It's official, the CSA exists, it's printed on my North American Coffee and
Beverage Retailers Expo badge. When filing out the registration form at
first I put 'self' under company, noticed they printed badges and that the
company was printed below a person's name, and changed it to CSA! While
browsing the booths I was often asked what CSA stood for and I told them.
Responses were interesting ranging from mirthful laughs and I love it's to
polite smiles...
The 'Professional Barista Techniques' workshop I attended was a total waste
of time. It should have been called Beginning Barista 101. Most into
espresso on this list could have gone into much greater depth. I started to
get into an argument with the workshop speaker when he adamantly stated
grind was the ONLY factor that effective shot time. I asked what about tamp
pressure and he held firm it had no effect! With some portafilters and or
head groups yes, but ... I shut up and let him continue with the proper shot
length range should be (gee, so advanced) and even a 'list' of typical menu
items: espresso, americano, latte etc. He described the drinks with zero
detail on proper (or improper for that matter) method of preparation. Simply
defined what they were. PLEASE!!! While chatting with the folks at the SCAA
booth the topic of the Expo's seminars and workshops came up, they total
agreed it should have been titled for beginners. None the less the Expo was
fun. Lots of fun equipment to drool over, not a single greens sample though.
That Ambex 1/2 to 5# drum roaster should would work great in my garage...
(only $4995!!!)
MM;-)
Variable Variac Rockin' Rosto Roasting in Vancouver, WA USA
homeroast mailing listhttp://lists.sweetmarias.com/mailman/listinfo/homeroast

Mike,
Was there more than one of those Ambex .5 to 5 pound roasters? Is there
one left? I just dug out my ski mask and think I can work up the money
over the week-end :))
COOL about registering as CSA member. So are you sending in pictures for
the CSA Monthly? 
John
On Sat, 2002-09-21 at 21:05, Mike McGinness wrote:
<Snip>
homeroast mailing listhttp://lists.sweetmarias.com/mailman/listinfo/homeroast

From: "John" 
<Snip>
MINE MINE MINE MINE MINE MINE ! :-)
 
<Snip>
I would, but attachments are a no-no on the list... :-(  
MM;-)
Variable Variac Rockin' Rosto Roasting in Vancouver, WA USA
homeroast mailing listhttp://lists.sweetmarias.com/mailman/listinfo/homeroast

Any info on where the Ambex is manufactured, company history, website?  Last 
time I checked the SanFranciscan & Dietrich sample roasters were in the same 
price range. Couple thousand more for the 6-7# roasters. The true diehard 
CSA would definitely own (or at least wish he/she owned) a SF, Dietrich, 
Ambex, Kinetic....  roaster. Even if it requires 2nd mortgage, sacrficing 
your child(s) college slush fund etc....
<Snip>
Noel V. Hong
email: nhong32590
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://lists.sweetmarias.com/mailman/listinfo/homeroast">http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspxhomeroast mailing listhttp://lists.sweetmarias.com/mailman/listinfo/homeroast

--- "Mike McGinness"  wrote:
[snip]
<Snip>
There was a discussion on alt.coffee yesterday about tamp v. no-tamp. Several people experimented and discovered that, indeed, the tampless shot was just as good. Some said they would continue to tamp anyway for the ritual of it. It doesn't make intuitive sense to me, but I haven't tried it yet.
<Snip>
It may have been elementary for us CSA types, Mike, but compared to most "professional barristas" I've experienced, that IS advanced technique, sad to say.
<Snip>
Andy, having a gorgeous, cool late-summer morning in the inland northwest
Free e-mail!  you
A service of www.WallaWallaGuide.com
Promote your group and strengthen ties to your members with email by Everyone.net http://lists.sweetmarias.com/mailman/listinfo/homeroast">http://www.everyone.net/?btn=taghomeroast mailing listhttp://lists.sweetmarias.com/mailman/listinfo/homeroast

Andrew:
<Snip>
people experimented and discovered that, indeed, the tampless shot was just as 
good. Some said they would continue to tamp anyway for the ritual of it. It 
doesn't make intuitive sense to me, but I haven't tried it yet.
Right up front . . . I'm not taking sides  . . . (and I continue to tamp . . 
..).   But . . . there are several reasons why it might not make much (if any) 
difference.
First (and perhaps critical to the whole subject), ground coffee swells when 
wet.  What does that do to even the most careful tamp?  It may matter during 
the infusion stage (before and during the swelling), but how much does it 
matter after?
Second, if the basket is sufficiently full (and this was/is always the case for 
me when using my smaller than "commercial" Pavoni, for example) the swelling 
grounds compress against the screen, and "tamp" themselves.  So the compression 
of the puck is, for most of the extraction, a function of the fill, not the 
tamp.
Third, during the extraction the pressure across the puck drops . . . from 
about 125 psi (pump pressure) at the top of the puck to about 14 psi (absolute, 
ie. one atmosphere) at the bottom of the puck.  So the puck itself is, in a 
sense, self tamping (with uneven pressure from the top to the bottom).
It seems to me, on first consideration anyway, that the advantage gained from 
tamping is to insure even compaction of the grounds at the beginning of the 
whole extraction process to prevent "channeling", and other possible causes of 
uneven extraction of the puck . . . but that once the extraction is under way 
it becomes a self-regulating process.
Deward
homeroast mailing listhttp://lists.sweetmarias.com/mailman/listinfo/homeroast

At 12:07 PM 9/22/02 -0700, you wrote:
<Snip>
I seem to recall someone on alt.coffee placing a pressure sensor at various 
depths within the puck, and determined that the pressure is constant 
throughout  the entire puck. It's the holes in the bottom of the filter 
partially getting plugged up with ground coffee that provides the barrier 
for the pressure differential.
Mark S.
homeroast mailing listhttp://lists.sweetmarias.com/mailman/listinfo/homeroast

Mark:
<Snip>
depths within the puck, and determined that the pressure is constant
throughout  the entire puck. It's the holes in the bottom of the filter
partially getting plugged up with ground coffee that provides the barrier
for the pressure differential.
I'd love to see the reference on that, and particularly how the measurements 
were taken.  It's certainly at least partially plausible . . . but it doesn't 
provide any explanation of why changing the grind would change the flow . . .
A "quick and dirty" test would be to place a disk of filter paper over the 
bottom of the basket (to prevent the holes from plugging).  If that theory is 
correct then the flow (all else being equal) should go up dramatically (since 
it would be almost impossible to "clog" filter paper with coffee grounds).  I 
may have a box of Whatman disks somewhere around here . . . if I find them I'll 
cut to fit and give it a try . . .
Deward
homeroast mailing listhttp://lists.sweetmarias.com/mailman/listinfo/homeroast

On Monday, September 23, 2002, at 03:04 PM, dewardh wrote:
<Snip>
Does water flow through sand or clay faster?  And to prevent arguments, 
let's say we are not talking about the kinds of clay that expand when 
they get wet.
Jim Gundlach
homeroast mailing listhttp://lists.sweetmarias.com/mailman/listinfo/homeroast

Do I need to go find my hydrogeology textbook?
Chris

Deward,
The original poster garbled the reference to a very long alt.coffee 
thread. Basically, one expects the pressure to drop uniformly through 
the puck, as predicted by elementary fluid mechanics. Illy & Vianni 
actually did the measurements and found that the pressure drop was 
somewhat more pronounced near the bottom of the puck, especially towards 
the end of the pull. They posit that fines migrate downward during the 
extraction.
There were no references to the holes in regular baskets being blocked. 
But, in crema enhancement gadgets, a good deal of the pressure drop does 
come from the restricted spray nozzles at the bottom of the basket; 
that's why these "work" even with stale or coarsely ground coffee.
At least, that's what I got from the thread, YMMV
Jim
On 23 Sep 2002 at 13:04, dewardh wrote:
<Snip>
homeroast mailing listhttp://lists.sweetmarias.com/mailman/listinfo/homeroast

Jim:
<Snip>
Exactly the point.  If the pressure drop (flow restriction) occurs at the 
bottom of the basket it doesn't matter, it's the basket that controls the flow 
.. . . if the flow restriction (pressure drop) occurs in the puck (be it coffee 
or clay ) then it does . . .
Deward
homeroast mailing listhttp://lists.sweetmarias.com/mailman/listinfo/homeroast

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
<Snip>
<Snip>
Jim Gundlach
Actually, this isn't a valid comparison.  If I remember correctly from =
my hydrogeology days, clay is made up of plates, not particles, and they =
have a charge, which makes it pretty hard, if not impossible-- for water =
to "flow through" at all...the water is held in the clay.  As far as I =
know, coffee particles do not have a charge.  
(Bringing the conversation back to coffee.....)  However, I have read of =
grinders that "shave" coffee rather than grind it into particles, and I =
can see where this might make a big difference in flow rates.
Cj
(former Geology major)