# V60 - water / slurry level



## dsc (Jun 7, 2013)

Curious what people stick to when it comes to water / slurry levels in the V60. I've noticed that the only reasonable results seem to come from brews where I add water very slowly in a circular motion without stopping. Typically it's an 18g / 300g ratio, with 50g for preinfusion, wait a few secs and top up with the rest of the water, but with a very thin stream as to not disturb the bed. At the end of the pour the water level is roughly in the middle of the brewer.

Curious what others do and whether you also go all in with brewing water or do some sort of 40-60 or other split top up method.

T.


----------



## The Systemic Kid (Nov 23, 2012)

Been using Tetsu San's V60 method. Pleased with results - boosts acidity.


----------



## dsc (Jun 7, 2013)

The Systemic Kid said:


> Been using Tetsu San's V60 method. Pleased with results - boosts acidity.


Using water from Osmio Zero here - I've got bags of acidity







looking more for balance at this stage.

T.


----------



## Syenitic (Dec 1, 2013)

Think the input of @MWJB is needed here.

From me I am still trying to understand the mechanics of different pour strategies. A continuous pour for me always lead to to a quicker brew (but I perhaps had not enough patience to do it slowly enough) I have gone to slow 30g & 40g pours and seen the final few/couple drain much slower and the super-acidity disappear. Each pour starts just before the water drains to the level of the grounds. Had some bad results this way too (drying / stewed tea bitterness) so still learning.

Generally working with a couple of grams less than you at 15 or 16 into max of 250g in the cup and had some lovely results (for me/IMO etc).


----------



## Mrboots2u (May 10, 2013)

The Systemic Kid said:


> Been using Tetsu San's V60 method. Pleased with results - boosts acidity.


Under extracts then ')


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

I prefer to keep a low water level in small (13-14g doses) V60 brews (I don't often make big ones, don't enjoy that much coffee in one go, so can't really help with 18:300 brews).

Depends on grind setting but anything from a bloom & 6 pulses, to 10 or 11 small pulses at a coarse grind (pulses are small & even sized, so no need to specify a distinct bloom amount) .

As you go finer there's more risk of flushing fine particles through the paper (also with the higher drop from pouring into an 02), so I don't like to let these drain out. Recently I have been blooming for just long enough to get the dose wet, stir then in with 1st pulse, after 20s.

It doesn't matter whether you pour in pulses or in a steady stream, both equate to a pour rate that should be consistent & repeatable.

If a cup is a bit silty, I'll pour with fewer spirals, in some cases, I'll pour all the pulses down the middle after bloom with 6 pours.


----------



## dsc (Jun 7, 2013)

For anyone that uses a low water level, what's your technique for not disturbing the bed? As the V60 is fairly tall, it's hard to get close to the water level even with something like a Buono kettle, which means you are pouring from an inch or two and that imho is enough to mess up the bed.

I've found that low level brews give me rather flat and paper like tasting brews, even though they easily hit 1.25-1.35% EY. With very slow pouring and higher water levels I get nice sweet, rounded brews although the EY is a bit of hit and miss for some reason (most likely grind related).

T.


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

You can't 'not disturb the bed'. You want the wate to circulate around the grounds. You just don't want to do it so much that clarity is lost. Let the water drip straight down from spout, no hosing in an arc. Fewer spirals/more down the middle once all is wet.

%TDS figures without dose && beverage weight are meaningless.

EY shouldn't be hit and miss, over dozens of coffees & processes, over 100 brews you should be able to stay well within a 4% span, apart from maybe 1 or 2 coffees & it's unlikely the higher EYS will be problematic. If your EY is hit & miss, your recipe (not your grinder) is at fault.


----------



## dsc (Jun 7, 2013)

Imho you can, if you keep pouring heavily in a single spot you will effectively "drill" a hole in the bed and end up with a brew from a portion of the entire bed. If you leave an inch of water above, a thin stream will calm down before it reaches the coffee bed so it won't have as much impact, effectively only adding to the water volume which sits above the coffee.

With a fixed ratio ie. 18g/300g TDS isn't meaningless as you always end up with the same volume of brewed coffee, ground coffee is also fixed, so the only variable is TDS (fair enough I should've made that clearer







).

4% diff in terms of EY is huge imho but that's effectively where I am, some brews come out as 1.15% TDS, others are 1.40%, at this stage I'm not entirely sure why, so I need to so more isolated variable testing to come to a conclusion (grinder issue is complicated).

When you do split pours, do you always wait for water to drain all the way or aim to keep at least some water above the bed before the next pour kicks in?

T.


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

dsc said:


> Imho you can, if you keep pouring heavily in a single spot you will effectively "drill" a hole in the bed and end up with a brew from a portion of the entire bed. If you leave an inch of water above, a thin stream will calm down before it reaches the coffee bed so it won't have as much impact, effectively only adding to the water volume which sits above the coffee.
> 
> When you do split pours, do you always wait for water to drain all the way or aim to keep at least some water above the bed before the next pour kicks in?
> 
> T.


You might not see the bed churning up, but this is happening, an inch of water won't stop it.

If the dose is well wetted at bloom/1st pour & the bed is not hugely wide, pouring in the centre, enough to get the slurry level to rise at each pour, you'll do a good enough job of extracting the whole bed...if you didn't the EY would drop considerably.

Different grind settings & coffees will hold different amounts of liquid back, especially if you are impatient in pulling away the brewer at end. It only takes a moment to weigh the output.

I pour in 20s intervals always. With a medium drip grind & 6 pulses of ~35g (~10-15% passing through a Kruve 400) I don't see the bed drain out.

With a coarse grind, pouring 20g every 20s in spirals, yes this will usually drain out, but the grind is coarse enough to not be an issue with silt in the brew, average EY's a bit lower than the previous scenario (17-20%EY)

Maybe describe/video what exactly it is that you are doing, someone might have a crack at replicating it (I could have a go at the weekend).


----------



## jlarkin (Apr 26, 2015)

MWJB said:


> I pour in 20s intervals always. With a medium drip grind & 6 pulses of ~35g (~10-15% passing through a Kruve 400) I don't see the bed drain out.


As I was thinking the other day, hmmm I should use the Kruve for something. Do you just use it with a lower amount - and you keep it all but just use that about 10 - 15% as a benchmark for the right grind setting? (Sorry I know not directly related to this thread exactly, though I think tom had a Kruve as well, so might be of interest).


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

jlarkin said:


> As I was thinking the other day, hmmm I should use the Kruve for something. Do you just use it with a lower amount - and you keep it all but just use that about 10 - 15% as a benchmark for the right grind setting? (Sorry I know not directly related to this thread exactly, though I think tom had a Kruve as well, so might be of interest).


I do 10g test grinds, but it seems to be consistent with up to 20g. Yeah 12-13% +/-2% would be my start point for my recipe, you may not get exactly the same % each time so +/-2% seems reasonable.

I use 2 sieves, it's just that anyone who has one will have the 400 and I have used that the most. (Currently I'm using 700-1600, but I don't suppose many folk have the larger sizes).

I don't discard any portion of any grind in my day to day drip brews. You could experiment with discarding the largest 20% for drip, or


----------



## dsc (Jun 7, 2013)

I've done some more testing and it seems that the method of pouring seems to have little impact on TDS/EY levels. Mixing the slurry post blooming phase seems to kick the TDS up by 0.05%, biggest difference comes from single dosing vs. Bean by bean dosing as the latter is much coarser and thus requires a rather significant grind setting change.

T.


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

Method of pouring is a bit of a vague term. If you mean pouring all the water in a relatively consistent rate (whether spiralling/not spiralling/in a steady trickle/pulses) then I agree with you. If you man you can bloom and add all your water in 10s, compared to bloom and add all your water in say, in 2 minutes, then the difference will be as big as you can get.

Coarse grinds don't seem to need mixing/stirring/swirling with the water. It seems to permeate the bed OK just with the pour.

0.05%TDS isn't any difference over say 100 brews, it's not even much difference for a few brews with the same coffee.

It's "coarser", but needs a grind setting change? A change to what? Back to roughly where it was? How are you measuring the coarseness? What is your definition of coarseness (size at 0-16%, average size, size at largest 10% - if there is a difference in particle distribution, however unlikely this is, it doesn't seem practical to go by average size, it seems more logical to me to find a size that targets similar EY, then measure it.

I have logged over 1000 drip brews (different brewers & recipes)...there's plenty I don't know of course, but as far as impact on extraction goes, assuming similar brew temp/ratio/brew size, the biggest impact is the rate at which you pour the water, pour faster for fine until EY drops/becomes inconsistent (bigger than +/-0.5%EY for a single coffee, bigger than 3% span for a range to 1 stddev), pour slower for coarse until EYs drop out of tasty (might be below 18%EY and they still taste good).

But here's the most important thing to bear in mind - if your recipe is consistent (it should be) you can still make brews taste bad by flushing silt through the paper. This has a big impact on taste for consistent EY/water/coffee brews.


----------



## dsc (Jun 7, 2013)

MWJB said:


> Method of pouring is a bit of a vague term. If you mean pouring all the water in a relatively consistent rate (whether spiralling/not spiralling/in a steady trickle/pulses) then I agree with you. If you man you can bloom and add all your water in 10s, compared to bloom and add all your water in say, in 2 minutes, then the difference will be as big as you can get.
> 
> Coarse grinds don't seem to need mixing/stirring/swirling with the water. It seems to permeate the bed OK just with the pour.
> 
> ...


Method of pouring - I meant bloom + use all water in one go vs bloom and do several short pours with 20-30s breaks inbetween. I'm assuming here that brews are standard as in you don't do crazy shit like pouring half a litre in 5sec. Ratio is fixed, 18g coffee / 300g water off boil.

Coarseness - as in burr gap. For example I've done a brew this morning, at 2.00mm burr gap which was 1.15% TDS (not sure what EY that calcs to), just did another one at 1.85mm and got 1.25% TDS which is way too low imho for such a burr gap change. (note: sometimes if I have time I grind bean by bean which requires a finer grind setting / smaller burr gap).

Rate of pouring - I seem to be arriving at the same conclusion. The tastiest brews I've had are when I was pouring really slowly till around the 2nd min. The last brew I did was fairly fast with quite a lot of turbulence in the filter due to a higher pouring position and it's crap taste wise.

Silt - this is what I think happens often, what's the reason for this then?

T.


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

dsc said:


> Silt - this is what I think happens often, what's the reason for this then?
> 
> T.


Too much turbulence for the grind size used, letting the bed drain out with a too fine grind. Also, the more water you put through the dose seems to make it worse, but I don't know whether this is the case in terms of actual silt in the cup, or whether brewing slightly stronger (say 64g/L) just masks it.

You can bloom then pour all remaining water in a few sec with Melitta, Bonavita Immersion brewer used as a drip brewer & Kalita Wave & still get tasty, consistent brews, but they are more self regulating than V60.

Has anyone ever correlated burr gap to particle size (other than Ditting, but we don't know what the gap is, they must though)?


----------



## dsc (Jun 7, 2013)

MWJB said:


> Too much turbulence for the grind size used, letting the bed drain out with a too fine grind. Also, the more water you put through the dose seems to make it worse, but I don't know whether this is the case in terms of actual silt in the cup, or whether brewing slightly stronger (say 64g/L) just masks it.
> 
> You can bloom then pour all remaining water in a few sec with Melitta, Bonavita Immersion brewer used as a drip brewer & Kalita Wave & still get tasty, consistent brews, but they are more self regulating than V60.
> 
> Has anyone ever correlated burr gap to particle size (other than Ditting, but we don't know what the gap is, they must though)?


I seem to be getting much better results tastewise when pouring very slowly thus my original question re slow pours and very little turbulence. Still on some coffees I get that dreaded silt taste which just screws up the brew altogether. I've not found a method to battle this though, perhaps it's the initial bloom pour which makes or brakes things or does that not matter much?

Re burr gap - don't think so, it would change as burrs wear so perhaps not that wise to do. I only use the burr gap as a number, to have an idea where I am. For example espresso setting is somewhere close to 0.45mm, V60 is 2.00mm or thereabouts.

T.


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

dsc said:


> I seem to be getting much better results tastewise when pouring very slowly thus my original question re slow pours and very little turbulence. Still on some coffees I get that dreaded silt taste which just screws up the brew altogether. I've not found a method to battle this though, perhaps it's the initial bloom pour which makes or brakes things or does that not matter much?
> 
> T.


Look at turbulence as being both how aggressive the pour & how long. A shorter, faster pour may be better than a long slow pour with no gaps. E.g. the slowest I pour for a small brew is 20g every 20s interval, but each pour only takes 10s each, I'm not continually pouring for 200-220sec.

Recently I have reduced the bloom time to the minimum it takes to get 1.5-2x dose worth of water in, stir/swirl & then in with main pour.

Ultimately, if silt is an issue, go coarser & slow the average pour rate to keep EY up. But, maybe aim to have some time during the pour when water is not actually being poured.


----------



## dsc (Jun 7, 2013)

I've been toying with Rao's recipe recently, trying to get more consistency:

- 60g bloom, rao spin, leave till 0:45s mark

- add 160g of water, rao spin, leave till 1:30min

- add 155g of water, rao spin, leave to drain

- pour from around 12-15cm above bed which creates a lot of turbulence

- water off boil (Volvic)

Ratio: 22g coffee / 375g water

I struggle a bit with the post bloom spin, so tried spoon mixing, but that seems to affect overall drain times significantly (as in makes it longer) and also increases sweetness (or so it seem).

With the above I can get 19.5-20% EY extractions but taste wise it's not great, rather bitter and pretty silty. Taste improves as I go coarser, but then woody tastes come in and EY drops to 17-18%.

Things I've not tried yet:

1. Spoon mix post bloom for longer - although this seems hard to keep this consistent

2. Doing more split pours

3. Doing something funky with the grind like going gradually coarser as it grinds (I can vary the burr gap easily whilst grinding)

A few weeks ago I got two delicious brews, this was with Osmio Zero water with a touch of bicarb and I have absolutely no idea how I got there, all I know is that it was a single pour method, very slow pour. Taste was stunning, no silt, no wooden notes, just delicious, so I know it's doable, just have no idea how...also don't remember if I was doing bean by bean dosing, or just a standard dose dump, no idea how quickly I was pouring. It is possible that the grind coarsened whilst grinding which is why I'm thinking about point 3. above.

T.


----------



## dsc (Jun 7, 2013)

I pushed it finer today and it was definitely not good, I reckon getting anything above 19-20% that tastes good on a conic isn't really that simple. Happy to be proven wrong though







interestingly enough the TDS / EY started dropping off at some stage, so a good lesson in where the limits are.

Going back to coarser grind settings and will play around with more split pours.

T.


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

dsc said:


> I pushed it finer today and it was definitely not good, I reckon getting anything above 19-20% that tastes good on a conic isn't really that simple. Happy to be proven wrong though
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Depends on origin, quite often my tastiest African v60s are at the higher end around 21-22%. You'd need a bad, whirly blade grinder to limit you below 20%, even then you can hit 19-20% good tasting extractions with soluble coffees. Better grind, is better, but with drip & the longer ratios, you're no where near as limited by burr/grinder as you are with espresso.

My drip brews, with various brewers & conical grinders usually average over 19% up to 21%. Here's a small selection of examples...

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/18d9L9J_4YeHHiz8257JZ-2-W-CJaaAqYRCP-YOs4650/edit?usp=sharing


----------



## dsc (Jun 7, 2013)

MWJB said:


> Depends on origin, quite often my tastiest African v60s are at the higher end around 21-22%. You'd need a bad, whirly blade grinder to limit you below 20%, even then you can hit 19-20% good tasting extractions with soluble coffees. Better grind, is better, but with drip & the longer ratios, you're no where near as limited by burr/grinder as you are with espresso.
> 
> My drip brews, with various brewers & conical grinders usually average over 19% up to 21%. Here's a small selection of examples...
> 
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/18d9L9J_4YeHHiz8257JZ-2-W-CJaaAqYRCP-YOs4650/edit?usp=sharing


Which conics? Smaller hand grinders or smth like a Robur? I'm on a 71mm conical and it seems to generate a grind which just doesn't work well with the v60. I've read smth similar about the Sette, which is a conic and with standard spro burrs it needs a funky brew method and non standard ratios.

T.

Edit: just looked at the spreadsheet, duh.


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

dsc said:


> Which conics? Smaller hand grinders or smth like a Robur? I'm on a 71mm conical and it seems to generate a grind which just doesn't work well with the v60. I've read smth similar about the Sette, which is a conic and with standard spro burrs it needs a funky brew method and non standard ratios.
> 
> T.


Feldgrind, 3 different Lidos, 2 Zassenhaus, Porlex, Rhino, Hario Slim, Niche.

The Sette doesn't have a large grind range, it can make acceptable, small drip brews, but it's better suited to fine grinds (espresso & fine filtered steeps). Distribution gets wide as you go coarser with the AP burr.

I see absolutely no reason why a larger conical burr wouldn't work for drip. It must have a tighter distribution than a Sette/Porlex/blade grinder with gap at drip settings (not that this will automatically make it universally better). Manual drip just isn't that sensitive, you can dictate pour rate & workable brew size. Auto drip maybe a different matter, like typical espresso...you can only (usually) play with grind size ratio & brew size.

What is the grind that the 71mm makes? You can say whatever you like about what you think it is, but until you determine even the loosest spec. you don't really have any datum.

As your grind distribution gets wider, the overall grind gets coarser for a given quantity of smaller particles. As this happens, slow the pour down by more & smaller pulses. If the distribution is narrower, the overall grind is finer for the same quantity of smaller particles & maybe you can get away with lager faster pours? That's the beauty of manual drip, you're not beholden to one pour rate/brew size, you can reach a workable solution because you dictate the pour.


----------



## dsc (Jun 7, 2013)

MWJB said:


> Feldgrind, 3 different Lidos, 2 Zassenhaus, Porlex, Rhino, Hario Slim, Niche.
> 
> The Sette doesn't have a large grind range, it can make acceptable, small drip brews, but it's better suited to fine grinds (espresso & fine filtered steeps). Distribution gets wide as you go coarser with the AP burr.
> 
> ...


All I meant re the 71mm burrset is that it seems to have a wide spread of particles at larger burrgap levels ie. coarse grind will drain rather fast, but as you go finer to slow it down, it clogs up the filter and adds a nasty silty taste to brews. It might of course just be the burrset I'm using, so I'll swap sets when I get a moment and compare. Also possible that it behaves badly when single dosed or not running with a full hopper, no idea to be honest. All I know is that smaller brew sizes seem to work better and several smaller pours seem to kick the EY up in this case.

I have Jonathan's grind particle analysis tool running finally, so will also check my grinds with it.

T.


----------



## dsc (Jun 7, 2013)

@MWJB Mark do you do any spins / mixing post pour/pulses? I've been trying to mimic your Feldgrind V60 method with a 13.5g/225g ratio and 6 pulses, was surprised to see a 15g bloom. Anyways, tried it and it took ages to drain so clearly it needs a fairly coarse grind.

I had to write down the times / weight expected for each pulse as I got lost in the middle on the first brew and had to start from the beginning.

T.


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

dsc said:


> @MWJB Mark do you do any spins / mixing post pour/pulses? I've been trying to mimic your Feldgrind V60 method with a 13.5g/225g ratio and 6 pulses, was surprised to see a 15g bloom. Anyways, tried it and it took ages to drain so clearly it needs a fairly coarse grind.
> 
> I had to write down the times / weight expected for each pulse as I got lost in the middle on the first brew and had to start from the beginning.
> 
> T.


If you need a bit more water for the bloom, just catch up at the next pour (50g total), but 15-20g should be fine if you're just dropping gently on there.

I stir at the bloom. With the 01 brewer I swirl or a brief stir at the surface after the last addition of water (don't bother with the 02).

Grind size is 750-800um ASTM average (~25-30% passing through a 600um ASTM sieve, 11-15% passing through 400 Kruve) so fairly typical range for manual drip & a little finer than SCAA/USdoC drip.

A coarse grind to my mind would be ~900um ASTM average, or over, where the bed can't hold much water over the bed at a pour rate slow enough to extract (e.g. bed drains out frequently between pulses).

To make it more intuitive, since that run of brews, I pulse 33g each time & bloom with a weight ending in "3". So bloom 23g, then 56g total at pour 1, 90g at pour 2, 123g at pour 3... and then the sequence repeats again 156g, 190g, 223g.


----------



## dsc (Jun 7, 2013)

I've tried it again with a coarser grind, but as I expected it was too coarse r I'm cocking smth up.

What pouring height do you normally use Mark?

I've done a 15g bloom and that barely wets the top of the grinds, so spoon mixing just turns the bed into a mushy dry/wet mixture which looks and feels wrong (ie. more than half is dry and it doesn't make much sense). I was doing a swirl/spin after each pulse, the first 3 pulses drained fairly fast ie. almost nothing left in the brewer at the point when the next pulse is going in but from the 4th pulse onwards the filter starts clogging and the last pulse + drain takes almost 2min which brings the total to 4min, so 1min longer than in your case. TDS came out at 1.12% with 195g of brew, so around 16% EY which is shockingly low.

I'll try a larger bloom and less spins to see how that affects the drain.

T.


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

dsc said:


> I've tried it again with a coarser grind, but as I expected it was too coarse r I'm cocking smth up.
> 
> What pouring height do you normally use Mark?
> 
> ...


You're pouring the bloom too hard. Just trickle it on, use 20g or 23g (see previous post on repeating weight intervals every 100g). The idea is to wet the dose, but not have significant drip through. The dose won't hold more than 1.5 x it's own weight at bloom.

Pour height is just above the brewer rim.

I don't remember saying do a swirl/spin after each pulse. I just stir the bloom, swirl the brewer after last addition of water on the 01 brewer (greater agitation from the higher drop of a 02 should do all the work for you).

I don't know what you are doing wrong but, yes you are doing something wrong. Make a video &/or compare to this...

https://wordpress.com/post/markwjburness.wordpress.com/1002

As the brew progresses each pulse will take gradually longer to draw down, last water in by 2:20-2:30 for a 30s bloom, less if 20s bloom. Dwell from end of last pulse interval (2:30) to dry bed is averaging ~30s.

Long brew time & low EY suggests too fine a grind, was it very bitter? Japanese filter papers (I've never used the Dutch ones)?

When trying a new/different grinder I typically do a couple of brews to get my eye in. Then I start logging. Not had an EY as low as 16% (never even had one under 17.5%). 100 brews (half a dozen different grinders) averaged 20.1%EY with a std.dev of 0.87%EY.

Avg brew time (mostly 01 brews) is 3:00 with 30s bloom, std.dev brew time (to dry bed) is +/-12s.

As you can see, this is not something I have just done a couple of times & glibly decided it works. I'd say it's pretty thoroughly tested & was arrived at after a fair bit of prior testing.

Grind size is the same size I normally use for Melitta & Kalita Wave brews (with revised pouring) of the same size, with similar consistency.


----------



## dsc (Jun 7, 2013)

I'll go with 20g bloom and not spin after pulses, it's just a habit I've got from previous test brews. Will do a brewer spin at the very end and pour from a lower height, I was higher up before and that creates loads of turbulence in the brewer which perhaps does something bad.

Using 01 brewer and Japanese filters, the transparent foiled pack (I know there's different filter versions out there).

I've had very low EYs trying to limit the time it takes for draining to finish. Taste wise it was fairly sweet and fruity, no bitterness, just very weak.*

I did read something interesting re Sette and using that grinder for filter:

https://www.baratza.com/looks-can-be-deceiving-dialing-in-with-the-sette-burr/

"So we find ourselves grinding at 31 for a single-cup pour-over with a muddy bed and slow draw-down. The solution here is to adjust our thinking a little bit, and move back down towards the fine end of the grind adjustment. Although the over-all grind will be a little finer, the proportion of fines to large particles will be more amenable to manual brewing.

If you find that you're still struggling to keep draw-down times at a normal level, try a lighter or gentler pour, or "low and slow" on smaller pour-overs like the V60. This looks like a small, gentle stream of water with less agitation applied to your coffee. You'll notice that your bed looks less muddy and that water makes its way through the coffee in time. For larger batches like a Chemex, try pouring into the center of the cone and applying water all at once, or "high and dry." This leads to a bed that is cone shaped as well, and which allows faster passage of water through coffee."

Which does make sense and I think what actually happens in my case. I've started preping for using Jonathan's distribution app and the grind has loads of very fine particles which behave like powder ie. you can smear them on paper and it leaves a trace, on top of this there's massive 1-2mm grinds which look way too large for manual brewing, but this grind setting still causes major slow downs and filter clogging. I'm at a 2.00mm burrgap which for a conic is huge, as in the coarser grind surfaces are so far apart, that only a few bean breaks are needed for fragments to pass, so I'm not really surprised that brews are too weak, but on the other hand I'm still getting filter clogging even at this level.

For sure it looks like loads of testing was done with this approach, much appreciated Mark!

T.


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

dsc said:


> I've started preping for using Jonathan's distribution app and the grind has loads of very fine particles which behave like powder ie. you can smear them on paper and it leaves a trace, on top of this there's massive 1-2mm grinds which look way too large for manual brewing, but this grind setting still causes major slow downs and filter clogging. I'm at a 2.00mm burrgap which for a conic is huge, as in the coarser grind surfaces are so far apart, that only a few bean breaks are needed for fragments to pass, so I'm not really surprised that brews are too weak, but on the other hand I'm still getting filter clogging even at this level.
> 
> For sure it looks like loads of testing was done with this approach, much appreciated Mark!
> 
> T.


For filter brewing a std.dev of the average grind size, with steel burrs & bearing support, will usually be a factor of around 1.4 with ASTM sieves (1.7 with Kruve).

So if we work with 750um (just as an illustration) as the average & assume the entire distribution is contained within +/- four standard deviations, this allows a few of the larger particles to certainly be as big as 2mm (750x *3.8* = 2881) and to still be normal. The middle 2/3 portion, or fillet of the grind will be between 500 & 1000um (400 & 1200, or 500 & 1400 Kruve).

*Note: 1.4x1.4x1.4x1.4 = 3.84.*

Sweet, fruity, very weak - OK, sounds like too coarse, maybe too much agitation.

Using a Sette with AP burr for drip sounds too much like making a rod for your own back to me. I have no complaints for fine grinds with it, I may pick up a #2/BG burr at some point. I don't think the Sette with AP burr compares directly with the existing conical grinders, my Lido E apparently also has the Etzinger AP burr and this aligns much better with other steel, espresso based burrs of a similar size.


----------



## dsc (Jun 7, 2013)

Yup agreed that using a dedicated espresso grinder for brewed is most likely not the best idea









With sieves am I correct to think that I could get myself a set of 500/750/1200/1500 and simply check the grind distribution? There's loads of used ones on ebay or cheaper ones from China so a small set should cost much.

T.


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

I don't think it being an espresso grinder is the issue, all my other grinders have burrs that were conceived for espresso and they don't produce a grind like the Sette.

600 & 1180/1200 would be typical for 2 sieves. But 500 & 1000 would be fine. 750&1500 might be on the large side, you'd only capture about 45% of the grind between them at this kind of grind setting.


----------



## dsc (Jun 7, 2013)

Should've said burrset.

Re sieves, sorry I think I made a mistake on the sizes, I thought you can use a 4 sieve set up with sieve sizes determined by the 1.4 factor, so 500, 500*1.4=700, 700*1.4=980, 980*1.4=1372, or is that wrong?

T.


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

Sure, 500, 700, 980, 1372 (or nearest, so 1000 & 1400/1500 would also be OK if easier to find) will work fine for a range of drip grinds.

4 sieves and a catch pan is a handful to shake manually, you only need 2 mesh sieves (one twice the size of the other) to capture +/-1 std.dev.


----------



## dsc (Jun 7, 2013)

So a two sieve 600/1180 setup might be easier to use I guess.

I know I'm going to regret asking this, but I reckon there's a shaking protocol as well?

T.


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

dsc said:


> So a two sieve 600/1180 setup might be easier to use I guess.
> 
> I know I'm going to regret asking this, but I reckon there's a shaking protocol as well?
> 
> T.


Officially it's 5min, go for it if you want the work out 

I do 2min, side to side shaking with occasional taps to the side & gentle vertical knocks on a counter top (you don't want too much vigorous up & down movement as grounds can spill out the top/get trapped in the cover if you have one).

Don't use more than 1g/square inch of mesh. So ~7g max in the 3" sieves, ~50g in 8".


----------



## dsc (Jun 7, 2013)

So with a two sieve set up and 1200 on top of 600 I'll end up with some coffee on the top of 1200 - particles larger than 1200, some on top of 600 - particles larger than 600 but smaller than 1200 and some in the tray below - particles smaller than 600. What's the % breakdown for lets say "typical" manual drip grind?

T.


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

I'd say in the region of:

>600 &

>1200 1-20%

SCAA drip is 18%


----------



## dsc (Jun 7, 2013)

I've tried two brews with the no spin / pour from a lower level approach and I can easily hit the 3min mark, which is a positive. Yesterday's brew hit 1.25%tds which was around 19%ey but it wasn't very impressive tastewise, quite bitter, so I went a bit coarser this morning but didn't have time to refract it, can't really judge it tastewise as I used a weird water mix and it all came out super acidic.

Will try and do a vid today which should make it easier to pick holes in the way I do things.

T.


----------



## Zephyp (Mar 1, 2017)

MWJB said:


> Recently I have reduced the bloom time to the minimum it takes to get 1.5-2x dose worth of water in, stir/swirl & then in with main pour.


Did this make any difference? I've sometimes wondered about the necessity of a 30-40s bloom when one is stirring it.

I recall from a video about extraction by Matt Perger that he suggested to get all the grounds wet in as short of time as possible.


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

Zephyp said:


> Did this make any difference? I've sometimes wondered about the necessity of a 30-40s bloom when one is stirring it.
> 
> I recall from a video about extraction by Matt Perger that he suggested to get all the grounds wet in as short of time as possible.


I haven't done enough brews to give a definitive answer on this, at this stage I can't say there is a noticeable drop off...TBC


----------



## dsc (Jun 7, 2013)

@MWJB just a quick question re sieves again, what's the most flexible approach for filter and espresso levels? 4 sieves as mentioned earlier and using two at a time or less / more?

I'm eyeballing some test sieves on ebay at the moment, most seem to be 200mm dia, so fairly handy, just finding the right aperture is a pain.

T.


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

dsc said:


> @MWJB just a quick question re sieves again, what's the most flexible approach for filter and espresso levels? 4 sieves as mentioned earlier and using two at a time or less / more?
> 
> I'm eyeballing some test sieves on ebay at the moment, most seem to be 200mm dia, so fairly handy, just finding the right aperture is a pain.
> 
> T.


 Using more than 2 will be tricky by hand, unless you sift 2 samples. 2 sieves will tell you something about the distribution.

Fine espresso might not work at all?

Maybe 250 & 500, for medium espresso, 300 & 600 for coarser end?

For manual drip filter 600 & 1200, finer filter 400-425 & 840-850?


----------



## blackbeard (Feb 28, 2020)

Zephyp said:


> Did this make any difference? I've sometimes wondered about the necessity of a 30-40s bloom when one is stirring it.
> 
> I recall from a video about extraction by Matt Perger that he suggested to get all the grounds wet in as short of time as possible.


 I've tried going straight into pouring after stirring and also haven't noticed much difference, but I've only directly compared a few times


----------

