Forum Activity for @Clay

Rochelle -

In Dave's single-stage vortex winnower, the majority of the fines will end up in the second bucket and not end up in the shop vac. But I don't think that's the question you are asking.

The percentage of dust (or fines) will depend mostly on the type of cracker you are using and something to do with the beans - variability in size, residual moisture content/roast. I use a multi-stage classifier to remove all of the fines before winnowing because I find it to be more efficient. But out of 10kg of beans I might get 50-200gr of dust, a mix of fine bean particles, mostly germ, and minute shell fragments.

no if you break the beans up too small the nibs all turn to dust

Hi Rochelle. By 'dust' do you mean husks?

do you know the percentage of dust you get?...

First 'production' run indicates that valves are going to be a 'must-have'. I had my flow rates tuned for manual feeding, which turns out to be slower than what the KitchenAid set up delivers, so now I'm having to adjust in order to get a clean separation again. The fun part, though, is just seeing that it's possible. I don't think I'd dedicate a KitchenAid to this task once we get up and going -- a small variable speed motor should do the trick for a lot less money.

Fun hack, David. This is turning out to be a real fun discussion.

Lol -- necessity really is the mother of invention! I'm happy to report that the proof-of-concept winnower feeder works! Here's a (very) short video: Winnower Feeder 092713

The feeder is a KitchenAid food grinder attachment sans the cutting blades and end cap. My "hopper" is a blender pitcher. I'll get cute later with the refinements, but it does look like a very inexpensive screw feeder (which is all this in without the blades) works really well. An added bonus is that the feed rate can be adjusted over a wide range using the KitchenAid speed settings.

I am really curious to know what Kitchen Aid mixer attachment you think would work. I've been looking at the idea of custom-crafting attachments for a variety of purposes, using the motor in the Kitchen Aid the way people use the motor in the Champion.

It occurs to me that something you might be able to do is incorporate a classifier into the second bucket. This would let the fines drop through while keeping the larger pieces - might help reduce the number of passes required. Of course, pre-classifying before you drop the nib into the winnower is another way to do that.

I wonder if there is also a way to "fluidize" the bed of nib that is waiting to drop into the first bucket using air being drawn through the system. This would mean you would not need a separate machine with a motor (the Kitchen Aid) (or a small vibratory motor) and the supply of nib would not "clog" the hopper. Sounds like a relatively straightforward thing to make.

OR - take a look at the BC machine, they use the vacuum to suck up the nib rather than pouring it A lot to be said for that approach.

Hi Ben -- I do think that adjusting the vacuum and the flow rates will result in better first-pass removal (even for a single stage system). I see challenges using a two stage DD system in that you need to ensure a certain upward airflow rate in both DDs in order to prevent the husks from falling to the bottom, so balancing the flows would be more of a challenge. I'd expect even more challenges using a three stage system. Once we get set up in our new leased space I should be able to start experimenting with improvements. Like I mentioned earlier, my first small victory will be in automating the feed so that I can go do something else while my system cracks and winnows -- very manual at the moment.

I'll definitely share anything I learn -- it's a fun problem to try to solve.

Hi David. Thanks for your video and input on this thread.

I was thinking of adding some pvc below the DD to extend the funnel a bit. The BC winnower has long tubes under each funnel, and you can see husk being sucked up through the left one.

I'd use an unmodified DD as the second stage to capture everything that was removed from the first one.

Have you tried adjusting the strength of the vacuum? I was thinking of adding a valve between the first and second DDs that would allow the airflow to be reduced. Is this what the valve to control the total flow that you mention would do? Or would that be on the inlet side (where the cracked beans enter)?

If I build one, I plan to use the champion to crack and feed the beans as I do with my current winnower.

One issue I see is that you can't see the winnowed nibs without lifting the lid.

Lastly, what about adding a third DD? The first would be tuned to do the first winnowing pass, the second would be tuned to capture the nibs that the first DD sucked up, and the third would be the unmodified DD to capture the husks before they enter the vacuum. This may be more effort than it's worth, but I really need something that will work in one pass.

...I do think that by addingtwo valves (oneto controlthe total flow rate and one to control theair flow throughthe bottom of the DD)and controlling the material feed rate you could get good separation in a single pass.Once I hard-plumb the system I'll add those controls -- right now it is a 'portable' system that gets assembled and disassembled every time I make a batch of chocolate...

I've been using the DD (it's my set-up in the video that Kane posted the link to) for the last year or so and am very happy with the results. I found it works best if you extend the cone by about 6" (I just taped a cardboard funnel I made to the bottom of the DD lid), you need to either cut a hole in the lid or, as I did, just put a spacer between the lid and the nib bucket, to allow for sufficient airflow up the DD, and you need to add a bucket between the DD and the vacuum to receive the husks and keep them from going into the vacuum. I get almost zero husks falling into the nibs, but I do suck some of the nibs up with the husks -- I run three passes with the husks and capture somewhere between 85 and 90% of the theoretical total (assuming about 88% nibs by weight in a typical bean). The whole set-up cost me about $100.

My next steps with it are to add a valve to adjust the inlet airflow, and to add an automatic feeder -- I found an attachment for my KitchenAid mixer that I think will do the job with a couple of minor adjustments -- I'm going to give that its first go this coming week.

I had forgotten all about that video.Thanks for posting it!

So it looks like the DD can be made to winnow by allowing airflow up through the bottom of the cyclone and adjusting the vacuum pressure. In the video, he had to run the cracked beans through the winnower three times, but hopefully it could be tuned to work in one pass.

Check out this video from another Chocolate Life member:

CSV -- Winnowing Cocoa Beans with the Dust Deputy.wmv

[ Moderator: I added the video here on TheChocolateLife. ]

This is the first winnower I ever built. There is a blog post and photos about it here on TheChocolateLife.

Based on all my experience using this PVC pipe device (with the pre-classifier method that Ben and I discuss elsewhere in this thread), I firmly believe that the zig-zag winnower is an overall better technique. In part because the process of air mixing, turbulence, and separation is visible.

This makes tuning a whole lot easier to understand.

Plus, I learned that whenever I am using a vacuum (e.g., a shop vac) some sort of vortex dust collector is a requirement to keep the vacuum from getting clogged.

Classifying is a great technique, and it can be used both pre- and post-winnowing. Getting all of the pieces into more or less the same size/mass for a pass makes the overall yields much higher (and, interestingly, the overall process faster).

I use a large mesh (1/4") to sieve the output of the cracker.

I then use a smaller mesh (1/10") to sieve out most of the fines.

Whole beans that don't go through the 1/4" mesh can be run though the cracker again. Pieces (usually long and skinny with shell attached) can be pushed through the mesh by hand.

The fraction that falls through the 1/10" mesh can be further separated to eliminate the small dust which is basically not usable. I collect the larger-sized fraction from several winnowing batches and winnow it all at once when I get a decent amount.

The medium-sized fraction (that passes through the 1/4" mesh but not through the 1/10" mesh) winnows very cleanly once the airflow is tuned properly.

Some beans crack & winnow better than others. For the others, I use this 1/4" gold sifting pan:

http://www.amazon.com/Gold-Sifting-Bottom-5gal-Bucket/dp/B008B0T5Z2/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1379979039&sr=8-1&keywords=gold+sifter+1%2F4%22

I put it on the bucket that the winnower feeds into to catch too-big pieces. It works great.

Hello.

I have been using the Champion for cracking but I am not so pleased. The major issue is the husk pieces can be quite large which then fall into the nibs. If I increase the vacuum then too many nibs are lost. I am considering adding a coarse screen to the exit of the Champion to catch the large pieces and then re-process those large pieces.

I have another bag of beans arriving this week so I will try this and report back.

Paul Picton

Ben -

The purpose of this group - DIY - is to encourage all sorts of experimentation on small equipment for the craft chocolate workshop. If you think you can rustle up something built from multiple dust deputies then you have a solution that other people will want to at least look at. So posting drawings (don't need to be plans), as well as photos and videos is always encouraged.

This above is an image from the Oneida web site showing two dust deputies plumbed in series. If you had valves to tune the air flow in the right places (as you start to outline above) then I think this is eminently do-able.

I encourage you to start a separate discussion to present your experimentation and link to it from this discussion.

One of the things that I'd like to see is working to create a large feed hopper for whatever winnower solution is adopted. That feed hopper could sit above the cracker and/or above the winnower.

One vessel I have been looking at for the feeder is 5 gallon water bottles. I'd cut the bottom off (and invert for use) as well as play with cutting the neck to widen the feed opening. 5 gallons is about 15-20kg of beans (whole / cracked). Water bottles are also cheap and, importantly, food safe. The other reason to go with a 5 gallon water bottle is that the dust deputies sit on 5 gallon buckets, so everything is sized appropriately.

Thanks Clay. Very interesting information. I currently use a dust deputy to collect the shells in a bucket between my winnower and shop vac.

From your comment, it sounds like the main problems with the vortex design are similar to most winnowers, specifically how to handle differently sized nibs & shell efficiently. It doesn't sound like the actual vortex separation aspect is the problem--the problem actually being one of feeding a consistent size to the winnower.*

If that's the case, it should be possible to modify a dust deputy to achieve a different separation than it currently achieves. My first thoughts on how to do this would be

• modify the length or width of the center tube in the DD
• add a valve to the bucket lid where the DD is mounted to allow a little airflow up through the DD from the bottom. It looks like the BC winnower does this.
• add a valve between the winnowing DD and the shell collection DD (which would be an unmodified DD) to allow for adjusting the strength of the vacuum on the winnowing DD. This would not be inline, but at a T to the main line to reduce the airflow being drawn from the winnowing DD.

The two valves would be somewhat similar in function to the Chocolate Alchemist design that I use.

I'm definitely interested in messing around with this. I have an absurdly small 'factory', so space is always at a premium. A winnower that could fit under a table would be incredibly useful for me.

-Ben

*I use a Champion juicer for cracking and have been pretty happy with the size consistency of the nibs that it produces. But the problem could also be solved as you say with post-cracking classification by size.

The dust deputy is not built for winnowing, it's a filter that collects dust and small particles that would otherwise get sucked into a shop vac and clog the fan, lowering the suction of the fan.

From personal experience I can tell you that the Brooklyn Cacao Vortex winnower does not work as advertised.

One reason is that the built-in cracker over-cracks the beans resulting in lots of size differentiation. This results in very inefficient winnowing unless you use the cracker as a cracker and then pre-classify and separately put the different fractions through the machine, altering the vacuum setting for each run.

At $35,000 this is obviously not an ideal situation - you want something that is basically fill it and forget it.

Now - the BC winnower is a two-stage device. You could theoretically add extra stages and handle the classification that way but that increases the complexity of engineering (the need to control the vacuum and votex precisely in each stage) and the cost.

It's a fun idea, hugely expensive for what it delivers, in part because of the cost of parts (lots of custom-blown glass).

FWIW - pre-classifying works extremely well and when it's used on conjunction with a zig-zag design, ( http://www.thechocolatelife.com/video/diy-seedcleaner )throughput and efficiency are very good.

Thanks!

After posting yesterday, I started thinking that it wouldn't be too hard to test different lengths and/or widths of tube by cutting out the existing tube and replacing it with PVC.

You should post what you've done so far in the new DIY forum: http://www.thechocolatelife.com/group/diy

Here is the picture of my winnower that Clement is referring to:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=436345333073116&set=pb.124491320925187.-2207520000.1379333424.&type=3&theater

The Dust Deputy just collects the winnowed husk, though. It doesn't do any actual winnowing. Its intended use is as a dust collector, so it is designed to capture as much as possible in the bucket. It would need to be modified somehow to suck the lighter husks out of the vortex while letting the heavier nib drop.

A while ago (after seeing the Brookly Cacao winnower: http://brooklyncacao.com/machines/vortexWinnower.html ), I was thinking about trying this, but never got around to it.

Take a look at Ptomac chocolate. A nice picture is on the timeline.

Hi, I am looking for a 3 tier chocolate mould in the UK. I have found many which you join the two halves together to make on whole cake. I am looking for a polycarbonate mould which would allow me to make it seamlessly in one piece without having to join the two halves together. If anybody knows where I can get one from please let me know.

Wow. Talk about a treasure trove of gianduiotto information. Fascinating. I'm getting some TGL and giving it a shot.

*here goes nothing*

Thank you so much, Scott! I am on my way over to do some reading right now.

Andrea,

That is so good of you to go to the trouble to see my reply--or glimpses of it rather! Thank you! (I am not sure why my reply disappeared but to type this I'm trying a new computer at least!)

That is very helpful info about Wybauw's recipe, and it would be wonderful to have something cleaner. I'm amazed and encouraged about the shelf life.

And yes, the chocolate is listed as having anhydrous milk fat (the peanut butter has peanuts, sugar, palm kernel oil, lactose, salt, and soy lecithin).

Thank you so much for this!! It is so appreciated.

Amber

What you're seeing is fat migration. (For a brief explanation with photo, see Note 13 in this item on gianduia: http://dallasfood.org/2011/08/gianduia-gianduja-nutella-part-29/ .) The chocolate around your store-bought peanut butter cup is engineered to better withstand and/or conceal the movement of oil. The block of chocolate you're putting it on is not.

Amber,

Your reply pops up and then quickly disappears. I've tried on 2 computers to read it. As best as I can tell there arequite a fewingredients in your purchased peanut butter cups (all natural yes, but I think it could still be "cleaner").

Depending on what exactly you are trying to accomplish with your finished product you could probably do a variation of Wybauw's recipe that calls for cocoa butter and confectioner's sugar in addition to a bit of salt and the peanut butter. I do a filled bonbon using this formulation (using all-natural peanut butter with nothing extra added). I had some sit basically all summer (no AC and lots of 90 degree days where it probably reached 80 inside) and I didn't see any fat migration/bloom until after probably 3 months - long after when it should/could be sold.

Not sure about the milk fat. Did I see it say anhydrous before it disappeared on me? If so then it probably serves as a preservative. It could also contribute to mouth feel - it might make it more creamy.

Hope this helps,

Andrea

Hi everyone. I'm working on a new product that has a peanut butter cup sitting on top of a block of solid chocolate. I was surprised to find that, after making a few batches, the block of chocolate bloomed after just a week or two, sort of dusty-looking bloom right around where the peanut butter cup sits. I'm sourcing all-natural peanut butter cups from one of our product providers and am just trying to understand why the chocolate in their peanut butter cups doesn't bloom, but our block of chocolate beneath the cup does. I would love and appreciate any tips or hints! Thank you!!

https://www.google.com/search?q=colored+cocoa+butter&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=com.yahoo:en-US:official&client=firefox

chef rubber pops up first, I ve used it before, its fine, but they pretty much all are the same.

You want to be using colored cocoa butter and either be mixing it with white chocolate or airbrushing it.

Please visit our website for the full list of cocoa beans and products available from our location in Miami:

www.casafranceschi.com

Thanks Brad!

George;

Last year I bought the Savage tabletop Firemixer from a woman who closed down her fudge/peanut brittle business.

I have been generally very happy with it. We also use it to heat milk to make the our drinking chocolate base, and the agitator keeps the milk from scalding on the bottom. That alone saves a tremendous amount of time, freeing up staff who before, had to sit there and manually stir the milk while it warmed up on our burners. That ability alone has probably already saved us 1/3 the cost of the machine.

I also have two Savage 50lb tempering machines that have run 24/7 for 5 years now, without issue.

Their equipment is expensive but well worth it if you are needing something to handle daily use.

I have never used the Electrostove, but looking at the photos, I am guessing that the element would generate more heat than what is created by the Tabletop mixer, and that thebowl will hold more product. I also notice that the electrostove may not come with a stirring motor. Be prepared to pay a hefty price for their accessories!

Brad

I'm hoping to get some advice on what equipment I should get to increase my caramel production.

I'm leaning toward the tabletop Savage FireMixer or the ElectroStove candy kettle.

Any thoughts? Better suggestions?

I think the only machine that approaches your requirements and price is the ACMC tempering machine which is about $800 and can do 6 lbs/3 kg. You may be better off with one of the Chocovisions (x3210 or delta) though. They're more expensive, but can do 10 lbs with the standard baffle and 17 lbs with the holey baffle. Also, there have been several comments on this forum and on Chocolate Alchemy about problems with the ACMC.