Our Valued Sponsor
OpinionsConsumer ReviewsGuides and How TosCoffeeGeek ReviewsResourcesForums
Coffee: Questions and Answers
Compare and Contrast
Stefano's Espresso Care
Repair - Parts - Sales
Factory Authorized &
Trained Technician
www.espressocare.com
 
Not Logged in: Log In to Postlog in
New Topics updated topics   New Posts new posts   Unanswered Posts new unanswered  
Search Discussion Board search   Discussion Board FAQ faq   Signup sign up  
Discussions > Coffee > Q and A > Compare and...  
view previous topic | view next topic | view all topics
showing page 2 of 2 first page previous page
Author Messages
jpender
Senior Member
jpender
Joined: 11 Jul 2011
Posts: 606
Location: California
Expertise: I like coffee

Grinder: OE LIDO
Vac Pot: S/S Moka Pot
Drip: Aeropress
Posted Thu Jun 28, 2012, 6:00pm
Subject: Re: Compare and Contrast: Strength and Brew Method
 

Netphilosopher Said:

So, my press pot extraction on my last brew was 900g : 56.25g Coffee.  Strength was 1.21%

If I just pour one cup at 350g, then my extraction is only 7.5% (assuming I just tossed the rest)

If I pour my big mug at 550g, then my extraction is about 11.8% (assuming I left the rest with some small amount of dregs)

If I pour two of my small mugs and get as much as the press pot will allow (absorption 3.3 or so), my extraction is 715g*1.21% / 56.3g = 15.3%.    That's it, all my press pot will pour out without coercion.

But, if I scrape up the grounds and put them into my Aeropress and press out some more stuff, (another 100g), my total extraction has now approached 17.5%.  Well, maybe a bit more because I think the average strength for that stuff was 1.22% or so.

In a press pot, there would be ZERO correlation of taste to yield-based extraction.  Both mugs tasted pretty decent to me, and definitely not underextracted by any stretch.  I think the pressings were a bit cloudy and had some fines but other than that it tasted about the same (but cooler - I did not reheat it)

Posted June 28, 2012 link

Up until the point where you used coercion, you could make the same claim about a drip brew: throw some of the coffee out the window and claim that yield doesn't correlate with strength or taste -- or anything really. But that's taking it too far.

You have a point that immersion brews are different than percolation in that the retained liquid is at a higher concentration of solubles. But the relationship between strength, yield, and water lost is still the same. The difference is that as yield goes up in your example, it's "a" that changes instead of the strength.

Of course you can declare absorption invalid or redefine it for immersion brews if you like. It's just convention.
back to top
 View Profile Link to this post
Netphilosopher
Senior Member


Joined: 14 Jan 2011
Posts: 1,602
Location: USA
Expertise: Just starting

Posted Fri Jun 29, 2012, 7:30am
Subject: ...
 

...
back to top
 View Profile Link to this post
jpender
Senior Member
jpender
Joined: 11 Jul 2011
Posts: 606
Location: California
Expertise: I like coffee

Grinder: OE LIDO
Vac Pot: S/S Moka Pot
Drip: Aeropress
Posted Fri Jun 29, 2012, 3:23pm
Subject: Re: Compare and Contrast: Strength and Brew Method
 

Netphilosopher Said:

I am suggesting that some portion of the lipids or fatty acids are increasing the filtering effect of the coffee grounds.

Posted June 27, 2012 link

Assuming the oil really does melt at 6.5C you could test your idea by not only pressing cold and hot slurries but also at least one just a little above the melting temperature. If you see a dramatic difference with a small temperature change around the melting point then you're probably on to something.
back to top
 View Profile Link to this post
Netphilosopher
Senior Member


Joined: 14 Jan 2011
Posts: 1,602
Location: USA
Expertise: Just starting

Posted Sun Jul 1, 2012, 10:43am
Subject: ...
 

...
back to top
 View Profile Link to this post
jpender
Senior Member
jpender
Joined: 11 Jul 2011
Posts: 606
Location: California
Expertise: I like coffee

Grinder: OE LIDO
Vac Pot: S/S Moka Pot
Drip: Aeropress
Posted Mon Jul 2, 2012, 12:20pm
Subject: Re: Compare and Contrast: Strength and Brew Method
 

Netphilosopher Said:

A ~ 1.7 ~45F
~1.65 ~50F
~1.5 ~80F
and approaches ~1.25-1.3 much above 100F


this is general, was doing this fairly quickly, but it's not an exact "melting" point per se.

Posted July 1, 2012 link

Either the oils don't melt like Calligaris carefully measured or else the data aren't consistent with your hypothesis. Which is more likely?

Again: What else in the grounds might be responsible for the variation in water retention?
back to top
 View Profile Link to this post
Netphilosopher
Senior Member


Joined: 14 Jan 2011
Posts: 1,602
Location: USA
Expertise: Just starting

Posted Tue Jul 3, 2012, 8:04pm
Subject: ...
 

...
back to top
 View Profile Link to this post
jpender
Senior Member
jpender
Joined: 11 Jul 2011
Posts: 606
Location: California
Expertise: I like coffee

Grinder: OE LIDO
Vac Pot: S/S Moka Pot
Drip: Aeropress
Posted Mon Jul 9, 2012, 11:32am
Subject: Re: Compare and Contrast: Strength and Brew Method
 

Netphilosopher Said:

With temperature only, same grounds?  

Dunno.  Just temperature seems to be the significant variable.  Maybe viscosity of the coffee being produced, but I thought the viscosity of coffee with regard to temperature isn't much different than water.


I am wondering if the absorption "sticks".  Meaning if I successfully extract whatever is preventing the absorption from being low (in the 1.2 range), and I re-brew cold - will the absorption still follow the temperature or will it stay low once it's been achieved low?

I could do a hot brew, confirm the absorption is low, then brew with fresh water and allow 12hr steep, then check extraction.  

insert <shrug> here.

Posted July 3, 2012 link

The viscosity of water drops by more than half over that temperature range but it's not a large change in absolute terms. The viscosity of vegetable oil changes a lot more. I sure don't have a clear picture of what's going on here, but I was wondering what else the grounds are composed of. Cellulose? Would that be more likely to retain water when its cold?

I've forgotten what it was you were trying to figure out. I think I'll have a cup of coffee.
back to top
 View Profile Link to this post
showing page 2 of 2 first page previous page
view previous topic | view next topic | view all topics
Discussions > Coffee > Q and A > Compare and...  
New Topics updated topics   New Posts new posts   Unanswered Posts new unanswered     Search Discussion Board search   Discussion Board FAQ faq   Signup sign up  
Not Logged in: Log In to Postlog in
Discussions Quick Jump:
Symbols: New Posts= New Posts since your last visit      No New Posts= No New Posts since last visit     Go to most recent post= Newest post
Forum Rules:
No profanity, illegal acts or personal attacks will be tolerated in these discussion boards.
No commercial posting of any nature will be tolerated; only private sales by private individuals, in the "Buy and Sell" forum.
No SEO style postings will be tolerated. SEO related posts will result in immediate ban from CoffeeGeek.
No cross posting allowed - do not post your topic to more than one forum, nor repost a topic to the same forum.
Who Can Read The Forum? Anyone can read posts in these discussion boards.
Who Can Post New Topics? Any registered CoffeeGeek member can post new topics.
Who Can Post Replies? Any registered CoffeeGeek member can post replies.
Can Photos be posted? Anyone can post photos in their new topics or replies.
Who can change or delete posts? Any CoffeeGeek member can edit their own posts. Only moderators can delete posts.
Probationary Period: If you are a new signup for CoffeeGeek, you cannot promote, endorse, criticise or otherwise post an unsolicited endorsement for any company, product or service in your first five postings.
Quick Mill Andreja
Best bang for the buck in E-61 Espresso Machines.  In stock, free shipping, 2 yr warranty!
cupandbrew.com
Home | Opinions | Consumer Reviews | Guides & How Tos | CoffeeGeek Reviews | Resources | Forums | Contact Us
CoffeeGeek.com, CoffeeGeek, and Coffee Geek, along with all associated content & images are copyright ©2000-2014 by Mark Prince, all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated. Content, code, and images may not be reused without permission. Usage of this website signifies agreement with our Terms and Conditions. (0.274682998657)
Privacy Policy | Copyright Info | Terms and Conditions | CoffeeGeek Advertisers | RSS | Find us on Google+