HomeRoast Digest


Topic: 5u Polyester Felt (19 msgs / 486 lines)
1) From: Steve Hay
Scott,
Where do you get this and do you reuse the filter?
Steve
On 7/28/06, Scott Marquardt  wrote:
<Snip>
-- 
Steven Hay
hay.steve -AT- gmail.com
Barry Paradox: Consider k to be the greatest element of the set of natural
numbers whose description require maximum of 50 words: "(k+1) is a natural
number which requires more than 50 words to describe it."

2) From: Scott Marquardt
You can get the FDA grade stuff from midwestfilter.com, but you'll need to
buy some large quantities to make it worth it. You can pick up non-FDA grade
from mcmaster.com, part 6376T31 (a lot) or the part to the left of it once
you've found it at their site (less).
FWIW, I'm going to sell rounds of the stuff. I'm picking up enough to do a
pretty large initial run. Inquire privately in about a month.
Meanwhile, if anyone would like a sample I can send out enough for a couple
rounds. E-mail a postal address to me.
- Scott
On 7/28/06, Steve Hay  wrote:
<Snip>

3) From: Scott Marquardt
Send me an address and I'll send you (and a dozen other folks) a sample
later this week, with more information.
- Scott
On 7/28/06, Steve Hay  wrote:
<Snip>
-- 
Scott

4) From: Douglas Strait
Scott M wrote:
You can get the FDA grade stuff from midwestfilter.com, but you'll 
need to buy some large quantities to make it worth it. You can pick up 
non-FDA grade from mcmaster.com, part 6376T31 (a lot) or the part to 
the left of it once you've found it at their site (less). FWIW, I'm 
going to sell rounds of the stuff. I'm picking up enough to do a 
pretty large initial run. Inquire privately in about a month. 
Meanwhile, if anyone would like a sample I can send out enough for a 
couple rounds. E-mail a postal address to me.
Scott: I looked at that part no 6376T31 and I am wondering how the 
material might differ [other than the 0.01" difference in thickness] 
from McMaster part no 51625K11 which is less than half the price per 
unit area.
I read your brewing for large numbers post and interpreted it to imply 
extraction time was fast. When brewing smaller quantities, say a liter 
or so, in a #6 cone how fast are we talking about?
Doug

5) From: Scott Marquardt
I'd really like to know what that other part is like. The "needle punch"
thing has me suspecting it would work more like a paper filter, though
(surface filtering), and that would be far slower throughput. I'm wary.
The fast throughput is a benefit of the material, to be sure. A liter works
fine with a cone, but you'll want to grind finer to make shorter extraction
work for you. Tip: It's easier to retard a fast extraction by pouring
slower, than to speed up one that's been slowed by a fine grind's
interaction with the filter media. When in doubt, IMO, risk under-extraction
and control the pour for duration. Much less anxiety.  ;-)   My technique is
to pour/immerse, let drain; repeat, repeat, [repeat . . .]. I generally
stir/agitate as well. Unfortunately, stirring and agitation generally makes
repeatability between different persons more difficult, defying "this many
seconds [minutes]" kinds of remarks. That's the personalizing of extraction
for you.
Later today, I hope to have a dunce-simple device fabricated to instantly
turn an appropriately shaped piece of the material into a filter cone of any
size. More on that later.
- S
On 8/2/06, Douglas Strait  wrote:
<Snip>
I read your brewing for large numbers post and interpreted it to imply
<Snip>

6) From: Douglas Strait
Here is my first impressions user report.
Scott has kindly provided me with several samples of this material. 
One of the samples is a somewhat thicker felt that is fuzzy on one 
side and has a smoother, harder finish on the other. This smoother 
side I infer was created with some exposure to heat. This sample came 
to me as a cone with a sewn seam. It is amply big to fill a #6 cone. 
Having been forewarned about the fast extraction time, I adjusted the 
grind on my Solis Maestro 5 clicks [this model has a range of 17 
clicks] finer than my normal paper filter grind. So far I have only 
brewed two [15 oz] mugs. I used my usual 24g coffee per 15 oz of 
water. Extraction time using a series of 3 or 4 small pours was about 
2 minutes. This compares to about 5 minutes with my normally used 
inexpensive Brew-rite paper filters.
Impressions: Despite the faster extraction time, the perceived 
strength is at least equal to that of the paper filter brew. As Scott 
has previously described, the flavor is similar to that of press pot 
coffee without the downside [to my taste] of the sludge. It has the 
rich ''thick'' mouthfeel of press pot as well as the tastes of the 
oils that are diminished by the use of paper filters. It is a hands 
down better cup than paper filtered. The downside of this filter is 
that it lacks the convenience of disposable paper filters. Cleanup 
effort is on par with press pot. To clean, I invert the filter over 
the garage pail and knock out the bulk of the grounds. I then rinse 
under the faucet. Leaving inverted I reinstall in the filter cone 
holder and place under a running faucet for a few minutes. This is 
unattended since the cone is held in a coneholder that I fabricated 
from a plastic cup with the bottom cut out that I normally use as a 
cone holder when dripping directly into a mug or thermos. For the next 
cup I left the filter inverted and brewed in the reverse direction.
From the appearance of the filter after two uses it is clear that 
simple rinsing does not remove all of the entrapped fines. It remains 
to be seen if over time this contributes any stale "off" tastes to the 
brew.
I can clearly understand Scott's enthusiasm for using this material 
when brewing for large numbers. It is *fast* and tastes great too.
Doug

7) From: Scott Marquardt
Thanks for the report, Douglas.
Re-use of the material, and its relative expense, is a potential problem
from a market perspective. I'll be selling this stuff (I believe) within
weeks, but will it be worth it for anyone but a few oddballs who, heaven
help them, think like me? I don't know.
Re-use depends on how easy it is to clean the material. It's easy for me,
because I use Basic H, from Shaklee, to do that (that's all I buy from
Shaklee folks, so don't worry that this is going to descend into a
multi-level marketing pitch). It's a perfect surfactant that fits this
particular cleanup job very well, and leaves no residue of itself. BUT --
what good is that ease here? If others are unfamiliar with the product and
don't have anything comparable on hand, then the ease of cleanup is only
accessible to them after they've gone through the difficulty of obtaining
it, or something like it. "I want to use polyester easily, over and over, so
I'll learn about yet ANOTHER product, and buy that too." Great. Next thing
you know I'll be recommending a particular basin to wash the stuff in,
that's only available from a street vendor in Cairo.    ;-)
Keep experimenting. I'll be interested to hear your thoughts on whether the
material suffers from poorer -- or better -- performance, with repeated
uses. And if you have any ideas for a grocery-store-available cleaner for
the thing, I'd love to hear of it. The Basic H gets it almost white again
(I'm sure you've noted that the top, in particular, stays really brown; my
opinion is that this is because the oils aren't rinsed from where they
predominate during an early phase of extraction. This is why SOME kind of
surfactant is a must for such clean-ups.
On the other hand, given the explosive variety of flavors and scents of
shampoos one can buy, perhaps the residual taste in future cups could be
explained to friends as efforts to mimic run of the mill flavored coffees.
;-)
On 8/8/06, Douglas Strait  wrote:
<Snip>

8) From: Justin Marquez
On 8/8/06, Scott Marquardt  wrote:
<Snip>
I wonder how it would work to clean them by running thru the
dishwasher in a basket, perhaps followed by several distilled water
rinsings?  In addition to the oils that may collect, there are bound
to be some fines trapped in the filter media as well.  The action in a
diswasher might help get those out.  Another possibility is a reverse
direction pressure wave (ultrasonic), although that is assuredly
overkill!
Maybe the floral scents could be passed off as "origin character"...
Safe Journeys and Sweet Music
Justin Marquez (Snyder, TX)

9) From: Scott Marquardt
:-)
Backflushing is the simplest way to clean the material:http://scott.marquardt.googlepages.com/invertedaeropressingforbettercoffee(scroll to end)
However, scrubbing by hand with the Basic H is incredibly effective. The
material is durable enough to handle some manual scrubbing (by hand works
fine with this surfactant), though you don't want to stretch it
substantially while doing so. I've discovered that TOO rough with it will
compromise filtering performance, but that's just common sense.
Here's something fun to try: with the Aero inverted, fill it with water. Put
the filter in the cap in reverse, so that pressing the Aero will backflush
it. Hold it over the sink with two hands and press fast.
The water goes through instantly -- and I mean instantly. No back-pressure
at all.
Awesome.
On 8/8/06, Justin Marquez  wrote:
<Snip>
Maybe the floral scents could be passed off as "origin character"...
<Snip>

10) From: kofi
I tried the version with the harder finish one side to replace the mesh on
the plunger of a 32oz press pot.
 With hard finsh up it curled tthe wrong way around the edge of metal disc
leaving corrugations on the edge looking as if it might leak.
Inverted it  looked like a better seal so left it that way.
 Used my usual grind, which is just short of stalling the press normally,
and my usual brew time for that grind: 2 minutes which normally gives a
great cup.
Well with the polyester it was stalled so bad that it took an extra minute
to get the plunger down.
I thought it would be over-exracted with the extra minute but it was very
good.  All the tastes that I normally get with the press were there but the
cup was clean, and oils were clearly present. mmmmmm. I like it a lot.  If I
can get the convenience factor back and dial in other areas then this will
be my new favorite brewing method. excellent.
Not sure about the stalling though...could take quite a few pots to perfect
if I need to change the grind
.
As to the cleaning, I tried backflush moving around the head of the hot
water tap and it did some but not the best. Next I tried a run through the
dish washer with the fely trapped in the part of the utensils basket that
closes. Better but the real success was a second time through the
dishwasher. White again.
I'll try the other felt version on a 10 ounce press pot (the piece I have
isn't big enough for much else) and report back. Thanks Scott :)
On 8/8/06, Scott Marquardt  wrote:
<Snip>

11) From: Scott Marquardt
Yah.
In May I posted this at coffeegeek:
[
Combining lame methods with a sane attempt at using this stuff with an FP,
though, was fun. The FP pressed too hard -- but fortunately I began pressing
soon enough (with a finer grind than usual, BTW) that the coffee tasted fine
by the time I got 2/3 done with the pressing and gave up.
No fines, plenty of oils in the cup. Tasty! But not practical for an FP.
]
Pretty much what you experienced -- though your patient conclusion about the
material's utility in an FP may differ from mine.
--
Scott
On 8/12/06, kofi  wrote:
<Snip>

12) From: kofi
The taste was great. Easily as good as regular press but with zero fines
remianing in the  cup after drinking. Even less than with a vac pot where i
usualy still get the odd microscopic grain or two.
the felt without the hard surface might give different results? it looks
looser. I'll let you know.
On 8/12/06, Scott Marquardt  wrote:
<Snip>

13) From: Douglas Strait
Scott M wrote:
Re-use depends on how easy it is to clean the material. It's easy for 
me, because I use Basic H, from Shaklee, to do that (that's all I buy 
from Shaklee folks, so don't worry that this is going to descend into 
a multi-level marketing pitch). It's a perfect surfactant that fits 
this particular cleanup job very well, and leaves no residue of 
itself. BUT -- what good is that ease here? If others are unfamiliar 
with the product and don't have anything comparable on hand, then the 
ease of cleanup is only accessible to them after they've gone through 
the difficulty of obtaining it, or something like it. "I want to use 
polyester easily, over and over, so I'll learn about yet ANOTHER 
product, and buy that too." Great. Next thing you know I'll be 
recommending a particular basin to wash the stuff in, that's only 
available from a street vendor in Cairo.    ;-)
Keep experimenting. I'll be interested to hear your thoughts on 
whether the material suffers from poorer -- or better -- performance, 
with repeated uses. And if you have any ideas for a 
grocery-store-available cleaner for the thing, I'd love to hear of it. 
The Basic H gets it almost white again (I'm sure you've noted that the 
top, in particular, stays really brown; my opinion is that this is 
because the oils aren't rinsed from where they predominate during an 
early phase of extraction. This is why SOME kind of surfactant is a 
must for such clean-ups.
XXXXXXXXXXXX
Scott: I now have a dozen mugs or so brewed with the same sewn cone 
filter. No apparent change in performance. By the second or third day 
it was apparent that washing with a sufactant is necessary as you have 
indicated. Simple backwashing with water only yielded a stall 
off-taste. I find that ordinary Dawn dish soap is fine. I hand wash 
with the Dawn and then rinse repeatedly. The soap does not contribute 
any taste as evidenced by tasting water filtered through the cone post 
washing. This level of effort is a bit beyond using a press pot but 
does of course have the advantages previously discussed. I don't have 
an Aeropress so for my purposes the greatest merit of this material 
would be for fast pour-over brewing of large quantities. I could see 
keeping a few #6+ size filters of this material around specially for 
that need.
One somewhat OT observation arose while testing this material. I did a 
side by side comparison with paper filter drip and 5u polyester drip. 
The coffee was a melange 50/50 of SM's Puro Scuro at two levels of 
roast. Normally I do comparison cupping with the same proportion of 
milk in the coffee that I normally use. In this instance I deviated 
and cupped both black before adding the milk. I noticed that with 
milk, the flavor difference between the two cups was strikingly 
greater than the black to black comparison.
Doug

14) From: Scott Marquardt
I'm pleased that folks are trying the material. My own enthusiasm for it is
little more than that; whether the material is worth being adopted by more
coffee lovers will depend on this kind of faithful testing by discriminating
tasters!
Just tonight: http://www.coffeegeek.com/forums/coffee/machines/250381I get a lot of compliments at the church, but in this case the bean is so
good -- a Swiss Water Costa Rica -- that you could brew it using ditch-water
filtered through a dirty sock, and it'd taste awesome. I usually hate
decaff, and I love this particular bean. Go figure.   :-)
Anyway, IMO the fast throughput of the material is one of its great assets
for allowing superb control over extraction. It really does enable
"switch-like" performance; when you want to terminate extraction, stopping
your pour "flips the switch off" within seconds (if you use a sane grind).
Ironically, this allows for full-immersion extraction. Weird.
But I'm just propagandizing again. Back to all you fine folks in the wild to
beat this stuff to a pulp and see what you think.    ;-)
--
Scott
On 8/13/06, Douglas Strait  wrote:
Scott: I now have a dozen mugs or so brewed with the same sewn cone
filter. No apparent change in performance. By the second or third day
it was apparent that washing with a sufactant is necessary as you have
indicated. Simple backwashing with water only yielded a stall
off-taste. I find that ordinary Dawn dish soap is fine. I hand wash
with the Dawn and then rinse repeatedly. The soap does not contribute
any taste as evidenced by tasting water filtered through the cone post
washing. This level of effort is a bit beyond using a press pot but
does of course have the advantages previously discussed. I don't have
an Aeropress so for my purposes the greatest merit of this material
would be for fast pour-over brewing of large quantities. I could see
keeping a few #6+ size filters of this material around specially for
that need.
One somewhat OT observation arose while testing this material. I did a
side by side comparison with paper filter drip and 5u polyester drip.
The coffee was a melange 50/50 of SM's Puro Scuro at two levels of
roast. Normally I do comparison cupping with the same proportion of
milk in the coffee that I normally use. In this instance I deviated
and cupped both black before adding the milk. I noticed that with
milk, the flavor difference between the two cups was strikingly
greater than the black to black comparison.
Doug

15) From: Spencer Thomas
On 8/8/06, Scott Marquardt  wrote:
<Snip>
Out of curiosity, I thought I'd see if I could find out what's in Basic H.
First Google hit was the Shaklee website, of course.  And there, I find the
ominous note (in red, even):
To be discontinued upon stockout - new formula and size coming soon.
Uh, oh.  "new formula"
=Spencer

16) From: Scott Marquardt
Yikes! Holy cow. I'll be looking into this.
Just now -- literally, I believe -- they're having a big celebration for the
company's 50th anniversary. Basic H has been the same thing that whole time,
AFAIK. The company went on and got into a lot of wacky stufff, as far as I'm
concerned, so I hope they're not going to turn a bad corner with this
product, too.
Fear.
LOL
On 8/14/06, Spencer Thomas  wrote:
<Snip>
-- 
Scott

17) From: kofi
I tried with a 10 oz press and the felt w/o the shiny surface and although
it was faster pushing down the result was over-extracted. I'm using a
finicky bean though so I don't entrirely blame the felt, just mostly ;-).
I'll buy a larger piece so I can try it in a pourover.  It has potential
IMO.
On 8/12/06, kofi  wrote:
<Snip>

18) From: Scott Marquardt
You found the felt to be faster in a French press?
Extraction durations can be controlled for, no prob -- but the faster press
is not what I'd expect. Fascinating.
As for a pourover, it'll depend on whether, as in my case, you've adopted
the "get it through! get it through fast" approach, while tring to keep an
immersion.
I think there's a concern out there that the brewing water has to stay in
the grind as long as possible, up to the point of completed extraction.
That's simply not true -- provided the LAST brewing water to pass through
the grind passes through at the time limit desired for proper extraction. In
fact, by having fresh brewing water constantly infusing the grind and moving
extracted water out fast, extraction efficiency is improved.
That would be a true "drip" mentality but for one thing -- you do it with
the grind immersed.
But I digress.
:-)
On 8/15/06, kofi  wrote:
<Snip>
-- 
Scott

19) From: kofi
I was referring to faster than the other french press experiment I'd done
earlier. It's all relative. Previously I had a great cup from a 32 oz press
even though it took about 1 minute to get the plunger (what's the right
wterm..) down versus <10 seconds normally.
On the 10oz, which we often use after lunch, I did everything as normal
except replaced the mesh with the polyester felt, the version with no shiny
side. The plunge took about 25 seconds as compared to about 5 secomds but
the cup was way over-extracted. There may have been other factors at work. I
hesitate to draw any conclusion from a sample of one.
Anyway it wasn't faster than pourover, which I can't compare, as I haven't
tried. Sorry for the confusion.
On 8/15/06, Scott Marquardt  wrote:
<Snip>


HomeRoast Digest