wrote in
:

> In rec.food.cooking, PENMART01 > wrote:
>
>> Yup, RO water is great... other than distilled sterile water no other
>> water comes anywhere close to the purity of RO water. Typical
>> bottled water (especially costly designer types) is neither
>> mineral/chemical free
>
> But don't the minerals taste good? Sometimes?

Yes, they do, depending... Natural water wasn't meant to have an
absolute lack of flavor. Distilled sterile water and RO water taste
"flat", with no other characteristic than that of being wet.

OTOH, our local water is so heavy with minerals as to be nearly unfit to
drink, at least when it comes to taste. I use bottled spring water for
most things, including brewing coffee and tea.

--
Wayne in Phoenix

unmunge as w-e-b

*If there's a nit to pick, some nitwit will pick it.
*A mind is a terrible thing to lose.

BubbaBob wrote:
>>Corrosive to plastic and rubber? I have never heard of that.
>>Also, I have never heard of the chemical / physical reaction
>>that takes place between water (almost pure,) and rubber and
>>plastic. Quite the contrary with water that has salts in it;
>>very corrosive to metals like iron and copper.
>>
>
> No. Corrosive to metals. There's no such thing as plastic or rubber
> corrosion. They can degrade, harden, crosslink, whatever, but not
> corrode.
So how can it be corrosive to metals, if it has little ions to react
with metals?

What I'm trying to say, is that I never heard of what you are talking
about. My coffee machines continue to be free of calcium deposits. So if
they are not reacting with the metal, I thought you meant the rubbers
and plastics (what my coffee machine is made of.)

Rich

--
"Dum Spiro, Spero."

As long as I breath, I hope.

Cicero

BubbaBob wrote:
>>Corrosive to plastic and rubber? I have never heard of that.
>>Also, I have never heard of the chemical / physical reaction
>>that takes place between water (almost pure,) and rubber and
>>plastic. Quite the contrary with water that has salts in it;
>>very corrosive to metals like iron and copper.
>>
>
> No. Corrosive to metals. There's no such thing as plastic or rubber
> corrosion. They can degrade, harden, crosslink, whatever, but not
> corrode.
So how can it be corrosive to metals, if it has little ions to react
with metals?

What I'm trying to say, is that I never heard of what you are talking
about. My coffee machines continue to be free of calcium deposits. So if
they are not reacting with the metal, I thought you meant the rubbers
and plastics (what my coffee machine is made of.)

Rich

--
"Dum Spiro, Spero."

As long as I breath, I hope.

Cicero

In rec.food.cooking, Wayne > wrote:

> OTOH, our local water is so heavy with minerals as to be nearly unfit to
> drink, at least when it comes to taste. I use bottled spring water for
> most things, including brewing coffee and tea.

If my tap water was foul, that is exactly what I'd do.

--
....I'm an air-conditioned gypsy...

- The Who

BubbaBob wrote:
> Richard Periut > wrote:
>
>
>
>>So how can it be corrosive to metals, if it has little ions to
>>react with metals?
>>
>>What I'm trying to say, is that I never heard of what you are
>>talking about. My coffee machines continue to be free of calcium
>>deposits. So if they are not reacting with the metal, I thought
>>you meant the rubbers and plastics (what my coffee machine is
>>made of.)
>>
>>Rich
>>
>
>
> Start here. If you need to know more details, Google's your friend.
> Search on "pure water" and "corrosion".
>
> http://www.overclockers.com/tips1153/index02.asp
>
> This doesn't deal directly with coffee makers but explains why pure
> water is undesireable in processor cooling systems.
>
> I doubt that your coffee maker is made of rubber or plastic at the
> point where the water is heated, which would be the most chemically
> reactive point, as well.

All I can say is that the retard that wrote this article, must of been
high. He states that as water becomes more pure, conductivity increases.
It's exactly the opposite. It's full of oxymorons and incorrect
statements like the aforementioned one.

Pure water is corrosive to many metals, but hard water and salt water is
a google times more corrosive. Don't believe me, ask the people that
live near the shore, and what effect the salt and humidity have on their
car.

RO water is extremely safe for coffee makers and expresso machines. I've
been running mine for years using RO water, and I have yet to encoutner
a problem. BTW, my coffee brewer has either plastic or glass parts,
nothing to corrode there. My expresso has metal plates and I've yet to
clean them of deposits.

Water is water, always corrosive to some metals. But hard is much more
corrosive. Why do you think that the instructions that come with irons
state that distilled water (even more purer than RO,) is recommended.

Rich
--
"Dum Spiro, Spero."

As long as I breath, I hope.

Cicero

BubbaBob wrote:
> Richard Periut > wrote:
>
>
>
>>So how can it be corrosive to metals, if it has little ions to
>>react with metals?
>>
>>What I'm trying to say, is that I never heard of what you are
>>talking about. My coffee machines continue to be free of calcium
>>deposits. So if they are not reacting with the metal, I thought
>>you meant the rubbers and plastics (what my coffee machine is
>>made of.)
>>
>>Rich
>>
>
>
> Start here. If you need to know more details, Google's your friend.
> Search on "pure water" and "corrosion".
>
> http://www.overclockers.com/tips1153/index02.asp
>
> This doesn't deal directly with coffee makers but explains why pure
> water is undesireable in processor cooling systems.
>
> I doubt that your coffee maker is made of rubber or plastic at the
> point where the water is heated, which would be the most chemically
> reactive point, as well.

All I can say is that the retard that wrote this article, must of been
high. He states that as water becomes more pure, conductivity increases.
It's exactly the opposite. It's full of oxymorons and incorrect
statements like the aforementioned one.

Pure water is corrosive to many metals, but hard water and salt water is
a google times more corrosive. Don't believe me, ask the people that
live near the shore, and what effect the salt and humidity have on their
car.

RO water is extremely safe for coffee makers and expresso machines. I've
been running mine for years using RO water, and I have yet to encoutner
a problem. BTW, my coffee brewer has either plastic or glass parts,
nothing to corrode there. My expresso has metal plates and I've yet to
clean them of deposits.

Water is water, always corrosive to some metals. But hard is much more
corrosive. Why do you think that the instructions that come with irons
state that distilled water (even more purer than RO,) is recommended.

Rich
--
"Dum Spiro, Spero."

As long as I breath, I hope.

Cicero

Richard Periut wrote:

> BubbaBob wrote:
>
>> Richard Periut > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> So how can it be corrosive to metals, if it has little ions to
>>> react with metals?
>>>
>>> What I'm trying to say, is that I never heard of what you are
>>> talking about. My coffee machines continue to be free of calcium
>>> deposits. So if they are not reacting with the metal, I thought
>>> you meant the rubbers and plastics (what my coffee machine is
>>> made of.)
>>> Rich
>>>
>>
>>
>> Start here. If you need to know more details, Google's your friend.
>> Search on "pure water" and "corrosion".
>>
>> http://www.overclockers.com/tips1153/index02.asp
>>
>> This doesn't deal directly with coffee makers but explains why pure
>> water is undesireable in processor cooling systems.
>>
>> I doubt that your coffee maker is made of rubber or plastic at the
>> point where the water is heated, which would be the most chemically
>> reactive point, as well.
>
>
> All I can say is that the retard that wrote this article, must of been
> high. He states that as water becomes more pure, conductivity increases.
> It's exactly the opposite. It's full of oxymorons and incorrect
> statements like the aforementioned one.
>
> Pure water is corrosive to many metals, but hard water and salt water is
> a google times more corrosive. Don't believe me, ask the people that
> live near the shore, and what effect the salt and humidity have on their
> car.
>
> RO water is extremely safe for coffee makers and expresso machines. I've
> been running mine for years using RO water, and I have yet to encoutner
> a problem. BTW, my coffee brewer has either plastic or glass parts,
> nothing to corrode there. My expresso has metal plates and I've yet to
> clean them of deposits.
>
> Water is water, always corrosive to some metals. But hard is much more
> corrosive. Why do you think that the instructions that come with irons
> state that distilled water (even more purer than RO,) is recommended.
>
> Rich
Also, the guy recommends not usting pure water. RO water is not pure
water (industrial pure that is,) it still has some salts, except very
little. He even reommends using this type of water for cooling systems.

Rich

--
"Dum Spiro, Spero."

As long as I breath, I hope.

Cicero

Richard Periut wrote:

> BubbaBob wrote:
>
>> Richard Periut > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> So how can it be corrosive to metals, if it has little ions to
>>> react with metals?
>>>
>>> What I'm trying to say, is that I never heard of what you are
>>> talking about. My coffee machines continue to be free of calcium
>>> deposits. So if they are not reacting with the metal, I thought
>>> you meant the rubbers and plastics (what my coffee machine is
>>> made of.)
>>> Rich
>>>
>>
>>
>> Start here. If you need to know more details, Google's your friend.
>> Search on "pure water" and "corrosion".
>>
>> http://www.overclockers.com/tips1153/index02.asp
>>
>> This doesn't deal directly with coffee makers but explains why pure
>> water is undesireable in processor cooling systems.
>>
>> I doubt that your coffee maker is made of rubber or plastic at the
>> point where the water is heated, which would be the most chemically
>> reactive point, as well.
>
>
> All I can say is that the retard that wrote this article, must of been
> high. He states that as water becomes more pure, conductivity increases.
> It's exactly the opposite. It's full of oxymorons and incorrect
> statements like the aforementioned one.
>
> Pure water is corrosive to many metals, but hard water and salt water is
> a google times more corrosive. Don't believe me, ask the people that
> live near the shore, and what effect the salt and humidity have on their
> car.
>
> RO water is extremely safe for coffee makers and expresso machines. I've
> been running mine for years using RO water, and I have yet to encoutner
> a problem. BTW, my coffee brewer has either plastic or glass parts,
> nothing to corrode there. My expresso has metal plates and I've yet to
> clean them of deposits.
>
> Water is water, always corrosive to some metals. But hard is much more
> corrosive. Why do you think that the instructions that come with irons
> state that distilled water (even more purer than RO,) is recommended.
>
> Rich
Also, the guy recommends not usting pure water. RO water is not pure
water (industrial pure that is,) it still has some salts, except very
little. He even reommends using this type of water for cooling systems.

Rich

--
"Dum Spiro, Spero."

As long as I breath, I hope.

Cicero

In article >,
Richard Periut > wrote:

> RO water is extremely safe for coffee makers and expresso machines. I've
> been running mine for years using RO water, and I have yet to encoutner
> a problem. BTW, my coffee brewer has either plastic or glass parts,
> nothing to corrode there. My expresso has metal plates and I've yet to
> clean them of deposits.

Note that the Specialty Coffee Association of American recommends water
with 100 and 200 parts per million dissolved minerals (for taste).

<http://homepage.mac.com/scott_r/#waterquality>

--
to respond, change "spamless.invalid" with "optonline.net"
please mail OT responses only

In article >,
Richard Periut > wrote:

> RO water is extremely safe for coffee makers and expresso machines. I've
> been running mine for years using RO water, and I have yet to encoutner
> a problem. BTW, my coffee brewer has either plastic or glass parts,
> nothing to corrode there. My expresso has metal plates and I've yet to
> clean them of deposits.

Note that the Specialty Coffee Association of American recommends water
with 100 and 200 parts per million dissolved minerals (for taste).

<http://homepage.mac.com/scott_r/#waterquality>

--
to respond, change "spamless.invalid" with "optonline.net"
please mail OT responses only

Scott wrote:

> In article >,
> Richard Periut > wrote:
>
>
>>RO water is extremely safe for coffee makers and expresso machines. I've
>>been running mine for years using RO water, and I have yet to encoutner
>>a problem. BTW, my coffee brewer has either plastic or glass parts,
>>nothing to corrode there. My expresso has metal plates and I've yet to
>>clean them of deposits.
>
>
> Note that the Specialty Coffee Association of American recommends water
> with 100 and 200 parts per million dissolved minerals (for taste).
>
> <http://homepage.mac.com/scott_r/#waterquality>
>
True, but I use RO water which is not distilled water. The latter has a
conductivity of 0 microsiemens, while RO can range from 18 to 25
depending on membrane integrity. Just enough hardness for my cooking and
brewing and hobbies.

Rich

--
"Dum Spiro, Spero."

As long as I breath, I hope.

Cicero

Scott wrote:

> In article >,
> Richard Periut > wrote:
>
>
>>RO water is extremely safe for coffee makers and expresso machines. I've
>>been running mine for years using RO water, and I have yet to encoutner
>>a problem. BTW, my coffee brewer has either plastic or glass parts,
>>nothing to corrode there. My expresso has metal plates and I've yet to
>>clean them of deposits.
>
>
> Note that the Specialty Coffee Association of American recommends water
> with 100 and 200 parts per million dissolved minerals (for taste).
>
> <http://homepage.mac.com/scott_r/#waterquality>
>
True, but I use RO water which is not distilled water. The latter has a
conductivity of 0 microsiemens, while RO can range from 18 to 25
depending on membrane integrity. Just enough hardness for my cooking and
brewing and hobbies.

Rich

--
"Dum Spiro, Spero."

As long as I breath, I hope.

Cicero

In article >,
Richard Periut > wrote:

> True, but I use RO water which is not distilled water. The latter has a
> conductivity of 0 microsiemens, while RO can range from 18 to 25
> depending on membrane integrity. Just enough hardness for my cooking and
> brewing and hobbies.

Though converting microsiemens to ppm is difficult, that's about 9-11.5
to 12.5-16 ppm, far short of the SCAA standards of 100 to 200 ppm.

--
to respond, change "spamless.invalid" with "optonline.net"
please mail OT responses only

In article >,
Richard Periut > wrote:

> True, but I use RO water which is not distilled water. The latter has a
> conductivity of 0 microsiemens, while RO can range from 18 to 25
> depending on membrane integrity. Just enough hardness for my cooking and
> brewing and hobbies.

Though converting microsiemens to ppm is difficult, that's about 9-11.5
to 12.5-16 ppm, far short of the SCAA standards of 100 to 200 ppm.

--
to respond, change "spamless.invalid" with "optonline.net"
please mail OT responses only

Scott wrote:

> In article >,
> Richard Periut > wrote:
>
>
>>True, but I use RO water which is not distilled water. The latter has a
>>conductivity of 0 microsiemens, while RO can range from 18 to 25
>>depending on membrane integrity. Just enough hardness for my cooking and
>>brewing and hobbies.
>
>
> Though converting microsiemens to ppm is difficult, that's about 9-11.5
> to 12.5-16 ppm, far short of the SCAA standards of 100 to 200 ppm.
>
That's their standard for taste. The polemic here is regarding the
effects of RO water on coffeemakers and expresso makers.

Rich

--
"Dum Spiro, Spero."

As long as I breath, I hope.

Cicero

Scott wrote:

> In article >,
> Richard Periut > wrote:
>
>
>>True, but I use RO water which is not distilled water. The latter has a
>>conductivity of 0 microsiemens, while RO can range from 18 to 25
>>depending on membrane integrity. Just enough hardness for my cooking and
>>brewing and hobbies.
>
>
> Though converting microsiemens to ppm is difficult, that's about 9-11.5
> to 12.5-16 ppm, far short of the SCAA standards of 100 to 200 ppm.
>
That's their standard for taste. The polemic here is regarding the
effects of RO water on coffeemakers and expresso makers.

Rich

--
"Dum Spiro, Spero."

As long as I breath, I hope.

Cicero

In article >,
Richard Periut > wrote:

> That's their standard for taste. The polemic here is regarding the
> effects of RO water on coffeemakers and expresso makers.

Fine, but if you've solved the scale issue by making the coffee taste
worse, what have you accomplished?

--
to respond, change "spamless.invalid" with "optonline.net"
please mail OT responses only

In article >,
Richard Periut > wrote:

> That's their standard for taste. The polemic here is regarding the
> effects of RO water on coffeemakers and expresso makers.

Fine, but if you've solved the scale issue by making the coffee taste
worse, what have you accomplished?

--
to respond, change "spamless.invalid" with "optonline.net"
please mail OT responses only

Scott wrote:
> In article >,
> Richard Periut > wrote:
>
>
>>That's their standard for taste. The polemic here is regarding the
>>effects of RO water on coffeemakers and expresso makers.
>
>
> Fine, but if you've solved the scale issue by making the coffee taste
> worse, what have you accomplished?
>

Who says it's worse? You? IMO, it tastes better. Plus, don't you think
RO water gets a nice dose of minerals, et cetera from the coffee? Unless
you are used to drinking extremely hard water, I don't think most people
can tell the difference.

Rich

--
"Dum Spiro, Spero."

As long as I breath, I hope.

Cicero

Scott wrote:
> In article >,
> Richard Periut > wrote:
>
>
>>That's their standard for taste. The polemic here is regarding the
>>effects of RO water on coffeemakers and expresso makers.
>
>
> Fine, but if you've solved the scale issue by making the coffee taste
> worse, what have you accomplished?
>

Who says it's worse? You? IMO, it tastes better. Plus, don't you think
RO water gets a nice dose of minerals, et cetera from the coffee? Unless
you are used to drinking extremely hard water, I don't think most people
can tell the difference.

Rich

--
"Dum Spiro, Spero."

As long as I breath, I hope.

Cicero

Scott wrote:
> In article >,
> Richard Periut > wrote:
>
>
>>That's their standard for taste. The polemic here is regarding the
>>effects of RO water on coffeemakers and expresso makers.
>
>
> Fine, but if you've solved the scale issue by making the coffee taste
> worse, what have you accomplished?
>

Who says it's worse? You? IMO, it tastes better. Plus, don't you think
RO water gets a nice dose of minerals, et cetera from the coffee? Unless
you are used to drinking extremely hard water, I don't think most people
can tell the difference.

Rich

--
"Dum Spiro, Spero."

As long as I breath, I hope.

Cicero

BubbaBob wrote:

> Richard Periut > wrote:
>
>
>
>>All I can say is that the retard that wrote this article, must
>>of been high. He states that as water becomes more pure,
>>conductivity increases. It's exactly the opposite. It's full of
>>oxymorons and incorrect statements like the aforementioned one.
>>
>
>
> Perhaps I should have pointed you to part one, where he explains that
> pure water has reduced electrical conductivity but increased thermal
> conductivity.
>
> Why do you keep bringing up deposits when we're talking about
> corrosion? They're not related, you know.
>
>
> What the hell is 'expresso'?

Then the guy is prone to making mistakes? Not very reliable, eh?

My conjecture still is, that RO water does not corrode the inner parts
of coffee makers and expresso makers.

FYI: Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

One entry found for expresso.
Main Entry: ex·pres·so
Pronunciation: ik-'spre-(")sO
variant of ESPRESSO

If you want me to look up espresso:

One entry found for espresso.
Main Entry: espres·so
Pronunciation: e-'spre-(")sO
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -sos
Etymology: Italian (caffè) espresso, literally, pressed out coffee
1 : coffee brewed by forcing steam through finely ground darkly roasted
coffee beans
2 : a cup of espresso

© 2004 Merriam-Webster, Incorporated

If you don't mind, I'd rather you the variant : )

I already did a search on corrosive and reverse osmosis, and there is
nothing to the aforementioned.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...&btnG=Sear ch

Last but not least, my experience with RO water has been very positive.
I've had nothing corrode on me, and the coffee tastes better. There is
nothing flat about it, because flat denotes more of a lack of oxygen.
Plus, the coffee does dose the water with some minerals among other
substances, so you really can't appreciate the softness of it.

Tap water is chock full of pesticides and many harmful chemicals (we
still don't know the full known long term effects of drinking this
water,) and big brother is always lowering the standards of quality. And
I think it's a waste of money to buy bottled water (especially Evian,
Perrier, et cetera) (unless you can't avoid it.) RO water is cheap,
readily available (most units come with a 1.8 gallon storage tank,) and
perfectly safe to use.

Rich

--
"Dum Spiro, Spero."

As long as I breath, I hope.

Cicero

BubbaBob wrote:

> Richard Periut > wrote:
>
>
>
>>All I can say is that the retard that wrote this article, must
>>of been high. He states that as water becomes more pure,
>>conductivity increases. It's exactly the opposite. It's full of
>>oxymorons and incorrect statements like the aforementioned one.
>>
>
>
> Perhaps I should have pointed you to part one, where he explains that
> pure water has reduced electrical conductivity but increased thermal
> conductivity.
>
> Why do you keep bringing up deposits when we're talking about
> corrosion? They're not related, you know.
>
>
> What the hell is 'expresso'?

Then the guy is prone to making mistakes? Not very reliable, eh?

My conjecture still is, that RO water does not corrode the inner parts
of coffee makers and expresso makers.

FYI: Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

One entry found for expresso.
Main Entry: ex·pres·so
Pronunciation: ik-'spre-(")sO
variant of ESPRESSO

If you want me to look up espresso:

One entry found for espresso.
Main Entry: espres·so
Pronunciation: e-'spre-(")sO
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -sos
Etymology: Italian (caffè) espresso, literally, pressed out coffee
1 : coffee brewed by forcing steam through finely ground darkly roasted
coffee beans
2 : a cup of espresso

© 2004 Merriam-Webster, Incorporated

If you don't mind, I'd rather you the variant : )

I already did a search on corrosive and reverse osmosis, and there is
nothing to the aforementioned.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...&btnG=Sear ch

Last but not least, my experience with RO water has been very positive.
I've had nothing corrode on me, and the coffee tastes better. There is
nothing flat about it, because flat denotes more of a lack of oxygen.
Plus, the coffee does dose the water with some minerals among other
substances, so you really can't appreciate the softness of it.

Tap water is chock full of pesticides and many harmful chemicals (we
still don't know the full known long term effects of drinking this
water,) and big brother is always lowering the standards of quality. And
I think it's a waste of money to buy bottled water (especially Evian,
Perrier, et cetera) (unless you can't avoid it.) RO water is cheap,
readily available (most units come with a 1.8 gallon storage tank,) and
perfectly safe to use.

Rich

--
"Dum Spiro, Spero."

As long as I breath, I hope.

Cicero

>BubbaBoob
>
>Richard Periut wrote:
>> BubbaBoob wrote:
>>> Richard Periut wrote:
>
>> Main Entry: espres·so
>> Pronunciation: e-'spre-(")sO
>> Function: noun
>> Inflected Form(s): plural -sos
>> Etymology: Italian (caffè) espresso, literally, pressed out
>> coffee 1 : coffee brewed by forcing steam through finely ground
>> darkly roasted coffee beans
>
>> © 2004 Merriam-Webster, Incorporated
>>
>
>
>Any dictionary that uses a definition for espresso that is that far
>off beam can hardly be trusted to provide any authority concerning
>its spelling. Their etymology is wrong, as well.

There is nothing special about expresso/espresso, it's essentially the
crumbiest cheapo coffee beans that rather than pitch em into the compost heap
were instead over roasted (burned) to hide their defectiveness. Anyone, ANYONE
who makes a big deal about discussing the fine points of burned coffee beans
knows nothing, NOTHING about coffee.


Oxford Dictionary

espresso (also expresso )
noun

: strong black coffee made by forcing steam through ground coffee beans.

€”ORIGIN 1940s: from Italian (caffè) espresso, literally 'pressed out
(coffee)'.
---
Merriam-Webster

ex·pres·so

variant of espresso
---



---= BOYCOTT FRANCE (belgium) GERMANY--SPAIN =---
---= Move UNITED NATIONS To Paris =---
*********
"Life would be devoid of all meaning were it without tribulation."
Sheldon
````````````

>BubbaBoob
>
>Richard Periut wrote:
>> BubbaBoob wrote:
>>> Richard Periut wrote:
>
>> Main Entry: espres·so
>> Pronunciation: e-'spre-(")sO
>> Function: noun
>> Inflected Form(s): plural -sos
>> Etymology: Italian (caffè) espresso, literally, pressed out
>> coffee 1 : coffee brewed by forcing steam through finely ground
>> darkly roasted coffee beans
>
>> © 2004 Merriam-Webster, Incorporated
>>
>
>
>Any dictionary that uses a definition for espresso that is that far
>off beam can hardly be trusted to provide any authority concerning
>its spelling. Their etymology is wrong, as well.

There is nothing special about expresso/espresso, it's essentially the
crumbiest cheapo coffee beans that rather than pitch em into the compost heap
were instead over roasted (burned) to hide their defectiveness. Anyone, ANYONE
who makes a big deal about discussing the fine points of burned coffee beans
knows nothing, NOTHING about coffee.


Oxford Dictionary

espresso (also expresso )
noun

: strong black coffee made by forcing steam through ground coffee beans.

€”ORIGIN 1940s: from Italian (caffè) espresso, literally 'pressed out
(coffee)'.
---
Merriam-Webster

ex·pres·so

variant of espresso
---



---= BOYCOTT FRANCE (belgium) GERMANY--SPAIN =---
---= Move UNITED NATIONS To Paris =---
*********
"Life would be devoid of all meaning were it without tribulation."
Sheldon
````````````

BubbaBob wrote:
> Richard Periut > wrote:
>
>
>>BubbaBob wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Richard Periut > wrote:
>
>
>>Main Entry: espres·so
>>Pronunciation: e-'spre-(")sO
>>Function: noun
>>Inflected Form(s): plural -sos
>>Etymology: Italian (caffè) espresso, literally, pressed out
>>coffee 1 : coffee brewed by forcing steam through finely ground
>>darkly roasted coffee beans
>
>
>>© 2004 Merriam-Webster, Incorporated
>>
>
>
>
> Any dictionary that uses a definition for espresso that is that far
> off beam can hardly be trusted to provide any authority concerning
> its spelling. Their etymology is wrong, as well.

Merriam-Webster can not be trusted?

Well Sheldon beat me to it, but here goes Oxford:

Oxford Dictionary

espresso (also expresso )
noun

: strong black coffee made by forcing steam through ground coffee beans.

—ORIGIN 1940s: from Italian (caffè) espresso, literally 'pressed out
(coffee)'.
---
Merriam-Webster

ex·pres·so

variant of espresso
---


Or are they also not to be trusted? Can you name a reliable and accurate
source for your conjectures?

Rich

--
"Dum Spiro, Spero."

As long as I breath, I hope.

Cicero

BubbaBob wrote:
> Richard Periut > wrote:
>
>
>>BubbaBob wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Richard Periut > wrote:
>
>
>>Main Entry: espres·so
>>Pronunciation: e-'spre-(")sO
>>Function: noun
>>Inflected Form(s): plural -sos
>>Etymology: Italian (caffè) espresso, literally, pressed out
>>coffee 1 : coffee brewed by forcing steam through finely ground
>>darkly roasted coffee beans
>
>
>>© 2004 Merriam-Webster, Incorporated
>>
>
>
>
> Any dictionary that uses a definition for espresso that is that far
> off beam can hardly be trusted to provide any authority concerning
> its spelling. Their etymology is wrong, as well.

Merriam-Webster can not be trusted?

Well Sheldon beat me to it, but here goes Oxford:

Oxford Dictionary

espresso (also expresso )
noun

: strong black coffee made by forcing steam through ground coffee beans.

—ORIGIN 1940s: from Italian (caffè) espresso, literally 'pressed out
(coffee)'.
---
Merriam-Webster

ex·pres·so

variant of espresso
---


Or are they also not to be trusted? Can you name a reliable and accurate
source for your conjectures?

Rich

--
"Dum Spiro, Spero."

As long as I breath, I hope.

Cicero

BubbaBob wrote:
> Richard Periut > wrote:
>
>
>>BubbaBob wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Richard Periut > wrote:
>
>
>>Main Entry: espres·so
>>Pronunciation: e-'spre-(")sO
>>Function: noun
>>Inflected Form(s): plural -sos
>>Etymology: Italian (caffè) espresso, literally, pressed out
>>coffee 1 : coffee brewed by forcing steam through finely ground
>>darkly roasted coffee beans
>
>
>>© 2004 Merriam-Webster, Incorporated
>>
>
>
>
> Any dictionary that uses a definition for espresso that is that far
> off beam can hardly be trusted to provide any authority concerning
> its spelling. Their etymology is wrong, as well.

Merriam-Webster can not be trusted?

Well Sheldon beat me to it, but here goes Oxford:

Oxford Dictionary

espresso (also expresso )
noun

: strong black coffee made by forcing steam through ground coffee beans.

—ORIGIN 1940s: from Italian (caffè) espresso, literally 'pressed out
(coffee)'.
---
Merriam-Webster

ex·pres·so

variant of espresso
---


Or are they also not to be trusted? Can you name a reliable and accurate
source for your conjectures?

Rich

--
"Dum Spiro, Spero."

As long as I breath, I hope.

Cicero

PENMART01 wrote:

>>BubbaBoob
>>
>>Richard Periut wrote:
>>
>>>BubbaBoob wrote:
>>>
>>>>Richard Periut wrote:
>>
>>>Main Entry: espres·so
>>>Pronunciation: e-'spre-(")sO
>>>Function: noun
>>>Inflected Form(s): plural -sos
>>>Etymology: Italian (caffè) espresso, literally, pressed out
>>>coffee 1 : coffee brewed by forcing steam through finely ground
>>>darkly roasted coffee beans
>>
>>>© 2004 Merriam-Webster, Incorporated
>>>
>>
>>
>>Any dictionary that uses a definition for espresso that is that far
>>off beam can hardly be trusted to provide any authority concerning
>>its spelling. Their etymology is wrong, as well.
>
>
> There is nothing special about expresso/espresso, it's essentially the
> crumbiest cheapo coffee beans that rather than pitch em into the compost heap
> were instead over roasted (burned) to hide their defectiveness. Anyone, ANYONE
> who makes a big deal about discussing the fine points of burned coffee beans
> knows nothing, NOTHING about coffee.
>
>
> Oxford Dictionary
>
> espresso (also expresso )
> noun
>
> : strong black coffee made by forcing steam through ground coffee beans.
>
> €”ORIGIN 1940s: from Italian (caffè) espresso, literally 'pressed out
> (coffee)'.
> ---
> Merriam-Webster
>
> ex·pres·so
>
> variant of espresso
> ---
>
>
>
> ---= BOYCOTT FRANCE (belgium) GERMANY--SPAIN =---
> ---= Move UNITED NATIONS To Paris =---
> *********
> "Life would be devoid of all meaning were it without tribulation."
> Sheldon
> ````````````
Now now Sheldon. I buy my beans whole and I see the quality I'm getting.
I also grind them in a dedicated machine which is a mill, not a grinder.

I can only tell you that I drink pure bliss with a nice thick head
(crema) of foam. After a meal, there is nothing better. The Italians
have mastered (IMO) the art of Expresso / Espresso making.

Cubans call it a "colada" and it comes with like 15 miniature cups so
that everyone at work can get a "fix."

I also do enjoy quality coffee (true Kona when I can get it, and trust
the source,) as well as various blends from Java, Ethiopia, and
Colombia. Blue Mountain has really died out in quality, and for the $
they want, it's just not worth it anymore (IMO.) Same goes with Cohiba
Lanceros cigars from "Habana," too many counterfeits being made in Dom.
Rep, as well as in Cuba.

Rich

--
"Dum Spiro, Spero."

As long as I breath, I hope.

Cicero

PENMART01 wrote:

>>BubbaBoob
>>
>>Richard Periut wrote:
>>
>>>BubbaBoob wrote:
>>>
>>>>Richard Periut wrote:
>>
>>>Main Entry: espres·so
>>>Pronunciation: e-'spre-(")sO
>>>Function: noun
>>>Inflected Form(s): plural -sos
>>>Etymology: Italian (caffè) espresso, literally, pressed out
>>>coffee 1 : coffee brewed by forcing steam through finely ground
>>>darkly roasted coffee beans
>>
>>>© 2004 Merriam-Webster, Incorporated
>>>
>>
>>
>>Any dictionary that uses a definition for espresso that is that far
>>off beam can hardly be trusted to provide any authority concerning
>>its spelling. Their etymology is wrong, as well.
>
>
> There is nothing special about expresso/espresso, it's essentially the
> crumbiest cheapo coffee beans that rather than pitch em into the compost heap
> were instead over roasted (burned) to hide their defectiveness. Anyone, ANYONE
> who makes a big deal about discussing the fine points of burned coffee beans
> knows nothing, NOTHING about coffee.
>
>
> Oxford Dictionary
>
> espresso (also expresso )
> noun
>
> : strong black coffee made by forcing steam through ground coffee beans.
>
> €”ORIGIN 1940s: from Italian (caffè) espresso, literally 'pressed out
> (coffee)'.
> ---
> Merriam-Webster
>
> ex·pres·so
>
> variant of espresso
> ---
>
>
>
> ---= BOYCOTT FRANCE (belgium) GERMANY--SPAIN =---
> ---= Move UNITED NATIONS To Paris =---
> *********
> "Life would be devoid of all meaning were it without tribulation."
> Sheldon
> ````````````
Now now Sheldon. I buy my beans whole and I see the quality I'm getting.
I also grind them in a dedicated machine which is a mill, not a grinder.

I can only tell you that I drink pure bliss with a nice thick head
(crema) of foam. After a meal, there is nothing better. The Italians
have mastered (IMO) the art of Expresso / Espresso making.

Cubans call it a "colada" and it comes with like 15 miniature cups so
that everyone at work can get a "fix."

I also do enjoy quality coffee (true Kona when I can get it, and trust
the source,) as well as various blends from Java, Ethiopia, and
Colombia. Blue Mountain has really died out in quality, and for the $
they want, it's just not worth it anymore (IMO.) Same goes with Cohiba
Lanceros cigars from "Habana," too many counterfeits being made in Dom.
Rep, as well as in Cuba.

Rich

--
"Dum Spiro, Spero."

As long as I breath, I hope.

Cicero

In article >,
Richard Periut > wrote:

> Merriam-Webster can not be trusted?
>
> Well Sheldon beat me to it, but here goes Oxford:
>
> Oxford Dictionary
>
> espresso (also expresso )
> noun
>
> : strong black coffee made by forcing steam through ground coffee beans.
>
> ‹ORIGIN 1940s: from Italian (caffè) espresso, literally 'pressed out
> (coffee)'.
> ---
> Merriam-Webster
>
> ex·pres·so
>
> variant of espresso
> ---
>
>
> Or are they also not to be trusted? Can you name a reliable and accurate
> source for your conjectures?

Well, first off, the description is simply wrong. Espresso is not made
with steam; it's made with water at about 203 degrees F (see, David C.
Schomer, "Espresso Coffee: Professional Techniques"). Boiling water does
not touch the ground coffee. A couple of years ago, I had a discussion
about this with one of the dictionary editors and he agreed that the
"steam" definition was wrong, and would be changed in the next edition.
I can't find the email exchange, though, so I can't pin down which
dictionary it was.

Also, Jesse Sheidlower, currently the North American Editor of the
Oxford English Dictionary, discussed this in response to a thread on
alt.coffee back in '94 or so. Here's his post (two sections about
whether certain letters are used in Italian are snipped; accent marks
are omitted, since not all newsreaders support them):

"I find this thread fascinating. I regret that it demonstrates an
unfamiliarity with dictionaries and how to use them, but no matter. I
believe that I am the only dictionary editor to participate in this
discussion, so let me waste a bit more bandwidth addressing some of the
points made so far, and introducing a few others:

o The OED, Second Edition, does include _espresso_ and _expresso_, the
latter being a variant of the former. It correctly derives it from
Italian _caffe espresso_. Whoever claimed it derives the term from a
would-be Italian _caffe expresso_ was in error.
o There are four major American dictionaries (published by Merriam
Webster, Webster's New World, Random House, and American Heritage). The
most recent edition of each gives _espresso_ as the main form, and
_expresso_ as a variant only. The fact that _expresso_ is listed in the
dictionary does not mean that it is equally common: the front matter for
each dictionary explains this. The person who claimed that three
dictionaries including OED give _expresso_ as "equally valid" was in
error.
o Dictionaries, in general, do not dictate usage: they reflect the usage
that exists in the language. If a dictionary says that _espresso_ is the
main spelling, it means that in the experience of its editors (based on
an examination of the language), _espresso_ is notably more common. It
does not mean that the editors have a vendetta against _expresso_.
o To the linguist who rejects the authority of dictionaries: I agree
that language is constantly changing; I'm sure that every dictionary
editor in the country does as well. Dictionaries are outdated before
they go to press. But I think they remain accurate to a large extent.
Also, if you are going to disagree with the conclusions of a dictionary,
you should be prepared to back yourself up. I can defend, with extensive
written evidence, our decision to give _espresso_ as the preferred form.
o The spelling _espresso_ is the form used by the copy desks of the _New
York Times,_ _Gourmet,_ _Bon Appetit,_ The _Wine Spectator,_ the _Wall
St. Journal,_The _L.A. Times,_ _Time,_ _Newsweek,_ and to my knowledge
every other major or minor newspaper or magazine, general or
food-related, in the English-speaking world. The fact that a handwritten
menu on an Italian restaurant door spells it "expresso" is trivial by
comparison.
o In sum: though both _espresso_ and _expresso_ are found, the former is
by far the more common. It is also to be favored on immediate
etymological evidence, since the Italian word from which it is directly
borrowed is spelled _espresso_. The form _espresso_ is clearly preferred
by all mainstream sources."

--
to respond, change "spamless.invalid" with "optonline.net"
please mail OT responses only

In article >,
Richard Periut > wrote:

> Merriam-Webster can not be trusted?
>
> Well Sheldon beat me to it, but here goes Oxford:
>
> Oxford Dictionary
>
> espresso (also expresso )
> noun
>
> : strong black coffee made by forcing steam through ground coffee beans.
>
> ‹ORIGIN 1940s: from Italian (caffè) espresso, literally 'pressed out
> (coffee)'.
> ---
> Merriam-Webster
>
> ex·pres·so
>
> variant of espresso
> ---
>
>
> Or are they also not to be trusted? Can you name a reliable and accurate
> source for your conjectures?

Well, first off, the description is simply wrong. Espresso is not made
with steam; it's made with water at about 203 degrees F (see, David C.
Schomer, "Espresso Coffee: Professional Techniques"). Boiling water does
not touch the ground coffee. A couple of years ago, I had a discussion
about this with one of the dictionary editors and he agreed that the
"steam" definition was wrong, and would be changed in the next edition.
I can't find the email exchange, though, so I can't pin down which
dictionary it was.

Also, Jesse Sheidlower, currently the North American Editor of the
Oxford English Dictionary, discussed this in response to a thread on
alt.coffee back in '94 or so. Here's his post (two sections about
whether certain letters are used in Italian are snipped; accent marks
are omitted, since not all newsreaders support them):

"I find this thread fascinating. I regret that it demonstrates an
unfamiliarity with dictionaries and how to use them, but no matter. I
believe that I am the only dictionary editor to participate in this
discussion, so let me waste a bit more bandwidth addressing some of the
points made so far, and introducing a few others:

o The OED, Second Edition, does include _espresso_ and _expresso_, the
latter being a variant of the former. It correctly derives it from
Italian _caffe espresso_. Whoever claimed it derives the term from a
would-be Italian _caffe expresso_ was in error.
o There are four major American dictionaries (published by Merriam
Webster, Webster's New World, Random House, and American Heritage). The
most recent edition of each gives _espresso_ as the main form, and
_expresso_ as a variant only. The fact that _expresso_ is listed in the
dictionary does not mean that it is equally common: the front matter for
each dictionary explains this. The person who claimed that three
dictionaries including OED give _expresso_ as "equally valid" was in
error.
o Dictionaries, in general, do not dictate usage: they reflect the usage
that exists in the language. If a dictionary says that _espresso_ is the
main spelling, it means that in the experience of its editors (based on
an examination of the language), _espresso_ is notably more common. It
does not mean that the editors have a vendetta against _expresso_.
o To the linguist who rejects the authority of dictionaries: I agree
that language is constantly changing; I'm sure that every dictionary
editor in the country does as well. Dictionaries are outdated before
they go to press. But I think they remain accurate to a large extent.
Also, if you are going to disagree with the conclusions of a dictionary,
you should be prepared to back yourself up. I can defend, with extensive
written evidence, our decision to give _espresso_ as the preferred form.
o The spelling _espresso_ is the form used by the copy desks of the _New
York Times,_ _Gourmet,_ _Bon Appetit,_ The _Wine Spectator,_ the _Wall
St. Journal,_The _L.A. Times,_ _Time,_ _Newsweek,_ and to my knowledge
every other major or minor newspaper or magazine, general or
food-related, in the English-speaking world. The fact that a handwritten
menu on an Italian restaurant door spells it "expresso" is trivial by
comparison.
o In sum: though both _espresso_ and _expresso_ are found, the former is
by far the more common. It is also to be favored on immediate
etymological evidence, since the Italian word from which it is directly
borrowed is spelled _espresso_. The form _espresso_ is clearly preferred
by all mainstream sources."

--
to respond, change "spamless.invalid" with "optonline.net"
please mail OT responses only

Scott wrote:
> In article >,
> Richard Periut > wrote:
>
>
>>Merriam-Webster can not be trusted?
>>
>>Well Sheldon beat me to it, but here goes Oxford:
>>
>>Oxford Dictionary
>>
>>espresso (also expresso )
>>noun
>>
>>: strong black coffee made by forcing steam through ground coffee beans.
>>
>>‹ORIGIN 1940s: from Italian (caffè) espresso, literally 'pressed out
>>(coffee)'.
>>---
>>Merriam-Webster
>>
>>ex·pres·so
>>
>>variant of espresso
>>---
>>
>>
>>Or are they also not to be trusted? Can you name a reliable and accurate
>>source for your conjectures?
>
>
> Well, first off, the description is simply wrong. Espresso is not made
> with steam; it's made with water at about 203 degrees F (see, David C.
> Schomer, "Espresso Coffee: Professional Techniques"). Boiling water does
> not touch the ground coffee. A couple of years ago, I had a discussion
> about this with one of the dictionary editors and he agreed that the
> "steam" definition was wrong, and would be changed in the next edition.
> I can't find the email exchange, though, so I can't pin down which
> dictionary it was.
>
> Also, Jesse Sheidlower, currently the North American Editor of the
> Oxford English Dictionary, discussed this in response to a thread on
> alt.coffee back in '94 or so. Here's his post (two sections about
> whether certain letters are used in Italian are snipped; accent marks
> are omitted, since not all newsreaders support them):
>
> "I find this thread fascinating. I regret that it demonstrates an
> unfamiliarity with dictionaries and how to use them, but no matter. I
> believe that I am the only dictionary editor to participate in this
> discussion, so let me waste a bit more bandwidth addressing some of the
> points made so far, and introducing a few others:
>
> o The OED, Second Edition, does include _espresso_ and _expresso_, the
> latter being a variant of the former. It correctly derives it from
> Italian _caffe espresso_. Whoever claimed it derives the term from a
> would-be Italian _caffe expresso_ was in error.
> o There are four major American dictionaries (published by Merriam
> Webster, Webster's New World, Random House, and American Heritage). The
> most recent edition of each gives _espresso_ as the main form, and
> _expresso_ as a variant only. The fact that _expresso_ is listed in the
> dictionary does not mean that it is equally common: the front matter for
> each dictionary explains this. The person who claimed that three
> dictionaries including OED give _expresso_ as "equally valid" was in
> error.
> o Dictionaries, in general, do not dictate usage: they reflect the usage
> that exists in the language. If a dictionary says that _espresso_ is the
> main spelling, it means that in the experience of its editors (based on
> an examination of the language), _espresso_ is notably more common. It
> does not mean that the editors have a vendetta against _expresso_.
> o To the linguist who rejects the authority of dictionaries: I agree
> that language is constantly changing; I'm sure that every dictionary
> editor in the country does as well. Dictionaries are outdated before
> they go to press. But I think they remain accurate to a large extent.
> Also, if you are going to disagree with the conclusions of a dictionary,
> you should be prepared to back yourself up. I can defend, with extensive
> written evidence, our decision to give _espresso_ as the preferred form.
> o The spelling _espresso_ is the form used by the copy desks of the _New
> York Times,_ _Gourmet,_ _Bon Appetit,_ The _Wine Spectator,_ the _Wall
> St. Journal,_The _L.A. Times,_ _Time,_ _Newsweek,_ and to my knowledge
> every other major or minor newspaper or magazine, general or
> food-related, in the English-speaking world. The fact that a handwritten
> menu on an Italian restaurant door spells it "expresso" is trivial by
> comparison.
> o In sum: though both _espresso_ and _expresso_ are found, the former is
> by far the more common. It is also to be favored on immediate
> etymological evidence, since the Italian word from which it is directly
> borrowed is spelled _espresso_. The form _espresso_ is clearly preferred
> by all mainstream sources."
>

Scott, thank you very much for your contribution to this post; I think
we all learn here.

Very interesting points. But, when I preheat my expresso maker, by
letting it warm up and hit the GO button, what runs through the plate is
water and steam. So, what really hits the grounds is steam and more so,
hot water. Very hot. Otherwise, the steam would just seep through the
grounds and what you get is a very small amount of final product, and a
lot of steam.

I think it's a matter of symantics. The truth is that Expresso /
Espresso is made by pumping steam / hot water through the grounds.

Suffice it to say that it's not a polarized statement.

Rich

In article >,
Richard Periut > wrote:

> Who says it's worse? You?

No, years of research and professional tasters at the SCAA.

> IMO, it tastes better. Plus, don't you think
> RO water gets a nice dose of minerals, et cetera from the coffee? Unless
> you are used to drinking extremely hard water, I don't think most people
> can tell the difference.

At the Specialty Coffee expo in Boston last year (which I attended), the
president of Cirqua
<http://www.cirqua.com/>
reported that their blind cuppings at SCAA headquarters showed a
distinct preference for 150 Total Dissolved Solids.

Besides the flavor their add, minerals are also needed to help with
proper flavor extraction.

--
to respond, change "spamless.invalid" with "optonline.net"
please mail OT responses only

In article >,
Richard Periut > wrote:

> Who says it's worse? You?

No, years of research and professional tasters at the SCAA.

> IMO, it tastes better. Plus, don't you think
> RO water gets a nice dose of minerals, et cetera from the coffee? Unless
> you are used to drinking extremely hard water, I don't think most people
> can tell the difference.

At the Specialty Coffee expo in Boston last year (which I attended), the
president of Cirqua
<http://www.cirqua.com/>
reported that their blind cuppings at SCAA headquarters showed a
distinct preference for 150 Total Dissolved Solids.

Besides the flavor their add, minerals are also needed to help with
proper flavor extraction.

--
to respond, change "spamless.invalid" with "optonline.net"
please mail OT responses only

Scott wrote:

> In article >,
> Richard Periut > wrote:
>
>
>>Who says it's worse? You?
>
>
> No, years of research and professional tasters at the SCAA.
>
>
>>IMO, it tastes better. Plus, don't you think
>>RO water gets a nice dose of minerals, et cetera from the coffee? Unless
>>you are used to drinking extremely hard water, I don't think most people
>>can tell the difference.
>
>
> At the Specialty Coffee expo in Boston last year (which I attended), the
> president of Cirqua
> <http://www.cirqua.com/>
> reported that their blind cuppings at SCAA headquarters showed a
> distinct preference for 150 Total Dissolved Solids.
>
> Besides the flavor their add, minerals are also needed to help with
> proper flavor extraction.
>

Scott, as a beer brewer, I have experimented immensely with using water
from my RO unit, and adding various salts of magnesium and calcium, et
cetera. Some beers benefit greatly from simulating certain waters and
their salt contents (attempting to simulate the sources of their
origins. Others do better with plain RO water.

I think, IMO, that Expresso tastes better with plain RO water. Then
again, we are talking subjective points of view. Taste is very subjective.

I have not tried this with American style coffee. My account is only
with expresso. Perhaps if I try to experiment with water with various
hardness / salt contents, I may like these better.

I will experiment with this idea.

Thanks for pointing out very interesting notions.

Regards,

Rich

Scott wrote:

> In article >,
> Richard Periut > wrote:
>
>
>>Who says it's worse? You?
>
>
> No, years of research and professional tasters at the SCAA.
>
>
>>IMO, it tastes better. Plus, don't you think
>>RO water gets a nice dose of minerals, et cetera from the coffee? Unless
>>you are used to drinking extremely hard water, I don't think most people
>>can tell the difference.
>
>
> At the Specialty Coffee expo in Boston last year (which I attended), the
> president of Cirqua
> <http://www.cirqua.com/>
> reported that their blind cuppings at SCAA headquarters showed a
> distinct preference for 150 Total Dissolved Solids.
>
> Besides the flavor their add, minerals are also needed to help with
> proper flavor extraction.
>

Scott, as a beer brewer, I have experimented immensely with using water
from my RO unit, and adding various salts of magnesium and calcium, et
cetera. Some beers benefit greatly from simulating certain waters and
their salt contents (attempting to simulate the sources of their
origins. Others do better with plain RO water.

I think, IMO, that Expresso tastes better with plain RO water. Then
again, we are talking subjective points of view. Taste is very subjective.

I have not tried this with American style coffee. My account is only
with expresso. Perhaps if I try to experiment with water with various
hardness / salt contents, I may like these better.

I will experiment with this idea.

Thanks for pointing out very interesting notions.

Regards,

Rich

Scott wrote:

> In article >,
> Richard Periut > wrote:
>
>
>>Who says it's worse? You?
>
>
> No, years of research and professional tasters at the SCAA.
>
>
>>IMO, it tastes better. Plus, don't you think
>>RO water gets a nice dose of minerals, et cetera from the coffee? Unless
>>you are used to drinking extremely hard water, I don't think most people
>>can tell the difference.
>
>
> At the Specialty Coffee expo in Boston last year (which I attended), the
> president of Cirqua
> <http://www.cirqua.com/>
> reported that their blind cuppings at SCAA headquarters showed a
> distinct preference for 150 Total Dissolved Solids.
>
> Besides the flavor their add, minerals are also needed to help with
> proper flavor extraction.
>

Scott, as a beer brewer, I have experimented immensely with using water
from my RO unit, and adding various salts of magnesium and calcium, et
cetera. Some beers benefit greatly from simulating certain waters and
their salt contents (attempting to simulate the sources of their
origins. Others do better with plain RO water.

I think, IMO, that Expresso tastes better with plain RO water. Then
again, we are talking subjective points of view. Taste is very subjective.

I have not tried this with American style coffee. My account is only
with expresso. Perhaps if I try to experiment with water with various
hardness / salt contents, I may like these better.

I will experiment with this idea.

Thanks for pointing out very interesting notions.

Regards,

Rich

In article >,
Richard Periut > wrote:

> Very interesting points. But, when I preheat my expresso maker, by
> letting it warm up and hit the GO button, what runs through the plate is
> water and steam. So, what really hits the grounds is steam and more so,
> hot water. Very hot. Otherwise, the steam would just seep through the
> grounds and what you get is a very small amount of final product, and a
> lot of steam.

Sorry, Rich, but if it's producing steam, then your espresso machine is
malfunctioning. Even halfway decent quality espresso machines rely on
pumps to force hot, not boiling, water through the grounds. The cheapest
espresso machines (under $50) will produce steam in the boiler, but only
for the purpose of producing pressure *inside the boiler*: the water is
under the boiling point when it contacts the grounds.

What you're seeing is just water vapor produced by HOT, not boiling,
water; even room temperature water will produce vapor (it's just a
matter of quantity). Steam, OTOH, is invisible. See
<http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00551.htm>
<http://www.mentalfloss.com/archives/archive2003-03-04.htm>
<http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/e...n/m0010168.htm
l>

Some quotes on temperatu

"Espresso Coffee: The Chemistry of Quality" (Andrea Illy, Rinantonio
Viani): "Espresso is a brew obtained by percolation of hot water under
pressure through a cake of roasted ground coffee, where the energy of
the water pressure is spent within the cake." The text specifies said
hot water as: "90 +/- 5C."

"Espresso Italiano Tasting" (International Institute of Coffee Tasters):
"With the aid of a volumetric pump, the water is brought to a pressure
of 9 atmospheres and then forced through a heat exchanger, which brings
the water temperature up to 88 +/- 2C. This method achieves the correct
water temperature and quality. It is important that the water
temperature should be within these limits, otherwise the result will be
an over or under-extracted coffee."



> I think it's a matter of symantics. The truth is that Expresso /
> Espresso is made by pumping steam / hot water through the grounds.

Except that it's NOT semantics; steam is simply too hot, according to
every espresso/espresso machine manual or other expert source.

--
to respond, change "spamless.invalid" with "optonline.net"
please mail OT responses only

In article >,
Richard Periut > wrote:

> Very interesting points. But, when I preheat my expresso maker, by
> letting it warm up and hit the GO button, what runs through the plate is
> water and steam. So, what really hits the grounds is steam and more so,
> hot water. Very hot. Otherwise, the steam would just seep through the
> grounds and what you get is a very small amount of final product, and a
> lot of steam.

Sorry, Rich, but if it's producing steam, then your espresso machine is
malfunctioning. Even halfway decent quality espresso machines rely on
pumps to force hot, not boiling, water through the grounds. The cheapest
espresso machines (under $50) will produce steam in the boiler, but only
for the purpose of producing pressure *inside the boiler*: the water is
under the boiling point when it contacts the grounds.

What you're seeing is just water vapor produced by HOT, not boiling,
water; even room temperature water will produce vapor (it's just a
matter of quantity). Steam, OTOH, is invisible. See
<http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00551.htm>
<http://www.mentalfloss.com/archives/archive2003-03-04.htm>
<http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/e...n/m0010168.htm
l>

Some quotes on temperatu

"Espresso Coffee: The Chemistry of Quality" (Andrea Illy, Rinantonio
Viani): "Espresso is a brew obtained by percolation of hot water under
pressure through a cake of roasted ground coffee, where the energy of
the water pressure is spent within the cake." The text specifies said
hot water as: "90 +/- 5C."

"Espresso Italiano Tasting" (International Institute of Coffee Tasters):
"With the aid of a volumetric pump, the water is brought to a pressure
of 9 atmospheres and then forced through a heat exchanger, which brings
the water temperature up to 88 +/- 2C. This method achieves the correct
water temperature and quality. It is important that the water
temperature should be within these limits, otherwise the result will be
an over or under-extracted coffee."



> I think it's a matter of symantics. The truth is that Expresso /
> Espresso is made by pumping steam / hot water through the grounds.

Except that it's NOT semantics; steam is simply too hot, according to
every espresso/espresso machine manual or other expert source.

--
to respond, change "spamless.invalid" with "optonline.net"
please mail OT responses only