Forum Activity for @timwilde

the standard nozzle from most printers will print PETG. The temps are lower than that of ABS, and the only restriction to printing ABS based on printer is a lack of heated bed. 

Polycarbonate, in contrast, requires an upgraded hotend to allow for 300C+ temps. The e3d v6 all metal hotends are capable of this, and ship with a proper thermistor that will accurately read higher than 300C.

Most other non-upgraded hotends are limited to the thermistor's capabilities. A cheap i3 clone kit can easly do 260-270C.

Some kits to look at to get started with tinkering; Anet A8 and Prussa i3 Mk2.  The A8 is a clone kit built in China, can usually find it around $170-$200 USD Sometimes cheaper.  Prusa i3 is the original designer and uses higher quality parts and provides a warranty as well as support but sells for $699. The A8 can be upgraded bit by bit to be better, such as having an e3d v6 hotend.

If you're more adventurous, you can try and build a clone yourself. A video guide of doing just that is located here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVWLpvekby0&t=42s

There's 6 parts to the series, and the build videos avg about 2-3 hours each.

Very nice!!  I originally thought that I would need to do vacuum molding to do any custom work. 3d printers, at the time, only had ABS or PLA as printable filaments.  In the last 2 years though, that's dramatically changed; PETG, Polycarbonate, Nylon, as well different alloys of PLA and ABS.  As soon as I saw PETG and Polycarbonate available, I thought I'd look into skipping the intermediary step of printing the positives and doing the forming.

BTW: The primary reason I thought it would be more expensive is that the vacuum is limited by strength; you can diy almost all of it. But to get good plastics and reusable molds out of the deal, you end up going super thin or different materials that are more brittle. Polycarbonate, as an example, has an extremely high melting temperature.

I'll keep posting here. As of right now I'm fairly confident in my printing skills, however, I'm building up a higher quality printer. I still need a few pieces before I can appropriately test a good PC or PETG mold.

As for resolution; nozzles are available as small as 0.15mm  Resolution for movement is usually in the 0.05mm range.  Frankly, much smaller than that and you start having surface tension and viscosity issues with chocolate. Between a dremel engraving kit to polish up the surface and different vapor polishes i'm fairly confident that I'll have something quite usable.

I'm also expecting to go full custom, but still have to learn the software so I can start charging for that setup. 

Finishing can by done a number of ways. Most basic is just using sand paper and sanding the part smooth. Vapor polishing works by using a solvent that works on the specific material and works by allowing the vapor to melt the surface of the plastic. As to the foodsafe qualities after vapor polishing, it should go back to being safe once the solvent has fully evaporated out of the part and the part has been washed.

The solvent does evaporate fully, if it did not, then the plastic would never harden back up.   Again, those chemicals are different for the different plastics.

Really, it just depends on the quality of the part you're trying to achieve and what amount of time you're willing to spend on finishing the part. Usually there's some combination of finishing techniques that are used to finish printed parts.

Vacuum would be more expensive than simply printing the mold.  Which has been confirmed is possible and allowed :D

Well, the FDA came back with an answer.  The first answer was kinda bunk, gave me an application for a new Contact Surface.

However, I asked them more directly and got a response back.  Essentially if the printer itself and the materials can be safe, it is ok with the FDA. The onus is on the manufacturer (you in this case) to follow FDA guidelines for food safety.

PETG is a filament that is now regularly available. I would imagine research would be needed to find out if the colors are food safe, but clear/natural PETG would be recommended.  PETG can be sterilized by going through the dishwasher and withstands high heat.

Polycarbonate is another filament that is considered to be an exotic filament at the moment. It's available but more expensive than PETG and it's only available from some companies.  PC can be sterilized through dishwashing procedures and it can withstand high heat.

Printer extruders and hot ends can be made out of stainless steel or printed via PC or PETG for food contact safety.

This all being said, 3d printers arent exactly user friendly and you would still need to learn CAD or 3d modeling of some sort to do this completely DIY.  Luckily for me, that's my background. I was just wondering if there are others attempting this and how it's working out for you.   I just ordered my first 3d printer and expect to have a foodsafe printer capable of printing in Polycarbonate sometime over the summer.

I'm kind of excited that these breakthroughs have been made and that it seems that a reasonable cost for custom chocolate molds.  The designs also dont have to be awkward to handle because there's no need for injection molding support and structure in the mold.  This can make the mold smaller or be able to support more cavities than is usually available in a given commercial mold.

Hello everyone!  I'm sure this has been discussed but cant find anything recent. But I'm looking for a cost effective way to get a custom mold done and as I've been researching I found quite a few ways that I'd like some choco-life feedback and opinions on.

There's 2 ways I will ultimately go about this so this is getting done, but looking for safest and most cost effective way to do this.

3D printing.  It's come a LONG way since I started researching this several years ago. In the past couple years filament materials have kind of exploded - to the point it's nearly impossible to keep track of all the available materials. It's no longer a matter of PLA or ABS if you too havent looked at this in a while.

In the last year, a few companies have produced an FDA Approved Food Safe filament. There are a few companies making stuff with PET-G (water and soda bottle materials, lesser extent hobby grade mold sheets) and Polycarbonate.  But only a few have gone that extra step to get FDA Approval and it's stamped on the spool.  

So, has anyone contemplated any of this, looked any further on the aspects of 3d printing custom molds?  

I should note, that 3d printers have stepped up in quality, they still dont have super fine resolution without going the route of say, Shapeways, with the multi tens of thousands of dollar machines.  However, that should not stop you from finishing any mold that comes out. Sanding, polishing, engraving fine details, sealing (if necessary)

Doing things this way, if you already have the printer, it should only cost approx $10-$20/mold depending on mold size and who you source your filaments from.

I do have a line into the FDA to confirm that this is food safe and possible. The big question on hand is if it's a sterilizable finished piece. Polycarbonate does require much hotter temps to print though, so any bacteria on the filament is likely to be destroyed.  Proper finishing should provide a food contact surface that is sterilizable though.

So while I'm waiting I'd love to hear your opinions on the matter.

The other, much more expensive option is to 3d print a "positive".  Well, I guess in mold making terms they'd ultimately be negatives. But you'd design the bar/tablet/bonbon the exact way that you want it to look. You then print that out in whatever plastic is your choice.  Then you spend extra time getting that finished/post processed to look as perfect as you can get it.  Then you use that as a negative and pour a silicone mold of the printed piece.

With the mold materials that I've seen and researched, this is entirely food safe and sterilizable and may actually make for a better mold than what Polycarbonate can do due to stretching and elongation properties of the silicone. That being said, an "avg" size mold would run between $30-$50 each.  Better than getting an injection mold created, but also more expensive than just buying commercially available molds.

Anyone trying any of the above options? What are your thoughts on it? If you've tried it, how is it working for you?

It's the milk in the chocolate caramelizing through the combo of heat and time.  Even at low heat, all you're doing is expanding the time for maillard reaction to take place, which we see quickly at higher temps.  

So for milk chocolate, it may be better to melt and get on with what you're doing rather than leaving it in for long periods of time. If it doesn't matter to you, just expect that over time it will become more and more caramelized over time.

Something to note; while you may not have noticed it because of a minimal change, you'll want to be careful for how long it stays in. As part of caramelizing the milk, some of the acids are also driven off which can change the mouthfeel of the finished chocolate.  Something I've noticed when working with my own formulation of a caramel chocolate purposefully done.

Hi Nicole, 

I dont think mine was a grease issue afterall. It looked similar to what I see at the bottom of the bowl on the Santha, and had a look like it was trying to keep itself separated from the chocolate.  After looking at some chocolate after it had solidified though, it was most definately not grease. It was a clumping of granite dust.

In the santha, the only thing I can recommend is cleaning out the center shaft and the bottom of the bowl (outside) really well and wipe down (do not degrease) the wheel assembly that the bowl sits on/in.  If you feel the need to degrease I strongly reccomend getting another foodsafe lube to replace the grease on the wheel assembly. I think that grease/lube is necessary to prevent friction of between the two different materials.

I'm sure Neem would work, as it's commonly used as an organic pesticide/pest deterrant in home gardening. However, having worked with it a lot because of gardening, I'd be more worried about off flavors and scents in the cocoa. Neem is a very powerful flavor and odor.

I have an update. Whatever I did, I may have just changed my process and resolved the issue.

I changed too much to say that any one thing was the problem, so I wont venture to guess.

This time, I heated the stones, disassembled in the oven until they were reading 130F/54C

After assembly I added all of the ingredients very slowly.  77oz of cocoa nibs (i dont pregrind) took 2.5 hours. I'd add a little and let it go until they were liquid, then add more, etc.  I also added the sugar after 12 hours and again, it took about 45 mins to add the 23oz of sugar to total a 100oz batch.

Chocolate did get into the axle, but I'm seeing zero grit or granite dust. The wheels never seized, and the batch came out perfectly.  Surprisingly, I didnt even make it to the 24 hour mark in refining before it was done.

Something else I changed, I pulled the batch as soon as it was done.  I'm used to the santha, where if it's done at an inopportune time, I can release the tension on the wheel assembly and let it run indefinately (i've let the santha run for 2 weeks one time with no ill effects on the chocolate batch) 

So, if anyone else is seeing the issue, I might suggest adding your ingredients more slowly and be sure to preheat the drum/stones.  I'm also timing the time I put my batches in so that I can plan around pulling the batch and tempering/molding them up.

My thinking here is that the batch is finishing and getting fine particles sooner than I was expecting, and letting it run longer essentially had the effect of having granite run against granite, creating some of the dust.  I'm also thinking that adding just too much of the coarse dry ingredients also didnt help any at the dust creation.  Having too many of the dry ingredients too quickly also allowed the coarser particles into the axle shaft which allowed wearing down the axle, potentially grinding on the stone inside the gap. 

By all means, if my thinking is flawed; let me know. I've been known to be wrong once or twice

Note: I also put both machines through the dry sugar run, scrubbed them down completely and such in the process. So I think it's the combo of the bed-in process in addition to precautionary steps that combined to bring out a perfect batch. 77% 2 ingredient chocolate came out exactly as expected. I'm going to test on a milk chocolate batch before I try another white chocolate batch.

Thank you to everyone that gave input/suggestions here. It was greatly appreciated!

If it helps any, what I've been doing is using dry ice, about once per month.  I recieved a shipment of 10  50kg bags of cocoa in September and immediately propped the bags up in a tarp and duct taped the tarp up the sides so it was at least semi tight.  I have been calculating based on the size/volume of the bags, and only use about 2-3 oz of dry ice per bag. I simply place the dry ice on top of the bag, and then cover the entire thing up with a tarp.  I do this once a month in the warmer months and at least locally this costs approx $5US. I've yet to see an issue with moisture and have yet to see any insect activity in any of the beans i've sorted and roasted. 

I'll note, I've not done this procedure since Dec when we got our freezing temps and the storage area dropped to a pretty steady 40F/4C. Temps are now up in the 80's and the storage area is holding stead around 65F.  I'm out there to get beans to sort, roast, and process at least every other day if not daily.

Now, being totally honest, I'm not sure how effective this is, as the area i'm in I have a very hard time keeping the wolf spider and black widow population under control with monthly sprayings of pyrethren insecticide. So, either i've been effective with the dry ice or the spiders are fed  

[edit] something to note though, I live in a desert. So a 30% humidity is a high humidity day. Right now we're about 16%.[/edit]

Off the bat, I can say that honey may cause issues. Honey contains water, and water and chocolate dont mix. It can cause the chocolate to seize and pull the cocoa solids out of suspension. However, whatever your doing you're getting to the point where you can pour into molds.  The issue looks similar to what I've been fighting all chocolate season. No matter how I temper, the molds wont set right and they fall out of temper.

Two things that solved the issue for me is a) double check your thermometer and calibrate your tempering machine. It may not be working right as the thermistor may have drifted somewhat and if possible you may need to recalibrate that, or work around what the drift is. Part of my issue is my thermometer was off by over 4F, so when I was tempering I thought I was "within range" but in fact, I was 4F hotter than the upper limits of the range, so I was never actually in temper to begin with.  That may or may not be your issue here, but after 2 consecutive years having similar issues it's my first go-to troubleshooting step when tempering is an issue.

Second is the temp your molds are setting up/cooling in.  If that's too warm, the chocolate can fall out of temper.  From trial and error experience as well as reading a bit online, optimum room temp to deal with chocolate is between 68-70F/20-21C  It may be beneficial to get a cooling tunnel, cold box, or some sort of cooling area for the chocolate.  Optimum temps based on various forum posts seem to be 55F/12.8C, I'm still working on my cold box which is a temperature controlled fridge setup with a fan inside for airflow.  55 is my starting temp.

You have a chance of running into issues using a fridge, although it is quite possible and many do that without issue.  The problem is a refrigerator will end up by being too cold. And as a result if you leave the molds in too long, condensation is a very real risk. If condensation forms it can cause sugar bloom and ruin the batch. 

Something else to note that you didnt mention: Are you performing a temper test to ensure the tempering machine is giving you proper temper or are you relying on the machine to give you tempered chocolate?  The reason I ask is you can see my results. My room temp rose up to 74F/23.3C. Which, frankly, is normal for my area.  However, I'd get a clean temper test, but the molds would start to swirl and/or discolor.  The back swirls are obvious, the discoloration of the chocolate touching the molds wasnt any different in most respects than what you've shown.

 74f_room_temp_Temper.jpg - 42KB

Well, it looks like Erin pointed out that the plastics are made from Delrin.  I can tell from experience with that material that it doesnt expand/contract with heating very much at all.  

As for the flavor of the chocolate that got up that hot, it was good. This was a 2 ingredient batch that was being refined and ended up by getting a little more bitter/cocoa flavors and some of the more delicate notes were cut out.  I cant say it was bad or good compared to normal, this was the first real batch like that with that percentage (77%) that I've made. So I really have nothing to compare it to.

After noting the higher heat though, I did realize that I was kind of taking advantage of the higher sheer power of the Wonder grinders and adding things a little faster than I would in, say, my Santha.  So that may be the sole reason it got quite *that* hot.  Generally, if you're more careful and steady about adding the ingredients, the friction would be limited and thus the heat.

so, I *think* I have a mystery solved.  At least for the seizing wheels anyway.  The way that the axle became coated as shown in the pics, the materials seemed almost "baked" on in addition to being super sticky. I *think* the assembly wasnt fully dried prior to reassembling. This would add moisture, which would cause problems.  That, right now, is the only thing I can think of that would have caused the seizing the way it did. 

I'm still somewhat concerned with the amount of granite dust and the silvery dust that caked on the wheels though.

I can almost see the granite dust as being a part of the wear in process which would become lessened as the wheels and bowl get used and cleaned properly...but the silvery glimmery material in the pics above is worrisome.

I'll try the cb lubing the shaft and see if that helps.   The batches I do are typically 100oz batches. (6.25lbs/2.8kg) The 12 hour mark was there to signify that it wasnt any preheating actively heating the chocolate. This was within about 30-40 minutes after I added the sugar so it was at a point of high friction of the grinding/refining process.  This is not common, but noticed it on this particular batch.  Was worried the machine was overheating so I pulled the drum off and checked the machine. It was running at normal operating temps. The santha I've never seen a batch go above 125F/51C.

Something to note though, I've tested and shown that just the act of refining (no added heat in a room temp of 72F) gets the chocolate up to 146F.  Which is around 63C. The pic below was after about 12 hours of refining, I almost burned my hand checking the side for heat. So out of curiosity I took a temp.

 friction_heat.jpg - 77KB

And yes, the expoxies are the only things that have an issue with the heat. Based on what I've been able to find ; which I'll admit is not much so it is an educated guess, is that 180F is the material test rating. 170 is close, but not over what the material should be capable of handling. HDPE (the plastics) are dishwasher safe, meaning they'll withstand the over 200F of a dishwasher drying cycle. And stone...well, stone shouldnt have the issue.

Testing with a surface IR thermometer, the stone never reaches that temp in the time I have it in the oven. It just happens to be the lowest my oven will go.  After 2 hours, the stones read 150F/65C. And yes, I'm cautious as I'm aware of the potential issues there. The epoxy doesnt loosen or budge. It's just as hard and rigid after heating as it is when it's room temp. So I dont fear that to be an issue.

Yes, the wheels will move slightly from side to side down the axle shaft when clean. They spin freely, and no vertical(up and down) movement when the wheels are in place. Both assemblies are like this. 

Here's the pics of the seized assembly at each step of cleaning.

 seized_001.jpg - 69KB

To reiterate: when I got the machines in October. I unpackaged them, ran them under hot water and mild soap and used a scrubbing brush. That was to get rid of any plastics and oils prior to first run.   The first run; again as a cleaning procedure; was to pour hot water and mild degreasing soap into the maching and let it run.  The axles were covered during this time. After running through like that, I took the assembly apart, scrubbed the wheels the best I could, wiped down the axles as best I could and used forced spray of water to clean out the inside of the wheels.  

This area here is too small for any brush I have (bottle brush will not fit).  I have since used my dip tube brush from my keg gear.  It's a tiny brush that requires some force to push through the wheel, bristles are bigger than the hole, so they are indeed scrubbing.

I was able to run a batch of 2 ingredient chocolate through at 72% dark. For prep for this I heat my oven to the lowest setting which is 170F/76.6C and set the assembly and drum separately on sheet pans lined with parchment paper. The assembly sits in the oven for about 1-2 hours, then gets placed on the base. I pour the liquid ingredients in first; i.e. cocoa butter if I'm adding any. If no cb, I begin by adding freshly roasted/winnowed nibs about a handful at a time (maybe .5oz) and let it get somewhat liquid first before moving forward.   It takes about 2 hours to add all nibs in. At that point I let it refine for a minimum of 12 hours before adding any other ingredients (milk, sugar, vanilla, etc). There was no visible or noticable issue with that batch. Other than the premier refined a lot faster than I'm used to (ready in 36 hours).

To clean after a batch of chocolate has been run through, I pull out the degreaser and hot water to remove any chocolate that I couldnt scrape out. I let this soak for a few minutes prior to attacking it with a scrubbing brush. I then use the spray hose to rinse out the bowl and remove any visible chocolate on the wheel assembly. I then take wheels off, and scrub the inside of the wheels and wipe down the axles.  I then wait for it to be mostly dry, then I set the disassembled wheel assembly onto a parchment lined sheet pan into the oven.  This assists in getting the pieces drying.

If I'm going to run another batch that day, I will leave the pieces in the oven for about 2-3 hours to both dry and warm the pieces.  When I assemble, I make sure to tighten the nuts as tight as they were prior to me disassembling. As of thus far, I've been treating the new premiere grinders the same as I have treated my santha grinder.  The santha grinder is still running, zero issues, and have never had a problem with it. In fact I've just replaced a belt on it, first time in almost 8 years that was done.  So I'm going to assume maintenance, cleaning, sanitation is going to be the same?

Ok, because of the 2am cleanup finishing around 3am, a little slow at getting the pics up.  However, the lube appears to be cb with granite dust. In one of my last batches of 2-ingredient dark chocolate I found a big glob of it with the last 8-10oz of chocolate. I've poured that in a container un-tempered to solidify before throwing out. Looking at it now, it's cb. It has the same temper/texture/solidity that the cb immediately around it has, only it's pitch black with some sort of metalic sparkle to it (hence when seeing it in liquid form looked like a separate lube).

I've done the dry sugar thing on my Santha, but that was several years ago. I was told in some posting or another in the years since that it's not a suggested practice since it's a wet grinder and can damage the machine by running dry foods through it.  I take it that's gone back to standard practice again?

What I have done to clean, other than running 4 batches of chocolate through one machine and 2 batches through the other, is I've poured hot water and a degreasing soap into the machine and let it run for a few minutes. Took it apart and washed/scrubbed thoroughly as a first cleaning procedure. 

As a secondary suggested procedure to knock and collect dust, I did run an oil/sugar mix through the machines for about 2 hours. It discolored the oil but I've since cleaned that out. 

I'm thinking at the moment, the biggest worry is the seizing wheels. I'm not sure what could be causing that, and I'll have to take the wheels out into daylight to see if there's scratching or marring on the white bushings that I cant see in the indoor lighting for some reason. It's worrisome because it's happening on 2 assemblies, not just one machine. 

Since I have one machine open with a newly cleaned and dried wheel assembly, I've run the dry sugar through for about 45 minutes. That did not discolor the sugar, and I'm in process of cleaning that out and getting it dried again. The other machine I'll have pics posted of the chocolate free siezed wheels and they're disassembly up as soon as is possible.

This past season I chose to expand the new small business production and got 2 premier wonder grinders. And I'm having problems with both.

When I went to make some white chocolate, it came out a very sickly grey. No off flavors, but just sickly grey. After the first batch like that, I pulled the hub assembly out and saw there is a lot of black lube in the wheel; more specifically it seemed to have hidden/stored in the gap between the two-piece axle shaft assmbly that is epoxied to the wheels.

After trying to clean that out the best I could, I got a less grey, but still sickly looking white chocolate. After cleaning hard again - difficult because of the small opening I had to work with. and yet again another batch (third one) that is unusable because of it's sickly color.

Thus far, it looks and tastes like it's a food-grade lubricant of some sort, which I dont mind, just want it gone so it doesnt discolor my chocolate. I eventually went through both with a dip tube brush from my beer keg cleaning gear, which was the only small scrub brush that I have that would fit in there.

I *think* I've gotten it all out, but now I'm having issues with both assemblies with the wheels seizing.  They "float" across the bottom, but do not spin. When I first saw this, I pulled the assembly and took it apart. There appeared to be plastic or string kinda twined in there. Pulled that out and inspected the wheels but I'm not seeing any damage at all.  I put the other assembly in (2nd machine not in use) to finish the batch, and this one also seized up.

Anyone else having these issues?  I've attatched the grey vs fresh add to the grinder for color comparisons.  This is getting a little frustrating at this point.

I'm currently in the process of emptying the grinder that currently has the siezed wheels. As they get cleaned I'll post pics.  I'm really hoping this isnt due to something stupid on my part. I've been careful to disassemble and reassemble exactly as they were.  Seemed to be working fine with the lube in there other than tainting the chocolate. But now that it's cleaned, not seeming to work right.

 grey.jpg - 45KB

I'm just going by the blurb that was in the description.

Is that a $100 bar, or is that $100 donation with chocolate thrown in as a thank you?

Awesome.  I guess I meant by using the chocolate as a seed silk. Using the bean-to-bar, the experiments showed that it was very thick and difficult to mix in, and tempering was less than stellar.  I was curious if you'd tried that with a higher cb content chocolate.  I figure once I get my machine (I'll be placing an order towards the end of the month) I can try that with a smaller batch size and see how it works out but was curious to know if it was the cocoa solids causing the thickness or if it was just the lower cb content of the bean to bar chocolate you were using. Hence the asking about commercial couvertures - which will typically have a much higher cb content than some eating chocolates.

Wow, it's taken a few days to go over all the info in this and the egullet threads.  This sounds like it is exactly what I'm looking for as a tempering solution. 

I'm curious now, I'm a bean to bar maker that is just starting out. Cocoa butter is added to all of my chocolate bars, largely so that it has the consistency that I like when eating and working with to mold and dip.  So from this standpoint, it sounds like if I had the eztemper I'd just subtract the cocoa butter on the front end, and add the amount subtracted in the form of silk once I'm done, so it wouldnt alter my recipe at all.

The reason I'm posting though, is the trials of using chocolate in the eztemper seems to be using the 2 ingredient bean-to-bar chocolate for the trials. Have any tests been done to use anything with a higher cocoa butter content, such as using a commercial couverture?   Based on what I've read I'm already sold, so I guess it'd be more of a trial and error sort of thing, no?

I stand corrected then  I misunderstood the labeling on the FDA's site.   I wasnt suggesting that the big guys were lobbying for change on that regard, but I've heard discussions that it was suggested as a cost cutting measure.

The only thing I can think of would be that the caramel cutter is more like a pizza cutter. Ganache may stick to the blades as it rolls across.  Anyone with more experience have ideas to prevent that?

I'm personally not familiar with apple pectin. But I have run into issues with trying a recipe for pate de fruit from Andrew Schotts' book.  He has his own branded pectin blend specifically for pate de fruit called G Pectin, which I believe is sold at Chef Rubber.

This was discussed over on egullet here: http://forums.egullet.org/topic/97623-what-is-g-pectin/page-2  It's about a third to halfway down the page.

I've had success with Pamona Pectin recipe, which can usually be found in local specialty stores or in bigger places like Sprouts and Whole Foods. The trick is in heating things just right. Too little heat and it'll not set properly, too much heat or too much pectin and it'll be more of a gummy candy. It's been a tried and true go to for me.  

It is interesting and I find the whole Raw Food think kind of...hmm, to remain diplomatic and civil.....stupid.   One of the reasons I got into chocolate was because of interest in where my food comes from and chasing down and reading up on food science.  I essentially became a foodie because of demonization of various ingredients. Big ones I see in chocolate is lecithin and corn syrup (high fructose or otherwise).  But I digress. that's a whole topic on it's own.

Something I noticed about the link you posted.  The shell content only seems to be an identification of selling and marketing cocoa nibs as a food in and of themselves.  So when you go to the store and find a bag of cocoa nibs; that's the standards that are required.  The reason I mention this is it seems that the big industry folks have toyed with if they havent already moved to just keeping the hulls in the processing because it accounts for 20% of "waste"  If processed and refined correctly other than a slightly more bitter and "dry" taste, I'm not sure there's any way to enforce that without sending inspectors to the factory as it's not readily noticible and I'm not entirely sure that it's testable either.

For the raw people; unfortunately it's going to take a small epidemic (more than one or 2 isolated cases) of someone getting sick before the FDA really moves on anything.  Right now, our politics have a lot of our safety agencies sorely underfunded which means they dont have quite the enforcement capacity as we would expect. Hopefully that changes, but until then, FDA and USDA are largely reactionary to problems as opposed to heading them off at the pass like they should.

Not meaning to dismiss them outright, so I do appologize for the wording here.  It seems like the majority of the Raw Food enthusiasts are able bodied adults that tend to be of a more new-age hippy mindset.  As long as it stays that way, I dont see too much of an issue.  It's when they start feeding this stuff to thier kids, that's the only time that I think that we'll feel the reverberations and the government will step in.

Very interesting topic, however I think the analogy misses on a few points.  Most $100 bottles of wine were originally sold for $20-$50 when new. As they age and get better (not all wines age well, contrary to popular belief) the price increases simply due to supply and demand.  Hence a lot of collectors out there are filling thier cellars up with cases of $20 wines.  In 10+ years, that case of $20 wines *might* be a case of $100 wines.   

Are there winemakers selling $100 for new bottles? of course. But they are few and far between, relatively speaking. And almost all of that is due to reputation.

Secondly, unlike most chocolate makers, winemakers tend to have pure and total control over thier grape production. Many of the finest Bordeux's are from winemakers that have been winemaking for generations. They have grown a reputation, without being able to grow thier production. There's a real difference between a good grape and an amazing grape.  

I know I'm new to the industry and just barely coming out of the hobby, but most of the cacao that I seem to find is a blend of a myriad of different farmers, farming techniques, etc. Further, post harvest ferments and drying can range from great to abominable. All of which is just outside the hands of most chocolate makers. We get what we get and learn to work with it.

I think it's the combination of a bunch of things like this that holds prices where they are even though there are premium artisinal made chocolates vs cheapo candy chocolate. Most of what I've seen for $15+ bars is pure ego, while only some of it is rarity, but mostly ego.  If we can somehow work in something special in one chocolate that isnt in another, that's where I think the prices can and would climb.  

It's not a matter of producing a $100 bar, it's a matter of producing something that becomes worth $100 and people are willing to buy as a matter of value and specialness, and rarity. Elitism is where a lot of high dollar things get thier values.

Desert Indulgence is the name I went with.

Just jumping in incase someone else has the issue.  I just got done dealing with this for about the past year.  Was thinking my chocolate skills after almost 8 years were in decline for some reason.  Turns out it was just my thermometer.

Sometimes I'd have streaks of lighter colored almost pale yellow on the mold side, and sometimes faint streaks on the back. Problem was it was inconsistent, even though tempering was being done consistently and it was passing the "spoon test"   After calibrating my thermometer I found that it drifted from being accurate at 32F but then was off by an inconsistent amount and wasnt accurate again until 233F.   

So, new thermometer and validating that it's properly calibrated solved the issue. Now I'm getting consistent temper anytime I try.

BTW: I thought it might be airflow, because I keep cieling fans on in the work area. So I turned them off with no change in temper. Some suggested humidity; but I live in a desert, where if I'm seeing 25%, it's a wet day.  But that can also affect things if you're in a humid area.  I do tend to keep my molds out at room temp, no heating or cooling of them specifically; then place them in a cold box at around 65-68F on a wire rack.

Thanks for that sebastian. I was always told to stay away from non-oil based flavorings in chocolate, so for the most part I have. Most of my experience is from flavor extractions for cooking and baking.  And what you said does make a bit of sense since a lot of extractions try to concentrate the flavors/potentcy of the extract through distillation.

I've also noticed most non alcohol based flavorings I've found in the industry use Propelene Glycol as the medium as well and some using Vegetable Glycerin(may be labled as Glycerin or Glycerol). I would think that may be safe for chocolate as well without seizing. Both of which are an alcohol, but not water based.

Not seeing an answer here, so hopefully this will help.  Let me start by saying I've never used an alcohol based flavoring for chocolate, so I'm not speaking from experience in that regard; just knowlege of the products/ingredients.

Alcohol is mixed with water. So any alcohol based flavorings are going to contain water.  It's very difficult outside of medical grade stuff to get pure alcohol, so you're going to have a distilled mixture that at best will be about 98% pure, then diluted with distilled water down to approx 80-100 proof (40-50% alcohol) And that's the base. 

The process is used because some flavors are simply not fat soluable and some flavors are. Further some flavors are naturally oils (like citrus).

Hopefully this info helps.

BTW: Did you try it and if so how did it turn out?

Hi everyone. As the forum says, just wanted to introduce myself. I've been making chocolate truffles for about 9 years now and ventured into making chocolate from the bean about 6 years ago.  My friends and family have convinced me that I should venture out and start a business making chocolate, so I have.

As the intro says, I'm in Arizona. Specifically the Phoenix area.  And yes it becomes difficult to work with chocolate when it's 115+ outside, which may explain the utter lack of bean to bar makers here.

New to the site, but have heard about good stuff and of course my google-fu leads me to various forum and blog posts here so I figured this would be a good place to be active. I look forward to getting to know you on the forums.