# EK 43 alignment grinding chamber



## onluxtex (Nov 18, 2015)

Acc. to the German Coffee Forum a lot of EK owners complain that the EK is not well adjusted ex works.

Did anybody do it in this way?


----------



## dsc (Jun 7, 2013)

I've done this on my Guatemala which is very similar to the EK. If you need tips or help let me know









T.


----------



## onluxtex (Nov 18, 2015)

Thanks a lot. I was working on it for some hours and was sure I have done it well. People say acc. to the sound it is not well done.

May be I didn´t fasten the threaded rods too much or not too much so that the chamber has changed its position during grinding.

I don´t know what to do. I fear to spoil the thread if I fasten too much. I have no idea in loosen the chamber to start again from the beginning.


----------



## Phobic (Aug 17, 2016)

can you explain in a bit more detail what you're doing here?

I think most people are familiar with aligning using shims, but are you trying to alter the internals of the motor? or getting a measurement of how much to shim?

i is a bit confusing


----------



## onluxtex (Nov 18, 2015)

People say the alignment of the burrs is not enough. More important is the chamber!? They adjust the chamber by loosing or tightening the 4 threaded rods.


----------



## grumpydaddy (Oct 20, 2014)

What is their explanation for the importance of the chamber which, it seems to me, is not involved in the grinding process only in the delivery of the ground coffee.


----------



## El carajillo (Mar 16, 2013)

Not having seen an EK at close quarters I imagine that by adjusting the chamber to be precisely perpendicular (90 deg) to the shaft / spindle would obviate the need for packing the fixed burr and possibly improve balance O/A ?


----------



## onluxtex (Nov 18, 2015)

Sorry I don´t know. There are some people in the German Forum who discuss without open end about 0,1g of beans or 0,001mm alignment and even claim that they taste a difference. They even don´t accept the alignment method of Matt Perger with the felt pen. They prefer a gauge like shown in the above foto. It is no more my world. I can only taste a difference between beer and wine.


----------



## onluxtex (Nov 18, 2015)

El carajillo said:


> Not having seen an EK at close quarters I imagine that by adjusting the chamber to be precisely perpendicular (90 deg) to the shaft / spindle would obviate the need for packing the fixed burr and possibly improve balance O/A ?


yes, that is the reason.


----------



## JKK (Feb 19, 2014)

Hello

Can you supply a link to the German website for this adjustment ?

Thanks

EDIT:

This one ?

https://www.kaffee-netz.de/threads/erfahrungsaustausch-ek43.81357/page-32

OTT Post 591 has an awesome video . . .


----------



## onluxtex (Nov 18, 2015)

JKK said:


> Hello
> 
> Can you supply a link to the German website for this adjustment ?
> 
> ...


----------



## Phobic (Aug 17, 2016)

ok I can buy the explination, certainly would love an alignment solution that's a bit more scientific and easier to achieve, I always find the shimming to be a bit of a pain.

just had a look at the thread and can't understand what's being adjusted though, there's reference to the cap nuts being loosened/tightened.

are these the 3 nuts that you can see in the photo's?


----------



## dsc (Jun 7, 2013)

Can't personally see the point of moving the chamber around, it plays no part in the grinidng process. I've not read through the thread though so bear with

T.


----------



## onluxtex (Nov 18, 2015)

Phobic said:


> ok I can buy the explination, certainly would love an alignment solution that's a bit more scientific and easier to achieve, I always find the shimming to be a bit of a pain.
> 
> just had a look at the thread and can't understand what's being adjusted though, there's reference to the cap nuts being loosened/tightened.
> 
> are these the 3 nuts that you can see in the photo's?


No, at the front and back there are four cap nuts. They are connected with threaded rods.


----------



## dsc (Jun 7, 2013)

Right, scratch my above reply, it does make some sense as the "bottom" burr sits on the chassis effectively. The shaft needs to be smack in the center, otherwise the burrs will not run true, but what you need to keep in mind is that the burr mounting holes have some slack, so assuming your EK is not completely off, you should be able to simply move the "bottom" burr around and lock it in place when the DTI shows 0 error.

T.


----------



## El carajillo (Mar 16, 2013)

From my reading of the article they are not centering the fixed burr support/ chamber but rather adjusting its angle / tilt to bring it perpendicular to the shaft / motor. Hence the rotating of the burrs and use of feeler gauges through the coffee exit chute to check for parallel between the burr's after adjustment.

Reading further in the article they imply that it is a similar set up in the Ceado ?


----------



## onluxtex (Nov 18, 2015)

They do both, first the chamber, than the fixed burr and than the rotating burr.


----------



## dsc (Jun 7, 2013)

Surely it's much easier to stick shims under the burr to get it perpendicular to the shaft axis of rotation?

T.


----------



## bongo (Apr 20, 2014)

IMO this makes a difference, and Malkonig have ignored it, then what a pile of tosh their R&D dept is.

i prefer to think it makes no difference, they know that, and some joker is having you all on....


----------



## Mrboots2u (May 10, 2013)

i think people should enjoy their coffee more


----------



## onluxtex (Nov 18, 2015)

bongo said:


> IMO this makes a difference, and Malkonig have ignored it, then what a pile of tosh their R&D dept is.
> 
> i prefer to think it makes no difference, they know that, and some joker is having you all on....


yes, Mahlkonig ignores some crazy people like us. The EK owners from shops and bars don´t care. Mahlkonig knows that.


----------



## dsc (Jun 7, 2013)

It will make a difference, although I can't see why sticking aluminium foil under the stationary burr isn't the prefered solution here. The whole DTI way of checking alignment is a good idea and I'd recommend it much more than felt pens and feeler gauges.

Mahl doesn't give a crap as they know they can sell their grinders regardless. Same reason why so little changed in grinders over the years, R&D costs money, and lots of it, so they go down the "if it ain't broke don't fix it" route.

T.


----------



## dan1502 (Sep 8, 2012)

I will probably look into this a bit further. Maybe my wife can translate some of the thread discussions for me. What I did find when reassembling mine was that if you don't align the plates the motor can actually catch and not spin freely and that the threaded rods don't fill the holes in the motor housing so there is quite a bit of room for rotation of the front plate relative to the rear though I don't know what effect that would have on alignment, more on smooth running I think. Are they talking about relative torque of each bolt? What exactly are they adjusting particularly in relation to the front housing?


----------



## onluxtex (Nov 18, 2015)

dan1502 said:


> What exactly are they adjusting particularly in relation to the front housing?


It is about 0,08mm. It takes a lot of time to get the chamber by fastening/loosing the rods all around to 0,00mm.

I did it. But I did not taste any difference as some people say.


----------



## yvesdemers (Oct 30, 2016)

dan1502 said:


> What I did find when reassembling mine was that if you don't align the plates the motor can actually catch and not spin freely and that the threaded rods don't fill the holes in the motor housing so there is quite a bit of room for rotation of the front plate relative to the rear though I don't know what effect that would have on alignment, more on smooth running I think. Are they talking about relative torque of each bolt??


What do you mean by "plates"? The grinding chamber and rear cover? I believe mine had small markings for the alignment.


----------



## dan1502 (Sep 8, 2012)

Yes, the front and rear casing. I didn't notice any markings but mine is a 2008 model. I lined them up by inserting some rods that were wider than the threaded rods before inserting the threaded rods but I might check it again if I try this burr alignment technique. I had a look at the alignment tool you can buy too but it looks like it only aligns the rear burr. Is that correct?


----------



## onluxtex (Nov 18, 2015)

dan1502 said:


> Yes, the front and rear casing. I didn't notice any markings but mine is a 2008 model. I lined them up by inserting some rods that were wider than the threaded rods before inserting the threaded rods but I might check it again if I try this burr alignment technique. I had a look at the alignment tool you can buy too but it looks like it only aligns the rear burr. Is that correct?


yes, that is correct.

The front burr you can align with the tool mentioned on the fotos below. You move the burrs from fine to more fine and turn them till the thinnest blade fits between the burrs. You still must be possible to turn the burrs by hand.

Sorry I cant explain it better in english. Hope the pictures can do.


----------



## onluxtex (Nov 18, 2015)

Does anybody know where to get it and how much it`s cost?


__
http://instagr.am/p/BVT4d_Ol_9t/


----------



## Mrboots2u (May 10, 2013)

onluxtex said:


> Does anybody know where to get it and how much it`s cost?
> 
> 
> __
> http://instagr.am/p/BVT4d_Ol_9t/


Staying the obvious . Ask mahlkonig

They are petty good on Twitter / Instagram . May not even bit out yet as that looks like a pic from a trade show.

Given they have not given it a price yet or replied to some of the questions on Instagram then I would say it is as of yet not available .


----------



## onluxtex (Nov 18, 2015)

I believe it is like that. I have ask MK in Germany, no answer.....


----------



## Mrboots2u (May 10, 2013)

onluxtex said:


> I believe it is like that. I have ask MK in Germany, no answer.....


There you go then


----------



## onluxtex (Nov 18, 2015)

Another link about alignment and taste:

grinder


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

onluxtex said:


> Another link about alignment and taste:
> 
> grinder


The alignment of the burrs was not measured. Whilst it is "likely" the grinder they used had the best alignment, this was not confirmed.


----------



## Phobic (Aug 17, 2016)

bit of an interim update from me, I was out most of sat and then we had a power cut on Sunday so not had chance to sample as much as I would have liked.

however the few cups I've had have been bloody impressive, I need to re-dial in as expected, it's already clear though that there's a lot more clarity & sweetness.

Spro grind is crazy fluffy, easily had 1 of my best pulls to date this morning.

I'm a bit confused by the couple of V60s I've had, ext % has dropped at the same grind setting though it tasted so much better, not sure if my original notes were wrong or if I still need to find the sweet spot, may need to go much coarser, will try out some more tomorrow.


----------



## fluffles (Sep 4, 2012)

Has anyone seen this alignment video?






Curious as to what is happening here, can't really work out what he's doing. The result at the end *sounds* amazing.


----------



## The Systemic Kid (Nov 23, 2012)

Looks like a recipe for 'how to' knacker a set of burrs and/or shear/strip a set of retaining bolts.


----------



## Phobic (Aug 17, 2016)

it's the method described in the german forum just used sound instead of gap tool.

https://www.kaffee-netz.de/threads/erfahrungsaustausch-ek43.81357/page-32

would be good to undertand the torque tollerances before pushing too hard, personally I'd do it with the gap tool 1st.


----------



## Thecatlinux (Mar 10, 2014)

Here you go , you'll have to excuse his accent though , I think he is an Ozzie.


----------



## fluffles (Sep 4, 2012)

Phobic said:


> it's the method described in the german forum just used sound instead of gap tool.
> 
> https://www.kaffee-netz.de/threads/erfahrungsaustausch-ek43.81357/page-32


Can't read it - might as well be written in German


----------



## fatboyslim (Sep 29, 2011)

Thecatlinux said:


> Here you go , you'll have to excuse his accent though , I think he is an Ozzie.


Do you think he hurt his finger on the burrs? (See blue plaster). The perils of burr alignment!


----------



## Phobic (Aug 17, 2016)

I've really struggled with the marker method, find it a bit hit and miss!

I can see the feeler gauge has merit but the changes you can get by tightening the bolts are going to be limited, from what I've measured on mine the tollerances on the case are more than I'd be comfortable tighening/loosening the bolts.

Titus gauge has worked very well for me, I'm at ~50microns, going to give it 1 more go this week to see if I can get it even better.


----------



## unoll (Jan 22, 2014)

Phobic said:


> I've really struggled with the marker method, find it a bit hit and miss!
> 
> I can see the feeler gauge has merit but the changes you can get by tightening the bolts are going to be limited, from what I've measured on mine the tollerances on the case are more than I'd be comfortable tighening/loosening the bolts.
> 
> Titus gauge has worked very well for me, I'm at ~50microns, going to give it 1 more go this week to see if I can get it even better.


50 microns is pretty impressive, however at this level I advise a torque wrench if you haven't used one already. The wrench should be used to tighten the burrs down as well as the face plate. Last night I did an alignment check with whiteboard pen and found that one of the burr bolts not being torqued the same as the other two resulted in missallignment. Also inconsistent tightening of the faceplate bolts will effect results.


----------



## dan1502 (Sep 8, 2012)

The Systemic Kid said:


> Looks like a recipe for 'how to' knacker a set of burrs and/or shear/strip a set of retaining bolts.


The standard bolts are very soft and covered in paint. I replaced all mine with marine grade stainless. Once I've digested all the information on alignment, am in a sufficiently calm and patient mood and have a free weekend I shall have a go at mine......if that ever happens


----------



## fatboyslim (Sep 29, 2011)

Phobic said:


> I've really struggled with the marker method, find it a bit hit and miss!
> 
> I can see the feeler gauge has merit but the changes you can get by tightening the bolts are going to be limited, from what I've measured on mine the tollerances on the case are more than I'd be comfortable tighening/loosening the bolts.
> 
> Titus gauge has worked very well for me, I'm at ~50microns, going to give it 1 more go this week to see if I can get it even better.


When you're well and truly happy with your alignment I could send you a bit of monies to borrow your tool? I'll cover £7 DPD each way for your peace of mind. Insured up to £200 I think.


----------



## unoll (Jan 22, 2014)

fatboyslim said:


> When you're well and truly happy with your alignment I could send you a bit of monies to borrow your tool? I'll cover £7 DPD each way for your peace of mind. Insured up to £200 I think.


 What he said


----------



## Phobic (Aug 17, 2016)

the stationary burr screws will marginally alter the alignment by ~50 microns but that's not really enough, and they're pretty soft as well, could do with replacing with something better really particularly when you're going back and forth shimming.

there are 100 micron shims, so I really need to put those in and back off slightly with the screws and I think I'll have it bang on. There's just 2 spots left on the rotation that's out 50 microns, however it's a ball ache to get it right even with the tool it's a bit hit and miss.

will give a go this weekend if I get chance and then more than happy to loan it out, you can make a donation to charity to say thanks


----------



## Phobic (Aug 17, 2016)

__
http://instagr.am/p/BV4MxF_DAYS/

shimming of the rotating burr, interesting



> socraticcoffee19:24 Sydney time...We are constantly aiming for burr-fection! For instance here we are using same thickness shimming materials (thick enough) or you can use thickness gauge which you could buy on eBay and place them in front of each screw before you tighten the moving burr of your EK-43 #radial


----------



## jupe2.0 (Jul 31, 2017)

Hi, I'm new here. I am from Germany, the mother country of Mahlkonig. I have experiences with EK43 alignment since more than one year.

Here are my implications:

I prefer to adjust the fixed grinding disc to the bottom of the grinding chamber by cutting in or sanding in the disc into the chamber bottom. What's that, a quite terrible method to destroy your EK43 and to grind better coffee.

Here is my fantastic method to rebuild you EK43 to a sander.

You need not much ability, but some bravery.

With 25 mm M5 countersunk screws, both grinding disks are screwed in a double pack onto the grinding disk carrier. Beforehand, the 240slip paper is glued to the back of the fixed disc with spray adhesive und the holes of the fix disc have to be enwrapped for fitting to the srews.

Grinding is carried out manually after the 7x18mm distance bush is removed from the shaft. For sanding you need cutting oil. Grinding allows an alignment of the fix grinding disc to below 5 μm.





































Demonstration video by using mahlkonig guatemala:






You habe to repeat this procedure 6 to 8 times.

Greeting

Juergen


----------



## jupe2.0 (Jul 31, 2017)

Results:






Greeting

Juergen


----------



## onluxtex (Nov 18, 2015)

For me, I did it in the same way he described. It works 100% and saves a lot of time.

Instead of using the M5x25srews you can fix the first one with the normal screw to the burr carrier and fix the second burr with Tesa-tape around the first and second burr..

It is the better way. Not my idea, it is also from Jurgen/jupe.


----------



## jupe2.0 (Jul 31, 2017)

Yes, for pussies:






Greeting

Juergen


----------



## Phobic (Aug 17, 2016)

jupe2.0 said:


> Hi, I'm new here. I'm coming from Germany, the mother country of Mahlkonig.I have experiences with EK43 alignment since more than one year.
> 
> Here my implications:
> 
> ...


that is such a simple, easy and elegant solution!

I'm struggling to think of any reason why it wouldn't work. I want to give it a go....

@jupe2.0 and @onluxtex how are you aligning the rotating burr?


----------



## jupe2.0 (Jul 31, 2017)

It's not necessary, however possible in the same way.


----------



## onluxtex (Nov 18, 2015)

It is better to use sand paper P240


----------



## onluxtex (Nov 18, 2015)

It is from Jurgen/Jupe. Do it in the same way with the EK


----------



## fluffles (Sep 4, 2012)

Blimey, makes a lot of sense but not sure I'm brave enough. After you @Phobic


----------



## jupe2.0 (Jul 31, 2017)

It's no problem. Try it and have fun.


----------



## onluxtex (Nov 18, 2015)

fluffles said:


> Blimey, makes a lot of sense but not sure I'm brave enough. After you @Phobic


don´t worry, first I also was afraid. But you really can´t break anything. It is the easiest way of alignment.


----------



## fluffles (Sep 4, 2012)

I guess after doing this, no shimming is required?


----------



## dan1502 (Sep 8, 2012)

It wouldn't be but before I embarked on anything like this I would like to have the grinder in bits and take loads of measurements to see how everything's aligned beforehand then consider the various solutions with it in front of me rather than trying to visualise it which I find quite difficult.


----------



## fatboyslim (Sep 29, 2011)

dan1502 said:


> It wouldn't be but before I embarked on anything like this I would like to have the grinder in bits and take loads of measurements to see how everything's aligned beforehand then consider the various solutions with it in front of me rather than trying to visualise it which I find quite difficult.


Do report back to us with your findings


----------



## onluxtex (Nov 18, 2015)

fluffles said:


> I guess after doing this, no shimming is required?


no more shimming, every thing is perfect.


----------



## fluffles (Sep 4, 2012)

dan1502 said:


> It wouldn't be but before I embarked on anything like this I would like to have the grinder in bits and take loads of measurements to see how everything's aligned beforehand then consider the various solutions with it in front of me rather than trying to visualise it which I find quite difficult.


It seems quite a simple concept to me. The two burrs are screwed together tight, with their cutting faces against each other. The burrs are therefore "perfectly aligned" as they are in contact all the way round. You then mount it onto the shaft and sand down the casing until the back of the fixed burr (i.e. the sanding surface) is flat against the casing. This is better than aligning the fixed burr to the shaft as it also takes into account any imperfections in the alignment of the moving burr, which is notoriously difficult to measure and/or put right.


----------



## dan1502 (Sep 8, 2012)

I can see how it aligns the stationary burr as it's surface, when mounted on the shaft is used to abrade the surface it shall me mounted on therefore the surface should be correctly aligned relative to the shaft. What I can't see is how it would have any impact on the alignment of the moving burr once the screws are released as when grinding beans they are not in contact.

I might be wrong though and my thinking is that if it is the angle of the shaft relative to the back of the chassis where the stationary burr is mounted that causes a small amount of misalignment and the rotating burr assembly as a whole is true, when mounted on the shaft having aligned the stationary burr as described both should be aligned to each other.

What I would like to do is identify how true everything is to start with and if out then find the culprit/s however there might be limitations as to what I can measure with the equipment I have. For instance I don't have a perfectly flat surface which would probably be necessary to check the machining of the burrs and carrier.

It'll be a while before I tackle this though. I have too busy a life at present plus by waiting I should benefit from more ideas, experiences and methods such as this latest one.


----------



## Phobic (Aug 17, 2016)

only other thing I can think of is that you should make sure the rotating burr is perfectly central before starting, but that's pretty easy to do compared to aligning/shimming it.

looks like a good idea.

no-one has any reason not to do it?

worst case you go to far and grind a hole in the case, but I'm thinking that's unlikely, the biggest deviation I had was 300 microns, I'd assume that the case if made from something a bit more substantial than that!


----------



## Phobic (Aug 17, 2016)

@dan1502 the case isn't perfectly perpendicular to the shaft, that's why some people are "aligning" by tightening/loosening the case bolts.

that's 1 downside I can see to this sandpaper method, if you ever needed to strip the motor or rebuild it you'd need to make sure you get the torsion identical.


----------



## onluxtex (Nov 18, 2015)

fluffles said:


> It seems quite a simple concept to me. The two burrs are screwed together tight, with their cutting faces against each other.


Instead of using srews for two burrs, just use the original screws to fix one burr to the carrier, put the second one upside down to the first and tape Tesa arround.

This way you don´t get scratches from the burrs to the grinding chamber.


----------



## dan1502 (Sep 8, 2012)

Good point phobic I particularly want to check mine due to its history. Maybe I should visit the Mahlkonig factory and see what they think as I shall be in Hamburg for a week later this month


----------



## onluxtex (Nov 18, 2015)

The burr carrier of the LE is made from aluminium. The normal EK has a stainless steel carrier.

The aluminium one you also can align.

Fix the two burrs with M5x25 to the grinding chamber. The head of the screws has to be cut off a bit just not to get scratches on the carrier. Glue the sandpaper to thr upper burr.

Fix the burr carrier to the grinder. Start the grinder just for some seconds by turning the adjustment button slowly to fine.

Only good for alu carrier.


----------



## dan1502 (Sep 8, 2012)

Again I might be wrong on this but isn't one of the purposes of the bushing that is removed for this method to keep the shaft aligned and if so then might abrading with it not in place potential result in it being not quite right or aligned differently when the bushing is back in place? I also wonder about the precision of sanding vs machining when we're talking about such small amounts. I'm not an engineer and don't know whether those suggesting these methods are or not but a would prefer to have an engineer's view on all this before diving in. Just to add that my take on this is that I'm getting very good results in the cup as it is. Whilst of course if improvements in that regard result then great but my interest in this is probably more to do with me quite liking to tinker.


----------



## dan1502 (Sep 8, 2012)

I've made a start uploading the internal photos in my other EK thread and replacing the dysfunctional photobucket images. Unfortunately for some reason it as rotated some and I need to look for others but I'll sort it soon.


----------



## dsc (Jun 7, 2013)

Phobic said:


> only other thing I can think of is that you should make sure the rotating burr is perfectly central before starting, but that's pretty easy to do compared to aligning/shimming it.
> 
> looks like a good idea.
> 
> ...


Indeed it would be better if the "ground" area was a bit bigger to allow for the burr to sit "flat" in any position, even off centre, but as you say, if the burr is dead centre to begin with you should be good.

T.


----------



## dsc (Jun 7, 2013)

Forgot to add, that my idea of indicating the rotating burr won't work due to the side wipers on the burr carrier :/ those will knock anything you set up from the side, thus making it impossible to indicate the top surface of the burr even with a big gap between the burrs (for the stylus to fit).

T.


----------



## Phobic (Aug 17, 2016)

been thinking about this a bit more, I think having the rotating burr perfectly aligned before you start is pretty important here.

otherwise if the rotating burr is out by 10 microns on 1 side, then you'll transfer that to the static burr and case all the way around as you rotate.

the rotating burr tends not to have an issue generally though because of the way it's made so might not actually be an issue. Think I'll check it 1st though.


----------



## dan1502 (Sep 8, 2012)

And I am wondering how much if any angular play there is with regards the rotating burr carrier and the shaft and whether or not it is altered once the front adjustment assembly is in place and it's all under pressure. Shimming might be a safer bet as it's completely reversible.


----------



## El carajillo (Mar 16, 2013)

I have not seen one of these machines in the flesh BUT I would have thought the optimum adjustment would be to align the end plates true with the motor shaft. From previous posts this can be achieved by alternate tensioning of the long screws/ bolts PROVIDING IT DOES NOT overload the bearings by compressing them. The alternative would sensibly be to measure the "runout" as discussed in earlier posts, purchase some shim steel from an engineering merchant and shim accordingly ( shim steel can be cut with scissors).

As already pointed out, grinding away the case could mean problems / regrinding in the future.

Just my thoughts.


----------



## jupe2.0 (Jul 31, 2017)

Measurement of the EK 43 fix burr after the sanding method.

The video for disbeliever.






After square correction (cosine failure) I think the error is below 5 um.

Who wants more?

greeting

juergen


----------



## jupe2.0 (Jul 31, 2017)

Here is the historical post #1100 in german kaffee-netz.de, thread "Erfahrungsaustausch EK43: Schwerpunkt Alignment / Ausrichtung"

at 20th of July, 2017.

The idea came about when cycling, without having tried it before.

"A new idea of sanding in the seat of the fix grinding burr parallel: Glue the 600 to 1000 sanding paper on the outer edge of the EK 43 fix burr, cut off inside and outside of the overlaying paper, screw the grinding disk onto the grinding disk carrier in double pack and then sand."

greeting

juergen


----------



## El carajillo (Mar 16, 2013)

I fully understand what the process is but I personally would use the other method to correct it.


----------



## jupe2.0 (Jul 31, 2017)

The EK43 is a coffee grinder from the 70th. The manufacturing process did not changed so long. So, today the EK 43 is still a coffee grinder, not an espresso grinder. Do not worry, take the sanding method und be happy, to have the best grinder in the world.

greeting

juergen


----------



## jupe2.0 (Jul 31, 2017)

El carajillo said:


> I fully understand what the process is but I personally would use the other method to correct it.
> 
> Are many of these machines so badly assembled ? If it is the case I would have thought a call to the manufacturer would be in order.


All EK43 are not aligned, only the EK43 limited Edition. The LE is adjustet below 30 um, for my sense not good enough, but MK thinks, you cannot tast it.

greeting

juergen


----------



## dan1502 (Sep 8, 2012)

I wonder what alignment methods Mahlkonig use when making the LE version then unless they just manufacture the chassis parts to finer tolerances?


----------



## jupe2.0 (Jul 31, 2017)

The chassis parts are the same.

The grinder housing is fit to the motor housing using a spacial machine. It's a machine-guided merge. Angel und misalignment is gaugeable, so far I know.

Each LE is adjusted 100% by the test field inidividualy to a grinding result between 120 um and 140 um median grinding.

Up to now I have gauged three EK 43 LE. The misalignment by each LE was about 30 to 40 um at the edge of the fix burr.

Using my sanding method, the fix burr is adjustet to 5um at the edge of the fix burr.

greeting

juergen


----------



## jupe2.0 (Jul 31, 2017)

Here my radial alignment of the EK43 burrs

First disassemble the grinder and remove the distance bush from the shaft.

Mount the fix burr, but do not tighten the screws, so you can move the burr slightly.

Put the pre-breaker onto the shaft just not touching the fix burr and look to fall in line with the fix burr using a small lamp. If necessary move the fix burr with a stick so far that its fit perfectly to the pre-breaker.









After alignment move the pre-breaker with one hole for fixing the burr to the 12 clock position. Then take a small screwdriver and tights the three screws to fix the burr.

Remove the pre-breaker and finsh mounting with an adaptive screwdriver.










Finally mount the moving burr fitting to the pre-breker using your fingertips.

Ready, and very easy.

Greeting

Juergen


----------



## onluxtex (Nov 18, 2015)

JKK said:


> Hello
> 
> Can you supply a link to the German website for this adjustment ?
> 
> ...


----------



## yvesdemers (Oct 30, 2016)

Anyone knows the torque specifications for the grinding chamber to the motors, as well as for the rotating burr to the burr carrier and for the fixed burr to the grinding chamber?


----------



## jupe2.0 (Jul 31, 2017)

tightening torques for EK43

grinding house M4: 1,4 Nm

burrs M5 (fix and rotating): 2,8 Nm.


----------



## fluffles (Sep 4, 2012)

Did anyone see this post?


__
http://instagr.am/p/BXv0U-1BpYd/

Says that the burrs have a correct way round, for standard EK43 burrs the pre-breaker should be top and bottom rahter than left and right. Didn't consider this made a difference - haven't checked mine, but I just *know* mine will be left and right


----------



## dsc (Jun 7, 2013)

Would be good to see some blind taste results which confirm this.

T.


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

dsc said:


> Would be good to see some blind taste results which confirm this.
> 
> T.


Consistency, for manual brews, can be measured by one person, repeatably.

Double blind tasting takes several people & hours...I'm not aware of any grinder, or burrs that are marketed on the results of blinded taste tests (so seems a bit harsh to suggest it as a current metric)? Would be nice of course, but who would conduct & pay for it?


----------



## dsc (Jun 7, 2013)

What's the test protocol for consistency checks with manual brews?

I suggested blind testing as the best way to detach yourself from whatever changes you've introduced into the process. I've seen it done before on espresso kit by 3-4 people, typically mates, so it's not like you need a proper test panel charging money by the hour.

If there's a fairly bold claim like the one linked to above, it would be nice to see some data to back it up, that is all I'm saying.

T.


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

dsc said:


> What's the test protocol for consistency checks with manual brews?
> 
> I suggested blind testing as the best way to detach yourself from whatever changes you've introduced into the process. I've seen it done before on espresso kit by 3-4 people, typically mates, so it's not like you need a proper test panel charging money by the hour.
> 
> ...


Sieve & determine sdev by weight vs size.

Laser diffraction should show it too [EDIT: This is the method Gorilla Gear state].

Getting mates to taste a few espressos isn't really a satisfactory protocol if you are to have confidence in the result. The test subjects shouldn't be aware, or have the slightest inkling of what the test is about, servers shouldn't be aware of the difference between samples. It's the staff to conduct the test (ideally 2 EK's, engineer to change burrs & check alignment, barista to brew & confirm consistency of brews, server to distribute blinded pairs to tasters) & have a reasonable sample, that costs.


----------



## dsc (Jun 7, 2013)

Depends what you call satisfactory, how professional the approach is, how good sensory wise your mates are etc. You could be picky and say that sieving isn't precise either unless done with proper test sieves which cost a lot of money (even then its shape vs sieve size). LPA will cost an arm and a leg as well, so hardly a cheap(er) method.

T.


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

dsc said:


> Depends what you call satisfactory, how professional the approach is, how good sensory wise your mates are etc. You could be picky and say that sieving isn't precise either unless done with proper test sieves which cost a lot of money (even then its shape vs sieve size). LPA will cost an arm and a leg as well, so hardly a cheap(er) method.
> 
> T.


You asked what the current approaches are. Blind tasting isn't one of them.

Sifting with sieves of a known size & tolerance is repeatable & objective, as is LPA.

Consistency of shape is beyond the remit of sieve & LPA, what is the effect of average particle shape on preference? What is the shape of your current grinder's output & what did it cost to determine that?


----------



## dsc (Jun 7, 2013)

I should've said some form of test data would've been nice to back up the claims that GG is making, instead of asking for blind testing evidence (this is before I've noticed that they use LPA). I've seen blind testing done several times for espresso related experiments and it worked fairly well (assuming you believe the outcome) even though the participants were aware of what is being changed in the process (ie. not 100% blind). I also wasn't sure what GG meant by "consistant" results, whether it's consistant grind distribution or consistant results in the cup based on EY / taste, which is why I said it would be interesting to see what their test protocol is. Good thing about blind testing is that you are testing the final product, with sieving / LPA you are testing a component which then gets turned to the final product.

You mentioned that blind testing is time consuming and can cost a fair bit of money, I simply stated back that LPA isn't exactly cheap either (probably the most expensive from all the methods available) and sieve testing requires lab sieves which cost a fair bit as well. From what I gather and what I've found out from a lab that does LPA is that LPA isn't a do-all, uber precise method of checking grind distribution as pre-mixing, de-clumping and de-compressing the samples has a fairly big effect on the final results. I've also seen it mentioned in a few places that LPA isn't ideal as it doesn't take into account the shape of the particles, same goes for sieving, you can have long thin shard like particles which pass through very fines sieves even though they are not the right size. I'm guessing this hasn't got a massive impact on the final result, but this is what I was referring to when I mentioned shape vs size in my previous post.

No idea what the particle distribution on my current grinder is, I'm guessing similar to what a conical burr set produces, as this is what determines the distribution the most imho.

T.


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

dsc said:


> I should've said some form of test data would've been nice to back up the claims that GG is making, instead of asking for blind testing evidence (this is before I've noticed that they use LPA). I've seen blind testing done several times for espresso related experiments and it worked fairly well (assuming you believe the outcome) even though the participants were aware of what is being changed in the process (ie. not 100% blind). I also wasn't sure what GG meant by "consistant" results, whether it's consistant grind distribution or consistant results in the cup based on EY / taste, which is why I said it would be interesting to see what their test protocol is. Good thing about blind testing is that you are testing the final product, with sieving / LPA you are testing a component which then gets turned to the final product.
> 
> You mentioned that blind testing is time consuming and can cost a fair bit of money, I simply stated back that LPA isn't exactly cheap either (probably the most expensive from all the methods available) and sieve testing requires lab sieves which cost a fair bit as well. From what I gather and what I've found out from a lab that does LPA is that LPA isn't a do-all, uber precise method of checking grind distribution as pre-mixing, de-clumping and de-compressing the samples has a fairly big effect on the final results. I've also seen it mentioned in a few places that LPA isn't ideal as it doesn't take into account the shape of the particles, same goes for sieving, you can have long thin shard like particles which pass through very fines sieves even though they are not the right size. I'm guessing this hasn't got a massive impact on the final result, but this is what I was referring to when I mentioned shape vs size in my previous post.
> 
> ...


Sure, but it's worth keeping in mind that taste testing shows a preference, in order to correlate that preference with a tangible parameter you have to be able to identify, isolate & manipulate that parameter. So, I agree that blinded tasting would be useful/interesting, but it doesn't replace/negate objective analysis, they have to be complimentary.

If you're making burrs/grinders, you should be able to afford access to some method of analysis (whatever that may be), given the other overheads. Otherwise what is the point of designing something (beyond ergonomics, which I'm not discounting as valuable) if you have no idea, beyond hunches, what the aspects of that design have on the outcome?

I'm pretty sure you will find that the distribution of your grinder (by weight) changes with burr gap (e.g. wider distribution as you go coarser), so whatever it is, it needs to be tied into a brewing protocol/average size. For manual brewing you can get useful distribution info from 2 sieves, or even one sieve for settings/average size.


----------



## dsc (Jun 7, 2013)

The issue with LPA or distribution curves is deciding what is acceptable / great / poor. So far everyone's been saying that the tighter / narrower the curve the better, but that point of view seems to be shifting as well. Also it's hard to know who to believe nowadays and what claims or aims are being generated simply to create more sales and what is unbiased. You could for example find that a certain grind protocol / burrset / grinder is consistent in delivering a certain distribution as proven by LPA, but it might not be the "right" distribution at all.

Fairly sure all of the big grinder manufacturers use LPA to test new burrs / equipment and it's factored into their R&D budgets. I'd love to afford LPA tests myself (even if I didn't have a custom built grinder), but buying a machine is beyond my reach and going to a lab to get grind samples tested costs quite a lot and requires taking a day or more off, neither of which I can afford at this point. I'd be very interested in checking what grind profiling can offer and how speed affects distribution, but this means running multiple samples and from what I've heard (from a lab) this means spending a few days at the lab at least which of course makes it harder to do on a budget (anyone with access to an LPA feel free to PM me ). If sieves offer reasonable results which can help I'd be open to buying some (ebay seems to have a lot of test sieves going cheap at the moment), just need to confirm what sizes would be most handy.

Right, going back on topic here, anyone here tried the "mod" suggested by GG?

T.


----------



## yvesdemers (Oct 30, 2016)

jupe2.0 said:


> tightening torques for EK43
> 
> grinding house M4: 1,4 Nm
> 
> burrs M5 (fix and rotating): 2,8 Nm.


Thank you, may I ask where theses specs come from?


----------



## unoll (Jan 22, 2014)

dsc said:


> .... Right, going back on topic here, anyone here tried the "mod" suggested by GG?
> 
> T.


During allignment I've set my burrs up this way. Can't say if it makes difference versus other orientation as there's too many other things to factor in that I've changed. However, my coffee isn't tasting worse.


----------



## Xpenno (Nov 12, 2012)

Very interesting thread. Just out of interest, for the sanding method is there any reason why you wouldn't reassemble everything once the burrs are screwed together, put the front on, switch on the grinder and perform the sanding whilst the grinder is running using the front screw?

Also, since the static burr is static and you are sanding based on both burrs and the carrier moving is there a downside to this or is the presumption that the alignment issues are all down to the chassis and the carrier and burrs are all within tolerance?

Cheers

Spence


----------



## fluffles (Sep 4, 2012)

Xpenno said:


> Very interesting thread. Just out of interest, for the sanding method is there any reason why you wouldn't reassemble everything once the burrs are screwed together, put the front on, switch on the grinder and perform the sanding whilst the grinder is running using the front screw?
> 
> Also, since the static burr is static and you are sanding based on both burrs and the carrier moving is there a downside to this or is the presumption that the alignment issues are all down to the chassis and the carrier and burrs are all within tolerance?
> 
> ...


 @jupe2.0


----------



## jupe2.0 (Jul 31, 2017)

In fact, this was my first idea: sanding the grinding house bottom by motor power using the grinder itself und using the adjustment screw (so-called adjustment spindle) for moving the carrier while sanding, but I hestitate because of the high angular velocity of the burrs (446 m/sec) and the risk of overheating.

i think the tolerances of the carrier and the burrs have no influences on the sanding result. Only the radial alignment of the moving burr leads to a slightly expanded sanding mark at the bottom. This is an advantage for mounting the fix burr to the grindinghouse bottom after sanding intothe space of the sanding mark.

Greeting

Juergen


----------



## jupe2.0 (Jul 31, 2017)

Update for the sanding method to adjust the EK43 grinding house.

to make a burrs-double pack, the best way is to take tesa tape:


----------



## jupe2.0 (Jul 31, 2017)

Result after 5 min.:


----------



## CoffeeRat (May 15, 2014)

jupe2.0 said:


> Update for the sanding method


 What kind of sanding paper do you use?

I cannot find any for metal/non-ferrous metal on paper base. On fabric base only. Like this one

https://www.klingspor.de/en-gb/products/abrasive-sheets/kl-371-x?set_language=en-gb&suche=1


----------



## Xpenno (Nov 12, 2012)

jupe2.0 said:


>


Nice, saw your vid for sanding the burr carrier, does that only work for the LE's aluminium carrier or could it work for the older EK?

Also how long have you had to sand both elements in total to get that end result???

Thanks for the very informative info @jupe2.0


----------



## onluxtex (Nov 18, 2015)

Xpenno said:


> Nice, saw your vid for sanding the burr carrier, does that only work for the LE's aluminium carrier or could it work for the older EK?
> 
> Also how long have you had to sand both elements in total to get that end result???
> 
> Thanks for the very informative info @jupe2.0


The carrier of the LE is made from aluminium. The one of the other EK´s ist made of stainless steel. I would say, forget in this case sanding the carrier. For the chamber it doesn´t even take 5 minutes


----------



## jupe2.0 (Jul 31, 2017)

Sanding the normal EK43 carrier, which ist made of stainless steel is possible too. I´ll try it this week.

So long









Juergen


----------



## jupe2.0 (Jul 31, 2017)

Sanding technics of EK43 alignment summary ( in my opinion):

The EK43 must be aligned like any other mill for grinding Espreeso.

For this purpose, only the grinding burrs have to be aligned in a plane-parallel manner.

The rotating grinding burr is not a serious problem because the misalignment is of the order of about 10 to 15 μm.

In the case of the fixed grinding burr the error is between 30 and 100 μm, possibly also higher in individual cases.

For the no longer available EK43 LE (limited edition) it is probably somewhat lower, presumably at a little under 30 um.

The grinding discs themselves have two low points of approximately 10 to 20 μm at 3 and 9 o'clock position on the side of the support, the cause and meaning of which is unclear.

There are several ways to improve the alignment.

Laying with films or layers is probably the worst method because it is tedious and time-consuming, and leads to the bending of the grinding discs.

The alignment of the grinding housing via the grinding of the motor housing edge towards the grinding chamber is the most consistent way, but elaborate and only recommended for mechanics.

The orientation of the grinding housing over the tightening torque of the four housing thread rods is possible within a limited range of +/- 20 μm, but has the disadvantage that the coating applates on the head nuts, and the adjustment may not be stable because in the course of settlements which worsens the adjustment again.

Grinding of the bearing surfaces of the fixed and rotating grinding diskcarrier with the mill itself using a grinding disc double pack and glued-on sanding paper (220er) is the simplest method and requires no dial gauge.

Grinding of the fixed grinding disk should be carried out by hand rotation of the grinding disk carrier in alternating clockwise and counterclockwise rotation with only slight pressure and spring removed.

Grinding the grinding disc carrier is best done with the motor of the EK43 itself.

Grinding the grinding burrs has the decisive advantage that the grinding operation without any dial gauge is taken into account with all errors in the bearing, the vibrations and the alignment of all components.

In addition, no special tool is required, only tesafilm and screw drivers.

greeting

juergen


----------



## fluffles (Sep 4, 2012)

Curious to know whether after this method you end up with the high pitch noise when the burrs are just touching that is supposedly desirable, as described by Matt perger?


----------



## jupe2.0 (Jul 31, 2017)

Yes ,very curious, please, for this request MP.


----------



## Xpenno (Nov 12, 2012)

fluffles said:


> Curious to know whether after this method you end up with the high pitch noise when the burrs are just touching that is supposedly desirable, as described by Matt perger?


I thought the chirp was poor alignment. It was a real raspy noise when alignment was good.

The alignment in jupe2.0 video seems ideal as the burrs make less noise which would make me think that they are extremely aligned.


----------



## Xpenno (Nov 12, 2012)

@jupe2.0 when grinding metal do you have to keep cleaning down the sandpaper? At appears clogged but it's not obvious whether it's still sanding or not.

Cheers

Spence


----------



## jupe2.0 (Jul 31, 2017)

You habe to clean the sandpaper every 30sec., of course, and you need cutting oil.


----------



## jupe2.0 (Jul 31, 2017)

The noise is misleading.


----------



## jupe2.0 (Jul 31, 2017)

One pitch for one rotation is normal, even by poor alignment, by excellent alignment too.

Multiple pitches per rotation is a sign of waved burrs, caused by layers, used by Matt Perger.


----------



## Xpenno (Nov 12, 2012)

jupe2.0 said:


> One pitch for one rotation is normal, even by poor alignment, by excellent alignment too.
> 
> Multiple pitches per rotation is a sign of waved burrs, caused by layers, used by Matt Perger.


So is it the distance of travel between the single pitch until the louder noise that's the measure? Or is the pitch completely useless.


----------



## jupe2.0 (Jul 31, 2017)

completely useless.


----------



## jupe2.0 (Jul 31, 2017)

Sound of EK43 with 5um alignment, fixed and rotating burrs:






Thanks to Matt Perger for the fake alignment:waiting:

greeting

juergen


----------



## fluffles (Sep 4, 2012)

Are you game for this @Xpenno? I think I am, but not likely to have any spare time in the near future. Would be interested to know what materials you use if you take the plunge.


----------



## Xpenno (Nov 12, 2012)

fluffles said:


> Are you game for this @Xpenno? I think I am, but not likely to have any spare time in the near future. Would be interested to know what materials you use if you take the plunge.


I did the grind chamber when I first saw this thread and then did the burr carrier on Monday.


----------



## fluffles (Sep 4, 2012)

Xpenno said:


> I did the grind chamber when I first saw this thread and then did the burr carrier on Monday.


Ah nice, I take it it went OK? Too early to draw any conclusions?

Just wondering what sandpaper you used, does it need to be something particular for sanding metal or any 240 grit would do? Where did you get the cutting oil and what adhesive did you use?

And sanding the burr carrier - did you do this with the motor running? It worked OK?


----------



## Xpenno (Nov 12, 2012)

fluffles said:


> Ah nice, I take it it went OK? Too early to draw any conclusions?
> 
> Just wondering what sandpaper you used, does it need to be something particular for sanding metal or any 240 grit would do? Where did you get the cutting oil and what adhesive did you use?
> 
> And sanding the burr carrier - did you do this with the motor running? It worked OK?


Yeah it went fine, it's a very simple process. I used 3M 300 grit paper and some spray craft glue. I'd probably go a little coarser if I did it again just as the paper gets clogged really quickly. I used olive oil for lube, no idea if that's an issue but it seemed to do the job.


----------



## jupe2.0 (Jul 31, 2017)

Clogging is a sign of abrasive result. Perhaps you have to change to 200 grit paper.

You have finished, when the scrub marks takes 360 degree.


----------



## fluffles (Sep 4, 2012)

One thing I'm still not sure about is why any sanding would be needed on the burr carrier. If it the burr carrier is not aligned well to the shaft, when sanding the grinder casing does this misalignment not transfer onto the case? So you end up with both misaligned to the shaft, but aligned to each other? Isn't that all we need?

If you sand the casing using the carrier and then sand the carrier, do you not undo some of the good work you did when you sanded the casing? At the very least I would have thought to sand the carrier before the casing?


----------



## CoffeeRat (May 15, 2014)

I would try to measure first


----------



## jupe2.0 (Jul 31, 2017)

The misalignment of the carrier can not be transmitted to the grinding housing during grinding because only the high point determines the grinding or sanding in.


----------



## bpchia (Dec 23, 2014)

jupe2.0 said:


> Clogging is a sign of abrasive result. Perhaps you have to change to 200 grit paper.
> 
> You have finished, when the scrub marks takes 360 degree.


Hi Juergen, your method makes so much sense, I want to give it a go. Thank you for all the information you have already provided.

I'm wondering if you can do a "start to finish" video just so I do it perfectly and don't ruin my grinder. I have some specific questions that I hope you can address in the video (if you have time to do the video of course!)

1. I have the "normal" EK43, not the limited edition, I wasn't sure if you have indeed done it on the "normal" model? If yes, do you use the same sandpaper?

2. What do you use for cutting oil?

3. Do you just put some sandpaper over the back of the stationary burr, then cut around it? Do you also cut away the inside of the sandpaper where the back of the burr is recessed?

4. Do you recommend changing the standard screws that hold the burrs in? What are the specifications.

5. What is the recommended torque for the two screws that hold the faceplate on?

6. Regarding radial alignment you described here https://coffeeforums.co.uk/showthread.php?38407-EK-43-alignment-grinding-chamber&p=519003#post519003 I'm having trouble visualising it, can you possibly do a video for that too?

I realise that is asking a lot but this could be an amazing resource for the worldwide coffee community!


----------



## CoffeeRat (May 15, 2014)

sorry didn't quite get how to edit image attachments


----------



## jupe2.0 (Jul 31, 2017)

@bpchia






any questions?

Greeting

Juergen


----------



## malling (Dec 8, 2014)

Yes can you do it for me, I'm not sure I have the guts


----------



## bpchia (Dec 23, 2014)

jupe2.0 said:


> @bpchia


 @jupe2.0 haha thanks, I couldn't see those because on your YouTube channel only some videos show up, not sure why? I do have some questions if you would be kind enough to answer:

1. To make the sandpaper disc, do you just trace around the burr onto the back of the sandpaper, cut it out, and cut a hole in the middle?

2. I don't quite understand how you do radial alignment for both stationary and rotating burrs, is it possible to do a video for that?

3. Do you need to realign when changing burrs, because the burrs may not be completely flat?

4. What are the grinding house M4 screws for, I hope I don't need to touch these??

5. Does the amount of lubricant for the shaft and shear plate you apply affect alignment? Should you just use the least possible?

Thanks again! Look forward to trying this and will let you know how I go.


----------



## jupe2.0 (Jul 31, 2017)

@bpchia

ad1)

First put the glue to the sandingpaper backside and at the burr backside, wait 15 minutes and put them together. Next cut it out with a cutting knife on a granite table.

Sanding the fix burr:






greeting

juergen


----------



## bpchia (Dec 23, 2014)

Thanks @jupe2.0 !


----------



## jupe2.0 (Jul 31, 2017)

EK43 Limited, alignment by sanding technique nearly below 5um or better, new red speed SSP burrs mounted, consider parallactic needle deviation.






Better does not work!

Standard alignment by Mahlkonig for the limited version is 30 um max.

greeting

juergen


----------



## CoffeeRat (May 15, 2014)

EGM (grain/poppy seed) grinder. If I read the gage correctly misalignment is over 300 micron. Maybe chinese gage is ok but its fixation brackets is just total crap. It is very hard to fix it on machined alu plate with it. Who does use what technique for fixation? Cause all existing videos do not show that at all.


----------



## Xpenno (Nov 12, 2012)

Hey @jupe2.0 could you please explain your process for the radial alignment of the moving burr. I watched that video but I'm not sure exactly what you are doing....

Cheers

Spence


----------



## fluffles (Sep 4, 2012)

I went for this last week sometime. Managed to get the alignment of the chamber down from around 60-70um to 20um. Couldn't get it down to 5um like @jupe2.0 for some reason, but still lots better. Just a single very thin shim at 3 o'clock, 6 o'clock and 9 o'clock has got it to 10-15um.

Weird thing is, my shots are now running much faster and I need to grind quite a bit finer. Perhaps this is OK - would a more even grind produce fewer fines? Barista Hustle guys seem to think that it should be the opposite and shots should run slower when well aligned. Or perhaps my burr carrier is badly aligned and needs fixing or shimming.


----------



## malling (Dec 8, 2014)

I wouldn't define the burr carrier as being aligned from factory, because that would indicate Mahlkonig actual did something. I have heard about quite a few people with very uneven burr carriers. Mine needed 6 sheets with the classic perger alignment to get it aligned others needed 10 or more sheets.

Usually bad alignment make it run straight through on an ek

Definitely need to follow jupe's suggestion for alignment.

What's the price for the SSP burrs


----------



## CoffeeRat (May 15, 2014)

fluffles said:


> my shots are now running much faster and I need to grind quite a bit finer. Perhaps this is OK - would a more even grind produce fewer fines?


 IMHO, yes. It indicates less fines, more unimodal grind thus your "shot grind" goes finer.

Did you measure with Frank's tool?


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

CoffeeRat said:


> IMHO, yes. It indicates less fines, more unimodal grind thus your "shot grind" goes finer.
> 
> Did you measure with Frank's tool?


Unimodal grind for espresso? A more even grind should certainly reduce the largest particles.


----------



## fluffles (Sep 4, 2012)

CoffeeRat said:


> IMHO, yes. It indicates less fines, more unimodal grind thus your "shot grind" goes finer.
> 
> Did you measure with Frank's tool?


yes measured with Frank's tool on the fixed burr. Hard to do for the moving burr - I've seen a video of @jupe2.0 doing it on the moving burr using both burrs screwed together - I tried this but the dial was jumping around a lot, so I obviously wasn't doing something right


----------



## CoffeeRat (May 15, 2014)

fluffles said:


> yes measured with Frank's tool on the fixed burr. Hard to do for the moving burr - I've seen a video of @jupe2.0 doing it on the moving burr using both burrs screwed together - I tried this but the dial was jumping around a lot, so I obviously wasn't doing something right


 @jupe2.0 measures with Webeco with low angle inclination when Frank's tool touches surface with almost 90°. So there is high cosine error when you have to devide on 5 or even more. https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/Images/tablcos.gif


----------



## CoffeeRat (May 15, 2014)

I'm stuck half way through (

Sanded off half of measured misalignment and just can't get any better. Sand paper disc just takes off from whole circle. Using 220 AluOx (for metals) sand paper, uhu glue spray, metal cutting oil, cleaning everything thoroughly in beetwen but there's no more improvement.

Mitutoyo 2μ gage shows ~140 microns which is ~28 microns in absolute value if count cosine error. Or I'm somewhere wrong.

Also I'm using new pre-breaker/burr carrier which was bought from Mahlkönig with new coffee burrs as originally this grinder had poppy seed/grain burrs and carriers. Maybe problem is there?


----------



## fluffles (Sep 4, 2012)

CoffeeRat said:


> I'm stuck half way through (
> 
> Sanded off half of measured misalignment and just can't get any better. Sand paper disc just takes off from whole circle. Using 220 AluOx (for metals) sand paper, uhu glue spray, metal cutting oil, cleaning everything thoroughly in beetwen but there's no more improvement.
> 
> ...


Don't think there's much more to it - I doubt a different burr carrier is going to make much difference. When you say that the sand paper takes from the whole circle, do you mean from the middle as well as the edges? This seems odd, the only way I think that could happen is if you have ground so much out that the outer edge has worn away so much that the middle is now also in full contact with the chamber. Or do you mean it is wiping all the way around the outer edge? (This would be a good thing).

As I said, I got mine down to around 20um just by the sandpaper method. A small shim got it to 10um.


----------



## fluffles (Sep 4, 2012)

CoffeeRat said:


> @jupe2.0 measures with Webeco with low angle inclination when Frank's tool touches surface with almost 90°. So there is high cosine error when you have to devide on 5 or even more. https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/Images/tablcos.gif


It's possible to move the needle of Frank's tool to any angle. Are you saying it is more accurate if I move it so that it is nearly parallel to the cutting disc? (Obviously the gauge remains upright and at right angles to the burr, but the needle can be angled however)

... Having thought about it, is cosine error anything to be concerned about here? We are only interested in relative differences, not absolute measurements.


----------



## CoffeeRat (May 15, 2014)

I don't know how to fix it or move needle under any angle. There's no manual or tutorial. I'm having hard time fixing it even straightforward/perpendicularly. I have manual from Mitutoyo only.









There's no problem with cosine error when dti is used properly IMHO

PS sorry for quality, forum tools shrunk it

here on video can be seen proper tip-to-surface angle for such indicators


----------



## fluffles (Sep 4, 2012)

fluffles said:


> I went for this last week sometime. Managed to get the alignment of the chamber down from around 60-70um to 20um. Couldn't get it down to 5um like @jupe2.0 for some reason, but still lots better. Just a single very thin shim at 3 o'clock, 6 o'clock and 9 o'clock has got it to 10-15um.
> 
> Weird thing is, my shots are now running much faster and I need to grind quite a bit finer. Perhaps this is OK - would a more even grind produce fewer fines? Barista Hustle guys seem to think that it should be the opposite and shots should run slower when well aligned. Or perhaps my burr carrier is badly aligned and needs fixing or shimming.


After a few days of brewing I was convinced that the flavour of my brews had been affected negatively. I set about shimming the moving burr with the marker pen method and I am now back in tasty land, so clearly my burr carrier is badly aligned enough to negatively and noticeably affect things.


----------



## CoffeeRat (May 15, 2014)

fluffles said:


> After a few days of brewing


 Do you brew pourovers?


----------



## fluffles (Sep 4, 2012)

CoffeeRat said:


> Do you brew pourovers?


I make both espresso and pour overs, but mainly pour overs


----------



## Phobic (Aug 17, 2016)

fluffles said:


> After a few days of brewing I was convinced that the flavour of my brews had been affected negatively. I set about shimming the moving burr with the marker pen method and I am now back in tasty land, so clearly my burr carrier is badly aligned enough to negatively and noticeably affect things.


Frank @Terranova might be able to correct the burr carrier, depending on how bad it is.


----------



## bpchia (Dec 23, 2014)

Frank told me in an email "The moving burr doesn´t need to be aligned because it sits on a super machined burr mount which is made in one part." Not sure how this sits with others' observations.


----------



## malling (Dec 8, 2014)

Yeah tell that to mine, it weren't even close to being within acceptable tolerance, for me the inner burr didn't need alignment as it where all ready pretty good aligned from factory. So I have only aligned the moving burr


----------



## fluffles (Sep 4, 2012)

After aligning my static burr to the shaft using Frank's tool, things actually got worse for me. Only after aligning the moving burr as well did I start to see the benefits, so I can only conclude that my moving burr is not well aligned out of the factory


----------



## fluffles (Sep 4, 2012)

Frank currently has my burr carrier, he has confirmed that it is out by 0.07mm and has corrected it to 0.01mm. His comment was that 0.07 is "a lot" for this part.

So for anyone that's spent ages aligning the static burr using the tool, I think it would be worthwhile at least doing marker pen alignment of the moving burr (much easier and quicker than the static burr). I had about 8 layers of foil under one end on the moving burr which is what convinced me it was so far out.

Of course I could have left it with the foil, but I like the idea of never having to play with foil and gauges again


----------



## malling (Dec 8, 2014)

Mine is out by approx half of that, I'm familiar with one who used 10 layers of foil so yours ain't the worst!


----------



## fluffles (Sep 4, 2012)

So I now have my static burr aligned to ~0.01mm using the alignment tool, and the moving burr is aligned to ~0.01mm thanks to Frank.

If I test via marker pen, it doesn't wipe off evenly on either burr, and my shots have slowed a bit but not as much as when I previously aligned according to marker pen.

So should I trust the measurement method or the marker method?


----------



## fatboyslim (Sep 29, 2011)

fluffles said:


> So I now have my static burr aligned to ~0.01mm using the alignment tool, and the moving burr is aligned to ~0.01mm thanks to Frank.
> 
> If I test via marker pen, it doesn't wipe off evenly on either burr, and my shots have slowed a bit but not as much as when I previously aligned according to marker pen.
> 
> So should I trust the measurement method or the marker method?


Trust how things taste in the cup


----------



## mazi (Jan 21, 2015)

fluffles said:


> So I now have my static burr aligned to ~0.01mm using the alignment tool, and the moving burr is aligned to ~0.01mm thanks to Frank.
> 
> If I test via marker pen, it doesn't wipe off evenly on either burr, and my shots have slowed a bit but not as much as when I previously aligned according to marker pen.
> 
> So should I trust the measurement method or the marker method?


The marker method does not work because original EK burrs are not flat. There is little difference close to prebreakers approx 0,01-0,02mm.


----------



## CoffeeRat (May 15, 2014)

mazi said:


> The marker method does not work because original EK burrs are not flat. There is little difference close to prebreakers approx 0,01-0,02mm.


 where that info come from?


----------



## mazi (Jan 21, 2015)

@CoffeeRat Just my and a few other people finding. If you have micrometer capable of 0,001mm just check it and let me know.


----------



## CoffeeRat (May 15, 2014)

burrs are now installed and aligned with mixed jupe2.0 and Frank's foil method ~ 0.010-15 mm in my friend's EKK. I have micrometer so maybe in future with occasion.


----------



## CoffeeRat (May 15, 2014)

I wonder how jupe2.0 managed to align all his EKs to 5 microns if burrs can be/are not flat for 0.01-0.02mm.


----------



## jupe2.0 (Jul 31, 2017)

CoffeeRat said:


> I wonder how jupe2.0 managed to align all his EKs to 5 microns if burrs can be/are not flat for 0.01-0.02mm.


look here:






and here:https://youtu.be/OGVX54-VMq0

It is perfect, with both burrs, Mahlkonig and SSP burrs.

greetings

juergen


----------



## mazi (Jan 21, 2015)

After much thinking I decided and I did it!

It took ages and especially the pre-breaker which is made of steel.

It took me like 8 hours total during last weekend.

If I had to decide again I would not hesitate. The best method so far.


__
http://instagr.am/p/Bc1YG-jl2_-/


----------



## CoffeeRat (May 15, 2014)

jupe2.0 said:


> look here


I watched it all several times. You aligned the chamber but *Mazi *says burrs are not flat. So they can't be aligned even if chamber is aligned. Or I missed something.

What does bother me much more it is great value of cosine error in case of using Titus tool as it can be fixed only almost perpendicular to the chamber surface. And I doubt it is possible to say "it is 5 microns" with such measurement.

https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/Images/tablcos.gif

Practically I don't know how to fix my DTI's (one chinees from Titus and one Mitutoyo) to the shaft like you did with drilled Webeco.

I also have several Guatemala's and a Kenia with even more narrow burr chambers and dream to align them too somehow, but have no idea how to squeez DTI there. Especially with inclined angle that cosine error would make measurement more precise.


----------



## fluffles (Sep 4, 2012)

CoffeeRat said:


> I watched it all several times. You aligned the chamber but *Mazi *says burrs are not flat. So they can't be aligned even if chamber is aligned. Or I missed something.
> 
> What does bother me much more it is great value of cosine error in case of using Titus tool as it can be fixed only almost perpendicular to the chamber surface. And I doubt it is possible to say "it is 5 microns" with such measurement.
> 
> ...


You can tilt the needle at any angle you like, so it is possible to have the needle almost parallel with the burr surface rather than perpendicular


----------



## CoffeeRat (May 15, 2014)

fluffles said:


> You can tilt the needle at any angle you like, so it is possible to have the needle almost parallel with the burr surface rather than perpendicular


Ok. I haven't found anything in the dti manual. Can you please explain how to set it up like that?


----------



## mazi (Jan 21, 2015)

CoffeeRat said:


> Ok. I haven't found anything in the dti manual. Can you please explain how to set it up like that?


Just move the needle with fingers. There is small resistance but don't be afraid.


----------



## fluffles (Sep 4, 2012)

CoffeeRat said:


> Ok. I haven't found anything in the dti manual. Can you please explain how to set it up like that?


You just push the needle wth your finger


----------



## fluffles (Sep 4, 2012)

Still not convinced that cosine error is a factor since we're only interested in relative differences not absolute measurements


----------



## mazi (Jan 21, 2015)

Check this approx 3:20


----------



## CoffeeRat (May 15, 2014)

fluffles said:


> Still not convinced that cosine error is a factor since we're only interested in relative differences not absolute measurements


I agree. But if one (me!) use it almost perpendicularly the measurement error can be just great, look in the table https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/Images/tablcos.gif


----------



## jeebsy (May 5, 2013)

Going to do my Guatemala tonight.


----------



## fluffles (Sep 4, 2012)

jeebsy said:


> Going to do my Guatemala tonight.


Be interested to hear how you get on. I have definitely found that the guage and the marker pen do not agree, and the marker pen makes for slower shots and tastier coffee ??


----------



## Xpenno (Nov 12, 2012)

fluffles said:


> Be interested to hear how you get on. I have definitely found that the guage and the marker pen do not agree, and the marker pen makes for slower shots and tastier coffee ??


There is, of course, an argument to say that the ek does what it does because it's misaligned out the box.


----------



## The Systemic Kid (Nov 23, 2012)

Thank Christ for that


----------



## fluffles (Sep 4, 2012)

Xpenno said:


> There is, of course, an argument to say that the ek does what it does because it's misaligned out the box.


Indeed, mine was pretty poorly aligned out of the factory. The grinding of the chamber has brought it down to a more sensible level, but still not what I would call fully aligned.

There are two options for alignment - marker pen and titus alignment tool. Using the alignment tool I seem to get inferior results (in the cup) as compared to the marker pen. Couldn't say for sure why this would be the case, but I might speculate as follows: when using the tool, you're effectively aligning it with the burrs at rest (turning the burr by hand is obviously a fraction of the speed at which it turns when turned on). The marker pen method on the other hand aligns whilst the burrs are at full speed - a more "real world" scenario. When the burrs are spinning there will be various forces applied on the components which may just shift things ever so slightly.


----------



## Xpenno (Nov 12, 2012)

fluffles said:


> Indeed, mine was pretty poorly aligned out of the factory. The grinding of the chamber has brought it down to a more sensible level, but still not what I would call fully aligned.
> 
> There are two options for alignment - marker pen and titus alignment tool. Using the alignment tool I seem to get inferior results (in the cup) as compared to the marker pen. Couldn't say for sure why this would be the case, but I might speculate as follows: when using the tool, you're effectively aligning it with the burrs at rest (turning the burr by hand is obviously a fraction of the speed at which it turns when turned on). The marker pen method on the other hand aligns whilst the burrs are at full speed - a more "real world" scenario. When the burrs are spinning there will be various forces applied on the components which may just shift things ever so slightly.


I decided to sand mine a while back, results have been great for me but obviously there's no going back


----------



## fluffles (Sep 4, 2012)

Xpenno said:


> I decided to sand mine a while back, results have been great for me but obviously there's no going back


Out of interest, have you measured the result of sanding with either the tool or marker pen?


----------



## Xpenno (Nov 12, 2012)

fluffles said:


> Out of interest, have you measured the result of sanding with either the tool or marker pen?


Obviously the tool only measures the chamber in comparison to the drive shaft. The tollerence before was visible with the tool (can't remember exact figure) now I see no varience through 360 with and without the burr.


----------



## dan1502 (Sep 8, 2012)

I've finally made a first start at this!

I'm not planning on sanding anything at this stage, just testing and possibly shimming.

So I've started by testing the burr edge and found it to be a maximum of 50 microns out not taking into account cosine error but with the gauge as flat as I could get it (maybe 10-15 degrees off). And the variance increases and decreases as you go from one side to the other rather than is a number of spots. This is after having previously used the pen method to align some while ago.

So I've just removed the burrs and the casing seems to be no more than 30 microns off and on the same side.

I tried adjusting the torque of the case bolts but that made no difference so I left them at 2 Nm. Slightly higher than specified but that's as low as my torque wrench goes so I thought it best to get them consistent.

I now plan on trying the burrs without the shims in place then adjusting with shims.

If that goes well I might just leave it. I haven't really got my head around how to test and adjust the rotating burr.


----------



## dan1502 (Sep 8, 2012)

So I have ended up sanding it. I only had 400 grit wet and dry (or finer) so used that and have got to 10 to 15 microns. It depends slightly on where in the groove I measure and is probably nearer 10. I think I will stop there rather than keep trying for 5.

I've removed the shims from the rotating burr and carrier. The burrs seem true using a caliper and presumably the rotating carrier is machined to reasonably tolerances. I'll try measuring the static burr when it's in place. I need some dinner and to degrease it all first. Unless you think I should aim for better than 10 to 15 microns?


----------



## dan1502 (Sep 8, 2012)

Strange but when the burr is fitted I'm not getting particularly brilliant results as in similar to before I started (albeit that it was shimmed and now it's not). Just seems odd when the variance is about 10 microns without the burrs and using calipers the thickness of the burrs seems consistent around different points around the circumference.


----------



## fluffles (Sep 4, 2012)

I would not assume that the burr carrier is ok, mine was 60um out iirc. At the very least I would use marker pen technique on it


----------



## dan1502 (Sep 8, 2012)

I've not touched or measured the rotating burr yet. I just tried rotating the fixed burr with the gauge in place (i.e. screws undone) and it seems that there is some variation in the burr as the guage moves a fair bit as I turn it in place. By picking the highest part of the burr and lowest part of the case and fixing it as near as I can to that given there are only three options I've managed to get it to no more then 25 microns and better than that most of the way around so think I'll stick to that. The only other option I can think of is to sand a bit more using 200 grit but I dont want to go too far and am probably on a hiding to nothing if the burrs aren't spot on.

I'm not really sure how I can measure how true the rotating burr and carrier are anyway though maybe a heavy vice would be heavy enough to mount the gauge.


----------



## fluffles (Sep 4, 2012)

dan1502 said:


> I've not touched or measured the rotating burr yet. I just tried rotating the fixed burr with the gauge in place (i.e. screws undone) and it seems that there is some variation in the burr as the guage moves a fair bit as I turn it in place. By picking the highest part of the burr and lowest part of the case and fixing it as near as I can to that given there are only three options I've managed to get it to no more then 25 microns and better than that most of the way around so think I'll stick to that. The only other option I can think of is to sand a bit more using 200 grit but I dont want to go too far and am probably on a hiding to nothing if the burrs aren't spot on.
> 
> I'm not really sure how I can measure how true the rotating burr and carrier are anyway though maybe a heavy vice would be heavy enough to mount the gauge.


You could sand the carrier, has been done by a fair few people I think


----------



## dan1502 (Sep 8, 2012)

Yes but then I'm thinking if I was to do that I'd want that static burr to be as close to perfect as I could and the burrs to be spot on which it seems are not as otherwise that could all translate to the grinding of the carrier.

At least it seems I'm withing about 25 microns with the static burr which is half what it was.

If there's a relatively straightforward method of measuring how good the rotating burr/carrier are I'd try that at some stage and I didn't do anything special when it comes to radial alignment so could work on that but I don't find the information in that regard very clear.

I think that's all for another time though as I only intended to clean and measure yesterday and ended up finishing at midnight. I put it back to together as I couldn't take another day of it today.


----------



## fluffles (Sep 4, 2012)

dan1502 said:


> Yes but then I'm thinking if I was to do that I'd want that static burr to be as close to perfect as I could and the burrs to be spot on which it seems are not as otherwise that could all translate to the grinding of the carrier.
> 
> At least it seems I'm withing about 25 microns with the static burr which is half what it was.
> 
> ...


Misalignment wouldn't transfer onto the moving burr. Take a pencil and a disc of paper, pierce the paper in the middle, slide it over the pencil then make it wonky as in a badly made burr carrier. Hold the pencil upright and rotate it. You'll see there is just one point that will touch the static burr. Sanding at this point would bring it into alignment with the shaft even if the static burr is off. Admittedly it would sand quicker if the static burr was aligned as it would be in contact with more paper.

You can always fall back to marker pen on moving burr, it would give you a finger in the air view of how far out it is


----------



## dan1502 (Sep 8, 2012)

Does that not assume zero play though? I'm just thinking that if it is uneven it will push the alignment of the burr assembly on the shaft as far as tolerances allow which may then translate to the grind not being even. Maybe I'm wrong.

At least with the rotating burr carrier you do it so the machine does the work.

I'm a bit concerned about doing too much with the static burr as there is already a ground area that can easily be seen and felt with the finger. One thing that was mentioned earlier about this is that it only sands an area as big as the burr edge so presumably when you then screw the burrs down they might not necessarily be aligned perfectly with the ground area.

Incidentally, I didn't use glue. I used decent double sided tape in the recessed area only so as to provide enough hold to keep the paper in place but not affect the thickness of the edge where the grinding take place. It was also easy to remove which I wasn't sure about with glue.


----------



## dan1502 (Sep 8, 2012)




----------



## dan1502 (Sep 8, 2012)

@Xpenno Did getting your fixed burr to zero take a lot of sanding? Just worried about over doing it if I do it again. Also did you lay it on its back when sanding and apply pressure or just rely on its own weight? I'm not going to do anything more immediately but am interested in details such as this if I try again.

A step by step of how best to align each burr radially would be helpful too as, probably due to translation, I don't find the description clear.


----------



## cambosheff (Jan 1, 2016)

Does anyone know the screw size needed for the two in the back of the burr carrier used to turn the burrs during the sanding process? I haven't come across it and dont have any large enough kicking about at the minute so I'll need to buy a couple.

Thanks in advance!


----------



## fluffles (Sep 4, 2012)

I think its the same size as the bolts that hold the burrs in place, though don't hold me to that.

Are you planning on doing the chamber and the carrier, or just the chamber?


----------



## cambosheff (Jan 1, 2016)

Thanks @fluffles Just the chamber initially then possibly grabbing a Titus revised carrier after.


----------



## unoll (Jan 22, 2014)

cambosheff said:


> Does anyone know the screw size needed for the two in the back of the burr carrier used to turn the burrs during the sanding process? I haven't come across it and dont have any large enough kicking about at the minute so I'll need to buy a couple.
> 
> Thanks in advance!


They're M5 size. I replaced mine with torx a while back so know thats the right size.


----------



## cambosheff (Jan 1, 2016)

Cheers @unoll I wasn't very clear it was these puppies I couldnt find the size of....


----------



## unoll (Jan 22, 2014)

cambosheff said:


> Cheers @unoll I wasn't very clear it was these puppies QUOTE]
> 
> Ah ok, sorry to cause any confusion. I'd be interested to hear how you get on.
> 
> ...


----------



## cambosheff (Jan 1, 2016)

Will do for sure. I'm in two minds myself about the burr carrier, its that or the alignment tool :')


----------



## fluffles (Sep 4, 2012)

cambosheff said:


> Will do for sure. I'm in two minds myself about the burr carrier, its that or the alignment tool :')


How much are the carriers?


----------



## cambosheff (Jan 1, 2016)

Think it was a couple of hundred € + P&P but I'll double check and confirm as I'd asked for a few extras.


----------



## chanstheorem (Aug 9, 2016)

So, I read this entire thread all the way through about ten times over six months, finally understood it, bought everything - sandpaper, cutting oil, glue, cutting mat, scalpel, torque screwdriver. Then the Titus alignment tool arrived and it looks like the stationary burr is out by max 0.02mm from the factory... I should just leave it alone, right?

Not sure whether to laugh or to cry.


----------



## chanstheorem (Aug 9, 2016)

Thought this might be of interest. I removed the stationary burr and used the Titus tool on the chamber. The gauge shows 0.025mm at the same spot. In my mind, this has confirmed that the chamber is causing the misalignment. I think I will go ahead and start sanding.











chanstheorem said:


> So, I read this entire thread all the way through about ten times over six months, finally understood it, bought everything - sandpaper, cutting oil, glue, cutting mat, scalpel, torque screwdriver. Then the Titus alignment tool arrived and it looks like the stationary burr is out by max 0.02mm from the factory... I should just leave it alone, right?
> 
> Not sure whether to laugh or to cry.
> 
> View attachment 35054


----------



## cambosheff (Jan 1, 2016)

As someone about to start sanding mine in the next week or so, I'd take 0.02mm as an endpoint


----------



## chanstheorem (Aug 9, 2016)

That's me done after about 16 hours of work. Here is my debrief...

Chamber: After sanding with 11 layers of 240 grit silicon carbide paper - I ended up with a delta of

Stationary burr: Despite improving the chamber, the stationary burr still had a delta of 0.02mm. I'm guessing it's because my burrs are fairly worn out. I ended up sticking in a 0.02mm shim at the lowest point. This resulted in a delta of

Rotating burr: Who knows? For what its worth - I used the Perger whiteboard marker method and a single 0.04mm shim.

Result: I'm reserving my subjective judgement for the time being, but I've pulled three shots so far and using the same coffee and recipe I was using before alignment - shot times are now longer (30s. vs. 23s.) My last shot had an EY of 23.8%, which is now a personal best. The grounds are noticeably fluffier and sit much higher in my portafilter now.

I guess we can call this another success story?


----------



## jeebsy (May 5, 2013)

chanstheorem said:


> That's me done after about 16 hours of work. Here is my debrief...
> 
> Chamber: After sanding with 11 layers of 240 grit silicon carbide paper - I ended up with a delta of
> 
> ...


How are your burrs worn down, what have you been doing to them?


----------



## chanstheorem (Aug 9, 2016)

jeebsy said:


> How are your burrs worn down, what have you been doing to them?


Not sure. Could be a bit too aggressive when trying to zero them each time. There are quite a few visible chips and scratches on the surface of both burrs. My EK clatters a lot when the burrs are close to touching. I've never been able to get a clean "chirp".

I guess the misalignment could also be inherent to the burr out of the factory. I have no idea how accurately they are made.


----------



## Rhys (Dec 21, 2014)

My chamber is way out..

I thought I'd test it before using Franks alignment tool on the bottom burr.

After that I've just spent the afternoon trying to shim the bottom burr, get so close, make a small adjustment and it throws it out again.. Each time having to remove the tool and burr. Argh!! I'll get there in the end, but given up tonight as it's getting too dark (plus I'm having a beer...)

Might be worth trying to sand the chamber first. Hopefully it isn't too hard to do.


----------



## cobahn (Feb 28, 2017)

Hello.

please watch the video.

It's enough?


----------



## cobahn (Feb 28, 2017)

And install burr after sanding.


----------



## cobahn (Feb 28, 2017)

able to expose a static knife only with the help of foil. Why for some method with grinding does not work?


----------



## Eeffo (Mar 18, 2017)

Hi there, i just bought a used ek which has been layerd/shimmed on the fixed burr. I do not have access to a titus tool. I was wandering if i should try the sanding method, but since i am not a techie and since some people here had say mixed results i thought to ask for a rough guess if i should do it at all, since sanding would for sure destroy the status quo of the layerd burr, which may or may not be ok....i thought maybe some people could throw in some dial numbers - i know that there are say a million factors which influence the results....so: i only do really LIGHT nordic FILTER roasts as espresso (cinnamon to new england, before first crack or just finished, at the moment i'm on april filter subscription)....8.5 bar VST 18 with 18g and my range for 1:2-1:2.5 shots is 1.5 to 2 in say 26-35 seconds. Around 55 seconds on 1 till 1g is in the cup with a washed rwanda. Would be nice to have some input. If it disturbes the flow of the thread i'm happy with PM... thx a lot


----------



## PPapa (Oct 24, 2015)

Hi Eeffo, it might be worth sharing what burrs are you running? The stock ones are old coffee, Turkish and new coffee - might be worth having a look online to see which ones they are.

I'm unsure as to how accurate your findings will be as you'll be susceptible to zeroing it the same way as everyone else.


----------



## The Systemic Kid (Nov 23, 2012)

25-45 secs is quite normal for Ekspresso. If you can run 55 secs before first drip, at setting one, you're unlikely to be running original coffee burrs. What does it say on the side of the EK - should be a sticker with 'coffee' or 'Turkish' on it.


----------



## Eeffo (Mar 18, 2017)

hi, ìˋm terribly sorry, the most important aspect slipped away: i am on the new stock coffee burrs mounted since 2015 i think....and the shot rimes were for 1:2 - 1:2.5 ratios for really light filter as espresso....


----------



## The Systemic Kid (Nov 23, 2012)

With the new coffee burrs, you should be able to grind for espresso 0.5 - 1.0 and 12 - 14 for V60 - depending on how tightly you've zeroed the burrs. Mahlkonig recommend you find burr contact point - tell tale ringing sound - then back off 10 degrees (which is next to nothing) and then finish tightening up the knob which should be pointing to zero. As you are using light roasts for ekspresso, you will soon find out if your shots are under-extracted as they will be battery acid sour with lighter roasts. If your EK is taming light roasts, as it should, you should be tasting the beans notes without severe acidity. If the tasting notes are, say, lemon or grapefruit, you should be getting that without any mouth puckering unpleasantness. As I said above, extractions in the 40 sec plus band are perfectly normal for EKs as long as the taste in the cup is to your liking.

With lighter roasts, it's always better to pull long 1:2 or longer. If you go ristretto with lighter beans you won't extract sufficiently and the sourness will come through.


----------



## Eeffo (Mar 18, 2017)

thx for the input! so it might well be that my ek is already aligned in a tolerable manner since my range is 1.5-2 (should be more or less comparable to 0.5-1 as far as i can judge from comparing the dials). i also own a MK proM with titus coated ek8/ek10 burrs, so i am already used to more unimodal tasting (one can say this proM is an ek light). the clarity and sweetness were what i wanted to improve. which the ek does, but the jump from "normal" grinders to the proM was way bigger than from the proM to ek, so far. there is noticeable difference, but i think i am now on the last (centi)meters of the pareto curve







...so @thesystemickid, if i get you right, not being a techie, i might worsen things given the status quo....


----------



## The Systemic Kid (Nov 23, 2012)

Yep. Old saying, 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it'. If your ekspresso are tasting sweet with balanced acidity, the burrs are doing their job.


----------



## Terranova (Feb 15, 2014)

chanstheorem said:


> I guess we can call this another success story?


Yes you can, but mainly by luck, in most cases the burr carrier is the MUCH bigger error source.

If you go for the sanding method, you just transmit the error of the burr carrier into the case.

*
You cannot align the moving burr by layers / shims*, *also the marker method doesn´t work for the rotating burr.*





*
*






A lathe machine is *the only possible way* to fix the burr carrier / alignment for moving burr.

It is not a big deal to do so, ask your local machining shop.

2nd biggest error source are the burrs, in 3 or maybe even 4 out of 10 sets it is just not possible to pull a proper shot without burrs touching, of course after stationary burr + burr carrier running better than

Is it because of less fines? Or the burrs are f***ed? slightly different geometry? No idea, but it is the burrs fault in that case.

Regards

Frank


----------



## Rhys (Dec 21, 2014)

Terranova said:


> Yes you can, but mainly by luck, in most cases the burr carrier is the MUCH bigger error source.
> 
> If you go for the sanding method, you just transmit the error of the burr carrier into the case.
> 
> ...


I managed to align the moving burr carrier, probably more by luck than anything. I spun it round, slid it onto the shaft (so it was back to front) and fasted the alignment tool to the EK's casing onto one of the screw holes that the front plate is fastened on by. Then I just gently spun the carrier on the spindle. The carrier on mine was way out but now is a lot better than it was. I also marked the burrs rotaional postion on the carrier so I put them back in the same place each time. I'm just happy to have it sat next to my machine and be able to make lovely espresso again. But yes, a lathe would have been much better and easier..


----------



## MT85 (Nov 11, 2019)

I believe I have looked through this forum and did not see an answer to this question:

We are looking at purchasing a pre-sanded / aligned machine from Prima Coffee, who is now offering this service with a fee. I recently heard that this might be temporary as Mahlkonig might try and possibly stop retail outlets from offering this as a service? Another retailer seemingly more apt to tow the party line is offering the EK43 ALIGNMENT TOOL as an alternative, discouraging modifying the machines. My question is this, what have ya'lls experiences been?


----------



## cambosheff (Jan 1, 2016)

They offer different types of alignment if I'm not mistaken. Ones radial others parallel.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------

