Laurentius

This summer, I fell in like with a blacksmith-made "pigtail" turner for steaks on the grill.

And, undoubtedly, a capacious dishwasher.

Totally. When I put in my solid-fuel, I was worried that there'd be a Dickensian black smoke/ash plume. No--in fact, all one could see outside were heat waves. But the smell was definitely not from woodsmoke. I seriously doubt the coal in briquettes is wholly or mostly anthracite. Having bought anthracite lump and tried to buy more, I discovered that it's expensive, and that USA doesn't have a lot of deposits of good anthracite. Western PA seems to be the only place that still has much. It's not really cleaner to start with, unless you buy it washed, graded and bagged. Even so, merely jostling the bags tended to leave a filthy dust much like the dregs in briquette bags. I moved two pallets of leaky 55-pound bags once, and I looked like a chimney sweep. I also think that if 40% of every briquette is coal, that's still a lot of coal. I read somewhere that USA produced 883,748 tons of charcoal briquettes in 1997, and it must be substantially higher than that now.

Do you dispute that coal contains heavy metals? These metals do, obviously, occur in nature, but do you want their combustion products and residue in your food? Bear in mind that coal is added to briquets, whereas any heavy metals in lump charcoal had to make it into the tree(s). I used to cook a lot on a solid-fuel stove, using wood, charcoal and anthracite coal. The coal burned much hotter, so much hotter that it required special grates and doors. Made for great wok hei, though. If you need citations, compare the Btu ratings for charcoal and anthracite.

(emphasis mine) That does it for me--I'm only buying lump. Coal also explains why briquettes burn hotter. Would anyone like a sprinkle of fly ash on their steak?

That may be a stab at an economical solution for the next day/week's cup(s), but it's still stale coffee. Even if you somehow flash chilled a fresh pot of hot brew, it would taste different, and IMO not in a good way. Somewhere I have the "Toddy Coffee" cold brew rig, which is just that. The white plastic steeping bucket has a bottom hole with a rubber stopper. The bucket also has a well in the bottom for a reusable filter puck. You steep overnight, then drain into the included glass carafe. The refrigerated concentrate doesn't keep forever, but IMO it tastes reasonably fresh for about two weeks. You can still find the Toddy here: https://www.webstaurantstore.com/toddy-cold-brew-system-thm/975THM.html?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=GoogleShopping&gclid=Cj0KCQjwmICoBhDxARIsABXkXlJd_rdei7w4KZYwktLkQoR6zulIH6LAs-Blo7U8UC4DJZzx1gLPgeAaAr1cEALw_wcB I'll try to find it. It made pretty good coffee, IIRC. The downsides for me were messiness, clutter, and the fact that the carafe could hide too easily at the back of the fridge. Oh, and the bucket-on-carafe thing was tippy...

Me, too. They're somewhat pricey to start with, and downright expensive if you want all the grades of screens. I may go with a few of the old school scientific sifters if I can decide on the sizes.

I want that $31,000 Zumex.

Here's an interesting review of the Kruve screening product. Note that the amount of fines wasn't a lot different from the $5,000 grinder than it was from the $50 model.

So wrong on so many levels...

It was your certitude, not certainty, I was questioning. Certainly, there are multiple variables that can affect bitterness. One is clearly overextraction, which is related to particle size and time under temperature. You seem to say that there are other variables more important to creating bitterness than particle size in a given brew. I'm still interested in evidence to substantiate this claim.

Care to offer any substantiation?

This is pure neenerism. I also never said "remove all the fines" or "no fines at all". And where in this discussion, pray tell, did you allow that your grinder could throw too many? How would you know without screening? Obviously, a little knowledge and very expensive coffee tools are dangerous things.

Usually 3-4.

Not really. At root, I'm talking about screening out excess fines. Plenty still make it, whether by agglomeration, static electricity, a wet spoon or mesh size(s). Wanting excess fines to prevent channelling strikes me as a sow ear purse.

Then you're perfect. Here I thought you were bothered by channeling...

So use paper or cloth...

Actually, I hadn't, thanks. Aside from the interesting aspect of agglomeration, I didn't get much from this article. I wish the author had explored the effect of static electricity more. I think only the very last sentence was the nib.

Then you are in a very tiny minority. This goes without saying. But you're still using one duration per brew. Even if It's drip, and you resort to the Impatient Breakfasteer Gambit (pouring off the first production), the pouroff is one duration--you're emphasizing optimum extraction from smaller grits at the expense of larger.

It's probably "written" by AI, which so far lacks opposable thumbs.

Really good point--clogged vs. free-draining filters is another aspect

Of course. Yet you're using but one temperature of water and a single brew duration. By definition, such extractions can't be optimal across all particle sizes. People may like a certain extraction imbalance, e.g., some bitterness along with weaker overall. Or, they may tolerate a lot of bitterness from fines to get full extraction on the top end. I just happen to like optimum extraction without much bitterness.

This is counterintuitive, and not at all what I've experienced. It would follow from what you say that coffee not of various roasts or brewed only at one temperature would also be "lifeless". Same question as to rotuts: do you know how much fines are in what you grind?

With respect, this isn't very helpful. If you're aware of any burr machine that does not generate any powder-y fines, please let me know. I assumed my two burr machines didn't, but after a trial screening, I found I was wrong. Have you attempted to grade what comes out of yours? I think you'd be surprised how un-uniform (on the low side) your grind may actually be. No, but if you're brewing for a certain grind (e.g., "drip"), the fines will be over-extracted, and that can lead to bitterness. Then if you alter your brew to counter that effect (reducing temperature or time), you are averaging, which means skewing the extraction of coarser particles toward under-extraction. This is the case even if you use your suggested nylon or paper filters. Screening may not be worth it for everyone. Make what and how you like. But I've noticed a positive difference in both my espresso and French Press, and I expect the same will be true with other methods.

As far as I know, every method of and machine for grinding coffee creates a substantial volume of variously-sized particles. Blade grinders are truly Wild West, with huge variances. Burr grinders may minimize the max particle size, but don't come close to eliminating "fines". Considering the care, concern, cost of makers and premium beans, and all the minutiae of the "perfect" cup for any given method, I'm puzzled that tightly-controlled grind--both minimum and maximum--get so little attention. I have a couple of pretty good burr grinders. But their output isn't controlled, and they contain a LOT of fines. IME, these fines, especially in, e.g. a French Press make for increased bitterness. Same with drip. So, does anyone here screen their grounds to minimize fines and/or more tightly control uniformity? Or, do you buy coffee that is already screened?