Copyright ©2022 by Robert McKeon Aloe

Published by Staccato Espresso LLC

Campbell, California, USA

ISBN 979-8-218-03194-7

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a

retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior
permission of the author.

Book and cover design: Rebecca Neimark, Twenty-Six Letters

Ebook conversion: Erica Smith, Ebook Conversions
Printed in China
This book is dedicated to my wife Andrea, who has supported and tolerated
my love/obsession for espresso.

And to my sons, who know my second-favorite color is coffee, who eat

coffee beans after a fresh roast, and who occasionally steal my lattes.

Additionally, this book is a reminder of my deep love for Paris, the city that
introduced me to un café.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

A Story
Introduction

1 Ode to Espresso: A Journey into the Cup

2 Extracting Data from Espresso
3 Metrics of Performance: Espresso
4 Grinds into Basket— Staccato Tamping

PART I: PRE-SHOT
5 Espresso Machine
6 Coffee Grinder
7 Coffee Roast
8 Data
9 Coffee Blending
10 Roasted Coffee Storage
11 Roast Age
12 Portafilter

PART II: SHOT PREPARATION

13 Scale
14 Grinding
15 Filter Basket
16 Extra Filters
17 Distribution
18 Tamper

PART III: PULLING THE SHOT

19 Water Temperature
20 Pre-infusion
21 Pressure
22 Shot Ratio (Output:Input)

PART IV: POST-SHOT

23 TDS and EY—Shot Strength
24 Viewing the Shot
25 Puck Analysis
26 Drinking Espresso

Conclusion
So Long, and Thanks for All the Levers
References
Glossary
Index
 A STORY

ll my life, I have been unafraid to be curious, nor have I been afraid to do

A weird experiments. I’m never sure how things will end up, though—and
with espresso, I’ve had a lot of fun.
I have only had three machines blow up on me. The most unfortunate
occurred in the office. I had bought an old Enrico in Italy from an old man on
a boat. I kept this machine at my office, where I pulled one or two shots a
week on it.
The office was a shared space. My boss occupied a space across from my
pod; my pod included eight people or so. The pod alongside mine had
another eight workers. The wall and door of my boss’s office were made of
glass.
One day, in an adjacent office, an informal meeting was in progress, with
ten people present. My machine was warming up when, boom, the steam
wand blew off. A 6-foot horizontal stream of steam shot out for what seemed
like an eternity but was probably more like 10 seconds, as everyone within
earshot stared. My friends laughed because they knew about me and my
espresso machines. Fortunately, the steam wand was projected only two
inches, onto the table, and nobody was hurt. The initial pop of the wand
blowing off of the machine made the boom.
Apparently, the wand hadn’t been screwed in at all. This had been a
disaster waiting to happen. A locking bolt on the other side had become
unscrewed. I had noticed a hissing sound, but I didn’t realize it foreshadowed
an explosion.
I felt mixed emotions. On one hand, I was glad I hadn’t put the portafilter
on to make the shot because I would have ruined a perfectly good espresso
shot. On the other hand, I was embarrassed—but not because I looked like an
idiot. I was afraid I would be told to clear my espresso stuff out of there and
find a new job. My immediate thoughts were about how I would discretely
clean the mess up, what story I would tell, and how would I get out of this
jam.
Luckily, my boss just laughed. Either he was used to my eccentricities or
the explosion was par for the course for his group.
I encourage you to experiment: try, fail, succeed, and have fun. The
difference between spectators and participants is the latter group’s
willingness to try.
 INTRODUCTION

rewing espresso is arguably the most challenging way of brewing coffee.

B Espresso is unforgiving, and it can be difficult to make adjustments
during the brew. However, when it is prepared correctly, espresso is the
nectar of the gods.
Over the past the few years, I’ve been exploring espresso, using data
science and image processing. Initially I wanted to improve the espresso I
was making with my La Pavoni machine, but my efforts quickly advanced as
I applied data and shot far past the best espresso I had ever tasted.
This process has continued, and my aim is to share this knowledge—in a
concentrated, espresso-type form—with anyone who is interested in
preparing the very best espresso.
A large number of variables affect espresso outcome, and it may seem
difficult to know where to start. I reduced my list from 63 to 24 variables, and
in the pages of this book, for each variable, I discuss what is “good,” “better,”
and “best.” I hope that by enabling you to make incremental changes in each
of the categories, this framework can guide you to make stellar espresso.
This discussion will not cover beginner methods for espresso. Multiple
excellent resources already provide information about getting started with
espresso, dialing in a shot, tamping, and coffee. My goal is to teach you to
create stellar shots by manipulating some variables.
We can categorize these variables into four stages: pre-shot, shot
preparation, pulling the shot, and post-shot. Figure 1 illustrates ways in which
various changes could interact.
My espresso differs from what’s considered “third wave” espresso (see
Table 1). I began with parameters identical to third wave, modifying them
after collecting data and finding the optimal espresso shot performance.
Based on the diagram shown in Figure 1, I created Table 2. The table
explains, at the highest level, the elements that define “good,” “better,” and
“best,” the three levels of advancement. If you have an espresso setup, you
have probably encountered some of these variables and techniques.
The four sections of this book cover each stage of espresso preparation.
Those interested can use this as a restarting point for improving their shots.
This text is full of data and statistics. That might look intimidating, but
data and statistics are the keys to transforming espresso into a magical nectar.
Often, coffee advancements have been driven by barista data gathered
through experience. My aim is to accelerate your ability to improve your
espresso shots by pulling together data on multiple areas.
If you encounter a discussion you don’t quite understand, it is okay to
move along to the next. If your experience goes against the data, I encourage
you to collect your own data and use whatever helps your espresso. My hope
is that both the data and the idea of using data will improve your espresso
experience.

Figure 1
Interacting variables
 Table 1
My espresso
 Table 2
Pre-shot and Shot Preparation variables
 Table 3
Pulling the Shot and Post-Shot variables
 CHAPTER 1
ODE TO ESPRESSO—
A JOURNEY INTO THE CUP

W hen I was growing up my family didn’t drink espresso. They drank drip
coffee of the Folgers quality. To them, coffee was strictly a transport
vehicle for caffeine. I didn’t particularly like coffee then, but my love
for espresso evolved gradually while I was living in Paris, France.
Paris, je t’aime
I lived in Paris with my family for my last two years of high school. When I
went with friends out to a cafe, I would buy an espresso—not because I loved
espresso but because it was the cheapest thing on the menu. However, I
began to enjoy it quite a bit. It had a strong, rich flavor. The first time I drank
espresso, it tasted as if I had melted a piece of chocolate in my mouth. My
palette was only in its infancy, but the mouthfeel of espresso was unlike
anything I had ever experienced.
My family returned to the United States. I was on my way to my recently
deceased grandfather’s house to help my mom and my aunt clean stuff out.
On the way, we stopped at a Starbucks. My mom and aunt ordered lattes, and
I asked for an espresso. The baristas were shocked that anyone would want
just a shot of espresso. They insisted it wasn’t enough volume of liquid. I
acquiesced and ended up with four shots of espresso in a cup. I put a bit of
sugar in it and then took the first sip. It was nasty.
The espresso was so bitter and I had such a terrible experience that day
that I decided espresso was best drunk in Europe. I wasn’t into other espresso
drinks, so I didn’t try espresso again for a few years. What I didn’t know was
that half the problem originated in Starbucks’ inability to roast coffee well. In
the early 2000s, third wave coffee wasn’t yet a thing, and the main coffee
explosion in the US was of the Starbucks variety, not espresso.
 Figure 1.1
ISP in Paris
 Figure 1.2
Espresso shot
 Figure 1.3
La Pavoni after cleaning

PASSION REVIVED
I met my wife, Andrea, at Notre Dame. Her Italian-American family drank
espresso. Slowly, I dipped back into drinking espresso in the US, though I
never had an experience with espresso like the one I had in Paris. Andrea got
me a super-automatic espresso machine. You pressed one button to grind,
pack, and brew espresso.
With the super-automatic I had to make adjustments to the grind to get
the richness I wanted. I increased the shot to the maximum strength (highest
input weight), decreased the liquid to the minimum, and adjusted the grinder
to the finest setting. A few years later, I tore the machine down to clean it and
adjusted the grinder to go even finer than it was supposed to. This choked the
machine, but once I removed the marble that made the portafilter pressurized,
the shot came out okay. It was good enough for espresso drinks and, on
occasion, a straight shot.
I began upgrading my coffee beans. At the office, I befriended two
espresso lovers, and we started an espresso ritual, much to the chagrin of our
managers. This experience led us to try different beans, and soon I was clued
into what was a good roast. At the office, we only had a Mr. Coffee coffee
maker, but if I packed the filter to almost to the top, I discovered the machine
would choke and produce a good, syrupy shot.
After I bought a manual espresso machine for $38 at an estate sale, I
began working toward making a good shot. Finally I had a machine that
could give me what I wanted, even if I still wasn’t consistent in my pulls.
This resulted in two setups: one at a home and another at my office.
COFFEE ROASTING
I dabbled in coffee roasting as I became more fascinated in all aspects of
coffee. However, a good machine for roasting small batches (½ lb.) cost
between $300 and $1,600. I wasn’t ready for that financial investment, even
though I knew the financial break-even point was only two years at most.
When I moved to California, a casual conversation with my boss’s boss
ended with a gift of a coffee roaster. He had upgraded to a $5,000 roaster that
could handle 1-kilogram batches. He gave me his Hottop, which was one
generation older than the then current model. It would have cost $1,200 new,
and it could roast 9 ounces per batch.
I spent a year adjusting the roast heat profile to get the best out of the
beans. I quickly settled on ending each roast 1 minute after the first crack
(FC), but I had to adjust how quickly or slowly I brought the coffee to the
right temperature. Getting to the right temperature too quickly resulted in a
burnt taste, even for a medium roast. If the beans heated too slowly, the roast
tasted like grass and not so sweet.
For the first few years, I stuck to blending African beans with South
American beans. Once I began to save more data on my roasts, I became
more adventurous. (Even now, when I find a great roast, I’m not concerned
about repeating it forever because I’m still curious about what other flavors
are out there.)
I ended up drinking twice as many shots as I used to simply because my
cost went down. However, I didn’t want to roast more than once a week, so I
explored going higher than the machine’s spec of 9 ounces. I saw that others
had gone to 16 ounces, so I tried a 16-oz. roast, but the roaster could barely
handle it. The 9-oz. maximum must have been for a dark roast because those
beans expand to such a large size. For my medium roast, I found that a batch
of a little over 12 ounces (350 grams) worked really well and got me through
the week.

Figure 1.4
Work espresso setup
 Figure 1.5
Home espresso setup
 Figure 1.6
Nighttime roasting
 Figure 1.7
Roasted coffee beans after chaff removal using a crivu, a traditional sieve used by farmers in
Southern Italy.
 Figure 1.8
My first green bean sample

UPGRADES
My next upgrades trickled in: new filter baskets, a new grinder, a bottomless
portafilter, a distributer, a leveler, and a knock box. Those tools improved my
shots and my consistency.
In early 2019, when I began using a data sheet, my journey down the
rabbit hole really began. I bought a Kruve sifter two months later, and then
things got wild. I developed the staccato and pressure pulsing. The addition
of a refractometer allowed me to gain more insight into the shot as a whole.
Espresso had merged with my other hobby: data. The ritual, the data, and
the taste are the things that intrigue me about espresso. My espresso shot
preparation takes time, patience, and attentiveness to detail.
This became a form of character building as I focused increasingly on
making the best shot, every day. Over the days and weeks, paying close
attention to each aspect of an espresso shot led me to be increasingly careful.
I scrutinized even minor details, until my habits greatly improved. I saw the
results of my close attention to details: more consistency and better espresso.
The shot I make is much different from a normally pulled one, even a
shot pulled in Europe, but during the summer of 2019, I believe my regular
shot surpassed my experience of the first shot of espresso I had tasted in
Paris. I’d been rocketed into the fourth dimension of espresso.
I look forward to continued research in the future because I believe the
espresso shot is woefully mysterious. Despite the wide investigations into
different aspects of the shot, its inner workings are still unknown.
If I have learned anything about espresso, it is that questioning the best
practices is key for future improvements. Not all questions will lead to
improvements, but the future understanding we will gain from
experimentation is vital.

Figure 1.9
Spent staccato puck
 Figure 1.10
Measuring extraction across the filter
 Figure 1.11
Travel lever setup
 Figure 1.12
Removing the bottom
Figure 1.13
Sifted coffee
 Figure 1.14
The beginning of the shot
CHAPTER 2
EXTRACTING DATA FROM ESPRESSO

I have read zero books, taken zero courses, and have zero certifications in
coffee. However, I ask you to suspend your contempt until you read
further. Cross-functionality has been the key to successful innovation in
many industries. The same is true for coffee.
I got into espresso because I love its rich taste. As I got deeper into it, I
wanted to understand it more. My background is computer vision and data
science. I have a Ph.D., and I’m a researcher by nature. Some may think I
don’t have the qualifications to write this book, but a Ph.D. is a qualification
that says I am able to search and research, to develop novel wisdom. I began
applying what I know to espresso after I found out there wasn’t much
information out there that follows the footsteps of a scientist. And there was
little available espresso data.
Yes, you can argue that many people have done scientific studies relating
to espresso, but I was underwhelmed by the studies’ design, their breadth,
and the depth of the analyses. For most of the coffee experiments, only a few
samples were collected, and the researchers didn’t explore deeper to
understand the roots of some improvements.
The field of espresso is dominated by baristas. Baristas train to make
espresso and espresso drinks all day, but that doesn’t mean they are trained
scientists. I don’t deny that they have a wealth of knowledge, but there is a
gap between the scientists and the baristas in combining experimental data
with their tactical knowledge.
The espresso world has accrued a large body of knowledge, and people
who tap into it generally find that it explains how something is to be done
rather than discussing how to brew better.
I wanted to go further.
THE BEGINNING OF EXPERIMENTATION
Initially, sticking to what I knew, I looked at filters and pre-heating. Then I
discovered staccato, and I really zeroed in on that. I believe I found
something big that had been overlooked, even by some people who had done
research on sifting. They had made what should have turned into staccato
shots, but they stopped short because they were focused on coffee extraction
rather than taste.
I repeat that have read no books and taken no courses, but what I’m
looking for in espresso has not been written in books or taught in courses. I’m
looking for a far deeper understanding of espresso, and I am using all
available avenues to get there.
I have searched the internet for data and have examined every bit of of it I
could find. I even did the two-week trial of Barista Hustle’s online learning
catalog. I have been underwhelmed by the volume of data available. A lot of
the available information has plenty of explanation, but it lacks supporting
experiments.

Figure 2.1
Espresso

EDUCATION
Compared with most of the espresso community, I bring something different
to the table, and I’m up for the challenge to learn more and develop wisdom.
Many food-related research areas are funded by companies, and their data
isn’t public. That doesn’t help a home barista make a better shot.
I am data driven. While some would call me a coffee grifter, I’m just a
scientist with a dream of a shot of espresso I have not yet tasted.

Figure 2.2
Too much stuff for my coffee corner at home
CHAPTER 3
METRICS OF PERFORMANCE:
ESPRESSO

E spresso is a complicated, but not impossible, drink to master. Over the

years I’ve greatly improved my techniques, using different methods as
well as a data sheet. Below, I review the metrics I have used to assess
performance. I hope to provide a broad overview to anyone interested in
collecting their own data to help improve their own experiments.
TASTE METRICS
Final score is the average of a scorecard of seven metrics (Sharp, Rich,
Syrup, Sweet, Sour, Bitter, and Aftertaste). These scores are subjective, of
course, but they were calibrated to my tastes and helped me improve my
shots. There is some variation in the scores. My aim was to be consistent for
each metric, but sometimes it was difficult to discern details.
Four attributes — Sweet, Sour, Bitter, and Aftertaste—are
self-explanatory. Three—Sharp, Rich, and Syrup—require explanation:
Sharp refers to the sharpness as the espresso first hits your tongue, how
shocking it is to your tastes. I prefer not to cough as the result of drinking
something with an unexpectedly strong flavor, but it is a sign of a sharpness I
prefer. One issue with this metric is that even though a smooth shot won’t be
sharp, that doesn’t mean it is a bad shot. This it has made me look at changes
to the metrics I use and even consider getting a Q-grader certification.
Rich refers to the overall richness and complexity of the shot. I prefer a
shot of 1:1 ratio (input coffee weight to output espresso weight) because I
want to relive the first shot of espresso I tasted in Paris. It tasted like a melted
chocolate bar in my mouth; it completely took over my tongue.
Syrup, or mouthfeel, refers to the texture. Again, I aim for an experience
that matches my recollection of my first espresso shot. The espresso felt
dense on my tongue, like syrup or melted chocolate.
My scoring differs from what Q-graders use when cupping coffee (see
Table 3.1). A Q-score is a culmination of ten factors recorded during coffee
cupping. I summarized each metric based on how I understood it from the
SCA Cupping Protocol. The Specialty Coffee Association (SCA) defines
how to prepare samples, how to taste, and how to score. Plenty of online
resources can help you understand how to do cupping.

Figure 3.1
Sample taste score data
 Figure 3.2
Sample extraction-yield data

WEIGHT AND TIME METRICS

Metrics help baristas maintain consistency.

Weight metrics:

Input weight (coffee grounds)

Output weight (weighing the liquid coffee)
Output weight during the shot

Time metrics:
 Total shot time
Pre-infusion time
Time to Cover the Filter (TCF)

TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS; EXTRACTION YIELD

Total dissolved solids (TDS are measured using a refractometer. This
number, combined with the output weight of the shot and the input weight of
the coffee, is used to determine the percent of coffee extracted into the cup,
called extraction yield.
Extraction is the percent of the coffee grounds dissolved into the cup of
coffee. Typically, only 30 percent of coffee is soluble. For espresso, you’re
aiming for 18 percent to 22 percent—or a bit more if it is possible to do so
without introducing astringency.
OVER-THE-TOP METRICS
These metrics are applied to data to help us understand what’s going on
inside the shot. They require more time and better eyes as well as a lot of
experimentation.
Plots can help represent different metrics to help us see patterns. From
these plots, best-fit lines can give a metric of how well we can fit a trend line
to that data.
Correlation is a metric to show how similar two variables are to each
other. High correlation doesn’t mean one variable causes another variable. It
means that both variables go up or down the same when things change.
Richness and aftertaste should have a high correlation because they are
looking at taste from different points in time, yet they are a measurement of
the same thing.
 Figure 3.3
This example scatter plot compares the extraction yield (EY) of a few versions of paper filters to 2
W (white paper filters) in the middle of the puck
CHAPTER 4
GRINDS INTO BASKET—
STACCATO TAMPING

T his chapter discusses the way we put the coffee grinds into the basket.
Many of my shots are variations on the staccato shot. The staccato, or
layering, technique made a big contribution to my knowledge. It opened
the door to a deeper understanding of espresso and coffee.
Based on my experience, a beginner method includes anything between
directly grinding into the basket to using a shaker. Either way, you dump the
grinds into the basket, maybe distribute them, and then tamp them. My
experience with staccato methods or layering has greatly expanded my taste
range.
I first developed the staccato method using a sifter. I sifted the ground
coffee and then added it, in separate layers, into the filter basket. I developed
a few other methods that didn’t require a sifter but gave similar taste
improvements. Finally, I landed on the very best method, which involved
processing each bean variant separately by roast, all the way through sifting;
the final shot is a layering of different coffee beans, separately sifted.
This section is slightly different from others because discussing the
“better” option before the “good” option will help in understanding the
“good” option. Good layering doesn’t use sifting, but it uses the findings of
sifted staccato.
BETTER LAYERING TECHNIQUE
A sifted staccato shot is made by layering sifted coffee into the filter basket.
After experimenting with every combination, I found the best arrangement:
fine–coarse–middle as the bottom–middle–top layers.
The Kruve Sifter
The Kruve sifter takes two screens in which you place your coffee grinds.
After a few minutes, you have three gradations of sifted particles.
Unfortunately, I only had the 400-μm and 800-μm screens, which are best for
preparing pour-over coffee. Particles sizes of 250 microns and 500 microns
are usually recommended by Kruve for espresso.
 The original aim of the Kruve sifter was to remove particles that were too
small or too large. However, I didn’t like the waste, and I thought the sifter
might be used for a higher purpose.
I ran some tests. First I made a shot with only particles smaller than 400
microns. The shot was okay, but it lacked sharpness and bitterness. After
making a shot from particles that were mostly larger than 400 microns, I
realized that part of the sharpness or bite of a shot came from the coarser
grinds. Curious, I put the finer grinds on the bottom with coarser on top, in
the same proportions as in the original grind. That’s when the magic
happened.
The taste was unbelievable. The shot was balanced, and the mouthfeel
(“Syrup” on my scale) was beyond anything I had ever experienced.
Deciding to continue the experiments, I bought a 200-μm sieve and a 500-μm
sieve. I did some tests on my grinder to understand the grind particle-size
distribution, and I made a four-layered shot. It was amazing; four layers were
even better than two!
 Figure 4.1
Sifted coffee
 Figure 4.2
Staccato tamped workflow: dose, distribute, and tamp

LAYERED SHOTS
Switching sieves is time consuming, and it requires a lot more grinds to
create the four levels (effectively five while sifting, but you don’t use the top
one). So, four-layered shots are impractical, but three-layered shots are not. I
aim to make three layers, using two sieves: 400-μm and 500-μm. This
produces three distinct levels:
 Fine, i.e., particles < 400 microns
Middle, i.e., 400 microns < particles < 500 microns
Coarse, i.e., particles < 500 microns

The fine particles give the thick, syrup texture along with sweet notes. I’m
still unclear what the middle-size particles contribute—probably balance. The
coarse particles bring strength, bitterness, and a sharp bite. Balancing these is
much like tuning an equalizer on a stereo to get the best sound from your
recorded music. It allows for dialing in a shot without adjusting the grind,
merely the sifting ratio. The grinds are all from the same type of bean.
Note that you need to be sure the coffee is sifted well. Typically, the
sifting goes at a rate of 3 grams/minute. To get most of the grounds through
the 500-μm filter is relatively fast, but because they stick a bit to each other,
it takes a while to fully sift out the particles < 400 microns. I suggest you sift
for an extra-long time, just in case.
Figure 4.4 shows the resulting puck from a shot in the Flair.
To better understand the effects on taste, I looked at multiple shots over
multiple roasts and multiple machines (see Figure 4.5). I observed a large
improvement almost everywhere.
A few months later, after I acquired a refractometer, I collected some data
with my own experiments on extraction yield. I found a large improvement in
taste without as much of a jump in extraction yield.
I suspect the shot was extracting better solubles sooner than in regular
shots; I normally pulled a 1:1 for staccato because the taste was superior,
compared with a longer shot.
 Figure 4.3
Workflow on a 7-g VST basket overpacked with 14 grams

Figure 4.4
Spent staccato puck showing the layers
 Figure 4.5
Staccato taste results

GOOD LAYERING TECHNIQUE

I ended up deriving two simpler methods from the sifted staccato shots.
These methods reduce preparation time and they don’t require a sifter.

1. Staccato tamping: a single grind setting; creating two layers based on

tamp pressure
2. Sudo-staccato: layering based on multiple grind settings

Figure 4.6
Extraction yield for staccato versus regular

Staccato Tamping: Improving Espresso

Staccato tamping was the result of applying my knowledge from the staccato
shot to a regular shot. The layering in a staccato shot is ultimately layers of
coffee densities featuring distinct particle sizes. Thus, if you layer coffee of
two distinct densities into your filter, the result could be modified to come
out similar to a staccato espresso shot. In staccato tamping, the bottom layer
has a higher density than the top layer. Because the fine-ground layer has a
higher density than the other two layers in a sifted staccato shot, this
simulates sifting the grounds and having an espresso shot with a fine layer on
the bottom.
I collected a small data set for staccato tamping to show how the different
layer weights affect the 1:1 extraction yield. The peak extraction resulted
from a close to even split or a slightly smaller (by weight) layer at the
bottom.
I typically put 11 grams on the bottom and 10 grams on top. I use a 300-g
to 400-g tamp (weighed with a scale) on the bottom and a light auto-leveling
tamper on the top.
With the extent of my data, I plotted TDS versus extraction yield for
regular, staccato, and staccato tamped shots. Staccato shots have a much
higher potential for maximizing flavor and extraction, but the staccato
tamped shots can achieve great performance.
 Figure 4.7
Staccato tamp preparation

Figure 4.8
Staccato tamping puck preparation
 Figure 4.9
Staccato-tamped puck post-shot with a paper filter in-between

Table 4.1
Feasibility data on staccato tamping
 Figure 4.10
Control chart showing staccato, staccato tamped, and regular shots

Sudo-Staccato Layering
You can do layering without a sifter if you have a good grinder such as the
Niche Zero. The aim is for a tight distribution for a few distinct grind
settings. Instead of sifting three levels, you can grind at three different levels.
I first explored this with settings 0, 15, and 30. I typically pull shots using
setting 13. Setting 0 is very fine, and setting 30 is coarse. But when you layer
them, they make for a good shot.
Another variation is called a double-double sudo-staccato. It uses two
grind settings: typically, 5 and 14. The filter is then layered fine–coarse–fine–
coarse, as shown in Figure 4.12.
For many of these shots, I again plotted TDS versus extraction yield. This
chart shows the intenso zone, which is defined as a boundary beyond ristretto
espresso, and it is defined by a higher intensity of coffee. This intensity is due
to a higher extraction in a smaller volume. Sudo staccato and double-double
staccato perform similarly, and they are a good approximation of staccato
(sifted) shots.
 Figure 4.11
Volume particle distribution for three settings on the Niche

Figure 4.12
Double-double sudo staccato preparation
 Figure 4.13
Control chart comparing sudo-staccato and staccato

Figure 4.14
 Split roast staccato tamped

THE BEST LAYERING TECHNIQUE

If layering is good, then more layering must be better. Let’s complicate this
process!
I began thinking about coffee roasting. I didn’t like single-origin coffees
because I experienced them as unbalanced, even after I had been roasting at
home for three years. Typically, I combined a bean from Africa and a bean
from South America to produce a great blend. I blended before roasting
because I didn’t want to invest the time in roasting two separate times and
blending after the roast.
However, a natural extension to separating particle sizes is to separate
coffee blends to separate bean groups. I couldn’t resist making the process
more complicated because, at that point, I already had a complex espresso
preparation routine.

Figure 4.15
Spent split roast staccato shots

Figure 4.16
Sifted coffee
 Table 4.2
Sample Data

Technique Development
For my experiment, I roasted two bean types separately. Normally, I would
have combined them before roasting. I kept the two bean types separated, and
I ground and sifted them separately. I experimented with making a six-layer
staccato shot: two fine layers, two coarse layers, and two intermediate layers.
I examined taste by, first, which coffee bean layer came first, and second, by
which sifted layers benefited the most from being split by bean. I found that
only the fine layer needed to be separated by bean, but the choice of which
bean layer came first had an impact on how beneficial the technique was.
In my first experiment, I roasted Colombia honey-process Buenos Aires
Gesha and Rwanda dry-process Rusizi Nyakarenzo separately. I ground and
sifted them separately, and then I began testing. I immediately saw score
differences. I didn’t know whether they were significant; at this time, when I
began splitting all my shots by the bean, I changed only the bean order for the
first two shots of the roast. Afterwards, I chose one bean order and used it for
the rest of the shots.
Cross-Application to Staccato Tamping
I applied this technique to staccato tamping to divide a shot into four layers. I
weighed and distributed the first two layers, tamped, weighed and distributed
the second two layers, and leveled.
For staccato tamped preparation, I also found a benefit in splitting the
beans. That preparation involved two layers, top and bottom, where the
bottom layer was tamped harder than the first. Similar to splitting a staccato
espresso shot, the top layer didn’t need to be split by roast. I typically split it
just for the sake of simplicity, because I ground each bean into a separate
container.

Figure 4.17
Split roast staccato preparation flow
 Figure 4.18
Top row (left to right), fine bean 1, fine bean 2, tamp. Bottom row (left to right), coarse mixed,
mid mixed, tamp.
 Figure 4.19
Split roast staccato preparation flow
 Figure 4.20
Data metrics by shot ratio

Data and Analysis

I collected this data over the course of a year, and the difficulty was ensuring
that I had controlled samples. I had been changing other variables as well, so
I had difficulty identifying shots where the only difference was whether or
not I had split the layers.
Looking at scatter plots of all the data, it is difficult to see a separation of
regular and split shots (see Figure 4.20). This is due to a data imbalance in
my data collection: I didn’t have an equal quantity of regular and split shots.
Let’s reduce this data to just the best pairs of shots for each roast, regular
and split (see Figure 4.21). For Final Score (taste), split shots seem improved
over regular shots, and for extraction yield, they are often better.
We can further break down this data by roast and staccato espresso or
staccato tamped. For taste, some of the roasts don’t get much of a benefit, but
others do. For extraction yield, one roast in particular, labeled “4/6/2020,” is
problematic.
For the 4/6/2020 roast, two of the four shots split the roast between top
and bottom, but they did not split both the top and bottom layers. In other
words, the shot was 9 grams of one roast on the bottom and 9 grams of the
other roast above it, instead of 4.5 grams of bean 1 and 4.5 grams of bean 2
on the bottom and the same above it. I removed these two pairs from a
statistical analysis because their preparation didn’t follow the split roast
concept.
We can use a test to determine whether these differences in results are
statistically significant. Both have a p-value 0.05, indicating there is a
statistically significant difference.
I built on the staccato concept to improve espresso by splitting a roast by
the two types of beans. This resulted in improvements to taste and extraction.
This split roast staccato technique had a lasting impact on my espresso
routine, and my experiments reinforced my belief that the espresso process is
mysterious, with opportunities for learning.
 Figure 4.21
Split versus regular shots

Figure 4.22
Split versus regular, broken down by coffee roast

Table 4.3
General Statistics
PREVIEW: PRE-SHOT
The next section discusses variables that are decided before you pull the shot
or do shot preparation. People focused on making fine espresso usually don’t
buy just an espresso machine; they typically purchase both an espresso
machine and a grinder. Often, the grinder is more important than the
machine.
 CHAPTER 5
ESPRESSO MACHINE

T heclaim
market is saturated with machines and reviews. Everyone seems to
that their thing is the best and worth a high price. For me, most
machines over $200 can work well. A higher-end machine will give you
fancier features, more consistency, and better espresso, but that doesn’t mean
there aren’t good machines at a lower price.
I don’t think making good espresso is simply about buying the right
equipment. The bigger challenge is that it is hard to know what you like until
you have tried a few machines and espresso routines. If possible, borrow a
machine from someone. That would be a wise move, to help you understand
what works for you and what doesn’t.
GOOD MACHINE
The best entry-level machine is a Flair or a Gaggia Classic. The Flair has
multiple cost-effective options ranging in price from $100 to $500. Because
they are all lever machines, they give much more control than water pump
machines can provide. Functionally, they are easy to set up and easy to
upgrade.
The Gaggia Classic is a good, iconic machine to which, over many years,
users have made modifications. A water pump machine, its solid construction
will last for decades if maintained. Additionally, the knowledge and hacks
available allow the Gaggia to be well worth the cost.
BETTER MACHINE
To move up in quality, you need a boiler or an E61 group head. The best
known is La Pavoni, which is a symbol of espresso in and of itself. With a
water boiler attached to the lever machine, you can achieve higher water
temperature than you could by boiling water and pouring it into the filter, as
you do with the Flair.
An E61 group head will also give better performance than a Gaggia
Classic because it has better temperature stability. This stability derives from
the use of more metal and a thermocouple. This provides better temperature
control than La Pavoni, which heats without control. It is up to the user to
determine when to turn off the water heater and surf some temperatures for
the right espresso.
THE BEST MACHINE
My preference is a lever machine, specifically a spring-driven lever machine.
I am in love with the Kim Express. The boiler connected to the group head
allows for better workflow, ensuring the group head is the right temperature.
However, the Kim Express doesn’t have a temperature controller.
The follow also rank among the best machines:

The Strietman, a manual-lever machine with superb water-temperature

control
The Decent Espresso (DE) machine, which is similar to an E61 group
head but offers superior control of water temperature, flow, and
pressure, which can be programmed in almost any way desired
The Odyssey Argos, a manual or spring-driven lever machine with
controls similar to the DE’s

All of these machines offer users the best control and the opportunity to
collect an extensive amount of data. They are also expensive.
 Figure 5.1
Taxonomy of lever machines

LEVER MACHINES IN GENERAL

I studied a few of the other espresso machines available. Francesco
Ceccarelli, a well-known coffee machine collector, has a website detailing
what is known about most of the manual espresso machines in existence. I
haven’t seen the machines categorized or grouped together based on their
similarities and differences, however. From my experiences with machines, I
know all of them have quirks, and I created a taxonomy to help understand
which machines functioned most similarly to others.
I used Francesco’s list, plus some machines not on that list, to create the
chart shown in Figure 5.1. All the machines in the chart are examples for
machines in that group. There were many more that I didn’t include. My aim
was to highlight their main differences.
CHAPTER 6
COFFEE GRINDER

M any people will want to skimp on a grinder, but if anything, you should
spend more money on the grinder than on the machine. A good machine
can’t make bad coffee grounds good, but good coffee grounds can make
a bad machine suck a little less. There are plenty of good options, but good
burrs cost close to $100 in parts, so you won’t find a good grinder for under
$100.
GOOD GRINDER
Many hand-grinders priced from $100 to $300 give the grind quality of more
expensive grinders. My preference is the ROK hand-grinder. A few electric
grinders fall in this price range, but they have difficulty getting espresso-
quality grind.
BETTER GRINDER
The next tier of grinders are priced under $1,000. They include the Niche
Zero, which has conical burrs, and the DF 45, which has flat burrs. Some
users find that flat burrs perform better than conical burrs, but there isn’t
good data on the subject. These grinders have the advantage of electric
motors.
A few grinders priced over $1,000 have incredible burr alignment and are
a step up in quality and performance. The following machines are good
examples, but keep in mind this list is not exhaustive:

Kafatek Monolith Max

Lagom P-64
Lehlkönig EK-43S
Mafatek Monolith Max
Laazzer Robur S
Weber EG-1

CONICAL VERSUS FLAT BURRS: A REVIEW OF THE TITAN

GRINDER PROJECT
The coffee community has been in discussion for years about coffee grinders
—in particular, about flat burrs versus conical burrs. There hasn’t been a
decisive consensus about them, but many moons ago (2007) the Home
Barista forum published a review of multiple grinders. The review is split
over multiple posts in their forum, and the end results aren’t obvious. I am
particularly interested in the data in terms of grinders compared to one
another. I would have undertaken this study a little bit differently:

Analyze multiple grind settings per grinder. (I have seen some, but not
in this body of work.)
Measure additional variables, such as output weight (thus TDS).
Take more samples.
Put all the data in a graph.
Collect all espresso shot data on a single day. (The roast aged a few days
during Home Barista’s data collection.)

Those critiques aside, the data is interesting. In Figure 6.1, I graphed some of
it to take a closer look. A clearer picture emerged.

Figure 6.1
Robur versus other grinders

DATA ANALYSIS
I focused on the data comparing espresso using different grinders. The Home
Barista forum used a single roast, and every day, they compared a specific
grinder to their baseline standard of quality, the Mazzer Robur (shown
below). This expensive grinder is marketed to owners of coffee shops.
The authors did blind taste tests and compared shots. Based on those
tests, they found the Robur performed better than the other grinders.
Let’s graph some of this data by comparing each grinder to the baseline.
The data show that none of these grinders achieved an extraction yield
equal to the Robur’s (see Figure 6.1). The wild fluctuations in extraction
yield are most likely due to their use of the shot volume, not weight, as a
stopping criterion.
I took all the grinder data and ignored that the shots were taken on
different days. I then plotted the average extraction yield for both the 13.5-g
and 16.5-g shots to look at the different types of grinders (i.e., those having
conical burrs, having flat burrs, or having two burrs, one conical and one
flat). I also paired the shots based on the closest ones in time. These shots
have two days maximum between collection, so roast age is mostly
controlled.
Based on the information revealed in these graphs (see Figure 6.2), the
initial evidence suggests that flat burrs resulted in a higher extraction yield.
We can draw two conclusions from the data:

1. The Robur couldn’t be beaten in performance, but it could be almost

matched.
2. Flat burrs gave higher-extraction shots than conical burrs.

More data, with more controls, is necessary before I can claim that either
conclusion is definitive.

Figure 6.2
Flat versus conical grinders

ROK BEATS NICHE ZERO: A COFFEE GRINDER SHOWDOWN

In January of 2021 I bought a Niche. While I loved my ROK manual grinder,
using it for five years across many shots and coffee experiments had
exhausted me. I wanted an electric grinder and an upgrade.
I took the ROK grinder with me to my in-laws’ home, where I had
another Kim Express machine (like my home setup). When I used the ROK
to grind my beans, I immediately noticed I was pulling higher-extraction
shots. I had planned to leave the ROK grinder at my in-laws’, but I changed
my mind, bringing it home with me again so I could do a side-by-side
comparison. I was surprised to learn that the ROK was a better grinder than
my Niche Zero in terms of taste and extraction yield.
I used scatter plots across multiple roasts to compare performance. Scatter
plots make it easy to see whether the points are positioned above or below the
line. If the points fall on the line, the two grinders performed similarly (see
Figure 6.4).
There was a statically significant difference for TDS and extraction yield
with very low p-values in a two-tailed t-test, but the Final Score (taste) had a
p-value of 0.177, caused by two outliers out of 19 pairs.
When I investigated grind, I didn’t see a big difference that could explain
the difference in taste and extraction (see Figure 6.5). Wanting to dig deeper,
I turned toward pattern recognition.
I used Linear Binary Patterns (LBP) to describe the particles, and then I
used k-means clustering to classify them. I broke down each grind
distribution by particle diameter and then compared the histograms of how
those particles clustered. Based on the initial data, it seemed the differences
were large for particles over 500 microns, so I split up the particles for the
two grinders into two categories: one larger than 500 microns and another
smaller than 500 microns.
Particles smaller than 500 microns are very similar in size, and they bin
into size clusters. For particles larger than 500 microns, the Niche bins into
only eight size clusters, while the ROK distribution is more spread out,
indicating a wider variety of particle shapes.
Theory: the ROK grinder produces better grounds above 500 microns
than the Niche Zero.
To verify this theory, I sifted coffee from each grinder using a 500-μm
screen. I then remixed the coarser particles of the ROK with the finer
particles of the Niche, and vice-versa.
Using the ROK coarse grounds with the Niche fine grounds resulted in a
shot similar in taste and extraction to the one prepared with the ROK grounds
on their own. Doing the opposite resulted in a worse-tasting shot than the
Niche grounds alone, but the output-to-input ratio for that one shot was
slightly higher, at 1.5-to-1. The other shots were at a 1.3-to-1 ratio.
This experiment tells me that a largely unknown effect on particle shape
by grinders is not categorized by particle-size distributions.

Figure 6.3
ROK beating the beans out of a Niche
 Figure 6.4
Performance for ROK versus Niche Zero

Figure 6.5
Cumulative grind distribution
 Figure 6.6
K-means clustering of particle shapes

THE BEST GRINDER

The best grinder hasn’t been built yet. There is a chance that the Tree Field
grinder called Kirimai could be better than most grinders out there because it
removes chaff.
However, in my opinion even this grinder wouldn’t be the best. I think
the best grinder would include a sifter so that in one quick action it could
grind and sift for staccato espresso. I believe it would allow easy production
of fine and coarse sifted particles, making staccato espresso commercially
viable in terms of workflow.
If the best espresso shots are staccato espresso shots, then the best
grinders would also sift. It is quite possible that a cheaper grinder plus a sifter
could outperform a more expensive grinder.
A good way to explore this idea is to use a blade grinder and a sifter to
make staccato shots. In my experiments, those turned out as good as staccato
shots made with a burr grinder.
I made a few shots using a burr grinder and a blade grinder, and I made
staccato shots from both. In terms of taste, I could not taste a difference
between the blade-ground and burr-ground staccato shots. In terms of
extraction yield and TDS, they also came out similar to the staccato burr
grinder and higher than a regular shot (see Figure 6.8).
This is not to say that blade grinders should be used all the time, but it
suggests that sifting coffee grounds equalizes coffee grinders. Admittedly,
this experiment doesn’t hold statistical weight; it was a one-off to see whether
blade grinders fundamentally did something different than burr grinders,
aside from being able to easily provide a consistent grind distribution.
 Figure 6.7
Grinder performance when swapping fines

Figure 6.8
Burr versus blade grinder performance
CHAPTER 7
COFFEE ROAST

E spresso is a form of coffee that brings out the most intense flavors of the
coffee bean. Therefore, bad beans or over-roasted beans will taste much
worse when brewed as espresso because their flavors are concentrated.
GOOD COFFEE
Third wave specialty coffee uses high-quality beans, and typically, medium-
roast beans give the best flavors. Many coffees, such as Starbucks standard
blends, are roasted to a point where the flavors are gone, aside from a burnt
taste.
Simply buying better coffee will change your world. Keep in mind,
however, that lighter roasts are less forgiving to user error than darker roasts
because they need to be ground finer and aged longer (due to more CO2).
 Figure 7.1
Green coffee with roasted coffee.

BETTER COFFEE
Home roasting is the way of the “better.” The process might be challenging at
first, but it gives you ultimate control over combining varieties of beans, the
coffee roast profile, and the development of the roast. In theory, it is cheaper
(see Figure 7.2), and it doesn’t take long to break-even after buying a roaster.
In practice, it just means I just drink more coffee.
THE BEST COFFEE
Buying and selling coffee is the only way to get better-quality coffee than
you get by home roasting. It allows you better access to varieties of green
beans otherwise inaccessible to the home roaster. Unfortunately, this would
probably involve using a micro-batch roaster, which most readers probably
do not own.
Additionally, you can enhance coffee quality by measuring and
controlling the amount of moisture in the bean. The amount of moisture
varies according to the beans’ location and storage. By modifying bean
moisture, you can perfect your roasts and improve consistency between
batches. In my initial and limited efforts to control and measure this variable,
I discovered it had a clear impact on roast development and taste.

Figure 7.2
Break-even time for roasting
 Figure 7.3
Artwork from 2018 illustrating how complicated I thought my espresso was. Little did I know….
 Figure 7.4
Sample of my roasting data sheet
 Figure 7.5
Bean quality versus cost

ROAST DATA
I collect data on my roasts to help me reproduce them, keep track of some
history, and develop an expectation based on the coffee score.
Generally, you have to pay more for higher-quality beans that have a
higher Q-score. The trend is generally true, apart from some outliers (see
Figure 7.5).
I’ve looked at Coffee Quality Institute (CQI) Q-scores to better
understand how categories correlate to one another. The biggest issue is that
Uniformity, Clean Cup, and Sweetness are not valuable metrics to distinguish
coffee because they are not correlated to the overall score, as shown in Figure
7.6.
Using flavors and grades borrowed from Sweet Maria’s Coffee, I was
able to see how the metrics correlated to flavor notes (see Figure 7.7).
I further used these metrics to compare coffees sourced from different
regions. I found that for flavors, African beans were very different from the
rest based on a similarity score ranging from 0 (dissimilar) to 100 percent
(similar). I computed these scores, shown in Figure 7.8, for the entire
category across many beans. You can see that beans from Africa differ
greatly from beans from the Americas.
This is the best explanation I have found for why I prefer blends that
combine African beans with South American beans. Their differences seem
to complement each other—at least for my tastes.

Figure 7.6
Correlation between roast scores and flavors

Figure 7.7
Correlation of Q-score metrics to each other

Figure 7.8
Flavors and grades by geographic region
CHAPTER 8
DATA

D ata is a useful tool in coffee preparation. It isn’t essential to collect data

to make a good shot of espresso, but it is hard to get the best outcome
without collecting some data. By collecting and analyzing data, you can
find ways to improve your shot or at least have better information when you
ask others for help.
GOOD DATA
The most basic need is to log data for each shot. I’ve seen many people do
this using a written log, but I prefer a digital log so that I can copy repeated
variables, easily add more variables, or rearrange variables, all of which let
me analyze the data faster.
BETTER DATA
Collecting data helps with consistency because it can help you see how well
you control variables—in other words, how well you keep your variables
steady from shot to shot as you modify only one or two of them. However,
the “real money” is using that data to identify trends and improve your shots.
Data even once helped me diagnose when an espresso machine was failing.
At one time I had been experimenting with using paper and cloth filters. I
hit a point in my shots where my extraction yield kept decreasing. After
much frustration and changing many other variables, I plotted filter age. I
didn’t understand the cause of the problem until I analyzed my data and
determined the filters had not been damp enough. I would not have figured
this out without collecting and analyzing data.
 Figure 8.1
Extraction yield over time

Figure 8.2
Cumulative fine particles

THE BEST DATA

To excel with data you must go beyond simple failure analysis. You work
through theories as to why a phenomenon is occurring, test the theories, and
collect data.
For example, I have always been curious about the theory of fines
migration. The theory states that finer particles (typically 100 microns in
diameter) migrate to the bottom of the puck during a shot. According to that
theory, these particles cause channeling, clog the filter basket holes, and go
into the cup.
Nobody had shown evidence that fines migrate during a shot, nor had
anybody offered evidence that this didn’t happen. I did multiple experiments
that failed to find evidence of a particle shift. Eventually, while doing cross-
sectional cuts on spent espresso pucks, I found a small shift when looking at
the top of the puck versus the bottom of the puck for the smaller particle
diameters. However, the difference for particles with 106-μm diameter is 0.6
percent of all the coffee particles. I saw that fines do migrate a little bit, but
there isn’t much evidence that fines migration impacts extraction.

Figure 8.3
Slices of spent puck that I used to seek evidence of fines migration
 CHAPTER 9
COFFEE BLENDING
GOOD BLENDING
or the home roaster, blending is most time efficient if done when the
F beans are green. Different beans will roast differently, but for blending
purposes it is convenient to blend before roasting.
BETTER BLENDING
For better blends, roast beans separately and blend roasted beans. Blending in
this manner allows you to experiment with different ratios or combinations
with relative ease.
THE BEST BLENDING
The best blends come by blending after grinding. Different beans will grind
and sift differently. You can achieve the best shot by layering different
coffees (sifted or unsifted) so that the blending occurs during the brewing.

Figure 9.1
An example of how I blend before roasting
CHAPTER 10
ROASTED COFFEE STORAGE

T his section describes ways to store coffee beans. The method you choose
affects the way the coffee degases and oxidizes, and it has a significant
impact on taste.
GOOD STORAGE
A sealed container or jar at room temperature or colder provides basic coffee
storage. Be mindful of the roast age; storing beans in the refrigerator slows
the degassing process, and coffee beans must be mostly degassed for the best
espresso.
Use a freezer for long-term storage. Freezing doesn’t damage the coffee
bean structure, but it slows the oxidation process. Samo Smrke et al.
published a great paper and video presentation on coffee degassing in which
they also discussed freezing beans. They found that freezing preserves the
beans, and after being frozen for 70 days the coffee will degas as if it was
newly roasted.
 Figure 10.1
Gas released per day, in frozen versus fresh coffee

BETTER STORAGE
Most coffee is sold in vacuum bags that extend the beans’ shelf life, but that
doesn’t help much once you open the bag. A better storage method is to use
vacuum jars to store coffee long term.
While vacuum bags have been around for a while, vacuum jars are a
relative novelty, so I put them to the test using paired shots over multiple
roasts, multiple shots, and multiple days. Although I observed a lot of
variation, the biggest trend was in Final Score (taste). These shots produced a
noticeable and statistically significant improvement (two-tailed t-test).
However, TDS and extraction yield were not statistically different. This
suggests that vacuum storage reduces oxidation, and oxidation impacts taste
more than extraction yield. Oxidation occurs when food is exposed to
oxygen, producing a chemical reaction.
Figure 10.2
 Vacuum jars for coffee storage

THE BEST STORAGE

Vacuum storage containers aren’t perfect vacuums. They allow a small
amount of air to remain inside the container. Additionally, as coffee beans
degas, they can cause the pressure to equalize to the environment.
The best way to handle those issues is to either use either a continuous
vacuum pump or introduce an inert gas into a pressurized canister. Both of
these options are expensive, and I have not seen data for or against their use.
They are definitely the next level of coffee storage obsession.
 Figure 10.3
Final score (taste) and extraction yield comparisons for vacuum versus sealed storage jars
CHAPTER 11
ROAST AGE

N ewly roasted coffee can work great for other brewing techniques, but for
espresso, the amount of CO gas in a fresh roast interferes with coffee
2
extraction. The balancing act is to brew coffee when it has degassed enough
without oxidizing too much. Many experts suggest that a medium-roasted
coffee should rest for two weeks before you brew espresso with it.
I developed a process of humidification to permit newly roasted coffee
beans to degas faster, making them ready to use for espresso two weeks
sooner. This process greatly increases flavor and extraction. Humidity
treatment is practical for people at home or in commercial settings because it
is a simple, temporary change to the storing of coffee. Based on my tests,
humidification might be possible by adding a small amount of water
(approximately 1 percent of the weight) to the coffee during storage.
 Figure 11.1
Final score (taste), extraction yield, and shot time over the age of a roast

GOOD ROAST AGE

I’ve been collecting data on my shots for almost two years. I wanted to look
through all that information to see if I could identify any trends, particularly
those involving the age of a roast. I took into consideration that

My methods have improved over time,

My tastes have changed,
And my tasting palate has expanded.

So, to make a fairer comparison, I normalized the data, using the mean and
standard deviation for each roast. I found that taste and extraction improved
over time for up to five weeks post-roast. I did not find a taste drop-off three
weeks post-roast, which had been reported by some roasters. However, I
didn’t have much data for beans stored for longer than five weeks. (My roast
batches are around 1 lb., and I drink too much espresso to have a roast hang
around for very long.)
I ended up with more than 1,200 data points, and I had to clean the data
before compiling the figures shown in Figure 11.2. I disregarded shots I had
tasted at cafes and a few shots from random experiments.
I saw a general trend, but I wanted to normalize scores per roast. Each
roast was different, and my brewing techniques changed greatly over time. I
therefore used a z-score normalization to adjust the scores.

Looking at these values, we observe a general trend for both taste and
extraction yield over time. I don’t quite know where the peak is or when the
taste begins to decline—perhaps at around five to six weeks post-roast. This
data caused me to begin using beans at around three weeks, rather than two
weeks, after their roast date.
 Figure 11.2
Normalized Final Score (taste) and extraction yield over roast age

BETTER ROAST AGE

On his website, Richard Mayston described a large experiment he undertook
that was mainly focused on taste over time, versus density. He looked at roast
development and the best time to brew coffee from a roast. He measured bean
density as a metric, and he found a powerful trend between bean density and
the best number of days post-roast to begin using the coffee.
Richard’s main idea is that if coffee roasters printed bean density on their
bags, espresso preparers would be able to reduce the number of unknown
variables, such as optimal rest time and grind setting. Typically, you need to
use some coffee to dial-in your coffee grinder, but bean density information
would give you a better starting point. Additionally, this information would
help you identify variations between roasts.
His website tells you how to cheaply measure the density using an
inexpensive measuring flask. If you input that information into his online
calculator, it will give you the parameters he used and the date range for
optimal brewing.
Richard evaluated multiple bean densities by using a single variety of
green beans roasted to different levels. He then tasted it as an espresso,
espresso with bypass water (i.e., added hot water), and then espresso with
milk.
I took the data and created a graph to show the range of the best days to
drink a roast. The main trend is the correlation between grind density and
optimal brew days post-roast. This method of analysis does not require
describing the roast on the scale of medium to dark or color from light brown
to black, which is typical in the coffee industry.

Figure 11.3
Best day range to use a roast, based on bean density
 Figure 11.4
Humidity-control bag in coffee beans

THE BEST ROAST AGE

Roast age is more challenging in espresso than other methods of coffee
preparation because the CO2 released during the shot slows down flow and
extraction. This occurs because the gas reduces water contact with the coffee
grounds. If you let a roast sit for a few weeks, much of this CO2 is released,
making it easier for you to get the best shot. The only issue with such a long
rest is oxidation.
In 2021 I saw a video in which James Hoffman used humidity control
bags to store coffee, an idea he borrowed from Hamad Rahsid. These bags
are used for cigars; maintaining an optimal humidity allows cigars to keep for
longer.
Two years ago, Hamad looked at increasing the humidity to improve
long-term storage of coffee. Both James and Hamad looked at using humidity
to age the beans. James pointed out a lack of CO2 and a taste difference in the
coffee brews aged with humidity compared with a baseline.
Since then, not much had been explored or discussed. I wondered whether
I could apply some data to their observations.
HUMIDIFYING COFFEE
I left the humidity control bag in a jar containing coffee beans for around five
days. I then sealed the beans in a vacuum jar. I called this humidity-treated,
or humidified, coffee.
I found that humidifying the beans caused them to degas faster. They also
picked up around 1 percent of weight. Most of my roasts lose around 13
percent of weight due to water evaporation, which is a typical amount.
With regard to grind distribution, humidification causes coffee beans to
produce a coarser grind. To achieve my desired grind distribution, I had to
adjust the Niche to a finer-grind setting. I adjusted it from the typical setting
13 to setting 5. In Figure 11.5, those results are represented by the blue-
dotted and green lines. The red and solid blue lines represent grind settings
used for reference.
I looked at 37 pairs of shots over six roasts. I paired shots in consecutive
order from the start to the finish of my experiment. I had to wait three weeks
to use the regular roast, so except for the first roast, the shots pairs were
tasted and pulled at separate times.
Based on all metrics, humidified coffee was better. We can split the data
by roast to see where some interesting clusters lie (see Figure 11.6). The
9/17/2021 roast showed less improvement than others.
I used most of the humidified coffee in the first two weeks because it
degassed faster compared with untreated coffee.
Shot times dropped for the humidified coffees. This made it challenging
for me to compare shots using the same pre-infusion time, because I had to
reduce the length of pre-infusion to accommodate the faster flow, so I tried to
pull the best shots for each one.
I calculated statistical significance using a two-tailed t-test across the 37
pairs. I added a column where I adjusted all the extraction yield values for the
humidified coffee by 1.5 percent because they increased their weight by
around 1.5 percent. This means that if you put 20 grams of coffee in,
approximately 1.5 percent of that was from water, so a higher TDS means the
extraction yield is even higher.
Here’s a summary of my recommendations:

Add humidity-control bag for five to seven days for a medium roast.
Experiment with it for other roast levels. I used the 69 percent humidity
control. You might be able to use a small amount of water, 1 percent to
2 percent of the total coffee weight, instead of the humidity-control bag.
Grind finer. On the Niche, for example, I adjust the setting five or six
notches finer to start with.
Increase the dosage. I’ve been playing with slightly higher doses
because the shot runs so fast.
Slightly decrease the water temperature to slow the flow.

Noticeably, the shots were not as sour or acidic after being treated with
humidity. James Hoffman described a “funky” taste in coffee aged with
humidity for a few months, and I did notice a different (funky) taste for the
first shot or two after humidity treatment, but that seemed to go away shortly
afterward.

Figure 11.5
Particle distributions comparing humidity-treated roasts at a few settings versus an untreated
roast
 Figure 11.6
Final score (taste) and extraction yield for humidity-treated versus untreated (regular) coffee
beans

Figure 11.7
Roast age and Final Score (taste) for humidity-treated versus untreated (regular) coffee
 Figure 11.8
Time to cover the filter (TCF) and total shot time for humidity-treated versus regular coffee

Figure 11.9
Final score (taste), extraction yield, and shot time over the age of a roast
 CHAPTER 12
PORTAFILTER

T heimpart
portafilter holds the filter basket for the espresso machine. It can
vital information for improving espresso if you can see it while a
shot is progressing.
GOOD PORTAFILTER
The spouted portafilter is commonly used as a symbol of the espresso shot.
There are a lot of beautiful spouted portafilters. I found that the key to a well-
performing spouted portafilter is regularly cleaning. I got into the habit of
giving mine a deep clean every week, but this was too time consuming, so I
went bottomless (see Figure 12.2).
 Figure 12.1
A spouted portafilter
 Figure 12.2
Two portafilters, removing the bottom of a portafilter, bottomless portafilter shot

BETTER PORTAFILTER
A bottomless portafilter is the better option. It has four main advantages:

Nothing comes between the coffee and the cup (other than the filter).
You can watch and adjust the shot “live.”
You can video the shot and review it later for failure analysis.
You don’t need to clean the portafilter on a regular basis.

Failure analysis has been key to improving my shot. It has allowed me to see
where my preparation or technique went wrong. It has helped me see if a shot
wasn’t level, wasn’t distributed well, or the levels of my staccato shot were
not dialed in. Videotaping has taken away the stress of having to stare on the
shot, looking for a key detail. I use video to record the pre-infusion, bloom,
and infusion timings, which allows me to focus more on the shot.
THE BEST PORTAFILTER
The best portafilter doesn’t yet exist. The best portafilter would be
transparent, with a filter basket that is also transparent so you could see how
the shot progresses inside it. A transparent filter/portafilter has been made,
but the trade-off was a massive amount of headspace. It is also unclear
whether the materials from which it was manufactured were food safe.
I look forward to the day someone manufactures a safe, functional,
bottomless, transparent portafilter and filter basket.
PREVIEW: SHOT PREPARATION
The next section discusses shot preparation. Preparing a good puck should
take more time than the extraction itself. Attention to detail in the preparation
phase impacts the quality of the shot.
 CHAPTER 13
SCALE

A scale is a simple and helpful tool for espresso preparation, and it is

available at a variety of price points.
GOOD SCALE
A cheap, basic digital scale is better than no scale. A beginner won’t bother
with a scale and will fill the basket to level, but to achieve the “good” level,
you could simply use a $10 or $20 scale that measures within 0.1 gram of
accuracy.
A scale provides these advantages:

1. Consistent measurement of input weight

2. The ability to measure output weight
3. The ability to weigh the shot in-process

A basic digital scale might provide less than 0.1 gram of accuracy, depending
on where weight is placed spatially on the weighing surface (see Table 13.1).
Mine performed well for years, but in my tests of a calibration weight around
the scale, it had some offsets. I modified it by putting bumpers on it to
balance the basket.
 Figure 13.1
An inexpensive scale with bumpers for basket
 Table 13.1
A calibrated weight test

BETTER SCALE
The Acaia Pyxis scale provides a tenfold better accuracy, to 0.01 gram. This
scale also can be used to log flow, which I’ve used for a lot of analysis, but
its real assets are higher accuracy and the ability to weigh the shot while you
pull it.
I repeated tests similar to those I did for my cheaper, “good” scale, and I
was impressed. I performed repeatability testing with multiple weight trials. I
then did spatial trials to understand how the cup’s placement on the scale
could impact the measurement.
I found the scale to be accurate, repeatable in measurement, and quick to
reach the calibrated weight.

Figure 13.2
Acaia Pyxis scale
 Figure 13.3
Measurements to show repeatability and spatial tests of the Pyxis scale
 Figure 13.4
Kim Express with cup and scale
 Figure 13.5
Logs for a nice espresso shot

Figure 13.6
At left, multiple output logs; at right, a diagram showing derived flow metrics

THE BEST SCALE

To really go all the way, you need to flow log some shots. A machine such as
the Decent Espresso (DE1) will allow you to capture flow data at the same
time as it tracks other variables like pressure, temperature, and water input
flow. I collected flow data over many shots (see Figure 13.6).
I had to smooth the data because of noise from the scale as well as
pressure pulsing during infusion. This allowed me to see how flow peaked
and slowly decreased during a long pre-infusion.
 We can first look at just preinfusion and infusion metrics with a few
combinations of metrics. There are many strong correlations, but in terms of
the time to the first x grams, there seems to be a stronger negative correlation
with extraction yield. I suspect this is because time to cover the filter (TCF)
occurs sooner.
I also ranked all the variables and split them based on extraction yield
(EY) and Final Score (taste). The variables with the most positive correlation
were related to TCF. The rate of the upward slope also seemed to impact
taste, but the impact was a bit less than that of TCF.
I looked at a few of these variables, such as TCF, pre-infusion/TCF, time
to first 8 grams, and the time of maximum flow rate, in a scatter plot.
While I had high hopes of finding better metrics, these tests nevertheless
affirmed what I had already experienced with TCF and pre-infusion (PI): that
PI and PI/TCF are strongly correlated to better espresso shots in taste and
extraction yield.

Figure 13.7
At left, correlation between preinfusion metrics and shot performance; at right, for the first few
grams of output, the correlation to shot performance

Figure 13.8
At left, correlation between metrics and extraction yield; at right, correlation between metrics
and Final Score (taste)
 CHAPTER 14
GRINDING

G rinding is usually a mystery. Most people think of grinding only when

they are adjusting their grind to dial in a new bag of coffee. Let’s pull
back the curtain a bit and understand how grind variables affect espresso
quality.
GOOD GRINDING
Grinding is not just about the kind of grinder you have. Variables include
grind age, temperature, and fines.
GRIND AGE
The common belief is that you should always grind fresh. I didn’t find that to
be true. I stored my coffee grounds in lidded containers. Usually, I ground
enough coffee for four shots in one grinding session, and I would make those
shots over the course of one to four days.
When I compiled the data over a few roasts, I didn’t see a pattern for
grind age affecting Final Score (taste) or extraction yield.
I expanded this data set to as much data as I could reasonably track when
I ground the beans. I then normalized (Z-norm) the data by roast. For each
roast, I calculated the mean and standard deviation (std). Then, for each
metric and for each roast, I made the normalized data by this equation:
If there was a trend due to grind age, it would be clearly indicated as a
change of the normalized distribution.
As a scatter plot, there doesn’t seem to be much of a change, so let’s look
at box plots (see Figure 14.3). For regular shots, the Final Score stays about
the same, while extraction yield increases a little bit.
For staccato shots, there is not a trend for any of the metrics. A zero in
this case indicates the mean score; a positive value is higher than the mean,
and a negative value is lower than the mean.
I didn’t find any trend, positive or negative, between grind age and
multiple metrics: Final Score (taste), extraction yield, and shot time. The
main caveat about ground coffee losing taste is most likely based on leaving
it exposed to air for a period of time, but from my experience, grinding for a
few shots at a time has not had a negative impact on my espresso. It helps to
refrigerate or freeze the grinds until use, to preserve their freshness.

Figure 14.1
Final score (taste) and extraction yield compared to grind age

Figure 14.2
Normalized Final Score (taste), extraction yield, and shot time, compared with grind age

Figure 14.3
 Combined metrics in a box plot for regular shots, centered at the mean for Final Score (taste),
extraction yield, and shot time

WHERE DO FINES COME FROM?

When you grind coffee, you always produce some fines and boulders. They
are unavoidable, even if you use a higher-end grinder. The typical
explanations for why these occur are that fines are produced because of
coffee’s brittle nature and boulders are the largest pieces that can make it
through the grinder burrs without getting crushed.
One theory suggests that the inside of the bean is more brittle than the rest
of the bean. According to that theory, the fines are created from the interior of
the bean and the boulders from the outer part. If this theory is untrue, then the
fines should equally come from the outer shell and the inside.
I designed a simple, quick experiment to test this theory. If true, it could
explain why the taste of staccato shots differs from that of regular shots.
Staccato shots use the same grounds, just reordered by layer. However, if the
particles in the fine layer are dominated by the inside of the bean and the
particles in the coarse layer are dominated by the outer shell, the extraction
process could be affected.

Figure 14.4
Combined metrics in a box plot for staccato shots, centered at the mean for Final Score (taste),
extraction yield, and shot time
 Figure 14.5
A coffee bean, smashed large, smashed smaller, smashed even smaller

HARDNESS CHECK
I tried to measure the inside of the coffee bean with a D-type durometer,
which measures hardness. I noticed that the tool would sink into the soft part,
and usually the bean would crack before the tool registered a reading greater
than 5. However, the outside of the bean typically registered a reading
between 15 and 20.
 Figure 14.6
At left, image of a bean with hardness measurements; at right, a zoomed-in bean slice

DESIGN OF EXPERIMENT
To test this theory, I decided to first separate the fines and boulders and then
grind the boulders finer. After that, I could compare two shots.
I set my Niche grinder to setting 50 to produce a coarse distribution with
some fines. I used my image-based technique to determine the volume
distribution of the particles. Despite some error, revealed by sifting, the
technique worked well overall. The two bumps visible in the graph in Figure
14.7, one at around 300 microns and another at around 1,100 microns,
represent fines and boulders, respectively.
I sifted this coffee using an 800-μm screen. I ended up with 800-μm and
800-μm grinds.
I put these two separate piles of grounds through the Niche on setting 13,
my current starting point for dialing in a shot.
Separately, I ground some of the same coffee beans on setting 13 as
whole beans.
I then collected some particledistribution information. The < 800-μm
coffee went through the grinder very quickly. The distributions showed that
more fines were created, but the results didn’t change too much.
I compared the re-grind to the setting 13 (S13) grind. Both seemed to
follow relatively similar distributions. S13 had more fines, as shown in
Figure 14.11.
I normalized the taste metrics, but it was apparent that the > 800-μm
particles didn’t perform well. The 800-μm particles, which could be the
inside of the bean, tasted better in a shot—but not as good as espresso
prepared with grinds from the whole bean. The differences in taste seem to
suggest that fines come from the inside of the bean and that removing them
removes a huge part of the taste.

Figure 14.7
Particle distribution for setting 50 on the Niche

Figure 14.8
Left to right, 800 microns, between 500 and 800 microns, and less than 500 microns
 Figure 14.9
At left, > 800-μm grinds; at right, > 800-μm grinds reground at setting 13

Figure 14.10
Particle distribution for setting 50 and setting 13 regrinding for < 800 microns
 Figure 14.11
Setting 13 compared with regrinding to setting 13

Figure 14.12
Taste comparison between setting 13 (green line) and 800 microns reground to setting 13 (red
line) and < 800 microns reground to setting 13 (blue line)

BETTER GRINDING
Controlling the temperature of your beans before grinding is critical for good
extraction and consistent performance.
There is an effort in commercial machines to keep the grinder cool
because it is known that a hot grinder will affect the beans. The hotter the
grinder, the warmer the grinds are when they come out of it. A temperature
variation will require baristas to adjust their shots throughout the day.
 Research shows that coffee extraction is higher for cooler grounds than
for hotter grounds, and the flow is faster for cooler grounds than for hotter
grounds. Usually, the barista compensates by adjusting the shot timing,
volume, or grind to achieve consistency.
By accident, in 2007, a home barista left beans on top of his warm coffee
machine. He discovered that coffee beans preheated before they were ground
resulted in a smoother-tasting espresso.
In 2019, James Hoffman tried microwaving beans after observing a sous-
vide used in the 2015 championship to pre-heat beans, with the thought that
the treatment increased extraction.
In 2020, Sprometheus on YouTube made multiple TDS and extraction
measurements on coffee beans that were frozen or heated before they were
ground. He did not record the temperature of the grounds before taking the
shot, however, and he thus confused the two variables of pre-grind
temperature and pre-shot temperature. He did not use a bottomless portafilter,
so it is unknown whether the different temperatures caused a difference in
flow and channeling. His experiments were consistent but failed to produce
much improvement in taste.
In 2018, Compound Coffee studied the way grinder temperature affects
extraction.. The authors didn’t graph their data, but I did. Figure 14.14 shows
unsorted samples (left graph) and the set made up of the best extraction from
each (right graph). Because the samples are uncorrelated, the best way to
compare is best versus best and second-best versus second-best.
Even lacking a large sample size, the results point to higher extraction
without a heating element on the grinder. But there is more to this story.
Compound Coffee also collected the temperature of the grounds, so plotting
extraction versus grounds temperature gives a different view. A lower
temperature seems to result in a better extraction. Unfortunately, because the
experimenters didn’t cool the grounds down before brewing, it is unknown
which variable causes more extraction.
 Figure 14.13
Espresso shot being pulled

Figure 14.14
With and without heating element, unsorted on left, sorted on right

Figure 14.15
Extraction yield versus grind temperature

THE BEST GRINDING

The best method is what I call “spicy grinding”: grinding hot beans and
brewing cold grounds. I call it spicy grinding because enjoy spicy foods—the
sensation of heat at the beginning, cooling down over time.
Here’s my method: Microwave coffee beans to around 60ºC, grind them
immediately, and then let the grounds rest until they reach room temperature.
I usually grind the beans at one time and brew the espresso sometime later
because I normally sift my coffee to make a staccato shot. I store my ground
coffee in an airtight container. I don’t have a large enough data set to say for
certain what temperature is best for preheating the beans, but 60ºC works
well for me.
HEATING BEANS PRE-GRIND
With respect to heating beans, previous research didn’t separate results by
temperature, so I did. I heated the beans to between 60ºC and 90ºC using a
microwave. I then ground them with a ROK grinder and let the beans cool to
room temperature in a sealed jar. I used a Kim Express to pull the shots.
I measured the temperature of the shot immediately after the pull, and I
tasted the shot four minutes after the shot was pulled. I found that waiting a
few minutes for the shot to cool improved its taste. I stirred the shot before
tasting to ensure no particles had settled.
For shot preparation, I did a staccato tamped shot with a paper filter. I
also made some staccato espresso shots with a paper filter (PFF) between the
fine and coarse layers. The preparation for these shots is more complex than
preparation for a normal espresso shot, but they are both better-tasting than
normal shots. The taste gap between the staccato tamped espresso shot and
the staccato espresso shot was reduced by this temperature treatment.
One last note on preparation: I did not put the portafilter into the machine
until immediately before I pulled the shot. I wanted to ensure that the
temperature of the machine would minimally raise the temperature of the
coffee grounds before extraction.
My current data set, across three roasts, chronicles big improvements in
taste (see Figure 14.18). I did not observe a dependence on output-to-input
ratio.
In terms of extraction, I didn’t find a correlation between higher
extraction and spicy grinding. Both distributions are intermixed. The
extraction is already very high relative to the output-to-input ratio. There is a
second set of extraction numbers for higher ratios (see Figure 14.19). That’s
because I pulled the first 1:1 shot, and then I weighed and measured the TDS
for the second cup extracted portion. I then calculated the 3:1 ratio shot, as
many people pull longer shots.
I looked at the shot temperature at the time of consumption in order to
observe whether this variable had an effect on the taste. Coffee temperature
did not correlate to taste, at least for this small sample. Even when broken
down by roast, there didn’t seem to be a clear connection between taste and
the beverage temperature.

Figure 14.16
Left to right, beans in a microwave, beans warming up, and measuring temperature of hot beans
 Figure 14.17
A spent puck with a filter in the middle

Figure 14.18
At left, Final Score (taste) for heated beans versus unheated beans before grinding; at right, Final
Score versus shot ratio, splitting room-temperature beans and hot beans
 Figure 14.19
At left, extraction yield for heated beans versus unheated beans before grinding; at right,
extraction yield versus shot ratio, splitting room-temperature beans and hot beans. Each chart
has two clusters of numbers, one at a lower ratio and another at a higher ratio.

Figure 14.20
Taste versus settle temperature (temperature of the espresso at consumption). At left,
room-temperature beans versus hot beans; at right, results based on each roast (R1 = Roast 1, R2
= Roast 2, R3 = Roast 3)

Figure 14.21
Particle distribution for different bean temperatures at grind time
Spicy Distributions
I collected and analyzed some heated coffee grounds and found that the most
interesting effects involved the interior of the beans. I was able to examine
this inner part of the bean by using a large grind (setting 50) and sifting out
all particles less than 800 microns in size. Most of these particles came from
the inside of the bean, as I have shown in another study. I found that heated
beans had a larger effect on the smaller particles, or fines, but this was not
true for the coarser particles of the bean.
I suspect this bit of information is only the beginning. The body of
knowledge on coffee seems to be much larger than many people may have
thought.
EXTRA-SPICY METHOD:
HOT BEANS, COLD GRINDS
I figured, why not use hot beans to grind and cold grounds to brew? I began
experimenting by grinding unheated beans, and I found cooling the grounds
improved the taste. I followed these steps:

Heat coffee in the microwave to between 60ºC and 90ºC. (This took 1
minute in my microwave for about 80 grams of coffee beans.)
Grind immediately. (The temperature post-grind was around 36ºC.)
Put grounds into an airtight container and put in the refrigerator, along
with the filter basket.
Let chill for an hour or two. (You could use the freezer to speed up the
process.)
Turn on the espresso machine.
Remove the grinds from the refrigerator and prepare the shot (regular,
staccato tamped, or staccato espresso, with or without the paper filter).
Put the prepared basket back into fridge until the machine is ready. (I do
this because my Kim Express has no temperature control.)
Pull the shot.

I noticed a taste improvement. Extraction wasn’t much changed. Extraction

seemed to be maxing out, but something different was being extracted.
Maybe the bad bits of the coffee were not getting extracted and more good
bits were. A breakdown of what’s in the cup by compound would help
answer that question. Testing for that would require a gas chromatograph or a
spectrometer.
 My sample size was not large enough to suit my data desires, but I was
pushing the boundary of what was possible for me. Previous research in this
area involved simple experiments. Slight adjustments, such as tracking
grounds temperature, seemed to be the key to approaching a god-shot.

Figure 14.22
A few variants of hot beans and cold grinds compared with shot ratio. At left, Final Score (taste);
at right, extraction yield

Table 14.1
Data for a few shots for hot beans and cold grinds
 CHAPTER 15
FILTER BASKET

T hefiltertransformation from coffee grounds into espresso liquid occurs in the

basket. The quality of the basket can affect the quality of the
transformation.
GOOD BASKET
One could argue that a generic filter basket is not really “good” because
baskets with precision-cut holes are ubiquitous in the coffee industry. I’m not
sure what would be better than precision baskets, aside from more precision.
BETTER BASKET
The best baskets available are precision baskets made by either VST or IMS.
Figure 15.1 shows two of them. The Pesado basket is manufactured by IMS.
I examined the filter basket holes in a previous work, which showed that
precision baskets had much less hole variability than standard baskets. As
shown in Figure 15.2, I colorized the holes based on hole size, where a darker
blue is smaller and a lighter yellow is larger. These two images are colorized
to the same scale with respect to the average hole size for each. The color
differences represent differences relative to the average, and the STD here is
the standard deviation of the Kim Express (because it was larger than that of
the Pesado).
These baskets have a positive impact on taste. They provide similar
extraction. In theory, precision filters should give the same performance
regardless of the basket, but in reality there is no guarantee that one filter will
perform the same as another.
I analyzed a few baskets across a few different machines and created box
plots to display my results. Here is a primer for those unfamiliar with box
plots: I determined an area’s weight by the intensity of the light coming
through the hole. If a pixel was completely white, it was weighted as 1. This
allowed for a sub-pixel estimation of hole diameter. The colored graph used
the same data as the box plot. The coloring was called jet, so red was the
maximum count in the distribution and dark blue was near zero.
 Figure 15.1
At left, Pesado; at right, VST

Figure 15.2
Filter hole size analysis normalized to the same scale, At left, Kim Express; at right, Pesado
precision basket

Figure 15.3
Comparing regular (Kim Express) and precision (Pesado) baskets. At left, Final Score (taste); at
 right, TDS and extraction yield

Figure 15.4
Box plot legend

A Comparison of Precision Filter Baskets

I was curious about how VST and IMS baskets performed, so I analyzed over
30 paired data points.
First, I compared VST with Pesado (IMS) (see Figure 15.7). I didn’t find
any statistical differences in Final Score (taste) or extraction yield (EY).
I also compared ridgeless baskets with ridged ones (see Figure 15.8).
Once again, I didn’t detect any statistical differences.
I then looked at the IMS superfine filter with respect to the VST. The
assumption was that the superfine filters block fines larger than 170 microns
from passing through. Over multiple samples and multiple roasts, I did not
find a statistical difference between the two. This suggests the superfine filter
does not improve performance.

Figure 15.5
Hole analysis over multiple filter baskets. At left, box plots; at right, distribution

THE BEST BASKET

What’s better than precision? More precision. While precision baskets have a
lot more precision, there is not a standard specification for variations across
the filter baskets. These differences aren’t random, as Figure 15.10 shows.
One could also make precision baskets to improve the performance of
specific machines. Lever machines are known to suffer from donut
extraction. A donut extraction occurs when most of the water flows to the
outer perimeter of the filter. This occurs because of the way the water enters
the piston (see Figure 15.11).
A filter basket with smaller holes on the outside than the inside would
lessen this problem. I suspect this would give the best espresso because it
would reduce the donut effect, although the development costs might be too
great to make the idea worthwhile.
Another way the filter could be improved would be to manufacture it out
of a transparent, food-safe material. That would open some doors to
understanding espresso across multiple machines.
 Figure 15.6
Filter hole analysis for two precision baskets, At left, results for Pesado (IMS); at right, for VST

Figure 15.7
Comparing VST with Pesado. At left, results for Final Score (taste); at right, for extraction yield
 Figure 15.8
Comparing ridgeless filter baskets to ridged ones. At left, results for Final Score (taste); at right,
for extraction yield

Figure 15.9
Comparing IMS filter baskets to VST ones. At left, results for Final Score (taste); at right, results
for extraction yield.

Figure 15.10
Filter hole analysis for Pesado IST (image on the left) and VST (image on the right)
 Figure 15.11
Spring piston in three phases: closed, pre-infusion, and half-closed
CHAPTER 16
EXTRA FILTERS

I nfilters,
the late 2010s, an emerging espresso trend was to extend the use of paper
which are used in other coffee brewing techniques, to espresso.
Despite some interesting results, it still remains a challenging area of
research that is not well understood.
GOOD USE OF A PAPER FILTER
You don’t need to use extra filters to make great espresso, but if you want to
make the best espresso, consider using them. I examined the use of extra
filters, both paper and cloth, to investigate how they affect performance.
BETTER USE OF A PAPER FILTER
Adding a paper filter to the bottom of the grounds in the filter basket has been
shown to improve taste and extraction. This section discusses the history of
the development of the technique and some data points on the subject.
Generally, a paper filter works well on the bottom of the basket for a
single use. It must be cut to fit the filter basket as exactly as possible. A paper
filter positioned in the middle of the puck also works well. However, in my
experience with lever machines, a filter positioned on the top of the grinds
does not improve performance.
A Short History of AeroPress and Espresso
An espresso basket is made of metal to withstand the high pressure required
to produce espresso. Drip coffee uses a paper filter because there isn’t a
pressure requirement. French press has a filter and all the grounds are fully
submerged at the same time. The AeroPress technique seems to be an
intermediate between a French press and an espresso machine.
An AeroPress filter is shaped like a flat disk. The idea of cutting an
AeroPress paper filter and putting it inside an espresso basket isn’t new to the
world of coffee; Scott Rao popularized the technique.
Often, in experimentation, multiple people come to the same conclusion
independently. I’m not sure if this was true in this instance, but as a
researcher, I felt obliged to dig in and investigate the other work that had
been done in the topic. Looking back to 2011, I saw that the idea of using an
AeroPress filter was introduced to help reduce cafestol (associated with LDL
cholesterol), and another author found positive results in terms of taste.
In 2015, there was renewed interest in the topic, but it didn’t take off in
popularity. Again, the study centered on placing a single AeroPress filter on
the bottom of the filter basket. The investigator reported a faster flow rate and
improved taste.
This guy did what Scott did with two filters a year (2018) before Scott
(2019) published his result. So, the idea had been out there, but it had not
been popularized. Scott’s measurements revealed that the technique produced
a higher rate of extraction. Barista Hustle had a nice write-up after Scott’s
video went viral in the coffee community.
While these discussions are not peer-reviewed research, they point to the
idea having been in existence for some time. I was originally going to refer to
the method as the Rao Paper Filter (RPF) technique, but I decided RPF
should refer only the specific technique Scott used, rather than to all paper
filter techniques. However, after finding the 2018 video, I suggest RPF
should be called Double Paper Filter (DPF) because it was popularized by
Scott but discovered by someone else. I refer to all these techniques and
variants as paper filter in the filter, PFF for short. I used the PFF technique
and a few variations for staccato shots as described in the following section.
Paper Filter in the Filter (PFF) in Staccato Shots
Staccato shots are relatively complicated, so I first had to determine the
optimal placement for the paper filter. I figured I would try positioning it on
the bottom, then on the top, then both bottom and top, and then get fun by
inserting it between layers. I began my experiments by positioning the filter
paper on the bottom.
Here’s a quick recap of my staccato shots: fine (< 400 microns) grounds
on the bottom layer, coarse (> 500 microns) grounds in the middle layer, and
mid-size (400 microns < mid < 500 microns) grounds in the top layer.
Positioning the filter on the bottom produced some taste and extraction
improvements, but I was already getting a big benefit from the staccato
layering. My major finding was that positioning the paper filter between the
fine layer and the coarse layer made a big difference in taste. The filter
positioned on the top didn’t seem to have much effect on the taste outcome. If
anything, it had a negative effect, so I focused on positioning the filter on the
bottom or above the bottommost (finest-ground) layer. Positioning the filter
between the fine layer and the coarse layer produced the best outcome.
I looked at more data across a few roasts (see Figure 16.2).
Because I had pulled a shorter shot, I didn’t see much of a change for
extraction yield (labeled “Coffee Extraction” in Figure 16.2). I observed a
noticeable change for Final Score (taste), however.

Table 16.1
Data summary for a few orientations of paper

Figure 16.1
Best orientation of a paper filter in a staccato shot
 Figure 16.2
Graph on the left shows Final Score, middle graph shows 1:1 coffee extraction, and graph on the
right shows TDS of 1:1

Table 16.2
Paired shot data with PFF and without PFF
 Figure 16.3
At left, without a paper filter, the route of regular side channeling is slowed by water flowing to
the side of the basket. At right, a paper filter causes water to reach the side of the basket faster
and thus worsens sidechanneling.

Filter on the Top

After I had determined that the best position for the bottom filter was
between the fine layer and coarse layer, I experimented with putting a paper
filter on top of the uppermost layer of grinds. I discovered that a top filter
exacerbated side channeling, causing the donut problem to get worse. This
occurred because the paper filter allowed water to travel across the filter
faster than through the filter, allowing water to flow through the perimeter
faster.
Filter Reuse
Because you have to carefully cut filters down to size, regularly using paper
filters requires extra labor unless you have a special hole punch. I reused my
filters because it took time to cut new ones and I don’t like waste. I noted the
number of times each filter had been used. I then looked at some standard
metrics of performance.
In Figure 16.4, a filter with an age value of 1 is a new filter. Note that
these were the results for a filter positioned between two layers of grounds. I
found that filters positioned on the bottom lasted for only a single use. Their
performance dropped very quickly; their pores must have clogged in the first
go.
 Figure 16.4
Final score (taste) and EY across filter age

THE BEST USE OF A PAPER FILTER

I also tested cloth filters for filter coffee. I was influenced by James
Hoffman’s video about using cloth filters for pour-over.
The results blew me away. The shot ran fast and even. And the cloth
filters were easier to clean than the paper filters. I usually cleaned them by
rinsing them in water, using water with soap, or with isopropyl alcohol.
Comparing cloth with paper over a few shots, I witnessed a pattern: Cloth
filters produced better taste and a higher extraction yield. They caused the
coffee to flow very quickly. Compared with paper filters, cloth filters easily
improved Final Score (taste) and extraction yield (EY).
Cut cloth filters so their fit in the basket is a bit big. Even though I rinsed
mine a few times before the first use to get them to shrink a little, they still
shrank after the first shot. So, you need to initially make the filter somewhat
oversize.
While I think cloth filters perform better than paper ones, the method has
challenges because the filter shrinks a little bit after each shot and slowly
clogs. Perhaps future technology or materials will improve on this.
 Figure 16.5
Double filter on a spent puck. At left, intact puck; at right, puck split horizontally

Figure 16.6
Typical weight and flow profiles. Cloth (blue line) had far fewer pulses because the shot flowed so
quickly.

Figure 16.7
Cloth filters compared with paper filters, At left, Final Score (taste); at right, extraction yield
METAL MESH TOP SCREENS
Metal mesh filters came on the market a few years ago, inspired by paper
filters. To the best of my knowledge, they were initially produced for La
Pavoni, a lever machine. I decided to try them out because they had the
potential to keep my shower screen cleaner, which would mean less-frequent
maintenance adventures.
I tested the metal mesh over a few coffees roasted across multiple shots in
a paired test. I didn’t find a statistically significant impact on Final Score
(taste) or extraction yield. This is interesting because it means the main
benefit of the top filter is a reduction in maintenance because it protects the
shower screen. The metal mesh still needs to be cleaned, but that’s much
easier than pulling out the piston.

Figure 16.8
Metal mesh out of the basket (above) and in the basket (below)
 Figure 16.9
Mesh screen versus no mesh screen. At left, Final Score (taste); at right, extraction yield
 CHAPTER 17
DISTRIBUTION

A fter dosing coffee into the filter basket, a distribution technique can
improve the coffee bed before tamping. Distribution means moving the
coffee grounds around in the basket to create a more even and flat surface
for tamping.
GOOD DISTRIBUTION
The “good” distribution tools mostly involve something simple, such as an
Ona Coffee Distribution (OCD) tool. The OCD tool has seemed like a must-
have for a quality barista, but the data suggests otherwise (see figures 17.1
and 17.2). I bought one, but I have moved to using a bent paper clip instead.
Socratic Coffee studied the OCD tool versus tapping the portafilter, across
three grinders. Their research showed that the choice of grinder didn’t appear
to be particularly important but that shot times varied widely.
If we look at all the samples, we can do a two-paired t-test that has
meaningful results; we get a p = 0.0000000000813 (8.13e-11). The difference
between the two is considered meaningful because a p-value of 0.05 indicates
the result is statistically significant.
My conclusion: The OCD and similar tools decrease extraction yield and
thus impact taste.
 Figure 17.1
Sorted paired shots with and without the OCD tool

Figure 17.2
With and without the OCD tool. At left, sorted; at right, unsorted

BETTER DISTRIBUTION
Leveling up typically requires a method such as the Weiss Distribution
Technique (WDT), which utilizes one or multiple thin needles to mix the
grounds in the basket. The original reasoning behind the WDT technique was
to eliminate clumps in the ground coffee. The more compelling reason is that
the particle distribution for many grinders changes throughout the grind.
Unless you do some kind of WDT, layers in your coffee will not have
uniform particle-size distribution.
A salami grind involves using multiple cups in sequence while pulling a
shot, enabling you to examine differences in taste and extraction throughout
the shot. It is helpful for understanding how the qualities of a shot change
over time. I decided to apply the same concept to grinding because I noticed
the grind distribution for 1 gram of beans differed greatly from the
distribution for 20 grams.
These results showed a difference in particle-size distribution from the
beginning to the end of the grind. This potentially explains why vertical
distribution methods such as the Weiss Distribution Technique (WDT) might
work better than a horizontal distribution tool such as the OCD to improve
extraction yield.
Looking at the distribution over time, we can observe the cumulative
percent of particles (not the same as weight) for a few different particle
diameters between 106 microns and 301 microns. If we look at 301 microns
(the red line in Figure 17.4), the first few samples are 10 percent lower than
the rest, which means the first few samples have coarser distributions.
Figure 17.5 shows the full distributions, which show this large shift to
coarser grinds for sample 2 compared with sample 8 or sample 13. Sample 1
doesn’t follow the pattern well. This outlier is probably grounds left over
from the previous shot.
I theorize that grinding directly into a basket causes issues with grounds
being too coarse on the bottom layer. Because the grind distributions are
different in the different layers, I suspect that WDT or some other method of
distribution can help a shot.
Let’s think about this information in the context of staccato shots. The
most basic staccato shots have a finer layer on the bottom and a coarser layer
on top. If you were to grind directly into the filter basket, the grounds near
the bottom would be coarser than those near the top, resembling an inverted
staccato shot.
These measurements could also explain why the experiments by Barista
Hustle failed to show a difference in weight. In their experiments, they
looked at distribution techniques to see how well the coffee distributed across
discrete sections of the filter basket. They didn’t measure particle
distribution, but the real difference in grind distribution is a vertical function.
These results speak more strongly to the need to distribute grounds before
tamping, whether in the grinder cup or in the filter basket. I don’t know how
much coffee clumping plays into the need for distributing grounds (because I
live in a dry climate and rarely have a clumping issue), but particle
distribution for a salami grind points to the need for distribution.

Figure 17.3
Using an ice cube tray to sample the grind distribution throughout the grind
 Figure 17.4
Grind distribution across the duration of the grind

Figure 17.5
Full distribution for a few instances in the full grind dose
 Figure 17.6
Elementary homemade coffee distribution tools

THE BEST DISTRIBUTION

At some point I began crafting my own distribution tools. They started out
simple, but I methodically improved them. I began with a toothpick . . . I then
tried a bent paper clip . . . I then switched to a modified bent paper clip to
push more grounds to the end . . . and I then settled on the plastic lid from a
can of anchovies.
The main issue I was trying to overcome was the inherent donuting due to
side-channeling in lever machines. I decided to create a non-linear density
distribution for the puck. This meant the center of the puck would have a
lower density than the outer edge. When tamped, the top would be flat and
level but the outer ring of the puck would be denser. This density would slow
down flow to help even out the overall flow through the coffee bed.
What amazed me was that such a small change (minor dark ring on the
left image) could indicate such a big difference (see Figure 17.7). Extraction
yield went from 20 percent in the sample on the left to 24 percent in the
sample on the right, in similar-ratio shots.
I cut two “ears” into the plastic sides of my distributor to hold it steady in
the basket (see Figure 17.8). The tolerance of the ears needs to be tight
enough to stay centered but not so much that the filter can’t spin. I then spin
the basket instead of the tool to allow for better consistency. I do all my prep
work with the filter removed from the portafilter rather than in the portafilter,
the way most baristas do. In a coffee shop, it makes more sense to do the
preparation in the portafilter in order to speed the workflow.
The appealing thing about this design is the ability to make modifications
to the pitch to determine the size of the side incline that creates the higher
density. I have made other designs for other machines as well as different
shots. I designed one distributor for sifted staccato shots and another for
staccato tamped shots.

Figure 17.7
At left, previous iteration and evidence of a puck donut; at right, the slightly modified
distribution
 Figure 17.8
A distribution tool with “ears” to hold it steady in the basket. The bottom images show how the
tool pushes more coffee to the sides than in the middle.
CHAPTER 18
TAMPER

I deal tamping allows the water to have some time and space to touch all the
grounds before infusion.
GOOD TAMPER
The upgrade from a basic tamp to an auto-leveling tamper can make your
tamps more level and consistent.
Looking for a tamper that could extend down into the basket but still be
level, I bought a Decent Espresso (DE) Tamper. This was particularly
important for staccato tamped, where I tamp twice, once for each half of the
shot. I collected some data to see if I could detect a measurable difference
between the DE tamper and a generic one I had bought a year previously. (By
“generic,” I refer to a 58-mm auto-leveling tamper priced at around $20
USD.)
I removed the spring from the DE tamper. The spring allows the user to
calibrate a tamp force (to over 20 lb.), but because I tamp around 1 lb. or less
I was able to measure the tamp force, if I wanted to, using a scale.
I didn’t find a difference in performance, but the DE tamper better
allowed me to tamp the bottom layer. So, although it was more expensive, it
provided a better user experience.
 Figure 18.1
Removing the spring from the tamper

BETTER TAMPER
To get full control over tamp pressure and consistency, you should measure
the pressure of your tamp. Based on the results shown in Figure 18.2, I don’t
think tamping hard provides much improvement to the shot; I tried not to
tamp harder than 400 grams, or 0.88 lb.
Many discussions about tamping describe pressures of 20 lb. or more.
Many calibrated tampers can achieve these high compressions. However,
there isn’t much data on what is actually the best tamp pressure.
Socratic Coffee looked at tamp pressure, and the results fly in the face of
what many people claim is the ideal tamp pressure (see Figure 18.2). This
data shows no clear trend. Interestingly, the extraction time for a 10-lb. tamp
is slightly lower than for tamps of other pressures, but that doesn’t matter as
long as the extraction is increased. Otherwise, it appears that a low tamp
pressure, slightly more than the weight of the tamper, is necessary.
I explored this idea using my makeshift transparent filter (i.e.,
Kompresso) to measure coffee compression versus tamp pressure.
I placed a small piece of white paper at 3-gram intervals of coffee in the
tube. I made the pieces of paper small because I didn’t want them to affect
the way the coffee compressed. As shown in Figure 18.3, putting the initial
grinds in the tube did not cause compression, as indicated by the pieces of
paper that got pushed down.
I took sample images at desired pressures, and then I lined them up with
the starting image. In Figure 18.4, red lines indicate the starting positions and
green lines indicate the ending positions.
If we look at the overall height of the puck, the idea of diminishing
returns is very clear. We see that 80 percent of compression occurred at 3 lb.
of pressure. To get to 90 percent of maximum compression took 20 lb., and to
get to 100 percent compressed took more than 50 lb. Half of all compression
occurred with the first 1 lb. of applied pressure.
I documented a 20 percent increase in compression between 2 lb. and 3
lb. of pressure, compared with 10 percent between 3 lb. and 20 lb. and 10
percent between 20 lb. and 59 lb.. This means that most tamps heavier than 3
lb. have a similar effect and that a massively heavy tamp might not be worth
whatever effect it is having on the shot.
 Figure 18.2
Extraction yield for multiple tamp pressures, sorted
 Figure 18.3
Experimental setup for transparent portafilter with paper markers to examine puck compression
 Figure 18.4
Puck compression labeling in a transparent portafilter

Figure 18.5
Puck height over multiple tamp pressures. At left, bar chart; at right, scatter plot in log

THE BEST TAMPER

The best method for tamping is unclear. I don’t think it involves a lot of
pressure because the pressure, once the shot begins, is huge. Even for 1 to 4
bars for pre-infusion, that’s 16 lb./in2 to 64 lb./in2. This is much more
pressure than you’re ever going to apply with a tamper.
An amazing tamp would have multiple adjustable, concentric cylinders to
allow a tamp that creates consistent density, ensuring grounds are evenly
distributed throughout the puck. Then, for each ring, you could adjust for
density in the puck. I do this by distributing to push more grounds to the
sides, so that when the puck is tamped flat the outermost ring of grounds has
a higher density.
PREVIEW: PULLING THE SHOT
The next section discusses variables at play while pulling the shot. Pulling an
espresso shot involves the rapid interplay of multiple variables. All the
variables affect flow rate and coffee extraction, and usually, it is not easy to
change one independent of the other.
This section describes how you can adjust water temperature, pre-
infusion, pressure, and shot ratio variables to get your best extraction.
 CHAPTER 19
WATER TEMPERATURE

I nwater’s
coffee brewing, water is the solvent. A higher temperature increases
ability to dissolve coffee solubles. I recommend that you
experiment with water temperature across different beans with different
roast levels.
GOOD WATER TEMPERATURE
Water temperature has a significant impact on extraction and flow. Generally,
hotter temperatures are better for medium roasts, but you should consider
using lower temperatures for darker roasts.
Wondering how it affected extraction, Compound Coffee looked at water
temperature. They scanned temperatures between 91ºC and 95ºC, and their
data suggested 95ºC was better than 91ºC.
Usually, at the “good” level of managing water temperature, you figure
out what works well with your machine without necessarily measuring the
temperature. For older lever machines, this means temperature surfing and
determining when to turn off the water heater. The same is true for any
espresso machine lacking a PID controller on the thermocouple.
 Figure 19.1
Extraction yield versus water temperature

BETTER WATER TEMPERATURE

I typically measure my machine’s temperature with a temperature gun. Some
people use adhesive temperature strips, but a temperature gun works better
for me because my machine (Kim Express) is painted. Also, temperature
strips don’t reach the temperatures my machine reaches.
While collecting this data, I came to realize that the temperature of the
machine was not the same as the temperature of its output water. I collected
some data and observed a linear correlation between machine temperature
and output water temperature (see Figure 19.2).
I used this as a guide for pushing to higher-than-normal temperatures. I
had been aiming to pull a shot at a 114ºC machine temperature, but doing so
resulted in a water temperature around 91ºC. As I began experimenting with
higher temperatures, I realized I might have been missing out on making
better shots.
The temperatures I show in Figure 19.3 are computed from the machine
temperature, using the curve shown in Figure 19.2 to predict the water
temperature. The first visual sign of temperature differences was that the
water flowed faster. For a water temperature of 97ºC, I had to reduce pre-
infusion time to 30 seconds because the shot was flowing so fast.
At the underside of the puck, dark spots for the lower temperatures
indicate slow flow, but by the time the temperature increases to 97ºC the
puck color is lighter overall and has fewer dark spots, which indicates even
flow and higher extraction.

Figure 19.2
Output water temperature versus machine temperature
 Figure 19.3
Images of the different phases of an espresso shot across different water temperatures
 Figure 19.4
Final score (taste), total dissolved solids, and extraction yield across different water temperatures

THE BEST WATER TEMPERATURE

Not many PID-controlled machines lie within the economic reach of home
consumers. However, the only way to get the best temperature control is with
a PID controller. Some machines, such as the Decent Espresso Machine,
allow you to change the temperature during the shot, which delivers huge
potential for brewing your best espresso ever.
Temperature has been treated like a constant, and not much research has
been done on temperature gradients. For the Kim Express, the temperature
can be either increasing or decreasing during the shot, but the user doesn’t
have much control. For the Flair, the temperature is always decreasing, which
reduces the risk of a harsh flavor resulting from a high water temperature.
 Figure 19.5
Total shot time across different water temperatures
CHAPTER 20
PRE-INFUSION

P re-infusion is what happens when water flows at a relatively low pressure

into the filter basket to wet the coffee. Pre-infusion can reduce channeling
in the puck and thus improve taste and extraction.
GOOD PRE-INFUSION
The concept of pre-infusion evolved because of the way lever machines
function. When you use the lever to open the valve, water that comes into the
coffee matches the pressure of the boiler (usually 1 to 2 bars). You then use
the lever to push the piston down to force water through the coffee at a higher
pressure (near 9 bars). Typically, with a lever machine, pre-infusion lasts for
between 5 to 10 seconds.
For pressure-pump machines, pre-infusion has been a “thing” in recent
years. Initially, those machines applied full pressure immediately.
For contemporary lever machines without boilers, you pour in water, and
you have the option to not apply any pressure. This is generally referred to as
pre-wetting rather than pre-infusion. Some people have mistaken pre-infusion
for pre-wetting, and the result is that their puck is not fully wet, which can
result in a bad espresso shot. Pre-infusion is the key to great espresso, so you
should aim to get that right every time.
I experimented with a transparent portafilter, and I published some results
across a few experiments. In a conversation with astrophysicist and coffee
researcher Jonathan Gagné, he wondered aloud if I could find a relationship
between flow and time based on capillary action. So, I applied my image-
processing skills to a video to see if the relationship was observable—and it
was!
The general theory (see the heading “Liquid transport in porous media”)
is that when liquid is absorbed by a porous material, the rate of absorption
decreases over time. Thus, the vertical distance that a liquid has penetrated a
volume (Figure 20.1) of porous material is proportional to the square root of
the time the material has been in contact with the liquid:
I used a makeshift transparent portafilter (aka Kompresso) and put some
coffee in it. Initially, I poured hot water in and didn’t apply any pressure (see
Figure 20.1).
When compared with the square root of time, a very strong correlation
confirms that the way water travels through a puck during pre-wetting
follows capillary action predictions.
This is most important for machines such as Flair or Kompresso, in which
you pour the water and can then decide whether to do just pre-wetting or a 1-
to 2-bars pre-infusion. Output water temperature graphed against machine
temperature shows a linear relationship (see the left graph in Figure 20.2).

Figure 20.1
Sequence of images (from left to right, top to bottom) showing the progression of water through
coffee in a transparent portafilter without pressure
 Figure 20.2
Flow level versus time: At left, a linear relationship; at right, SQRT(time)

BETTER PRE-INFUSION
I am a big fan of long pre-infusion. I typically run pre-infusion for between
15 and 60 seconds, depending on how the shot looks as it flows. One key
visual indicator is that the coffee begins to blond, going from a black or dark
brown to a lighter brown color.
A longer pre-infusion is supported by test results as well. Compound
Coffee experimented with pre-infusion using 7 bars for extraction. Seven bars
of pressure produced a higher extraction than 9 bars, based on the results
shown in Figure 20.3.
A longer pre-infusion produces much higher extraction, even for the
lower end of the distributions. This conclusion seems pretty clear, but the
results should be interpreted in the context of feasibility, not statistically
proven certainty. Although these results match my experience for longer pre-
infusions, I haven’t controlled my variables enough to show that longer pre-
infusion is always better.
 Figure 20.3
Extraction yield versus pre-infusion time

THE BEST PRE-INFUSION

For a few years I used a 10-second pre-infusion, and eventually bumped that
up to closer to 30 seconds. This improved the taste and extraction, but I still
experienced some variability. I found that two shots with most of the same
parameters could have different extractions. When I began tracking pre-
infusion with an extra parameter, I discovered a pathway to determining the
optimum amount of pre-infusion.
That metric is “time to cover the filter” (TCF). TCF allows a barista to
better determine the best time to end pre-infusion. Usually this metric is
dynamic, depending on the variables, and this technique is much easier to
employ on a lever machine than a pump machine such an E61.
I began tracking TCF after I started down the road of longer pre-
infusions. I noticed that a slightly longer pre-infusion caused the extraction
yield to bump up. I even tried an entire shot as a pre-infusion, but it lacked
taste. I settled on investigating a 20- to 40-second range for pre-infusion,
depending on how quickly coffee was coming out of the filter.
I recorded a video of each shot. Observing that some shots covered the
filter faster than others, I began to track that variable. Additionally, I noticed
that shots that had covered the filter faster tasted better. I began to think about
the relationship between the length of pre-infusion as it related to the time to
cover the filter (TCF).
I had recorded the TCF for about sixty shots and realized the data might
tell a story. I looked at these variables in many ways, but I wanted a metric
that could easily help me decide when to end pre-infusion while I’m pulling
the shot. I decided to look at how pre-infusion relates to TCF. Based on the
data, a good ratio is 3 to 1, meaning preinfusion (PI) needs to be 3 times the
length of TCF. Beyond this ratio, based on the data, there is no longer a
benefit to extraction yield (EY). A 3-to-1 ratio might not be the best
proportion for everyone to use, but at the very least, the metric tells you when
water has gone through the entire puck.
The best pre-infusion comes from measuring TCF and adjusting the pre-
infusion relative to the TCF.
 Figure 20.4
In the shot marked with a red circle and arrows, the TCF is 13 seconds.
 Figure 20.5
Extraction yield (left) and Final Score (right) versus pre-infusion/TCF
 CHAPTER 21
PRESSURE

H igh pressure defines espresso in many ways. Pressure allows for coffee to
be made quickly, and it causes crema to form. Crema is seen by many as
an indicator of good espresso. Traditionally, 9 bars are standard espresso
shot pressure, but data in the past few years show that a lower pressure results
in a better extraction.
GOOD PRESSURE
The espresso machines used at most coffee shops apply a constant amount of
pressure (ideally, 9 bars) to the hot water (ideally, between 90ºC and 97ºC) to
make espresso. More-advanced machines offer users a few intervals to tweak
the pressure. Better yet, you can do pre-infusion with very low pressure,
similar to what you’d do with a lever machine, and pressure profile a shot.
Compound Coffee looked at varying the pressure. They found between 7
and 8 bars to be optimal, instead of 9 bars.
Increasing the Boiler Pressure in a Lever Machine
I’ve had my La Pavoni for eight years, ever since I found it tucked away in
my in-laws’ basement. I have been able to get decent shots from it, but I
could never hit peak performance the way I did on my Kim Express. After
studying machine temperature for the Kim, I realized La Pavoni was limited
by its pressure-release valve. So, I fixed it.
If you modify your machine, attention to safety is very important.
Although I did modify my machine, I took care to monitor the machine
temperature any time the machine was on. The old lever machines have
uncontrolled water heaters, and these have the potential to build up dangerous
levels of pressure. Pressure release valves help make machines safer.
I’ve had (only) three accidents so far. Two of them involved the Kim
Express, when I had overfilled the tank. When the machine was at full
temperature I pulled the lever, causing an air bubble to travel through to the
steam release valve. This caused the machine to release all the water in the
tank in about 30 seconds, forming a cloud over me. The third accident was
due to a loose screw on an Enrico of Italy. That was the time the steam wand
blew off, releasing a 2-meter column of steam. Fortunately, nobody got hurt.
The pressure-release valve controls the maximum pressure the machine
can achieve as well as the maximum water temperature. I wanted to adjust
that valve so I could increase the temperature.
With regard to water saturation pressure (the maximum temperature at
which water is still in a liquid state), the water in the boiler can’t completely
turn into steam because the volume is fixed. As a result, as the water
temperature goes up, the pressure goes up.
When the machine is at 100ºC, the pressure inside the boiler is at 1 bar.
For the Kim Express, I found that a machine temperature between 114ºC and
123ºC gave the best taste and extraction. At that range of temperatures, the
pressure is between 1.6 and 2.2 bars.
The water temperature drops as soon as it hits the coffee grounds, so by
starting the espresso shot at a higher temperature, the brew temperature is
also increased. This understanding has been key to improving the extraction
of my shots. I’m not suggesting that you should brew all coffees and
machines at higher temperatures; my coffee is a medium roast, and higher
temperatures work better for me.
Inside the valve, a spring holds a ball bearing. When enough pressure is
applied, the ball releases the pressure in the tank (see Figure 21.4). I adjusted
the valve by stretching the spring. I pulled it gently until it deformed. I
wanted the water to hit a higher temperature before the spring released.
 Figure 21.1
Extraction yield versus pressure
 Figure 21.2
A pre-millennium La Pavoni
 Figure 21.3
A close-up of the pressurerelease valve
 Figure 21.4
Steam-release valve parts
 Figure 21.5
Water saturation, plotted by pressure versus temperature

Figure 21.6
At left, original spring; at right, stretched spring
Performance, Before and After
Both extraction and Final Score (taste) increased as a result of the stretched
spring. I didn’t collect a lot of data, but the valve modification allowed me to
surf the water temperature better on my La Pavoni.
BETTER PRESSURE
Pressure profiling involves modifying the pressure throughout the shot. You
can start at a lower pressure and end at a higher one, or you can start at a
higher pressure and end at a lower one. Different approaches impart different
tastes to the shot.
Pressure profiling comes naturally to a lever machine, since you have a
lot of control over the shot. But a lever offers the opportunity for something
better: pressure pulsing.

Figure 21.7
Stretched versus stock spring, At left, Final Score (taste); at right, total dissolved solids and
extraction yield
 Table 21.1
Paired shots data for pressure pulsing versus regular

THE BEST PRESSURE

Advancements in the recent decade have made PID-controlled temperature
and pressure accessible to the masses, at least in coffee shops. Modern
machines have reduced all the artistry to a science because each shot can be
replicated in terms of the water temperature, pressure, and volume, every
time. The machines also achieve new processes, such as the jet-pulsing
pressure in the Aurelia Wave.
I couldn’t dig up much information about how jet-pulsing works,
probably due to manufacturers’ secrecy, but I decided to try to replicate the
technique on a lever machine. Theoretically, pressure pulsing is similar to
doing pre-infusion in the middle of the shot, multiple times. As such, one
would expect the same or higher extraction in a given output volume, based
on what’s known about pre-infusion.
I pulsed on a staccato shot on my La Pavoni. It took longer than normal to
pull the shot, but the result was amazing. It produced the best shot I had
tasted in my life up until that point.
For a lever machine, you have a range of options for pressure pulsing.
Pulsing means pumping the lever up and down, causing the flow to gutter.
You can vary the frequency and how much pressure you apply. I usually
pulse once per second with enough pressure to cause flow, but not full
pressure, which would cause spurts.
I collected some data on paired shots, but I had extraction yield results for
only half of the pairs.
Pressure pulsed shots were mostly better than regular shots in both Final
Score (taste) and extraction yield.
I theorize that pulsing will provide the same or better performance, but
never worse extraction, because of its similarity to preinfusion. This has
mostly been supported by data. I didn’t run a t-test on this data because I
didn’t have enough samples for statistical significance.
Obviously, if I had a pressure gauge or a Decent Espresso DE1Pro
machine, I could better control and measure the pulses and the pressure spike
at each pulse. In the meantime, I can dream. Here is a list of further
experiments in pressure pulsing that I’d like to pursue:

Peak pressure per pulse

Chirp signal (a high frequency burst) versus on/off (a square wave)
Pulse length over the time of the shot
Pre-infusion and pressure pulsing

In conclusion, current evidence suggests that pressure pulsing (including jet-

pulsing) produces a better shot than constant pressure. The best things about
pressure pulsing? On manual machines, it’s easy to apply and adapt to your
own use, as it doesn’t require any additional hardware.
 Figure 21.8
Pulsed versus regular, viewed as a scatter plot. At left, Final Score (taste); at right, extraction
yield. Red-circled data points are non-staccato shots. The rest of the data points are staccato
shots.
 CHAPTER 22
SHOT RATIO (OUTPUT:INPUT)

E spresso brew ratios cover a wide range and have a huge impact on the
mouthfeel and the intensity of the shot. Many baristas stick with 2:1
(output to input) shots. More recently, the idea of a long, slow shot at a
3:1 or even 5:1 ratio has been popularized. I prefer a shot ratio between 1:1
and 1.4:1.
As Figure 22.2 shows, taste improved for a shorter shot. This is no
surprise for me because there isn’t much left to extract after the 1:1 shot. As
the total dissolved solids (TDS) increase, mouthfeel improves. Too short a
shot can end up tasting sour, but I didn’t encounter this issue for the coffee
roast I used.

Figure 22.1
Control chart for total dissolved solids versus extraction yield
 Figure 22.2
Shot ratios. At left, Final Score (taste); at right, total dissolved solids and extraction yield

COFFEE SOLUBILITY IN ESPRESSO: AN INITIAL STUDY

In our discussion of shot ratios, we should discuss how a shot extracts as the
output yield increases.
Solubility is the amount of coffee dissolved into the cup, which also tells
you how much coffee you extracted from the coffee puck. Usually, this is
measured in TDS, or Total dissolved solids. If you know the TDS, you can
derive the amount of coffee extracted by knowing the weight of the espresso
shot.
The best tool to measure solubility, a digital refractometer, is usually
priced between $300 and $700. There are cheaper refractometers ($25), but
they require more effort to take the measurement.
Using a cheaper refractometer, you can convert the reading from Brix
(sugar content) to TDS:

TDS =
0.85 x Brix
100
Coffee Extracted = TDS × Output Espresso Weight
% of Coffee Extracted =
TDS x Output Espresso
Input Coffee Weight

Based on the common knowledge of espresso, a good shot will extract 18 to

22 percent of the coffee bean. About 30 percent of a coffee bean is soluble—
but not all of those solubles taste good.
The information publicly available uses only a single point of data to
quantify extraction: the TDS, measured at the end of the shot, which is
typically 2:1 or 3:1. As a data scientist, I wanted to look deeper. I wanted to
understand what was going on within the shot.
I decided to perform two initial experiments:

1. Measure the TDS at multiple points during extraction to see how it

develops. This sampling method is referred to as a salami shot. In my
experiment, I decided to analyze TDS as well as taste.
2. Measure the TDS for a 1:1 and 3:1 shot, on a regular basis, for every
shot. I would pull each shot into two cups so I could measure the TDS
for each cup to calculate the combined TDS.

Figure 22.3
At left, Brix measurement from a refractometer; at right, adding a sample drop
 Figure 22.4
My experiment setup at home

Experiment 1: Measure Solubles Throughout the Shot

Question: How do you collect solubility data for a salami shot? Answer: With
a lot of cups. Using the Kim Express and seven cups, I re-collected data. The
results all tell the same story—the majority of extraction occurs in a short
time (see Figure 22.5). It happens in the shortest ristretto shot you can make.
(A ristretto shot is usually defined as having a ratio between 1:1 and 2:1.)
 Figure 22.5
Extraction yield measured at intervals during extraction

Experiment 2: Measure Solubles over Multiple Shots

To further explore this concept, I plotted 78 shots from a single month. I
plotted staccato and regular shots, even though I pulled mostly staccato. I
plotted the first part and the final extraction on a single graph. Although the
graph represented only two data points per shot, the trend was clear. I then
plotted the percent of final extraction occurring in the first part of the shot
(see Figure 22.6).
Did the Final Score (taste) trend with the percent of coffee extracted? It
seemed to be loosely correlated. In my experience, minor changes in
extraction, in terms of temperature or pressure, could result in the same level
of coffee extraction but different flavors (e.g., sweeter or more bitter).
This data clarified a few ideas:

1. Extracting at more than a 1:1 ratio could result in over-extracted

coffee and therefore should be avoided. If you want more liquid,
instead of continuing extraction you would be better off pulling a 1:1
 extraction and then adding water to get the desired volume.
2. Extraction for staccato shots is higher than for regular shots. These
experiments verified my experience, measured with subjective taste
scores. Staccato shots should be pulled at a lower ratio because they
run the risk of overextraction at higher ratios.
3. Measurements of solubility and coffee extracted should be done with
care and at multiple times during the extraction. Single solubility
metrics potentially deliver an inaccurate picture of what’s going on in
the shot. This was particularly relevant with regard to staccato shots:
they had similar final extraction percentages, but at the 1:1 ratio point,
their extraction yields were far higher.
4. High extraction doesn’t mean you have the right flavors. Getting the
right flavor from your extraction can be tricky.

Figure 22.6
At left, extraction yield, or percent of coffee extracted across samples; at right, percent of all
coffee extracted by just the 1:1. Red circles represent regular shots; green ones and blue ones
represent staccato shots.

COMPARING THE ATAGO AND A CHEAP BRIX METER

I took Brix and Atago measurements across 35 shots over one month. I
measured at the 1:1 ratio as well as the second half of the shot (see Figure
22.8). I tasted only the 1:1 ratio shot. I used these two measurements to
calculate the extraction yield at a 3:1 ratio.
When I sampled using the Atago, I used three drops of the shot each time,
aiming to make the process as repeatable as possible.
Despite some “noise” (meaningless data), Figure 22.8 shows that the
difference between the two methods is very small. Using a two-tailed paired
t-test, their differences are not statistically significant.
Conclusion: If you want to measure TDS, start with a cheap Brix meter.

Figure 22.7
Final score (taste) versus extraction yield
 Figure 22.8
At left, scatter plot for Atago versus Brix; at right, difference in paired shot measurements
 Figure 22.9
Statistics for Brix versus Atago

PREVIEW: POST-SHOT
The last section examines the variables after you pull the shot. Aside from
tasting shots of espresso, I take measurements. I also do failure analysis. This
calm reflection allows me to consider where I could have done better as well
as what went right.
 CHAPTER 23
TDS AND EY—SHOT STRENGTH

T hetotalbestdissolved
way to understand espresso shot strength is through the lenses of
solids (TDS) and extraction yield (EY).
GOOD SHOT STRENGTH
Someone decently aware of the ways of espresso can get most of their
extraction (close to 22 percent of it) in a 2:1 or 3:1 shot, but most likely, the
TDS is going to be lower, around 9%.
BETTER SHOT STRENGTH
“Better” preparers should be able to consistently achieve a 22 percent
extraction yield in a smaller output and thus a higher TDS—basically, a good
ristretto shot.
THE BEST SHOT STRENGTH
The pinnacle of espresso is the intenso shot, which is stronger than a ristretto
but of similar volume. To better understand differences in shot strength, we
need to discuss the definition of espresso.
The espresso beverage was defined in Italy to help control for what
beverage can be called “espresso” and to establish a level of quality. Over
time, however, the techniques used to roast and brew have changed quite a
bit. Most third wave coffee shops don’t prepare espresso by the standards of
the past.
Definition of Espresso
Espresso has been defined by the Specialty Coffee Association of America
(SCAA) as brewed by a particular protocol. Espresso has undergone many
changes in the past twenty years. These changes involve the roast, the
machines, the water, and the pressure and temperature parameters. Thus, third
wave espresso requires an adjusted definition. There has been some
discussion and survey of baristas on this subject. Most of them agree that
espresso has moved outside of the SCAA definition.
Table 23.1 compares the SCAA and third wave methods. The “Italian”
version essentially aligns with the SCAA definition, the main difference
being the possible inclusion of robusta coffee beans in the blend.
For variations on espresso, the general practice has been to use a control
chart to understand how to achieve the total dissolved solids (TDS) and
extraction yield (EY) that produce a shot that has the desired taste attributes.
This practice has become more common since refractometers have become
more affordable. My personal preference for shot strength is the ristretto
zone.

Table 23.1
Italian compared to third wave espresso
 Figure 23.1
Blank control chart of TDS versus extraction yield showing the ranges for three espresso shot
types

My Espresso Experience
For me, espresso has been a constant evolution, especially in the past two
years. Since I’ve begun using a data sheet to improve my shots, I have made
many changes in the way I prepare shots. I believe my parameters are typical
of third wave espresso (see Table 23.1).
My shots have gone outside the boundary of espresso as it’s defined on
the control chart. I accumulated a few hundred shots, and I plotted them on
the control chart to help understand their pattern as well as to comment on the
qualities of ristretto.
Rarely do I pull a typical espresso shot. Most of my shots are staccato or
staccato tamped. As a result, I spend more time preparing my shots than most
people do. This might seem crazy—but many people thought the beginnings
of third wave coffee were crazy too.
My aim is to create the richness of melted chocolate on the tongue. I have
pulled multiple shots that went beyond the desired extraction yield of 18 to
22 percent, but they were delicious. I suspect I’m getting a higher extraction
yield for a smaller amount of coffee than others are.
I don’t have enough data points to analyze regular shots, but for staccato
and staccato tamped the trend is clear, with a good best-fit line. Staccato has
been lower in extraction yield, but that’s only because the output-to-input
ratio of most of my staccato shots was 1:1, whereas for most of my staccato
tamped shots it ranged between 1.2:1 and 1.4:1.

Figure 23.2
TDS versus extraction yield for staccato, regular, and staccato tamped. The percent of total shots
is indicated in red in each cell.

A New Category: Intenso

Ristretto is the Italian word for “restricted.” I propose that above 18 percent
TDS or above 22 percent extraction yield should be defined as intense, or
intenso. It’s intense in a different way than a regular ristretto, and the word
better defines that experience. A ristretto at 12 percent TDS and 22 percent
extraction yield could produce a very different taste experience from an
“intense” one at 18 percent TDS and the same extraction yield. I define
intenso by these parameters:

TDS > 18% and EY > 18%

or
EY > 22% and TDS > 12%
I believe that an appropriate aim for improving espresso is to extract the most
coffee solubles possible into the smallest volume. Anyone can extract over 22
percent of the coffee with a 3:1 output-to-input shot, but can they do it in half
the volume, 1.5:1?
Based on my experience, the key to making your best shot is preparation.
My preparation takes more than the usual amount of effort and time, but an
automatic machine could be made to do all of it. I suspect the future will
involve superautomatic machines pulling intenso shots to maximize
extraction yield, which would ultimately reduce the amount of coffee
required. You can add water to an intenso shot to bring it back down to any
range of strength a consumer desires.

Figure 23.3
TDS versus extraction yield. The area circled in purple indicates my proposed region of definition
for an intenso shot.
 CHAPTER 24
VIEWING THE SHOT

I fGOOD
a picture is worth a thousand words, so is a live viewing of a shot.
VIEWING
The simplest way to view a shot is to simply observe it from below. Each
shot is a one-time experience, never to be repeated exactly. I would not
expect a barista in the “good viewing” category to use a bottomless
portafilter. Even viewing the shot through a spouted portafilter provides
information on average color and perhaps a bit on tiger stripes (a term I
define later in this discussion).
BETTER VIEWING
To level up to “better,” you need to video-record your shots. I use a phone
camera, which allows quick replay as well as a straightforward way to share
my experience with others. A video recording allows you to review the shot
and troubleshoot it. Obviously, a bottomless portafilter is required.
 Figure 24.1
Six images of the progression of an espresso shot. The liquid from the perimeter comes out faster,
obscuring what’s happening in the middle.

THE BEST VIEWING

To go overboard with viewing, you have to analyze your videos. The peak of
performance would be real-time analysis and a computer-controlled machine
that changes shot parameters or the location where water flows through the
shower head.
Tiger stripes often result when you pull an espresso shot with a
bottomless portafilter. They are mesmerizing to watch as the colors ebb and
flow. Many baristas consider them to be a sign of a good shot. I do not. I
believe tiger stripes are the result of localized channels. I pulled some data
from visual inspections and did some analyses to help show you what I see in
tiger stripes.
Tiger Stripes
I define tiger stripes as lines of blonder coffee that form within a stream of
darker coffee. At times the stripes seem to be caused by dark flows, but I
believe the dark flows slow down over time as channels form in the blonder
parts of the coffee output.
Based on my observations, a shot begins dark and becomes blond over
time. The dark stripes are portions of coffee that are blonding at a slower rate
due to a lower flow.
This idea might seem unlikely if you use precision baskets, but precision
baskets can have localized areas in which the holes are up to 5 percent larger.
Because the water seeks the path of least resistance, any variation in hole size
will contribute to channeling.
Channeling happens in every shot because water flowing through coffee
creates an erosion process. How severe is it? Major channels may be created
due to mistakes on the part of the barista, and minor channels may form due
to the natural erosion process.
Major channels produce one large stripe of blond coffee. Minor channels
produce thin “tiger stripes” in the coffee streaming out of the filter.
 Table 24.1
Third wave espresso compared with mine
 Figure 24.2
Side view showing no stripes (upper progression) and tiger stripes (lower progression) during an
espresso shot

Visual Evidence
I studied some videos of tiger stripes more closely to try to determine their
cause.
First, I realized my tacit knowledge was based on pressure pulsing, a
technique I have been practicing for two years. With pressure pulsing, the
bottom of the filter is still visible or only partially covered. While others
could see the traditional cone form of coffee underneath the filter, pressure
pulsing allowed me to see more.
I pulled a shot and filmed parts of it in slow motion at 240 frames per
second. I used a mixed frame rate because the long pre-infusion didn’t need
to be captured in slow motion.
Figure 24.3 presents a condensed collage of the shot. The first four
horizontal rows show the pre-infusion phase. The time elapsed between
frames is 1 second.
I pulsed pressure only five times. As you can see from the first three
images, the coffee first comes out of the perimeter of the filter. Next, the
outer ring of coffee blonds—because it has first flow. This is called side-
channeling. At this time, the grounds in the middle still have a lot to extract,
so the center stream is darker, with streaks of lighter colors.
 Figure 24.3
Images (left to right, top to bottom) show the progression of a shot

Slower!
Let’s slow this portion of the video down to 0.25 second between frames:
As you can see in Figure 24.4, the stripes originate in certain areas, and
the darker stripes slowly blond, indicating less extraction. The outer ring
blonds to an almost-white color.

Figure 24.4
A smaller section of the shot, recorded at 0.25-second intervals

Very Slow!
Let’s slow the video even further, so that each frame is 0.125 second apart.
In Figure 24.5, we clearly see the contribution of each hole in the filter.
The light-colored coffee coming through the dark-colored coffee appears
streaked (i.e., tiger striped).
 Figure 24.5
A smaller section of the shot, recorded at 0.125-second intervals

Super Slow!
Figure 24.6 shows the video frames at ½40-second, or 0.0042-second,
intervals:
This gets particularly interesting because one spot on the filter has very
low flow. That spot has a dark perimeter where some coffee is extracting
more slowly (see Figure 24.6).

Figure 24.6
Single image showing slow spots
 Figure 24.7
A smaller section of the shot, recorded at 0.0042-second intervals

Figure 24.8
Sample image of a shot (left) with the region of interest (right)

DATA ANALYSIS
To better understand tiger stripes, I used my data set. I grabbed a group of my
videos and found 275 of the bunch that were easy to align with my data sheet.
For each video, I marked the time in the video for pre-infusion, and I
looked at the center cut of the visual filter bottom for every second past pre-
infusion, as shown in Figure 24.8.
From this center cut, I looked at the intensity of the image. In previous
investigations to understand color components, I found the hue, saturation,
and intensity (HSI) plane to be helpful, especially because the hue for coffee
remains roughly in a limited range. However, tiger stripes show up best in the
intensity plane, which is the average of the red, green, and blue color planes.
Figure 24.9 shows the first frame from each video. The lighting varies
from frame to frame. Sometimes, steam obscured the image or the light was
very bright and reflected off the darker coffee.
I looked at the mean intensity, the standard deviation (STD), and the
mean/STD. I looked at other metrics as well, but those were the most
interesting. The STD should be the best indicator for tiger stripes. I could
have looked horizontally for sudden changes in color, but the standard
deviation would account for that in a very straightforward manner.
I then used correlation to understand how any of these metrics related to
taste and extraction. I looked at the first frame, the last frame, and the middle
frame.
For Final Score (taste) and extraction yield, the correlation was 81
percent, indicating a high positive correlation between the two metrics. This
number is a good guide for the range required to have a strong correlation,
and it is evidence that strong correlations between some variables exist in
espresso.
With regard to standard deviation, there was a slight correlation at the
beginning, but it dropped off to the point of a negative correlation. (In other
words, a higher STD results in a worse shot.) Mean has a negative
correlation, so the darker the color, the better correlated the color is to taste
and extraction. This correlation, at around −25 percent, is still low. Negative
correlation means that when one variable goes up, the other goes down, like a
seesaw.
This visual evidence shows that tiger stripes are the result of channeling,
where localized areas blond faster than the surrounding streams. The tiger
stripes might indicate a good extraction if there are many of them, but the
occurrence of just a few wide stripes suggests that major channeling may be
occurring.
Quantifying tiger stripes using video evidence shows little correlation
between standard deviation (the metric I used to quantify tiger stripes) and
taste/extraction. There is not a good correlation to average color.
Based on this data, tiger stripes aren’t an indicator of anything. That
doesn’t mean my data is conclusive. It is quite possible that because I use
nontraditional methods such as staccato shots, paper filters, and long pre-
infusions, my shots extract in some fundamentally different way. I encourage
anyone who disagrees with me to build and analyze a better data set.

Figure 24.9
A single image sample across many shots
 Figure 24.10
Correlation between video metrics and espresso shot performance metrics (Final Score, total
dissolved solids, and extraction yield)
CHAPTER 25
PUCK ANALYSIS

T here has been some debate in the coffee community about the usefulness
of post-shot puck analysis, or puckology. Often this involves looking at
the top of the spent puck and, occasionally, the bottom. Typically, the
photos of spent pucks are difficult to decode. I happen to think the bottom of
the puck reveals a lot of information.
GOOD PUCKOLOGY
As my shots have become more complex due to staccato and the use of paper
filter, they have become more helpful for failure analysis. I typically use a
paper filter on the bottom and in the middle of the grounds, and leftover
coffee stains on those filters can help me surmise where channeling began.
Coffee stains or dark spots, either on the puck or on the filter paper, are
an indication of low flow areas in the puck. High-flow areas or channeling
produce less staining.
Let’s explore some examples. A compelling part of my data set is my
video collection of espresso shots. You cannot fix what you cannot observe. I
hope the following examples will help you use visual clues to understand
where the problems with your shots lie.

Figure 25.1
At left, the bottom of a spent puck; at right, the paper filter from the bottom of a puck

First Example, with a Top Filter

This shot didn’t start well during pre-infusion. A large spot remained where
coffee wasn’t coming through (see Figure 25.2). If that occurs during pre-
infusion, the only good way I have found to recover is to try pressure pulsing
at low pressure. By using lower pressure, sometimes you can get normal flow
to return.
In the puck I used a top filter, two middle filters, and no bottom filter.
Using two paper filters in the middle of the puck allowed a clearer picture of
coffee flow without the interference of coffee grounds.
I later determined that a top filter increased side channeling because it
allowed the water to flow to the sides faster than it would otherwise. I studied
the coffee stains on the filter basket and observed a large spot that was
relatively unstained. This spot matched the images from the video where the
coffee coming out of the filter appeared much darker than the coffee in the
surrounding area.
The bottom of the puck also had coffee stains, and the middle filters made
it clear that the channeling had been occurring long before the water flowed
to the bottom of the puck (see Figure 25.4). The large crescent marks the lack
of flow.

Figure 25.2
Four images showing a problematic shot
 Figure 25.3
The top paper filter, the top of the puck, and the bottom of the filtering showing coffee residue.

Figure 25.4
The bottom of puck and the two paper filters from the middle of the puck

One-sided Shot
We can look at another example to see how coffee flow can be determined
via puck analysis.
This shot (see Figure 25.5) used a top filter, two middle filters, and no
bottom filter. The middle filters showed that flow went down the sides and
the middle, stalling in a donut pattern (see Figure 25.6). The middle seemed
normal because the shot preparation was designed to have a lower density in
the middle to adjust for the lever machine’s donut issue.
The dark circles on the two paper filters sandwiched in the middle of the
puck indicate that channeling went all the way to the top (see Figure 25.7).
This analysis made me take a closer look at removing the top filter. At the
time, I was trying to figure out whether using a top filter could improve
results.
 Figure 25.5
Five images showing an espresso shot misbehaving

Figure 25.6
Left to right, the top filter, top of the basket, another view of the top, the bottom, the two filters
from the middle of the puck, and one close-up image

Figure 25.7
The inside paper filter, the bottom half from the inside, and the top half from the inside. All show
the donut effect, with a dark ring where the flow slowed down.
 Figure 25.8
Four images of a shot with a weird channeling effect

Removing the Top Filter

For this shot, the top extracted more evenly. I confirmed this by touching the
puck and looking for places where it was harder or denser.
There was still a dark donut, but the extraction yield was higher and the
taste was better.
This shot had a weird distribution (see Figure 25.9). Turns out, half the
beans were the wrong Kenya beans. I typically use a combination of two
types of beans for my roasts. When I split the layers into two different bean
types, I saw that I had used the wrong Kenya roast. The Kenya beans were
one week fresher than the other Kenya roast (1 week old compared with 2
weeks old). That caused some channeling issues because the newer roast had
too much CO2, which slowed flow.
 Figure 25.9
Left to right, top to bottom, the bottom of the filter basket, the bottom of the spent puck, the
middle filter, the middle of the puck, the top of the puck, and underneath the top half of the puck

Adding a Paper Filter on the Bottom

When I used a filter on the bottom of the grounds, the shots had a much
longer extraction time but the taste and extraction greatly improved.
Puck analysis showed better flow, but detailed analysis was difficult
because the puck didn’t come out of the filter easily (see Figure 25.11). The
top of the spent coffee puck didn’t have the dark marks that were visible on
the bottom. This suggested to me that the channeling was caused by the filter
at the bottom.
The flow for this shot was interesting. It appears that flow decreased over
the time of both pre-infusion and infusion. The large spikes in flow rate were
due to pressure pulsing, which is why I averaged the numbers for my
analysis.

Figure 25.10
Five images of a puck that had an off-center extraction
 Figure 25.11
Left to right, top to bottom: top of the puck, bottom of the filter basket, bottom paper filter with
a few dark spots, bottom of the same showing dark spots, inside of the puck doesn’t show
anything, and the paper filter from the middle shows some dark spots around the edge
 Figure 25.12
Single bottom paper filter with a dark ring indicating slow flow
 Figure 25.13
At left, full shot flow; at right, focusing only on pre-infusion

Reused Paper Filter

The next shot was similar in extraction, but this time the paper filter at the
bottom created an inverse donut pattern because the flow was concentrated
through the center. This occurred because I reused the paper filter, preceded
by only a water cleaning.
I decided to do a flat distribution on the bottom half of the shot. The
results were terrible (see Figure 25.14).
The extraction yield was near 10 percent. The puck was very wet right
after the shot. Oil was all over the basket. It was ugly.

Figure 25.14
At left, the start of the shot donuting; at right, further in the shot, the outside is blonding faster
than the center, meaning there was channeling to the outside.

Harder Tamp
I went back to a denser outer ring distribution and tamped the bottom half a
little harder, at 300 grams instead of 200 grams. The shot went back to an
even flow and 21 percent extraction yield.
A darker ring marked the outside of the bottom paper filter. I was unsure
whether it had been caused by channeling or was simply where liquid had
settled at the end of the shot. The top half of the puck broke apart evenly, and
I didn’t see any major channels (see Figure 25.16).
I collected pre- and post-shot data in a spreadsheet, a video during each
shot, and images of each puck afterward. They have guided me in making
better espresso and given me a deeper understanding of how espresso
functions. This is why I always request a video and pictures when people ask
in groups online how to fix their shots. Because more data is better.
 Figure 25.15
Five images of the espresso shot progression, after using a harder tamp

Figure 25.16
Left to right, bottom paper filter, top of the puck, and the underside of the top half showing how
much the flow moved the coffee grounds

BETTER PUCKOLOGY
I have learned from experience that a puck with fewer dark spots indicates
that less channeling has occurred. Dark spots are usually indicators of low
flow and evidence of channeling. Some dark spots are surface deep; others
continue all the way through the puck. The greater the number of dark spots,
the more unevenly the water flowed through the puck.
Let’s take a deeper look at some data to see how well the puck color
correlates to extraction and taste. I grabbed a bunch of images of the bottom
of the puck and aligned them with my data sheet. I ended up with 175 images
with associated data. Although I tried to keep the lighting consistent, some
lighting artifacts remained.
First I prepared the images to make analyzing them easier. I did this by
manually annotating each photo with a blue ring (see Figure 25.18). I used
this ring to define the area of interest, and I blacked out everything else.
I began processing the images by exploring the hue, saturation, and
intensity (HSI) spaces. In the image below (Figure 25.19), these spaces are
represented as red, green, and blue (RGB). In this image, the dark spots had a
noticeable shift in the hue plane as well as the intensity plane.
Hue and saturation seemed very interesting on their own (see Figure
25.20).
 Figure 25.17
Multiple cropped images of spent coffee pucks

Figure 25.18
Left to right, original puck image with blue outline, puck mask, and isolation of just the puck in
the image. (The “bite” missing from the puck is a portion of the puck that broke off, making its
color information invalid.)
 Figure 25.19
Puck image displayed using hue, saturation, and intensity (HSI) for the red, green, and blue
planes
 Figure 25.20
At left, hue plane; at right, saturation plane

Hue and Saturation

I normalized the image by the average intensity, which means I adjusted the
average intensity to 0.5 on a scale of zero to 1. I then looked at circular
portions of these planes. I looked at each ring individually, as well as
combined with other rings.
Looking at multiple metrics for mean and STD for these rings on the
saturation plane, I didn’t find anything with a stronger correlation than −25
percent, which is pretty low. For reference, the correlation between taste and
extraction yield is usually around 70 percent. I also didn’t find a strong
correlation for the hue or intensity plane. The best correlation was for
saturation (see Figure 25.22).
To break down the data a bit, I used a metric to describe the way the shot
looks. I described the shot flow as centered, eccentric (off centered), tiny
donut, donut, uneven, or one-sided. The majority of these shots were
centered, eccentric, or tiny donut (see Figure 25.23).
These descriptors are subjective, but I wanted to record a simple
observation. In this experiment, the first time I used this metric for data
analysis, my best shots were either centered or eccentric.
Some of the standout metrics are all STD metrics. Centered and eccentric
shots have a very low correlation (absolute value < 10 percent). However, the
tiny donut shots have a much stronger negative correlation, especially for
taste (see Figure 25.24).
This study did not show strong correlation between the bottom of the
puck and the performance metrics. I know from experience that the bottom of
the puck is a helpful guide toward troubleshooting a shot, and it is quite
possible that I did not have enough data to see something more interesting.

Figure 25.21
At left, the combination of all ring-cut masks; at right, the ring cuts for a spent puck in the
grayscale
 Figure 25.22
Correlation between multiple bottom-of-the-puck metrics and performance. At left, Final Score
(taste); at right, extraction yield

Figure 25.23
Centered, eccentric, and tiny donut

THE BEST PUCKOLOGY

While I was reading about using color meters to analyze coffee roasts, I
thought about how coffee changes color after extraction. I wondered whether
measuring the color of the coffee before and the color of the coffee afterward
after could be related to the extraction. This information might help in
figuring out the extent to which different parts of the puck are extracted.
I wasn’t going to spend $300 or more for a color meter for an uncertain
experiment. However, I had a refractometer and I had a crazy idea: What if I
put the coffee grinds before and after a shot on a refractometer? The TDS
reading might not be interesting as a single measurement, but in comparison
with other measurements, it might tell us something about how water flowed
through the puck.
I added a sample of coffee grounds with a small amount of water to my
refractometer and took a measurement. A reading came up, and it was low. I
called this gTDS, for grounds TDS, because I’m not sure how well this
connects to actual solubles.
To further explore this idea, I decided to measure spatially across a puck
that had some flaws. I wanted to understand how the dark spots measured in
gTDS.
I pulled a staccato tamped shot; I was able to split the puck between the
top and the bottom because I had positioned a cloth filter between the two
layers. This provided an effective way for me to examine gTDS across the
puck. A high gTDS would mean the area of interest was not fully extracted
during the shot. An unevenness across the puck would indicate that
channeling had occurred.
I used a rubber tiny ice cube tray to help divide the spent pucks.
I cut the pucks with a sharp knife, following the lines of the tray grid
horizontally and vertically.
I measured the gTDS for each sample. This process took some time, but
the sample measurements came up faster than is typical for TDS
measurements, probably because the temperature of the samples was stable.
I put the data measurements into a grid (see Table 25.1) and added some
color rules. The color normalization is different for the top and bottom
halves.
Interestingly, at a point on row 4, column 5, for both the top and the
bottom I measured a high gTDS. This means that flow was slow in that area
(3.91 percent for the top, and 4.28 percent in the bottom).
I overlayed this information onto the puck in order to compare the color
of the puck and the gTDS value. It doesn’t quite line up with the positions of
the dark spots. In fact, for the top half, it is hard to notice any color
differences across the puck.
Another way to view this information is to take the average color of each
square (see Figure 25.30).
We can look at the different between the top and the bottom in gTDS, and
this can give us some idea how flow changes as the water travels through the
puck (see Figure 25.31).
This technique could be used to profound effect if a researcher wanted to
go deep on analyzing a puck and understanding flow.
 Figure 25.24
Further breakdown of correlations based on shot descriptors. Upper, Final Score (taste); lower,
extraction yield
 Figure 25.25
Left to right, spent coffee grounds sample, adding water, taking the TDS measurement. We can
call this measurement grounds TDS (gTDS).

Figure 25.26
Spent puck with top (at left) and bottom (at right) split
 Figure 25.27
The spent puck with its top (at left) and bottom (at right) subdivided according to the grid
 Figure 25.28
Data collection of gTDS spatially across the puck

Table 25.1
 gTDS spatially for the top and bottom halves of the puck

Figure 25.29
Spent puck top (left) and bottom (right) with gTDS measurements overlayed

Figure 25.30
Average color for top (left) and bottom (right) with gTDS overlayed
 Figure 25.31
The gTDS difference between the top and bottom. At left, overlayed on puck image; at right, with
a color map
CHAPTER 26
DRINKING ESPRESSO

Y es, even the way you drink an espresso shot can be optimized. There is
some debate over whether it’s better to stir a shot before you taste it or to
or taste it with the layers of flavors intact. The key, as with many of these
variables, is to figure out what works best for you.
Drinking espresso has three main variables:

1. Stir, swirl, or none

2. Beverage temperature
3. Cup
 Figure 26.1
Stirring espresso

GOOD WAY TO DRINK ESPRESSO

Some people drink espresso without disturbing the drink, which is perfectly
fine. Espresso is not a homogenous drink, and one way I measured this was
to look at TDS in the beverage at three different depths. This helps reveal the
differences in the way the drinker will experience the espresso. My short
experiment suggests that stirring or swirling produces a more homogenous
beverage.
Many people think an espresso should be consumed immediately or
within a minute or two of pulling the shot. There is no harm in that, but it
isn’t supported by data. It is a good idea to determine the temperature at
which you can best experience an espresso without burning your tongue.
 When I began drinking espresso, any serving cup would do, but over time
I’ve moved towards using better cups. That has invariably changed the way I
experience the taste.

Figure 26.2
TDS measured at different locations of the shot

BETTER WAY TO DRINK ESPRESSO

I collected data on stirring versus swirling. I found that stirring lowered the
TDS of the bottom of the cup while increasing the TDS at the top. The
middle layer was not affected much. I also found there wasn’t a statistically
significant (p-value = 0.0037) difference between stirring and swirling coffee
with respect to TDS.
After doing some testing in 2020, I began waiting for 4 to 5 minutes after
pulling a shot to consume it. Waiting a few minutes changed the taste quite a
bit. If I tasted the shot too soon, it was so hot that some of the flavors were
obscured. If I waited too long (> 10 minutes), the taste declined. The key is to
experiment on your own to determine the best time to drink.
A double-walled cup might be useful to keep the espresso shot from
cooling too quickly. Many special ceramic cups and glass cups aimed at
maintaining beverage temperature have come out in the past decade.
Wider glasses, such as wine glasses, are not often used for espresso, but
they allow for a large swirl and an enhanced experience of the aroma of the
drink as you sip it.
 Figure 26.3
At left, stirring versus untouched TDS; at right, stirring versus swirling

THE BEST WAY TO DRINK ESPRESSO

For a time, I measured the shot when it reached a specific temperature,
usually around 47ºC or somewhere between 45ºC and 50ºC. It took about 4
minutes for the shot to cool to that temperature. For simplicity, I eventually
went back to measuring my wait by minutes, but the “best” method would be
to use temperature to guide when to drink the shot.
The best time and temperature at which to drink the shot could also vary
by the coffee roast and the output yield of the shot. I use a medium roast and
an output-to-input ratio ranging between 1:1 and 1.4:1. A higher output yield
will have a higher temperature.
The best cup style collides with the question of stirring verses swirling.
This cup happens to be the Kruve EQ cup, which acts like a wine cup with
fins to cause stirring (see Figure 26.4).
Kruve sent me a set of cups, and I compared taste across ten paired shots
compared to my standard cup, the Pirate glass cup. I found the taste
experience improved from an average score of 17.8 to 19.0 on my taste scale,
with a similar TDS and EY. This had a p-value on a paired t-test of 0.0046.
I dug into find out what components were most affected by the glassware.
The cup had a big impact on the Rich and Sweet components of my taste
scale, but there was not a noticeable impact on the Sour and Bitter
components. That suggests having my nose closer to the coffee and in the cup
influences my perceived sweetness.
Samo Smrke suggested people try plugging their nose when they drink an
espresso to see how they perceive the sweetness in the coffee. This is because
the perceived sweetness aroma of coffee comes from the nose, not the
tongue.
Glassware and beverage temperature will greatly change your taste
experience, and these variables are cheaper to improve than others.
 Figure 26.4
Pulling a shot into a Kruve EQ cup.

Figure 26.5
Breaking down the EQ cup versus the baseline on four of the seven taste factors
 CONCLUSION

n this text have presented multiple aspects of espresso, and for each aspect
I I described good, better, and best practices. I didn’t arrive at these
techniques overnight; I iteratively improved my process over a period of
years. I hope this guide can show where you could improve your
espresso-making and get better shots.
A lot has changed in my technique based on how much time I have
between work and kids, so I don’t use all of the following tools and
techniques at a single time, but I used the following ones routinely:
Tools
Espresso machine: Kim Express
Grinder: Niche Zero
Coffee roast: Home Roaster, Hottop
Portafilter: Bottomless
Scale: Acaia, which logs flow
Filter basket: VST/Pesado
Extra filters: Metal filter on top
Distribution: Homemade distributors
Tamper: Auto-leveling (DE Tamper without a spring) weighed with a
scale

Techniques
Data: Logging data for every shot, analyzing data, and testing theories
Coffee blending: Before the roast
Bean storage: Vacuum
Roast Aging: Humidity treatment
Grinding: Regular grinding immediately before the shot
Preparation: Sifted staccato

Parameters
 Water temperature: Between 93ºC and 97ºC
Pre-infusion: 3 times the time to cover the filter (TCF)
Pressure: Pulsing
Shot ratio: 1.2:1 (ratio of 24 grams out to 20 grams in)
Total dissolved solids (TDS): 15% to 18%
Extraction yield (EY): 18% to 23%

Practices
Video-recording the shot: iPhone
Puck analysis: Photographing the bottom of the puck
Drinking: 4 minutes post-shot

The list of variables is long because espresso is complex. To achieve a higher

extraction in a lower volume with consistency requires an increasing level of
complexity that is not linear. This all feeds into a mantra of excellence:
“The good espresso is the enemy of the best espresso.”
What are my hopes for the future of coffee data science? More integration
of machine parameters, output parameters, and video. A tool such as the
Decent Espresso Machine allows for a closer integration of many bits of data,
but it is still missing a camera explicitly synchronized to the machine.
I hope to see more machines in which these improvements are automated.
I love staccato espresso and I believe it is the future, but the sifting and puck
preparation have to become automated before it can enter into the
mainstream.
I wish you luck in your espresso journey, and I would love to hear from
you. Feel free to contact me on social media at EspressoFun on Instagram.
 SO LONG, AND THANKS FOR ALL THE
LEVERS

F irst, I have to thank my wife again. My espresso equipment and ever

sprawling space creep has been an annoyance, yet she has continues to
tolerate the hobby. She encouraged me to write a book and pursue fun
things of coffee, and over time, I have transformed the type of coffee she has
enjoyed due to the coffee I roast. She has also rarely said no to buying
antique coffee machines, so thank you for all the lever machines.
Thanks to my kids for joining me on the coffee journey, asking about my
coffee, eating my coffee beans, and drinking my lattes.
I would like to thank Rebecca Neimark (book design) and Jean Zimmer
(editing). They have both been a joy to work with.
Over the past few years, I have met some amazing coffee people. When I
started the Kickstarter for this book, people came from all over to help,
particularly Micky at IAmNotaBarista. Micky and I started chatting a few
months before, and when he saw that I was starting to fund raise, he helped
on the level of a collaborating partner. At first, he gave a few pointers, but
then he dialed it up. He helped with the design and outlook of the webpage,
talked to me about his previous experiences, invited me on his podcast, and
he helped promote the campaign. Thank you Micky!
At a company and in a land far ago, I would enjoy morning and afternoon
coffee time with Don and Royston. Their laughter and joy has been so
encouraging to my espresso journey.
Thank you to my parents for raising me and helping me out through the
years. Thanks to my unofficial advisor in undergrad Dr. Rayess and to Dr.
Paulik whose image processing class inspired my entire career. I owe a great
debt of gratitude to my Ph.D. advisor Dr. Flynn in shaping my way of
working and viewing the nascent field of computer vision.
Thanks to David Kuo for tolerating my espresso at work and seeing the
benefit of being overly curious.
Thank you Danato for helping me become the person I am today. Lastly,
thank you Erica Tipton for the title of the book.
REFERENCES

Chapter 1
Ode to Espresso: A Journey into the Cup
https://medium.com/overthinking-life/ode-to-espresso-a-journey-into-the-
cup-27294439b47b
Chapter 2
Building an Education in Coffee using Data
https://towardsdatascience.com/building-an-education-in-coffee-using-data-
f3f34d759083
Chapter 3
Metrics
https://towardsdatascience.com/metrics-of-performance-espresso-
1ef8af75ce9a
Chapter 4
A Summary of the Staccato
https://rmckeon.medium.com/a-summary-of-the-staccato-lifestyle-
dd1dc6d4b861
Chapter 5
A Taxonomy of Lever
https://towardsdatascience.com/taxonomy-of-lever-espresso-machines-
f32d111688f1
Chapter 6
ROK Beats Niche
https://towardsdatascience.com/rok-beats-niche-zero-part-1-7957ec49840d
Conical vs Flat Burrs
https://towardsdatascience.com/conical-vs-flat-burrs-initial-data-
57762063f915
A Blade Grinder
https://medium.com/overthinking-life/a-blade-grinder-for-great-espresso-
cf4f5a561ba6
Chapter 7
Coffee Roasting Splash Page
https://rmckeon.medium.com/coffee-roasting-splash-page-780b0c3242ea
Chapter 8
Rebuking Fines
https://medium.com/nerd-for-tech/rebuking-fines-migration-in-espresso-
6790e6c964de
Coffee Data Sheet
https://towardsdatascience.com/coffee-data-sheet-d95fd241e7f6
Chapter 9
Deconstructed Coffee: Split Roasting, Grinding, and Layering for Better
Espresso
https://towardsdatascience.com/deconstructed-coffee-split-roasting-grinding-
and-layering-for-better-espresso-fd408c1ac535
Chapter 10
Coffee Bean Storage
https://towardsdatascience.com/coffee-bean-storage-vacuum-vs-
sealed-containers-c5d6a2b6f1b0
Coffee Bean Degassing
https://towardsdatascience.com/coffee-bean-degassing-d747c8a9d4c9
Chapter 11
Humidified Coffee
https://towardsdatascience.com/humidified-coffee-for-faster-degassing-and-
better-espresso-3bdf601b2890
Extraction
https://towardsdatascience.com/extraction-over-the-life-of-the-coffee-bean-
f777f017718a
Chapter 12
Bottomless
https://towardsdatascience.com/bottomless-vs-spouted-portafilter-for-
espresso-dfcce8a461d5
Getting Naked: Making My Portafilter
https://medium.com/geekculture/getting-naked-making-my-portafilter-
bottomless-6dfd63d54e7c
Chapter 13
Coffee Flow
https://towardsdatascience.com/coffee-flow-analysis-by-shot-type-
51bc41a5032c
Data Review: Acaia Scale
https://towardsdatascience.com/data-review-acaia-scale-pyxis-for-espresso-
457782bafa5d
Chapter 14
Fines
https://towardsdatascience.com/fines-in-coffee-grinds-searching-for-a-
source-326c3eba2bb4
Coffee Grounds Freshness for Espresso
https://towardsdatascience.com/coffee-grounds-freshness-for-espresso-
78a447f84fcd
Spicy Espresso: Grind
https://towardsdatascience.com/spicy-espresso-grind-hot-tamp-cold-
36bb547211ef
Chapter 15
Espresso Baskets
https://rmckeon.medium.com/espresso-baskets-and-related-topics-splash-
page-ff10f690a738
Chapter 16
Paper Filters
https://rmckeon.medium.com/paper-filters-for-espresso-splash-page-
f55fc553e98
Chapter 17
Salami
https://towardsdatascience.com/salami-coffee-grinding-fb9ebd489cbd
OCD Tools don’t work for espresso
https://towardsdatascience.com/ocd-tools-dont-work-for-espresso-
5b2f988af495
Simplifying Coffee Distribution
https://medium.com/swlh/simplifying-coffee-distribution-for-espresso-
e58ac4351ba
Espresso Preparation: Grinding, Distribution
https://towardsdatascience.com/espresso-preparation-grinding-distribution-
and-tamping-50f452f78aa8
Chapter 18
The Diminishing Returns of Tamping
https://towardsdatascience.com/the-diminishing-returns-of-tamping-for-
espresso-cac289685059
Chapter 19
Water Temperature
https://towardsdatascience.com/water-temperature-for-espresso-
1abe656b54d3
Espresso Parameters: Pre-Infusion, Pressure
https://towardsdatascience.com/espresso-parameters-pre-infusion-pressure-
and-water-temperature-f543a3c4044e
Chapter 20
Espresso Pre-wetting as Opposed to Pre-infusion
https://towardsdatascience.com/espresso-pre-wetting-ecd9a895ed5f
Pre-infusion
https://towardsdatascience.com/pre-infusion-for-espresso-visual-cues-for-
better-espresso-c23b2542152e
Chapter 21
Increasing the Pressure
https://towardsdatascience.com/increasing-the-pressure-for-la-pavoni-
espresso-2a8ee0febb1e
Pressure Pulsing
https://towardsdatascience.com/pressure-pulsing-for-better-espresso-
62f09362211d
Chapter 22
Affordable Coffee Solubility Tools (TDS)
https://towardsdatascience.com/affordable-coffee-solubility-tools-tds-for-
espresso-brix-vs-atago-f8367efb5aa4
Coffee Solubility in Espresso: An Initial Study
https://towardsdatascience.com/coffee-solubility-in-espresso-an-initial-study-
88f78a432e2c
Chapter 23
Shooting for Stronger Espresso: Intenso
https://towardsdatascience.com/shooting-for-stronger-espresso-intenso-
f20d3edc628a
Chapter 24
Tiger Stripes
https://towardsdatascience.com/tiger-stripes-in-espresso-are-signs-of-
channeling-fb16775884c4
Chapter 25
Espresso Puck Analysis from the Bottom
https://towardsdatascience.com/espresso-puck-analysis-from-the-bottom-
2019074abad7
Extraction
https://towardsdatascience.com/grounds-tds-across-the-espresso-puck-
1581825ddcac
Chapter 26
Evaluating the Kruve EQ Cup
https://towardsdatascience.com/evaluating-the-kruve-eq-cup-for-espresso-
c0c28b1549f1
To Stir
https://towardsdatascience.com/to-stir-or-to-swirl-better-espresso-experience-
8cf623ea27ef
GLOSSARY
box plot A way to represent a data distribution that shows a box for data
between the 25th percentile and the 75th percentile, with a line
extending to a maximum and minimum and outliers plotted as points
dialing in Adjusting grind setting to hit the optimal espresso extraction
dose The amount of coffee grounds put into the basket
EY Extraction yield, the percentage of the input dose that was extracted into
the cup
first crack During roasting, the first audible crack as the bean develops
gTDS A measurement of TDS taken by placing coffee grounds on the
refractometer and adding a little bit of water to measure the remaining
solubles in the coffee grounds
intenso A strongly flavored shot defined by TDS > 18% and EY > 18% or
EY > 22% and TDS > 12%
output yield Liquid coffee in grams
PID controller A proportional integral derivative controller uses the goal
and the output to calculate the best change to reach the goal. For
example, a temperature PID in a house thermostat aims to bring the air
to a certain temperature but not overshoot that temperature.
TDS Total dissolved solids, the percentage of liquid that is solubles from the
coffee grounds
 INDEX

This index, from the print edition, is provided as a reference and an aid to
keyword searches in the e-book. Note that the page numbers refer to the print
edition only.

Aftertaste, 10
Baskets, 5, 75–79, 127, 158
Bitter, 18, 10, 116, 151
Complex, 72, 132, 154
Correlation, 13, 41, 50, 61, 62, 72, 99, 130–131, 141–143
Cup, 148–149, 159
Degas, 46–48, 51
Distribution, 7, 13, 15, 20–21, 34, 36–37, 66–67, 77, 87–90, 138, 153, 158,
160
Dose, 15, 89, 160
Extraction Yield, 5, 9, 12–14, 16–17, 19, 21, 25–26, 33–34, 36–37, 42–44,
46–49, 51–53, 56, 61–66, 68–86, 88, 91, 93, 95, 99, 101–102, 104–107,
109–117, 121–124, 128, 130–131, 136–144, 154, 157, 159–160
Final Score, 25, 34, 46, 49, 52, 62–65, 71, 73, 76–78, 82–83, 85–86, 105,
110–113, 115, 130–131, 142, 144
Fines, 36, 43–44, 63–66, 68, 73, 77, 156–157
Fines Migration, 43–44
Flow, 13, 15, 23–24, 31, 51, 53–54, 60–62, 68–69, 81, 83–84, 90, 95, 99,
101, 103, 111, 126–128, 132–139, 143, 147, 153, 157
Grind, 12–13, 15–18, 21, 32–35, 37, 45, 49, 50–51, 53, 63–64, 66, 68–70,
73–74, 87–90, 157, 160
Grinder, 5, 7, 13, 15, 18–20, 26, 32–37, 50–51, 53, 63–70, 87, 90, 153, 156
Humidified Coffee, 53, 157
Lever, 6, 13, 29–31, 79–80, 85, 90, 99, 102, 104, 107, 108, 111, 134, 156
Metrics, 7, 10, 12, 13, 24, 40, 53, 61–62, 64–65, 116, 130–131, 141–143, 156
Output Yield, 114, 151, 160
Paper Filter, 12–13, 72, 74, 80–85, 131–139, 158
Portafilter, 3, 5, 7, 9, 13, 55, 56, 69, 72, 87, 91, 94, 102–103, 125–126, 153,
157
Pre-infusion, 7, 12, 14, 53, 56, 61–62, 79, 95, 101–107, 111–112, 128–129,
131–132, 138, 153, 158
Pressure, 5, 7, 12, 14, 16, 31, 47, 61, 80, 92–95, 102–104, 107–112, 116, 122,
127–128, 132, 153, 158
Pressure Pulsing, 5, 61, 111–112, 127, 132, 158
Ratio, 7, 11, 14–15, 24, 36, 71–73, 91, 95, 106, 113–116, 123, 151, 154
Rich, 8, 10–11, 18, 151
Roast, 3, 4, 5, 7, 12–14, 18, 21–26, 33, 38–39, 41, 45–46, 48–53, 64, 72–73,
99, 109, 113, 121–122, 136, 150–151, 153
Salami, 88, 90, 114–115, 158
Scale, 7, 13, 15, 19, 50, 59–61, 75–76, 92, 141, 151, 153, 157
Sharp, 10, 15, 145
Staccato, 4–5, 7–8, 13–26, 37, 56, 64–66, 70, 72, 74, 81, 83, 89, 91, 92, 111,
115,–116, 123, 131–132, 145, 153–154, 156
Statistical Significance, 25, 46, 86, 88, 118
Storage, 7, 13, 39, 46–48, 51, 153, 157
Sweet, 4, 10, 15, 40, 151
Syrup, 10, 11, 15
Tamping, 13, 16, 17, 19, 23, 87, 90, 92, 94, 158
Taste, 4–5, 8–11, 13–17, 22, 25–26, 33–34, 36–39, 46–49, 51–54, 62–66, 68–
69, 71–78, 80–81, 83–86, 88, 101–102, 104, 109–117, 122, 124, 130–
131, 136, 140–144, 148–151
Temperature, 4, 7, 12, 14, 29–31, 46, 61, 63, 68–74, 95, 99, 100–101, 107–
111, 116, 146, 148, 150–151, 153, 158, 160
Tiger Stripes, 125–127, 129–131, 159
Total Dissolved Solids, 7, 12, 14, 19, 21, 32, 34, 37, 46, 53, 69, 72, 76, 82,
101, 110, 113–115, 118, 121–124, 131, 144–146, 148–149, 151, 154,
159–160
 I nmaster’s
2006, Robert earned bachelor’s and
degrees in electrical engineering at
Detroit Mercy, after which he went to the
University of Notre Dame for his Ph.D. in
Computer Science and Engineering. His
dissertation was on 3D face recognition. He
built a novel 3D face scanner by combining
structured light with object tracking. He then
worked extensively on recognition methods
using classical pattern recognition techniques.
Robert worked at a startup doing 3D face
recognition research for four years before
ending up at Apple. At Apple, he worked on wrist detection and background
heart rate for the first Apple Watch, technology that continues to persist, and
then he worked on Face ID, AR Kit, and People Detection for blind users.
Aside from coffee, most of his time is spent with his family, and his
hobbies include studying Italian, reading, gardening, building with Legos,
running, snowboarding, and Disney.
Robert is active on Instagram, Twitter, and YouTube under the name
EspressoFun.