On 6/5/06, Turbosimba wrote: <Snip> The "blue scoop" Tom sells holds about 10 gr or roasted coffee. The aeropress scoop holds about 13 gr. I think you need the extra coffee due to the lower extraction temps. Safe Journeys and Sweet Music Justin Marquez (Snyder, TX) |
Everyone please bear in mind that the Aeropress only performs differently than you're accustomed to if you follow the instructions rather than your own preferences. There's nothing magical about the Aeropress or it's directions. Modify the variables as you would with any brewer to achieve excellent results. It's perfectly possible to overextract in the Aeropress. :-) On 6/5/06, Sandy Andina wrote: <Snip> -- Scott |
Scott, You recently mentioned using different filters with the Aeropress. Can you elaborate on the mod and the results? A+ |
On 6/5/06, Sandy Andina wrote: <Snip> I concur. 2 regular scoops for a 14 oz travel mug is perfect for me. Ann |
Seehttp://www.coffeegeek.com/forums/coffee/machines/238663But bring the discussion back to the list, please. It's all I use anymore. However, the "inverted" method I employ with the Aero can be messy. As I just said elsewhere, though, in all honesty I'll take on a Clover in a blind cupping any time, at this point. ;-) - Scott On 6/6/06, Angelo wrote: <Snip> -- Scott |
Scott, I'm a user of the famed semi-pod: a filter placed on top of the grounds in a portafilter. The main purpose is to have less mess at the shower screen. I have tried various materials. One of these materials was "baby wipes". Of course, they were thoroughly washed of all scenting, etc. The advantage of these is that they are indestructible and easily cleaned of coffee oils.. Well, I just tried one in the Aeropress and I'm impressed with the improvement in taste. The oils are there, and the fines are almost non-existent. You might want to give these a try. For most folks they are more readily available and are less expensive than the filters you are playing with.. Ciao, Angelo <Snip> |
Baby wipes! Wow, OK -- someone better name brands at this point. I'm not incredulous -- but I'd hate to test something that hasn't been vetted by braver souls. ;-) The filter material, FWIW, costs about 5 cents a filter, and I've been using the same one for weeks. - Scott On 6/7/06, Angelo wrote: <Snip> |
I could be wrong, but I think the baby wipe industry would be very careful of what touched those little tuschies...These filters seem to be impervious to everything. I have washed them in Oxycean, bleach and good old detergent (seperately, of course) and they just keep on going on...I guess the chemical engineers and hasmat guys will chime in soon. I, for one would be interested in hearing their take... Angelo <Snip> |
Angelo, <Snip> hearing their take...< As long as they are washed really well before using them this way........sounds like a hell of a good idea to me. Mike (just plain) |
I'd still like a pointer to a specific SKU, if you'd care to advocate on behalf of a specific manufacturer. ;-) On 6/7/06, Michael Dhabolt wrote: <Snip> -- Scott |
Oddly enough, I think the manufacture process for the Baby Wipe "cloth" is similar to what you are doing buy forcing water through it, only at much higher pressure... I think they are all made the same way but the content of the nonwoven fabric may not be the same from brand to brand.http://web.utk.edu/~mse/pages/Textiles/Spunlace.htmOn 6/8/06, Scott Marquardt wrote: <Snip> |
In the spirit of Rube Goldberg, I now have a dozen baby wash sheets (the Johnson and Johnson ones) in a lingerie bag (which normally holds bras and other unmentionables) in my washing machine with oxy clean and detergent. Large amount of rinsing will follow. I'll then make filters for my KMB. Updates to follow ;). vicki Vince Doss wrote: <Snip> |
Here ya go: Hushables™ Baby Wipes with Rash Control... U.S. Nonwovens Corp. Ingredients: purified water, aloe vera, lanolin, methylchloroisothiazolinone, methylisothiazolinone, benzalkoniumchloride, fragance...upc# 10352 08250 80 sheets /pkg., 4-5 55mm filters/sheet, $1.98 per pkg. There are many brands out there, and believe it or not, they differ quite a bit in various factors, but not being a scientific type, I just grabbed what was on sale. Btw, these are almost impossible to tear, so they can be washed quite vigourously, as opposed to the paper filters that come with the AP Angelo . <Snip> marias.com/mailman/listinfo/homeroast <Snip> as.com/maillistinfo.html#personalsettings <Snip> |
LOL I'm dying here, man. This is great stuff. So hey, a quick estimate on price. Given the surface area on the package label and the number of wipes and how many rounds you can get out of a wipe= , what's the cost per filter? - Scott On 6/8/06, Angelo wrote: <Snip> . <Snip> |
They are also difficult to cut. If you have access to pinking shears that have only been used for cutting what they are supposed to cut--fabric--they will work. An exacto knife is less than wonderful. I took my 12 well washed sheets, piled four at a time, and cut two rounds from each for my KMB. I made "handles" sticking out from the rounds. Anyone using a KMB knows the thunking needed to get the puck into the trash. Now I can lift it with the handles. So far so good. I made a KMB pot full using the BW filter and the brewing proceeded as usual, except, it seemed to me that there was more of a shower head effect as the coffee went into the carafe. The coffee tastes great, maybe a bit *deeper* than usual, and there seemed to be a bit of an oil sheen on the surface that I had not noticed when using paper filters. Getting the puck out was a breeze: I simply pulled on the "handles" and out it came. I now have 24 BW filters (with handles). I figure I will use each one twice, rinsing in between, and then once a month or so throw the lot of them into my lingerie bag and give them a good wash. vicki (wondering if anyone using a KMB will read this) Angelo wrote: <Snip> <Snip> |
Well, I just measured the sheet and you can get 6 filters from each sheet. At 80 sheets to a package, you would get 480 filters for about $2...You do the math. Bear in mind one of these filters could last up to 6 months.. Be a sport and visit your local supermarket and drop the $2 to satisfy your curiosity.. If you don't like them, you could always use them to polish your coin collection...:-) Ciao, Angelo <Snip> |
"vicki (wondering if anyone using a KMB will read this)" How about wannabe KMB users? I'm taking notes, because I have found no way yet to prevent coffee grounds floating up behind the espresso group sieve. I have to steam it and wipe the gasket extensively after every shot, or I keep finding stray grounds where they don't belong. It wastes a lot of reservoir water and steam power to purge the stray grounds after an espressing session! Maybe I'll use something far less expensive than a synthetic fiber fabric soaked in a whole witches' brew of chemicals, no less than three of which "maintain product purity and freshness!" A Baby Wipe pure and fresh? The instant you use it- I won't say it... Check for natural cotton twill- $9 for a yard of 54" wide fabric gives 1,944 square inches, and you don't have to clean out the whole chem lab of funny stuff. Cheers -RayO, aka Opa! On 6/8/06, Vicki Smith wrote: <Snip> -- "When the theme hits the bass, I dance the Jig!" - -Virgil Fox at the Mighty Wichita WurliTzer- 1976 |
Hi Ray, I was actually thinking that the fabric interfacing one uses when sewing would be easier to handle/cut and would not need to go through my washing machine twice to get, urmm, baby sweetening out of it. The key to a fabric that works well is the tightness of the weave. It has to be porous/loose enough so the water doesn't back up and tight enough so the grounds don't pass through to the cup. The baby wipes fit the bill, in that sense. Twills come in various weaves (an old sewer here). I think interfacing would work though. I'll run down to the fabric store and take a look tomorrow, or the next day. And of course, whatever you use has to let more of the volatile oils into the cup than a paper filter does--thats the purpose (for me at least) of this exercise. Regards back, vicki PS: I tell the story of my exercise in filter making in my new coffee blog. I'm an old hand at blogging, but this is new, new, new.http://taming.motime.comraymanowen wrote: <Snip> |
Interfacing looks surprisingly similar to the old percolator filters we used to use back when dinosaurs roamed the earth. On Jun 9, 2006, at 2:00 AM, Vicki Smith wrote: <Snip> Sandy www.sandyandina.com |
I think my family lived just a few caves away from yours, Sandy. v Sandy Andina wrote: <Snip> |
Careful with a couple things. First, any binders in a fabric you use. Second, cotton. IMO, it'll absorb oil. I've found that polyester doesn't seem to. On 6/9/06, Vicki Smith wrote: <Snip> -- Scott |
What about the cloth filters for vacuum brewers? I've been using the same filter for my Yama for about 4 months and it's still going strong. What material are they made from? The package has a lot of writing on it but my reading ability in Japanese is even less than my knowledge of fabrics.http://sweetmarias.com/prod.brewers.vacuum.shtmlMichaelB On 6/9/06, Scott Marquardt wrote: <Snip> |
I'm sure I'm doing something wrong. Every time I pull a shot, the grounds have a picnic, floating on top of the incoming hot water charge and getting backstage, behind the group sieve, if a Capresso can be said to have such a thing. Anyway, it does have a "Hide & Seek" play area for errant grounds and methinks a pre-filter on top of the tamped grounds puck would harness the floaters. Upstream of the coffee grounds, it would contribute or delete nothing from the brewed espresso. I'm sure proper tamping would solve the problem, but I don't got the technique! I wouldn't think even a very tight weave would cause problems, because the flow rate is low, and the filter area is comparitively large. Nobody else uses them- maybe I pack and tamp too agressively or grind too fine. This setting just came up three cherries when I "pulled the lever" once- Mondo crema. Cheers -RayO, aka Opa! Still searching- |
On 6/7/06, Angelo wrote: <Snip> Yes and no - they do have to remove what could be easily described as toxic waste. And baby wipes clean just about anything. I get the pampers sensitive wipes with no alcohol and scent - I'm sure they have generic ones without the scent (my younger daughter has the most sensitive rear in the world - that or she's already into branding). Haven't tried them on the aeropress (I keep it at work, so I may just have to try this). |
It's been a while now, but I just posted a page with this in mind.http://snurl.com/invertedI'll be fabricating a punch shortly. I'm waiting on a competitive quote for">http://scott.marquardt.googlepages.com/invertedaeropressingforbettercoffeeorhttp://snurl.com/invertedI'll be fabricating a punch shortly. I'm waiting on a competitive quote for material, still. - Scott On 6/6/06, Angelo wrote: <Snip> |
Hi, Non of the links works at least not at the time of sending this mail. Claus Thøgersen ----- Oprindelig meddelelse ----- Fra: "Scott Marquardt" Til: Sendt: 26. juli 2006 01:16 Emne: Re: +Re Aeropress brewing question <Snip> |
Something sure is weird with Google Pages. You're right. Then when I navigate to the site for managing them, I need only click the link from there, then come back here and click it, and things are fine. It's as if it's broke until it gets a referer from the management page, then it's good for a while again, then broke, etc. So weird. If anyone cares to try it, let me know if any of these other page= s fail too:http://scott.marquardt.googlepages.com/radiantcoffeeroastinghttp://scott.marquardt.googlepages.com/roastcoffeeinamughttp://scott.marquardt.googlepages.com/thefadinggloryofmelitta103I might have to abandon Google Pages -- a resource I'd thought was a handy,">http://scott.marquardt.googlepages.com/bodumthermalmugreviewhttp://scott.marquardt.googlepages.com/infraroasterhttp://scott.marquardt.googlepages.com/radiantcoffeeroastinghttp://scott.marquardt.googlepages.com/roastcoffeeinamughttp://scott.marquardt.googlepages.com/thefadinggloryofmelitta103I might have to abandon Google Pages -- a resource I'd thought was a handy, "get it up quick" means to worthy ends. - Scott On 7/25/06, Claus Thøgersen wrote: <Snip> e <Snip> |
Hi, Just to add to the confusion all these pages work fine. Claus ----- Oprindelig meddelelse ----- Fra: "Scott Marquardt" Til: Sendt: 26. juli 2006 05:17 Emne: Re: +Re Aeropress brewing question Something sure is weird with Google Pages. You're right. Then when I navigate to the site for managing them, I need only click the link from there, then come back here and click it, and things are fine. It's as if it's broke until it gets a referer from the management page, then it's good for a while again, then broke, etc. So weird. If anyone cares to try it, let me know if any of these other pages fail too:http://scott.marquardt.googlepages.com/radiantcoffeeroastinghttp://scott.marquardt.googlepages.com/roastcoffeeinamughttp://scott.marquardt.googlepages.com/thefadinggloryofmelitta103I might have to abandon Google Pages -- a resource I'd thought was a handy,">http://scott.marquardt.googlepages.com/bodumthermalmugreviewhttp://scott.marquardt.googlepages.com/infraroasterhttp://scott.marquardt.googlepages.com/radiantcoffeeroastinghttp://scott.marquardt.googlepages.com/roastcoffeeinamughttp://scott.marquardt.googlepages.com/thefadinggloryofmelitta103I might have to abandon Google Pages -- a resource I'd thought was a handy, "get it up quick" means to worthy ends. - Scott On 7/25/06, Claus Thøgersen wrote: <Snip> |
Actually, just now for me they didn't. If I go to the management page and click to "view" one, then they all work again. For a while. So weird. It isn't DNS. It's something weird with Google. Here's a lame copy of the page in my own namespace:http://marquardts.org/coffee/invertedaeropressing.mhtOn 7/26/06, Claus Thøgersen wrote: <Snip> e <Snip> |