jpender Senior Member Joined: 11 Jul 2011 Posts: 427 Location: California Expertise: I like coffee
Grinder: Kyocera CM-50 Vac Pot: S/S Moka Pot Drip: Aeropress
Posted Sun Feb 26, 2012, 7:40pm Subject: Re: coffee refractometer
Netphilosopher Said:
Not only the fact that we can't measure it because we haven't pulled it out yet, at a certain point we CANNOT pull it out. Some of it is absorbed in the cellulose of the grounds and only evaporation will pull the water out. It's why you can't "wring" a washcloth or paper towel 100% dry.
Suppose you rinsed the grounds in cold water? By dilution you could wash away most of the coffee that is in solution. Of course even cold water has some capacity (how much?) to extract additional solubles from the grounds, but it might be a small enough effect that you could get a better approximation of what is left. Or maybe like Andy is suggesting no matter what you do will change the answer: a kind of Heisenberg Uncertainty principle for coffee extraction.
Ultimately we want to be able to relate some metric for measured extraction (even if it isn't "correct") with flavor. Are you saying that this can't be done consistently with the AP or press pot because people press out different final amounts out of the grounds? Or are you just incurably curious?
Posted Sun Feb 26, 2012, 9:41pm Subject: Re: coffee refractometer
Steve, you have given me a lot to think about, thanks. I need time to digest all this. Meanwhile, I have a comment about your comment:
Netphilosopher Said:
I, my wife, and anyone I've done presses for (normal ones, 2.5% strength, diluted to normal strength) cannot distinguish whether I press that last bit out or not - so even if that last bit is slightly different in composition, it doesn't affect the end product.
I think what you say here was confirmed by an experiment I did today. I made two separate aeropress coffees using an inverted technique and 2 min of dwell time before pressing. Brew ratio was 11.8g of coffee with 200g of water. Each coffee was pressed out in four sequential portions. I made no effort to make each portion exactly 1/4; the amounts were approximations. Then I measured the TDS of each "quarter" with the VST LAB refractometer. Here are the results:
Aeropress #1: 1.10% 1.22% 1.19% 1.18%
Aeropress #2: 1.14% 1.21% 1.22% 1.19%
The coffees were underextracted (~18%) but aside from the watery first portion, there was only a very slight tailoff in TDS. So using this technique and dwell time, the AP is almost entirely a full-immersion brew (with a relatively flat extraction curve) and not a "wash-out" method like drip or espresso (which have sharply decreasing extraction curves). It's possible that very low dwell times or no dwell times before pressing would change the AP curve more in the washout direction.
(edit) I think the first portion is weaker because it consists of solution that was in static equilibrium with little agitation. The subsequent portions were of solvent that moved through the full bed of grounds, and that washed out more solids.
Netphilosopher Said:
Such are the mysteries of coffee, and they demand answers! LOL ;-)
That's what keeps it interesting. The cool part is that while we'll never know everything, the system is simple enough so that we can unravel at least some of the mysteries.
That is funny because in composing my post, I initially used the same phrase you thought of: a Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle for Extraction. But not being much of a Quantum Mechanic, I chickened out and deleted that verbiage. :)
Posted Mon Feb 27, 2012, 9:32am Subject: Re: coffee refractometer
Hey Andy - Thanks! When I got a chance, I was going to do that experiment but it was going to be an all day affair (um... because I'm too cheap to buy a refractometer ROFLOL!)
I did (several months ago) but forgot I did a quick check on cold brewed coffee (where the immersion extraction rate is abysmally slow) in two halves. Both halves were for all intents and purposes the same within my measurement capability - the 1st half of the press, and the 2nd half which was as much as I could physically press. I think the first half has subjectively more oil slick on top, but maybe only.
I think we do know all of the information we need for a complete brew cycle, if you know the mass of the end result. For example:
13g coffee 225g brew water
238g brew slurry
After brewing, we have the weight of the final beverage: 213.3g (actual measurement 212.8)
and the weight of the wet puck: 24.7g
That was a fully documented final strength brew I did in the AeroPress, and it matched a model I was creating for brew parameters. It had a calculated loss for the brew of only 0.5g.
It was one of my "golden" brews (because of the low loss). Sadly, since it was fully documented, I didn't get to taste that specific brew, but I did make a sibling brew with wet puck = 25.9g beverage = 210.7g, which tasted spot on (calculated loss of 1.4g), and dehydrated grounds were 10.4g
Same grind batch, same bean, same brew technique, same 2:00 immersion and same ending press time including pressing hard and shaking. One calculates to 20% EXACTLY, one calculates to 20.75% extraction.
(I know, I need to get a hundredths gram scale).
So, basically, it's possible to back calculate much of this if you know the wet spent grounds mass, the beginning mass of coffee, and the mass of the beverage with known strength (or known TDS gathered by evaporation).
I was going to try and create a newer brew chart for myself, but realized that the brew charts that we all keep looking at are based on a particular method and a constant grind (X axis is extraction (can also be TDS in the beverage), Y axis is strength, and lines of iso-brew-ratio). The extraction then contains a region of uncertainty, which led me to thinking about different brew methods and how they work (immersion vs. wash). In the SCAA brew charts, this uncertainty is taken up in the system because the method and grind are held as constants (absorption is on the order of 2.0 or so).
Oh, and I have looked at cupping protocol extractions as well. Very interesting, but haven't done all of the data digestion yet. (at the end of 1/2 hour and temperature of the cupped samples at near room temp, aeropressed results and dehydrated).
It does become a closed form solution in the end, and so lends itself well to a simple spreadsheet.
------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------- Le café doit être noir comme le diable, chaud comme l'enfer, pur comme un ange, et doux comme l'amour.
"There is no right answer with coffee. There is only the elixir in your cup at the moment you partake."
"...I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind;..." - Lord Kelvin RECIPES thread => http://www.coffeegeek.com/forums/coffee/machines/585708
Chang94598 Senior Member Joined: 24 Oct 2007 Posts: 209 Location: SF Bay Area
Posted Mon Feb 27, 2012, 2:31pm Subject: Re: coffee refractometer
Just some tidbits regarding coffee water content....
When caffeine is used as the principle compound extracted, it is extracted more efficiently in hydrated compared to non-hydrated coffee ground. I surmise this is the reason in hand drip coffee, the coffee is initially wetted and water poured in circles. In the siphon, the appearance of different air bubbles is used to determine when to stir.
To my knowledge, there are not that many studies that address the wetting of coffee ground and extraction. The closest I've found was from a study in 2007, which used SEM, gas pycnometry, and endothermic peak of water to determine the water in ground coffee.
The bound water which is not available for typical brew coffee extraction is about 0.15g/per gram of coffee. In the study, the coffee cake was dehydrated in the oven at 103C following the ISO method and water content in the coffee cake was determined by measuring the endothermic peak of melting water.
Another interesting observation is that coffee particles >1mm the center never become hydrated. So for example in French press, if the ground particle sizes are >1mm, it can taste both under and over extracted; ie only the peripheral region is wet, and can be over-extracted; the center is still dry, and therefore underextracted.
The above study was done with distilled water. A few years later another study examined espresso coffee brew with different brewing water TDS including non-softened, softened and distilled water and flow rate. The espresso flow rate is significantly different, even with the final coffee TDS similar.
From personal experience and these various studies, I've come to the conclusion that while TDS measurements is helpful, it is a partial picture of the entire taste/aroma experience, and will be true for only that particular brew system/water/grind/equipment/operator, etc, etc, as there are many links to connect to the final coffee brew.
Again, I want to emphasize this is only "my" experience, and mine only.
jpender Senior Member Joined: 11 Jul 2011 Posts: 427 Location: California Expertise: I like coffee
Grinder: Kyocera CM-50 Vac Pot: S/S Moka Pot Drip: Aeropress
Posted Mon Feb 27, 2012, 5:50pm Subject: Re: coffee refractometer
andys Said:
That is funny because in composing my post, I initially used the same phrase you thought of: a Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle for Extraction. But not being much of a Quantum Mechanic, I chickened out and deleted that verbiage. :)
I almost deleted it too. But it is pretty common to (mis-)use the term in everyday speech or the popular press. I don't think anybody gets too upset by that. Unlike the real UP it is possible in principle to measure what we're interested in here. We just don't have the tools.
By the way, my "rinsing" idea was a really bad one. I tried it and what I washed out had a great deal more dissolved solids (about 3x) than what Netphilosopher is expecting.
Posted Mon Feb 27, 2012, 8:12pm Subject: Re: coffee refractometer
Chang94598 Said:
From personal experience and these various studies, I've come to the conclusion that while TDS measurements is helpful, it is a partial picture of the entire taste/aroma experience
Certainly true. When you consider how powerful some of the aroma/flavor components can be, a tiny amount of one or another may have a very large effect on flavor. We've probably all experienced how one rotten bean can easily ruin an entire cup; these stinky flavors cannot be measured via TDS.
And TDS measurements have no way of distinguishing Ethiopians from Kenyas from Sumatras, etc.
Despite that fact, when one prepares a well roasted coffee in such a way as to evenly extract around 19% of the dry coffee mass, one usually gets a balance between sours and bitters. The coffee's natural sweetness becomes apparent. In that subtly sweet environment, pleasant, fleeting flavors can often be appreciated. In a less balanced environment, the subtle pleasant flavors would be overpowered.
So whether you get a nicely balanced cup via extraction yield measurements, or simply by experience and a practiced palate, you set the stage for a cup that can really sing.
I guess Kafeman has left this thread, but I did some calculations and asked some questions. A ballpark answer to Kafeman's question is posted on Dave Walsh's site.
Posted Wed Feb 29, 2012, 11:13am Subject: Re: coffee refractometer
andys Said:
Steve, you have given me a lot to think about, thanks. I need time to digest all this. Meanwhile, I have a comment about your comment:
I think what you say here was confirmed by an experiment I did today. I made two separate aeropress coffees using an inverted technique and 2 min of dwell time before pressing. Brew ratio was 11.8g of coffee with 200g of water. Each coffee was pressed out in four sequential portions. I made no effort to make each portion exactly 1/4; the amounts were approximations. Then I measured the TDS of each "quarter" with the VST LAB refractometer. Here are the results:
Aeropress #1: 1.10% 1.22% 1.19% 1.18%
Aeropress #2: 1.14% 1.21% 1.22% 1.19%
The coffees were underextracted (~18%) but aside from the watery first portion, there was only a very slight tailoff in TDS. So using this technique and dwell time, the AP is almost entirely a full-immersion brew (with a relatively flat extraction curve) and not a "wash-out" method like drip or espresso (which have sharply decreasing extraction curves). It's possible that very low dwell times or no dwell times before pressing would change the AP curve more in the washout direction.
(edit) I think the first portion is weaker because it consists of solution that was in static equilibrium with little agitation. The subsequent portions were of solvent that moved through the full bed of grounds, and that washed out more solids.
That's what keeps it interesting. The cool part is that while we'll never know everything, the system is simple enough so that we can unravel at least some of the mysteries.
Ok, so talk to me about the VST. I'm starting to think about getting one of these.
On the site, it's not completely clear whether the software is critical or nice-to-have. I see the only device available is the VST LAB, at $599. There's also the bundle at $799, includes the extractmojo software.
What does the software do? I looked at one of the videos and saw that it is a slicker version of my own database, which isn't very sophisticated (mine, not the extractmojo). Also noticed all of the brew charts and the ability to plot your brew sample on the chart, etc.
All I'm looking for is an instrument to give me a very accurate %TDS from a small sample. I know what to do with that information from there.
The refractometer by itself does that, doesn't it? Does it also give an actual refractive index, or just the converted %TDS?
------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------- Le café doit être noir comme le diable, chaud comme l'enfer, pur comme un ange, et doux comme l'amour.
"There is no right answer with coffee. There is only the elixir in your cup at the moment you partake."
"...I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind;..." - Lord Kelvin RECIPES thread => http://www.coffeegeek.com/forums/coffee/machines/585708
Posted Wed Feb 29, 2012, 7:03pm Subject: Re: coffee refractometer
(repetitive disclaimer) As a VST beta tester, I received test refractometers and copies of Mojo software free of charge. I do not profit from sales of any VST products.
Netphilosopher Said:
Ok, so talk to me about the VST. I'm starting to think about getting one of these.
On the site, it's not completely clear whether the software is critical or nice-to-have. I see the only device available is the VST LAB, at $599. There's also the bundle at $799, includes the extractmojo software.
Neither software is a critical necessity to do this work if you always weigh your coffee dose and also your finished beverage mass. But either software (Mojotogo or Extractmojo) can be hugely helpful in other situations.
I use Mojotogo (on an iPod) regularly since it's easier and faster than a hand calculator. Once or twice a week, when I want to do something more with more complex data entry, I switch to Extractmojo (on a PC). Extractmojo displays the data graphically, which is really nice when comparing the results of multiple brewings.
I also use ExtractMojo when I'm mixing mass and volume units, like making a single serve coffee to fit in an 8 oz mug or running a Technivorm to fill a certain-sized thermos. All kinds of mixed mass/volume and Imperial/Metric conversions are preprogrammed and really convenient to use. In summertime you can easily create recipes for iced coffee that brew a concentrate that you later dilute with a measured amount of ice.
Cafes that have to vary their batch sizes due to varying demand or different size vessels to fill obviously can use these features to calculate accurate recipes and avoid mistakes.
One topic of continuing interest among geeks is the exact amount of water retained in the grounds. This parameter can be left at a standard value or you can collect your own data and enter custom values. So if you are used to measuring brew water input rather than beverage mass output, the software does the output calculations for you.
Netphilosopher Said:
All I'm looking for is an instrument to give me a very accurate %TDS from a small sample. I know what to do with that information from there.
The refractometer by itself does that, doesn't it? Does it also give an actual refractive index, or just the converted %TDS?
Definitely, the refractometers read % coffee TDS by themselves. I don't see the older, somewhat less expensive refractometer on the site. I'm not sure if it's still offered. But having used them both, buy the LAB if you can possibly swing the bucks for it. It's really precise, easier to keep clean and using it will bring a smile to your face.
(edited to remove erroneous statement that the refractometers read raw refractive index)
Symbols: = New Posts since your last visit = No New Posts since last visit = Newest post
Forum Rules: No profanity, illegal acts or personal attacks will be tolerated in these discussion boards. No commercial posting of any nature will be tolerated; only private sales by private individuals, in the "Buy and Sell" forum. No cross posting allowed - do not post your topic to more than one forum, nor repost a topic to the same forum. Who Can Read The Forum? Anyone can read posts in these discussion boards. Who Can Post New Topics? Any registered CoffeeGeek member can post new topics. Who Can Post Replies? Any registered CoffeeGeek member can post replies. Can Photos be posted? Anyone can post photos in their new topics or replies. Who can change or delete posts? Any CoffeeGeek member can edit their own posts. Only moderators can delete posts. Probationary Period: If you are a new signup for CoffeeGeek, you cannot promote, endorse, criticise or otherwise post an unsolicited endorsement for any company, product or service in your first five postings.
= No New Posts since last visit 