LurfysMa,
technically, his contract stated as per [2] did not specify the oxygen
as being oxygen _dissolved_ in water, but as "oxygen in water", ...
well i guess my argument wont stand up in court since the contract is
ambiguous in expression... :P (unless the judge doesnt know the
difference)

but now, i'll go try some microwaved water tea, to see if it tastes any
different... maybe a blind test...

LurfysMa wrote:

[1]
The oxygen he is referring to is dissolved oxygen, not the oxygen that
is part of the water molecule.

[2]
DogMa wrote:
a cake of my best Pu-erh
to anyone who can provide some convincing science to support the
oft-cited "fact" that oxygen in water is critical to making good tea.

And speaking of myth, just to raise the stakes: a cake of my best Pu-erh
to anyone who can provide some convincing science to support the
oft-cited "fact" that oxygen in water is critical to making good tea.

Bold words! Presumably, you wouldn't argue that boiling the living
daylights out of a pot of water (let's say five minutes of hard
boiling, to reduce dissolved oxygen) will alter the taste of subsequent
tea brewed using it, in comparison with brewing once the water just
reaches the temperature appropriate for your leaves? Definitely worth
taking the taste challenge with, methinks!


Toodlepip,

Hobbes

wrote:
And speaking of myth, just to raise the stakes: a cake of my best Pu-erh
to anyone who can provide some convincing science to support the
oft-cited "fact" that oxygen in water is critical to making good tea.

Presumably, you wouldn't argue that boiling the living
daylights out of a pot of water (let's say five minutes of hard
boiling, to reduce dissolved oxygen) will alter the taste of subsequent
tea brewed using it, in comparison with brewing once the water just
reaches the temperature appropriate for your leaves?

You are conflating at least three variables here.

Most importantly, small differences in temperature near boiling can
produce a large difference in taste, especially given the usual
step-drop transferring from hot kettle to cooler pot. So the comparison
only makes sense if both tests are done at the boil, one immediately and
one after extended boiling - or after cooling the long-boiled water to
the same "appropriate" temperature as the other sample.

Secondly, extended boiling does a lot more than remove dissolved oxygen.
By forcing equilibria per Le Chatelier's principle, it enhances the
dissociation of carbonates. With CO2 gone, divalent salts that strongly
affect flavor tend to fall out of solution. The importance of this is
easy to demonstrate.

Finally, there's the putative oxygen effect. A better test for this one
would be to degas samples of nice brewing water by nitrogen sparging,
then recharge one with oxygen. This is not a completely trivial
experiment, requiring careful scrubbing of compressor oil and other
contaminants from both gases among other precautions.

Establishing meaningful controls that can help to isolate a small target
effect amid much larger noise signals is a key element in doing
meaningful research, and one very poorly understood (if even
acknowledged) by the lay public in all sorts of contexts.

-DM

Greetings, greetings,

It's very interesting to read your description, and I must confess
that I hadn't considered the other components of the equation, taking
"oxygen content" as a common shorthand. It is of course plausible that
determining the effect on brew-taste of changing just the dissolved
oxygen content of the water suffers from a poor signal-to-noise ratio.
However, if this is the real point of the challenge-question
("...provide some convincing science to support the oft-cited "fact"
that oxygen in water is critical to making good tea"), then it is not a
little specious in its wording, one must concede.

Given that excessive boiling results in several chemical alterations
occuring simultaneously, no tea drinker could probably claim to be
truly concerned about the effect of changing just one of them - because
changing just one of them doesn't happen in the course of conventional
brewing. That is, *if* the chemical alterations are truly coupled and
are inseparable given the utensils and environment of the common
tea-house. In this case, it is not relevant to be interested in the
effect of variation of just one of these obfuscated variables - from
the point of view of tasting brewed tea, and is thus specious to
question "oxygen in water".

I'll be honest:

...it sounds as if a reader, who has invested some of their time in
understanding the physical process of water's chemical content, has
come across people discussing "dissolved oxygen" and wants to make the
point that it is a variable obfuscated by others. This is fair.
However, rather than stating this fact, the reader prefers to the
spectacle of offering his "best puerh", and saving the fact for later.

I'm fine with that, but it does seem a little tedious (and fairly
ostentatious).

You do contribute some excellent information, for which I thank you,
but it's dressed up in the language of pedantry, for which I cannot
thank you.

Keep up the good work, but do please consider a more congenial
approach. If each of us were similarly ostentatious about our fields,
it wouldn't be much of a fun group, would it?


Toodlepip,

Hobbes
-__-

These thoughts offered not in contention but to share perspective on
both content and process with those of healthy and unfirm convictions.

HobbesOxon wrote:
I must confess
that I hadn't considered the other components of the equation, taking
"oxygen content" as a common shorthand.

There's been a lot of discussion and even a successful book recently on
the topic of BS as a social phenomenon. Harry G. Frankfurt asserts that
BS is much more damaging to society than outright lying. The liar, it is
pointed out, needs a deep regard for and understanding of truth in order
to craft his deceptions. The BSer simply doesn't care, hence diluting
the underlying value of truth to the whole culture.

A lot of tea mythology is useful, whether or not correct. A lot is fun
to have and to share, whether or not correct. Some of it actually
interferes with most people's ability to enjoy tea to the fullest.
Injunctions that include words like must - always - never and other
universal quantifiers are rarely defensible in practice, beyond
deliberately stylized ritual. Aside from significant inconsistency
between and even within some rule sets, the failure to allow for
personal preference and variations in all of the ingredients of tea
enjoyment make this kind of compulsive orthodoxy as much an annoyance as
a support beyond professional circles and the like.

The BS factor really comes to the fore when people start making
assertions about things like how water *must* be handled, brewing
temperature rules, and other matters of operational significance. The
whole "oxygen" thing may be true; I've just never seen supportive
evidence. Slinging jargon like that lends an unearned air (so to speak)
of technical competence, hence credibility, that serves the speaker's
ego at cost to the listener's own insight. Beyond the social costs of
such empty posturing, the displacement of real knowledge or honest
ignorance with cant and empty formalism interferes in important ways
with learning. For example, focusing on dissolved gases can distract
attention from mineral content and other factors that are not, in fact,
tightly coupled to oxygen content. One could identify a dozen other
common examples relating to tea varietals, purchasing, storage,
handling, use in combination with foods, health effects good and bad, etc.

However, if this is the real point of the challenge-question
... then it is not a little specious in its wording, one must concede.

Concedo nulli, especially if the assertion is incomprehensible. The real
point of the "challenge question" was twofold: to aim critical thinking
at claims that are probably untrue and the quality of thinking and
discourse that gives rise to them; and also to elicit evidence if any
exists, or at least a higher level of inquiry on this oft-encountered
topic.

Given that excessive boiling results in several chemical alterations
occuring simultaneously

For "results" substitute "may, in some common circumstances, result" or
an equivalent formulation.

, no tea drinker could probably claim to be
truly concerned about the effect of changing just one of them - because
changing just one of them doesn't happen in the course of conventional
brewing.

No tea drinker? And it does; that's a key point. Where I live, the
concentration of divalent carbonates in water is nil, so boiling doesn't
matter much. Extensive reboiling of water makes no difference to tea
taste that I can detect (except when chlorine or organics happen to be
running high). When I've lived in chalky parts of the UK, the effect was
dramatic. However, I'll stand by the assertion that even there, the main
effect of overboiling is to deposit more lime scale in the kettle.

...it sounds as if a reader, who has invested some of their time in
understanding the physical process of water's chemical content, has
come across people discussing "dissolved oxygen" and wants to make the
point that it is a variable obfuscated by others. This is fair.
However, rather than stating this fact, the reader prefers to the
spectacle of offering his "best puerh", and saving the fact for later.

I might comment if I could parse the foregoing paragraph. Is this the
current state of Oxford English?

... it does seem a little tedious (and fairly ostentatious).
... it's dressed up in the language of pedantry, for which I cannot
thank you.
Keep up the good work

Thank you for the diluted approbation. It makes my otherwise dreary day.
More to the point, you might want to consider the distinction between
pedantry for the sake of social hierarchy and precision for the sake of
clarity. If you can render my OP without the technical language in less
than double its tedious length without losing meaning, I will be
grateful for the writing lesson. I tried pretty hard to offer
information at several levels, including search terms for people who
actually want to understand and even experiment with this sort of thing
and qualitative descriptions for the less scientifically inclined.

If each of us were similarly ostentatious about our fields,
it wouldn't be much of a fun group, would it?

Ignoring the implied value judgment on ostentation (seen any beams
lately?), it's the diversity of posting styles, content, background and
predilections that makes this place fun. Hobbes, I'd urge you to
killfile any poster whose ostentation offends, certainly including this one.

-DM

DogMa writes:

HobbesOxon wrote:
[...]
If each of us were similarly ostentatious about our fields,
it wouldn't be much of a fun group, would it?

Ignoring the implied value judgment on ostentation (seen any beams
lately?), it's the diversity of posting styles, content, background
and predilections that makes this place fun. Hobbes, I'd urge you to
killfile any poster whose ostentation offends, certainly including
this one.

Exactly. Welcome, Hobbes! Long may you wave, Dog!

/Lew
---
Lew Perin /
http://www.panix.com/~perin/babelcarp.html

Greetings, greetings,

First of all, thanks for the reply. I always enjoy reading text that
has a little care taken over it, and it seems as if the tone is
friendly. For not being aggressive, you have my thanks. It would be
rude of me not to reply after such a message, so here goes:


There's been a lot of discussion and even a successful book recently on
....
handling, use in combination with foods, health effects good and bad, etc.

I don't think the avoidance of absolutes in the context of tea brewing
and drinking can be contested. De gustibus non disputandum est.


Concedo nulli, especially if the assertion is incomprehensible.

As you do later in your message, I appreciate when you tell me that you
cannot understand my writing, because it gives me the opportunity to
clarify. My point here was restated in a subsequent paragraph, but I
introduced it gently in an attempt to avoid offence. I claimed that
the "challenge question" is specious. You've gone some way to
explaining the context surrounding your question, which is gratefully
received.


The real
point of the "challenge question" was twofold: to aim critical thinking
at claims that are probably untrue and the quality of thinking and
discourse that gives rise to them; and also to elicit evidence if any
exists, or at least a higher level of inquiry on this oft-encountered
topic.

I cannot second-guess your motives, of course, and my reply is based
only on the superficial appearance of your responses in this thread. I
don't have access to the "background discussion" that has, apparently,
prompted this challenge, and, as I mention above, I'm glad of your
rehearsal.


Given that excessive boiling results in several chemical alterations
occuring simultaneously

For "results" substitute "may, in some common circumstances, result" or
an equivalent formulation.

On a purely pedantic note, I should definitely challenge this given my
assumption that surely more than one chemical alteration occurs
simultaneously during excess boiling. The chemical properties of
boiling water is not a field that I have spent any considerable effort
researching, but it would surprise me if in the overwhelming majority
of examples, only a single chemical alteration occurred (given the
complexity of the solution).

Of course, I'm always willing to be proven wrong, and I would welcome
any further information from someone who has spent some time
researching boiling water.


Where I live, the
concentration of divalent carbonates in water is nil, so boiling doesn't
matter much. Extensive reboiling of water makes no difference to tea
taste that I can detect (except when chlorine or organics happen to be
running high). When I've lived in chalky parts of the UK, the effect was
dramatic. However, I'll stand by the assertion that even there, the main
effect of overboiling is to deposit more lime scale in the kettle.

This really is very surprising to me, and I welcome your opinion. I
suppose that this is the crux of the discussion, and the singular point
of interest, for me. I'm fascinated to hear that excessive boiling of
water might not alter your perception of the taste of tea brewed using
it.

Like you, I've had the dubious pleasure of some extremely chalky water
supplies in the UK, in various districts. My home city was built on
ground which is fenland and chalk, and it certainly has an unpleasant
effect on the health of the long-term inhabitants - particularly kidney
accumulatives and "stones".


...it sounds as if a reader, who has invested some of their time in
understanding the physical process of water's chemical content, has
come across people discussing "dissolved oxygen" and wants to make the
point that it is a variable obfuscated by others. This is fair.
However, rather than stating this fact, the reader prefers to the
spectacle of offering his "best puerh", and saving the fact for later.

I might comment if I could parse the foregoing paragraph. Is this the
current state of Oxford English?

I must confess to being sincerely surprised that this paragraph would
cause difficulties, and I'm thankful that you raise it so that I can
bear it in mind for Newsgroup writing in future. I suppose that, yes,
this is the current state of Oxford English. I tested it out on 2.5
random victims (one being split between here and another place) and it
didn't seem to cause too much agony. I'll be careful when posting in
future, though, so again, thanks.


I tried pretty hard to offer
information at several levels, including search terms for people who
actually want to understand and even experiment with this sort of thing
and qualitative descriptions for the less scientifically inclined.

Honestly, if your motives are for an investigation of the topic without
a desire to show off, the effort that you have taken is genuinely
appreciated. We cannot guess your motives, but can only form opinions
based on the text, which is borderline ostentation. If I promise to be
more direct in my wording to reduce reader confusion, I would welcome a
slightly more amiable approach to discussion of the investigation
(though let it be said that the manners with which it is discussed are
refreshingly good).


It's the diversity of posting styles, content, background and
predilections that makes this place fun. Hobbes, I'd urge you to
killfile any poster whose ostentation offends, certainly including this one.

On this subject, I have absolutely nothing worthy of ostentation. I
simply have not spent time with the literature in this area. As I
mentioned above, contributions from those for whom this is one of their
research topics are welcome - provided they are worded in a format that
doesn't lead to discomfort. It's dangerous knowing a subject in detail
- it has to be communicated carefully, in order to avoid the audience
jumping to undesirable conclusions. I certainly agree that this is a
fun place, and I trust that the spirit of my reply has not offended.

I certainly wouldn't dream of adding to a killfile any poster who is
able to provide good information in an area of which I have little
technical familiarity. I prefer to provide a gentle prod towards
making that valuable content appear in a more congenial form.


Addio, addio,

Hobbes

HobbesOxon wrote:
I certainly wouldn't dream of adding to a killfile any poster who is
able to provide good information in an area of which I have little
technical familiarity. I prefer to provide a gentle prod towards
making that valuable content appear in a more congenial form.


Addio, addio,

Hobbes

Very respectfully and with no malice or bad intentions, I would say
that in my time here a few posters can be a bit too "heady" for their
own good and really go overboard trying to sound important. Not to
single out, but I could summarize most of what Dog Ma said in many of
his paragraphs into single sentences in plain English.

At first a few posters here rubbed me the wrong way, but in general
they are harmless. I've learned to just stay out of certain posters
threads/topics and my enjoyment skyrocketed.

I try to stick to actual topics about tea now, and I also keep in mind
that this NG is very different than most with an almost absolute lack
of SPAM and junk... as well as a group of different folks who all enjoy
tea. I do my part to try to keep things light-hearted and fun, instead
of going down these long dark roads to nowhere about minutia. I have
read a number of great texts, and as always I reccomend "The Book of
Tea" by Okakura (available free online at Project Gutenberg) or for $4
at a local bookstore. I also place myself in the mindset of ancient tea
masters and the technology/techniques of the time when it comes to such
discussions as these. Think about the tools, environment, technology,
and surroundings. Think about how they would be using fresh spring
water for the most part, think about what minerals/contents of that
water would be. Think about using a wood fire and iron pot to heat the
water, how would that affect the taste? Think about how they most
certainly would reboil their water to conserve the heat and to minimize
trips to a stream. Etc.

Tea is a very singular experience. Tea ceremonies are nice, but not
what tea is truly about. Try to understand and appreciate other's
experiences, but do not judge your own by them. IMHO trying to make tea
a scientific endeavor is pointless. I also feel we spend too much time
on semantics and minute unimportant details and are missing the bigger
picture much of the time. All that said, though, I have learned a lot
about other's experiences and also had some new teas opened up to me
that would otherwise have not been known here at this NG and still
enjoy my time here even with a few rough spots.

- Dominic

Well said, that man, and thanks for the reference from Project
Gutenberg - I'm digging it out in my other window at the moment.


Toodlepip,

Hobbes

This book is turning out to be more interesting even than the tea scope
that I anticipated, thank you - I spend a fair amount of my time on my
black cushion, and the chapters relating it to Zen are fascinating. By
pure coincidence, I've been writing on a similar topic in my diaries
(though of course in an infinitely less accomplished fashion than
Okakura).

It just goes to show that there are no coincidences.

Thanks again - there are several Zen chums here who will enjoy this,
too, so you've done more than one person a favour.


Toodlepip,

Hobbes
-__-

Dominic T. wrote:
Very respectfully and with no malice or bad intentions, I would say
that in my time here a few posters can be a bit too "heady" for their
own good and really go overboard trying to sound important. Not to
single out, but I could summarize most of what Dog Ma said in many of
his paragraphs into single sentences in plain English.

At first a few posters here rubbed me the wrong way, but in general
they are harmless. I've learned to just stay out of certain posters
threads/topics and my enjoyment skyrocketed.

If you will allow me to reply to myself, I would like to publicly
appologize in that I really was not trying to single out DogMa. I
actually think he made great efforts to *explain* what he was talking
about while he was posting, such as with reciprocity and the many other
variables in real life to be factored into equations. I think at times
to outsiders or less technical/scientific people it sounds a bit uppity
and forced. I can be guilty of this too, which is why I'd never meant
to take aim at DogMa.

I should have left all names out of my post, that was my fault. We all
know those who can be abrasive, curmudgeonly, holier-than-thou, etc.
and I guess that is up to each of us to decide on our own terms just
like tastes in tea. The many backgrounds, nationalities, and tastes
represented here is what makes it unique... and keeps me around.. good,
bad, indifferent. Strong personalities and opinions are a good thing,
and are what makes things interesting.

My appologies DogMa... I ain't mad 'atcha Dog.

- Dominic

Dominic T. wrote:
My appologies DogMa... I ain't mad 'atcha Dog.

No offense taken, not that this Zen adept can be unsettled by mere words
(excepting mystical incantations like "dan cong oolong" or "extra-bitter
chocolate" or "free lunch." Besides, to paraphrase a young philosopher
out of Wadham College:

.... taking ritual at its superficial level can be misleading, or even
harmful to the realization of Tea Mind. And while agreeing with some on
the necessity for tea practice to reach outside the sphere of casual
reading, which is in itself merely the intellect seeking to further
reinforce itself, one should remember that "hard" scientific
epistemology usually belongs to schools other than Cha Dao. Whether or
not it is useful in achieving pleasure or insight is not for me to say,
but that "direct tasting" has traditionally eschewed many intellectual
practices carried out in the West.


-DM

DogMa wrote:
Dominic T. wrote:
My appologies DogMa... I ain't mad 'atcha Dog.

No offense taken, not that this Zen adept can be unsettled by mere words
(excepting mystical incantations like "dan cong oolong" or "extra-bitter
chocolate" or "free lunch." Besides, to paraphrase a young philosopher
out of Wadham College:

... taking ritual at its superficial level can be misleading, or even
harmful to the realization of Tea Mind. And while agreeing with some on
the necessity for tea practice to reach outside the sphere of casual
reading, which is in itself merely the intellect seeking to further
reinforce itself, one should remember that "hard" scientific
epistemology usually belongs to schools other than Cha Dao. Whether or
not it is useful in achieving pleasure or insight is not for me to say,
but that "direct tasting" has traditionally eschewed many intellectual
practices carried out in the West.


-DM

Nice quote. And on the extra-bitter chocolate topic... last Christmas I
bought my father (a huge dark chocolate fan) what I thought would be
the holy grail when I found a German Dark Chocolate with 85% cocao...
not realizing that more is not always better with dark chocolate. He
said it was bitter as sin, and also darn near broke a tooth on the
hardness of it.

"Free lunch" is a phrase that tugs at my heartstrings as well

- Dominic

LurfysMa, This area is too vast for one post, but this board has
several great suggestions and it really comes down to the type and
quality of tea (and your own taste vs. others). Good quality Chinese/
Tawainese are meant to be re-steeped, and the best taste often does
not come from the fist steep.

A
http://blog.ateava.com/



LurfysMa wrote:
Is it true that a batch of tea leaves can be reused (re-steeped) at
least once?

I use a Chatsford teapot. I put the loose leaves in, add boiling
water, set the timer, then pour it through a strainer into a cup or
thermos.

To make a second steep, can I just dump the leaves back into the pot
and go again? I just tried that with a batch of Earl Grey. The second
steep was slightly weaker than the first, but still fairly good.

Is the second steep the same time as the first? Perhaps I should have
steeped it a bit longer the second time.

Is the second steep likely to be bitter? This one wasn't. It was
actually a bit milder on both the taste scale as well as the
bitterness scale. Everyone keep saying that steeping too long causes
the tea to be bitter. How come two 3-minutes steeps are not bitter but
one 6-minute steep is?

--
For email, use usenet-20060507[at]spamex[dot]com