I currently have an old R2 Refractometer

Its very time consuming to use: 1) clean the glass 2) bring unit and glass to room temperature (within a specified range) 3) ditto for the distilled water 4) calibrate the unit, 5) setup the extraction syringe and its filter 6) take the sample 7) express the sample into a mini beaker 8) dilute the sample to a specified ratio 9) bring the diluted sample to a specified temperature, within a narrow range 10) ensure that the R2 glass and the sample are at the same temperature 11) place a drop of the sample on the R3 glass 12) run the test, 13) repeat test multiple times 14) calculate average result 15) enter data into EY calculator 16) note the result

That is just too much faff to be bothered. Is there an easier way, perhaps with a different unit?

The VST Lab II & III zero quickly and have better accuracy, precision and temperature compensation, they also produce a reading in a few seconds (compared to the rolling display of, say, the Atago, never used the Reichert, from before my time).

Why are you diluting the sample? (Step 8). This seems faffy & a possible margin for error?

But all will need zeroing, syringe filtering and 30s or so to let the expressed syringed sample cool, then again to equalise on the lens. It sounds like the main basic procedure is what you have a bugbear with. So the later models are a little bit less faff, but most of the procedure remains.

I find it easy enough to measure every filter brew I make (98% of the coffee I drink) without syringe filtering, but I only occasionally do runs of measurements on non-filtered methods due to the cost of syringe filters.

Noting & retaining the EY and correlating to your preference score is essential for the refractometer to give you any meaningful info.

Thanks for full reply @MWJB . Appreciated!

And found this Refractometry Workflow

And this, from the coffee influencer superego we all know Ultimate Coffee Refractometer Showdown

PS Is the Reichert R2 Mini I have (which I believe was a collaboration between VST and Reichert) sufficient for my purposes? Will I gain much by buying a more recent model, or a Dilfuid R2 or ?

VST have instructions on how to take sample,

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0092/7622/files/VST_Lab_Coffee_III_USER_GUIDE.pdf?3540336393965960970

I rarely use my Atago because the workflow is slow and it’s about half as precise as the VST Lab II (despite additional calibration by the vendor at purchase), which is what I consider the minimum for filter coffee, OK for espresso though.

Tim Wendelboe has a video for espresso measurement here:

For filter, I spoon about 5ml of a stirred brew into a shot glass/espresso cup, let it cool for 30-60s (whilst rinsing the just used brewer), then drop 3-4 drops onto the refractometer, allow another 30-60s to equalise and take 3-5 reads depending on how stable the reading is (half the time no variation, sometimes varies by 0.01%, sometimes by 0.02% at the most).

Add to that 30-60 seconds minimum to let the distilled water equalise for zeroing prior to use (maybe while measuring out a coffee dose) and the whole process only adds about a minute to a brew.

I use 3ml plastic pipettes for dropping the sample on the refractometer, these are easy to flush with 0TDS water, allow to dry out & reuse, also less prone to delivering ‘bubbly’ samples.

The DiFluid is absurdly cheap for the spec it quotes, but I’ve not tried it and have too many refractometers that I don’t/can’t use, already.

A more modern VST will be more precise a quicker to zero.

  • MWJB replied to this.

    I can definitely recommend the difluid R2, the older model isn’t very good but the new one is more than good enough, we have 5 of them (and I have my own one)and they all tested very similar compared to the VST that we use for QC and the atago we had. The R2 has a few quality of life features that make it nicer to use, the app is good as well but thankfully not required to use the refractometer.

    I like the workflow from pocket science, the temperature stabilises very well so all of the readings are close together. And having distilled water ina dropper makes it nice and fast.

    Coffee Roaster. Home: Sage Dual Boiler, Niche Zero, Ode v2 (SSP), 1zpresso ZP6 Work: Eagle One Prima EXP, mahlkonig e80s, Mazzer Philos and lots more

    • LMSC replied to this.

      InfamousTuba they all tested very similar compared to the VST that we use for QC

      Interesting! Would you mind sharing the comparative results done over a sample, which can be 10-15 different coffee. It will also be good to see the standard deviations of the results.

      DW, if it is too much of a work. 😊

        I’m wondering if my original Reichert r2 Mini (which was the result of a collaboration between Reichert and VST; it’s effectively the VST I), which is accurate to 0.1 TDS, is sufficiently accurate? By comparison, the Difluid is accurate to 0.03%, as is the VST III.

        If my current Reichert R2 Mini is sufficiently accurate then I will just continue to use it and not throw $$ at yet another accessory. If it’s not, then I would not use it. And think about what my coffee budget priorities are.

        FYI, with my R2, you do have to dilute the sample for espresso testing, as the unit can’t handle espresso TDS and produces an error code. But it’s easy enough to make the mathematical adjustment.

        Any thoughts on the above @DavecUK or @MWJB or anyone else?

        • MWJB replied to this.

          JHCCoffee You won’t be able to test accuracy (so reliant on manufacturer’s figs), only precision/repatability.

          The R2 coffee is stated as accurate to +/-0.1%TDS, +/-0.05%TDS typical. The VST Lab II is accurate to +/-0.05%TDS (precision +/-0.02%), Lab III accurate to +/-0.03%TDS, precise to +/-0.01%TDS all figures for coffee, rather than espresso.

          At filter strength 0.01%TDS equates to about 0.14%EY, or 0.03%TDS to around half a %EY. Precision much outside of +/-0.04%TDS starts to make things tricky over a sample of filter brews.

          LMSC

          I can probably do that comparison in the future, might be a while until we have free time at the roastery to do it properly. The R2 had slight variance but they were consistent, so if one unit tested 0.05 TDS higher it was reliably always 0.05 TDS higher

          Coffee Roaster. Home: Sage Dual Boiler, Niche Zero, Ode v2 (SSP), 1zpresso ZP6 Work: Eagle One Prima EXP, mahlkonig e80s, Mazzer Philos and lots more

          If my math is correct, if I have a 2:1 espresso brew ratio, and a .10 (10%) TDS, the EY is .20 which is 20%. If I have a 2:1 brew ratio and a .101 (10.1%) TDS, the EY is .202 which is 20.2%. So the EY impact of .1% accuracy at a typical espresso brew ratio is only 0.2%, which is meaningless?

          The only thing is that I have to dilute the espresso sample by say 2:1 or I get an error code. But I can simply adjust the EY formula math for that by multiplying the resultant EY by 2.0

          So my Reichert should be good enough. Am I missing something here?

            JHCCoffee Your math is fine, you can multiply the TDS by the brew ratio (for espresso as it’s based on beverage yield, not brew water poured). What you are maybe missing is that you seem to be confusing ‘resolution’ (the number output by the refractometer display) with ‘accuracy’ (the reading relative to a known datum, usually dehydration carried out by the manufacturer and fairly moot as far as we are concerned) and precision (the ability of the device to replicate that number when taking multiple readings of the same sample).

            This is the same for many devices, especially scales for instance, some are accurate to 0.1g, others read to 0.1g resolution but are only accurate to 0.4g.

            So, if you have an espresso that is 4x the dose weight and reads 5.05%TDS your EY is 20.2%, it could really be +/-0.2%EY if the device is +/- 0.05%TDS. No big deal, as you say. Or, +/-0.4%EY span if the reading is out by 0.10%TDS. Still useful.

            The higher concentration of 1:4 shots is working in your favour here, but as the concentration of the brews gets weaker for filter coffee, the precision gets worse. 1.40%TDS +/-0.05% at 1:14 (dose:beverage mass) is 18.9% to 20.3% for readings of the same sample. Repeated brews of the same coffee & method may span 2%EY or a tad over, You’re going to brew multiple coffees from varyious origins which will double that span (rule of thumb), still around 4-5%EY and the target range is typically 4%EY. Still doable, enough to be of some use. It doesn’t necessarily matter if your average is 19%EY or 21%EY, rather than 20%, other factors could have a bearing here. Precision is more useful for checking brew consistency.

            As you go farther out with the readings to say +/-0.10%TDS you now have a span of 3%EY for the same 1:14 filter sample, by the time you are considering different origins your range of readings is as wide as the likely extractions that are typically possible & much wider than the target region…not much use at all. If you are primarily concerned with espresso (especially if you can read the undiluted samples at around 1:2), this may not be of concern to you, filter generally requires better accuracy & precision.

            Thank you for taking the time to provide these insights @MWJB. Most helpful, for me and hopefully other current and future readers.

            JHCCoffee

            Hiya

            Why do you have to knock the test back?

            And if you are going to do this - use the same water that you extract with?

            All this is only for espresso too?

            Looking at this and wondering if it helps me set equipment up or is a ‘nice to have’

            @JHCCoffee has to dilute short ratio espresso samples because his model of refractometer is the ‘coffee’ version, not the ‘espresso’ version and has a limit to the concentration of the sample it will read.

            Typical brew water will be under 200mg/L, or 0.02%TDS on the refractometer (10.00%TDS espresso is 100,000mg/L, 1.40%TDS coffee is 14,000mg/L to put it in perspective). So, sure use the same water as you brew with but it won’t skew readings for espresso if you don’t. I think most people would by a refractometer that covers both espresso & filter (but to be honest, I also bought the coffee version of the VST Lab II for the higher precision for brewed), or just espresso if that is their main focus, rather than dilute shots for sampling. An ‘espresso’ refractometer will read samples from regular shots without dilution.

            Thank you. Thinking about the DiFluid R2 discussed above for espresso but wondering how usefill it would be to me.

            Generally I get to try 2 or 3 different beans most days but now im seeing less different ones as time goes on as its ‘same old’ sometimes. Would be good to get these spot on

            • MWJB replied to this.

              NewBoyUK Think as a refractometer as a device for establishing & monitoring consistency, against your subjective liking score. It’s most useful for looking at big data, over lots of samples at a given method/ratio, rather than sniping beans/cups.

              Of course if your regular cups are trending towards, say low extraction accross beans, then this will help you identify that. Getting cups ‘spot on’ also means dealing with non-extraction related issues, like excess solids/silt that affect the cup, even at a reasonable extraction.

              What it does do, is help you understand the impact of grind adjustments and prevent you from 2nd guessing what is under/over-extracted if you haven’t previously had an objective datum (e.g. not all types of bitterness stem from over-extraction).

              As a engineer - been given all sorts of beans to set up with limited time to do this I dont think it’s going to help.

              However maybe if I was to take some away and have a more indepth trial - I should hit the spot maybe?

              Then when given that particular setup again I have a good start?

              I can see the usefulness for roasters and users who have the same beans for a while but doesnt seem a one hit wonder.

              Could you from the 1st test results get it ’right" on the 2nd of at least very close?

              • MWJB replied to this.

                NewBoyUK When you say ‘set up’, do you mean adjust grind for a known brew method/ratio/system? (E.g. 1:2, or other known/typical ratio espresso shots, or filter brews?

                You would be able to nominally dial in to a target %EY (maybe 19% +/-2% for espresso, or 20% +/-2% for filter), within a handful of grind adjustments. This would not, in itself, guarantee a great tasting result, but it would show there is no obvious objective, mechanical impediment in the owner/user then fine tuning to their preference point.

                The target range is typically 18-22%EY, but different roasts and origins extract more/less than each other, Brazils, Costa Ricans & Guatemala may taste best at the lower end, Kenya, Rwanda, Colombia at the higher, you can still get under extracted coffee at 19% and over-extracted at 21%, in terms of sensory perception depending on the bean. A 20% extraction, for example, would be an average target over a sample, not the best target in a ‘one size fits all’ scenario.

                I don’t really see the use for roasters specifically, they tend to brew/QC by cupping & rarely measure the dose (if SCA protocol), nor the water weight, frequently under-extracting coffee. You can under-develop roasts (in the sensory aspect) and still achieve an expected EY, To roast coffee so badly that it doesn’t normally extract in a filter brew would show a catastrophic failure & be pretty tragic (nevertheless it occasionally happens).

                In short, if the machine & grinder are known good models, without any obvious/detectable malfunctions and the coffee is ball-park roasted for the brew method (e.g. very light/filter roasts may need to be brewed at longer espresso ratios to satisfactorily extract), you’re probably not going to see any evidence of a problem that isn’t already presenting a clue elsewhere, like way too coarse/fine a grind, someone trying bizarrely short espresso ratios etc.

                If you always took a bean with you, that was consistently available and you were used to it, you could use this to dial in and say, ’I tested with my usual beans, dialled in & all is working well. ’If the customer says that they don’t like their beans with the set up you could tell in a brew whether there was an obvious extraction related reason why, if not then tell them to buy different beans :-) Beans are an ingredient, we buy different ones to explore different tastes, sometimes we just don’t like them when brewed normally. You can’t fix every bag by tweaking extraction. You are dealing with objective mechanical devices, you can use a refractometer to check their objective function, You can’t make everything taste great, in the same way you can’t fix someone’s CD player to make Tom Waits sound like Elvis.

                Basically I get thrown any old beans at me from £8/kg to £30/500g.

                I deal with 2 different machines and generally 4 different grinders. Its what bean gets chucked in thats the hard part.

                I have to do roughtly 1:3 to 1:4 for unknown (cheap) beans. If they are actually labeled and have contact details on the bags (more common blends) I usually call them and generally they are 1:2 to 1:3.

                Some are awful and spit out lol

                Just thinking/hoping theres a easier way to get the best out of whats given

                • MWJB replied to this.

                  NewBoyUK Its what bean gets chucked in thats the hard part.

                  Subjectively, in terms of expectation (which may not be realistic) I can see this being hard. Objectively, not so much, if the output is achieved in normal time & EY

                  NewBoyUK I have to do roughtly 1:3 to 1:4 for unknown (cheap) beans. If they are actually labeled and have contact details on the bags (more common blends) I usually call them and generally they are 1:2 to 1:3.

                  I don’t see why cheap beans need a longer ratio, unless it is just to mute offensive flavours/intensity. Cheap, overly roasted beans tend to extract easily enough. Yes, many roasters suggest 1:2 to 1:3 ratios, but the bean can’t do it all by itself, some depends on whether the equipment will allow those beans to extract in those ratios. This you will be able to establish with repeated use of the 4 grinders.

                  You’re an engineer for the machines & grinders, not a fairy godmother for the roasting community. :-)