In all seriousness, people tend to have a routine around coffee, but I think the Aeropress showed that people will change if the result is meaningfully better.
But, yuck, who on earth wants to drink actual espresso at room temperature?
"You got your cold brew, your Japanese iced coffee, your iced americano. Then there's your mazagran, that's coffee with lemon juice, real refreshing. Your espresso tonic. Your iced latte, iced cappuccino, iced macchiato. You got your iced mocha, your frappuccino, your Greek frappé. Vietnamese iced coffee with the condensed milk dripping down real slow. Affogato, that's espresso poured right over ice cream. That's... that's about it."
I think almost everything tastes better at room-ish temperature.
(Some things need to be colder or hotter to keep their texture, but I can't think of anything that _tastes_ better outside of the 16~25°C range)
Even though I don't doubt your claim that some particles travel easier at higher degrees I suspect the difference is too small to notice before the rise in temperature becomes distracting to _me_.
Extract with sound waves is an interesting idea, but dont romanticize demand that doesnt exist, it wrecks credibility, literally in the first sentence of the article
“Saving up to 75% of energy by not heating the water is a minor benefit for home users or small coffee shops. But for companies making ready-to-drink coffee products at industrial scale…”
The instant and dried coffee market is $35B-$50B. Cold Brew another $3B-$4B.
I am going to switch over to a bunch of DC tower fans which claim to cut energy usage substantially. I wish more appliances would just switch to DC motors.
California energy prices are among the highest anywhere, so anything you can do to cut usage will have a bigger payoff there, and justify some investment to achieve it.
If you turn off all of your AC consuming devices is your meter still registering usage?
Cutting costs does make sense for this type of product, but is it enough to keep up with declining demand?
For home use I'm much more interested in being able to add it to cold drinks and desserts.
For domestic use, in the home of somebody whose coffee snobbery is dialled to 11, I need far more information.
What beans were they using, freshness, etc? (Edit: Campos coffee… not on my shopping list that’s for sure…)
How did they control for extraction method differences to maximise output quality for all brew methods? (Edit: TDS and EY)
Were the “regular” coffee drinkers regular consumers of espresso?
Most importantly, how long until Hoffman does a deep dive and much will it cost so I can allocate budget for yet another coffee making device?
I felt a great disturbance in Italy, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.
Espresso does not have milk.
Macchiato, is an espresso based drink with milk.
Edit: it's bad form to change your message after-the-fact to remove the thing that was quoted.
Edited to remove because the paper clarifies that it’s black coffee. But missed the (edit- found the clarification). Was quoted whilst in the process of fixing!
However, I'm going through the research paper, and am a bit skeptical of the energy savings angle, especially considering the many variables with espresso machine in terms of how they heat and brew (single vs dual boilers, heat exchangers vs dippers, spring lever machines vs pump driven). I'm weary of how they are doing a baseline comparison here, especially because the paper states that the comparison was done between a modified Ascaso machine (with the ultrasound gizmo) vs an entirely different machine (Sanremo Cube); and also that they swapped the Ascaso machine's original brew pump and put in a seemingly expensive, but more efficient "positive displacement magnetic gear pump". They still use the pump to drive about 11 bar of pressure during brewing with it run on some sort of interval schedule throughout the 3 minute cycle. They did factor out the initial heat up times which I guess makes sense.
However, another thing (on top of the obvious "room temperature espresso" problem) is that you'd still need steam / heat to produce milk based drinks (relevant for both home and especially cafes). Depending on the machine (including the Sanremo Cube they tested with) some of the "idle energy" usage is to support on demand steam generation. This doesn't seem to have been factored into their energy model which is pretty sketchy.
For industrial processes it probably doesn't matter - look at how nescafe is manufactured.
- The taste is apparently the same "There were no significant differences in aroma, flavour, bitterness or overall liking."
- That ultrasonic horn looks a lot smaller than both a modern espresso machine or a hand-cranked model like a Flair/Rok.
In any case, I think there are frauds in all ranks of universities. I've seen people in CMU steal someone else's research idea or even a whole paper and the university doesn't punish the professors who did this. It's the PhD students whose work and life gets destroyed by such things.
Instead of heating water to extract coffee and then latter cooling it to freeze dry and make instant coffee you keep the whole process at low temperatures, saving lots of power.
Industry appear to have been doing this for years
hallway_monitor•1h ago
hylaride•1h ago
Coffee usually goes in two directions. Under-extracted (sour) or over-extracted (bitter). Things that will affect the extraction are temperature (hotter usually means more extraction), time (longer = more), grind size (more surface area in smaller grinds = more), pressure (higher = more) etc. Roast levels also matter.
criddell•23m ago
The best coffee that I've drank for the past five years have all been pour overs (my favorite was at a place called The Library in Toronto). I sometimes wonder if all the time, effort, and money I've dumped into espresso has been a huge mistake and maybe I should just buy a pour over setup...
gf263•3m ago
Also shoutout the library. Great shop