The gauge is, at best, merely an indicator, accurate mainly with itself. i.e. when you find the perfect shot, the gauge might be almost anywhere on the scale - and the next good shot will be around the same. Mine does best with pressure a little above the top of the colour segments.
Sounds like you're getting in the range. You could try 1 step finer and tamp a lot lighter than the 15kg or so and see how that goes. I have had blissful coffees pour in 45secs and even 1 or 2 that took maybe 60secs with no sign of blonding and tasted great. Again the time of 60ml in 25secs is just an indicator - depends on the bean, the grind, the machine and your tamping.
Something to remember - most grinders adjust best when either empty of beans or when running. It confused the hell out of me for a while as I would make an adjustment and either see no change or even have it go the wrong way. One good thing about an EM0480 grinder is the switch at the side - you can flick it up and the grinder runs while you use both hands to adjust. It's a bit awkward with the EM0450/440 to try to press the button and still adjust things. (not sure which grinder you have)
I usually just empty it, clean any stuck beans from the grind surfaces and make the adjustment - experience usually means I get it right within one or at most two adjustments, but it's a bit of a piss off to empty, adjust, fill, grind, empty, adjust etc. Makes for fast learning.
I've also found the SB baskets seem to work better with the tamped coffee at least 4mm down. With both the 6910 version and the 7000 version, that sits the ground weight at about 15g - 16g. (my scales only do gram accuracy)
Post copied from another thread in its entirety but only the following paragraph relates to this new thread topic.
A word of warning - one of the worst things to microwave is milk. MW works by breaking apart molecules to release heat and some milk byproducts are toxic. Also, the reason why there's a 'best' temp for frothing milk is to avoid getting the milk to where it begins to break down. The steamer on the 7000 is pretty good, so it isn't really much of a chore to use.
Last edited by Javaphile; 19th June 2014 at 11:01 AM. Reason: Off topic discussion moved
Free amino acid concentrations in milk: effects ... [Amino Acids. 1998] - PubMed - NCBI which states:
"Microwave effects on free amino acid concentrations in milk versus a water bath heating were investigated in view of their importance for infant growth. Concentrations of few amino acids, such as aspartate, serine or lysine, are unchanged whatever the way and the temperature of heating. In contrast, tryptophan concentrations decreased similarly whatever the way of heating (110 +/- 3 mumol/l before heating vs 84 +/- 4 mumol/l after 30 degrees C microwave heating, p < 0.05). On the contrary, concentrations of glutamate and glycine increased more after water bath heating at 90 degrees C (325 +/- 4 and 101 +/- 1 mumol/1, respectively) than after microwave heating (312 +/- 4 and 95 +/- 1 mumol/l, respectively, p < 0.05) suggesting milk proteolysis. Moreover, the accumulation of ammonia observed at 90 degrees C with the water bath together with increase Glu levels might reflect a degradation of glutamine. An ornithine enrichment, more evident with microwave heating, was shown and could be of interest as it is a polyamine precursor. Also, considering few variations of free amino acid concentrations and the time saved, microwave heating appears to be an appropriate method to heat milk."
Science is meant to be sceptical, and that actually includes, of science. Modern versions of science are political and funding controlled by producing expected results. It's easy to find many examples of this all around us.
Any claim of 'absolute' anything is not supported by the tenets of science (except possibly 'absolute zero' ) and the saturation levels of surety we see about all kinds of subject shows how the media has driven science to the level of being the new 'opiate of the masses.'Personally I prefer not to drink the Kool-aid even if it IS offered by a white coat.
The history of microwave use has quite a few martyrs along the path and there has been little real testing of effects. Anyone interested in learning more than the panaceas offered by 'Authority' can trace the history of MW since it was first used. Along the way are rather startling road signs such as how the US decided on what is a safe level, why US safe levels are more than 10x that of USSR/Russia (a country not renowned for putting safety first, why the US embassy in Moscow was such a health risk during the 60's and much more.
MW DOES break apart molecules as they vibrate so rapidly bonds get broken, and proteins and aminos are not good things to break apart then ingest. Milk these days causes many issues with health, including an alarming rise in lactose intolerance - one has to question why the milk we get now is so much worse for us than what they were getting in the 50's and 60's - seems strange that making it 'better' for us would cause so many more people to become sick... doncha think.
So for those wanting to drink the kool-aid and not do real science by being sceptical of claims and checking for themselves, feel free to keep microwaving your food. Those who prefer to perhaps avoid some of the ever-increasing 'syndromes', 'disorders' and deficiencies might like to do some reading for themselves.
Heating milk on a gas stove can (and does) break apart molecules too.
Science is about investigation, and generating models of reality, to improve our ability to "understand" the complex behaviour of everything.
My day job is, in essence, using models to design or troubleshoot process facilities, and one of my favourite sayings is "all models are wrong, but some are useful" - the trick is understanding the limitations of the model you are applying.
Henpicking "facts" and considering only half of the problem at hand generally does not lead to a useful model
@MrJack - I may have worded my post better, but the content is still valid. There is a significant difference between heating milk molecules on a stove or with steam and subjecting it to 2.45 billion vibrations per second - these vibrations cause significant direct damage to molecules and also deformation of nearby molecules due to friction and impact.
To quote a 1989 report in Lancet:
"Microwaving baby formulas converted certain trans-amino acids into their synthetic cis-isomers. Synthetic isomers, whether cis-amino acids or trans-fatty acids, are not biologically active. Further, one of the amino acids, L-proline, was converted to its d-isomer, which is known to be neurotoxic (poisonous to the nervous system) and nephrotoxic (poisonous to the kidneys). It's bad enough that many babies are not nursed, but now they are given fake milk (baby formula) made even more toxic via microwaving."
Also, a comparative study of conventional and MW foods found:One short-term study found significant and disturbing changes in the blood of individuals consuming microwaved milk and vegetables. Eight volunteers ate various combinations of the same foods cooked different ways. All foods that were processed through the microwave ovens caused changes in the blood of the volunteers. Hemoglobin levels decreased and over all white cell levels and cholesterol levels increased. Lymphocytes decreased.Luminescent (light-emitting) bacteria were employed to detect energetic changes in the blood. Significant increases were found in the luminescence of these bacteria when exposed to blood serum obtained after the consumption of microwaved food."
Also, from Switzerland,And there is much more out there available to read as well as better detail on the ones I show here. It's not that difficult to find and you can get lots of clues by carefully reading the mainstream reports - often the reporters copy across words that indicate exactly where the original scientists were trying to cover themselves against later reactions.In 1991, he [Hertel] and a Lausanne university professor published a research paper indicating that food cooked in microwave ovens could pose a greater risk to health than food cooked by conventional means. An article also appeared in issue 19 of the Journal Franz Weber in which it was stated that the consumption of food cooked in microwave ovens had cancerous effects on the blood. The research paper itself followed the article.
These are not 'alternative world' studies but rigorous science done by established professionals. Strangely you have to search for them, when one would think the implications would bring banner headlines. There are vested interests in only doing research that supports the paradigm (and money-making) of the corporations - when contrary results arise, pressure is used to prevent publication, to dilute the message and even to attack the experimenters.
So I stand by what I wrote, even if 'how they work' might not be semantically correct. Microwaving milk is NOT a good thing to do if you value your health.
Drinking 8-10 cups of water that's been captured from the ground where animals and birds live, stored, pumped re-cycled, treated, run though asbestos, copper, steel pipes, and boiled in brass/ copper/ stainless steel, then forced through a smashed up, roasted bean to extract somewhere between 100-200mg of a nasty stimulant probably isn't that good for us either..
Yeah, I don't need filtering.
Fresh Tasmanian Rainwater staright from the sky... Filtered through Gumleaves and a dead possum in the guttering...
So I take it you don't drink beer or cook on the BBQ either JM?
You suggest that microwave heating is the result of exothermic chemical reaction (or rather, implied it by suggesting it is the result of breaking chemical bonds)
Heating induced by exciting chemical bonds without breaking them (which, as I recall, is the primary mode of heating in a domestic microwave).
I believe it is a fundamental difference, not a semantic one.
Anyway, I'm not arguing that the studies and finding you have quoted are invalid (as I haven't read it), but what you've stated as fact, isn't, and the language you are using reads (to those who have some knowledge of the subject matter, that is) less like a scientific explanation, and more like marketing sensationalism.
Deformation of molecules through friction and impact? And?
Any increase in temperature will increase the rate of collisions between molecules (which is part of the reason reaction rates increase at higher temperatures). Friction doesn't really even have meaning at that scale.
Molecules (particularly complex organic molecules like in milk) are not a fixed material object. They vibrate, and stretch, and waggle, and twist, and move, and bump into each other, and change shape (I.e. deform) and even change chemical structure, constantly.
So, it's not some terrible thing that a microwave subjects them to, it's quite normal and will be happening in your milk jug too!
I'll take my kool-aid neat, and in a in a test tube. Thanks
Mr Jack. This is a coffee forum. Not a place for you to sprout your knowledge in a condescending manor.
I to have a science degree and work in the food industry. If someone wants to believe that there is some issues with microwaved food then all good.
By the way after reading what JM has posted I can't see anywhere he tried to say the heating is caused by an exothermic chemical reaction. So how about you put away your dictionary and start posting something that is worthwhile.
Breaking apart molecules to release heat is almost the definition of an exothermic chemical reaction.MW works by breaking apart molecules to release heat and some milk byproducts are toxic.
I was not intending to be condescending, but was responding to what I found a questionable explanation, based on my own understanding (no dictionary was harmed in this discussion).
In my experience simply saying "that's incorrect", without backing it up, tends to result in more "open your eyes, don't drink the kool-aide" type responses, which doesn't really benefit anyone (and is extremely frustrating).
It sure as hell wasn't 'designed' to drink the stuff that comes out of the taps in most places, and those with rain water sources that aren't close to towns and cities should consider themselves VERY lucky, although many of them would still be consuming the detritus of civilisation.
Cleaning crap out of what you consume is nowhere near 'overly protective' but rather, basic commonsense. Kool-aiders might like to believe the pacifying drool in the meida but truth is, our environment has never been as bad for us as it is now, and I am talking personal environment here, not espousing greenie propaganda.
@MrJack -Well you cleaned up what he actually said, but you're right, which is why it got the response I gave. As shown, turns out the 'absolute rubbish' was the comment about it being absolute rubbish. (as demonstrated by the results of a 5 minute search to confirm what I was saying)In my experience simply saying "that's incorrect", without backing it up, tends to result in more "open your eyes, don't drink the kool-aide" type responses, which doesn't really benefit anyone (and is extremely frustrating).
As Above, if you like to drink the kool-aid, feel free to do so. Personally I prefer to reduce the poisons I put in my body as much as possible. Breaking apart proteins and aminos into random chunks of active materials seems to me to be a silly thing to blithely dismiss as harmless when the evidence says it isn't.
So... back to Grind/Dose/Tamp issues.
Man oh man! You sure didn't do yourself, or your credibility, much good with that one. I will follow up tomorrow after a decent sleep.
So will we do sex, politics or religion now?
... and Joe Hockey taxed the working girl to help subsidize the vicar's private all girls school (the one Tony Abbott's daughters used to attend)
No... the human body is NOT meant to "...ONLY consume pure water." When a dehydrated person is brought into hospital, what is he or she given? Pure water or a saline water solution? When our eyes are dry, what does the medical community think we should use as eye drops? Pure water or a saline water solution? In both cases the answer is: a saline water solution.
If we were to take this another level I might challenge you to a 7 day water only fast, where you take only pure water and I rely on a saline/mineral/heavy metal water solution. After 7 days I would be a little thinner but very much alive. You would have suffered along the way as your muscles and your brain functions both slowly shut down and by day 7 you would most likely be dead.
Yes... there are nasties in the water that we drink and if we took a handful of pure magnesium or zinc or salt, we too would probably die as well. But our bodies are capable of ingesting a whole bunch of crap, taking out the nutrients required for a fully functioning life, and then discarding 99.99999% of the nasties that we do not need. Our liver and kidneys, our bladder and bowels, our sweat and oil glands are all pretty good at what they do and exist because we are supposed to take in nutrient rich (i.e. not pure) water and foods. It has always been thus so get used to it and wake up and smell the coffee already... so to speak.
You state that pure water can still be found in some country areas where conveniently placed and very benevolent mountains magically block any pollution from tainting those pristine waters. On which planet does this occur cuz it certainly does not happen here on planet earth. Not now... not ever! I happen to be Canadian and Canada boasts the world's largest supply of "fresh" water... and we have a lot of mountains too but there is not a single river, stream or lake I would drink untreated water from unless I was dying of thirst. Ask Bear Grylls... while a sip or two in a pinch might do, you would still be at grave risk of picking up something such as giardia, if not worse. "Fresh" water is always tainted by something. The water flows over various minerals and organic matter. There is always run-off of some kind flowing in there... including the waste matter of numerous animals... all the way from micro-organisms to fish to mammals. And, what's more, this very un-pure water pre-dates mankind by a few million, if not billion, years. Those nasty volcanoes spewing ash, those nasty dinosaur defecations, those naturally occurring evils such as uranium, arsenic and lead were crapping all over our water table way before we got here!
Last edited by Vinitasse; 18th June 2014 at 03:52 PM.
I guess what I'm trying to say is... lighten up! Your constant worrying and paranoia about the things you ingest is probably causing you more stress, and ultimately doing more damage to your overall health and potential life span than any amount of tap water ever could.
Besides... coffee made with "tainted" mineralized water simply tastes better
I personally don't care if you fear microwaves or not, but just to set it straight a couple of the articles mentioned before were covered by Dr. Carl here
I actually tried to get the first one in from the lancet (non peer revued letter so doesn't count for anything anyway). Unfortunately the 2nd page of the pdf didn't open up... conspiracy? hmmm
Anyway all I could get was that they compared heating in a microwave for 10 minutes vs a 80 degree water bath for the same time, which sounds a bit flawed to me.
Just tried it, the microwave burst into flames seriously though why would you do it?
Correct me if I'm wrong, I thought the topic title was
Problem with EM7000 - Grind, tamp or other? seems to have drifted a little.
Sometimes people get carried away in trying to disprove someone and they make stupid statements. You might well try to live on saline water - in very short time you will not be feeling well - that's why people lost at sea are advised strongly against drinking sea water.
Fact is, your body IS adapted to drinking water... just water... without additives or even your preferred heavy metals. While minerals and supplements might be required to alleviate some kind of abnormal situation brought on by modern life, your body has many thousands of years living elsewise. To think the modern state is somehow normal simply displays another kool-aid drinker. I'm betting you believe McDonalds is good food as well?
As for your ridiculous other rants going on, you might have missed the last 60 years or so of medical evidence that many of the contaminants in our daily lives are NOT dealt with by the body and accumulate in the system.
Also you seem to be ranting on about pure water as if at some point I have insisted RO water is the only source, whereas the point I was making had to do with making pure the contaminated supply most of the planet has to deal with.
And yes, the basics of how the climate works will provide that mountains can block pollution - that comes from things like rain shadow, and snow. That's why when people want to measure things like pollution they first get a baseline out in the mountains. I grew up in a town that drank untreated water. Couple of coarse filters and a settling dam was it. You have had too much kool-aid if you rely on Bear Grylls to provide your science.
Or Canada is far worse than your PR lets on...
So you don't subscribe to the findings contained in the WHO's study on the effects of drinking demineralised water?
And just so you know, a saline solution is typically 9g/l of NaCl while seawater hovers around 35g/l... a wee bit different don't you think?
And now your magic mountains apparently also have even more magical pollution trapping snow that never melts as well? Because, of course, if it did melt... all those trapped pollutants would then be released into that "pure" water table on the other side of the mountain.
In any event... you live happily on your planet and I'll stay here on planet earth
Best of luck with your alternate reality
If someone claims to base their decisions on Science and/or tries to use Science to backup a claim/justify a stance it behooves them to use their terminology correctly least they look the Koo-laid drinker/uneducated lout.
Pure water/ice is a collection of H2O molecules and nothing else. Any other usage of the phrase 'pure water/ice' is meaningless unless a specific definition is given. Nowhere on the surface or sub-surface of this planet does pure water/ice exist except that which has been made by Man. Every body of water and field of ice on this planet has molecules other then H2O in it and always has. None of these bodies are or ever have been comprised of pure water/ice. Neither Homo Sapiens nor their ancestors evolved drinking pure water. These are scientific facts. Period. Full stop.
Java "Potable != Pure" phile
Toys! I must have new toys!!!
What they said.
Too many posts to like in this thread.
The trouble with constructing a model on the basis of an invalid assumption is that, no matter how well conceived and thorough the model is, it will never be useful.
Been sitting on the sidelines eating popcorn, very entertaining thread.
Seems to me most of what's been written re the dangers of microwaving milk relate to uneven heating of milk/babies bottles in microwaves, along with the risk of severe burns, other than this the jury is still out on other claims.
Unless of course you are a supporter of this quack The Hidden Hazards Of Microwave Cooking he obviously has enough people sucked in to make a very comfortable living from his brand of fear mongering, remembering of course he is based in the US, which obviously gives him a head start.
Guess the important thing to keep in mind is that somewhere between opposing radical views lies the truth.
The problem is that anyone can put anything on the internet and make it look fair dinkum.
It is important to look at the origin before believing what you see on the net as there is a lot of questionable junk there.
I gave up on the contemplation of senseless consumption of unmitigated tripe many years ago, and here we have yet more platefuls of the unsavoury offal being presented....
A few things to the quacks on this thread:
1. Microwaves work by vibrating _water_ molecules, not anything else (although it is not clear what else has a resonant frequency in the same range).
2. Magnesium is not a heavy metal. It's lighter than calcium!
3. Humans aren't 'adapted for drinking pure water'. We'd be extinct long ago if this were the case. Humans are adapted to drink whatever they can, whenever they can, and to reject the absorption of undesirables. This mechanism, of course, is imperfect.
4. You can do a 7 day water only fast just fine. The body's stores of solutes are perfectly adequate for such a situation.
I've done 7 days on only water.
No big deal.
If it any way will assist discussion I am more than prepared to go 7 days consuming nothing but lattes.
Alternatively I am prepared to go 7 days consuming gin and tonic with your choice of tap, filtered or RO ice cubes.
Just give me a couple of days notice so I can clear a week in my calendar.
Just so you know... the jury is still out on whether or not magnesium is or is not a heavy metal. There are schools of thought supporting both sides of the argument and I merely went with the definition I was taught.
source: Chemical International
"At some point in the history of the term, it has been realized that density or specific gravity is not of great significance in relation to the reactivity of a metal. Accordingly, definitions have been formulated in terms of atomic weight or mass, which brings us a step closer to the periodic table–traditionally the most sound and scientifically informative chemical classification of the elements. However, the mass criterion is still unclear. Bennet  and Lewis  opt for atomic weights greater than that of sodium, i.e., greater than 23, thus starting with magnesium, while Rand et al.  prefer metals of atomic weights greater than 40, thus starting with scandium. "
Last edited by Vinitasse; 20th June 2014 at 07:25 PM.
admitting the electrolytes into the definition of 'heavy metal' gives a funny view of 'heavy metal poisoning'.
Anyone can look up the facts, but our current system makes sure most people are not even aware there are other 'facts' than what they are being fed. Your body IS 'designed' to use 'pure' water and also to deal with the things nature adds. It is NOT 'designed' to deal with the crap we put in there. FACT. If we are going for design as a parameter, maybe someone could supply a scenario involving polluted water supplies to which the human system IS adapted? We might then export that to the 3rd world states in Africa who suffer so badly from NOT having 'pure' water. (and I am pretty damn sure they would dispute the definition given above as to what 'pure' might mean - I am fairly sure they would define it as water that doesn't kill them.
But hey, live your life as you wish. I'm sure Godwin would appreciate the dedication to which a modern society adheres to Hitler's use of water supplies.
@Hildy - yeah - I used to think that too, but 2.45GHz - it's a bit hard to accept the only molecules vibrating are water ones... doncha think?
And as to deformation of molecules, proteins are probably the worst things to deform. The shape of proteins (and as far as I am aware, aminos) matters. Mad Cow is a result of a deformation of a common molecule. Proteins that get their shape changed cause some very serious diseases. (or syndromes or whatever you might call them)
Look up how microwave ovens work, not just the 'this is safe' stuff but how they actually work.The vibration is just a part of it, but even there, you have to question just how atoms vibrating can generate heat. Seriously. Which gets to what is friction in ANY sense. See... atoms never touch, so how can rubbing them together generate heat?
And now... how does vibrating a molecule (water or otherwise) generate heat?
Now... think about all that and ask yourself if you REALLY want to microwave milk...
You might wish to point out the invalid assumption instead of sniping from the sidelines - get involved, it's much more fun that way.