Does Higher Extraction Make Better Espresso? [Refractometer Tests]
Vložit
- čas přidán 1. 02. 2023
- The DiFluid refractometer brings down the entry price for checking the TDS and extraction yield of coffee, but do home baristas need yet another coffee tool? And what can it teach us about how to get better espresso?
I'm selling my roasted coffee (UK only for now): bit.ly/3jyL7Yd
Scott Rao's blog post about espresso: bit.ly/3YcgMh6
👪Join the Home Cafe Community👪
Patreon: / homecafe
Instagram: / homecafecharlie
Discord: / discord
🛒Links to Gear🛒 (These are affiliate links that support this channel)
► [10% off with code Charlie10] DiFluid Refractometer and Scale: bit.ly/3jtjyQ0
► Turin DF83: bit.ly/3UxoxfX
🎵Music Licenced from Artlist.io🎵 - Jak na to + styl
Thanks for checking out this video everyone. You can use the code Charlie10 to get 10% off a Difluid Refractometer and scale if you want to try some of these tests for yourself. The link is in the description ;)
The code Charlie10 is not working. Is there an update?
For measuring espresso, I recommend using a syringe with a VST filter, this is to breakdown some of the C02 to make each reading consistent. Also, you should just move the crema out of the way when extracting the espresso into the syringe
That is a very interestingly done film. I had to subscribe. Thanks for the upload.
I just might get the DiFluid.
A couple of comments on refractometer usage (but take them with a sprinkle of salt cause I don't own one)
pretty sure you aren't supposed to zero the refractometer with distilled water. I believe you're supposed to use the water in your espresso machine. Kinda like how you zero your weighing vessel on a scale
I didn't see it in the video, but you are supposed to use a paper filter before refracting for more consistent results, as I think this is why you had some very odd outliers.
Besides that, I seem to be running out of coffee, and I think I have found a new roaster to try (:
Hey Nick - it's complicated for sure. The experiments were still very interesting, may not be totally accurate, but the differences are really apparent!
@@homecafecharlie nick is absolutely correct.
I so love nerd stuff like this!! I may have to get one 😄
It is a fun little gadget!
the ratio depends on roasting level 1:1 better for medium roast and 1:2 for medium light and 1:3 for light , the EY is not taste predictor maybe viscosity or another variable
Thabks, Charlie. It was a very good video.
I've got 2 questions, please.
1- In the calibration of the refrectometer, I've seen people whobusebthe same water they brew coffee with, and others who use distilled water, yet I don't know which one is right, or more accurate/realistic.
2- Isbthebscale very responsive and fast in reading, or it lags abit?
Thanks 😊
From my understanding, using distilled water is better to calibrate a base level for the device. That way it's getting total dissolved solids as opposed to water with dissolved minerals plus coffee.
In my experience, the device is pretty responsive and I'll be using it for more videos soon!
Were the 5 readings you averaged from the same extraction, or repeated extractions at same params?
Multiple extractions at the same parameters
Hi, did you mention if you were sent this for free? I always wonder about these glowing reviews and then see the discount code to purchase the item, particularly if the item was sent for free. I bought one of these with my own money and found that mine didn’t seem to perform very well.
I was sent it for free, but I always tell companies that I always tell the truth about products they send, so if they don't believe in their product it's better not to send them to me 😅 I use my refractometer for testing, and haven't had issues with it. But it's not a paid promotion and if I didn't like it I wouldn't be talking about it
I‘ve read studies that show that the method with a refractometer does not work well with espresso due to the high amount of unsolved solids that come with the high pressure extraction. What’s your point of view to that fact?
Good question! I did some research and the variance is just enough to not be totally scientific (I would use filters if I was writing a research paper), but most indicated between 0.4-1.8% variance. I think that's still close enough to make a fairly accurate judgement, and honestly I'm glad it saves me spending £5 per special filter made exclusively by the company that insists we all use them for our measurements. It's a marginal improvement in accuracy at a very very steep cost.
@@homecafecharlie Thank you for the clear statement. Have you compared the tech solutions to a manual refractometer? I have a manual one but would you recommend using a digital one to get better results?
You're doing it wrong. That's why the readings are inconsistent. You really need to let that shot sit to bring that temperature down. Then you want to stir it really well
I let all of them come down to 50°C... Next time I use the DiFluid on something I'll explain my process better 😉
@@homecafecharlie you probably should wait a bit longer and measure at 25c or so
Ok, here is one thing I'd like to mention: The WDT technique that you show on the video is - sorry - terrible. The tool that you use is way to inflexible and its needles are too thick, resulting in too much coffee grinds being moved in the basket. Also I recommend you to do a little research on WDT techniques as WDT is not just for lumb breaking but for an even distribution. decent posted a video on this, also Lance Hedrick did afaik, but as a short hint: You need to circle around the center like drawing little spirals around the sun while getting upwards until the tips of the needles hit the surface of your coffee bed. The result should look fluffy and evenly distributed like a little zen garden (I've uploaded an example photo here: *there was originally a link here*). Yours looked a bit like craters, sorry again to say that. 😅 When evenly distributed, you don't even need to tap the portafilter, just slowly and evenly compress the fluffy grinds with a tamper and you'll get the loveliest extraction ever. And I can say that having tested lots of tools… The ESPCUP, Duomo The Eight, OCD, Blind Shaker, etc. If you are in search for a nice WDT tool, I would always recommend the one from sworksdesign. It is pricey but the best tool I've ever used and worth the investment. 😊 Second repost with the link removed. Seems that CZcams doesn’t allow me to attach photos of fluffy coffee 😂
The problem with the coffee raking argument (I won't be caught dead using a name so ridiculous and pompous as "Weiss Distribution Technique", sorry) is that it ignores the fact that granular materials advect almost like liquids. It won't stay distributed the way you set it, and it won't stay distributed in whatever way the grinder happened to set it either.
As for the "needle is too thick", "you need a more expensive tool" etc line of argumentation, you might want to look at what Weiss himself used, and what _very specific_ technique he described.
Spoiler: it was a dissecting needle about as thick as a toothpick stirred in no particular pattern at all.
@@isodoubIet But is the tool that Weiss himself used and his technique argument against the fact that the tool I use and recommend is useless or not worth it? The fact that granular materials advect almost like liquids is why this technique produces constant results as you constantly recreate a perfectly even bed of coffee that you constantly compress in the same manner. It definitely does make a difference whether there is a big crater in the middle or not because the grinds ALMOST advect like liquids. Ever seen a donut extraction?!
@@3ede467 "But is the tool that Weiss himself used and his technique argument against the fact that the tool I use and recommend is useless or not worth it?"
You have it the other way around -- it's the people raking their coffee pucks who should demonstrate to the rest of us that this stuff does something measurably useful.
All I'm doing is pointing out that this technique being advocated has no consistent definition or standards, and furthermore, I can't fail to notice that when people measure it they always report something like "oh well we didn't really see a difference but maybe we would've if we'd done a different test I guess ¯\_(ツ)_/¯". Or other times people see the opposite conclusion than "expected", like that thread on the HB forums where someone found that raking reduced TDS and EY, and Weiss _still_ found a way to justify it. In other words, this is looking like unfalsifiable nonsense.
Post evidence that your technique works using a properly designed experiment, with a consistent methodology, repeatable procedures, a large enough sample size, and correctly conducted statistical tests, and I'll reconsider.
"The fact that granular materials advect almost like liquids is why this technique produces constant results as you constantly recreate a perfectly even bed of coffee that you constantly compress in the same manner."
It'll do that right out of the grinder. You don't need to bless it with a raking tool and a veneer of pseudoscience.
@@isodoubIet You're right on the point that there is no consistent or standardized definition of a right WDT but definitely not on the point that there is no difference between the results right out of the grinder vs. the raking in-between. It made a noticeable difference on channeling, extraction evenness, puck resistance, yield and finally taste. And as I have been testing around with numerous ridiculously expensive tools, I stuck on just three things: A good grinder, my raking technique with the expensive raking tool that I have mentioned and a precision tamper. I cannot proof it with scientific results but with the experience that I personally made with it for months now, with different coffee beans, doses, grinders and espresso machines. 🤷♀️
@@3ede467 "I cannot proof it with scientific results but with the experience "
The problem with experience/anecdotes as evidence is that when dealing with a process as finicky as espresso it's incredibly difficult to correctly detect variations, let alone attribute them to a cause.
For all I know, you wanted raking to succeed and subconsciously tamped less evenly when you tried not doing it. Or maybe you adopted raking more or less at the same time as you improved your other skills and attributed the improvement to the raking.
It's very hard to tell, which is why evidence of near-scientific quality is needed. It's the reason drugs efficacy is assessed using careful controls and double-blind tests -- any number of things can induce a misleading bias, and evidence of the type like "it worked better in my experience" is more or less analogous to "I tried this medicine and I felt better afterwards". You don't really know why you felt better, only that you did, and that you took the medicine before that. Determining that the medicine is the likely cause of the improvement demands much more work.