This forum is now read-only
To login to the new support channel and community forums, go to the Support Portal
Grinders and distribution, an open research
Reiss has commissioned me to perform a study into aspects of differences between a set of grinders: R120, E8 with redspeed burrs, E6 and E5, with and without use of the Londinium Distribution Tool. Jan van der Weel will join in, also setting up the analysis of collected data.
This is not a marketing concept attempt to end at a predefined conclusion but an open minded journey into the unknown. We'll see where it leads and we'll be transparent in the aproach and results.
We do have some assumptions but we will see what is actually the case after some time of testing.
Questions we'd like to answer is 'how much difference does the distribution tool make' and 'is that difference the same on different size grinders'.
Blind tasting with a panel of guests will be an element of testing but also exact measurements using the VST refractometer.
We plan to use the 18g VST basket filled with 18g of grinds, aiming for a 7s pre-infusion time and extracting 30g of espresso in 30s.
I will post what's happening and you are also invited to join in with your impressions. After all, if you have a Londinium, a Londinium distribution tool and a VST 18g basket then you can basically perform the same tests.
This is not a marketing concept attempt to end at a predefined conclusion but an open minded journey into the unknown. We'll see where it leads and we'll be transparent in the aproach and results.
We do have some assumptions but we will see what is actually the case after some time of testing.
Questions we'd like to answer is 'how much difference does the distribution tool make' and 'is that difference the same on different size grinders'.
Blind tasting with a panel of guests will be an element of testing but also exact measurements using the VST refractometer.
We plan to use the 18g VST basket filled with 18g of grinds, aiming for a 7s pre-infusion time and extracting 30g of espresso in 30s.
I will post what's happening and you are also invited to join in with your impressions. After all, if you have a Londinium, a Londinium distribution tool and a VST 18g basket then you can basically perform the same tests.
Comments
grinds not redistributed:
refractometering:
Using the refractometer and the centrifuge, I tested some extractions from the E6 grinder:
17.6g grinds, 30g espresso in 28 seconds, TDS 10.53 -> 18.47% Extraction
17.9g grinds, 30g espresso in 29 seconds, TDS 10.64 -> 18.75% Extraction
17.9g grinds, 26.3g espresso in 29 seconds, TDS 9.48 -> 20.2% Extraction
Pulling a larger volume of espresso easily gets the EXT at the 20% mark but for the taste I prefer the slightly shorter pulls with a little higher TDS and more mouthfeel. So for testing I would prefer about 18g grinds, about 30g espresso in about 30 seconds.
Tije de Jong visited to do some blind tasting for me:
4 cups lined up, marked on the bottom:
Setup (no refractometering this session, by the way)
4 cups of espresso (cooled down), randomly placed, for Tje to taste and line up according to preference:
Tije tasting, the cat sniffing:
Tije found them very close together, but the two on the left more mild / wider spectrum of taste, the two on the right a little more sharp / acidic):
E5: 18g of grinds, 30g espresso in 30 seconds
E6: 18g of grinds, 30g espresso in 25 seconds
E8: 18g of grinds, 30g espresso in 34 seconds
R120: 18g of grinds, 31g espresso in 30 seconds
Preference:
1= E6
2= E5 (1 and 2 more mild and a wider spectrum of tastes)
3= R120
4= E8 (3 and 4 more acidic / sharp)
We repeated this test:
E5: 18g of grinds, 30g espresso in 36 seconds
E6: 18g of grinds, 30g espresso in 28 seconds
E8: 18g of grinds, 31g espresso in 30 seconds
R120: 18g of grinds, 31g espresso in 24 seconds
Preference:
1= E5
2= E8
3= R120
4= E6
It seems the most expensive grinder does not automatically guarantee the highest score and the E5 was on first and second place. Repeat tests must show if there is a pattern here.
Finally we pulled two espressos with 18g grinds out of the E5, one just shaken to level the grinds, one stirred with the distribution tool.
Non Distributed: 18g of grinds, 30g of espresso in 37 seconds
Distributed: 18g of grinds, 30g of espresso in 33 seconds (more even flow)
Preference:
1) Distributed
2) Non Distributed
More testing necessary here as well, but we were both over-cafeïnated and quit for the day.
Matt
The disposable filters separate the tiny coffee particles from the coffee solution so when you then measure the Total Dissolved Solids, you know accurately how much of the coffee puck was actually dissolved into te coffee we want.
The centrifuge forces the particles into the bottom tip of the glass tube and with a pipette one can then take a sample of the coffee below the surface to measure TDS. A filtered value of 10.31% could show as 10.48% on a centrifuged sample of the same extraction resulting in an extraction indication of 18.32% instead of 18.03% but if one wants to be in the 18%--22% range that can often be close enough.
If you want to be absolutely accurate and quick, the official VST filters remain the easiest and best choice.
Jan van der Weel came over to do the first of a set of two blind tasting sessions.
E5: 18g in, 30g out in 33 seconds
E6: 18g in, 30g out in 29 seconds
E8: 18g in, 30g out in 26 seconds
R120: 18g in, 30g out in 35 seconds
Jan found the taste of the espressos very close together, but after much tasting, spitting, mouth rinsing with water and more tasting, his preference turned out to be:
1: R120
2: E8
3: E6
4: E5
We will do this again soon to see if this result will be repeated.
Over time, the extractions went faster. This could be caused by the grinder warming up with intensive use or the grinder being close to the Londinium (has been there since it arrived). Also the beans ran out towards the end and we barely made the last shots with the last beans. We would have preferred a near full hopper all through the set.
Then, during the centrifuge session at 3500 rpm, 5 of the test tubes broke with the centrifugal force so those samples were lost. We threw out all similar tubes to prevent this happening again.
Jan has all the data of this set and he will join in with his results and thoughts.
Labeling test tubes:
Test tubes labelled:
Syringes and pipettes:
Ready to centrifuge:
Currently the E8 and E5 are both equally fast, and the E6 almost as fast in delivering 18g of a grind setting that gets 30g espresso in 30s
4.8 seconds for E5 and E8 and the E6 just a little over 5s
I keep doing tiny adjustments after every shot so it’s a moving target but that is the trend.
Quite remarkable speed in the much smaller E5 and at no cost to quality because so far it turns out to be difficult to detect the difference in a blind tasting.
(Photo by Roemer Overdiep)
Update 3 July 2017
Roemer Overdiep (from culinary Instagram https://www.instagram.com/roemer.has.it/) and his wife Barbara visited for a blind tasting session today.
For the tasting session we used Kenya beans roasted 26 June at Tonino 103, a little on the light side for me which allowed for a somewhat dry aftertaste with the full bodied spicy cup. The Londinium Distribution Tool was used on all doses.
I used 18.5g in the VST 18g basket for all 4 extractions.
E5 gave 30g espresso in 35s
E6 gave 31g espresso in 31s
E8 gave 31g espresso in 30.5s
R120 gave 30g espresso in 28s
If an extraction came out with a different volume/time, I ground another dose and tried once more until they were all 'in the ballpark'.
We shifted the 4 cups around until we had no clue which was which anymore before starting the tasting (labels of which grinder was used were stuck to the bottom of the identical cups). Each cup was on a piece of paper labeled A, B, C, D so we could each write down, without discussing it, which order we preferred. Then we shared these lists and looked under the cups to see the grinder that was used.
Again the differences were small, with the taste spectrum showing the spicy quality on all 4 cups with a little more sweetness in one, a more mild balanced taste in the other and the dryness prevalent in the next, depending on who tasted which cup.
Order of preference:
Roemer: R120 - E8 - E6 - E5
Barbara: R120 - E6 - E8- E5
Frans: R120 - E8 - E5 - E6
So here the R120 ranked highest, obviously, followed by E8 and the E5 mostly on fourth place.
Then we shifted the cups again, also their paper 'coasters' and tasted once more.
Order of preference:
Roemer: R120 - (E8 and E5) - E6
Barbara: E5 - R120 - E8 - E6
Frans: R120 - E6 - E8 - E5
While R120 is mostly scoring best here, the E5 extraction was doing well on the more cooled down tasting with E6 and E8 alternating.
We plan to repeat this soon, then using a more average blend from a nearby specialty coffee place.
https://www.byleew.nl/experiment/measuring-effect-londinium-distribution-tool/
Check the original URL above for the links in the article.
Measuring the effect of the Londinium Distribution Tool
JULY 5, 2017
The recently launched Londinium Espresso Distribution Tool promises to reward you with a very high level of consistency to your espresso extractions. What is the effect of using the LDT? Does an espresso made with this tool taste better? Frans is doing a series of experiments of the tool in combination with different Compak Grinders. Blind tasting is a great way to measure the effect of the LDT but a downside of this method is that it’s very time consuming. One would need many samples tasted and compared. Also this method is not completely objective. The selection of the espresso tasters would influence the result of the experiment.
Frans and I wanted to get more objective data about the effect of the LDT. What does it do to the neatness of the flow (even/uneven), timing and extraction yield? To answer these questions we did 30 extractions from grinds from the Compak E5, on and off using and not using the LDT. So #1 not stirred and only shaken, #2 stirred and shaken, etc. We observed and noted the flow (even/uneven), the timing, and measured the Extraction using the centrifuge and VST refractometer.
All the espresso’s for this experiment were brewed using the Londinium R lever machine, an 18 grams VST Precision Filter Basket and the Londinium Dosing Funnel. For every shot we dosed exactly 18 grams to brew an espresso of 30 grams.
Marking of test tubes
Results
Our experiment wasn’t without problems or errors. First problem was that the extractions towards the end of the experiment got increasingly shorter in time. An explanation could be that the grinder behaves differently when it heats up during use. This made our samples less uniform than intended. Also the high speed centrifuge (3500 rpm) did make more noise than usually. This turned out to have been caused by the breakage of 5 test tubes which were of a lesser quality than the standard glass tubes we also used. We need to use these learnings to improve in case we decide to do a next experiment.
Broken test tubes
Regarding extraction yield: there were some measured differences but statistically these may have been likely caused by chance.
The LDT did give us more consistent extraction percentage. This means that there was a narrower variation in extraction yield using the LDT
The LDT also gave a significantly higher number of smooth, even flowing extractions. Especially the latter is often an indicator of a better tasting cup
The more ‘sloppy’ extractions without LDT did show some higher extraction numbers but, as said above, not in a statistically relevant manner so we would need to test more if we’d want to pursue this further.
Below you can see the effect of the LDT on the neatness on the flow. Espressos made with the LDT had about 80 percent nice and balanced extractions. 27 Percent of the merely-shaken grinds had nice looking even extractions. That means that by using the Londinium Distribution tool we tripled ‘even and nice looking extractions’.
A statistical test showed us that this result is significant (p < 0.05). That means that it’s unlikely that a difference between the groups was caused by chance. Below you can see the result of the statistical test (Pearson’s Chi-squared) that was calculated with R Commander in RStudio
Conclusion
The LDT will give you a significantly higher number of smooth, even flowing extractions. Especially the latter is often an indicator of a better tasting cup. Regarding coffee extraction yield we did not find significant results. We would need to test more if we’d want to pursue this further.
Attached files
This E5 can really pull its weight, plus more.
Attached files
Just curious, and maybe I missed this elsewhere on the forum but how is the Londinium distribution tool utilized? Is it stirred or is it rotated?
So I recorded that! 25g in, 50g out in 50s exactly.
http://kostverlorenvaart.blogspot.nl/2016/03/compak-single-small-dose-funnel-video.html
In practice though, when I am traveling and using that short funnel, I keep it pretty much filled / topped up to ensure a good flow of beans into the burr section: