I love this explanation, it makes it more accessible for English speakers. Cafec explains it in a way where the language used causes misinterpretation or doubt in the method. Most people deem this method only for darker or gassy coffee. You've done a great job with your videos and respect your dedication to research.🎉
Yeah, especially their video for light roast... For some reason it's a totally different approach which doesn't make sense. I doubt they know how to use real osmotic and understand it)
@@ViacheslavDruzhynin I do like their roast specific filters to mimic a more restrictive brewer like a Kalita or Melita. I also believe the Chemex is the one brewer that gets a lot of flack for stalling would benefit greatly from OsF
I've tried osmotic flow in Chemex, but the filter is too slow and it'll take time anyway. And overall, it's the brewer which I like to use to enjoy the view of the flow from the side. Pour > enjoy the view > pour > enjoy the view)
@@ViacheslavDruzhynin Fewer pours to avoid compacting the bed, while not putting in too much water at once. Avoiding the two issues, clogging and collapsing the filter. I had a method that folded the filter differently to avoid the second issue.
Thanks again for share your knowledges. Today is the first time that i can make a decent filter coffee with an espresso roast. I can feel some oranges and caramels but when cools down, seems to appear some nuts notes. That last dont really like at all but i think that i can fix it if i cut the last drops before to get 3:00 minutes. Maybe 2:30? Im a little lost but i can try it
I would make the grind size bigger. Or make it bigger and brew with the lower ratio (less water). But usually it's the coffee itself if there is nuts. I would try some African coffee (Rwanda, Ethiopia, Uganda), Peru... They usually don't have nuts and the taste is pretty clean. And Natural processed Kenya (though it's pretty rare)
1:22 It's not that floating grounds are "not involved in the brewing" and I don't think anyone thinks that. Even if you had 100% of the grounds floating in something like a french press, the water would still turn into coffee. Many people will say that having floating grounds leads to an uneven or incomplete extraction, though. In a lot of your shots, the grounds on top are wet/moist, yes, but clearly do not have nearly as much contact with water as the deeper layers where water directly flows through. You could do a simple experiment: do a normal pour-over (going in circles and wetting all grounds evenly). Then repeat with the same amount of grounds and water but using your method. Is the resulting TDS the same? If you cannot measure TDS then you could do immersion brews with the spent grounds with lots of water and compare the resulting colors. A darker brown would suggest that there were more solubles left in the grounds, in other words, the initial extraction was uneven or more incomplete. You could also just scoop off a few grams of grounds on the top after the brew and repeat the experiment just with those top grounds. And then scoop out a few grams of grounds from the middle (the grounds that were directly in the water flow) and repeat the same experiment.
It's better to just try it ;) I've compared it with the regular recipes quite a few times within 2 years. Even sceptics changed their mind after trying
@@ViacheslavDruzhynin Your response completely evades my point. I wasn't discussing preference. The next guy might like his special recipe using instant coffee with honey - so what? In this video you're not discussing preference either. You're trying to explain how you think your technique works physically. I challenge the claim that the moist grounds riding on top of foam and other grounds are evenly let alone as thoroughly extracted as the grounds in the middle where you pour your water. I'm saying this in a completely non-judgemental way: it looks like partial/uneven/incomplete extraction. I explained how you could verify this quite easily. I don't do percolation brews at all.
Just in case, I served it to the Q-graders. They know a little bit about how coffee should taste like ;) As for the tests - I've measured the extraction. I did side by side comparison. Basically, when I brew the cup using osmotic VS other recipe - I get almost the same extraction and flavor. But it's way easier to adjust (for me) the recipe using the Osmotic. Coffee at a top "shares" the dissolved solids with the liquid which is lower. Because that's how the whole "unit" balances itself. That's why it's important to not have a huge flow rate, because water will not be able to do a proper and even extraction so quickly. And in such case it'll be uneven. That's why I have a pulses phase, to have a predictable and balanced extraction. I wanted to find out, what will happen if I'll finish the brewing by pouring the spiral towards the end - coffee was terrible, burnt notes. You can try it both ways too. It just takes the easy to dissolve compounds first... and the rest isn't needed that much in a cup in terms of the pleasant flavor. But you can extract everything by just doing the pulses, without switching to constant pour.
@@ViacheslavDruzhynin Thank you. So the answer is yes, this technique results in deliberate partial extraction. The top grounds will primarily contribute only easily soluble compounds. This also explains the difference in taste. I do not see how there is any "balancing" going on. The water spreads through the grounds, even horizontally (because as water drains coffee grounds will soak up some water again), which means even upper layers at the edge will somewhat contribute to extraction - just like a thick layer of floating grounds in a french press would. I wouldn't call this extraction even because even means _all_ grounds are extracted identically but I understand what you're trying to say. It is "even" in the sense that the extraction is under your control and is not random e.g. due to channels forming randomly. Personally, I basically do the opposite using immersion techniques because it ensures most even extraction for all grounds and also extracts all solubles (fast & slow) much more evenly (even way more than regular pour over methods). I really prefer the resulting taste. I really dislike the sweet/sour notes commonly found in low/partially/quickly extracted coffee.
For some coffee it's better to control the extraction. And I personally prefer to have a lower extraction. I'll upload episode about why this is a thing. Immersion is great, but I like the diversity. In terms of sour - it'll not be sour. You can fine tune it with the temperature. Basically, you control the body (how heavy you want it) and complexity with the temperature. As for the extraction, if you want it to be higher, you can increase the pulses phase. But it's mostly not needed. Cup never tasted overextracted / bitter / sour. It's always balanced in terms of flavor, just with the different amount of intensity etc. So that's why I think (and not only because of this, but other tests) that it works as described in the video or very close to it. Again, add a drop of water to a concentrated coffee - what will happen? It'll have the same concentration as the other coffee, diluting the overall concentration.
![fellow fellow - Proud [OFFICIAL MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/9uZF7BlUQPE/mqdefault.jpg)
![โจทย์โหดเหมือนโกรธเป็ดถีบ [อะไรอยู่บนหัวกูวะ ... EP.4]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Dqlb7EZ9PGk/mqdefault.jpg)
Don't forget to subscribe and like the video!)
I love this explanation, it makes it more accessible for English speakers. Cafec explains it in a way where the language used causes misinterpretation or doubt in the method. Most people deem this method only for darker or gassy coffee. You've done a great job with your videos and respect your dedication to research.🎉
Yeah, especially their video for light roast... For some reason it's a totally different approach which doesn't make sense. I doubt they know how to use real osmotic and understand it)
@@ViacheslavDruzhynin I do like their roast specific filters to mimic a more restrictive brewer like a Kalita or Melita. I also believe the Chemex is the one brewer that gets a lot of flack for stalling would benefit greatly from OsF
I've also spent some time on Chemex recipe as well. No stalling) th-cam.com/video/VHUXeeTt4xc/w-d-xo.html
I've tried osmotic flow in Chemex, but the filter is too slow and it'll take time anyway. And overall, it's the brewer which I like to use to enjoy the view of the flow from the side. Pour > enjoy the view > pour > enjoy the view)
@@ViacheslavDruzhynin Fewer pours to avoid compacting the bed, while not putting in too much water at once. Avoiding the two issues, clogging and collapsing the filter. I had a method that folded the filter differently to avoid the second issue.
Thanks again for share your knowledges. Today is the first time that i can make a decent filter coffee with an espresso roast. I can feel some oranges and caramels but when cools down, seems to appear some nuts notes. That last dont really like at all but i think that i can fix it if i cut the last drops before to get 3:00 minutes. Maybe 2:30? Im a little lost but i can try it
I would make the grind size bigger. Or make it bigger and brew with the lower ratio (less water). But usually it's the coffee itself if there is nuts. I would try some African coffee (Rwanda, Ethiopia, Uganda), Peru... They usually don't have nuts and the taste is pretty clean. And Natural processed Kenya (though it's pretty rare)
1:22 It's not that floating grounds are "not involved in the brewing" and I don't think anyone thinks that. Even if you had 100% of the grounds floating in something like a french press, the water would still turn into coffee. Many people will say that having floating grounds leads to an uneven or incomplete extraction, though.
In a lot of your shots, the grounds on top are wet/moist, yes, but clearly do not have nearly as much contact with water as the deeper layers where water directly flows through.
You could do a simple experiment: do a normal pour-over (going in circles and wetting all grounds evenly). Then repeat with the same amount of grounds and water but using your method.
Is the resulting TDS the same?
If you cannot measure TDS then you could do immersion brews with the spent grounds with lots of water and compare the resulting colors. A darker brown would suggest that there were more solubles left in the grounds, in other words, the initial extraction was uneven or more incomplete.
You could also just scoop off a few grams of grounds on the top after the brew and repeat the experiment just with those top grounds.
And then scoop out a few grams of grounds from the middle (the grounds that were directly in the water flow) and repeat the same experiment.
It's better to just try it ;) I've compared it with the regular recipes quite a few times within 2 years. Even sceptics changed their mind after trying
@@ViacheslavDruzhynin Your response completely evades my point.
I wasn't discussing preference. The next guy might like his special recipe using instant coffee with honey - so what?
In this video you're not discussing preference either. You're trying to explain how you think your technique works physically.
I challenge the claim that the moist grounds riding on top of foam and other grounds are evenly let alone as thoroughly extracted as the grounds in the middle where you pour your water.
I'm saying this in a completely non-judgemental way: it looks like partial/uneven/incomplete extraction.
I explained how you could verify this quite easily. I don't do percolation brews at all.
Just in case, I served it to the Q-graders. They know a little bit about how coffee should taste like ;)
As for the tests - I've measured the extraction. I did side by side comparison. Basically, when I brew the cup using osmotic VS other recipe - I get almost the same extraction and flavor. But it's way easier to adjust (for me) the recipe using the Osmotic.
Coffee at a top "shares" the dissolved solids with the liquid which is lower. Because that's how the whole "unit" balances itself. That's why it's important to not have a huge flow rate, because water will not be able to do a proper and even extraction so quickly. And in such case it'll be uneven. That's why I have a pulses phase, to have a predictable and balanced extraction.
I wanted to find out, what will happen if I'll finish the brewing by pouring the spiral towards the end - coffee was terrible, burnt notes. You can try it both ways too.
It just takes the easy to dissolve compounds first... and the rest isn't needed that much in a cup in terms of the pleasant flavor. But you can extract everything by just doing the pulses, without switching to constant pour.
@@ViacheslavDruzhynin Thank you.
So the answer is yes, this technique results in deliberate partial extraction. The top grounds will primarily contribute only easily soluble compounds. This also explains the difference in taste.
I do not see how there is any "balancing" going on. The water spreads through the grounds, even horizontally (because as water drains coffee grounds will soak up some water again), which means even upper layers at the edge will somewhat contribute to extraction - just like a thick layer of floating grounds in a french press would.
I wouldn't call this extraction even because even means _all_ grounds are extracted identically but I understand what you're trying to say. It is "even" in the sense that the extraction is under your control and is not random e.g. due to channels forming randomly.
Personally, I basically do the opposite using immersion techniques because it ensures most even extraction for all grounds and also extracts all solubles (fast & slow) much more evenly (even way more than regular pour over methods). I really prefer the resulting taste. I really dislike the sweet/sour notes commonly found in low/partially/quickly extracted coffee.
For some coffee it's better to control the extraction. And I personally prefer to have a lower extraction. I'll upload episode about why this is a thing. Immersion is great, but I like the diversity. In terms of sour - it'll not be sour. You can fine tune it with the temperature. Basically, you control the body (how heavy you want it) and complexity with the temperature. As for the extraction, if you want it to be higher, you can increase the pulses phase. But it's mostly not needed.
Cup never tasted overextracted / bitter / sour. It's always balanced in terms of flavor, just with the different amount of intensity etc. So that's why I think (and not only because of this, but other tests) that it works as described in the video or very close to it. Again, add a drop of water to a concentrated coffee - what will happen? It'll have the same concentration as the other coffee, diluting the overall concentration.