Main difference is the fact that the aeropress uses a paper filter which filters out sediment and oils giving the coffee a “cleaner” taste. From my research before I bought it, I remember it also being slightly healthier because, again, you filter out those oils.
Not quite. I said that was the main difference, but if we go into details, the physics of the thing, it’s a bit more complicated. The guy who invented the aeropress, afaik, tried to make a handmade espresso replacement. He didn’t succeed, but the way the aeropress works is a hybrid of immersion, percolation and pressure brewer, whereas the french press is all about immersion and that it’s. It has the plunger, but that’s for filtering, nothing else.
If anything, I think the aeropress is closer to a moka pot than anything. But it’s its own thing, honestly.
Main difference is the fact that the aeropress uses a paper filter which filters out sediment and oils giving the coffee a “cleaner” taste. From my research before I bought it, I remember it also being slightly healthier because, again, you filter out those oils.
Interesting. I don’t know if I’d ever describe the coffee I brew as oily or anything like that. I suppose I have to try this sometime.
Oh, no. It’s not oily. Just a bit thicker. Like espresso. That’s partly because of the oils that coffee has.
So if you pour French press through paper filter it’s same thing?
Not quite. I said that was the main difference, but if we go into details, the physics of the thing, it’s a bit more complicated. The guy who invented the aeropress, afaik, tried to make a handmade espresso replacement. He didn’t succeed, but the way the aeropress works is a hybrid of immersion, percolation and pressure brewer, whereas the french press is all about immersion and that it’s. It has the plunger, but that’s for filtering, nothing else.
If anything, I think the aeropress is closer to a moka pot than anything. But it’s its own thing, honestly.