Archive for the ‘Experiment’ Category

Explanation of yesterday’s graph

Sunday, January 15th, 2012

So yesterday I posted up a little graph to see if people could identify it.  It was a tricky one, and I was pleased when Kevin Cuddeback, CEO of Gimme! Coffee, chimed in with the correct answer.  What the graph represents is the rate of increase of temperature in the bean mass (calculated to be per minute) measured every 30 seconds in a roast.  I removed the first part because formatting a graph to look nice when you’ve got to drop to -100 on your x-axis is difficult.  Plus, it would have made things too easy!

Here is the graph again, properly labelled:

I posted this for a couple of reasons:  Primarily I thought it was interesting.  Secondly I wondered if other people were looking at roast data like this.  I’ve only produced a few of these curves, as I have to do it manually at the moment, and they are confusing to read.  Bear in mind – if the graph were to flatten out it would simply mean that the bean mass is increasing in temperature at a steady rate.  The roast curve would be point up, it would just be straighter.

Other roasts have produced extremely different profiles.  I need to get more data and start doing comparisons!

This is also interesting because there are changes in the rate of the bean mass absorbing heat that don’t correlate to changes in gas or airflow.  I don’t know whether evaporative cooling has much impact on rate, or why we don’t see a faster uptake of heat once the coffee is dry.  The curve on this roast between 6 and 8 minutes is particularly interesting to me.

I should note that this was a test, rather than production roast.  It was dropped not far past 1st crack, as you may surmise from the graph.  We have a colour meter but it doesn’t produce accurate Agtron numbers.  It cupped pretty well, but was out-cupped by a slightly different profile that I don’t have this kind of data for.  (Annoyingly)

Anyway – I thought it was interesting, and I hope it might generate some discussion – because we are really bad at openly discussing roasting theory online.

Identify this graph

Saturday, January 14th, 2012

A little bit of fun.  All you have to do is identify what this graph is charting out.  The x and y scales are linear.  It has something to do with coffee.  The first person to identify it will get a bag of tasty, tasty coffee sent to them from me.  Terms and conditions apply1

Also – please leave a comment to guess so other people can see. Submissions won’t be accepted via twitter etc.

UPDATE:

Clearly I’ve made this too tough.  Here is the same graph with a little more information on the axes:

Footnotes:
  1. Well – no one at Square Mile Coffee can enter nor frankly needs to – the prize wouldn’t be very interesting, nor can Ben Kaminsky. []

Coffees of 2011

Sunday, January 1st, 2012

Last year I saw the collection of coffee bags from 2010 saved by Mat Honan and then Mike White, and thought it would be fun to have a go at collecting everything we taste at work for a year. I’ve seen a couple of people post their 2011 collection this year – Mike White again, and Brian at DCILY.

I mostly succeeded at remembering to keep the bags, though looking through there were about 20-30 bags that didn’t make it and must have been thrown away – which is a bit annoying.

Click to embiggen - larger image further down ↓

There are 183 bags here (to save anyone from counting), and I think (or at least hope) that many other roasteries would have a similar collection if they tried. To taste other people’s coffees is great for setting benchmarks, great for inspiration (even if that inspiration is often rooted in jealousy, as mine often is) and great for palate development. Also it’s fun. If I think that when you add on all the samples and production roasts we’ve cupped this year, and the coffees drunk in various cafes and other roasteries – we’ve tasted a lot of different coffee. (But not enough…)

What blows my mind is that each one of these tasted different. Very different. There is such diversity in coffee, and this was a great way to appreciate it.

I should add that most of these were gifts. Thank you to everyone who gave us coffee – it is very much appreciated.

Anyway – here is the big photo. Sorry everything isn’t in focus. I tried a few different things to get a good shot where you could see every bag properly, but I’m sad to say I mostly failed. 1 Also – I’m not going to rank them. Mostly because my taste memory isn’t very good, and I wasn’t taking notes.

Click for large image 2

Footnotes:
  1. I’m not going to list all the coffees, nor am I going to upload the photo to flickr and tag them all like Mat Honan did – sorry. []
  2. If you want to see the whole thing then right click and open in a new tab []

Brewing Espresso at Altitude

Thursday, January 27th, 2011

There has long been discussion about what happens when you brew espresso somewhere at relatively high altitude. This has become, and will become even more, relevant as the WBC is taking place in Bogota this year. Bogota is the third highest capital city in the world, some 2625 metres above sea level (approx 8,600ft).

At this altitude water will boil at 91.2°C/196.2°F – below the 93.5°C/200°F that the Aurelias will be set to. What follows is mostly personal opinion1, coupled with a possible experiment that might answer some questions.

When we’re brewing espresso the system is under pressure (9 bars mostly), rather than the much lower atmospheric pressure. One of the unique aspects of brewing under pressure is that water is able to dissolve a lot more CO2 than it usually can at atmospheric pressure. When the coffee liquid leaves the basket we see that it is unable to retain that CO2 which forms bubbles that get trapped by various surfactants as a foam: crema.

People will often remark that at altitude the coffee acts like it hasn’t had a chance to rest/degas. The espresso tends to have very large bubbles, and lacks strength – often disappearing very quickly. This is, of course, similar to brewing very fresh coffee (up to 48-96hrs post roast) at sea level.

What doesn’t make sense to me is that surely CO2 would be more likely to be drawn from the coffee bean when stored at low pressure than at higher pressure?

My guess (and it is a guess) is that the pressure change from the bottom of the basket to atmosphere is much larger than normal when brewing at altitude. I would guess that the saturation point for CO2 in water at 2625m is significantly lower than the saturation point at sea level. The liquid loses more gas, and we see this as bigger bubbles. With foams in liquid the strength is dependent on bubble size (the smaller the stronger – think good milk foam), so these larger bubbles of crema will disappear faster.

What does this mean for competitors? Here is my advice:

Bring scales. I know a lot of people don’t like it (though I don’t really understand why), but your espresso volume is going to be radically different for an identical flow rate at sea level. Know your brew recipe before you come, and before you start freaking out about how things taste, check whether you are brewing on spec. Espresso is a recipe that is based on weights and flow rates. Going by eye is tough. I’ve tried, when I was there in 2007, and it took a while before things made sense!

Pulling shots in Bogota

Another question remains – should espresso be aged longer for brewing at altitude?

This is a good question, and one I think we need to do a few experiments on. Ageing espresso will certainly reduce the amount of CO2 left in the coffee beans, but surely at the expense of some loss of pleasing aromas and the potential development of negative flavours. I’d like to run a two way experiment, but it needs participants who have access to coffee machines at different altitudes.

Take two bags of espresso from the same roasts/blending batch. Store one at sea level, store the other at high altitude. Ideally in similar temperatures. After 10 days bring both back down to sea level and observe variations in volume for a fixed weight of coffee, liquid and brew time. Based on my amateur theorising above – there should be no detectable differences, or – if anything – the coffee stored at altitude might have less crema/volume when brewed.

Then take two bags of identical espresso and store both for 10 days at sea level. Then brew one at sea level and one at altitude. Record variations in volume for fixed weight of coffee, liquid and brew time.

This way we’ll know whether the issue is ageing of brewing. I would predict that when brewed identically the high altitude espresso should be just as delicious as the low altitude one – but I am very happy to be proven wrong.

One aspect to consider is when the brewing liquid might reach boiling point. If someone is pulling very fast shots, where the brew water doesn’t lose much heat to the coffee – then I’d expect to see some issues towards the end of the shot as the exit liquid from the basket will be very close to boiling, if not boiling at high altitude. Properly brewed espressos shouldn’t (in theory) see the same problem. Anyone have video of a naked portafilter at high altitude?

Comments, thoughts, accurate science and brutal critiques of the above welcome!  Thanks to Brent Fortune for setting my brain off!

Footnotes:
  1. Warning: Amateur Science Alert! []

Effective experimentation

Monday, January 17th, 2011

Like a lot of people in coffee I tend to do little experiments from time to time. Side by side brews of different grinds, or different espresso recipes. I take the results of these experiments and incorporate them into my understanding of coffee, which is still pretty fragmented (to say the least).

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.
- H.L. Mencken

As an industry we tend to set up simple A/B experiments, or sometimes something a little more complicated. We usually think we’re testing one variable (but with coffee brewing I am not sure if this is often the case) and we get results. Most of the time we get more correlation than we do causation. Just about everyone one of our experiments could be improved by a better understanding of method. This is where I fall down too.

There are, fortunately, some very smart people who read this blog from time to time and I hope they weigh in here. I have a little theory, I’d like to propose some experiment but I’d be interested to get some input on how to do it and see if people would also like to join in to share the data. (I know a small data pool doesn’t invalidate an experiment, but if we’re looking for statistically significant results then a larger data pool would be good to prove or disprove the theory.)

Hypothesis:

Brew temperature in espresso can be used to help negate the damaging effects of hot coffee grinds resulting from a grinder under heavy use.

Explanation:

The coffee bed absorbs heat from the brew water during the extraction process. The amount of heat lost here would depend on three factors: the amount of coffee, the initial temperature of the coffee and the flow rate of water through the coffee. 1

We know brew temperature has an effect on an espresso’s cup quality. 2  If we reduce the brew temperature, because the coffee is going to loose less heat, this may improve the espresso.

Experiment 1:

The first experiment should be identifying whether hot grinds are as bad as we think.  I propose a hot vs. cold grinder experiment.  Shots to be pulled on a machine that can deliver the same pressure and temperature profile on both groups.  Shots should be pulled to the same spec in terms of weight of dose in, weight of dose out and brew time.  In order to be compared shots from both the hot and cold grinder must fall within acceptable tolerances of each other (open to suggestion here but I would say 0.1g, 0.2g and 1s respectively).

They should be tasted blind by a panel of tasters.  I’d be interested to know how many times this would need to be run in order to get some significant data?

Assuming that a hot grinder produces consistently worse espresso we could move on to the next experiment.

Experiment 2:

The goal here would be to measure the impact of coffee cake temperature on brew temperature.  My idea would be to use a naked portafilter and measure temperature of the liquid as it exits the basket.  If we know our brew temperature (and our machine is stable) then we should see a variation in loss here that correlates to coffee grounds temperatures.

Ideally coffee beds with temps from 20°C up to 40°C would be measured.  Would using a simple IR thermometer be sufficiently accurate to get a reading on the coffee bed before brewing?  A consistent flow rate and dose would be extremely important here so the same brewing specs as Experiment 1 would be observed.

Experiment 3:

A machine with individual brew boilers would be necessary here.  Cool coffee would be brewed in one group at a standard temp, and hotter grounds would be brewed in the other group at a lower temperature so that the exit temperature of liquid from both baskets was the same.  Again, espressos tested would need to be brewed to exacting specifications.

These would then be tasted blind by a panel to see if any preference is observed.

Suggestions?

How could these be improved?  Is it worth testing?  Any good suggestions for introduction to the necessary statistics?  If this seems viable would other people be up for joining in and sharing the data?

Footnotes:
  1. We’ve all had painfully hot espressos that had a lot more to do with being a fast extraction, than the machine’s brew temperature. []
  2. On a personal note my belief is that about 1°C is the minimum that people can distinguish with temperature as the only variable. The latter part of the sentence does make things very difficult I know. Couple that with the range of accuracy of most probes, despite the fact that they may read down to .1°F – it doesn’t meant they are absolutely accurate to that degree. []

Fear of Water

Sunday, November 28th, 2010

I was going to do revisit an old post about why someone’s coffee might taste bad, talking about the amount of dull burrs out there, as well as a bit more on cleaning and other stuff. However, one aspect alone deserved a post on its own. I will say right now that this is particularly relevant to water in London. It isn’t your friend.

(more…)

Cupping: From Raw to Ready

Wednesday, November 17th, 2010

Today at the roastery we had a very interesting cupping. We had pulled out a sample from the roast every minute, starting five minutes in and ending at around 15 minutes. This is not a particularly new idea – full credit to Tom at Sweet Marias. His video of it here is worth watching, especially as I am not really going to talk too much about how each bowl tasted.

(more…)