I seem to recall testing the difference sometime in the past but memory
fades and who needed to take detailed notes...
Seems Jim's and my approach to 300°ish are the same 2min with difference
being my stall at 230°. (I'm using 1min to 230°, stall Xmin, 1min 230 to
300°)
Planning to do three batches of the same green varying 230°f equalization,
rest profile the same, and cup for difference. (almost said *same bean* but
just knew the reponses on roasting the *same bean* 3 times:-)
-One batch straight 2min to 300° no equalization hold.
-One batch 1min hold
 (what I've been calling 2 + X profiles, 1 min to 230 plus 1min hold, then X
time from 230°)
-One batch 3min hold
(would be a 4 + X profile...)
More (confusion) will be revealed!
Kona Konnaisseur miKe mcKoffee
MCSE (Maniacal Coffee Systems Engineer/Enthusiast;-)
URL to Rosto mods, FrankenFormer etc.http://home.attbi.com/~mdmint/coffee/Rosto_mod.htm

[On Thu, 2003-06-26 at 12:21, miKe mcKoffee wrote:] 
 So now here we have a perfect example of changing the subject to match
the thread.  Now I'm off looking up that ISO#  but stongly suspect its a
quote from the CSA manual.  But I can see that we've been mythed again
for the 3F time (what's that 45?) 
 John - drinking way too much of this La Pluma to remain coherent

On Thu, 2003-06-26 at 12:55, miKe mcKoffee wrote:
<Snip>

Hi Mike,
This is one I'd be interested in. Of course, the 
early weightloss on different roasters, even two 
air ones, could be different.
The whole bit would be a lot easier if someone 
actually knew what the **best** weightloss or 
water content is at each roast stage. For 
instance, it could be that a blue-green new crop 
Indo, Central, or Kona benefits from a longer 
ramp, while the relatively dry Yemen/Harars I like 
don't.
No help from the food chemistry texts. There's 
about a dozen major pathways the Maillard reaction 
can take, and the main "steering" variables are 
water content, heat and pressure. The problem is 
that nobody actually knows when the pathways come 
into play in coffee roasting, since duplicating 
"in-bean" conditions in the lab is expensive. The 
big 4 paymasters don't care -- they'll pay 
anything for a "fresh coffee smell" spray, as long 
as it doesn't involve fresh coffee; but using 
science to improve roast quality isn't high on 
their list. This misdirection of research disgusts 
me, since it has nothing to do with offering the 
best coffee at a budget price, which is what 
they're supposed to be doing.
I was actually hoping to get some science to find 
out how long to spend at each roast temperature. 
Oh well, life is filled with disappointments.
Jim
On 26 Jun 2003 at 10:21, miKe mcKoffee wrote:
<Snip>

    On Thu, 2003-06-26 at 13:56, miKe mcKoffee wrote:
    > 
    > Absolutely the case I'm sure. Which makes it all the more difficult to dial
    > in the *perfect* profile for a given green. Even same varietal same Estate
    > from different harvest/processing batch may/will start with a slightly
    > different greens moisture content. I wish I knew of a way to measure a
    > greens moisture content other than *roast & weigh* approximation. Let alone
    > *best* moisture content at different roast stages...
    
Mike, 
They make equipment that measures that sort of stuff - prepackaged and
digital. Farmers are very skilled at using them - they control WHEN the
harvest takes place - as well as the price paid for the crop.http://www.zeltex.com/zx550.html And they say it'll do coffee bean">http://www.zeltex.com/zx800.htmlAnd this one is built for portable food checkinghttp://www.zeltex.com/zx550.html And they say it'll do coffee bean
moisture   Maybe we can talk Tom into buying one!.

Sometime around 11:35 6/26/2003, Jim Schulman typed:
<Snip>
Interesting you should note these examples.  While Charlie and I were 
talking at the PNWG, Harar came up.  He had been trying to work out the 
roast profile for a batch of Harar but kept getting a product that he did 
not care for.  I noted that I had finally zeroed in on it for myself.  I 
discovered I could not relate exact roast profile numbers to him (mainly as=
 
I roast "by gestalt").  We talked for a bit and finally we pulled out my 
WBI and we roasted up a batch.   Based I guess on a combination of odor and=
 
sight, I "pushed" this roast quite a bit, especially through the drying 
stage, noting (however I knew) that it effectively didn't need the drying 
stage too much.  By the end, I explained that it was my guess that I was 
trying to keep as moisture in the beans as possible, that when too much was=
 
driven off, the taste was often much more one dimensional, flat and a bit 
on the over roasted side, even though I took it only to 440F.
Turned out, this water content seems to have made the difference to 
Charlie's taste.
On that note, it should be "230F hold benefit, detriment or myth?"
<Snip>
--
John Nanci 
AlChemist at large
Zen Roasting and Blending by Gestalthttp://www.dreamsandbones.net/blog/

On 27 Jun 2003 at 5:33, AlChemist John wrote:
<Snip>
I'll be doing the trails on this fairly soon, and 
it's good you emphasized this dp/wp difference. 
I've become fascinated by the difference between 
pros and amateurs coffee preferences. over the few 
years I've been following this, it seems home 
roasters seem to have a far greater liking for the 
DP Sumatrans, Yem/Eth, and Brazilian beans than 
pro roasters. Perhaps it has less to do with 
taste, and more to do with the roasting technology 
and results the two groups get.
Jim