If you enjoy the work I put into these and any of my content, please consider hitting the like and subscribe if you haven't! Those two things help my channel massively thank you! EDIT: Before saying "you should've used a more clump prone grinder," consider the results. The BEST method is exactly the one that actually ADDED clumps and caked grounds. You're working from a completely unproven baseline of WDT is necessary for declumping. This has never been proven. Even with clumps and caked grounds, the shaker was the best. Tamping seems to alleviate clumps. This was hypothesized years ago by Perger and even more recently by Samo Smrke, the university professor of Chemistry whom I consulted in this video. Cheers
@jeffmattel7867 Let me counter. A cartoon of a grandpa and his small grandchild were looking at all the tools neatly on a board in his garage. The child asked "What are those for" grandpa said "to make friends". Tools are just that. It'll do the job but it's more than that.
@@vuongnh0607l I bet I can 3d print one for a few cents, the same as I can 3d print the “moonraker” AKA Umikot, and the biggest expense is 10 acupuncture needles.
I've always maintained that WDT is more significant the less consistent the equipment (grinder) is. These results seem unsurprising and logical to me. I think a much more interesting experiment would be to do this with an entry level grinder (ESP, SGP, etc.) and maybe a baseline home machine (Silvia Pro X?) and see how the different methods compare, perhaps including grinding direct to the portafilter as well.
Hopefully people take Lance up on the offer from Dr. Gange, because if there are enough people who replicate the experiment on their own equipment the sooner we get your exact answers.
At last someone making a valid point instead of meat riding the creator. All these nick nacks are there to fix the issues of using a set up that costs a fraction of this £10k plus one. If I spent £3500+ on a grinder I would hope that it has done all the hard work for me. Doing the type of experiments done here just has no relevance to anybodys real world daily coffee making.
@@Thetache phoar he's out of line, but he's right lol I appreciate that we would want to hold the grinder as a controlled variable, but maybe not the best choice to pick one that isn't creating the issue we are looking to resolve with wdt. I don't think this invalidates the test completely though tbf a lot of people are grinding into dosing cups with good grinders and still going ham with wdt afterwards
Valid point, @@Thetache. However, I find it really hard to believe people investing 500 coins on their setup will invest 400+ (ie: Moonraker) on a distribution tool.
Lance, you are the only channel on YT that has outdone the Hoffster for me. It's incredibly rare to find someone in any passionate community who can step back, avoid biases as much as possible and rely on the scientific method and that's exactly what you're providing here. I love it, please keep up the amazing work, it's extremely valuable to us coffee nerds.
I appreciate the format of the last couple of videos (method, data, explanation) while streamlining the delivery. This is very well presented as usual. Thanks for the effort!
There's so much more than just that IMO. Allow me to ramble: Even if it was a segue to the sponsor, from the very beginning at 0:37 he briefly mentions 100 shots in a single session, same roast and environmental conditions. This is a recurring theme throughout the whole video but it starts here and to me it says . Then, all of Chapter 3 (2:20 to 6:00) was spoken, filmed and edited super precisely, without pointing to that fact and also without overdoing it: each tool was dedicated the right time for something interesting to be said about it. At 6:36 I worried for a split second that someone walked in front of the shot, giving an end to the level polish I had been watching so far. I was super pleased when I saw that it was intentional, well-made transition. And yeah, it's a pretty fun one at that
Fantastic. Thank you. I am a data person and really appreciate the effort, time and analysis that you put into these videos. Though many variables are in play, you make an effort to keep the experiment as pure and consistent as possibke through out. That's great. Keep the great work. Hope your channel grow a lot!
I think that, WDT and the Moonraker and such, the grounds are being sorted with the smallest grinds at the bottom and the largest to the top. The problem being that grinds of a larger size, are getting less water contact time. In the blind shaker, even distribution where the fines and boulders are homogeneous, it produces an even flow (Pearl Jam). It's less like mixing chocolate chips in cookie dough and more like mixing sand, gravel and rocks with water, the sand will always find its way to the bottom, and then the gravel then the rocks. So we are left with the 007 of distribution, shaken not stirred.
I grind to the Sette 270's cup. I shake it a bit. Throw it into the basket. Gentle tap. Wdt. NCD like distributor. Tamp. Puck screen (i don't like the concentrated water flow of my machine). Extraction time.
❤🎉 Great video, Lance-straight to the point and very valuable! As someone who's a bit coffee-obsessed, I think there’s a limit where too many steps can lead to diminishing returns, or worse, undo the progress we've made. For me, stirring with a needle feels like one of those unnecessary steps in the espresso workflow. Dosing into the cup, giving it a shake, and tamping seems like the simplest, most effective method for consistently high-quality results.
So what I see here is that you've tested more or less the worst scenario (meaning the best grind and least clumping from the get go), which makes these tools have less to do. I would love to see the opposite. You could keep the grinder etc as you already have, but instead introduce more clumping before doing your tests. An idea could be pouring the coffee in, do a tamp, and THEN rip all up using a spoon or similar, use the chosen tool afterwards, then retamp. Then you should have introduced a lot of clumping and should allow as much as possible of the declumping to the tool you're testing. But as always, great videos. Great that you are testing as vigorously as you do
I agree in general, but tearing up a tamped grounds will be horribly inconsistent and quite far from reality. Better to use a more common household grinder in the 150€-500€ range, which would also be a far closer match to a home barista setup.
@@Sebb747 that was my initial thinking too. But I then realized that a household grinder would add lots of variability in grind size too, making them unreliable for this sort of testing.
That’s exactly what I was thinking and feel like this definitely needs to be redone before Lance praisers go preach this message everywhere that blind shakers are 100% the best.
It's a neat idea and a fun experiment, but I don't see how that actually makes a difference for reality. If the shaker was doing enough and in less time while the other tools weren't able to improve upon the base scenario it created... then I'm not sure the data coming out of this artificial tamp and break would say much that's useful.
It sounds like the shaker is doing a macro management of the grounds, and distributing them very well. The needles do something closer to a micro management. And with micro management, you are almost working on every grain of ground coffee individually. With a perfect micro, you shouldn't ignore any ground until you reach the optimum management level. The needles are not small enough to only affect one ground at a time, so it's not a perfect micro. But possibly, it does quite a little in terms of macro, and leave tons of grounds untouched. And possibly, it hurts some grounds, because the grounds are not necessarily managed well.
I agree. The shaker is mixing fines and boulders to make the grounds more homogeneous. Excessive WDT might even make it less homogeneous as the fines fall to the bottom and the boulders stay on top. I personally find that fluffing in a small, rounded bowl is even better than shaking in a cup with corners. It does the macro homogenation while also avoiding clumping. But maybe it’s just a matter of technique. Don’t shake the shaker like it’s a cocktail; toss the contents like it’s a salad. And if WDT is needed to break up clumps, do it first, then toss, pour, level, and tamp.
I find grinding into a glass container and giving it a Good bang and a stir with a Wooden cocktail stick,then pouring into my portafilter and a next tappetey tap then tamp with spring tamp + puck screen (no water added to beans) Using a niche zero,I believe the destat is essential 😺
Awesome work! Makes absolute sense when you think about it: Shaking homogenizes the grounds so that fines, boulders and everything in between is distributed as randomly as possible and thus giving an even flow through the puck. Clumps don't matter as they are smashed by tamping. What WDT in contrast does, is distributing a significant "mass" of grounds around the basket. While not necessarily bad, it is not actually "mixing" all the differently sized particles around at random, as the shaking does. So there will be areas with more fines and slower flow as well as areas with less fines and faster flow and basically channeling. So even though the "mass" of grounds is distributed around in the basket evenly, the particles themselves are not mixed evenly. If done excessively (and depending on consistency of the technique) it should probably even cause the fines to separate and migrate to the bottom.
Definitely enlightening, would be insteresting too see the same experiment but dose the baskets with a normal dosing cup (and dose the blind shaker from a normal dosing cup) EDIT: would also be nice to hear about the flavour difference if any, as we know higher extraction doesn't always mean better
so shaker, leveled tamper, top screen, bottom paper for ims/vst style baskets, no bottom paper for expensive baskets unless for cleanliness or on a fancy machine, freeze or wet your beans before grinding, do cupping, and buy good beans
When I had a $200 grinder, I wasn't able to pull decent shots without Wdt. So as you said, a cheaper grinder could benefit greatly from the Wdt. I think the Webber grinder does such a good job with particle distribution that from that high baseline you can only screw it up with Wdt.
There’s a certain appeal to this. With as complicated as espresso machines can be with temperature and pressure profiles, as expensive it is to move to a grinder one tier up, it seems wonderful that all the faffing about with grounds and puck prep probably doesn’t matter as much as we thought. Spritz, grind, shake, tamp and go. I think I want it to be true, and so far evidence suggests it might be.
Honestly the WDT is more of a meditation tool at this point. It didn’t really do anything other than add time to my routine, but it’s always been fun to use. I’ve always had great shots with just a shake using the dosing cup.
Puck prep is still important... It's just that the initial distribution is already good in his experiment because of the WW magic tumbler he uses for every method before distribution.
My main reason for using the 3d printed Umikot is that it makes the puck prep consistent, no matter what, and I haven't really had any bad shots since I started using it, which certainly wasn't the case before. I often had channeling issues, probably because I wasn't paying attention or had a sleepy head, and I have the feeling this saves me from all of that. Could I have better extraction using another method? Maybe - but I'd also have a lot more terrible shots too.
I've been practicing the "grind from my Niche into a tight fitting portafilter cup and shake, shake, shake, cheap Amazon Ikape Spring Tamp 1x and twist" method for a while because I was too lazy to do anything else. Turns out that could be as good as any gadget I could buy or 3d print. As a chemical engineer that is a slave to the scientific method, i always trust your reviews more than others. In god we trust, others bring DATA. Thanks Lance!
I wanted to try this out after seeing this video. I have a hand grinder and I put the receiver cup with ground beans on my porta filter with a dosing funnel, gave it a shake, did a little manual WDT just to get the top surface flat… and honesty best cup so far!!!! Thank you Lance!
@@error.418I always tap the bottom of the porta filter once, lightly, on the a silicone mat that’s sitting on my counter. Just to get the beans off the edge of my dosing funnel. Feels satisfying. I personally feel like it’s more accurate / consistent than hitting it on the side with my hand
Great video! Interest results, I would like to know if the shots were also tasted to check which method pulled the best tasting shots. Just curious because higher extraction doesn’t always mean better tasting shots, so the combination of this data would be more helpful I think
It would be great to see this kind of analysis on an ‘average’ home machine with direct to portafilter grinding. I’m guessing this is how the vast majority of viewers are making their espresso? I’m guessing 99% professional baristas are also grinding direct to PF and perhaps wondering which are really the most effective distributions methods.
Awesome video, nice and concise. Would love to see the same experiments in a direct to portafilter format (which i guess is what most of us do). Cheers! Love your content
This is absolutely a breath of fresh air. Ive been going nuts trying to justify buying a 3d printer for a Umikot or just buying a Moonraker. Knowing that just SHAKING my grounds in my dosing cup will simplify my morning workflow so much. Definitely trying the shaking method first thing tomorrow morning
As someone who has not dived deep into espresso yet, this is not upsetting because it clarifies what kind of workflow and equipment I would eventually want to buy, but I can see how it could be for those who have spent tons of money on expensive gear. I would like to see some comparisons between different grinding techniques: 1)direct to portafilter 2)into dosing cup 3)into the blind shaker. I think it would be beneficial so people know the best options for their setup. I do appreciate that this is a ton of work, on top of being a dad and working a full time job, especially. I'm also liking the new video format/style!
Omg I feel so much better about stopping using my Wdt over the weber shaker for the past couple months after watching this. I got a 3d printed copy of the moonraker but stopped using it because I felt it was just more messy. This video is awesome!
Great video, thanks. It echoes my experience with coffees from very light roasts to neapolitan in my la pavoni europiccola manual lever and I thought I was doing something wrong(likely I was using WDT wrong). I have a 0.3mm 9-needle wdt tool and a small (4x4cm) tupperware container. I always get the best results when I grind into that tupperware container, I shake it a bit, I put grounds into the portafilter and I only use WDT on the very top ~2mm of coffee to distribute it evenly. Then I give it few taps on the table and tamp. This is my most consistent, best extraction ever technique. Every single time I WDT'ed the entire depth the results were worse. My observations go even further, I use Eureka Mignon grinder and it doesn't clump much. I noticed, especially with very light roasts that I grind very fine (they are prone to channelling with slightest unevenness in distribution if not pre infused a looong time) when I ground directly to the portafilter I got much better results just using the WDT tool to distribute the very top 2~3mm of grounds than "going all the way". I'm glad to see my subjective experience validated scientifically by your video :-)
Only one question, does higher extraction yield make a better tasting coffee always? In the audio community what measures great does'nt always sound better than that which measures worse. Keep up the good work.
If I remember correctly, the belief in this metric is that higher extraction yield in the shot = a better overall distribution of water over the grounds, which directly correlates to a more uniform distribution of grounds in the portafilter and lack of clumps or other physical abnormalities, prior to the tamp. An inconsistently distributed, clumpy basket would thus be limited in terms of extraction in comparison to one where water is allowed to flow evenly over the entirety of the puck.
The short answer is “no.” The long answer is that it depends on the coffee. Some coffees taste best at 23% extraction. Some at 17% extraction. Some in between or outside those numbers. What matters is being able to consistently control what variables you can to adjust the extraction predictably and reliably. At the end of the day, what matters is how the shot tastes, and if you had some nerdy fun along the way then that’s even better 😁
The glass from the Costco Delici Sea Salt Caramel Mousse cups perfectly fit a 58mm portafilter and are great for this distribution method. Just thought I would drop that out there since I have repurposed the glasses years ago for coffee use. You get 6 in the pack, so you will have spares, and also a sweet dessert with your coffee.
Fantastic experiment and great results! I love the actual science you’re doing here Lance. The repeat testing and stats put your work in a league of its own. The data are the data and your results are clear. Great “discussion section” part trying to put it all into context and interpret it for us as well.
Absolutely fascinating. I would like to see a couple more datasets, in particular with espresso grinders consumers are more likely to have. What is best practices on a "clumpy grinder"? Also, I'd like to see a dataset with direct to portafilter, and a best practices there as well.
Seems to not be the case when you consider the way he didn't dose direct to porta filter. WDT would like lower extraction if done after using a shaker, based on his results and what he stated in the video as it would disturb the bottom of the bed.
As a rookie in this with less than 6 months under my belt, this blew me away. I guess I don't really need to spend 150 Euros on a WDT tool then, huh? Interesting. I am still using my entry-level Smart Grinder Pro but I will definitely try to grind in a cup instead of directly into the portafilter and try to find a suitable cup to shake it before I manage to get my hands on one like yours.
A question I’ve had about WDT all along is whether it’s actually accomplishing much. The clumps in the coffee are not as tight as the tamped coffee. So tamping alone is going to break up the clumps. This, to me, makes a whole lot of sense. WDT is merely properly distributing the coffee prior to tamping. So it doesn’t help if the coffee is already fairly well distributed. However, it is very useful in getting proper distribution across the filter basket. Thanks, Lance!
Some people in the comments are taking this new discovery as “see? We’ve been over-complicating espresso!” I think the more interesting conclusion is: the path to good espresso isn’t always intuitive or obvious. We used to think that a fast extraction was bad and that you should cut a shot off when it blonds. We thought that crema is delicious and that high brew temperatures burn the coffee. But sometimes you have to (forgive the pun) shake things up a little to make progress :)
I just ground into a duralex cup that fits perfectly over the lip of my portafilter, WDT’d in the cup to break up some clumps, then tipped straight into the portafilter, shook to distribute, and tamped. Best shot I’ve had in a long time.
Well, direct to portafilter plus manual WDT is pretty convenient compared with having to have another vessel to now grind into. Especially if you then also use the moonraker to better distribute the top layer.
I bought the Weber Workshops Blind Shaker specifically because of this analysis of various versions of distribution techniques. I hope you get sponsored by them.
Really enjoyed this, thankyou. I appreciate and understand why you did it this way but id love to see the results of a direct grind to portafilter, with a good grinder, maybe not endgame, a bit more of a real life scenario. Also, idea for a video... Ristrettos! Id love a deep dive! Theres a lot of conflicting and just wrong ideas on this, a lot of them way out of date for "modern" espresso. Big love from Yorkshire UK.
My best guess would be that the shaker more evenly distributes the different size particles more randomly, whereas when you WDT the needles are creating a gap in their wake that finer particles fall into, leading to a puck that has more finer particles toward the bottom of it when finished so ends up being less uniform overall.
Yes can we please see this! I used just the magic tumbler with my weber key but switched to Autocomb followed by NCD and feel my shots are more consistent. But feel is different from stats.
As a beginner, I can't overstate how awesome it is that you coffee nerds are sorting all this out before I end up spending a ton of money on dodads. You are giants, and I am proud to sit on your shoulders sipping a finely extracted shot.
before y'all rush out and buy an expensive blind shaker, if your dosing cup already fits snuggly with your portafilter basket; you can just do the shaking with them held together, flip/tap/tamp.
My brain is spinning with this lol. I used to use a dosing cup instead of pouring straight into my portafilter. However, I finally got a grinder that could hold my porta with a funnel so I no longer needed this “extra” step. The dosing cup is now used to weight the beans, into which I spray rdt before grinding. Since some water stays in the cup, I don’t want to use it to catch the grounds, at least in my current workflow. Guess it’s time to get that Loveramics dosing cup I’ve been eying 😅
I have a Eureka Mignon Libra (weight based) grinder. When grinding directly into a naked portafilter, my friend and I consistently noticed that the same half of the basked would saturate/extract before the other half. After many more shots, we realized what Lance confirms here at 7:00. Manual WDT has been mandatory ever since due to the way that the grounds are unevenly deposited into the portafilter.
For those of you who wants to know if a mason jar or any other $120 jar improves taste. Yes it does. Miraculously, grinding into a mason jarry jar, then giving it a few shaky shakes, before dumping the grounds into the portafilter, racking the top layer with WDT a bit and then giving the puck a firm double tampety tamp with a self leveling tamper has transformed my otherwise astringent very dark bean (bought by accident) into a velvety smooth one. The only problem with mason jar is that it’s nearly impossible to evenly dump the grounds into the portafilter, and that is the main reason why I am ordering a more expensive jar today.
I am glad that "statistical significance" was brought into this. The cup-to-cup variation with most of the methods was actually greater than the average difference between the methods. Most of the results were within 1% extraction variation from each other, something I suspect that very few tasters would notice. It is important to realize that the graphs are drawn to exaggerate the slight differences, not to give the big-picture view that results are really quite close together. In other words, if the bottom of the graph was 0 and the top 100%, the results would look almost like a straight line and most would declare "No Noticeable Difference". I learned this a long time ago from the book "How to Lie with Statistics". edited to add: It is definitely worth the extra work if it makes the overall experience more enjoyable. It can become a pleasant ritual and even if you are aware of the placebo effect, it still works.
I think it's all logical when you think about it. The shaker actually mix particules, while the distribution tools are only stirring the particules. There is no way just moving some needles will "mix" anything, each needle is affecting a very small area, and even moving the needles will just agitate each single local area. When you really mix everything, then you get an actual better distribution, because the smaller particules will fill the gap of the larger particules. If it's well distributed, the water will have a tendancy to go everywhere I guess, while when it's not well distributed (i.e. just stirred) the water will flow faster around the big particules.
Excellent Video! Time also flew by, loved the presentation and the way you made your "biases" perfectly clear as in what exactly you did and how it might affect others (grinding directly into the portafilter) differently. Great Job Lance!
Very interesting results! At the end of the day I think you are correct in saying that we are over doing things. Like any hobby people always seek methods to improve the process, but sometimes the best way to improve the process is to do less (remember the KISS method). This also shows that for some the goal isn’t necessarily better or improved extractions, but more as a flex to who has the most expensive tools and keeps up with the current and popular trends. Me personally, I just want the best cup of coffee possible and at the same time enjoy tinkering. 😀 Thank you for another great video, I always enjoy your content.
Wow Lance there so much work has gone into this video. As a newbie your videos are a fanatic source of information you’ve really helped me improve my espresso. This morning I tried a good old shake before transferring to the basket and really just sorted out the puck surface with the WDT tool and double tamp. All the espressos were a significant step up from where they’ve been, extractions were way more even . Wife said her coffee this morning was a life time best ever. Basically you and your teams vid just justified all the money I’ve spent of a coffee kit. I owe You big time!
This is fantastic Lance!!! The results are surprising yet not surprising. I've often wondered if all the "things" we do to try to get the best results are counterproductive or doing nothing at all. This proves, at least in your controlled testing, that may be the case. I really appreciate the time and effort you put into these tests, and for putting yourself out there knowing the coffee community can be less than receptive to information that my counter their current views. Keep up the great work, and nice job on the camera work and edit Hugo!!
This is exactly why Frank created the Titus grinder. Even grind distribution out of the grinder is everything. After that, don’t manipulate at all (you have to even somehow) and tamp. Great testing and very consistent with my own experience. The learned behaviours are hard to shake though!
I use a very basic setup: 1zpresso JX-pro hand grinder, 9Barista with IMS basket. After grinding I put portafilter onto the dosing cup and turn upside down, then either manual WDT for a few sec or use NCD for a couple of turns, then light tap as you did, then tamp. I didn't see much of a difference between manual WDT and the NCD but I suppose I'm not that sensitive to those nuance of tastes. I might need to further evolve my pallets to tell the difference like this, as not everyone measure their coffee scientifically in any case as long as the espresso didn't turn undrinkable. Having said that , this is a rather informative video. Thanks, man.
We need more science for our coffee and this is exactly how you do it. I'm tired of people who just feel like something is better so they recommend it without any data to prove there statement. Excellent job.
Right so been getting into Espresso lately, found an 80 euro Lelit Anna, looking for a grinder and tools. This video just saved me some cash actually, needle tool, dosing cup and a self leveling tamper, no more distribution tool needed
TLDR: - everyone should get a magic tumbler - WDT is really good if you are NOT using the magic tumbler - WDT seems to negatively effect use of the magic tumbler
Thank you so much Lance for giving us an excellent base line to further test against. 🎉 I need to up my patreon donation. Surely you’ve more than earned it.
Many years ago on strivefortone, Michael talked about these little plastic cups made for salad dressing that fit perfectly into a portafilter . He would use them to shake and distribute the espresso . I used them solely for years , and they were great . Good to see wdt isn’t needed.
I’d love to see some further testing with grinder setups, channelling, even subjective taste tests. This is an interesting first experiment but makes it difficult to reach any confident conclusion. I don’t think the fact a method that adds clumping being shown to be better should prevent you from testing with grinders, as you would assume that clumps are added in a homogenous way to a good grind. Regarding distribution theory, it is interesting to challenge the notion of clumping as a bad thing, but it would be good to look at alternative hypothesises. Finally, I don’t think you provided a rationale for using overall extraction as a way to judge the effectiveness of distribution, or how that can be measured or factors in uneven extraction. I really appreciated this video! It was interesting, and I’d love to see more videos that help us generate some real take-always.
This aligns with my experience. Rather than a blind shaker, I grind from the Niche Zero into a Pyrex 464 10oz/300ml bowl. I then gently toss the coffee a few times, turn the bowl about 60 degrees, toss again, etc. I prefer this to shaking, because it fluffs the coffee, rather than compressing clumps. I then hold my fingers over part of the top of the bowl, and gently pour the coffee into the portafilter, using a collar. When I first started using WDT, it only made things worse. I’ve also got an OCD, which doesn’t have much effect. Now, I mainly use WDT at the top for leveling purposes. Anyway, I recommend that people try the toss and fluff method. It’s possibly even better than the blind shaker, due to avoiding and even removing clumps. Maybe I will try WDT in the Pyrex bowl, rather than in the basket, if I have clumps to break up. Another advantage of manually pouring the fluffed coffee into the basket, rather than using a blind shaker, is that I naturally distribute the bed at the bottom. If I see it piling up on one side, I immediately pour into the other to keep it even. It’s a subconscious thing. Who knows how it might pile up from the shaker.
Wow Lance there so much work has gone into this video 👏. As a newbie your videos are a fanatic source of information you’ve really helped me improve my espresso. This morning I tried a good old shake before transferring to the basket and really just sorted out the puck surface with the WDT tool and double tamp. All the espressos were a significant step up from where they’ve been, extractions were way more even . Wife said her coffee this morning was a life time best ever. Basically you and your teams vid just justified all the money I’ve spent of a coffee kit. I owe You big time!
It's almost like moving things in a consistent pattern and only in the x-y plane isn't as good as shaking everything randomly lol. This really isn't surprising to me, and I'm really glad you tested this so rigorously. I'm willing to bet someone could make a vibration plate that shakes at random frequencies and in multiple directions that would work very well too. Other than that, I'm dubious that anything is going to beat the random shaking. I'd love to see tests for all the hypotheses at the end as well!
A vibration distributor exists, don't remember the name of it but I remember seeing it in a James Hoffman video somewhere. There's a concern with vibration though that it distributes the fines to the bottom. That's a natural tendency that always happens if you vibrate a mix of particles with different sizes - the smallest ones go to the bottom, the large ones go to the top.
@@ska042 oh yeah I'd imagine that's the case but I don't know enough about espresso to know why that would be bad lol, care to explain? Also, you could just filter out very fine particles if that's a solution, but regardless the particles would be sorted roughly in size order
@@a11aaa11a I guess ideally you'd want homogenous resistance throughout the puck. The finer the grind, the more resistance, so if you have the fines at the bottom, there will be very little resistance on top, and a lot of resistance in the bottom. Doesn't seem ideal, but how much of an effect it actually has, I don't know
Interesting results and insightful speculation. As one of your many viewers, thank you for the effort you put into these projects! It is truly appreciated and valued.
Me overthinking that my distribution sucks. Now i know why i get good shots while cutting off other tools and do just shaking then straight to pulling. I thought its gonna mess up but its not.
This changes everything! Love that you really go through your methodology and that your graphs show all the data points. Guess that I have to find a blind tumbler instead of the WDT. Also a quicker step than WDT before every shot.
This is wild. I’ve been doing the shake up with our little black Fellows cup and it’s looked really good. I’d shake it up with the portafilter cupped on top and then shake it down in there. Made sense to me. Interesting to see that’s the way to go.
Really interesting results, counterintuitive at first but makes sense. The bottom of the bed is critical and a quick shake works better than all the fancy tools that disrupt a simple process. Thanks for doing the testing to teach the community
Great video at the perfect time. I've been struggling with one sided extraction no matter how much I use the wdt method. It was only the day before your dropped this that I pondered whether it was caused by sitting the portafilter on the grinder holder as it was throwing the grinds towards the handle. Simply holding the portafilter and moving it around proved the plausibility of the idea as i had back to back perfection extractions after this. This video has expanded on that and filled in the blanks. Can't wait to play with some shaking. Cheers dude
Since I have a DF64, I dose in its cup, then put it directly on top of the portafilter just like you did at 14:15. The problem is that IF you don't shake most of the coffee sits on one side... basically there's more ground on the side that falls first. So I use needles (cheepo WDT tool) to distribute. Strangely enough, and as you mentioned, WDT doesn't do much about this. There is still more ground on one side, so much so that after tapping the PF on the kitchen top, I have to "touch up" the surface and move some grounds to the other side. I'll try to change the routine and simply shake like you're preparing a cocktail (although it will probably be slightly messy as the cup isn't a perfect fit), and then touch up the surface. Then see if I get more consistent shots, since I log every shot anyway.
