# VST refractometer / Mojo owners / users



## dsc (Jun 7, 2013)

Ladies / Gents,

curious who else on these boards has a Mojo that he / she uses frequently? Would be good to talk Mojo, exchange ideas etc.

Regards,

T.


----------



## Glenn (Jun 14, 2008)

Early adopter here. I use mine all the time.


----------



## dsc (Jun 7, 2013)

Cheers Glenn, what do you use it for? espresso / brewed or both?

Regards,

T.


----------



## Glenn (Jun 14, 2008)

Initially for brewed but sometimes for espresso as well

Most importantly I use taste before measuring and then tweak accordingly


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

I have the LAB II, brewed, refractometer.

As Glenn says, taste is key...2 identical brew TDS measurements don't guarantee identical taste.


----------



## CoffeeJohnny (Feb 28, 2011)

I can't bring myself to pay the price when a good brix refractometer appears to do the same. Obviously mojo refutes this but I would like to try them side by side.


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

I think AndyS made a great point in the other VST/Mojo thread...a refractometer, or even a conductive TDS meter, can give you a mechanism by which to assess & improve your own brews (relative to your own, similar brews), but when conversing with others, the ability to speak in a common syntax, with known parameters, can be useful.

On the other hand...I can't help feeling that the way in which we asses brews technically, is still very much in it's infancy and whilst George Howell/Vince/VST should be applauded from dragging us out of the 1960's (who remembers classics like, "you can't leave a French press for more than 6 minutes"? Bwah, ha ha ha!), we may just as easily be on the verge of learning how little we really know? Nevertheless, if I wasn't sure the VST was the most accurate & purpose specific TDS meter, I wouldn't have dropped the wedge on it.


----------



## CoffeeJohnny (Feb 28, 2011)

From what I can gather you can calculate everything from a brix and as such can talk tds etc from there. Essentially a VST is an expensive digital refractometer. I could be wrong but that's the impression I get. I know there are more expensive items such as a spectrophotometer if wanting to get high end lab equipment involved. So is it simply price pats for that little bit extra accuracy in an acceptable time?


----------



## radish (Nov 20, 2011)

I have the older Coffee model, the PC software that came with it and the Mojo apps for coffee and espresso. Use it a fair bit (mainly for brew), though was a little bummed when VST dropped the nD entry from the Mojo apps.


----------



## GlennV (Mar 29, 2013)

Another happy user here. I have the LAB II espresso & coffee, and use it for both. I've also tried both analogue and digital Brix refractometers, and there really is no comparison. The VST unit is considerably more precise than comparably priced Brix units, and without that precision I don't think it's worth bothering to be honest - as you'll be pushed to measure the difference between 18% and 20% extractions.


----------



## CoffeeJohnny (Feb 28, 2011)

This is the first non biased (i think) feedback I have recieved usually it's on twitter and I get VST trying to tell me how wrong I am. I am thankful for you telling me how it is. I can't justify that outlay just yet, even if the VST store is offering $100 off right now with a bundled package.


----------



## dsc (Jun 7, 2013)

I was under the impression that coffee for whatever reason isn't the best fluid to use with brix meters. That is why the VST Mojo is calibrated for coffee and also offers the extra precision needed when doing brew tests.

To be honest it was hard to convince myself to buy the unit and the software, I wanted a remote app, but being an Android user there was nothing available at that point in time (still not available, although I was told it's coming).

I was planning to do loads of tests to see how different methods and things you do doing a brew (like stirring, jumping on one leg etc.) affect the final result, but sadly I've got no time for any of that and I won't have for the next few months.

Regards,

T.


----------



## CoffeeJohnny (Feb 28, 2011)

So the iPhone app has all the software you need? Or is there more?


----------



## dsc (Jun 7, 2013)

Not sure what the Iphone app has, so a bit hard to say

Regards,

T.


----------



## CoffeeJohnny (Feb 28, 2011)

Steve from Hasbean said it does thanks though


----------



## vikingboy (Mar 11, 2013)

Im thinking of pulling the trigger on one of the VST refractometers, is it worth the additional cost for the lab version over standard?

Id be interested to know if its possible to hire one for a few weeks to see if I do *need* one, vs another gadget to fiddle with


----------



## Glenn (Jun 14, 2008)

I've got a refractometer which I could hire out. PM me for details


----------



## vikingboy (Mar 11, 2013)

Thanks Glenn, appreciated the offer. Anyone wanting to experiment its definitely worth talking to Glenn if you are unsure of purchasing.

My Lab kit arrived this week, been really interesting getting to grips with it and putting some numbers next to my cups.

I need some more clinical wipes, is there anywhere on the high street to pick up some?


----------



## vikingboy (Mar 11, 2013)

OMG! Wish I bought this thing when I first started making coffee at home! Coffee is starting to make sense now....

After trying to make Kalita pourover with Londinium Espresso's Brazilian Fazenda Passeio, I just couldn't get it to taste right, always way too "strong". I use quotes because I hadn't got a clue why it wasn't enjoyable.

Having measured several attempts at a TDS of 1.7+ and spat more coffee down the sink than my tongue cares to recall, I finally figured out how to dial in my shots across the brew map by changing the dose and variables such as water temp & grind etc. I've just nailed a really enjoyable 18.26%, 1.28% TDS brew.


----------



## vikingboy (Mar 11, 2013)

what was once just mysterious or borderline frustrating is now almost too much fun!









I wanted to try a touch stronger brew which is my personal preference so +0.2g and also wanted to hit the 19% on the head so tried a touch of agitation during the bloom phase and ended up with this...19.15% @ 1.42% TDS.


----------



## James Hoffmann (Jul 24, 2008)

A couple of points:

The VST Lab II is essentially just a digital refractometer. Any refractometer will do as long as it reads to 5 decimal places, which is where you need to be to get sufficient accuracy. The proprietary part of the unit is the part that can take the refractive index and immediately convert it to TDS for coffee.

nD was disabled because many people were using it, believing it to be a more accurate input into the software than the TDS displayed by the unit (version 1). The unit only shows 4 decimals of refractive index, though it is actually reading to 5 and using that calculation for the TDS output. This means the TDS output on the version 1 units is more accurate than the refractive index.

However, when measuring espresso on version 1 units nD was the way to go because the TDS was often out of range for the unit (so it would consider it some sort of user error and output an error code).

Disclaimer: I was a beta tester of version 1. I have received a few free units (including one I won). I have bought several more, including the lab II bundle at full retail price. They are a vital part of our workflow in the training room and as part of QC.


----------



## dsc (Jun 7, 2013)

One thing I'm not so sure about, so I thought I'd ask. Patience, this might take a while

Using the same brewing protocol and the same coffee typically gives the same results TDS wise. If you grind finer the final brew TDS tends to increase and if you go coarser TDS drops. From my experiments TDS increases as the coffee brews up to a certain max level after which steeping for longer (>5min) doesn't really affect TDS much. I guess it makes sense as the brew saturates at a certain point and the coffee simply doesn't add anything to the brew, apart maybe from stuff which you wouldn't want, but that's purely a guess.

I've always been told and seen this myself that you can either grind finer and steep shorter or grind coarser and steep longer. This makes sense of course, finer particles brew faster and dissolve partially faster as well. I've had numerous issues with my brews previously and a lot of people suggested grinding coarser and steeping longer which is not something I'm on board with to be honest or simply don't quite yet understand. Lets assume a scenario

'I brew following a protocol, I get X% TDS which is correct in envelope on the Mojo software. The brew is sour and not very pleasant'

If I steep for longer not much will happen to the TDS, but taste something might happen. Lets assume this takes me into 8-10min brews, lets also assume I don't really want to wait that long. Another 'fix' would be then to grind finer and steep shorter, but that will inevitably bring me to the same situation. Say I go from grinder setting 5 to 4 (finer) and steep for 4min rather than 5min, to get the same TDS, is that going to be a comparable brew to the setting 5 / 5min brew with the same TDS? If steeping longer is the only solution, why does it always state 'steep 4-5min' on most brewing methods? why are we striving to achieve 3-4min brew times on pour over and 4-5min on french press? where did that number come from?

If TDS isn't affected much by steeping longer than 5min, why does the taste profile change? At that point your brew is at around 70degC, hardly a lot to brew the coffee any longer. Also I was always under the impression that TDS is a measure of how much coffee was pulled out of...well the coffee (if you know what I mean). This means that a proper TDS should say whether a brew is properly done, ie. brewed properly or simply properly extracted. Going further with this I always thought that brews with low TDS are underextracted (underdeveloped) and brews with high TDS are overextracted (overdeveloped). Still I find myself in a situation quite often when the TDS is fine, the brew point is right in the correct brew envelope, but the brew is simply too sour, as if its underdeveloped. Is that down to the bean, my taste buds or something else?

Hopefully someone can chime in

Regards,

T.


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

In a steeped brew the level of extraction may be limited by grind distribution size. The larger the grind, the lower level the extraction may effectively be clamped at. Going finer may raise level of extraction...but may not be enough to do that in a significantly shorter timeframe. (I use "lower" and "raise" as relative terms, within accepted ideals, rather than to necessarily identify a defect).

The VST software does precisely what it is intended to do, corrects steeped brews in terms of concentration, beverage yield and ideal box yield extraction(compared to drip brews of the same concentration & reasonable, café friendly, extraction time & is backed up by blind tasting). However, there are circumstances that may require a little more analysis (light roasted coffees, certain beans, quirks relating to a specific brewer).

This next bit is a bit of a brain bender, read it carefully so you don't misquote me ;-)....a certain TDS of a specific portion of a brew may be the same as another portion, but taste different (generally regarding brewed, as much with drip). I'm not saying TDS & yield do not relate to a flavour preference, I am saying we need to consider the average TDS of the whole beverage (subsequently what we call the overall yield). Yes, the flavour may change over a period, but measurable TDS not necessarily correlate to this change....the jury is out on why (AFAIK), but consider a steeped brew infuses the brew water, there may be areas of different components (early & late extraction), it may take time for these flavour carriers to even out across the brew?

I'm not suggesting stirring up your brew mid/late steep, to even things out (this may lead to defects in the taste, but no measurable increase in TDS...agitate early & light with a steep, then leave it)...but a good stir of the final beverage, in carafe, may help, top to bottom, rather than just 'round & 'round.

"Properly extracted"...ha ha, I have used that term myself...but there may be regions of interest/preferences within the range of proper extraction. Your Mojo software does allow you to tailor the program to brew for these regions of interest & preferences, it has presets/default settings but these are not dictating where you necessarily have to aim for. The trick is establishing where your region of interest primarily is ...hopefully, I will have some answers on this soon, but I'd rather wait until I have some consensus before going off half cocked...?

Personally, I see steeping as having the benefit that you don't necessarily have to rush, time to the second (unless you have a queue of impatient customers), at home if I want a quick brew I go drip (not that certain coffees don't shine at shorter steeps, they certainly do).

I have had Clever Dripper brews that were ~60C at draw down, I know of ~50C brews....I couldn't/wouldn't say whether the plateau of extraction was due to temp more than grind, or the other way round...but "stuff" still seems to be happening at the lower temps, whether "extraction" per se, or homogenisation of some sort? I couldn't say whether it stops, or just slows at a logarithmic rate. Obviously though this has an impact, especially if you like your coffee hot, as most do.

dsc wrote "Still I find myself in a situation quite often when the TDS is fine, the brew point is right in the correct brew envelope, but the brew is simply too sour, as if its underdeveloped. Is that down to the bean, my taste buds or something else?" I don't think there is anything wrong with your tastebuds...I think we may be looking more at bean, roast level & "something else".

"If steeping longer is the only solution, why does it always state 'steep 4-5min' on most brewing methods? why are we striving to achieve 3-4min brew times on pour over and 4-5min on french press? where did that number come from?" E E Lockhart's work at the CBI/CBC as far as I can tell (4-6min for French press, based on darker roasts than you are using, perhaps not as freshly roasted & ground. But this work has been subsequently reinforced by the SCAA & added to by VST. Interestingly, whilst researching the French press (yes, only I, am a big enough anorak to actually "research" the simplest home brewer known to man







) I stumbled across suggestions that "devotees recommend 20 minutes or more"...but bear in mind these devotees aren't churning out pot after pot in a coffee shop, nor necessarily trying to exploit the light tea like body of an Ethiopian coffee, for instance.


----------



## dsc (Jun 7, 2013)

Good stuff Mark thanks for your reply, it's always good to talk about experiences with a Mojo and brewed coffee in general.

I do normally stir the brew before taking a sample, and by stir I mean go heavy with a spoon. I've been having some strange experiences recently, something I haven't had before where the TDS simply refuses to go down, even though I'm grinding boulders. I'm sure this is down to the Clever brewer and possibly my grinder not being consistent enough, but I'm brewing at 1.3% TDS + other parameters which are perfectly ok according to the Mojo software, but the brews yet again are coming out rather sourish. This isn't really a surprise as the grind is super coarse, but I'm already doing 300ml hot water + 20.6g brews, so dosing less and grinding finer isn't really an option. It is true of course that this coffee might not shine at 1.3%, but it's too late now...I've used up a whole bag.

Btw Mark I've tried your super fine + no stir method and I had to leave for 20min to get the sourness down to reasonable levels. Taste wise this wasn't anything extraordinary and I've run out of coffee to do further testing

Regards,

T.


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

dsc said:


> Btw Mark I've tried your super fine + no stir method and I had to leave for 20min to get the sourness down to reasonable levels. Taste wise this wasn't anything extraordinary and I've run out of coffee to do further testing
> 
> Regards,
> 
> T.


Well, getting past the sourness is positive, push on farther and you'll pick up more sweetness. At that ratio (20.5/300 & higher than I suggested) I'd personally be looking at 1.61%TDS target with lighter roasted coffee. I'll have more time to look into the CCD & getting the yield higher, in a reasonable time, tomorrow...but I'm steering towards brew ratios that are a little lower, plus the finer grinds.

The CCD often overshoots the expected TDS at reasonable grind, this is why you are struggling to get it down...the lower brew ratio will do this. I'd aim for more like 1.4%TDS, but set the expected yield higher than you anticipate in the Mojo preferences, 24% minimum? - I aim for 25% [with the old, clear plastic CCD, I'm getting slightly different results with the new smoked version in back to back brews] should end up around 60g/l?

(EDIT: 60g/l can end up weak if you undershoot, so 63-65g/l and 1.5%TDS is perhaps a better target).

I think a lot of this is due to the CCD draining bottom first...what would be left in the grinds in a French press, is now the first bit into your cup. What is left in the CCD's grinds is the lighter components (which would, conversely, be first in your cup in a FP brew).


----------



## dsc (Jun 7, 2013)

One more additional thing I don't quite understand is the extraction yield values shown by the Mojo software when doing immersion brewing. It's way off what you calculate manually, for example:

TDS of 1.52% and a bev. weight of 329g. With 31g of coffee used that's 5g / 31g = 16.13% extraction yield, but mojo says 20.79%

Any reason why?

Regards,

T.


----------



## AndyS (May 12, 2012)

dsc said:


> One more additional thing I don't quite understand is the extraction yield values shown by the Mojo software when doing immersion brewing. It's way off what you calculate manually, for example:
> 
> TDS of 1.52% and a bev. weight of 329g. With 31g of coffee used that's 5g / 31g = 16.13% extraction yield, but mojo says 20.79%
> 
> Any reason why?


In drip brewing it is assumed that the brew water retained in the grounds when you're done has a strength near zero. This is pretty close to the actual situation.

In immersion brewing it is assumed that all the brew water becomes beverage of equal strength, whether it ends up in your cup or remains in the grounds. This is also pretty close to the actual situation.

So a more realistic approximation of the immersion calculation is: (%TDS) X (brew water weight) / (dry coffee dose). This will not agree exactly with the more accurate Mojo calculation, but it is closer than your original calculation.


----------



## dsc (Jun 7, 2013)

Thanks for the info Andy, it clears it up a bit.

Regards,

T.


----------



## EricC (Apr 25, 2011)

New user here.

I have just bought the VST Refractometer II mainly to use with espresso.

Can any of the long term users give me any pointers to getting started?

I am using it with VST's own baskets, and usually use the 18 gram basket.

Regards

Eric


----------



## AndyS (May 12, 2012)

There is quite a bit of info out there, although it can be a bit tedious going through it all when you're just starting. Here are a few:

http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0092/7622/files/Lab_Coffee_User_Guide.pdf?132

http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0092/7622/files/Coffee_and_VST_Refractometers.pdf?128






I would make a few personal recommendations:

1. Keep everything (refractometer, cups, syringes, pipettes, etc) very clean and DRY. Stray moisture in any of these implements will dilute your sample and throw off your measurement.

2. Check the refractometer calibration at the beginning of each session with room-temperature distilled water.

3. Espresso samples should be filtered and also cooled to room temperature prior to measurement.

4. The most careful refractometer measurement techniques won't be useful if sound barista technique isn't diligently applied (eg: even grounds distribution, level tamping, lack of gross channeling, well-designed filter baskets, etc).

Lastly, ignore the skeptics who will scoff at your refractometer usage. They will tell you to rely only on your taste buds and forget about the measurements. Although many of these folks are well-meaning, their criticisms often stem from ignorance and insecurity. Proper use of measurement techniques COMBINED with careful tasting is the fastest way to move coffee culture forward.


----------



## EricC (Apr 25, 2011)

Many thanks for the links Andy.

I had indeed found the Matt Perger video and watched it a couple of times already.

I must admit that i basically skimmed through instead of reading thoroughly the other two plus the included guide, which did not help at all.

The main thing that i was / am having difficulty with is the software with all of its parameters and understanding its use in my case specifically with regards to assessing my Espresso.

Do i input the reading from the refractometer and that then gives me a visual reference as to where my sample is on the Universal Brewing Control Chart?

I have assumed that the software is mainly for roasters, and for setting / storing the starting parameters for anyone who uses lots of different coffees. Although i could be and probably are way off with this assumption.

Regards

Eric


----------



## AndyS (May 12, 2012)

EricC said:


> The main thing that i was / am having difficulty with is the software with all of its parameters and understanding its use in my case specifically with regards to assessing my Espresso.
> 
> Do i input the reading from the refractometer and that then gives me a visual reference as to where my sample is on the Universal Brewing Control Chart?
> 
> I have assumed that the software is mainly for roasters, and for setting / storing the starting parameters for anyone who uses lots of different coffees. Although i could be and probably are way off with this assumption.


Of course everyone will use the software differently. I have found that with most coffees, my best shots usually result from extractions in the 19% range. So after pulling a shot with a new coffee, I taste it first and then enter the measured dose, beverage amount and TDS into the software. This gives me the extraction yield. If I'm not satisfied with the tart/sweet/bitter balance of the shot, both my taste buds and the extraction yield number will give me clues on how to adjust the next shot. Hopefully those clues point in the same direction, but not always!

Another use of the refractometer/software combo involves experimenting with various parameters to see how they affect yield. For instance, how do choice of grind, dose, pre-infusion, pressure profile, tamp style, shot time, brew ratio, etc, change the yield and taste?

Yet another application for the software is in evaluating roasts. Sometimes you will buy a coffee and love it, but the next batch of the same coffee won't be nearly as good. If the extraction yield numbers are very different from batch to batch even as you keep your extraction parameters as constant as possible, it probably means the roaster is having difficulty repeating their roasts (it happens to the best of them).

Pretty soon I will have an EK43 grinder, and another interesting thing will be to see if shots at 22%+ yield will taste as good as folks say.


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

AndyS said:


> Pretty soon I will have an EK43 grinder, and another interesting thing will be to see if shots at 22%+ yield will taste as good as folks say.


We're all looking forward to hearing your findings (how soon is "pretty soon"...just so I can manage the suspense?







), but, is it really congruent to refer to a 22%+ EK43 extraction (with greatly reduced fines & chunks) in terms of the established gold cup parameters? Surely by eliminating (to an extent) overextracted fines & pushing the sweetspot upwards, we're really looking at a new/different region of interest, as the goal posts have moved some...especially if typical, non-EK43, extraction levels no longer deliver?


----------



## EricC (Apr 25, 2011)

That is good news for me. I was starting to think that i had missed something. I can see that i have an awful lot to learn about using the refractometer and its software.

I hadn't thought of using it as a tool to analyse roasts, merely to use it as a log for those roasts.

I can't wait to see what you think of the EK43.

All the best

Eric


----------



## dsc (Jun 7, 2013)

Eric, there's definitely lots to be learned by using the VST device, quite often you also have to just let go and do things different to what you've been doing so far.

What's so special about the EK43?

Regards,

T.


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

dsc said:


> What's so special about the EK43?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> T.


More consistent grind size distribution, lower incidence of fines.


----------



## dsc (Jun 7, 2013)

Surely that down to the burr set? Is that a brewed grinder used for espresso? I thought initial tests showed it was brilliant but later on it got dropped for some reason.

Regards,

T.


----------



## garydyke1 (Mar 9, 2011)

3FE said it (ie the single dose workflow) wasn't workable when busy, they had pulled it off but only just . Grind quality was never an issue.


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

It's a coffee/spice grinder, been around a couple of decades. Scott Rao identified it as being capable of producing great coffee at 22%+ yields, been used for Turkish & brewed. Espresso interest increased with Matt Pergers WBC set this year & Ben Kaminsky's observations. 3FE were using it for espresso service but it seems to have been a little more labour intensive, requiring pre-weighed dosing, plus they were involved with testing of the new N. Simonelli grinder.


----------



## dsc (Jun 7, 2013)

It all boils down to the burr set, although it seems to be a rather large one, similar to the ones seen on the big Mahls. With the ZR-71 I'd like to have interchangeable burr sets, so if all goes well, I might be able to stick that burrs set on as well. That it of course if I can get one for reasonable monies.

3FE should've put a timed relay / timer on it and simply use a hopper, unless there's something stopping that sort of operation. I'm surprised they got reasonable extractions out of that at all to be honest, being a brewed type grinder with little fines. I'm guessing you'd have to go super hardcore on the fine setting to get reasonable flows through the puck.

Regards,

T.


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

dsc said:


> It all boils down to the burr set, although it seems to be a rather large one, similar to the ones seen on the big Mahls. With the ZR-71 I'd like to have interchangeable burr sets, so if all goes well, I might be able to stick that burrs set on as well. That it of course if I can get one for reasonable monies.
> 
> 3FE should've put a timed relay / timer on it and simply use a hopper, unless there's something stopping that sort of operation. I'm surprised they got reasonable extractions out of that at all to be honest, being a brewed type grinder with little fines. I'm guessing you'd have to go super hardcore on the fine setting to get reasonable flows through the puck.
> 
> ...


Sorry, with everyone just referring to it by it's designated model number, it's easy to miss that it is a "big Mahl".

There are a few folk using this grinder for espresso, it seems they typically need to push the extraction yield into a higher zone, beyond 20% (longer drink?) to get best results.

Here's Kaminsky's talk, it's long...but very interesting...


----------



## garydyke1 (Mar 9, 2011)

Im finding the 83mm flat burrs on my Royal tend to produce better (ie sweeter) extractions via longer drinks. Have a very tough time over-extracting put it that way


----------



## Charliej (Feb 25, 2012)

It's not just that it has the big burrs, people are also having to change to none-standard burrs for espresso so thats another £3-400 at a guess. I'm all for developments that improve coffee extraction, but given Nuova Simonellis and Mazzers polar opposite design strategies for their new grinders, i.e. cooling vs heating I still think that there is a bit of emperors new clothes about some of this. The whole EK43 thing seems driven by Ben Kaminsky and his seminars, which I believe cost quite a lot to attend, and without a new idea to push he hasn't got much that can be said that is new about extraction and grinders. and so tbh he has a vested interest there. It just seems odd to me that all of a sudden someone comes along touting an idea that seems to run contrary to a large body of common knowledge arrived at by a large number of peoples experiences and experiments.


----------



## Mrboots2u (May 10, 2013)

As others have pointed out anything that makes manufacturers look at putting some money into grinder r & d can't be a bad thing. It will eventually filter down . It would make sense that the massive burrs would make a more consistent grind.

If the Ek experiments moves grinder design on , that can only be a good thing&#8230;.


----------



## radish (Nov 20, 2011)

The idea has been around for sometime from what I can gather. I also doubt he's rolling in cash based on this - I can't remember the exact cost of the event at Square Mile, but it didn't strike me as outlandish.

Although I'm sure there have been some bandwagon jumpers, most will have got behind this based on what they have tasted and the potential advantages it can bring in a commercial environment.


----------



## Charliej (Feb 25, 2012)

radish said:


> The idea has been around for sometime from what I can gather. I also doubt he's rolling in cash based on this - I can't remember the exact cost of the event at Square Mile, but it didn't strike me as outlandish.
> 
> Although I'm sure there have been some bandwagon jumpers, most will have got behind this based on what they have tasted and the potential advantages it can bring in a commercial environment.


But when you times the amount charged by the number of attendees and then the number of these events he does it all adds up.


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

Charliej said:


> But when you times the amount charged by the number of attendees and then the number of these events he does it all adds up.


It seems to be how Kaminsky is making his living (since leaving Barismo & later Ritual), he won the US cup tasters championship 3 times in a row. The guys he is advising aren't likely to be taken in simply by a bit of blarney. Much of what he is saying is a distillation of ideas bounced about by well known & influential guys. Rao mentioned the EK43 in at least 2010.

Whether his way is the only way (I hope not, given the cost of an EK) remains to be seen. Also note that aside from the benefits, people are not suggesting this is the end of the line, several have mentioned this philosophy requires a more exacting approach & shots in the traditional "ideal" range can be disappointing.


----------



## Charliej (Feb 25, 2012)

MWJB said:


> It seems to be how Kaminsky is making his living (since leaving Barismo & later Ritual), he won the US cup tasters championship 3 times in a row. The guys he is advising aren't likely to be taken in simply by a bit of blarney. Much of what he is saying is a distillation of ideas bounced about by well known & influential guys. Rao mentioned the EK43 in at least 2010.
> 
> Whether his way is the only way (I hope not, given the cost of an EK) remains to be seen. Also note that aside from the benefits, people are not suggesting this is the end of the line, several have mentioned this philosophy requires a more exacting approach & shots in the traditional "ideal" range can be disappointing.


The problem is with some ideas is that they get people who feel the need to be evangelical about them and the original message and context gets lost in translation, if there was a body of published information we could actually read for ourselves and make up our own minds rather than having to rely on hearsay and second hand knowledge. I guess I wasn't too clear about what I meant by vested interest, Kaminsky has a vested interest in the full details of his theories staying behind closed doors as then people have no real alternative if they wish to know more. I am suspicious of anyone or any organisation that operates like this.


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

Charliej said:


> The problem is with some ideas is that they get people who feel the need to be evangelical about them and the original message and context gets lost in translation, if there was a body of published information we could actually read for ourselves and make up our own minds rather than having to rely on hearsay and second hand knowledge. I guess I wasn't too clear about what I meant by vested interest, Kaminsky has a vested interest in the full details of his theories staying behind closed doors as then people have no real alternative if they wish to know more. I am suspicious of anyone or any organisation that operates like this.


I think he is pretty transparent about what he is aiming to achieve...his expertise as a roaster, well, you can't get that accross in a verbal presentation alone, there has to be tastings, sensory evaluation. We're coffee hobbyists, if we find something useful to share, we share it and go back to the day job...roasting, coaching, consulting is Kaminsky's day job, if you want the nitty gritty, you have to pay...as with anything in life. Remember his clients invite him to consult & seem happy with value for money.

I see him as a product of his age & time, using the tools at his disposal (refractometers) that have been available since the start of his career, influenced by & influencing his contemporaries.

I don't think the basic principles of what he is saying about extraction (it's fairly mechanical at the end of the day) & the advantages of reduced fines are unique to him, nor being kept covert. Quite the opposite, I see it more as the 'magic' being laid bare in the open and objectively evaluated & discussed. I see a lot of thin theories (have a few myself) & a lot of "facts" repeated until they seem to become the accepted truth (whether there is any identifiable logic or not) in coffee & in other spheres, Kaminsky seems as credible as anyone & his ideas supported by consensus.

You might not like the way he says what he says, but it's worth keeing an open mind about.

But hey, it's a free world, if you're not shooting for the same goals, there's no need for his activities to impact you one way or the other.


----------



## AndyS (May 12, 2012)

MWJB said:


> We're all looking forward to hearing your findings (how soon is "pretty soon"...just so I can manage the suspense?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Soon is really soon...like tonight.

BTW, it's BIG!

Presumably we are looking at redefining a new/different region of interest if the statements made by Rao/Perger/Kaminsky are supported by people's taste buds. Time will tell.


----------



## Pete22 (Jul 15, 2016)

Hello,

I just bought a VST coffee lab III. Does any of you know how to get the nD value (refractive index) out of the device? It would help me a lot.

thanks, Pete


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

How would it?


----------



## Pete22 (Jul 15, 2016)

I just try to compare some devices and its easier with the nD (should be more accurate)


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

If you just wanted nD then you didn't need to buy a refractometer that reads in the coffee TDS scale. +/-0.03%TDS accuracy not enough for you?


----------



## Pete22 (Jul 15, 2016)

As I said, I want to compare some devices. Therefore the nD is better. Is there any probability for getting it?


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

Ask VST?


----------

