A couple of vids from Lance about WDT and Tampers.. personally I enjoyed these and took away a couple of easy tips, doing a second tamp - or using a lidded shaker for distribution (amazon have a few for little pennies..) https://youtu.be/OyUaCuoqYWc?si=1_hjKjZ-2qt1J-VX https://youtu.be/tifwe68kUv8?si=RDu8cUzcDP58KISb

Me making coffee when I see the lengths some people go to: [URL=https://i.imgur.com/BtdelnC.jpg][IMG]https://i.imgur.com/BtdelnC.jpg[/IMG][/URL]

I really want to see how a Niche cup with chopsticks rates.

@"MattH"#p60233 thanks for posting. I was never convinced of deep WDT. I always WDT in the container ( which probably is the same as shaking it) and puck rake. Looks like I don’t need to change.

OK. Having looked at the data, I am not entirely certain that I can be as confident as Lance Hedrick. Not a statistician, but this is what I think. He has used the same coffee and measured the data multiple times. Not entirely sure if repeated measures ANOVA testing can be used, but it is the same coffee being tested in different conditions. Repeated measures ANOVA shows significant difference but post hoc testing shows a difference between only the Blind Shaker and Autocomb. If you consider each extraction to be independent (despite the coffee being the same), I suppose you could use ANOVA. The results are statistically significant which means at least 2 groups are statistically different. However, you do not see any statistically significant differences in post hoc testing. I think this means that based on the data, we cannot say for certain that the blind shaker produces the most extraction. The sample size is too small to draw any definite conclusions. Unfortunately, the question can only be answered by a large dataset. I have put this comment on his video. Let's see if he responds.

Gotta chase that 0.0000015% of ey Not that a high ey even matters, high ey on some coffees tastes shite. Not to mention there are to many variables just to pin down to puck prep.

> @"Emc2"#p60262 He has used the same coffee and measured the data multiple times. Not entirely sure if repeated measures ANOVA testing can be used, but it is the same coffee being tested in different conditions. Repeated measures ANOVA shows significant difference but post hoc testing shows a difference between only the Blind Shaker and Autocomb. > > If you consider each extraction to be independent (despite the coffee being the same), I suppose you could use ANOVA. If he used different coffees with the same set up & grind setting, then you would have a lot more scatter & noise, because different coffees hit different extractions at the same parameters and that is normal & even desirable. Using the same coffee is a more practical & feasible test of the specific effect of the tool. Wouldn't ANOVA testing favour the conditions that had means closest to the overall mean, and not necessarily pick up on a more consistent outlier? > @"Cuprajake"#p60263 Gotta chase that 0.0000015% of ey It's more like an increase of up to quarter quarter over the span of samples at a glance, but I agree with the notion that the increase in extraction doesn't mean a lot unless liking scores are also included. Bear in mind these gizmos are usually marketed as specifically increasing extraction and/or making extractions more consistent…this doesn't seem to be born out, even if not conclusively disproved. Under-extracted espresso is the most common failure I experience in cafes…apart from the ones that fill a demitasse! Samo Smrke is a coffee scientist working at Zurich in the coffee excellence team, of all the purported coffee science that gets articles in the press and sparks forum fads, I would have more faith in him and the rest of the team there (Wellenger & Yeretzian).

@"MWJB"#p60265 ANOVA is not robust against outliers as they will cause the estimate to deviate significantly and increase the chances of type-1 errors. Can’t see many outliers in this data. It would be useful to know what test was used. For such a small data, where the number of observations is more than the sample size, I suspect you need specialised statistical tests. Another issue is that even with similar extraction times within a group, the EY was variable. There are so many variables that affect EY, so this isn’t surprising. Which begs the question- how reliable is it to use EY as the dependent variable. In my view, a more practical and pragmatic approach for such small samples would be to use flavour to evaluate differences.

@"Emc2"#p60270 You have to pick one aspect to be the focus, extraction time was not the target, EY was as this is the claim most often made by the gizmo makers. The standard deviation of 0.32%EY is certainly small enough to consider the blind shaker condition 'the same extraction'. Sure taste preference scores would be great, but then you would still want EY so that you could present like for like (or as close as can reasonably be expected) samples.

@"MWJB"#p60271 Yes, extraction time was not the target, it was a variable that was kept constant. EY was the only dependent variable. My point is that the variability in EY cannot be due to variable extraction times (as Lance points out too). So if there is variability, there must be other variables at play affecting EY that you cannot control. How do you control for this variability? By taking multiple measurements. N=8 is not enough to make any statistical judgments. Especially if you are doing multiple comparisons, the chances of finding a difference purely due to chance increase exponentially. Lance claims that the Blind Shaker is superior overall as the mean difference in EY is 0.7%. This is based on the difference in mean values between different groups. I do not think this is a valid statement. For example, If you do a t-test comparing Blind Shaker vs Moonraker, you do not get a statistically significant difference. ( *p* is .10768) Post hoc testing shows a statistically significant difference only for Blind Shaker vs Autocomb. Also, what is the minimum difference in EY that can be detected by taste? Ultimately that is what matters. The inference you could make is that all methods are equal. **But this completely ignores the probability of type 2 error- not finding a difference because the sample size was too small.** The method that I think makes more sense, is to do a double blind study. Someone else plays with the parameters, another person brings it over the Lance and his job would be to just judge the flavours. Use a different coffee for each extraction and try out the different methods. Not entirely sure what the appropriate sample size would be- this will need power analysis

> @"Emc2"#p60291 Also, what is the minimum difference in EY that can be detected by taste? Ultimately that is what matters. Not really, again, the devices are marketed on their effect on EY. Cups at the same EY (within reasonable expectation) will still differ in taste, +/-0.3%EY has been mooted as the detectable level, but I don't personally think it is that clear cut. A coffee with 10 brews at the same parameters might have a stdev of 0.4EY and this be considered good/acceptable, but we're brewing tiny amounts, in short times and, yes as you say there will always be some variability that we cannot control. Context and reasonable expectation is important in making sense of this. EY is an objective measure of brew efficiency and useful for gauging objective consistency. It has been found to have a correlation to regions of interest where people have a preference for taste too, but it is not a direct indicator of taste/quality (as stated for the last 70yrs), hence why I think it important to also have taste scores - EY without taste is too vague to be meaningful, taste scores without an objective value makes troubleshooting & sharing more difficult. (You can't fix a coffee you will never like by knowing EY, you might be missing out on a better result with one you do if you are consistently off in EY). If you are going to carry out tests yourself for your channel, it would be informative if you did some EY measurements yourself (follow VST protocols whichever refractometer you buy). My apologies, I didn't notice at first look that Lance only did 8 measurements per condition (he does state this in the video), I agree a larger sample size would have been more robust (He stated that he pulled 100 shots…I wrongly assumed that would be enough to get at least 10 per condition). Yes, double blind testing would be ideal, with sensory testing amongst a random sample who are unaware of what the test is…but now you are talking thousands (or tens of thousands) of pounds, teams of people & finding people in the street who drink espresso…good luck with that 😀 Look around your coffee gear, which device/accessory that you have, or even that you know of, has been tested to the degree that you suggest? It's the lay of the land that we are reliant on sole agents & garden shed protocols to 'test' this stuff. ☺️

WDT and Tamping…

MediumRoastSteam

MattH - I’d give it a go - but… the sound of metal on metal ringing every time really puts me off. My family already say the Duo is loud enough (but it actually isn’t compared to many grinders, but the Zero is a lot quieter). Grind and then… ding ding ding ding ding! I think I’ll pass.

Saying that, back in the day, I used to grind into one of those containers designed to store baby formula - I used to give it a shake and then open the top - a lot narrower than the pot diameter - and dump evenly on the basket. I might try it again.

Emc2

MattH It’s the shaking that makes the difference I think. In the Weber videos, they shake for just 2-3 seconds. LH recommends shaking for 15 seconds or longer I think. This apparently causes ‘densification’ which is a fancy term for compacting. I can see the logic. After 15 seconds of shaking, the grinds do not fall off as easily compared to 3 seconds of shaking.

Loonster

Sworks has a cover for their funnel that allows shaking (58mm only). The process looks like it would be simpler than weber blind shaker.

Cuprajake

Anyone with a niche and a 58mm pf doesn’t need the Weber shaker,

I’ve not seen the new vid, but I presume he’s not tested a niche dosing cup?

InfamousTuba

I think he did mention using a different dosing cup, like the niche, but I can’t remember seeing any data from it

Loonster

InfamousTuba

No data. He mentioned it in the first video that it might work, but then dismissed it in the 2nd video.

Cuprajake

Well you can only shake in a Weber product. All other fail….

chlorox

Weber’s blind shaker price is prohibitive but there are much much cheaper made in China choices - I have one and I have always found a blind shaker to help with the distribution. I started doing it before wdt but found the whole process to be too protracted and ended up doing it as an alternative to wdt but after a while since wdt was faster, I stopped using the blind shaker altogether. I should probably break it out just for a change.

Cuprajake

thousands of disciples all buying there weber shakers dancing round their kitchens like:

joking aside if you’re happy with it then do it, but i wouldnt be paying crazy money for one.

MattH

Cuprajake He does not specifically plug the weber - as he said he had one as it came with the eg1.

I have mine coming from aliexpress 😂

Cuprajake

im taking the pee, dont worry.

newyrs resolution is to take nothing too serious haha

MattH

Cuprajake I will admit to looking at the weber version - put it in the basket … then added shipping to the UK - slapped myself and removed it 😂

I see on the other forum there is a eg1 for sale

Loonster

How long until the shakers have needles going through them like a game of kerplunk?

chlorox

MattH

That pretty much applies to everything weber makes - they look really nice till you see the price!

Cuprajake

kafatek too, better option

jrling

I think he did mention using a different dosing cup, like the niche, but I can’t remember seeing any data from it

jrling

Oops. He showed it with an EK43 dosing cup which is pretty similar to Niche dosing cup. I have a Niche Zero and have tried it with Niche dosing cup shaking it for c. 10 seconds. The result is interesting in that the grounds are significantly denser and completely free of any clumps. The taste is also noticeable better (in my view). Greater clarity and absence of sourness or astringency, both of which I can get and is no doubt down to sub-standard puck prep. The only issue I have is when I gently remove the dosing cup from the portafilter after shaking, almost always the there is a pile of grounds on one side or the other which tapping does not level out. So I end up using gentle surface WDT to even the bed before tamping, which is annoying and may reduce the positive shaking benefit to some extent. I will try the Chinese shaking cups which are cheap enough not to worry if no obv benefit over Nich dosing cup, but there is a chance that lifting the cone shaped piece in the tumbler will distribute the shaken grounds more evenly in the portafilter - if you follow.

MattH

So weber are not daft - just dropping a blind shaker ad video on Youtube 😂

Emc2

So I have been doing some testing with the MHW3bomber shaker vs WDT. I did six tests for each- 3 with a light roast and 3 with a medium roast. The sample size was based on a power analysis of the data by LH, giving a sample size of 5 for 80% power at alpha 0.05. I shook for 15 seconds with the shaker, 18 gm of coffee aiming for a 1:2.5 ratio and a constant flow rate of 2-2.5 ml/s. I experimented on each pair on different days. Also, the pattern was alternate- Shaker first, WDT second on day 1, WDT first and shaker second on day 2, and so on.

Please see the link for the data. Data

There was a highly statistically significant difference between the 2 techniques. Of course, I cannot minimise bias as I performed the test and made the coffee. Another potential source of bias- I optimised the coffee with the shaker first. However, grinding finer or increasing the ratio to extract more did not improve flavour or EY.

MattH

My issue is that it seems messy… using the shaker as a recepticle for the coffee.. is great lots of space for the coffee to flow into it. the grounds look light and fluffy straight out of the grinder. Once I shake it.. a lot sticks to the inside of the shaker (and the lid) and once dropped into the portafilter it can be clumpy.

So I am still in 2 minds whether to just revert back to using the portafilter with a little stir.. or use the shake - and just let the failing into the portafilter be the “shaking” as its a much cleaner transistion.

Emc2

MattH I tap the shaker on the counter- this helps with the grinds stuck to the shaker. I use a dosing ring and place the shaker on it. I’ve ignored LH suggestion to drop the grinds from a height. It’s just messy. A quick swirl with the dosing ring in place and the puck is level. I’ve noticed clumping too- it makes absolutely zero difference to the extraction or subjective taste.

« Previous Page Next Page »