Talk:Coffee preparation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Vacuum Brewer fits Infusion better than Pressure
While the positive pressure created by boiling water is use to move the water into contact with coffee grounds in a different chamber and negative pressure created by cooling vapor is used to siphon the brewed coffee and filter out the grounds the actual contact between the water and grounds is done at atmospheric pressure and is infused.
[edit] How much grounds are used
I do not know how to make coffee. While it is not as bad as that sounds, it really is just that I have no idea how much coffee to put in the maker. I cannot find a single referance on the intnernet for the proper amount of coffee to put into a drip maker.
SOMEONE PLEASE include this information in the article. It would be very helpful to people like me who do not know how to make coffee.
69.171.150.47 18:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Excellent article!
Fantastic article guys - well done!
I had no idea that percolators were more bitter than filter machines (I have owned a percolator and the coffee was pretty awful - now I know why.)
Might I just add that a method of storing coffee after it has been brewed is to put it into a thermos. This is a method used by the Siemens-made, F A Porsche-designed filter machine I use. It stores the coffee out into a thermos flask rather than a hot plate, keeping the coffee warm without 'cooking' it. I don't know if you think thats worth adding to your article as its a unique feature to this particular machine as far as I know, but it is very clever design.
An excellent read all round. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.134.235.157 (talk • contribs).
- Thermal carafes are good for serving several people. For one or two, though, single-cup brewers are more practical, unless they drink it faster than the carafe can cool or the flavor can change.
Coyoty 01:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Removed POV sentence
"Connoisseurs shun such conveniences as compromising the flavor of the coffee; they prefer freshly ground beans and traditional brewing techniques."
Given that the previous sentence tells us that the machines often use freshly ground beans (that the machine has just that moment ground), and that the methods used in these machines are just automated versions of traditional techniques (ie, the coffee is subjected to exactly the same times and temperatures and conditions), and that the only way of brewing espresso is with a machine (that is the traditional way), and that coffee connoisseurs I know (who work with coffee) are happiest with coffee made in a decent machine, this sentence makes no sense. If we have a reference for someone saying that the machines (and I think we'd have to differentiate different machines here) brew inferior coffee, then that would be a good addition. Skittle 10:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
---
I am new here, so I will not edit anything, but I wanted to thank Skittle for the improvement and follow up on Skittle's point with a related suggestion for an edit.
I think the line, "[c]offee experts consider burr grinders to be the only acceptable way to grind coffee" is similar to the one deleted (appopriately) by Skittle; that is, it lacks the neutrality for which Wickipedia strives. It may be that coffee connoisseurs -- or coffee snobs -- are willing to declare what is "acceptable," but such pronouncements do not belong in encyclopedias. I would add that, in my experience, they are rarely found in expert opinions. An expert might explain the differences among various methods and the advantages of each, but the balance of the article already does this sufficiently.
I would therefore propose deleting the sentence. At a minimum, I think it should come out until someone provides an authoritive citation to these opinionated "experts."
71.124.165.215 15:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- The sentence read "Coffee experts consider burr grinders to be the only acceptable way to grind coffee.[citation needed]" and I have removed it. It seems a little hard to support 'the only acceptable way' without a cite. Again, if we had some references, we could attribute the comments. Nice work anonymous user. Skittle 15:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
The chopping section has a hint of POV and has some uncited facts. 68.97.2.180 19:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Merge of Coffeemaker
I edited the article substantially, and I oppose the merge, mostly because most of the article is a historical overview of the development of coffeemaker devices. I would be more than OK with renaming the article History of Coffeemakers and redirecting. Richardjames444 22:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Plagiarism
Did you copy the entire website to make this article? The FAQ website has exactly the same information as in this article.
- Are you talking about sentences/prargraphs being the same, or just the same info? Because it wouldn't be surprising the info was the same, if we assume they're both right! Skittle 21:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
