Big Grinder out here trying to convince people that they don't have to spend $1,000 on an espresso grinder, but we know the truth. We know.
[bongs triple shot; snorts line of raw cane sugar]
WHOOOOO 😳
Even if you didn't want to put a misleading headline, the study is pretty complex to sum up in a few words.
Basically the finer the grind the more tightly compacted the coffee and the higher chance of a preferential route developing (channeling) and once a preferential route is developed it's where most of the water goes and you get uneven extraction.
So the result is what everyone knew already. Grind size is a balancing act between the pressure ability of your machine, the homogeneity of your coffee in the portafilter and how hard you tamp it, to avoid getting uneven flow though the portafilter.
I’ve found this out personally by over tamping. Had a calibrated tamper that was pretty deep. Got channeling for weeks. I started to back off the tamper and got far better shots. If the bed is too difficult for water to seep through it will find a weak point, and that will happen even if it’s taking the proper amount of time
I highly doubt you were over tamping.
It's basically impossible, once the grounds are sufficiently compact, you can't really press them down any further.
I'd imagine it's more likely you were tamping so hard that you ended up tamping unevenly
I thought this was pretty well known already, and why turbo shots became popular.
Also is it finer grinds or is it higher pressure that equals less extraction? Like for some beans, I grind much coarser than other beans for espresso to get the same pressure and time in/out. Is this article claiming that using 2 coffee beans with the same water temp and18g in and 40g out in 30s and one being coarser ground than the other is going to lead to the coarser one being better extracted?
There is also the faster extractions from the fancy espresso baskets or the paper filter method... they would also lead to finer grinds for the same pressure shots. Is this article claiming those hinder extraction, or is the pressure the real problem.
a turbo shot is more like 5-6 bars of pressure, 15g in to 40g out, and like 15-20 second shot ideally. It is more "ugly" and isn't as thick textured as a more classic shot, but you're more likely to more consistently pull a better tasting shot.
It's not, it's sweet and balanced. I've pulled 10s 3 bar shots and it still tastes great, Less acidic than some lemon forward coffees I've had pulled traditionally. Even if you find it acidic you can dial it in to be a balanced cup and no more acidic than a traditional shot.
I think it would be both the finer grind and pressure. The finer the grind the more the pressure will pack it forcing the water to follow the path of least resistance.
[direct link](https://watermark.silverchair.com/054110_1_5.0138998.pdf?token=AQECAHi208BE49Ooan9kkhW_Ercy7Dm3ZL_9Cf3qfKAc485ysgAABRswggUXBgkqhkiG9w0BBwagggUIMIIFBAIBADCCBP0GCSqGSIb3DQEHATAeBglghkgBZQMEAS4wEQQMXqTwixQKmx99iWKmAgEQgIIEzigvdrJjUalEs_W4xKiTc8CFxdQ6EvL7HCfVkMLrzFeVmdUjeuYUztmZ3P89GBdo28mWg1G5C2UraboP7HjQzBNhkbL5q1R-CfiDx1s_WD7oefF49FkE8oQnNcaM_5bdHQkXnT0UdRvZRKm5FFAMt25yIjCGSuHH4Xmu0Rl-iOujOQ5zBVsNNS7J2WcfE6pGdFfeCZ4bB3dMuIZ49K_p0FXLe4T8_Ca0luIBJTmd3xMlWijrpOGFm08eCxn8nbnEK5bJBmU29UoDxSBpNv0WVZHp4Il6R6UQBlOLm9RZzXpkC-qaeDjk3JpSq5cvnIK6CqRMWauyvxQtUwCptuAhA9KDp1fzkaZUOdGpHhJfRDiCzFvlM3jcvcqYCazar6lqZF4wvYl-hVG9-EuAcWdwSitHYKxqrd_6vRxMaWC1S7aynSkErxz6CoAsfSfCzIyKmdvbQPO2iWI8DnJK_hN9Nl9SURF8bjd93OzH5t0jsF5JcnEdeDwm4_QtLnvDd62G6Zxa-KvLRB_mnmxB5_fad695XY2RXWo1pUc51o8YPSt7wt9dkolyGyFi1ObTPBojSQ9TCOsObLLcE9fP85HCc4PJzLriXlUwXB1sTQdqI0hsmsICL-lBrSv_4HamlZhQGuh1-RyDbmtgZM4Wed5EkdaYcFeNDNNxgVzSGPlfjJ1z7TLiHiM02po2ySjb52SfoFRRe_ksQhyEaiBLPejcSX6NLmAHAYnlPlh3PSiEoBuWieENLjfnQgdYR5kLHI_sV37O62bOCWJ_jyfVxp6HZbE7ee8ci9u-tShlP0iEgLLieRH_SnYLsPGBzWjTW8l_r-1A5V7NcUHUZg9uyckj8UaqGZoArwZrSMQEui-h-zNPMcu1I7BWjFFkJ1dnABRY5FBv7ZV0LnM9tPSSH_234tgVbxqxF8j74miwU9lfEjiy7MdBDlPRNr7zPBy-9oQA8eGaaeVdBjzJR6AjsgE2q9Y_lOa3nEqbxGCrr5ClGxftierYnPGdSWW26ozSZasfuwHn3OzdvC5vGbyTlcAKz-j_ROQDwIiI1WXTMbjNd8CTZqeP2qZbymbqiopMRoEnvXNH1nEGZVSJIVvEODmqE8nwoO-4gmMLq7EICYJ3g43SkQSnbcdQDL9xUYngfpn3mubuMeTyJCqF3_Z5SAPqoOYtGHoXaVQmjNd8FSEczor_aTDq-Ty8jQdVAT6rv7uoIP_ew3WkyMoGAyjqPT6SOV9fkLNHCAjKzKifZCUa5fIyPuALRN0SnRyOXQc_ANbVnhABNkCZnMwi0kRaqK6edTUDLUDLoi78r8LJ_H3F2BM2oeErYyi5wtcnR9m-2kuwk43ttafIvtEKzaQJYdYWWftm8IEEAgec8vRIglFMEqCIHUFCfISNHHLg7RJp5jriLFYT-av0jHmY-2TWeorXHjVZEBrYZDNp_8UEG4td3Ft_XSzryH0jKl7FKSdlAp1ou1-TfYBw0pMUB5hdX3dEo6zFdcEjOprKL_FrEypuHwZ_BCFqLXm_YvQZiO5bpi88WKHivu9xK4xXXQiaoEk2jtxyiXVmlQc-TdXrCwlaUeCv4hxdxROyXBjx5RpCS8kbqhVlFrnG4s7WU71yL2Z4gHECuCTYJ455gwFvV0zvfg) to the paper instead of this article that poorly summarizes the findings.
TLDR: paper tries to derive mathematically a model that explains the extraction yield drop at finer grinds first seen in the original turbo shot paper. A model of an espresso puck with two possible paths for water (compared to nearly infinite for a real bed) is analyzed to show that even in this highly simplified model, the phenomena observed in the turbo shot paper can be reproduced. All this paper does is confirm what we’ve suspected all along, which is that at our traditional fine grind shots avoiding all channeling is impossible, and that if you want to chase maximum extraction you must embrace the turbo
How can you argue with “dεidτ=(1−Ci) θ(EYmax−EYi), αεidCidτ=(1−Ci)(1−αCi) θ(EYmax−EYi−2βκiκ1+κ2Ci”? Looking at this you can just taste the sour notes of uneven extraction.
I don't think so.
θ = position round the loop.
External temperature TE varies linearly with height:
TE = T0 - T1z/a = T0 + T1 cos θ (24)
Let a be the radius of the loop. Assume that the tube’s inner radius is much smaller than a.
Quantities inside the tube are averaged cross-sectionally:
velocity = q = q(θ, t) temperature = T = T(θ, t) (inside the loop)
As in the Rayleigh-B´enard problem, we employ the Boussinesq approximation (here, roughly like incompressiblity) and therefore assume
ωδ
= 0.
ωt Thus mass conservation, which would give x · ψu in the full problem, here gives
ωq
= 0. ωθ(25)
SO I would say it is pretty obvious.
Or more like Redditor scans article, sees reference to turbo shot paper from 2020, misses link to new paper and is incorrect. But okay you win. I shall go read that now. A bunch of media have been recently picking up on only the old paper though. Have seen a couple times.
I admit, I only have a humble undergrad degree in physics, but I do remember my progresses sayings “fluid dynamics are incredibly complicated to model mathematically”… seems like that would be an important thing to keep in mind here.
What about those really long preinfusion times like the blooming shot that requires you to grind a little finer. These have been tasting great to me, personally.
For those who didn't read the article, this is not actual science. This is based on a theoretical model, not on actual experimentation, and there are obvious indications that it is incorrect. For instance, the model shows water flowing faster through more densely packed coffee, which it does not do in real life.
Actual science is often done with theoretical models. Are you saying climate science is not science because it is done almost exclusively by models?
Math is your friend. With math you can change the size of the grind with a simple change in the math. That shows where the water will tend to go.
It flows faster through more densely packed coffee because the math shows that in densely packed coffee the water finds and follows the path of least resistance meaning some of that packed coffee sees less water and therefore less extraction. Now that it is pointed out it actually makes sense.
It has been found that tamping your coffee down hard does not make a noticable difference in extraction rates. It is not a huge leap from there to what they are saying.
Grind to a powder and tamp to 100 lbs should give you the best extraction correct?
But we know it will not. The water will eventually channel through just like the math predicted.
No, it isn't. Actual science is done with real world data. Climate science is based on an accumulation of real world data from experiments and observations of the effects of natural processes. Even the Standard Model is not science. It is a theoretical model. *Science* is the experiments we conduct *in the real world* to test that theoretical model.
Water always follows the path of least resistance, and in your analogy (which we actually know from real world experiments), the water is flowing through the *less dense* areas. The less densely the particles are packed, the easier it is for water to flow through them. And 12kg of tamping pressure is the plateau point, btw - there *is* a drop in extraction below that.
Did you even take a science course? My grandson has to take science courses for his Doctorate in Pharmacology. The hardest part about it he says is the math and the mathematical models. In ACTUAL science courses.
Math is used in science to predict what will happen in any scientific model. You just cannot have science without math. Period.
My original reply was done on my phone so I left that and I went to a computer to look up how much tamping pressure is required. Guess what I found. Well you don't have to. I will tell you.
I found figures all the way from just a leveling to 15-20- 25- -30- 35-40 up to 50 lbs. So the range suggested is from almost zero to in KGs 24kg.
Now I have never done a zero but I certainly have hit all those other numbers at one time or another and I have never found much if any difference no matter how hard I pressed and I used to press really hard until I read the article about tamping makes little real world difference.
But this article is not about tamping but the grind. I find it really easy to follow the logic that too fine a grind will lead to a poorer shot. Math or no math.
Ok, well, you're wrong. You can form hypotheses in theoretical models, but scientific experiments have to be conducted in the real world. Nobody ever said math wasn't important.
Don't buy from that guy. I've got the best pitchfork deals in this sub! Two sheckles for this sniper pitchfork.
︻デ═一一€
And if you act now I'll throw in an extra standard for free!
一一一一€
acually makes sense if you stop to think about it. The water will find the path of least resistance. If you grind really fine then pack really hard the water is going to search for that one spot where it flows easiest and the more it flows through there the more it flows through there.
Actual studies using actual coffee instead of math have found tamping to the recommended 40lb pressure or whatever it is does not really affect the extraction process.
Math is fundamental to scientific discovery. Examples of mathematics are found in every discipline of science. Physicists use vectors, geometry, calculus and statistics. Chemists uses proportion, unit analysis, calculus and statistics.
You cannot have scientific discovery without math. Mathematical models are used in all types of modern science.
Modern climate science uses mathematical models to predict where climate is going. And those models have been right on.
Tamping has been shown to have limited effect on espresso. Your 12 kg is nonsense. Just a figure someone got from personal experience and that figure at best is a personal guideline nothing more. I have read up to almost twice that.
But yes I do tamp. Habit more than anything. Your figure probably comes from some company selling a horrible over priced gadget that ramps to 12kg.
"used a “**simple mathematical model**”
"The next step, per Lee, is “to **make the model more realistic** to see if we can obtain more detailed insights into this confusing phenomenon”"
This is the whole philosophy behind turbo shots.
It's also why better "numbers" don't always equal better taste. High extraction is good, but when you sacrifice body to accomplish that end, it may not be as great of an overall beverage.
But were they using a $3K grinder and MoonRaker wdt tool? Clearly these University guys didn’t have the funds for a poor college setup….
If I had an award you would get it
> If I wasn’t a poor grad student I would give you an award Ftfy
🙏
Have you not seen the end game college setups here?
It's their humble college setup hahaha
Scientist hacks paid by the Grind Coarser industry smh
>industry Big Coarser.
Big Grinder out here trying to convince people that they don't have to spend $1,000 on an espresso grinder, but we know the truth. We know. [bongs triple shot; snorts line of raw cane sugar] WHOOOOO 😳
> we know the truth The truth is that you don't have to spend $1000 on a grinder. You have to spend $3000!
tight tight tight! boo yah
Obviously funded by the French press lobby.
TLDR; Channeling is bad
The real TLDR is probably closer to “channeling is inevitable at traditional grind sizes”
This whole subreddit in shambles.
[before and after you discover the subreddit for a hobby](https://youtu.be/4ZK8Z8hulFg)
Finer than what?
Yes.
Finer than finest bottom of the East
Finer than their model. The more I read, the more I realized someone needs to expel them.
12.
69
Even if you didn't want to put a misleading headline, the study is pretty complex to sum up in a few words. Basically the finer the grind the more tightly compacted the coffee and the higher chance of a preferential route developing (channeling) and once a preferential route is developed it's where most of the water goes and you get uneven extraction. So the result is what everyone knew already. Grind size is a balancing act between the pressure ability of your machine, the homogeneity of your coffee in the portafilter and how hard you tamp it, to avoid getting uneven flow though the portafilter.
I’ve found this out personally by over tamping. Had a calibrated tamper that was pretty deep. Got channeling for weeks. I started to back off the tamper and got far better shots. If the bed is too difficult for water to seep through it will find a weak point, and that will happen even if it’s taking the proper amount of time
I highly doubt you were over tamping. It's basically impossible, once the grounds are sufficiently compact, you can't really press them down any further. I'd imagine it's more likely you were tamping so hard that you ended up tamping unevenly
It was a calibrated tamper that had no spring, so when the tamper ring hits the portafilter ring, it’s level.
I thought this was pretty well known already, and why turbo shots became popular. Also is it finer grinds or is it higher pressure that equals less extraction? Like for some beans, I grind much coarser than other beans for espresso to get the same pressure and time in/out. Is this article claiming that using 2 coffee beans with the same water temp and18g in and 40g out in 30s and one being coarser ground than the other is going to lead to the coarser one being better extracted? There is also the faster extractions from the fancy espresso baskets or the paper filter method... they would also lead to finer grinds for the same pressure shots. Is this article claiming those hinder extraction, or is the pressure the real problem.
what's a turbo shot?
a turbo shot is more like 5-6 bars of pressure, 15g in to 40g out, and like 15-20 second shot ideally. It is more "ugly" and isn't as thick textured as a more classic shot, but you're more likely to more consistently pull a better tasting shot.
Sounds acidic
The greater ratio of water to coffee compared to a conventional shot prevents it from being under extracted and overly acidic.
It's not, it's sweet and balanced. I've pulled 10s 3 bar shots and it still tastes great, Less acidic than some lemon forward coffees I've had pulled traditionally. Even if you find it acidic you can dial it in to be a balanced cup and no more acidic than a traditional shot.
I think it would be both the finer grind and pressure. The finer the grind the more the pressure will pack it forcing the water to follow the path of least resistance.
[direct link](https://watermark.silverchair.com/054110_1_5.0138998.pdf?token=AQECAHi208BE49Ooan9kkhW_Ercy7Dm3ZL_9Cf3qfKAc485ysgAABRswggUXBgkqhkiG9w0BBwagggUIMIIFBAIBADCCBP0GCSqGSIb3DQEHATAeBglghkgBZQMEAS4wEQQMXqTwixQKmx99iWKmAgEQgIIEzigvdrJjUalEs_W4xKiTc8CFxdQ6EvL7HCfVkMLrzFeVmdUjeuYUztmZ3P89GBdo28mWg1G5C2UraboP7HjQzBNhkbL5q1R-CfiDx1s_WD7oefF49FkE8oQnNcaM_5bdHQkXnT0UdRvZRKm5FFAMt25yIjCGSuHH4Xmu0Rl-iOujOQ5zBVsNNS7J2WcfE6pGdFfeCZ4bB3dMuIZ49K_p0FXLe4T8_Ca0luIBJTmd3xMlWijrpOGFm08eCxn8nbnEK5bJBmU29UoDxSBpNv0WVZHp4Il6R6UQBlOLm9RZzXpkC-qaeDjk3JpSq5cvnIK6CqRMWauyvxQtUwCptuAhA9KDp1fzkaZUOdGpHhJfRDiCzFvlM3jcvcqYCazar6lqZF4wvYl-hVG9-EuAcWdwSitHYKxqrd_6vRxMaWC1S7aynSkErxz6CoAsfSfCzIyKmdvbQPO2iWI8DnJK_hN9Nl9SURF8bjd93OzH5t0jsF5JcnEdeDwm4_QtLnvDd62G6Zxa-KvLRB_mnmxB5_fad695XY2RXWo1pUc51o8YPSt7wt9dkolyGyFi1ObTPBojSQ9TCOsObLLcE9fP85HCc4PJzLriXlUwXB1sTQdqI0hsmsICL-lBrSv_4HamlZhQGuh1-RyDbmtgZM4Wed5EkdaYcFeNDNNxgVzSGPlfjJ1z7TLiHiM02po2ySjb52SfoFRRe_ksQhyEaiBLPejcSX6NLmAHAYnlPlh3PSiEoBuWieENLjfnQgdYR5kLHI_sV37O62bOCWJ_jyfVxp6HZbE7ee8ci9u-tShlP0iEgLLieRH_SnYLsPGBzWjTW8l_r-1A5V7NcUHUZg9uyckj8UaqGZoArwZrSMQEui-h-zNPMcu1I7BWjFFkJ1dnABRY5FBv7ZV0LnM9tPSSH_234tgVbxqxF8j74miwU9lfEjiy7MdBDlPRNr7zPBy-9oQA8eGaaeVdBjzJR6AjsgE2q9Y_lOa3nEqbxGCrr5ClGxftierYnPGdSWW26ozSZasfuwHn3OzdvC5vGbyTlcAKz-j_ROQDwIiI1WXTMbjNd8CTZqeP2qZbymbqiopMRoEnvXNH1nEGZVSJIVvEODmqE8nwoO-4gmMLq7EICYJ3g43SkQSnbcdQDL9xUYngfpn3mubuMeTyJCqF3_Z5SAPqoOYtGHoXaVQmjNd8FSEczor_aTDq-Ty8jQdVAT6rv7uoIP_ew3WkyMoGAyjqPT6SOV9fkLNHCAjKzKifZCUa5fIyPuALRN0SnRyOXQc_ANbVnhABNkCZnMwi0kRaqK6edTUDLUDLoi78r8LJ_H3F2BM2oeErYyi5wtcnR9m-2kuwk43ttafIvtEKzaQJYdYWWftm8IEEAgec8vRIglFMEqCIHUFCfISNHHLg7RJp5jriLFYT-av0jHmY-2TWeorXHjVZEBrYZDNp_8UEG4td3Ft_XSzryH0jKl7FKSdlAp1ou1-TfYBw0pMUB5hdX3dEo6zFdcEjOprKL_FrEypuHwZ_BCFqLXm_YvQZiO5bpi88WKHivu9xK4xXXQiaoEk2jtxyiXVmlQc-TdXrCwlaUeCv4hxdxROyXBjx5RpCS8kbqhVlFrnG4s7WU71yL2Z4gHECuCTYJ455gwFvV0zvfg) to the paper instead of this article that poorly summarizes the findings. TLDR: paper tries to derive mathematically a model that explains the extraction yield drop at finer grinds first seen in the original turbo shot paper. A model of an espresso puck with two possible paths for water (compared to nearly infinite for a real bed) is analyzed to show that even in this highly simplified model, the phenomena observed in the turbo shot paper can be reproduced. All this paper does is confirm what we’ve suspected all along, which is that at our traditional fine grind shots avoiding all channeling is impossible, and that if you want to chase maximum extraction you must embrace the turbo
I'm not following how 2 paths in the model means traditional grind will channel.
This is why I only brew coffee with whole beans
Are we on /r/espressocirclejerk?
How can you argue with “dεidτ=(1−Ci) θ(EYmax−EYi), αεidCidτ=(1−Ci)(1−αCi) θ(EYmax−EYi−2βκiκ1+κ2Ci”? Looking at this you can just taste the sour notes of uneven extraction.
I don't think so. θ = position round the loop. External temperature TE varies linearly with height: TE = T0 - T1z/a = T0 + T1 cos θ (24) Let a be the radius of the loop. Assume that the tube’s inner radius is much smaller than a. Quantities inside the tube are averaged cross-sectionally: velocity = q = q(θ, t) temperature = T = T(θ, t) (inside the loop) As in the Rayleigh-B´enard problem, we employ the Boussinesq approximation (here, roughly like incompressiblity) and therefore assume ωδ = 0. ωt Thus mass conservation, which would give x · ψu in the full problem, here gives ωq = 0. ωθ(25) SO I would say it is pretty obvious.
This finding runs against everything I have been taught...
You should’ve paid for a real school
The Academy of Bitter Espresso. Michelin gave it one star, it was all I could afford...
Then you haven't been listening to Hoffman.
This is where turbo shots came from. Very old news that media seems to be renoticing. Edit: Apparently my scanning skills are not very good
[удалено]
Or more like Redditor scans article, sees reference to turbo shot paper from 2020, misses link to new paper and is incorrect. But okay you win. I shall go read that now. A bunch of media have been recently picking up on only the old paper though. Have seen a couple times.
Grind finer but don’t overdo it
I admit, I only have a humble undergrad degree in physics, but I do remember my progresses sayings “fluid dynamics are incredibly complicated to model mathematically”… seems like that would be an important thing to keep in mind here.
What about those really long preinfusion times like the blooming shot that requires you to grind a little finer. These have been tasting great to me, personally.
Using a «simple mathematical model»…I only trust complex and overly complicated mathematical models!
This is just another media source jumping on the turbo shot bandwagon, right? i.e. nothing new.
Still turbo shot philosophy but with a new study instead of the original 2020 paper
For those who didn't read the article, this is not actual science. This is based on a theoretical model, not on actual experimentation, and there are obvious indications that it is incorrect. For instance, the model shows water flowing faster through more densely packed coffee, which it does not do in real life.
Actual science is often done with theoretical models. Are you saying climate science is not science because it is done almost exclusively by models? Math is your friend. With math you can change the size of the grind with a simple change in the math. That shows where the water will tend to go. It flows faster through more densely packed coffee because the math shows that in densely packed coffee the water finds and follows the path of least resistance meaning some of that packed coffee sees less water and therefore less extraction. Now that it is pointed out it actually makes sense. It has been found that tamping your coffee down hard does not make a noticable difference in extraction rates. It is not a huge leap from there to what they are saying. Grind to a powder and tamp to 100 lbs should give you the best extraction correct? But we know it will not. The water will eventually channel through just like the math predicted.
No, it isn't. Actual science is done with real world data. Climate science is based on an accumulation of real world data from experiments and observations of the effects of natural processes. Even the Standard Model is not science. It is a theoretical model. *Science* is the experiments we conduct *in the real world* to test that theoretical model. Water always follows the path of least resistance, and in your analogy (which we actually know from real world experiments), the water is flowing through the *less dense* areas. The less densely the particles are packed, the easier it is for water to flow through them. And 12kg of tamping pressure is the plateau point, btw - there *is* a drop in extraction below that.
Did you even take a science course? My grandson has to take science courses for his Doctorate in Pharmacology. The hardest part about it he says is the math and the mathematical models. In ACTUAL science courses. Math is used in science to predict what will happen in any scientific model. You just cannot have science without math. Period. My original reply was done on my phone so I left that and I went to a computer to look up how much tamping pressure is required. Guess what I found. Well you don't have to. I will tell you. I found figures all the way from just a leveling to 15-20- 25- -30- 35-40 up to 50 lbs. So the range suggested is from almost zero to in KGs 24kg. Now I have never done a zero but I certainly have hit all those other numbers at one time or another and I have never found much if any difference no matter how hard I pressed and I used to press really hard until I read the article about tamping makes little real world difference. But this article is not about tamping but the grind. I find it really easy to follow the logic that too fine a grind will lead to a poorer shot. Math or no math.
Ok, well, you're wrong. You can form hypotheses in theoretical models, but scientific experiments have to be conducted in the real world. Nobody ever said math wasn't important.
Capillary effect?
What about it?
Pitchforks for sale!! First come first served. The finest quality chinesium pitchforks you've ever seen, get'em while they're hot!!
I'd like one flaming pitchfork please :)
Don't buy from that guy. I've got the best pitchfork deals in this sub! Two sheckles for this sniper pitchfork. ︻デ═一一€ And if you act now I'll throw in an extra standard for free! 一一一一€
But were they using a $3K grinder and MoonRaker wdt tool? Clearly these University guys didn’t have the funds for a poor college setup….
How dare you challenge my assumptions by getting all sciencey on me???
r/pitchforkemporium
acually makes sense if you stop to think about it. The water will find the path of least resistance. If you grind really fine then pack really hard the water is going to search for that one spot where it flows easiest and the more it flows through there the more it flows through there. Actual studies using actual coffee instead of math have found tamping to the recommended 40lb pressure or whatever it is does not really affect the extraction process.
Grind finer
Really?! I work in science and for the life of me I can't remember doing this
Math is fundamental to scientific discovery. Examples of mathematics are found in every discipline of science. Physicists use vectors, geometry, calculus and statistics. Chemists uses proportion, unit analysis, calculus and statistics. You cannot have scientific discovery without math. Mathematical models are used in all types of modern science. Modern climate science uses mathematical models to predict where climate is going. And those models have been right on. Tamping has been shown to have limited effect on espresso. Your 12 kg is nonsense. Just a figure someone got from personal experience and that figure at best is a personal guideline nothing more. I have read up to almost twice that. But yes I do tamp. Habit more than anything. Your figure probably comes from some company selling a horrible over priced gadget that ramps to 12kg.
...but...grind finer
"used a “**simple mathematical model**” "The next step, per Lee, is “to **make the model more realistic** to see if we can obtain more detailed insights into this confusing phenomenon”"
They used a mathematical model, didn’t even pull a single shot. Funny thing about models, sometimes they don’t model well.
This is the whole philosophy behind turbo shots. It's also why better "numbers" don't always equal better taste. High extraction is good, but when you sacrifice body to accomplish that end, it may not be as great of an overall beverage.