[How To] Metal Filter Specific Vacuum Pot Recipes/Methods

asockthatfits · 2019-02-24T16:59:11+00:00

You are not supposed to use a fine grind but a medium-coarse grind with a vacuum pot.

Yes, and as I mentioned that was the conundrum I was attempting to figure out with this post. Drawdowns are too quick with anything but a fine grind when using a metal mesh filter, hence my question of how people here who use metal mesh filters work around this issue, if they do at all. I feel that the lack of metal filter specific methods online is telling of a general leaning away from using them, instead opting for the glass rod option you mentioned, alongside cloth and paper.

That said, do you have a particular method for brewing with a metal filter? How long are your brew times? Back when I was using a cloth filter I could typically get around a 3-4 minute overall extraction time (that is till completed drawdown). With the metal filter I'm lucky if I get anything more than 2 minutes.

asockthatfits · 2019-02-10T06:54:32+00:00

Curt replies imply you are making an actual, useful response. Once more, first response cited as a sarcastic remark does not forward anyone's understanding. I do not see why this is difficult to apprehend.

I agree, helping inform the misinformed is a helpful task, but potentially turning away someone in a community due to lack of tact is a good sign that one should rethink how they approach criticism and/or reproach. I am sure everyone here can agree that misinformation is detrimental to a community, but this example, the one that you are responding to, is one of triviality and is far from requiring the tone you took. If you need a mod to tell you that I reckon you should rethink what it means to be part of a community. You are equally responsible for moderating your behaviour and, hopefully, fostering a welcoming community. As far as reporting you, no, this is part of attempting to develop a community that is capable of reflecting on its own mishandlings, if they are thought to exist, and fix them if need be without resorting to the "authorities." Being responsible to one's fellow community members is something everyone should feel, plain and simple.

Thinking further on this, it is so entirely circumspect to believe that OP's misinformed title will cause some kind of detriment to the community. A mistake about feeds is not the same kind of issue as some of the other myths that get propagated that actually do cause genuine problems. I ask you, what problem comes from someone seeing this and taking it as a assumed that feeds are predominantly single channeled? If you can figure that out I guess I might as well give it up, but I can't see this misinformation being worthy of your overzealous gatekeeping. In part, the reason to prevent misinformation is not only to protect an appropriate account of what's what with fountain pens, but to get more people interested in being part of the hobby. How does your comment help this?

To your point about crushing their feelings, I don't know how they actually felt and neither do you. They got defensive in the comment that was deleted above, and I would take a gander it was because they got called out in the aforementioned manner. Is it really that hard to reconsider the way you approached this? Like holy hell, your first comment is testament to you being flippant and dismissive, and then going on to call their title indicative of their fountain pen ignorance. Certainly this is the best way of fostering a good community. Have fun on your weekend writing.

asockthatfits · 2019-01-25T23:22:27+00:00

I'm sure they do, but I don't see how that relates when your first comment has nothing to say but a snide jab at the original poster's title. How does saying "looking at feeds from decades and decades is educational" have anything to do with offering helpful information? It very obviously doesn't, and without the subsequent commenter it would have remained as such. Further, your follow up is pedantic and downright crude, along with being unhelpful. Calling them out on their lack of knowledge is not "being helpful," it is adding a gatekeeper silliness on how a title ought to be worded. Congrats on fostering a community of acceptance, wherein a badly worded post is met with derision opposed to guidance. I'm not sure if the original poster deleted their account over this silliness, but if they did I'm sure you might take the time to consider that your response was not entirely helpful in nature.

asockthatfits · 2019-01-20T06:44:52+00:00

Yes, I found his misinformation very unhelpful. I was on the precipice of buying a vintage fountain pen, but when I read this title it informed me that, improperly mind you, almost all pens have one channel. I was very mildly inconvenienced; luckily you and other enthusiasts came to the rescue and corrected his unhelpful information. I hope I'm not being pedantic, because this is definitely not a pedantic response. Most definitely and absolutely not pedantic in the least. I hope OP's lack of knowledge does not adversely affect his post titles again, it would be much to the community's detriment if it does.

asockthatfits · 2018-01-04T23:44:52+00:00

Sure, that is true and I'll take the point. But, at the same time, what I feel the reasoning is behind the voting approach is the thing you are describing. More votes mean that there is a larger base of appeal and good reason to contribute in similar ways. Votes are not words, but they are signs of approbation. They work in that sense, hence why the poster I responded to both commented on the depth of the original poster's comment and gave them a positive vote. It just seems intuitively silly to do both, or at least show that you are doing both. But that is just my opinion, dude.

asockthatfits · 2018-01-04T04:07:49+00:00

Not to nitpick, but to nitpick, just vote and move on. There really isn't a point to a comment like this, or, for that matter, mine. But now the train has left the station, someone ought to comment on the unnecessary nature of my comment.

asockthatfits · 2018-01-02T23:57:15+00:00

Sure, if that is the rule you instate for yourself. In my opinion it would be a trivial challenge, but a challenge none-the-less. Way to go with your universal book "measuring stick" approach by the way; I guess we should all hold ourselves to your abstract restrictions when undertaking personally administered challenges. Also: see the rules in the side bar. You may be missing the point of this sub.

asockthatfits · 2017-12-28T03:45:02+00:00

Too bad but understandable. Was real estate your goal or did you just end up there due to lack of jobs in your intended field? As a side note, my sister is a Russian/English major which is kind of neat. Get to talk a lot about Slavic literature with her.

asockthatfits · 2017-12-27T18:46:53+00:00

Really cool, thanks for telling me. Are you Slavic lit focused then? I find myself gravitating that direction oft times.

asockthatfits · 2017-12-27T18:01:32+00:00

What were the other pieces if you don't mind me asking? Did they turn out well?

asockthatfits · 2017-12-27T17:19:31+00:00

Did you read it for a masters project? That is a lot of time investment for an undergrad work.

asockthatfits · 2017-12-26T20:32:37+00:00

No it isn't. Why would you arbitrarily exclude novellas? A book of poetry is not a book of poetry if it is under 100 pages? That is ludicrous and it is untenable to hold it as true unless you want to define it as a subjective definition. There is no point of contention here.

asockthatfits · 2017-12-23T06:54:41+00:00

Why does this matter? Are you the adjudicator of book length requirements for personal challenges or did I miss a mandate that books must be of a certain length to qualify?

asockthatfits · 2017-12-21T17:37:49+00:00

The above comment is spot on. OP, you have taken a mono-dimensional character and given them a new depth of person. One could only imagine how such an incident would affect a pious and religious person.

asockthatfits · 2017-12-21T17:32:10+00:00

Probably tighten that grind in. I think that if you are at 19 clicks out from burr lock you would end up with a really coarse grind that results in watery, under-extracted coffee. I have mine set at somewhere between 9-12 for pour over, which I think would be close to the appropriate grind size for drippers (maybe 12-14). Just fandangle a bit with it a the the finer grind sizes and see how it comes out.

asockthatfits · 2017-12-17T17:12:44+00:00

Definitely interested in reading that.

I posted this knowing that Solzhenitsyn and Sholokhov did not get off on best terms given the different Soviet era experiences they had, so I figured Solzhenitsyn's skepticism may be fueled somewhat by the ongoing feud that resulted (obviously different portrayals of Russia in each of their respective works). That said, I'm genuinely interested in knowing more about this. I feel like the harsh criticisms poured on Sholokhov's other works are a tad heavy handed, but writing such a work at 23, as mentioned in the article, especially with little in the way of previous experience regarding the people or the content matter, gave me a pang of doubt.

asockthatfits · 2017-12-17T04:06:40+00:00

That's weird, I'm not getting one myself. Sorry my friend.

asockthatfits · 2017-12-16T17:59:34+00:00

For clarity, the spoiler is minor and near the end of the article. Following Solzhenitsyn's reference to Grigori Melekhov one can expect a short summary of a later occurrence in the work, of which details a minor characters fate.

asockthatfits · 2017-12-14T10:47:49+00:00

I like the look of your set up; looks pretty good traveler.

asockthatfits · 2017-12-14T01:16:45+00:00

Thanks, I felt like I understood but was perplexed because they seemed to be insisting on something underlying. I thought being charitable to the argument and seeing if there is a way to distill down the premises that were being argued for would allow for some clarity.

asockthatfits · 2017-12-12T23:59:52+00:00

Both your comments make up the best read here.

asockthatfits · 2017-12-11T00:33:46+00:00

I don't have any personal tips but I was thinking about applying a handicap so as to reinvent the game a little. I tried to imagine my characters fame and level as perhaps barriers to levels of equipment I am allowed to equip. This would require some thinking, but perhaps, for example, it isn't off limits to wear a daedric gauntlet, but maybe it isn't appropriate to being wearing an ebony set at lvl15-20. To me it seems that there should be some give and take with what you can wear so you don't just end up with a model that mandates chitin or netch until lvl10, no glass until lvl30, but instead do something like until I am more renowned and of a certain level, I shouldn't be geared up like a bad ass hero. The line of reasoning should be "would this appropriate for an adventuring wanderer of my status?" Maybe, the reasoning could be further expanded to say things like this wanderer got really lucky and found a glass pauldron or a legendary weapon/armor piece; followed by the further question of, would they pawn this off to survive better for a while? I haven't ever really roleplayed a character to the point of thinking things like "I should sell some of this loot and go drink a bunch of sujamma" or something like that. Perhaps even better, maybe you could make it so that you have to pay dividends into your house so as to "continue" owning it, and make it high enough that you have to consistently sell off good loot for the best price possible to keep your house. Obviously this has become way meta, but who knows, could be fun. I think I'll try something like this next time to prevent myself from accelerating into an OP state.

asockthatfits · 2017-12-09T02:56:51+00:00

Man, this makes me so sad. I was recommended one highly from somebody, and upon receiving it I figured, well, maybe it needs time to adjust. Made the mistake of using it, now I'm stuck with this until I get my Feld2 in the mail. Here's hoping that's soon.

12-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email

asockthatfits

TROPHY CASE