Talk:Moka pot

Untitled
Talk page created on 2006-09-11. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davide.tassinari (talk • contribs) 13:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Clarity in the Maintenance Section
Paragraph 2 begins, "After use, an often desired coat of oily coffee residue is left lining the interior of the stems, filters and upper chamber." The expression often desired is confusing.

Does it mean that some people prefer their Moka Pots to have this residue? Does it improve function? Flavor? Do some people consume this oily residue? Bake with it? These might sound like a stupid questions to someone familiar with the way Moka Pots work, but to someone who comes to this article because they don't even know what a Moka Pot is, the ambiguity is needlessly confusing.

It seems to me that if it's worth mentioning that the residue is "often desired" then it's also worth mentioning who desires it and why. If it's not worth adding the extra sentence to clarify, then I don't think it's worth including the awkward and confusing expression in the first place. I would correct this myself, but I, personally, have no idea why this residue would be desired -- either often or on occasion. --Brijohn6882 (talk) 23:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Is the reworded section better now? cojoco (talk) 23:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe it would be better to say "some users prefer" or "some manufacturers recommend". The problem with "it is often desired" (or similar language) is that you do not say when it is desired.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.87.103.56 (talk) 02:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Old question, but I'll answer it in case someone with a better handle of English decides to edit the article. The oily residue is believed to protect the coffee from reacting with the aluminum in the pot and changing flavor to some metallic aftertaste. That's why it's not recommended to clean them on the inside with soap, just water.186.89.37.223 (talk) 12:52, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Moka Cup Size
Corrected the size of the average moka cup from 10 to 20 ml after direct measurement (I agree I was a bit pessimistic). Removed the 10-cl argument, since it was in the wrong place and obviously made by someone with no direct experience. I understand that an American coffee drinker can hardly believe how small Italian cups are, but I assure the correctness of my statement. Tassone 13:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I see it's been edited to '1ml', which is ridiculous. I'll change it. Fustbariclation (talk) 07:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Extra-pressure Moka versions
I have a great Moka pot at home that has an extra pressure-stopper on top of the upper spout. It's made by the Bialetti company just the same, but it actually gives my coffee a crema. I don't see any reference to this machine, though I'm fairly sure there used to be, somewhere on Wikipedia. Does anyone know what happened to the older article? --Eli Brody 08:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Eli, Shalom..

I believe you are talking about the Brikka model by bialetti. There is a short stub at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brikka

Kol Tuv, Myron Joshua 212.199.119.26 18:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I added a Brikka section, I think the stub should be removed.Geo8rge (talk) 18:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Patented Shape
I removed this factoid from "trivia:"


 * The shape of the Moka Express is patented

Even if the Moka shape was patented (which seems reasonable) the design patent should not have lasted more than 20 years and would have expired. Perhaps it was supposed to mean "trademarked"? Please fix this (ideally while providing a citation) before adding it back to the article. Thanks! — m a k o ๛  13:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think is trademarked. Imitations usually have some slight difference in design (ten-sided base instead of eight-sided, or a cylindrical upper part). StefanoC 12:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Moka vs. Espresso cooker
I had a look at the (German) page for Espresso cookers, and I don't find many differences with Italian-style mokas, unless it's the material (stainless steel instead of aluminium). StefanoC 12:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Not a how-to
The tips section I added was removed as "WP is not a howto". While I appreciate that point, this conflicts with the "Brewing" and "Maintenance" sections which provide guidance on the use of the device (similar to a howto). Additionally, I don't see how brewing tips would impact the quality of the article and would be of use to visitors (as the brewing and maintenance sections are). If the tips are better referenced and written as paragraphs can they be included again, or is there a seperate page where they can be placed? Singelet 11:48, 14 January 2008 (CAT)
 * A few notes on the usage of a moka are fine in the context of explaining what it is and how it works, but listing a "tips" section such as would be found in a manual is outwith the spirit of Wikipedia. An externally linked page with such comprehensive information would be fine under WP:NOT and WP:EL.  Dei z  talk 11:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. Singelet 14:11, 14 January 2008 (CAT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.23.137.211 (talk)

vs Espresso
I'm not sure I understand, this page and the page for Espresso both say there's a difference but also say that this is how Espresso was first made. That doesn't make sense. The product may be different, but if this is an early version of espresso, saying that this isn't true espresso seems to mischaracterize the product.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 20:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Doug, are you confused bacause it's said that steam pressure was used in both, the first espresso cookers and the Moka pan? True espresso brew requires a relatively high brewing pressure, the Moka pan doesn't get close to that. The first espresso makes used steam, but the steam pressure was higher as in Moka pans. So Moka pan (or similar) has never been used to brew true espresso.


 * Roman


 * 88.195.98.165 (talk) 10:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, well then I think we need to find sources for both articles to show this. In any case, the product of a Moka pot is not ordinary coffee, more like Turkish or Arabic Coffee (produced by boiling very finely ground coffee in water, separation is by settling), or light espresso.  I drink a fairly strong black coffee but my Moka pot coffee is the closest thing I've seen to espresso.  I think it was on the manufacturer's page that I saw that Moka pot coffee was half way between regular coffee and espresso, sort of like a Café Americano.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 18:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I would note also that at least one of the references on this article calls it "moka pot coffee (or stovetop espresso)". --Doug.(talk • contribs) 18:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Retailers like Sweetmarias.com and others use the term Moka Pot, so I think the term is in common use.
 * This brewing method has been called under this name for more than 70 years, -it is the third wave within coffee which stresses the difference between 9-bar machines and stove top coffee makers. And, although I do agree with this, history is history. The moka pot has been called Moka Express (with an 'x', still on the original italian product packaging) for such a long time, it seems a fight against windmills to change this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.118.252.7 (talk) 09:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Every source I've seen highlights that this is not espresso, as does common sense and a look at the Espresso page. There is no real (<100 mm H2O) pressure involved. I was surprised to find the article consistently and blatantly wrong about this. It is simply hot water passing through grounds and a sieve, i.e. coffee. I won't start an edit war, though. I hope actives with more time will. 85.23.51.77 (talk) 20:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Every dictionary I've referenced agrees here. Espresso is "a strong coffee prepared by forcing live steam under pressure, or boiling water, through ground dark-roast coffee beans." -Random House or.. "A strong coffee brewed by forcing steam under pressure through darkly roasted, powdered coffee beans." - The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language.

The Moka Espresso pot most certainly uses steam to force the water through the grounds. Now does it produce a crema like a $2000 machine? No. But that doesn't mean it isn't an espresso. The way we define different kinds of coffee is all in the method that beverage is extracted. Feel free to pigeon hole this as "Moka" (Moka being a type of espresso) if you want, but don't attempt to exclude it from the category. It most certainly isn't drip coffee (which you seem to imply with "It is simply hot water passing through grounds and a sieve, i.e. coffee"). It is important to note that strength of the beverage has nothing to do with its classification, as some former posters have suggested. If you were to place only a half a tea spoon of finely ground dark coffee into a very expensive espresso machine and make the drink, you would still have an espresso, albeit a very weak one. Go back to the main Espresso page. It even links to this page. (And there is no mention of a <100 mm H2O requirement by the way) Re-read how the espresso page defines the functionality of an espresso machine, and compare to the function of the moka pot. Thanks. Saji Loupgarou (talk) 02:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The definitions cited from dictionaries for espresso are . . . well, incomplete or inaccurate. No espresso machine (pump driven or steam driven) nor moka pot makes coffee by forcing steam through ground coffee. All of them force water through the coffee. Some force boiling water through the coffee. Some use steam pressure as a "driving force" to force water through the coffee. Some residual steam may go through the grinds . . . but the amount of liquid coffee produced by this steam is negligible at best.


 * A visit to the Espresso page will confirm this. Pump driven espresso machines force neither boiling water nor steam through coffee grinds. They force hot water (90C-95C) through coffee grinds at a pressure of ~9 bar. Steam powered or pumpless espresso machines can be considered moka pots in disguise. They work like a moka pot, but look like a semi-automatic espresso machine. A modern steam powered espresso machine generates about 0.5-1.5 bar gauge pressure to drive water through coffee grounds. Because this pressure is generated by steam one can reference a steam table to find that the temperature of the water is between 110C to 127C (saturated steam temperature at 0.5-1.5 bar gauge pressure).


 * The extraction process at this temperature is greatly different from that of a modern espresso machine. Though proponents of steam powered espresso machines use the term espresso to describe the coffee, I would hesitate to call this espresso. Moka pot coffee is extracted under very different conditions than (pump driven) espresso. StateOfTheUnion (talk) 21:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Just as a quick clarifying response (and others have been suggesting it above), I believe the important point is that steam-passing-through-ground-coffee is what makes something espresso, and a moka pot -- although it uses steam to force the water upwards -- creates coffee by forcing liquid water through the coffee grounds.Dgianotti (talk) 17:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Excellent response. That's precisely the difference. Yworo (talk) 17:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Espresso is obtained by forcing hot (90-95 Celsius) water under pressure through ground coffee; the moka passes boiling water (no pressure) through ground coffee. Coffee made with moka cannot be classified as espresso, and as I am italian I can guarantee that nobody there would call such a coffee an espresso. Furthermore, the espresso was called this way because of the short extraction time, which does not apply to the moka coffee. (Antonio, Jun 12 2011)

Bottom line is that industry bastards have taken the liberty of defining "espresso". I'll no sooner stop calling my moka-made liquid jolt "espresso" than I'd let McDonalds define for me what "chicken patty" is. Unconscionable that anyone would argue otherwise in good faith. 174.113.240.160 (talk) 15:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, this raises the fundamental issue about whether Wikipedia will rely on either Wiktionary or on industrial alliances in sorting out the definitions of the words we little humans use to convey meaning to each other. I guess WP prefers the conflict-of-interest faction because it's so much sexier.174.113.240.160 (talk) 16:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the above discussion, have any of you attached a pressure gauge to the moka pot to substantiate the claims that there is or isn't high pressure? You can infer the presence of significant pressure by the speed with which the water evacuates the pot and makes its way as coffee into the upper receptacle. It is possible to have the pot on a high heat, yet for the coffee to emanate relatively slowly compared to the violent boil inside the pot. That points to a buildup of pressure! The rate of brewing depends on how much coffee you put into the filter, whether you tamped it, and the coarseness of the grind. With practice, you can achieve a slow brew on high boil and that can only mean there is a solid pressure behind it. A nice oily cream will appear and everything. 219.190.10.85 (talk) 12:40, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

219.190.10.85, moka pots are most certainly capable of producing tremendous pressure. This is why there is a pressure valve no the side... without it, the pressure would be so great that the whole pot could explode! (I've seen it happen!) Antonio wrote "the moka passes boiling water (no pressure)" through the grounds. This makes no sense, as without pressure, the water would have no way to move up into the pot! And yes, the steam does move upward through the coffee grounds, otherwise the water wouldn't be forced through into the pot. The steam and the water are both necessary. The steam creates the pressure which forces the water through the ground and into the pot, whereupon the steam escapes out of the spout. Therefore, the product satisfies the basic definition of the word "espresso." Saji Loupgarou (talk) 08:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

So what I am getting at is I do not think industry standards are acceptable sources as the last say for what is espresso int his article. However, I see no reason to squash the argument altogether. It would be acceptable to me (and most importantly the wiki guidelines) if we balanced the viewpoints in a more neutral fashion. Saji Loupgarou (talk) 08:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Name change?
Although it's probably the most common name by far, Moka Espress is a trademark of Bialetti. In the same line as Frisbee, I suggest this should be renamed Moka pot or Espresso pot, both names are used in sources.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 06:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree I also think the Brikka article should be merged with this one. I also think mention of generic moka pots should be mentioned Geo8rge (talk) 17:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * So which is it? "Moka pot" or "Espresso pot".  I can't find any information on the use of the word "Moka" in Italian prior to the invention of the "Moka Express", so it may just be an adaptation of the trademark name.  Bialetti seems to call them "Stovetop espresso makers" or maybe "Espresso pots", when describing what the "Moka Express" is.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 16:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * In Italy they're usually referred to as a "Cafeteira". 95.172.194.202 (talk) 08:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Cruising the BialetteUSA site, it is called a coffee maker. I saw very few references to espresso anywhere on their site.  Even Brikka is called a stovetop coffee maker.  Stovetop espresso is probably not a term used or invented by the Bialetti company.  Geo8rge (talk) 04:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging
This article talk page was automatically added with WikiProject Food and drink banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here. Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories, but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns, please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 23:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

moka pot dosage
The average moka pot dosage is 150mL of water, and 17 grams of ground coffee. When you are finished you get 3 servings 50mL each. Phil (talk) 20:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)Phil
 * Reference? cojoco (talk) 23:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Also See
Someone (who knows a lot more about coffee than I do) should add references to (1) Bialetti Brikka, and (2) the Neapolitan (a.k.a. Napolitana) flip style coffee maker. It took me a longtime to discover these terms. I wish they had been in Wikipedia under Percolator or Moka Pot or Espresso or Coffee Makers (all the places I looked first). Thanks.

In the section title "Brewing Coffee with a Moka", the first word should be "Water". One should never use milk in a moka !! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.116.218 (talk) 21:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Induction Stove
Article currently says that these do not work on induction stoves. But as far as I could find out online - apparently that's only the case for aluminium moka pots, not for steel or stainless steel pots. Or - do they work but they break the stove? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.78.244.244 (talk) 18:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Not all stainless steels models work on induction stoves, but some of them do. (Uitos) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uitos (talk • contribs) 12:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

"medium to medium-high heat" or "high heat"?
As I understand it, the faster the water runs through the filter (thus the higher the pressure, the hotter), the better the extraction quality (pollutants take longer to extract) and the coffee. Shouldn't in this case the heat be as high as possible? -- megA (talk) 15:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

In the end, it is a matter of taste, but quick extraction will bring out a more sour flavor from the coffee, as the acids are most easily extracted. Quick heating will also lower caffeine content, so you would bias the flavors away from bitterness, towards more sour tastes. Not my idea of a good cup, but if you like it, why not. As for pollutants, the point you make is not necessarily true, but may hold for common pesticides used in bean cultivation. If you are especially anxious about this, you may want to go sour :) In any case, I think the Wikipedia should reflect that that medium fire is conventional to make a balanced brew. But it should be sourced, of course (and I am not sure what sort of source could be used). --tijmz (talk) 11:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Worry about pollutants? Uh, what you're doing when you brew coffee is essentially you're making a kind of tea from the charcoal left behind by burning some plant material. This is likely loaded with all kinds of substances, some of them probably not unlike coal tar derivatives. Roasting is a process that generates pollution! As a coffee drinker, I accept that I'm basically drinking a pollution solution. :) 219.190.10.85 (talk) 12:33, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Fountain version
Would a picture of the "fountain" version be of interest in the article? I also have a single-cup version at home, which I could take a picture of. -- megA (talk) 15:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Mechanism of brewing
I am not sure if I understand the mechanism of the moka pot. Why does the tube release fluid, instead of steam? Is the steam cooled through expansion, or is water condensing in the coffee funnel and then pushed up by steam? I know this is not answers.com, but as I went to Wikipedia looking for this piece of info, it would be great if someone could expand on it. --tijmz (talk) 11:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * that's a good question. I did a little Google searching and found an article that describes the process in a fairly simple manner with some diagrams. The article states: "When the water in the bottom is heated up it generates steam. This steam increases the pressure in the bottom chamber and this pressure starts to push the water up through the filter and into the top compartment." Mystery solved. Rinkle gorge (talk) 04:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Gasket Replacement
These pots only require periodic replacement of the gaskets for two reasons:


 * 1) the original and replacement gaskets are made from an inferior, soft-rubber material which does not stand up to abrasion or heat.
 * 2) the rim of the water pot, which rubs against the gasket when screwing and unscrewing, is poorly machined, accelerating the wear.

I believe that these points are deliberate: there is a business model behind selling these replacement gaskets, whose cumulative cost exceeds the original purchase of the pot. (Think about ink-jet printers and cartridges, or gilette razor blades.)

Six years ago I made my own gasket from a composite gasket material made from black rubber and cork particles. Furthermore, I sand-papered the lip of the pot to make it more smooth. Since then, the pot has not leaked a drop. I don't expect that the pot as a whole will outlast the gasket. 219.190.10.85 (talk) 12:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

type of percolator?
Is this a type of percolator? If so, it should be clearly stated; if not, I think it would be a good idea to draw contrast. 78.86.61.94 (talk) 12:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

It is not a type of percolator. Some time ago, I had a detailed comparison in here, but it was deleted in a page rewrite. You're welcome to find it in the history and pull the relevant parts into the new article structure. Sehr Gut (talk) 17:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Moka pot dimensions
Is the table (and indeed the section) really necessary? Seems a little over-specific. 90.209.24.173 (talk) 00:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Vs. Drip coffee
" the mixture of water and steam reaches temperatures well above 100 °C, causing a more efficient extraction of caffeine" is in direct contradiction of what is said in the french article wich state: " l'eau atteint une température supérieure à 100 °C ; celle-ci passant de plus rapidement à travers la mouture, le café obtenu contient plus d'arômes volatils et moins de caféine" wich i translate to " the water reach temperature over 100°C; the water going faster through the grind, the coffee it makes contains more volatile aroma and less caffeine". Considering the french article has a source for this specific part and not the english one, i'd suggest making verification and modifying the article accordingly. i won't be doing it because my english isn't all that great. Alexandre Foley

For what it is worth, a friend of mine calls this a vulcano, evidently due to the bubbling up of the coffee like magma. -- Evertype·✆ 09:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Easy cleaning method
I have found that if you wait for it to cool for a couple minuets then rinse and use a brush on the top where the coffee is that you can get away just leaving it for a couple days since the coffee is dry and there is just a bit of water in the bottom of the pot.--tumaru 20:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

coffeescale nonsense.
Please, can Wikipedia not be a very wrong, very poor HOW-TO on maintenance or brewing? There is a boatload of misinformation on this page, the most egregious of which I removed. The portion removed recommended to keep a layer of what is called coffee scale in the pot-firstly this is immensely unsanitary and secondly IT WILL ALWAYS LEAD TO BITTER COFFEE. You will never receive enough "leached" aluminium to a. be aware of the taste and b. to do any damage to internal organs or display toxicity. Thanks. 24.77.26.190 (talk) 20:09, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Moka pot. 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/20101214144806/http://www.bialetti.it/files/catalogue/attachments/moka%20italia.pdf to http://www.bialetti.it/files/catalogue/attachments/moka%20italia.pdf

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) 00:33, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Citation for higher extraction
As far as I understand, figure 7 shows higher extraction of caffeine and total solids. Markus00000 (talk) 17:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Luigi De Ponti
Actually the information about Luigi De Ponti inventing the Moka is fake. Luigi De Ponti was the CEO of Bialetti during the 80ies. The patent we are talking about has been deposed in 1983, 50 years after Bialetti invented the Moka. The italian Wikipedia has corrected it: here. All the reliable stories about Bialetti (cited in the article) did not refer to De Ponti. This is why I deleted the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enrico malatesta (talk • contribs) 11:05, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

References to boiling are incorrect
I think people have misinterpreted reference nine and this wiki page explains the incorrect explanation of how a moka pot works. My understanding is that water should not boil if done correctly. In reference nine it clearly explains this unless I misunderstand. Figure 6 explains it the best. The contribution of dry air pressure is significant and the figure shows that the computed vapour pressure never equals the measured pressure, i.e. boiling never occurs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2406:3400:617:6210:69FF:1808:7B00:AC4F (talk) 15:27, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Bialetti "Made in Italy"?
Nu Bialetti moka pots still have the black label on the side saying "Made in Italy" - how is that allowed (at least the bottom stamp says Italian DESIGNED...)? Aren't Bialetti moka pots no longer made in Italy?

Grosche and skysabs: SPAM?
"A brand that has been making a name for itself in the past several years is GROSCHE International, who funds 50+ days of safe drinking water with every purchase. So far they have funded over 300 MILLION days of safe drinking water. They were also featured in a viral tiktok by @skysabs that reached over 2 MILLION views."

This part reads very VERY much as spam. 77.71.195.129 (talk) 17:10, 22 March 2023 (UTC)