# Does Charlie love the Pergtamp ? Tampers , refractometry and MP



## The Systemic Kid (Nov 23, 2012)

Split from the Hasbean day photos thread










After getting up close and personal with the EK, did Charlie also fall in love with the Pergatamp?......perhaps, not


----------



## Charliej (Feb 25, 2012)

The Systemic Kid said:


> After getting up close and personal with the EK, did Charlie also fall in love with the Pergatamp?......perhaps, not


It's a tamper, it was interesting to compare the taper on a Torr Trapez base to that of a Pervtamp but ultimately the handle is too big for my hands even if I wanted one !! I can get the Torr base and if Jens keeps the same angle as his normal trap base then the edge should be sharper than a Pergtamp and that will only cost me £30-35 and reuse a handle. I am a touch sceptical about the extra extraction being that noticeable other than via a refrac, after all tamping is one of the most looked at aspects of shot prep and there are many many schools of thought, but this one is a new theory ? Yet so many people have said how little difference style of tamping can make e.g. the weight of tamp etc.

I've said it before and I'll say it again about the EK it wasn't the 1st time I've used one; that was at the Rave grinderjam. Shots and brewed ground on one are nice sometimes for a change, but aren't what I personally want from my espresso at home, the Mythos does an excellent job for what I want, although I have some potential mods in mind for it next year to make it even better.


----------



## Mrboots2u (May 10, 2013)

It's interesting

In brewed we ( I ) made a chemex badly at foundry

Too cool water , too random pours, trying to make two chemex at once ( Ian s idea not mine







)

People tasted it as under it was Refracted at 18.7 EY

Patrick later made one that was delicious and creamy ( same coffee )

EY at 19.6 ish

1percent not much ? Doesn't sound like much does it

Noticeable in taste to people there hell yes ...

Example is brewed , but 1 percent difference at espresso level is noticeable in the cup , same at is it in brewed

Not saying whether the tamper delivers this or not yet

Am saying that differences in EY are differences in taste

You would notice charlie ,

Dismissing it as not noticeable based is based on what , a lot of shots each 1 percent apart in EY ? Doubt it


----------



## Mrboots2u (May 10, 2013)

Actually of the two crap chemex made

One was nominated as better than the other or preferred

That was the one that had 0.5 % percent EY more than the other crap chemex I made ...that was the one that was less under extracted than the other one ....


----------



## oop north (Jun 23, 2013)

Now, now, Mr Boots, you are just showing your lack of common sense, here!


----------



## Charliej (Feb 25, 2012)

But his figures only show tests against a 58.35mm flat base and 3 versions of a 58mm convex base. If you are that convinced Martin, and I haven't heard you mention much about this extra extraction, and Matt Perger says that it should work that way with any grinder it would be very interesting to see results vs 58.4mm tamper bases, as in theory a convex tamper should create a larger surface area than a flat tamper. I don't think anyone was surprised to learn that a standard 58mm tamper doesn't fit or tamp right to the edge of a VST basket.


----------



## Xpenno (Nov 12, 2012)

Charliej said:


> But his figures only show tests against a 58.35mm flat base and 3 versions of a 58mm convex base. If you are that convinced Martin, and I haven't heard you mention much about this extra extraction, and Matt Perger says that it should work that way with any grinder it would be very interesting to see results vs 58.4mm tamper bases, as in theory a convex tamper should create a larger surface area than a flat tamper. I don't think anyone was surprised to learn that a standard 58mm tamper doesn't fit or tamp right to the edge of a VST basket.


A convex tamper creates a larger surface area on the top of the puck however for the best extraction you want to extract from all of the coffee in the basket and do it evenly. This would not be achieved buy having an uneven surface or a puck that varies in depth.

IMHO a convex tamper simply helps solve issues created from pour distribution such as edge channeling (as it forces coffee towards the edges) and fracturing (as the shape should be more structurally sound with a curve in it). It may also help naked pours look better as more water would make it through the middle (more shallow) area of the puck thus creating a nice tail.


----------



## The Systemic Kid (Nov 23, 2012)

Charliej said:


> I am a touch sceptical about the extra extraction being that noticeable other than via a refrac.....


It is Charlie - when you come over, I will demonstrate how a refractometer measured 1% extraction yield difference makes in the cup.


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

Charliej said:


> But his figures only show tests against a 58.35mm flat base and 3 versions of a 58mm convex base.


His figures show the averaged results of 5 tests with each of 5 tampers, 3 of which are flat, 2 curved.

1%EY difference sounds very small until you realise that half the available solids are extracted very quickly, so a typical range of yields might be within 9-10%, less for shots brewed at a constant ratio, with any recognisable level of consistency. So a typical, real world range of yelds might only encompass five or six percent at the extremes?


----------



## Mrboots2u (May 10, 2013)

Whether you think tamper does or doesn't increase EY i don't really care about. I dont care what tamper you own

As you say 5 samples is small.

Dismissing whether 1℅ EY makes a difference to taste in the cup ( when your basing it on a notion you have ) when you have done no samples seems somewhat facetious, especially given your point about the sample size Perger uses.


----------



## Charliej (Feb 25, 2012)

Scepticism is different from dismissal. I would be more interested to see if the suggested improvements were discernible in an average set up rather than the higher end stuff some of us have, I would also like to see the results of trying with more oversize tampers. If I break apart a puck tamped with one of my Torrs in an IMS basket, I chose this as well seem to agree that they give a visually better pour, they seem pretty evenly extracted to my eyes. I don't doubt that for brewed a 1% difference will be pretty easily discernible, but given that the 1% was an average it also means that some were over 1% and some under, I would just like to see similar tests with a larger sample size and without the almost religious belief that the tester knows better than anyone else, and the full results rather than an average given.

The other thing about his 1st blog post about the Pergtamp is that for all the other other tamper sizes he states a VST basket and that a 58mm tamper in a VST basket will leave 2.43 cm squared un-tamped and that 58.35mm flat tamper in a VST will leave 2.12 cm squared untamped and then goes on to say that the Pergtamp will only leave 0.18 cm squared untamped in a 57mm basket. The thing that puzzles me here he is saying that an extra 0.1-0.15 mm in tamper diameter will make a bigger difference than 0.35mm in terms of untamped puck area i.e. going from 58mm to 58.35mm only makes a difference of 0.31 cm squared but going from 58.35mm to 58.5mm makes a difference of 1.94 cm squared of untamped grounds, yet he does say VST baskets for the 58mm and 58.35 mm tampers and says a 57mm VST for the Pergtamp, yet none of my VST baskets measure 57mm internally, for that mater neither do the stock Sage baskets, the IMS baskets or the couple of generic double baskets I have knocking around.


----------



## Drewster (Dec 1, 2013)

Charliej said:


> Scepticism is different from dismissal. I would be more interested to see if the suggested improvements were discernible in an average set up rather than the higher end stuff some of us have, I would also like to see the results of trying with more oversize tampers. If I break apart a puck tamped with one of my Torrs in an IMS basket, I chose this as well seem to agree that they give a visually better pour, they seem pretty evenly extracted to my eyes. I don't doubt that for brewed a 1% difference will be pretty easily discernible, but given that the 1% was an average it also means that some were over 1% and some under, I would just like to see similar tests with a larger sample size and without the almost religious belief that the tester knows better than anyone else, and the full results rather than an average given.


What!!??!! You mean some scientific rigour rather than marketing hype?

Good luck with that!


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

Charliej said:


> , I would just like to see similar tests with a larger sample size and without the almost religious belief that the tester knows better than anyone else, and the full results rather than an average given.


Well, do it then.


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

Charliej said:


> The other thing about his 1st blog post about the Pergtamp is that for all the other other tamper sizes he states a VST basket and that a 58mm tamper in a VST basket will leave 2.43 cm squared un-tamped and that 58.35mm flat tamper in a VST will leave 2.12 cm squared untamped and then goes on to say that the Pergtamp will only leave 0.18 cm squared untamped in a 57mm basket. The thing that puzzles me here he is saying that an extra 0.1-0.15 mm in tamper diameter will make a bigger difference than 0.35mm in terms of untamped puck area i.e. going from 58mm to 58.35mm only makes a difference of 0.31 cm squared but going from 58.35mm to 58.5mm makes a difference of 1.94 cm squared of untamped grounds, yet he does say VST baskets for the 58mm and 58.35 mm tampers and says a 57mm VST for the Pergtamp, yet none of my VST baskets measure 57mm internally, for that mater neither do the stock Sage baskets, the IMS baskets or the couple of generic double baskets I have knocking around.


There's a typo (well a couple) VST baskets are initially stated as 58.7mm in Perger's article (but wrongly referred to as "57mm" a couple of times later), it looks like you haven't read it in a while, judging by your confusion about the tamped area. The deviation percentage yields given can be extrapolated easily enough too.


----------



## jeebsy (May 5, 2013)

Charliej said:


> I would be more interested to see if the suggested improvements were discernible in an average set up rather than the higher end stuff some of us have





matt perger said:


> for the last year, i have been working closely with pullman tampers to create a tamper for use with the ek43


Just saying btw


----------



## Charliej (Feb 25, 2012)

jeebsy said:


> Just saying btw


He also says he used a Robur in his tests, no reason it can't or shouldn't be used with any other grinder.

Mark doing the maths regarding the surface area of each tamper in relation to 58.7mm I can't get anywhere near those figures of difference the variation when worked out is 0.1841 cm2 for the Pergtamp, 0.32176 cm2 for a 58.35mm tamper with no radiused edge and 0.6416 cm2 for a 58mm tamper with no radiused edge. The only way his figures add up at all is if you assume that with a radiused edge you deduct 2mm from the diameter (or 1mm from the radius) meaning an assumed effective tamping area of 56mm or 56.35mm now none of my flat base tampers has a radiused edge, just a 90 degree angle with the side of the base, like a lot of flat based tampers out there.


----------



## Mrboots2u (May 10, 2013)

Is this tamper and numberwang?

Or is this tampertantrum ?

Charlie , buy one and test it or don't and be happy with your knock tamper or your Jens tamper

This tamp ( Pergtamp ) is recommended for use with VST baskets anyway

Perhaps you can make a precision IMS tamper so it's extraction yield will match those of a VST basket ( without a Pergtamp )


----------



## Xpenno (Nov 12, 2012)

Reasons I bought a Pergtamp (in no order (apart form the last two or else my joke wouldn't have worked))

1. It looks fantastic

2. After using one I immediately started suffering from "it just works syndrome" I tamp, all the coffee is in the bottom of the basket with no fuss

3. Because it's designed to work specifically with my current setup (and it does just that)

4. Less chance of channelling (shown in my own tests after testing one)

5. Less mess (see 2)

6. Because it's a scientific instrument, not just a tamper!

7. Forget 6, it's just a tamper get over it, if you don't want one don't buy one....

For me I guess it mainly comes down to two things looks and workflow improvement and both of these it delivers on. As for the mythical 1% extra extraction yield, well I proved that this is true also. So when MrBoots came round with the Pergtamp I made him an espresso using it. Little did I know that he also had his refractometer on him as well. Obviously my espresso making method is optimised for what was my current setup (standard 58.4mm flat tamp, no radius on the edge) so when Boots measured the shot it came out a full 1% over the figure that you'd (apparently) ideally like. The Pergtamp had pushed me over the edge! At first I was a little put back but then we tasted and it tasted good (Boots spat his out, he says he had too much coffee but I know he just didn't like it!). I repeat the test at least a couple of times a day and it still tastes great, I don't have a refractometer but I know when it tastes great and that is now more frequently than ever.

Is the Pergtamp better than every other tamper that has ever been made, who knows, I have seen no evidence to prove this. What I do know is that since using it I've seen an improvements in shot taste, less faff and less mess over any tamper I've owned prior to this. Is it worth £95? Only the person who earned (or robbed) that money will know for sure and they will know once they have evaluated all of the evidence AVAILABLE to them and then weighed that up against the amount of money it costs. What one person deems acceptable will not be the same as another but let's not get all bent out of shape over it.


----------



## 4085 (Nov 23, 2012)

You lot need white coats and day passes.........coffee science/madness/bollocks!


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

Charliej said:


> Mark doing the maths regarding the surface area of each tamper in relation to 58.7mm I can't get anywhere near those figures of difference the variation when worked out is 0.1841 cm2 for the Pergtamp, 0.32176 cm2 for a 58.35mm tamper with no radiused edge and 0.6416 cm2 for a 58mm tamper with no radiused edge. *The only way his figures add up at all is if you assume that with a radiused edge you deduct 2mm from the diameter (or 1mm from the radius) meaning an assumed effective tamping area of 56mm or 56.35mm.[/*QUOTE]
> 
> Aaaaargh! Which is exactly what his blog article says, you could at least read it & understand it before criticising and inventing faults with it!


----------



## Xpenno (Nov 12, 2012)

dfk41 said:


> You lot need white coats and day passes.........coffee science/madness/bollocks!


Any you sir need some basic training on how to dial in a simple pump machine and grinder by sound of it.

Love Spence


----------



## garydyke1 (Mar 9, 2011)

Xpenno said:


> Any you sir need some basic training on how to dial in a simple pump machine and grinder by sound of it.
> 
> Love Spence


When you've been using the same coffee for 7days of the week 365 days of the year - you just feel it


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

dfk41 said:


> You lot need white coats and day passes.........coffee science/madness/bollocks!


You're right! What fools we are! How could we not have seen it before...I'm off now down to the farm to pick an organic GS3 fresh off the tree & watch the farm friendly reared K10-lings gambolling around in a field before they reach maturity and are shipped off to market...aaah, just like nature intended. No science/engineering/software/mathematical principles used in those, or their manufacture, is there?


----------



## 4085 (Nov 23, 2012)

Hahahaha, the three protagonists all defending their love! lighten up a little. I have said nothing personal in my humble offering, so if the three of you want to start a personal attack on me, bring it on.....but you will end up bruised and battered!

Gary, I have been off Jampit now for several months

Spence, you are right. i do need some basic training on how to set my machine up. Shame you live so far away!

MWJB, do me a favour and lie on the floor, then without using your hands, see if you can get up yourself.........


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

Not a "personal attack" David, just responding in kind. If you can't take a little leg pulling, don't dish it out.


----------



## Mrboots2u (May 10, 2013)

Off Jampit? ...that explains alot ... I can feel the withdrawl sypmtoms from Newcastle all the way to Lancaster


----------



## urbanbumpkin (Jan 30, 2013)

dfk41 said:


> Gary, I have been off Jampit now for several months.


Ha ha ha sounds like Jampit anonymous

"&#8230;..I've been off Jampit for nearly a year now, thankfully I was saved from serious Ristretto addiction by someone buying up the entire UK's supply so went cold Turkey for a week and have moved back onto longer extracted shots"









In fairness I really liked Raves Jampit


----------



## Mrboots2u (May 10, 2013)

MWJB said:


> You're right! What fools we are! How could we not have seen it before...I'm off now down to the farm to pick an organic GS3 fresh off the tree & watch the farm friendly reared K10-lings gambolling around in a field before they reach maturity and are shipped off to market...aaah, just like nature intended. No science/engineering/software/mathematical principles used in those, or their manufacture, is there?


There is a chicken outside my back door

I asked it if it wanted to use the Sage

It ran away....


----------



## The Systemic Kid (Nov 23, 2012)

Mrboots2u said:


> There is a chicken outside my back door
> 
> I asked it if it wanted to use the Sage
> 
> It ran away....


Too many variables.


----------



## Xpenno (Nov 12, 2012)

dfk41 said:


> Hahahaha, the three protagonists all defending their love! lighten up a little. I have said nothing personal in my humble offering, so if the three of you want to start a personal attack on me, bring it on.....but you will end up bruised and battered!





dfk41 said:


> Spence, you are right. i do need some basic training on how to set my machine up. Shame you live so far away!


I've tried to chip in on your thread about your shots, I tried to offer up some positive suggestions on how I might go about improving the theories that you were working with. I'm just not sure why you feel the need to head of over here and insult what I am trying to do/get out of coffee. My comments are meant to be tongue in cheek yet relevant and sometimes maybe even helpful. I did actually regret posting the message about your shots, it was negative, it wasn't the right thing to do and I apologise.


----------



## Charliej (Feb 25, 2012)

MWJB said:


> Charliej said:
> 
> 
> > Mark doing the maths regarding the surface area of each tamper in relation to 58.7mm I can't get anywhere near those figures of difference the variation when worked out is 0.1841 cm2 for the Pergtamp, 0.32176 cm2 for a 58.35mm tamper with no radiused edge and 0.6416 cm2 for a 58mm tamper with no radiused edge. *The only way his figures add up at all is if you assume that with a radiused edge you deduct 2mm from the diameter (or 1mm from the radius) meaning an assumed effective tamping area of 56mm or 56.35mm.[/*QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## 4085 (Nov 23, 2012)

Spence, thanks for your thoughts mate. I did not take any offence at them at all. I love a bit of banter on here and anyone can say anything they like about me, and MWJB usually does! I am struggling with the GS since I interfered with the settings of the automatic buttons, but, since I got rid of the RR45 yesterday the new grinder is letting me get consistent results. If I just use the manual over ride buttons and weigh everything in and out (as it ought to be), then I can produce a decent shot. My problem, is in understanding how much water the machine needs to be programmed for to produce a shot weighing around 28 gam, assuming 18 gms input. No matter what I do, i am miles away...but thats quite fun! I will have some proper coffee tomorrow and I hope that might help a bit...thought do not ask me why!


----------



## jeebsy (May 5, 2013)

One would have thought in manual mode it would display what volume you'd dispensed?


----------



## The Systemic Kid (Nov 23, 2012)

Charliej said:


> MWJB said:
> 
> 
> > The guys that have bought them love them and at £95 I'm sure they were bound to.....
> ...


----------



## Xpenno (Nov 12, 2012)

dfk41 said:


> Spence, thanks for your thoughts mate. I did not take any offence at them at all. I love a bit of banter on here and anyone can say anything they like about me, and MWJB usually does! I am struggling with the GS since I interfered with the settings of the automatic buttons, but, since I got rid of the RR45 yesterday the new grinder is letting me get consistent results. If I just use the manual over ride buttons and weigh everything in and out (as it ought to be), then I can produce a decent shot. My problem, is in understanding how much water the machine needs to be programmed for to produce a shot weighing around 28 gam, assuming 18 gms input. No matter what I do, i am miles away...but thats quite fun! I will have some proper coffee tomorrow and I hope that might help a bit...thought do not ask me why!


I take it all back then! Good luck with the new beans, the setup should certainly be able to make some superb shots! Right now back to Pergtamp bashin... No, wait..... Arrrgh, I've been turned. Damn you.....


----------



## Xpenno (Nov 12, 2012)

Charliej said:


> The guys that have bought them love them and at £95 I'm sure they were bound to


I spoke to other owners and then tried and tested one before shelling out the cash. If I hadn't have liked it then I'd not have bought one, simple... I'm not sure why people think that just because you spend a lot of money on something (or not) that you have to love it, it doesn't make sense. Anyway didn't you buy a goldfinger? Aren't they in a similar price bracket?


----------



## garydyke1 (Mar 9, 2011)

Since using my Pergtamp on a daily basis my entire goddamn life is 1% better. perhaps even 1.1%


----------



## jeebsy (May 5, 2013)

garydyke1 said:


> Since using my Pergtamp on a daily basis my entire goddamn life is 1% better. perhaps even 1.1%


People who extract


----------



## Charliej (Feb 25, 2012)

Xpenno said:


> I spoke to other owners and then tried and tested one before shelling out the cash. If I hadn't have liked it then I'd not have bought one, simple... I'm not sure why people think that just because you spend a lot of money on something (or not) that you have to love it, it doesn't make sense. Anyway didn't you buy a goldfinger? Aren't they in a similar price bracket?


The Brass ones were quite a long way under that.

The price I have nothing against it's the messianic zeal with which his every assertion is received, implicit in his blog post is that he is trying to sell you something, so to me there is an element of hyperbole there, in this case it was to assume worst case scenario other tampers in the maths and use them also in the very simple and limited run of tests he talks about. What I found puzzling was in some of his other posts, lets take the man vs volumetrics one, there were more tests done for a post where he wasn't trying to sell you something.

Anyway as I said in an earlier post a Pergtamp is too big for my hands anyway.


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

Charliej said:


> MWJB said:
> 
> 
> > The assumption in his blog is that every tamper is made that way (or being uncharitable that assumption makes his idea look better), when in reality the differences are far far smaller when working with a none radiused edge. The guys that have bought them love them and at £95 I'm sure they were bound to, *for me *until I have my Torr 58.5mm base then the jury is out.
> ...


----------



## The Systemic Kid (Nov 23, 2012)

garydyke1 said:


> Since using my Pergtamp on a daily basis my entire goddamn life is 1% better. perhaps even 1.1%


Does that include the radiused edge??


----------



## Mrboots2u (May 10, 2013)

Heaven forbid anyone should try and sell anything to anyone ever....

Life's too short to spend dising one Australian barista charlie , if we all are proven to have been taken in by a massive coffee conspiracy then you will have the last laugh in sure .

Till then I'm off to make something tasty and read James Hoffman's book.

Can you let me know if he is a charlatan too please mr Jeal ?


----------



## The Systemic Kid (Nov 23, 2012)

Charliej said:


> The price I have nothing against it's the messianic zeal with which his every assertion is received....


Rather sweeping statement - are you not indulging in hyperbole?


----------



## Mrboots2u (May 10, 2013)

He's not a barista , he a very naughty boy


----------



## Mrboots2u (May 10, 2013)

You are getting one of Jens copied though correct ?


----------



## The Systemic Kid (Nov 23, 2012)

Mrboots2u said:


> You are getting one of Jens copied though correct ?


Purely in the interest of scientific endeavour


----------



## Mrboots2u (May 10, 2013)

The Systemic Kid said:


> Purely in the interest of scientific endeavour


There are now 21 people looking to buy the Jens version .

Is this messianic zeal ?


----------



## Xpenno (Nov 12, 2012)

Mrboots2u said:


> There are now 21 people looking to buy the Jens version .
> 
> Is this messianic zeal ?


It's a fair point, my guess is that most people have read about the Pergtamp, don't want to shell out the cash and want to opt for the less expensive option. This is all fine but most of the interest must have come from MPs blog and the information within.


----------



## The Systemic Kid (Nov 23, 2012)

Would be interested to know what grade of steel Jens will use for the 58.5mm.


----------



## Charliej (Feb 25, 2012)

MWJB said:


> Charliej said:
> 
> 
> > Again, if you read & conveyed the actual words in the article it says, "almost all" tampers have a radiussed edge, the article is clear to state the effect of the radiussed edge, should you have such. If you want to know whether your tamper has a radiussed edge, or not, *try looking at it*?
> ...


----------



## garydyke1 (Mar 9, 2011)

Mrboots2u said:


> There are now 21 people looking to buy the Jens version .
> 
> Is this messianic zeal ?


Whats a zeal-o-meter?


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

I was suggesting that anyone who had a tamper & wanted to know whether if it had a radius could look, it's obvious from what you write that you have done this, I have no reason to mistrust, or misconstrue what you say. The fact is the question of radius is not hidden, or concealed in the article.

I have no idea whether whether an electric grinder with the same burrs is "better" than a Lido or Hausgrind, the grind analysis supplied by OE for the Lido1 doesn't point to anything unusual for an espresso grinder. I haven't seen any grind analysis for the electric grinders, feel free to provide a link.

This is the point, where I don't know, I'll say "I don't know". Whereas you claim to know that objective data is misleading & that oft repeated assumptions are trustworthy?


----------



## urbanbumpkin (Jan 30, 2013)

garydyke1 said:


> Whats a zeal-o-meter?


I don't but I think I need one....sounds like a refractometer.


----------



## Mrboots2u (May 10, 2013)

Perhaps not messianic zeal

Perhaps messianic Jeal instead


----------



## Charliej (Feb 25, 2012)

MWJB said:


> I was suggesting that anyone who had a tamper & wanted to know whether if it had a radius could look, it's obvious from what you write that you have done this, I have no reason to mistrust, or misconstrue what you say. The fact is the question of radius is not hidden, or concealed in the article.
> 
> I have no idea whether whether an electric grinder with the same burrs is "better" than a Lido or Hausgrind, the grind analysis supplied by OE for the Lido1 doesn't point to anything unusual for an espresso grinder. I haven't seen any grind analysis for the electric grinders, feel free to provide a link.
> 
> This is the point, where I don't know, I'll say "I don't know". Whereas you claim to know that objective data is misleading & that oft repeated assumptions are trustworthy?


The question is where do you draw the line between data obtained in order to prove one's point and truly objective data Mark? If when promoting any new product whoever you are and wherever it is from, it is only tested a limited number of times against the worst possible comparison scenario consciously or not then it isn't truly objective.

Pure science and measurement are not always the best judge of sensory data as everyone experiences things differently. To provide an example, I know for an absolute fact that when it comes to setting up a multi speaker, multi amplifier, actively crossed over sound system then the pure measured and adjusted to a flat frequency response does not in sound very nice to listen to and does not provide all the answers, particularly if such measurement has been done with a simple spectrum analyser, as it is very easy to misinterpret the data it gives as , for example, it can't distinguish whether or not a higher level of a particular frequency is due to either the source signal or a resonance in the room, therefore a much more complex measurement method is required in order to take time into account in order to determine more accurately where any problem areas are and even when your measurement equipment uses six data inputs at once in a larger room or arena etc you have to take measurements at many different points to gather a true picture, you then need to know how to interpret the data correctly. I have never yet heard or heard of an auto correction algorithm that actually made a system sound "better" the final judgement on tweaks once a baseline sound has been optimised for as much of the venue as possible are performed by ear, I have also come across "old pros" who have been doing the job since the birth of large scale sound reinforcement systems who by judgement alone are able to get close enough to a synthesised approach of objective measurement and subjective listening to be more than usable for the occasion.

With making coffee simply going by the numbers from someone else's recipe, whether measured or not does not guarantee your attempt will taste the same as that of the originator of the recipe, inevitably you will need to tweak something to allow for the condition of your beans and environmental conditions where you make your coffee too and any of these factors as well as adding in human variance can also affect things by a far greater margin than 1% on your extraction.


----------



## Xpenno (Nov 12, 2012)

Charliej said:


> The question is where do you draw the line between data obtained in order to prove one's point and truly objective data Mark? If when promoting any new product whoever you are and wherever it is from, it is only tested a limited number of times against the worst possible comparison scenario consciously or not then it isn't truly objective.
> 
> Pure science and measurement are not always the best judge of sensory data as everyone experiences things differently. To provide an example, I know for an absolute fact that when it comes to setting up a multi speaker, multi amplifier, actively crossed over sound system then the pure measured and adjusted to a flat frequency response does not in sound very nice to listen to and does not provide all the answers, particularly if such measurement has been done with a simple spectrum analyser, as it is very easy to misinterpret the data it gives as , for example, it can't distinguish whether or not a higher level of a particular frequency is due to either the source signal or a resonance in the room, therefore a much more complex measurement method is required in order to take time into account in order to determine more accurately where any problem areas are and even when your measurement equipment uses six data inputs at once in a larger room or arena etc you have to take measurements at many different points to gather a true picture, you then need to know how to interpret the data correctly. I have never yet heard or heard of an auto correction algorithm that actually made a system sound "better" the final judgement on tweaks once a baseline sound has been optimised for as much of the venue as possible are performed by ear, I have also come across "old pros" who have been doing the job since the birth of large scale sound reinforcement systems who by judgement alone are able to get close enough to a synthesised approach of objective measurement and subjective listening to be more than usable for the occasion.
> 
> With making coffee simply going by the numbers from someone else's recipe, whether measured or not does not guarantee your attempt will taste the same as that of the originator of the recipe, inevitably you will need to tweak something to allow for the condition of your beans and environmental conditions where you make your coffee too and any of these factors as well as adding in human variance can also affect things by a far greater margin than 1% on your extraction.


A very good analogy with the speaker response. Flatter isn't better. I think that this 1% is getting a bit out of proportion, the majority of the post is about the best fit in the basket and it points out some potential downsides with other tampers. It explains how it overcomes these issues and some of the potential benefits. He doesn't say you'll get 1% extraction increase and he doesn't say that this is always better, however, due to it's design it could help improve extraction if this is what you are looking for. It's like saying you won't buy Fairy Liquid as they haven't tested against every other brand out there ever made, it's not logical. Of course Fairy Liquid is better than the brand that they decide to test it against in the advert, that's what it's all about. The good news is that we've been blessed with the opportunity to weight up the pros and cons and then make our own mind up, it doesn't make Matt's blog any less correct, it is what it is.


----------



## The Systemic Kid (Nov 23, 2012)

Think you need one of these Charlie









...second thoughts - maybe a bigger one


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

I don't brew or taste coffee by ear, or by eye...the doctor at A&E said he would ban from the department if I came in again and had coffee in any other orifice other than my mouth.

You don't have the first clue as to what yield measurement is, you don't know how to interpret it as evidenced by your numbers vs taste "theory/assumption/dream".

A shot with 1% more of the dose dissolved in it a shot with 1% more of the dose dissolved in it...if you like that, or not, that's up to you, but if you don't measure it, you still know whether you like it, you just don't have any data as to how to keep it consistent, or which way to move if the wheels come off.

Your opinion on what 1% EY represents is just something you have made up. You have no data on this whatsoever, your point about environment & assumption that coffee tastes "the same" at a given yield is evidence of this. On the other hand yield analysis has been carried out longer than you have been alive, by eminent food scientists from MIT, currently there are thousands of users (cafes, roasteries, home brewers) on top of that who are able to assess their yield & balance it against flavour perception. You can't just click your shiny red heels together and wish it all away.

You are not making yourself look in slightest bit credible the more more you pursue this.


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

I don't reckon the average person, without special equipment could tell if 2 sounds (of the same frequency) were less than 10dB apart & if 2 sounds were 90dB I don't believe that they would necessarily sound the same.


----------



## Mrboots2u (May 10, 2013)

I've just come back to this thread

I'm confused ....

Who are these people who have been sound engineers since birth , that can't be good for a baby's ears? Were they sound engineering in the womb?

With them being " old pros " are they also gigolos too?


----------



## jeebsy (May 5, 2013)

Mwjb would be in my top three people on here not to argue with about extraction


----------



## jeebsy (May 5, 2013)

The difference between 20 and 21% is 5(ish)%


----------



## Mrboots2u (May 10, 2013)

jeebsy said:


> The difference between 20 and 21% is 5(ish)%


Head hurts


----------



## jeebsy (May 5, 2013)

The increase from 20% to 21% is a 5% relative increase or some shit. Ben goldacre did a good book on (mis)interpreting stats. A study was done about eating bacon or something, say 2% of non bacon eating people died during it but 3% of the bacon eaters did, it's only 1% it was presented that you're 50% more likely to die if you eat bacon

(yes that's explained all wrong but my brain has been pickled by excel all day)


----------



## The Systemic Kid (Nov 23, 2012)

jeebsy said:


> Mwjb would be in my top three people on here not to argue with about extraction


Oh yes


----------



## Lighty (May 31, 2013)

http://coffeeforums.co.uk/showthread.php?17406-Structural-Engineering-and-Coffee-Who-Knew&highlight=Structural

still think the area stuff is cobblers ....


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

C'mon then Lighty, is a 58.5mm diameter circle bigger in area than 56mm or 56.35, if so, by how much? You calculations don't account for the radiussed edge.

If more volume is desirable, use a deeper basket, a tamper doesn't know how deep the basket is & has to work with a number of different baskets?

Where is your 45' shear line from the edge of the load? It's in space?

Perger claims increased measured extraction (explicitly states in what circumstances these occurred), where does he say it totally eliminates strata & pressure differential though the depth of the basket? He merely compares it to alternatives with stated properties & measured results.

Your example shows a relatively small pressure differential at shallow depths below the load, how would this change in the enclosed environment of a basket? Is it just something that has to be accepted & lived with?

You say, "I'm not saying a larger tamper won't make any difference as it might have an impact on the basket to puck perimeter bond, or the flow of water at that point due to decreased loose grounds."

...and..

"I suppose that's why we tamp - to try and create an even bed of particles and prevent water just flying through the least resistive path and straight through the basket."

...How does a wider tolerance fit of a tamper improve the situation?

Whilst it is "cobblers", you're putting your name down for a Torr 58.5 flat base tamper?

I think generally people forget that we have something in common here, a pursuit that should really be creating some kind of bond, or community, yet some folk simply seem to use the forums for negative purposes. It's so much less effort to knock contributors that it is to actually contribute. I can understand complaining if you feel a product or service doesn't deliver (ideally after first taking it up with the manufacturer or supplier), but disparaging other people's work simply through hypothesis & poorly researched vox-pops seems a little sad. I say this as someone who has done so in the past...y'know what? I possibly might have actually learned something from that & maybe I'm a better person for it.

Sorry Lighty, I may seem overly sanctimonious & to be targeting you disproportionately, don't take it too personally...it's not a vendetta, your post just served as the catalyst for my rant. I am actually interested in your responses to the points I raise above, we all have our spheres of expertise and the ability to pass on some of that knowledge, I don't know anyone who has nothing left to learn.


----------



## Lighty (May 31, 2013)

Interesting stuff Mark

Area is a simple function of pi (3.14 roughly) times the radius of the circle squared

so the increase in area from 56 -> 58.5 is 9.1%, but as you say a radius end edge complicates things ...

with volume I was meaning that taking a fixed weight of grounds in the basket, and then looking at tamper area you need to look at the volume that is tamped, not just the area. The increase here is nominal really.

The 45' shear line starts at the contact edge of the tamper - so as above with a sharp edge it's easy to calculate but not so with a radiused one.

The pressure and depth graph would be affected by the basket so that's complicated too!

again the minimal area difference is unlikely to massively Impact on the pressure curves

It just looked to me like the area increase was the usp and I didn't agree with that premise being a killer deal breaker.

As I have tiny mits I need a short handle I think ... I might get a new base if the threads are different and as this looks like being the next big thing it seems sensible to go for it if the handle won't fit!

all the complicated refraction stuff is something I haven't got into too much

i drink pretty much latte all the time so the talk of % stuff with the shot isn't that critical to me

my prep and stuff is quite shoddy no doubt compared to a lot of the guys here but the output tastes alright to me compared to the high street so it'll do me ;-)

Coffee is an interest of mine but I've never gotten too crazily into it.

I nearly bought an L1 off cc thinking that's me done forever but ended up with the Isomac that I'm now happy with.

I would probably go sage DB for ease if I ever change and the Lakeland thing is a no brainer.

You're right on the poor research thing - there have no doubt been shed loads of posts since the original Pergtamp kicking here and I haven't read any of them !

i hope the guys who buy the perg find some improvement I really do.

I'm not knocking the perg as a product just the 'science' it was sold on.

That said if a few of the boys n girls here measure improved shots then it clearly does the job it's meant to and that's cool - if lots of people see it in the cup then it's not a fur coat (no knickers) as my old grandma used to say

i will lurk around here and post, sometimes ingnorantly no doubt, and enjoy the crack.

Good set of guys who help each other and sometimes have handbags at six paces ;-)

nice To chat

Lighty


----------



## Charliej (Feb 25, 2012)

MWJB said:


> I don't brew or taste coffee by ear, or by eye...the doctor at A&E said he would ban from the department if I came in again and had coffee in any other orifice other than my mouth.
> 
> You don't have the first clue as to what yield measurement is, you don't know how to interpret it as evidenced by your numbers vs taste "theory/assumption/dream".
> 
> ...


If you keep track of how you make your coffee by whichever method you use and then replicate this process every time and the result is tasty, you have no need to know what the resultant Extraction Yield is in order to repeat your process and make a coffee that you like, after all that is what you are affirming with measurement. Nowhere did I say that coffee tastes "the same" at a given yield, but one would hope that under ideal conditions and made the same way each time, using the same bean that it would taste the same that day i.e in your own kitchen/ place of work following your own method and recipe, otherwise where does this striving for consistency get you.

My argument here has not been about the extraction, but Mark you seem to default to turning anything that mentions extraction to being all about that. My doubts centre upon the methodology used to provide the original data, it is very easy to make up comparative tests that will give the answer you want in the name of selling a product and it doesn't take much thought to understand that the larger the surface area of a flat based tamper is then the smaller the area of untamped grounds, so the obvious way to skew the data towards your desired result is to compare against something that has a lot less surface area e.g is equivalent to a completely flat base of either 56 or 56.35mm, when compared to a tamper with a tight edge such as the VST made 58.35mm or a Knock heft the differences are nowhere near as big. Yet to me if one is wanting to draw comparisons using VST baskets surely one should include the tamper VST designed themselves for use in their baskets or one with a more or less identical design where it comes to the base itself and the angle of the edge where it meets the side of the tamper. Given a 90 degree or greater angle between the base and side of the piston the difference in area becomes a lot less, in fact between a 58.5mm and 58.35mm there is only 0.13766 cm2 difference in untamped grounds. This is basically just an illustration of how choosing your comparisons can skew data and the thrust of something, nothing to do with the extraction yield or resultant TDS of the beverage, simply about the original data and methodology.


----------



## Mrboots2u (May 10, 2013)

Well that last post will help me sleep tonight anyway

The title of this thread was does Charlie love the pergtamp?

I think the answer is no, unless made by torr ,and a bit cheaper.

Let's leave it at that shall we

........


----------



## Neill (Jun 26, 2013)

jeebsy said:


> The increase from 20% to 21% is a 5% relative increase or some shit. Ben goldacre did a good book on (mis)interpreting stats. A study was done about eating bacon or something, say 2% of non bacon eating people died during it but 3% of the bacon eaters did, it's only 1% it was presented that you're 50% more likely to die if you eat bacon
> 
> (yes that's explained all wrong but my brain has been pickled by excel all day)


Bad science, really good book. I think that explanation was pretty good. It's the misrepresentation of risk. Relative risk rather than absolute.


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

Charliej said:


> With making coffee simply going by the numbers from someone else's recipe, whether measured or not does not guarantee your attempt will taste the same as that of the originator of the recipe, inevitably you will need to tweak something to allow for the condition of your beans and environmental conditions where you make your coffee too and any of these factors as well as adding in human variance can also affect things by a far greater margin than 1% on your extraction.


Did you say this or not? I didn't imagine it, I didn't steer the conversation towards extraction you did...again. If it's not obvious that making coffee on a different day, measured or not, to a given recipe will taste a little different, why say it other to imply a straw man fallacy? Then you make suppositions regarding the effect of +/-1% extraction yield (if you don't recognise yield measurement, why do you make off the cuff judgements about how much it affects taste over human variance)? You still are not grasping the concept of an objective parameter. If a short, but immensely strong man with long arms makes a 19% coffee on a wet Wednesday in a basement, then a very tall man with a pin head makes a 19% coffee at the top of a hill on a sunny Sunday, they're both still 19% and 1% higher than 18%. Perger is suggesting that the additional area is directly responsible for a consistent hike in his comparison. If 25 data points isn't enough (it's more than the *nothing* you offer as a counter argument), do it properly, get your VST, Heft & Pergtamp and give us 10 each...poop, or get off the pot.


----------



## Charliej (Feb 25, 2012)

MWJB said:


> Did you say this or not? I didn't imagine it, I didn't steer the conversation towards extraction you did...again. If it's not obvious that making coffee on a different day, measured or not, to a given recipe will taste a little different, why say it other to imply a straw man fallacy? Then you make suppositions regarding the effect of +/-1% extraction yield (if you don't recognise yield measurement, why do you make off the cuff judgements about how much it affects taste over human variance)? You still are not grasping the concept of an objective parameter. If a short, but immensely strong man with long arms makes a 19% coffee on a wet Wednesday in a basement, then a very tall man with a pin head makes a 19% coffee at the top of a hill on a sunny Sunday, they're both still 19% and 1% higher than 18%. Perger is suggesting that the additional area is directly responsible for a consistent hike in his comparison. If 25 data points isn't enough (it's more than the *nothing* you offer as a counter argument), do it properly, get your VST, Heft & Pergtamp and give us 10 each...poop, or get off the pot.


Mark what I was saying is that there are more variables at play and can effect the extraction than just a tamper, this average of up to 1% extra EY, only holds true for the comparisons he shows, so it's not a case that a Pergtamp will automatically give you a possible 1% extra EY, particularly if you are using tampers with no radiusing of the edge and are 58.35mm or over.

Regarding 25 data points, submitting a product or theory to a rigourously peer reviewed medium, based on some very skewed comparisons and only 25 data points in the industry I worked in would run a very high risk of ridicule.

What I'm saying is simple and should be easy for you to actually work out Mark, I'm simply using a different set of comparisons that also exist in the real world to illustrate my point. Point of fact when Greg Pullman owned and ran the company and made the tampers himself he preferred to either sell you a tamper and VST basket that were custom made to fit together as a pair or for you to send him your VST basket and he would make a tamper to fit that.Reg Barber still offer tamper bases in all sorts of odd sizes and Jens previously offered his oversize tampers as 58.5mm so there are a lot of tamper bases of 58.5mm or greater out there, and having had a good look online none of the more commonly used high end tamper suppliers offer a flat base with a 1mm radius to the edge, this includes the maker of both VST baskets and the refractometer and software so often referred to these days ( personally I would imagine they know a thing or two about all of this stuff and still only offer the one tamper).

Price alone is not the only reason for buying a Torr Flat 58.5mm tamper, I can actually get a handle that fits my hands with a Torr- not so with a Pullman tamper. If when I get it and it makes a difference that makes my coffee taste better to me I'll keep it and sell one of the others if not I'll sell the 58.5mm, simples really.

If I could afford it and the ongoing costs of testing espresso yes I would probably own a refractometer myself, simply as a good thing to own but not an essential one. I've got over ten times the cost tied up in my Sound and acoustic analysis software and microphones( this was something I needed as a freelance professional) so don't make assumptions that I am anti measurement, I'm not, but for me it is also tempered with a dose of do I really need it? and like untold thousands of people across the world I use the more easily accessible aspects of measuring my coffee in order to get it to taste how I like it, and if I like it I don't have a burning need to know its EY or the TDS of the complete beverage to know I like it the way I have made it. What I do know is that repeating that method as accurately as I can should result in tasty coffee time after time and experience has taught me what to change if the taste changes, after all I drink coffee not numbers and the taste of my coffee is, at the end of the day what I am more interested in,not the process of making it beyond a certain point.


----------



## The Systemic Kid (Nov 23, 2012)

Charliej said:


> .......If I could afford it and the ongoing costs of testing espresso yes I would probably own a refractometer myself, simply as a good thing to own but not an essential one.


Seem to recall you holding the view refractometers were a waste of time - coffee being about sensory experience not maths. Good to see you've come round to a more balanced view on this subject.


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

Charliej said:


> Mark what I was saying is that there are more variables at play and can effect the extraction than just a tamper, this average of up to 1% extra EY, only holds true for the comparisons he shows, so it's not a case that a Pergtamp will automatically give you a possible 1% extra EY, particularly if you are using tampers with no radiusing of the edge and are 58.35mm or over.


The item under discussion is a tamper. It's only fair to assume that it can't change your grind distribution, water, ability beyond the function of the tamp. No claim appears to be made regarding improved extraction over non-radiussed, 58.35mm+ tampers. Moot point.



Charliej said:


> Regarding 25 data points, submitting a product or theory to a rigourously peer reviewed medium, based on some very skewed comparisons and only 25 data points in the industry I worked in would run a very high risk of ridicule.


For a scientific publication (which Matt's blog is not) the average of 10 extractions from each tamper would certainly be robust enough. Each refractometer reading is itself the average of many, many measurements - for example the CBI recommended an average of just 3 measurements when using a hydrometer to ascertain TDS & used 3 samples in certain grind & coffee analysis. Matt's claims seem unusually robust for marketing. Justify "very skewed comparisons", rather than typical/real-world?



Charliej said:


> What I'm saying is simple and should be easy for you to actually work out Mark, I'm simply using a different set of comparisons that also exist in the real world to illustrate my point.


You are *speculating*, rather than "using" different comparisons...does the fact that you are picking scenarios out of thin air to make your point, against explicitly stated data & circumstances not seem hypocritical to you?



Charliej said:


> having had a good look online none of the more commonly used high end tamper suppliers offer a flat base with a 1mm radius to the edge, this includes the maker of both VST baskets and the refractometer and software so often referred to these days ( personally I would imagine they know a thing or two about all of this stuff and still only offer the one tamper).


You said "none", you want to be certain about that before making such a claim. I'm looking at pictures of Reg Barber flat & Pullman Barista tampers right now, where an edge radius seems apparent...

http://www.coffeetamper.com.au/products/barista.html

http://www.brandmeesters.nl/community/importeurschappen/reg-barber/



Charliej said:


> so don't make assumptions that I am anti measurement, I'm not, but for me it is also tempered with a dose of do I really need it? and like untold thousands of people across the world I use the more easily accessible aspects of measuring my coffee in order to get it to taste how I like it, and if I like it I don't have a burning need to know its EY or the TDS of the complete beverage to know I like it the way I have made it.


Fair enough, but why then the assassination of claims made? You don't need or want a given level of analysis, or faff...but you want to argue the merits of those that do and preach assumptions as to why it doesn't stand up?



Charliej said:


> after all I drink coffee not numbers and the taste of my coffee is, at the end of the day what I am more interested in,not the process of making it beyond a certain point.


Hang on, you just said that you are not anti-measurement, now you don't "drink numbers" and imply flavour balance and numbers bear no relationship? If you are drinking anything other than hot water (even that has a TDS & identifiable cations) from your machine, you have a dose, a brew ratio, a %TDS, a %EY...the fact that you don't know what some of those numbers are doesn't mean your beverage has no TDS or EY...you don't drive numbers either, next time you are fined for speeding try explaining that experience has taught you how fast you should drive on a given road & that you do it the same way every time...after all a speed limit is just a universally recognised method of describing maximum permissible velocity via a number...plus a whacking 10% margin.


----------



## jeebsy (May 5, 2013)

Goodnight, Vienna


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

jeebsy said:


> Goodnight, Vienna


This means nothing to me....;-)


----------



## Mrboots2u (May 10, 2013)

jeebsy said:


> Goodnight, Vienna


I believe this kept " that song " off number one ....


----------



## The Systemic Kid (Nov 23, 2012)

Christ, it that what Midge Ure is doing these days??


----------



## Daren (Jan 16, 2012)

jeebsy said:


> Goodnight, Vienna


Shud-up-a-ya-face


----------



## The Systemic Kid (Nov 23, 2012)

Daren said:


> Shud-up-a-ya-face


Show some respect....


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

The Systemic Kid said:


> Show some respect....


...and take care, TCB! Sock it to me, sock it to me, sock it to me...


----------



## El carajillo (Mar 16, 2013)

Have the children stopped throwing their ratt/les Pergatamps out of the pram yet??







:exit:


----------



## The Systemic Kid (Nov 23, 2012)

Weren't rattles - they were Pergtamps.


----------



## jeebsy (May 5, 2013)

Love that this is on the first page of Google results for Pergtamp


----------



## Mrboots2u (May 10, 2013)

El carajillo said:


> Have the children stopped throwing their rattles out of the pram yet??
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Mine doesn't rattle .......


----------



## The Systemic Kid (Nov 23, 2012)

jeebsy said:


> Love that this is on the first page of Google results for Pergtamp


That's hysterical.


----------



## The Systemic Kid (Nov 23, 2012)

And Charlie has achieved fame too.


----------



## Daren (Jan 16, 2012)

The Systemic Kid said:


> And Charlie has achieved fame too.


He is a legend with his own hamster fan club - it's right he appears in the Google rankings


----------

