# Distribution which way and why ?



## Thecatlinux (Mar 10, 2014)

Distribution , surely starts at the grinder as the coffee falls into the basket ,

I am going to put myself out there pose a few questions and hopefully stimulate some feedback towards what others think.

Will your distribution be effected by how you tend or prefer to grind ? Either single dosing or grinding by on demand from hopper ?

Your ground coffee, is it made of small and large particles ? and if so Is it better to mix these up or just work with the output what the grinder gives you ?

what would happen if you sieved the particles of ground coffee and separated them so they were all an even size ?

when making an espresso how much do we encourage the coffee to bloom to help it regulate itself ?

Is it possible if the grinder creates much finer and smaller particles that channeling is more or less likely to occur ?

hopefully these questions are the sort of questions we are all asking ourselves and it's not just me , sure I can read many articles about distribution but I find others opinions and views more stimulating and also more fruitful. There is also a lot of chaff on the Internet but there is a lot of members on the forum with great hands on experience I think it would be great to read what others think.


----------



## Mrboots2u (May 10, 2013)

Good questions there , will prompt alot of debate

There is a thread running on HB re " blooming or pre brewing the puck " but with cold water....Im not sure what benefit this has over such a short time , and i think that going down a rabbit hole , as you need some heat in the water to start extraction over a short time . The threads there have been prompted by people using the Espresso Forge ( manual gravity fed espresso thing )

Pre Brew ( blooming ) is the Slayer ISP = Low flow > finer grind > sweeter taste . Iv'e not seem any data on how it effects measured extractions though ..so its hard to comment on whats going on..I still think that the Slayer could be limited by whatever grinder your using with it

I have used long pre infusions at 2 bar or below ( 20 seconds ) to create contact time , increase tds and extraction yield , to deliver a sweeter taste .

This was so i could grind a bit coarser as i tend to find at excessively fine levels on the EK , micro channeling can occur ..I don't know if this is coz of me or not . I do know Maxwell made reference to it , in a recent blog also ( talking about low pressure / low flow and increased extraction yields from small doses )


----------



## Thecatlinux (Mar 10, 2014)

I am accurately timing my Pre infusion times as this seems to have a massive effect on the output , although I can't see what's going on I assuming on contact with water the puck is swelling and creating a better 'self filter' I use this term 'self filter' because I am of the assumption that it's the coffee puck that filters and restricts the flow of water and not the basket itself . I see the basket just as something that holds the coffee to allow the 'self filter' process to take place .

what type of coffee particle blooms first ? The small particles or large ? Posing the question do you need a balance of both size particles with a relatively even balance (small and large ) ?


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

Personally, I don't see preinfusion time as separate to shot time. The whole shot time seems to count to me as contact time in which water is permeating the puck.

I'm not sure that "blooming" (there is no consensus on blooming even for drip) is as important as water filling the voids in the puck during preinfusion & consolidating it, rather than 'no preinfusion' & the brew water under pressure forcing out air pockets & driving any looser fines to the bottom of the basket?

All espresso grinds seem to be bimodal (a mixture of sizes but with a fines peak & a peak for the larger particles), the bigger the difference in modal particle size between the peaks the lower your extraction yield target may be, which may also translate to shorter, good tasting shots. At extremes, a very wide distribution may limit how much you can extract at a given brew ratio.

We can only really guess (but hey, why stop now, never stopped me before!) what happens with grinds all of a same size, it doesn't seem a common scenario. As the particles get more even in size it seems logical that extraction yield (as in good tasting) will go up, this normally reflects in longer shots.

The grounds at the top of the puck will get wet first, ideally.

Grinding finer will create more smaller particles in relation to the grind distribution as a whole (the fines peak gets bigger, the larger peak shrinks), this will increase extraction...until it doesn't anymore, then extraction will drop again & non-obvious channelling may occur (water may run around the puck?). For this reason I don't think that grinding so fine that you choke the machine, then backing off until you get a decent flow, necessarily works.


----------



## Beanosaurus (Jun 4, 2014)

Will your distribution be effected by how you tend or prefer to grind ? Either single dosing or grinding by on demand from hopper ?

In regards to single-dosing I do wonder if it is such a great idea if popcorning is prevalent on the particular grinder - this to me suggests higher impact on the beans that could lead to a wider distribution. -

I always run my grinder before dropping the beans in to negate any potential jamming anyway.

I'm just assuming that you mean particle distribution here rather than distribution of the coffee itself?


----------



## Thecatlinux (Mar 10, 2014)

Originally yes it was to do with the distribution of coffee , but also about the distributions of the particals themselves .

Isnt a good coffee a balance of all the components , what I guess the question I am posing is the whole extraction and the end result a combination of how the water extracts differently through the various partial sizes and shapes of the grind .

Leading me too the conclusion if your distribution of the different is adultered too much eg. Tapping the basket repeatedly, allowing popcorning or mixing the grinds before tamping you will separate or mix the different sizes particles and influence a bias into the puck they may not be even .

My limited experience has led me too believe the more careful I am with the dose from the grinder and the less I mess about with the distribution certainly the more consitant my extractions are .


----------



## Spazbarista (Dec 6, 2011)

A few years back it was all about wdt, nsew, nutating, stockfleith moves etc etc etc. I always thought it was largely guff, and now it seems to have disappeared.

Maybe it is because we all have better grinders.


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

Thecatlinux said:


> Isnt a good coffee a balance of all the components , what I guess the question I am posing is the whole extraction and the end result a combination of how the water extracts differently through the various partial sizes and shapes of the grind .


Well, a good coffee is one that we enjoy, it may/may not conform to ideals, or be the same thing everyone is aiming for but I think there are 2 issues being touched on in this sentence:

1) All extractions are composed of the early, mid & late parts - intitial flow is thick with non-dissolved solids & a very high TDS, TDS/concentration drops as the shot progresses & may be watery & bland at the end. If the entire shot hasn't picked up your target of dissolved solids then the whole shot is under-extracted. But even a well/ideally extracted shot is a mix of various stages of under-extraction, hopefully balanced by the later issue, which may carry overextracted components of the smaller particles...as well as undrextracted components of the boulders. I may not be explaining this well?

In short, most extractions that hit a target are assessed as an average extraction, the first 19% of dissolved mass out of the puck whatever it consists of, but that might be 24% of the tiny particles & 15% of the boulders (just a hypothetical illustration). A good shot should balance the under & over aspects, so yes, it can be a more layered mix of flavours...some feel that the under & over-extracted contributions have more generic effects on flavour (e.g. 'under' often described as citrussy, even when there is no citrus in the tasting notes?) & reducing them can help reveal more of the distinctive bean flavour...I can see how this might be perceived as more 'one dimensional' & less of a 'journey through the cup'? Personally, I prefer any coffee I drink to taste as similar as possible from start to finish with the least under & over aspects.

2) So either way, all shots are under-extracted until they are balanced, then when they are balanced you might have 2 fat people on a see saw (1 bitter, one bright, quite a change from start to finish?) or 2 small children (one a little bitter, the other a little acidic, a little more consistent in flavour from top to bottom of the cup)?



Thecatlinux said:


> Leading me too the conclusion if your distribution of the different is adultered too much eg. Tapping the basket repeatedly, allowing popcorning or mixing the grinds before tamping you will separate or mix the different sizes particles and influence a bias into the puck they may not be even .


Popcorning, yes, will cause a bigger variation in article size (and a higher/coarser average grind size for the same burr setting), but assuming the same particle distribution...I don't know, maybe it's better to have smaller particles at the bottom so they see the least fresh, TDS hungry, brew water & boulders at the top so they see the most? But I'd guess that they don't order themselves that way naturally (maybe more so single dosing into a PF, rather than into another vessel then mixing & transferring?) & reasonable mix works well enough?

Interesting questions


----------



## Thecatlinux (Mar 10, 2014)

After showing a friend yesterday what the shot was like split into a beginning , middle and end when I tried to explain the middle shot which we perceive to be the 'best of' the extraction it was difficult , although the taste and the mouthfeel was there it was obviously missing its friends . if I use my taste to try and separate these '3 parts ' ( I use this term lightly ) I can adjust to add or remove the parts I may think are missing .

I take on what you are saying and I get some parts and I read other parts and think yes that was what I was sort of what I was trying to portray but was unable to .

Are my 'three' components made up of the influence of different particle sizes and the influence of the water passing them or is it a combination and reaction and the whole picture of how those particles are arranged .(distribution)


----------



## Thecatlinux (Mar 10, 2014)

Or both LOL


----------



## Promes (Jun 18, 2015)

Thecatlinux said:


> Distribution , surely starts at the grinder as the coffee falls into the basket ,
> 
> I am going to put myself out there pose a few questions and hopefully stimulate some feedback towards what others think.
> 
> ...


I don't know if this is coz of me or not . I do know Maxwell made reference to it


----------



## MWJB (Feb 28, 2012)

Thecatlinux said:


> Are my 'three' components made up of the influence of different particle sizes and the influence of the water passing them or is it a combination and reaction and the whole picture of how those particles are arranged .(distribution)


Your 3 parts would be common to pretty much any nominal grind distribution (for drip or espresso), the middle of the shot without the early & late will still typically be underextracted, it may not have certain negative flavours, but as you note, it might lack complexity (its friends). Topping & tailing is a handy trick, but the best (sweetest, complex) shots & drip brews I have had have been complete, though I have ended the brews if I have detected bitter output from the brewer/machine...you could split the shot into more than 3 parts, longer than you typically would pull it and add part 1 to part 2 and taste, add part 3 & taste, part 4 & taste & so on?

I think it's easier/more consistent to end shots earlier if you want simpler but tasty shot (tastes like coffee, but avoids sour/tartness), as it's harder to weigh/account for how much the discarded initial drips account for in a top & tailed shot, simpler to just aim for complete 1:1.2 shot instead of 1:2.0?


----------



## charris (Feb 17, 2014)

I also kind of associate tamping with distribution. With the Torr 58.55 (and vst) it seems I get very little channeling compared to before even though distribution is the same.


----------



## Thecatlinux (Mar 10, 2014)

charris said:


> I also kind of associate tamping with distribution. With the Torr 58.55 (and vst) it seems I get very little channeling compared to before even though distribution is the same.


Do you think that is a better fitting tamper makes it easier to achieve an accurate and consistent tamp or do you it's because the face of the tamper covers more area of the puck .?

The majority of channeling I seem to get is random on the puck , I nearly always put it down too distribution , but I may be biased in my conclusions as seem to be more and more obsessed with distribution and its effects .


----------



## DoubleShot (Apr 23, 2014)

Probably depends where your channelling occurs? If it's mostly around the outer edge of the puck then I certainly think a Torr TI 58.55mm will help as it gets much tighter to the edge of a VST basket than smaller sized tampers.


----------



## froggystyle (Oct 30, 2013)

Since changing to the 58.5something torr flat tamper, i get a donut on the pour.. Drives me nuts, cant seem to get rid of it.


----------



## Thecatlinux (Mar 10, 2014)

froggystyle said:


> Since changing to the 58.5something torr flat tamper, i get a donut on the pour.. Drives me nuts, cant seem to get rid of it.


is that with a VST or stock basket.


----------



## froggystyle (Oct 30, 2013)

IMS basket


----------



## Obnic (Jan 14, 2014)

froggystyle said:


> Since changing to the 58.5something torr flat tamper, i get a donut on the pour.. Drives me nuts, cant seem to get rid of it.


Me too. Back to convex Reg Barber. Using VST baskets.

Should add that convex should in theory mean a different thickness puck but the coffee beads simultaneously in every hole so I'm under the impression that water is flowing evenly through the puck.


----------



## froggystyle (Oct 30, 2013)

Its a funny one, gonna drop the stock basket back in and see what difference that makes.


----------



## Thecatlinux (Mar 10, 2014)

MWJB said:


> simpler to just aim for complete 1:1.2 shot instead of 1:2.0?


Therefore concluding the best tasting extraction is built up around all its parts.

Now I am asking myself have things improved because I am intervening more by tailing my shots , it's certainly noticeable that the L1 is my friend .

Its early days and I haven't tried some real gloopy shots yet.

As for tamper I am having best(easiest) results with nutating and the Torr trapezium .


----------



## Thecatlinux (Mar 10, 2014)

Interesting article here

https://colonnaandsmalls.wordpress.com


----------



## "coffee 4/1" (Sep 1, 2014)

yes very interesting, also had a look on grinding puzzled, seems like we need temp-controld grinders, cool dose more fines slow shot, hotter dose less fines faster shot, would this have any outcome for home use, so whats the ideal temp


----------



## Thecatlinux (Mar 10, 2014)

\ said:


> yes very interesting, also had a look on grinding puzzled, seems like we need temp-controld grinders, cool dose more fines slow shot, hotter dose less fines faster shot, would this have any outcome for home use, so whats the ideal temp


mythos one regulates its heat between 35-45 C if that's any indication


----------



## jlarkin (Apr 26, 2015)

I only read the post about dose. That's somewhat interesting and also not overly concerning at the same time. It definitely emphasises to me the importance of getting to know your own kit. So as long as it tastes good for you, your 14 into 25 or whatever may in fact be very different to mine but hopefully we'd both be happy etc.. It's the same with a lot of the components unless we're using the same bottled water and even then maybe they could be slightly different depending on age etc.


----------



## Thecatlinux (Mar 10, 2014)

Now using the major in single dosing and although giving nice fluffy grind I am getting uneven pours , is this a result of single dosing or poor distribution , whilst watching the coffee from the throat of the grinder I am convinced the last part of the grind is finer ,

im considering mixing the grind pre tamp and or possibly flat tamp any thoughts ?


----------



## urbanbumpkin (Jan 30, 2013)

Thecatlinux said:


> Now using the major in single dosing and although giving nice fluffy grind I am getting uneven pours , is this a result of single dosing or poor distribution , whilst watching the coffee from the throat of the grinder I am convinced the last part of the grind is finer ,
> 
> im considering mixing the grind pre tamp and or possibly flat tamp any thoughts ?


Are you using a schnozzola with this?


----------



## Sk8-bizarre (Jan 22, 2015)

Funnily enough I fitted one of the schectermatic little paper things to my SJ yesterday morning.

I know it's early days but the dispense into the PF has been made much easier and I get/aim a better even and central mound. An amazing addition to the machine and only a piece of paper and sticky back plastic!

As I said it's early days but the other thing I have noticed is me getting a better and more consistently level tamp. The level tamp being an ongoing issue of mine, now vastly improved and this also seems to have transfered to the pour.

The pour seems to be more consistently central as it comes from the bottom of the basket. Yes I always still watch. It used to be slightly off centre quite a lot, never always the exact same when off centre just not bang on which I had always put down to my poorly levelled and distributed tamp, sometimes it was central sometimes not.

Has this transfered to the cup, one would think so as it would mean a more even extraction but in all honesty I couldn't tell you at the moment as I've had a few beans messing with my head while dialling.

Visually and in practice though it seems an invaluable and cheap improvement over without with immediate benefits. A bit of paper, fantastic.


----------



## risky (May 11, 2015)

Thecatlinux said:


> Now using the major in single dosing and although giving nice fluffy grind I am getting uneven pours , is this a result of single dosing or poor distribution , whilst watching the coffee from the throat of the grinder I am convinced the last part of the grind is finer ,
> 
> im considering mixing the grind pre tamp and or possibly flat tamp any thoughts ?


What basket are you using? I have a VST 18g and dosing 17g fixed all my problems. Check this thread http://coffeeforums.co.uk/showthread.php?25618-Levers-VSTs-and-EKs

For the record the Schnozzola made no difference to me. If anything I found it a place for grounds to be retained so I stopped using it. I believe the 'elvinator' or whatever it's called may be a better method, that's the one made out of plastic that attaches via the screws at the bottom of the doser.


----------



## urbanbumpkin (Jan 30, 2013)

I might try dosing 17g in an 18g VST. As the puck more often than not sticks on the shower screen.

Like Spens solution to it using a thicker gasket.


----------



## risky (May 11, 2015)

urbanbumpkin said:


> I might try dosing 17g in an 18g VST. As the puck more often than not sticks on the shower screen.
> 
> Like Spens solution to it using a thicker gasket.


I was amazed at the difference it made for me.


----------



## robashton (May 9, 2015)

urbanbumpkin said:


> I might try dosing 17g in an 18g VST. As the puck more often than not sticks on the shower screen.
> 
> Like Spens solution to it using a thicker gasket.


this is what I do, although it still often sticks to the shower screen (more so with has beans for some reason!)


----------



## Thecatlinux (Mar 10, 2014)

I'm dosing 17grams in to a 18 gram vst , I know it's distribution or tamping method because it's not happening each time , about one in three , applying the same technique as was using on the Kony (OD)


----------



## risky (May 11, 2015)

Ref a question posed in your original post @Thecatlinux you should check out, if you haven't already, Socratic Coffee. They have been doing sieving experiments recently.


----------

