"...our very expensive grinder." To save you the effort: that's about $4300 of coffee grinder, in that video. (Weber EG-1, Black. White is $400 "cheaper.")
Yes, this has been known for quite some time by coffee experts (and is presumably why it was tested in the first place, to see if the dogma held true).
Been doing it for a year or so. I grind for espresso and can see a clear difference in how clumpy my grinds are and how much is left retained in the grinder.
In the event that static caused some ground beans to stick to the wall of the grinder (or brewing vessel), continued use of the grinder or brewer would quickly reach a steady state where the throughput is ultimately the same, because the "binding sites" of the grinder or vessel are essentially saturated.
Assuming that retained grounds in the grinder operate like a FIFO it's just that they go stale quickly so ruin each next day's coffee. That's what Hoffman implies anyway.
Is this sarcasm or are you that out of touch with the entire world? I need to know so I can decide whether to vote your comment down or up (in that order) please.
14 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 51.3 ms ] thread[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gst_NYxAg9s
However as a Nespresso owner I'm already taking a lot of waste for granted obviously.
But Nespresso feels like it caters to “I want it now”…
In the event that static caused some ground beans to stick to the wall of the grinder (or brewing vessel), continued use of the grinder or brewer would quickly reach a steady state where the throughput is ultimately the same, because the "binding sites" of the grinder or vessel are essentially saturated.
Can an expert help me understand this better?
I thought people realized that harvesting coffee was mainly through forced child labor