Might I digress on one element of that God Shot, for a moment. Lets be “anally retentive”on distribution and WDT just for a moment. Sorry about this detailed lunacy.
@tompoland Could you describe your most successful WDT process?
Fyi, I am using Lance Hedrick’s Deep WDT approach (A quick rake to knock down the mound, followed by deep WDT in very small circles, with the series of circles moving inwards in a clockwise pattern).
I have not yet tried following this by another series of mid depth WDT (as I suspect that the grounds are being moved around enough), but could. Should I mid depth WDT as well?
I surface rake to level the grounds. I bottom tap a couple of times to settle the grounds, and then tamp with my EazyTamp (with 20 lb spring).
Should I change anything to the above WDT approach?
Fyi, I use 9 needles of 0.35 mm each set in a 3D printed WDT tool. Does this seem right/best? Should I use fewer needles? Or use still thinner needles (say 0.30 mm or even 0.25mm)? Or both fewer and thinner needles? By my eye, my grounds are still being moved around somewhat, and I am concerned about that. Fewer and/or thinner needles might be better (less is more).
I am actually thinking of (with my NZ) just grinding directly into a rotating basket (I currently do this) and actually not doing the WDT at all, as I do not see any clumping in the grind. This might be heresy, but follows a less grounds movement is more principle. Thoughts?
Fyi, my distributions are not always perfect, as I sometimes see afew 1mm diameter shallow holes in the top of the post shot puck. They are however not deep, which would not be good. Some shots look very even at the bottom of the bottomless portafilter; others have initial beadless areas. So I’d say 50% of my shots look very good (based upon the condition of the puck and the initial formation of beads on the basket, and the relative centering of the liquid flow) and 50% look OK. Bad looking shots are inevitably sour and become sink shots.