vcbqqivvdbrmuaqvac8j79bl@4ax.com >, on Wed, 14 Jun 2006
14:57:55 GMT, Barry Jarrett wrote:
>
> no, they're guilty of being "out of season".

At least you didn't say of being a "fuddy-duddy."

> --barry "it's 'coolant' now"

I think it's antifreeze in the jug, and coolant
once it's in the radiator mixed with whatever water,
oil, minerals, and other stuff is in there.
Oh, you're supposed to change it every few years?

Date: 14 Jun 2006 20:02:14
From: Barry Jarrett
Subject: Re: The exploding Krups FND1 espresso maker

On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 12:02:45 -0400, Steve Ackman
<steve@SNIP-THIS.twoloonscoffee.com > wrote:

> Oh, you're supposed to change it every few years?

the MGB has an "auto-change" mechanism... the funky forked lower
radiator hose blows out every couple of years.

--barry "spare in the trunk"

Date: 15 Jun 2006 19:34:28
From: Steve Ackman
Subject: Re: The exploding Krups FND1 espresso maker

In <joq092lrnes6u5ubtkp8old43qal1ef0m2@4ax.com >, on Wed, 14 Jun 2006
20:02:14 GMT, Barry Jarrett wrote:

> the MGB has an "auto-change" mechanism... the funky forked lower
> radiator hose blows out every couple of years.
>
> --barry "spare in the trunk"

At least you knew what needed fixing.

The truck used to have an auto-change mechanism for
steering fluid. About twice a year or so, for no
apparent reason, it would spray about 4 to 6 oz. of
fluid out of... somewhere. Hydraulic fluid let loose
under pressure usually looks like it came from
everywhere.
I always kept a couple bottles of steering fluid
behind the seat.

I had the steering gear changed when the truck was
8 years old, and I don't recall it ever spewed again.

Date: 15 Jun 2006 00:11:06
From: Alan
Subject: Re: The exploding Krups FND1 espresso maker

"Steve Ackman" <steve@SNIP-THIS.twoloonscoffee.com > wrote in message
news:slrne906uo.11gh.steve@wizard.dyndns.org...
> In <HfKjg.24106$VE1.20344@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>, on Wed, 14 Jun
> 2006 02:11:51 GMT, Alan wrote:
>>
>> I did, however, take issue with what I considered your rather fast and
>> loose
>> handling of language in your attempt to co-opt the word "espresso" for
>> use
>> only with 9-bar espresso. Inasmuch as it amounts to a rewriting of
>> history
>> and a re-orientation of meaning, it smacks of arrogant Stalinist
>> historical
>> and linguistic revisionism.
>
> The subject of another thread may be helpful here.
>
> At one time, if someone said the word "antifreeze"
> it would be understood all around that he was talking
> about the methanol you buy at the auto parts store to
> add to your radiator. When ethylene glycol came on
> the scene it was often referred to as "permanent
> antifreeze" but the word "antifreeze" by itself
> could refer to either. After methanol was no longer
> sold for that purpose, "antifreeze" had just one
> meaning again. Now it meant ethylene glycol.
>
> For at least the last couple of decades, propylene
> glycol has been marketed as RV antifreeze and, for
> well over the last decade, as automotive antifreeze
> as well. Today, the word is once again ambiguous as
> it commonly refers to both classes of glycols (not
> to even mention the newer Organic Acid Technology
> stuff that's appearing now).
>
> When people today talk of antifreeze, do you accuse
> them of co-opting the word for their own arrogant
> purposes? Are they guilty of Stalinist historical and
> linguistic revisionism?
> If you say "antifreeze" today, who will infer your
> meaning if that meaning is the 1930's reference to
> methanol?
>
> /antifreeze/s//espresso/

When I use the word "co-opting" I'm referring to the prohibition against
using the word for the substance to which it once referred. The example
you've given with "antifreeze" is not the same. It's perfectly ok, (as
you've pointed out) for the word "anitfreeze" to refer to either methanol,
ehtylene glycol, or propylene glycol. No one (as far as I know) has ever
suggested that "methanol is not antifreeze" or that "propylene glycol" is
not antifreeze. There are asome folks here, however, who will not
countenance any ambiguity and will assert that espresso produced with 1-1.5
bars is not espresso. As far as I'm concerned (and as far as the common
pseech community is concerned) "antifreeze" can be either methanol, ethylene
glycol, or propylene glycol just espresso is espresso no matter what degree
of pressure is employed during brewing.

Date: 14 Jun 2006 23:20:49
From: Steve Ackman
Subject: Re: The exploding Krups FND1 espresso maker

In <uA1kg.115470$dW3.46092@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com >, on Thu, 15 Jun
2006 00:11:06 GMT, Alan wrote:

> It's perfectly ok, (as
> you've pointed out) for the word "anitfreeze" to refer to either methanol,
> ehtylene glycol, or propylene glycol.

Not even close to what I said.

Let's try it from another way around.

Go into 100 autoparts stores and ask for antifreeze.
100 times, you will NOT get methanol.

Go into 100 espresso shops and ask for an espresso.
100 times, you will NOT get something brewed in a
moka pot.

The common definition of the word antifreeze has
changed over time, just as the common definition of
the word espresso has changed.

Date: 14 Jun 2006 05:36:04
From: D. Ross
Subject: Re: The exploding Krups FND1 espresso maker

Date: 11 Jun 2006 15:45:01
From: Alan
Subject: Re: The exploding Krups FND1 espresso maker

"sprsso" wrote
> Alan,
> Check your history a little closer. Bezzera invented the first
> commercial espresso machine in 1901. In 1933, Francesco Illy produced
> the first pressurized machine using compressed air. I believe Gaggia
> got his spring-loaded piston patented in 1955.
-------------------------------------------------
You're right, "sprsso", it's always a good idea to check one's history a
little more closely.

And you're right about Bezzera's 1901 patent.

BUT ....
According to the Illy Co, Francesco Illy invented his compressed-air machine
in 1935. (http://www.illy.com/Illy_En/Company/History.htm)

And, according to the Gaggia Co, Achille Gaggia got his patent on the
spring-loaded piston method on August 8, 1947.
(http://www.gaggia.com/storia_espresso.asp)

(Interestingly enough, a gentleman named Cremonesi apparently had invented
and produced a few spring-loaded piston models in 1938, but WWII intervened,
and he never got around to getting a patent).

>If there was no
> difference between steam pressure and pump/piston pressure, why would
> the recognized experts over the last 100 years strive for 9 bars?
------------------------------------------------------------------
Did I **EVER** say there was no difference? No, I NEVER said there was no
difference. My ONLY point had been that you run the risk of being labeled
an elitist revisionist historian if you insist that what is made by steam
pressure is not espresso. Sorry, you can change the technology, but you're
just not going to change the language along with it. In your own little
clique, you may all agree that espresso produced below 9 bars is "not
espresso", but you're not using language ---- you're just using the jargon
of your own little group. That was my ONLY issue. Is that clear now? (By
the way, if your little clique refuses to use the word "espresso" for that
which is produced by steam power, what word or phrase DO you use? ---
"strong coffee with delusions of grandeur"?) :)

P.S. Do you REALLY believe that "recognized experts" were "striving for 9
bars" over the last 100 years? That just happened to be what Gaggia's
machine produced and it seems like a pretty good bar. (Even the INEI says
that 8 or 10 bars is just as acceptable). If the "recognized experts" had
never tasted 9 bar espresso, what makes you think they'd have chosen 9 bars
as a goal to strive for? Come on, guy ....
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>You
> might get a copy of illy's book on espresso quality and learn before
> you argue.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Who's arguing?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

> On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 15:49:45 GMT, "Alan" <in_flagrante@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Jack Denver" wrote
>>> This is an endless and old debate here. Whatever you make in a steam
>>> toy
>>> (and it can be pretty good if you have a good grinder and the knowledge
>>> to
>>> operate the machine - but most people who own steam toys have neither),
>>> it's not the same beverage that is made by extraction at 9 bar. So we
>>> need different names for the different drinks - if you call them both
>>> espresso you're only confusing things, which is exactly what the steam
>>> toy
>>> manufacturers are trying to do, with the result that many people buy
>>> steam
>>> toys thinking that they are buying devices that will brew "espresso"
>>> "like
>>> you get at Starbucks" but they never do.
>>
>>You're certainly welcome to your opinion that espresso produced at 9 bars
>>is
>>superior to espresso produced at a steam-driven 1-1.5 bars, but you're in
>>danger of being labeled a revisionist historian if you try to co-opt the
>>word "espresso" when you insist that the brew produced at a pressure lower
>>than 9 bars is not espresso. It wasn't until the 1940's that piston/pump
>>espresso technology developed (I believe Achille Gaggia got a patent on it
>>in 1948). Are you going to insist that what a couple of generations of
>>espresso-drinkers were drinking before that just wasn't espresso? You may
>>well say so in a subjective and figurative sense, but to insist on it
>>literally is a bit like saying a car isn't a car unless it's got at least
>>200 horsepower.
>>
>

Date: 11 Jun 2006 15:58:31
From: Barry Jarrett
Subject: Re: The exploding Krups FND1 espresso maker

On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 15:45:01 GMT, "Alan" <in_flagrante@hotmail.com >
wrote:

>an elitist revisionist historian if you insist that what is made by steam
>pressure is not espresso. Sorry, you can change the technology, but you're
>just not going to change the language along with it. In your own little

i gave up banging my head on that wall many years ago... ;)

--barry "'brewed under pressure' works for me"

Date: 11 Jun 2006 16:13:44
From: Alan
Subject: Re: The exploding Krups FND1 espresso maker

"Barry Jarrett" <barry@rileys-coffee.com > wrote in message
news:i8fo82h8je1neatp4pv1lbqvsnp43qqdfh@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 11 Jun 2006 15:45:01 GMT, "Alan" <in_flagrante@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >an elitist revisionist historian if you insist that what is made by steam
> >pressure is not espresso. Sorry, you can change the technology, but
> >you're
> >just not going to change the language along with it. In your own little
>
>
> i gave up banging my head on that wall many years ago... ;)
>
>
> --barry "'brewed under pressure' works for me"

It does seem like a pretty durable wall, doesn't it?

Date: 10 Jun 2006 09:57:16
From: Randy G.
Subject: Re: The exploding Krups FND1 espresso maker

"Alan" <in_flagrante@hotmail.com > wrote:

>
>"Jack Denver" wrote
>> This is an endless and old debate here. Whatever you make in a steam toy
>> (and it can be pretty good if you have a good grinder and the knowledge to
>> operate the machine - but most people who own steam toys have neither),
>> it's not the same beverage that is made by extraction at 9 bar. So we
>> need different names for the different drinks - if you call them both
>> espresso you're only confusing things, which is exactly what the steam toy
>> manufacturers are trying to do, with the result that many people buy steam
>> toys thinking that they are buying devices that will brew "espresso" "like
>> you get at Starbucks" but they never do.
>
>You're certainly welcome to your opinion that espresso produced at 9 bars is
>superior to espresso produced at a steam-driven 1-1.5 bars, but you're in
>danger of being labeled a revisionist historian.....
>
What Jack said was, "...it's not the same beverage that is made by
extraction at 9 bar." and I agree 100%. It carries the same name but
it is an very different beverage in the cup. If you disagree with that
then either you have either never tasted really good espresso or never
learned to properly make espresso regardless of how many coffee shops
you have worked at or how many different machines you have used.

I have yet to hear or sample an espresso made from a steam driven
machine that can even approach that think, sweet, rich, and
delightfully lingering beverage that comes from a "real" espresso
machine with a pump.

> It wasn't until the 1940's that piston/pump
>espresso technology developed (I believe Achille Gaggia got a patent on it
>in 1948)...
>
Most everyone here is well aware of this, and being that you are
fairly new to the group (IIRC) you would not be aware of that. The
steam vs. pump, and old espresso vs. new espresso is a discussion that
has been batted about here for years. There are authors here who have
written about coffee history so their knowledge is beyond what they
"believe" but is what they have researched. There are folks here who
have made, taught, sold, and repaired anything coffee for decades, not
just worked in coffee shops for a few years.

>Are you going to insist that what a couple of generations of
>espresso-drinkers were drinking before that just wasn't espresso?
>
Call the beverage what you like. We are talking substantial
differences and not semantics. What was made in this steam powered
machines is no more like modern espresso than a MacDonalds Hamburger
is like a filet mignon steak other than they are both meat.

>You may
>well say so in a subjective and figurative sense, but to insist on it
>literally is a bit like saying a car isn't a car unless it's got at least
>200 horsepower.

No- what you are saying is that since a race car built in 1910 is a
race car, it has as good of a chance to win the Indy 500 as a modern
machine since they are both the same. My 1990 4 cylinder VOlvo would
beat that early machine, and I could listen to the radio and run the
air conditioning and only have to make one gas stop.

You can throw back semantics all you like- we choose to throw back
excellent espresso.

And by the way, it is not opinion that espresso produced at 9 bars is
superior to espresso produced at a steam-driven 1-1.5 bars.. It is
fact. 1.15 bars produces a very nice coffee beverage that is the same
as what a moka pot makes, ande is a beverage that USE to be called
espresso by knowledgeable folks becasue that was all there was. Grind
as fine and tamp as hard as a pump machine requires for a steam
machine, and open the valve. Call me in a week when the first drips
appear.

Randy "rocks instead of hammers is coming next" G.
http://www.EspressoMyEspresso.com

Date: 10 Jun 2006 19:27:11
From: Alan
Subject: Re: The exploding Krups FND1 espresso maker

"Randy G." wrote
> "Alan" wrote:
[...]
>>You may
>>well say so in a subjective and figurative sense, but to insist on it
>>literally is a bit like saying a car isn't a car unless it's got at least
>>200 horsepower.
>
> No- what you are saying is that since a race car built in 1910 is a
> race car, it has as good of a chance to win the Indy 500 as a modern
> machine since they are both the same. [...]

I'm amazed that you think that's what I said. I don't think you read too
carefully. I'm not trying to insist that espresso produced at lower than 9
bars is comparable to, superior to, or inferior to that produced at 9 bars
and above. I merely pointed out that, as a linguistic convention, no
matter what pressure is used, it still can be called espresso. That's
merely a fact of language.

Your own 1910 race car analogy actually betrays you. No matter how poorly
it compares with today's race cars, you still called it a race car, didn't
you?

Likewise, no matter how poorly you believe low-bar steam-driven espresso to
be compared to high-bar piston-driven espresso, you still have to call it
espresso. That's my ONLY point.

Date: 10 Jun 2006 12:11:31
From: St. John Smythe
Subject: That's not espresso...THIS is espresso! (was: Re: The exploding Krups

Alan wrote to Jack Denver:
> Are you going to insist that what a couple of generations of
> espresso-drinkers were drinking before that just wasn't espresso? You may
> well say so in a subjective and figurative sense, but to insist on it
> literally is a bit like saying a car isn't a car unless it's got at least
> 200 horsepower.

Heh. <settling back with a bowl of popcorn >

--
St. John, involuntary espresso purist

The years of peak mental activity are undoubtedly between the ages of
four and eighteen. At four we know all the questions, at eighteen all
the answers.

Date: 10 Jun 2006 17:26:27
From: D. Ross
Subject: Re: The exploding Krups FND1 espresso maker

Date: 14 Jun 2006 11:00:46
From: Jack Denver
Subject: Re: The exploding Krups FND1 espresso maker

When the "new" beverage of 9 bar pressure brewed coffee was developed, it
(in a reverse of the current situation where steam toy manufacturers try to
pass off their machines as making the "other" kind of espresso ) was called
"espresso" by Gaggia for marketing reasons. Italian consumers are as
conservative about their coffee preferences as Americans are about their
Coke, and they would not have welcomed "new espresso" by some other name any
more than Americans welcomed "new Coke". Luigi to barista in Rome, circa
1950 - "an espresso please." Barista to Luigi - "we don't sell espresso
anymore. We have this new machine that makes "spumesso" which is much better
than espresso. You see it is brewed at high pre.... Luigi - "excuse me while
I duck out of your bar forever and go to the bar down the street that still
sells espresso." If this had not been so, the right thing to do would have
been to give the high pressure brew a new name because it is so different
than "moka" coffee (which is a back formation name for the "original
espresso"). But we are stuck forever with the confusion, and the steam toy
makers, in a kind of cosmic revenge on Gaggia, take advantage of the
confusion. Many words are inherently ambiguous and the context (and motive)
counts for a lot - if your friend offers you "an espresso" from his moka pot
in Italy (afaik steam toys are not very popular in Italy), he is just being
friendly. When Krups offers you "an espresso machine" when they are selling
you a steam toy, they are hoping you won't know the difference.

"D. Ross" <ross@math.hawaii.NOSPAM.edu > wrote in message
news:448afe9c.346579615@localhost...
>

Date: 15 Jun 2006 00:27:28
From: Alan
Subject: Re: The exploding Krups FND1 espresso maker

"Jack Denver" <nunuvyer@netscape.net > wrote in message
news:TuOdnXlQXKcCuQ3ZnZ2dnUVZ_q2dnZ2d@comcast.com...
> When the "new" beverage of 9 bar pressure brewed coffee was developed, it
> (in a reverse of the current situation where steam toy manufacturers try
> to pass off their machines as making the "other" kind of espresso ) was
> called "espresso" by Gaggia for marketing reasons. Italian consumers are
> as conservative about their coffee preferences as Americans are about
> their Coke, and they would not have welcomed "new espresso" by some other
> name any more than Americans welcomed "new Coke". Luigi to barista in
> Rome, circa 1950 - "an espresso please." Barista to Luigi - "we don't sell
> espresso anymore. We have this new machine that makes "spumesso" which is
> much better than espresso. You see it is brewed at high pre.... Luigi -
> "excuse me while I duck out of your bar forever and go to the bar down the
> street that still sells espresso." If this had not been so, the right
> thing to do would have been to give the high pressure brew a new name
> because it is so different than "moka" coffee (which is a back formation
> name for the "original espresso"). But we are stuck forever with the
> confusion, [...]

Thank you! Exactly my point. We ARE stuck forever with the confusion.
You can change the technology, but you cannot change language by edict, just
doesn't work. Who knows? the terms may change in the future, but that will
be a natural and relatively slow process. Right now, "espresso" refers to
both varieties, is understood by the speech community at large to include
both varieties, and no amount of denial is going to change that.
In the idiolect used by a small group of coffee-hobbyists, a distinction
exists .... but it's arrogance to insist that those outside their group
adopt their idiolect and just plain garden-variety denial to assume that
they've done so already.

Date: 15 Jun 2006 01:29:18
From: D. Ross
Subject: Re: The exploding Krups FND1 espresso maker

Date: 15 Jun 2006 03:20:18
From: Alan
Subject: Re: The exploding Krups FND1 espresso maker

"D. Ross" <ross@math.hawaii.NOSPAM.edu > wrote in message
news:4490b78e.122352353@localhost...
>

Date: 14 Jun 2006 21:50:01
From: Ken Fox
Subject: Re: The exploding Krups FND1 espresso maker

"Alan" <in_flagrante@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:Sl4kg.50505$Lm5.23825@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
>
>>
> I think that you are somehow ignoring the fact that the issue is with the
> SPEECH COMMUNITY AT LARGE ---- I'm not taking issue with the habits of
> YOUR speech community. I know perfectly well what YOU mean when you say
> espresso, and I'm aware of your justification for your adoption of YOUR
> particular speech habit. What I find incredible is your assumption that
> English speakers everywhere share your perceptions.
>
> Do you REALLY believe that the majority of English speakers are not only
> aware of the difference between steam-driven and pump driven espresso, but
> have also consciously decided to eschew use of the word "espresso" for
> that which is produced by a so-called "steam-toy"? You REALLY believe
> that?
>

I'm keeping a log on the number of things posted here on a.c. that David
Ross and I agree on; At latest count, in my 5 or 6 years here, we are up to
maybe 3 things:-)

But you will not find a single serious espresso afficianodo on the planet
who believes that "espresso" can be made on a steam toy under steam pressure
alone. If you believe this, you are not what I would call a serious person
when it comes to espresso.

End of post.

ken

Date: 15 Jun 2006 23:30:10
From: Alan
Subject: Re: The exploding Krups FND1 espresso maker

"Ken Fox" >
"Alan" wrote
>> I think that you are somehow ignoring the fact that the issue is with
the
>> SPEECH COMMUNITY AT LARGE ---- I'm not taking issue with the habits of
>> YOUR speech community. I know perfectly well what YOU mean when you say
>> espresso, and I'm aware of your justification for your adoption of YOUR
>> particular speech habit. What I find incredible is your assumption that
>> English speakers everywhere share your perceptions.
>>
>> Do you REALLY believe that the majority of English speakers are not only
>> aware of the difference between steam-driven and pump driven espresso,
>> but have also consciously decided to eschew use of the word "espresso"
>> for that which is produced by a so-called "steam-toy"? You REALLY
>> believe that?
>>
>
> I'm keeping a log on the number of things posted here on a.c. that David
> Ross and I agree on; At latest count, in my 5 or 6 years here, we are up
> to maybe 3 things:-)
>
> But you will not find a single serious espresso afficianodo on the planet
> who believes that "espresso" can be made on a steam toy under steam
> pressure alone. If you believe this, you are not what I would call a
> serious person when it comes to espresso.
>
> End of post.
>
> ken

And if you think that's what I said, it's a safe bet you were one of those
kids who never did very well on the reading comprehension tests.

Date: 15 Jun 2006 21:32:15
From: Ken Fox
Subject: Re: The exploding Krups FND1 espresso maker

study your own reply. Have you forgotten the meaning of "IF?"

Perhaps you could benefit from reading comprehension classes, yourself.

ken
p.s. You used "if" as well but I'm not sure you understand its meaning based
upon your response to my post.

"Alan" <in_flagrante@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:64mkg.44922$fb2.34186@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
>
> "Ken Fox" >
> "Alan" wrote
> >> I think that you are somehow ignoring the fact that the issue is with
> the
>>> SPEECH COMMUNITY AT LARGE ---- I'm not taking issue with the habits of
>>> YOUR speech community. I know perfectly well what YOU mean when you say
>>> espresso, and I'm aware of your justification for your adoption of YOUR
>>> particular speech habit. What I find incredible is your assumption that
>>> English speakers everywhere share your perceptions.
>>>
>>> Do you REALLY believe that the majority of English speakers are not only
>>> aware of the difference between steam-driven and pump driven espresso,
>>> but have also consciously decided to eschew use of the word "espresso"
>>> for that which is produced by a so-called "steam-toy"? You REALLY
>>> believe that?
>>>
>>
>> I'm keeping a log on the number of things posted here on a.c. that David
>> Ross and I agree on; At latest count, in my 5 or 6 years here, we are up
>> to maybe 3 things:-)
>>
>> But you will not find a single serious espresso afficianodo on the planet
>> who believes that "espresso" can be made on a steam toy under steam
>> pressure alone. If you believe this, you are not what I would call a
>> serious person when it comes to espresso.
>>
>> End of post.
>>
>> ken
>
> And if you think that's what I said, it's a safe bet you were one of those
> kids who never did very well on the reading comprehension tests.
>

Date: 15 Jun 2006 07:20:33
From: D. Ross
Subject: Re: The exploding Krups FND1 espresso maker

Date: 16 Jun 2006 00:21:30
From: Alan
Subject: Re: The exploding Krups FND1 espresso maker

"D. Ross" wrote
>

Date: 16 Jun 2006 04:40:36
From: Donn Cave
Subject: Re: The exploding Krups FND1 espresso maker

Quoth "Alan" <in_flagrante@hotmail.com >:
...
> I expect no response at all,

Have a feeling you're not going to get one.

> ... but I'd just like to leave you with a little
> food for thought:

Oh boy.

Date: 15 Jun 2006 21:16:15
From: Jack Denver
Subject: Re: The exploding Krups FND1 espresso maker

Sounds to me like you are trying to put words in David's mouth.

Still, what you are saying about light is about right - when someone
uninformed (most buyers) buy a steam toy, it is as if they bought something
labeled a "table lamp" on the box and when they get it home they realize
that they can't plug it in because it is a kerosene lamp and even if they do
get it going the light is very dim compared to a modern electric lamp.

"Alan" <in_flagrante@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:eQmkg.148310$F_3.87121@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>
> "D. Ross" wrote
>>

Date: 16 Jun 2006 01:56:06
From: Robert Harmon
Subject: Re: The exploding Krups FND1 espresso maker (gullibility of consumers)

A more apt analogy might be; A blind man wants to buy a lamp but has no idea
what they feel like and has no other information about them. Picking up a
soup tureen the customer tells the salesperson that he wants this 'lamp'.
The salesperson sends him home with the tureen.

That's what Krups, et al, rely on; the blind willingness of the consumer to
buy a product they know nothing about, from someone they have no reason to
trust, and from a company whose products they've never used before.

But don't blame the sales people for selling 'lamps' that won't fit a
customers needs, they know that the customers will go somewhere else to shop
rather than admit they know nothing about 'lamps'.

Robert (who's bought more than his share of 'lamps') Harmon

"Jack Denver" <nunuvyer@netscape.net > wrote in message
news:N8WdnfqcwMHmmw_ZnZ2dnUVZ_tOdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Sounds to me like you are trying to put words in David's mouth.
>
> Still, what you are saying about light is about right - when someone
> uninformed (most buyers) buy a steam toy, it is as if they bought
> something labeled a "table lamp" on the box and when they get it home they
> realize that they can't plug it in because it is a kerosene lamp and even
> if they do get it going the light is very dim compared to a modern
> electric lamp.
>

Date: 14 Jun 2006 20:54:42
From: Jack Denver
Subject: Re: The exploding Krups FND1 espresso maker

In the meantime, I think it is better for those who know better not to add
to the popular confusion by calling both beverages "espresso" without any
qualifiers, unless it is obvious from the context. As I've said before,
manufacturers take advantage of the ambiguity by selling naive customers
"espresso machines" that don't really make the 9 bar beverage that people
are expecting to get - "like Starbucks". Maybe if we all work on it,
eventually the distinction will become known to the general public and the
language will shift. I think there is at least the beginning of awareness
that you would see in any ad for a pump machine, even a very "low end" one
(if not in ads for steam machines) that there is such a thing as a "pump
espresso machine" and a "steam espresso machine" and that these are two
different beasts.

I disagree with your earlier claims regarding anti-freeze- I don't think
anyone thinks of methanol anymore as an automobile antifreeze and any effort
to purchase it by that name would elicit only blank stares (and never any
methanol) from anyone under 90, so eventually the terminology does catch up
with the market.

"Alan" <in_flagrante@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:QP1kg.115826$dW3.75837@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Jack Denver" <nunuvyer@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:TuOdnXlQXKcCuQ3ZnZ2dnUVZ_q2dnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> When the "new" beverage of 9 bar pressure brewed coffee was developed, it
>> (in a reverse of the current situation where steam toy manufacturers try
>> to pass off their machines as making the "other" kind of espresso ) was
>> called "espresso" by Gaggia for marketing reasons. Italian consumers are
>> as conservative about their coffee preferences as Americans are about
>> their Coke, and they would not have welcomed "new espresso" by some other
>> name any more than Americans welcomed "new Coke". Luigi to barista in
>> Rome, circa 1950 - "an espresso please." Barista to Luigi - "we don't
>> sell espresso anymore. We have this new machine that makes "spumesso"
>> which is much better than espresso. You see it is brewed at high pre....
>> Luigi - "excuse me while I duck out of your bar forever and go to the bar
>> down the street that still sells espresso." If this had not been so, the
>> right thing to do would have been to give the high pressure brew a new
>> name because it is so different than "moka" coffee (which is a back
>> formation name for the "original espresso"). But we are stuck forever
>> with the confusion, [...]
>
>
> Thank you! Exactly my point. We ARE stuck forever with the confusion.
> You can change the technology, but you cannot change language by edict,
> just doesn't work. Who knows? the terms may change in the future, but
> that will be a natural and relatively slow process. Right now, "espresso"
> refers to both varieties, is understood by the speech community at large
> to include both varieties, and no amount of denial is going to change
> that.
> In the idiolect used by a small group of coffee-hobbyists, a distinction
> exists .... but it's arrogance to insist that those outside their group
> adopt their idiolect and just plain garden-variety denial to assume that
> they've done so already.
>

Date: 10 Jun 2006 14:48:37
From: Andy Schecter
Subject: Re: The exploding Krups FND1 espresso maker

Jack Denver wrote:
> but no one has really produced a cheap but
> effective espresso grinder that I know of, unfortunately.

Although Tim Wendelboe, 2004 World Barista Champion, recently posted this on
another forum:

"I am currently doing some research on grinders and grinder discs and I have
found an amazing grinder for espresso. The pour is thicker, extraction time
increases, sweetness and complexity increases and the grinder only costs 80$.
What grinder is it ? The Zassenhaus manual turkish brass grinder. OK, you have
to grind manually and it takes a while, but it is really easy to adjust, the
burrs are very strange and conical, so I am looking in to building a belt
driven motorized rig for it.

"It is not a very practical grinder, but sufficient in the morning for the
first shot of espresso.

"I compared the grinder to a la cimbali magnum grinder with flat burrs, a
compak conical, the K60 mahlk�nig with 2 different sets of burrs and a Eureka
conical grinder. The manual zassenhaus gave a slightly more sweet and complex
shot than all of the above grinders."

--

-Andy S.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/andy_s/sets/
http://tinyurl.com/eh0x

Date: 12 Jun 2006 21:52:26
From: Simpson
Subject: Re: The exploding Krups FND1 espresso maker

In article <9ZAig.34472$8G3.25962@twister.nyroc.rr.com >,=20
schecter@remove.me.rochester.rr.com says...
snip=20
> "I compared the grinder to a la cimbali magnum grinder with flat burrs, a=
=20
> compak conical, the K60 mahlk=F6nig with 2 different sets of burrs and a =
Eureka=20
> conical grinder. The manual zassenhaus gave a slightly more sweet and com=
plex=20
> shot than all of the above grinders."

Wow. How did he blind that comparison? He DID blind it, didn't he?

Ted=20

--=20
email me at:
tee en jay ess eye em pee ess oh en one-the-number (at) cee oh em cee a=20
ess tee (dot) en ee tee

ANY other email addie will probably mean I spam-killed your message=20
unread, by accident, really.

Date: 13 Jun 2006 02:28:19
From: Andy Schecter
Subject: Re: The exploding Krups FND1 espresso maker

Simpson wrote:
> Wow. How did he blind that comparison? He DID blind it, didn't he?

I don't know, Ted. I just knows what I reads.

--

-Andy S.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/andy_s/sets/
http://tinyurl.com/eh0x

Date: 10 Jun 2006 02:11:40
From: Alan
Subject: Re: The exploding Krups FND1 espresso maker

"Jack Denver" wrote
> I'm not sure what the point was of notifying this particular newsgroup.
> Steam toys (as they are usually known around here) are not something that
> almost anyone who is a regular poster here would use or recommend to
> others in any event (though many of us got started with them before we
> knew better). Not the Krups brand and not any other brand. If for some
> reason you cannot afford a pump machine and good grinder (which is really
> what you need to make espresso) then the next best thing for strong coffee
> is probably a moka pot and not a steam toy. If you want to steam milk
> then there are stand alone steamers or you can get the kind of steam toy
> that has a blind filter or a valve to block off the head.

I'm sorry, Jack, and I do offer my apologies for not having examined the
newsgroup more carefully before I so rashly and inappropriately posted my
unfortunate experience with a steam toy. I realize now that I'm clearly out
of my league, and that unless it's pump-driven, I'll never make a true
espresso; at best, I'll be able to prepare "strong coffee". I do, however,
appreciate that touch of humility in having admitted that many of the
posters here had actually started off with steam toys. It gives me some
hope. Again, apologies for having posted in the wrong place, and I do
appreciate you having descended from your pump-driven heights to give me a
bit of advice. :)

>
>
> "Alan" <in_flagrante@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:k%oig.42586$4L1.30509@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>> "Jack Denver" wrote
>>> While these are not the world's greatest coffee brewing devices, they
>>> usually do not explode in the way you describe. It's possible that there
>>> was some defect in the one you received, but it's much more likely that
>>> (despite your insistence that you followed the directions) there was
>>> some defect in your technique - in other words "operator error", which
>>> is the cause of most accidents of all types - machines are very
>>> consistent but humans are not. Perhaps Krups can still be blamed for
>>> instructions that are less than clear.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure what the lack of a separate on/off switch has to do with
>>> your explosion problem. From what you describe, the explosion did not
>>> occur while you were trying to remove the PF while the machine was under
>>> pressure. Rather, you say that the PF spontaneously launched. Most
>>> likely the PF was not really properly secured in the head (again despite
>>> what you say). In pump driven machines (which do not really differ in
>>> their method of securing the PF in the head - i.e. bayonet "ears") the
>>> pressures achieved by the pump (up to 15 bar) are far greater than those
>>> possible in the Krups even if the basket was clogged and steam pressure
>>> was allowed to rise to the maximum before the safety valved opened
>>> (somewhere in the range of 3 bar) and yet the PF does not normally blow
>>> off those machines.
>>>
>>> Did you torque the PF tightly into the head - in small machines like
>>> this it is really a two handed operation - you need one hand to hold the
>>> machine still while you tighten the PF securely with the other. The
>>> open/closed indicators that are sometimes found on the finger guards are
>>> worthless - you need to be a "human torque wrench" and judge the
>>> tightness by feel - you don't want to break the handle off the PF but
>>> you do want it nice and tight. Also, overfilling/tamping the basket can
>>> lead to a situation where it's not possible to tighten the PF because
>>> the compressed coffee cake acts as a solid wedge. In a steam machine you
>>> should not be tamping the grounds at all.
>> Jack ----
>>
>> Thanks for your thoughtful comments regarding the exploding FND1, but I
>> would like to point out a few things: (1) I never said that the lack of
>> a separate on/off switch had anything to do with the explosion --- I'd
>> mentioned that as an annoying side issue. (2) As for the "operator error"
>> explanation, I'd like to point that (a) I'd indicated I'd used the
>> machine successfully 3-4 times prior to the "explosion" and (b) I'm not
>> really a novice: I've operated a professional pump-driven espresso
>> machine in a restaurant, I've owned an operated steam-powered stovetop
>> models (Atomic), and have had successfully used an earlier steam-powered
>> Krups (871) ---- all without incident, and I am aware of how tightly the
>> basket assembly needs to be engaged and torqued. (3) As for your
>> assertion that one shouldn't be tamping the grounds at all in a steam
>> machine, that's simply not true. Actually, if one is to achieve decent
>> steam pressure for milk-foaming, one MUST tamp the grounds slightly (the
>> key word is "slightly"). In any case, prior to the "explosion", the
>> same slight tamping of the same grind of coffee had been successful 3-4
>> times with the FND1. (4) I'm literate enough and have enough common
>> mechanical sense to be able to follow directions no matter how poorly
>> written.
>> If I'd suspected that the explosion had occurred as a result of any of
>> the possibilities you'd mentioned, I wouldn't have taken the time to
>> write to a newsgroup regarding what I considered to be an extraordinary
>> event.
>>
>>> "Alan" <in_flagrante@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:ktKhg.47179$Lm5.3907@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
>>>> About a year ago a friend (?) gave me a brand-new Krups
>>>> espresso/cappuccino maker (Type FND1). One thing I noticed right away
>>>> was that Krups had "integrated" the steam valve into the on/off switch,
>>>> necessitating un-plugging the machine in order to release the pressure
>>>> through the steam nozzle. (And yes, the instruction manual specifically
>>>> indicates you have to un-plug it to release pressure --- when you turn
>>>> to "steam" or "coffee" position, you're also turning on the heating
>>>> element).
>>>>
>>>> That poor design feature and minor annoyance aside (which could get to
>>>> be pretty major if you use your machine daily), the 3rd or 4th time I
>>>> used it (strictly according to the manual), the basket/handle
>>>> assembly --- which had been snugly in place --- exploded out of its
>>>> seat, smashing into the carafe below, sending glass, hot coffee, and
>>>> hot coffee grounds all over the kitchen. I went back to using my older
>>>> Krups model 871 which sensibly separates the steam valve from the
>>>> on/off switch and which does not explode.
>>>>
>>>> I don't know what possessed me, but a few weeks ago I thought I'd give
>>>> the Krups FND1 another try. I got out the manual, followed
>>>> instructions to the letter, and ---- BOOM!! ---- basket and handle
>>>> shot off the machine again. I e-mailed Krups about it and got a
>>>> form-letter reply telling me to include my purchase receipts when I
>>>> mailed it to their "repair" facility. Checking out the Krups web-site,
>>>> it looks like they no longer manufacture the FND1, but have another
>>>> model, the FND111, which looks just the same and has the same poorly
>>>> designed "integrated" steam valve/on-off switch.
>>>>
>>>> Has anyone else had that experience with the FND1, or any other Krups
>>>> model, for that matter?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Date: 14 Jun 2006 09:01:13
From: John S.
Subject: Re: The exploding Krups FND1 espresso maker

Seems to me there are two separate issues.

The first is a clumsy design for releasing pressure.
:
> About a year ago a friend (?) gave me a brand-new Krups espresso/cappuccino
> maker (Type FND1). One thing I noticed right away was that Krups had
> "integrated" the steam valve into the on/off switch, necessitating
> un-plugging the machine in order to release the pressure through the steam
> nozzle.
> That poor design feature and minor annoyance aside (which could get to be
> pretty major if you use your machine daily)

And the second issue would seem to be a basket/handle assembly that
exploded out of the seat.
> the 3rd or 4th time I used it
> (strictly according to the manual), the basket/handle assembly --- which had
> been snugly in place --- exploded out of its seat, smashing into the carafe
> below, sending glass, hot coffee, and hot coffee grounds all over the
> kitchen. I went back to using my older Krups model 871 which sensibly
> separates the steam valve from the on/off switch and which does not explode.

My guess is the basket/handle assembly wasn't seated properly. If the
brewer generated enough pressure to bend the locking mechanism used to
clamp the basket in place I would expect to see damaged flanges, etc.
But apparently the brewer was used again. It sounds like the basket
wasn't fully seated.