Blind shaker VS WDT - was Lance Hedrick wrong?

Рет қаралды 2,078

David Weisz

Ай бұрын

Music from #Uppbeat (free for Creators!):
uppbeat.io/t/adi-goldstein/i-...
License code: K838LHMSHVKKGA7M

Пікірлер: 34

@markpalmos Ай бұрын

12:20 - not sure that this thumping doesn't a/ collect fines in one area b/ create clumps. - may depend on a bunch of variables, but to me, minimising thumping would be better, keep the grinds more fluffy

@darylfortney8081 Ай бұрын

Totally agree there is no statistical improvement one way over the other no matter how many shots you test. Since WDT is easier workflow that's my preference. Personally I pull the espresso in with syringe filter attached and then remove it to drip the sample to the refractometer but don't think it really makes a difference.

@weiszCoffee Ай бұрын

Could be we have different filters. I can't pull the shot with the filter on.

@michelschwank Ай бұрын

Hi! Amazing Video! 13g beans in and 19g espresso out does not sound like the traditional recipe, can you tell me something about that?

@weiszCoffee Ай бұрын

Thank you. This is not a traditional basket but a single IMS basket. 13 to 19 sounds like a very low ratio. Almost a Ristreto but it isn’t. Due to the distinct stepped shape of this basket I get very good and balanced shots

@remnant24 Ай бұрын

What was there for Lance to be "wrong" about? He didn't make any claims, he just drew conclusions based on statistical data from large batches of tests and measurements, which you by the way didn't do-a sample size of 1 has no statistical validity.

@weiszCoffee Ай бұрын

From Lances video it sounds the blind shaker technic is superior. From my tests this is not necessarily true. I agree. This is not clear from my video, but I made 50 shots (25 with each technic) and the results were pretty consistent.

@error.418 Ай бұрын

But just having a different opinion isn't as good of a clickbait title :(

@weiszCoffee Ай бұрын

@@error.418 I think as long I demonstrate cases in which Lance’s claim isn’t true, this is not a clickbait. This was just one test among of 50 which gave me pretty consistent results

@ruperthart5190 Ай бұрын

I think you should have shown the results of the 50 tests, including confidence intervals, which is much more relevant than a single cherry picked case

@weiszCoffee Ай бұрын

@@ruperthart5190 Yes I completely agree. My mistake 🫤

@JonFairhurst Ай бұрын

I don’t have a blind shaker, but I use a small bowl that lets me get a similar result. The big difference in technique is that you were shaking hand and tapped the shaker. My approach is to fluff the coffee and to get the fines and chunks all mixed up. Hard shaking and tapping can create clumps. My technique is consistency better than deep WDT with my setup and preferences. Deep WDT can allow fines to migrate to the bottom., so I now avoid it. Anyway, give the blind shaker another chance, but this time, try to lift and fluff the coffee. Be gentle to avoid any compaction and clumping. But maybe the single basket makes a difference. I never pull singles.

@myname-mz3lo Ай бұрын

the main benefit of blind shakers is not the distribution . it is the compacting ? causing the fines to get stuck to the grounds . making it less prone to fines migration . so you can do blind shaker and also do wdt if you want the best of both . but to get compacting you need to chake the blind shaker hard . and not just move the grounds around .

@weiszCoffee Ай бұрын

I tried to replicate Lance’s test. I shaked the same he shaked and didn’t use shaker with WDT as Lance recommended. You are suggesting a new test which requires hard shaking and also WDT. I think the WDT makes the shaker redundant but this is out of the scope of my test

@allen.t Ай бұрын

You’re using a single basket though…

@weiszCoffee Ай бұрын

Yes, this is a single basket. Don't think this should affect but my text tests will be to find the reason for the bias between Lance tests and mine. I will check different baskets among other things.

@alexjj231 Ай бұрын

In my opinion, you added a huge unknown. The single basket can't be compared to the double basket...

@weiszCoffee Ай бұрын

Could be you are correct, though I think as long as I keep all tests the same it should be ok. Anyway I am going to add some more test and hopefully a video with different basket and different niddles on my WDT

@bluemystic7501 Ай бұрын

@@weiszCoffee I think part of the 'benefit' to the blind shaker is that it distributes the coffee better in a double shot basket - among other things. You used a single shot basket, so this isn't really the same test. That said, I tried them side by side and a shaker made no difference. Slow feeding on the other hand, that's a bit of a game changer, but that idea has been out for years.

@weiszCoffee Ай бұрын

@@bluemystic7501 Well I absolutely agree. The slow feeding was a game changer :). According to Lance's test, the Blind shaker technic should be a better choice no matter the basket so even if you'r right, this means Lance's test is not that accurate. I don't see why the Blind shaker technic should work better on a double baskets and not on a single. Actually I think the bias is related to the needles of the WDT, but this is one of the things I am going to check next.

@hailam8992 Ай бұрын

I can see one thing Lance did that you didn't do was that he re-distributed the puck right after finishing the blindshaker, with a traditional distribution technique (called the tap tap/hand tap technique, or whatever I don't know the name), which you only WDT on the top. And your "blindshaker" shot had signs of channelling, which is explained through: the BlindS puck had poor distribution, you WDT on the surface, faster shot with same grind size (which is also an indicator for channelling, since water flew faster with channelling shot), sharper acidity which perceptively led to less sweet, and more aromatic shot (caused by the dilution, from channelling, when diluting liquid, you usually receive more fragrant and more distinguishable result, try diluting any liquors or drinks and see if you can easily pick it apart) I'm not saying that you might be wrong, you're doing good work here and may you keep going, which re-examines the given theory and shares it with others. Some people just blindly believe in things without even confirming it to themselves. I'm just saying that you had different actions and flows from Lance's that led to different results, which Lance validated. Love what you do, keep it up!

@weiszCoffee Ай бұрын

Thank you so much for the kind words. Appreciate a lot 🙏 If I recall correctly Lance said that the best thing is to not do anything besides the shake. He even suggested that any distribution can harm the process. My next tests (and hopefully next video) will be to find the cause for the bias. So could be I will find you are correct.

@bauhausoffice Ай бұрын

Totally bogus. Lance is never wrong because he doesn’t make definitive claims. He is constantly experimenting. Well, it’s evident Lance is the man when his name is used as clickbait. Also, holes in this experiment.