Talk:Coffee percolator

message: There are many people that will not use it because of the poor coffee that it makes.
While I agree that a discussion the advantages and disadvantages may be useful, I disagree that that 'many people will not use it because of the poor coffee that it makes'. These comments appear to be from people who claim that many people say this. I have only ever seen a very few comments of this nature and then from people who have never tried using a percolator. I wonder if way back in time some manufacturer of drip machines made these claims and they are just being regurgitated.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.142.16 (talk) 10:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can cite suitable references to verify what you write, feel free to add such a section. -- Codeine (talk) 11:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is the criticism section 

message: *Two images were created independently of a cross-section of a moka/percolator coffee pot. As we can't decide ourselves which to post, I thought it would be best to have a quick straw-poll — Asbestos | Talk 20:56, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and hollow spouts would help :)  Dewet 03:49, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not going to revert theses flag could I suggest that you reinstate the image you asked people to vote on instead of making repeated edits. Thankyou. --Vamp:Willow 12:55, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh?? I'm utterly confused. Is our object to produce the best picture for an article, or to somehow "win" this vote? Personally, I'm up for producing the best picture for the article. If someone suggests a change, of course I'm going to change it. I'm not going to leave a sub-standard image up if a better one could be made — how does that help the article? Likewise, when I make a diagram for someone who requests it, if they have criticisms I listen to them and edit the picture. Our motivation here, in producing images and calling votes, should be for the best of the article, not to stroke our own egos. Why should you object if I improve my image? If you improve your image and people vote for your improved version, then that will merely mean that your new version is best for the article, and the article will be better off for it. Your "do not edit" flag example is disengenious: when a user puts an article up on VFD, they don't complain if the article subsequently gets improved during the vote — the purpose of any vote is to improve Wikipedia, and if someone suggests how an article or image should be improved during the vote, so much the better. — Asbestos | Talk 13:20, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Don't take this personally, VampWillow.  I have to agree with Asbestos on this one;  his image is technically and aesthetically superior, no matter how you look at it.  I'm sure that he meant no offence by creating another one, so please take this in the spirit in which Wikipedia is offered:  to better human knowledge all around. Dewet 20:34, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: I've replaced the image. — Asbestos | Talk 13:24, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Image - straw poll

message: *I believe the first is a cleaner, more accurate (it was precisely measured), and more professional-looking image, making the over-all article look more professional. If necessary, the spouts can easily be made hollow (if this is VampWillow's main objection), though this way is a standard style. — Asbestos | Talk 20:56, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and hollow spouts would help :)  Dewet 03:49, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not going to revert theses flag could I suggest that you reinstate the image you asked people to vote on instead of making repeated edits. Thankyou. --Vamp:Willow 12:55, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh?? I'm utterly confused. Is our object to produce the best picture for an article, or to somehow "win" this vote? Personally, I'm up for producing the best picture for the article. If someone suggests a change, of course I'm going to change it. I'm not going to leave a sub-standard image up if a better one could be made — how does that help the article? Likewise, when I make a diagram for someone who requests it, if they have criticisms I listen to them and edit the picture. Our motivation here, in producing images and calling votes, should be for the best of the article, not to stroke our own egos. Why should you object if I improve my image? If you improve your image and people vote for your improved version, then that will merely mean that your new version is best for the article, and the article will be better off for it. Your "do not edit" flag example is disengenious: when a user puts an article up on VFD, they don't complain if the article subsequently gets improved during the vote — the purpose of any vote is to improve Wikipedia, and if someone suggests how an article or image should be improved during the vote, so much the better. — Asbestos | Talk 13:20, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Don't take this personally, VampWillow.  I have to agree with Asbestos on this one;  his image is technically and aesthetically superior, no matter how you look at it.  I'm sure that he meant no offence by creating another one, so please take this in the spirit in which Wikipedia is offered:  to better human knowledge all around. Dewet 20:34, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Image 1

message: * Basically because it is less cluttered, and it an actual cross-section. Also it clearly shows that the central spouts up and down in the middle are hollow (to let water and coffee through) whereas the image 1 hasn't any clear way through!. Vamp:Willow 21:01, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Image 2

message: Straw polls are informal and thus never officially "end", but is it agreed that there is a consensus to use image 1? — Asbestos | Talk 01:33, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've replaced the image. — Asbestos | Talk 13:24, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Results 

message: Percolators are often popular among campers and other outdoorsmen due to the ability to make coffee without a heat source.<P>
You mean without electricity, not a heat source, right?
:MSTCrow 06:55, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It actually may be possible to make coffee in a percolator without a heat source if you fill it with carbonated water and drop some grains of sugar into the tube - but don't forget to close the lid, quickly. The taste of such a cold brew will be  … interesting, I presume. --2.247.251.122 (talk) 18:28, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage 

message: There is an empty head on naming convention which is a bit of a shame. The 'Moka stove top' is not called a percolator by everyone. If you go to a coffee shop asking for coffee for a percolator the tender will think you'll want a course ground coffee. I think this article should be split.
---(above comment unsigned)
There is a Moka pot article already. And you are quite correct that a Moka is not a percolator. Percolation is a recirculating drip-brew process: high-pressure water is never forced through the coffee. Moka brewing is a single-pass pressure process. If no one is going to be offended, I'll fix the article to be technically correct.
Sehr Gut 18:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming Convention 

message: "the moka pot is the most popular way of brewing coffee at home, and its usage has spread to the USA."
eh? in sweden you can buy a moka pot in every ikea store and in a lot of the regular convenience stores for about 15 euros... i think that comment on how people in north america (if in the us of a then probably in canada too or?) has adopted the use of the moka pot is pretty irrelevant since it is used as much elsewhere (my estimate). 
regards
-mats
    The moka pot is in widespread use in Eastern Europe, and as I remember, it was in common use in Italy in 1980 (last time I was there).  When Eastern Europeans relocate to the USA, they usually hate the coffee (not strong enough), and go out of their way to find a moka pot.  Or they make Turkish coffee, which is an acquired taste, even for them. 
     In my personal experience, I bought a gravity-type perk pot for $12 at an "Antique Mall" type of place, and learned to use it.  It makes the best coffee I've ever tasted.  It's not strong enough for Eastern Europeans, but nice, sweet, non-sour, non-bitter, smooth coffee. It's coffee that tastes as wonderful as it smells.   
     The downside is that it takes some getting used to.  It comes to a full boil (and spills a little from the spout) in 7 minutes on high heat.  And it perks nicely at med-low heat (3 1/2 out of 10 settings on my electric stove).  If you let it perk a long time, it will get stronger, but not as strong as a moka pot.  You can set the stove to "Simmer" and it will stop perking, and keep the coffee warm.  
     The pot itself is made of enamel, the perking tube, of cast iron maybe (something black and rough), and the coffee grounds basket is made of plastic.  The perking indicator is of course heavy glass.  I've added a picture to the Wikipedia entry (it's my own pot and I took the picture).  
     Another tricky thing is to get the coffee grounds large enough to not cause "crunchy coffee."  Buzz them no more than 5 seconds in a coffee grinder, or better yet, grind the coffee in one of those adjustable machines you can find in supermakets.  No pre-ground coffee will have the right texture for perk pots anymore because the plastic basket's holes are just too large.  
71.161.218.115 01:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  where is it in widespread use? 

message: Coffee machine redirects here, but they are totally different. A slot machine that pours a plastic cup of something vaguely coffee-like when you put money in is not a percolator. Any ideas for a better redirect target? Totnesmartin (talk) 22:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Found one - Vending machine Totnesmartin (talk) 13:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coffee machine? 

message: How about a section on how Percolators are viewed today? I have many coffee junkie friends who say they burn the coffee over and over and makes for a very bad cup of joe. --70.167.58.6 (talk) 05:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms? 

message: I have made a simple diagram of a percolator. Here it is: 
 
I first attempted to upload it in SVG format, but it wouldn't render properly, so I uploaded it in PNG. I believe it is accurate, but I would like someone else to check.
--UnknownFerret (talk) 17:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to Diagram Request 

message: Hot water is less dense then cold, is that effect used at all? Does the hot coffee stays in a layer on top of the colder water, or does it just get mixed?
Where is the water/coffee heated, only in the bottom chamber or the whole bottom?83.188.230.104 (talk) 19:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding your first question the answer is no. The difference in density could drive the fluid no higher than its upper level and that is definitely below the basket containing the ground coffee. The effect exploited here is that bubbles generated by heating the water are much lighter and take small amounts of water with them as they rise. --2.247.250.113 (talk) 02:20, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Some quetions

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Coffee percolator. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130529223458/http://www.melitta.com:80/melittahistory,159.html to http://www.melitta.com/melittahistory,159.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:46, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Coffee percolator. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.melitta.com/melittahistory%2C159.html
*Added archive https://archive.is/20120719132654/http://www.bialetti.it/uk/storia.asp to http://www.bialetti.it/uk/storia.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:42, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Ironically, because of its operating principle, the coffee percolator seems to be better suited for making tea instead of coffee. It even may be a perfect tea maker as the leaves are subjected only to near boiling hot water, at a constant temperature. Shouldn't that also be discussed in the article? --2.247.250.113 (talk) 01:48, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using percolators for making tea 

message: The diagram illustrating the operation principle needs some corrections. The percolator has a funnel at its lower end collecting the bubbles which drive the water up the tube. These also should be shown inside the tube. --2.247.250.113 (talk) 02:45, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diagram lacks important detail 

message: The article lacks a proper description of the physics involved in the brewing process. I tried to find a reliable source which does but couldn't.
The article makes some fuzzy claims about temperature differences which are unlikely to have any real base in physics. Even with kinematic effects included temperature difference does not provide enough force to lift the water significantly above its surface and it works in both directions, driving watee up as well as down. It just causes circulation inside the water body.
The artivle mentions bubbles and the airlift pump which is likely to be the proper effect, but what bubbles? Steam bubbles will collapse as soon as they cool down a little. To use steam power you need pressure allowing to heat the water above its standard boiling point, like the moka pot does. Also the process would not stop when the water is boiling, So it's more likely the bubbles are gases like carbon dioxide and oxygen dissolved in the water, which are driven out when the water loses its capacity to hold them at rising temperatures. But writing that into the article without a citable source would be original research. 2.247.251.122 (talk) 00:07, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physics