From: "Ed Needham" 
<Snip>
already
<Snip>
From Angelo- - - -
<Snip>
of
<Snip>
were
<Snip>
Ciao,
<Snip>
    Responding to Ed.  The gun does agitate.  However, there are size
limits.  A variable speed, variable temp heat gun allows you to reduce the
heat while keeping the blower on max, but remember, heat guns are designed
to melt paint and you don't want it too close. Bottom line, I don't think
the gun alone will take care of agitating unless you manufacture something
on the order of the Sivitz gun--and even he, as I recall, only accommodates
30 grams of beans.
    You also address the "keep the beans in the bowl" issue.  It's also a
consideration for doing larger batches.   I'd guess that my small batches
get twice the BTUs from the gun than they get from below.  Possibly, at some
batch-size point (maybe around 6-8 oz), the transmission of heat will have
to come more from below, with the gun "assisting."  Could produce a better
roast.
    But to get to the point.  A dull one, perhaps, but a point.  The
response to Dog Bowl Heat Gun has been like a roaster's Rorschach, and I
feel obliged to share with you my analyses.  For Heat Gun applications,
there are Woks and Wonks. No one is pure but most of us lean toward being
one of those two types.  I am more of a Wok.  If Henry David Thoreau were a
roaster, he'd be a Wok.  Put some beans in an old paint can and focus the
sun's rays through the bottom of a Pepsi bottle.  Then watch those little
guys toast until the sun sets.  Woks drink coffee about as fast as they can
produce it.  If Bill Gates were a roaster, he'd be a Wonk. His apparatus
would read the bean DNA, download the correct profile, and roast the perfect
batch.  When it worked.  Wonks drink lots of Pepsi in order to get enough
fluids and caffeine in their systems until their coffee contraptions are
back on line.  Now, there are some people who are so torn that they can't
decide who they are.  They cover the range of Wok to Wonk, and, like Ed,
they should be treated gently.
    Responding to Angelo.  Can't say I exactly followed Angelo's
suggestions, but anyone who references two machines with "Crazy" in their
name has got to be taken seriously.
Ciao,
Martin

On Thu, 8 May 2003 10:18:11 -0700, Martin Lipton wrote:
<Snip>
he'd invite Stephan Diedrich over to roast at his house for a few weeks
and then kick him out. A month later Bill would be selling a roaster
that looked suspiciously like Mr. Diedrich's with the addition of a
touch screen control panel. It would run Windows CE (Coffee Edition)
and claim to be plug & roast but would usually blue-screen about
halfway through first crack. Despite these shortcomings, an intense
marketing effort combined with a FUD campaign aimed at Diedrich would
quickly allow Bill to exert nearly complete control over the home
roaster market. There would be some discontent amongst users when they
realized that the EULA (End User License Agreement) only allowed them
to roast Vietnamese robusta but coffee journalists would write glowing
reviews of the wonderful flavors this bean produced and how they were
happy that they finally saw the light and gave up that inferior arabica
that's so much harder to grow.
John Blumel

You are correct in what you say would happen in a month, but you forgot
the part about how there would be new releases each and every month,
culminating in a year or two later, when Bill would finally have gotten
it right and was selling machines that roasted coffee twice as well as
was possible in a Diedrich for 1/10 the cost. (If not thrown in free
with a purchase of Windows XP).
-- Rick

On Thu, 8 May 2003 12:57:13 -0700, Rick Farris wrote:
<Snip>
Maybe you could actually use Windows XP to roast your coffee. What
temperature does a Xeon processor run at and what's the batch capacity?
Jim Schulman probably knows this...
John Blumel

What's Up?!  As soon as I mention Bill Gates, everybody forgets about Henry.
"If Henry David Thoreau were a roaster, he'd be a Wok."  Skipped right over
it, didn't you?  Won't someone even attack him?  No respect.
But seriously folks . . .
    I drew the archetypes because I recognize----in reading on the List and
in myself---- the pull toward both poles. I think that John Roberts got to
or near the point with,
"those who could wonk but choose to wok. . .At the moment I'm looking to
reduce rather than increase the number of variables"  John adds, "in my
coffee."  I'd add, "in my life."  Again, I'm amused at myself as much as
anyone else in the aftermath of my "stupid dog bowl trick."  On the one
hand, I am delighted with the wokkishness of stepping outside, turning on
the barby, and doing a roast that is going to produce the penultimate cup
(one day when I know what I'm doing). That simple.  On the other hand, I
wake up at night thinking that I could attach a long handle to the bowl, and
put a screen over the top, and that would allow me to shake as much as I
want and not lose beans over the side.  I won't even get into the the temp
measuring schemes that have occurred to me. (should I mention that last
night I ordered a cast iron wok from Louisana because I figure if . . . .
..uh oh)
Martin

Martin Lipton wrote:
<Snip>
I thought that the new lipped bowl that you found took care of that ;-)
<Snip>

Sniff...
I think I've got a little tear in my eye.
Ed Needham, 
a 'woink' for sure
To Absurdity and Beyond!http://www.homeroaster.com
ed
****************************************
**********************************************