Hi.
It may seem like I'm a bit sensitive to caffeine, so for a while I
thought I'd try some decaff tea. Unless there is some recommendable
commercial tea around, I guess I'll stick to the home-production water
method. Are there any teas/sorts of tea that are better for this
procedure than others, preferably green?
(And just to make su the right procedure is 1) pour water 2) stir for
5 seconds 3)pour the water out and 4)fill with new water and let it
steep the noramal time.)

thanks in advance.

ole k

Ole Kvaal wrote:

> It may seem like I'm a bit sensitive to caffeine, so for a while I
> thought I'd try some decaff tea. Unless there is some recommendable
> commercial tea around, I guess I'll stick to the home-production water
> method. Are there any teas/sorts of tea that are better for this
> procedure than others, preferably green?
> (And just to make su the right procedure is 1) pour water 2) stir for
> 5 seconds 3)pour the water out and 4)fill with new water and let it
> steep the noramal time.)

I don't think there are any types of tea that decaffeinate
better than others. However, your stir time seems very short.
Other procedures I have read for this call for a 30 second
steep (no stiring). There are many green teas available that
are good for 2 or even 3 steepings, so even if you did a full
steep and threw it away, you should still be able to enjoy
some good teas. Note, however, that there will still be much
more caffeine left in a 2nd steep than there are in decaff
teas (which generally have < 1% by weight).

I occsionally drink Upton tea's decaff "China Green". It is
fairly good.


Randy

"Ole Kvaal" > wrote in message
...
> Hi.
> It may seem like I'm a bit sensitive to caffeine, so for a while I
> thought I'd try some decaff tea. Unless there is some recommendable
> commercial tea around, I guess I'll stick to the home-production water
> method. Are there any teas/sorts of tea that are better for this
> procedure than others, preferably green?
> (And just to make su the right procedure is 1) pour water 2) stir for
> 5 seconds 3)pour the water out and 4)fill with new water and let it
> steep the noramal time.)

1. Pour water.
2. Let steep for 30 - 45 seconds - no stirring required.
3. Pour water out.
4. Using fresh water, steep as usual.

Up to 80% of the caffeine is removed with this method within the first 30
seconds. There's no point to going over 45 seconds as rate greatly
decreases.

As for commercially available decaf'd green tea, my favorites are Upton's
decaf green (ZG09) and The Tea Table's (http://www.theteatable.com) decaf
green tea (it's sencha) with apricot (DGTA).

HTH.

--
~~Bluesea~~
Spam is great in musubi but not in email.
Please take out the trash before sending a direct reply.

Bluesea wrote:

> As for commercially available decaf'd green tea, my favorites are Upton's
> decaf green (ZG09) and The Tea Table's (http://www.theteatable.com) decaf
> green tea (it's sencha) with apricot (DGTA).
>

Thanks to both you and RJP. That's two votes for Upton's. Guess I'll
place my order today, perhaps after giving the home version a few more
times.


rgds,
ole k

Bluesea wrote:
>
> 1. Pour water.
> 2. Let steep for 30 - 45 seconds - no stirring required.
> 3. Pour water out.
> 4. Using fresh water, steep as usual.
>

Sorry, one more question: does this steeping time also go for green teas
(as their steeping time normally is shorter than most blacks)?

ole k

"gomper" > wrote:

> Bluesea wrote:
>>
>> 1. Pour water.
>> 2. Let steep for 30 - 45 seconds - no stirring required.
>> 3. Pour water out.
>> 4. Using fresh water, steep as usual.
>
> Sorry, one more question: does this steeping time also go for green teas (as their steeping time normally is shorter
> than most blacks)?

As Bluesea doesn't seem to be around today, I'll give you my answer,
which I bet is the same thing (s)he will say. Yes, this decaffeinating
steep time is independent of tea type. The fact that greens get astringent
at normal steep times for blacks is not really relevant - its how quickly
the caffeine goes into solution, which ought not to depend so much
on tea type (although it probably varies with leaf size).


--
Randy
(To reply by e-mail, remove DeLeTe and SPAMFREE from my address)

"gomper" > wrote in message
...
> Bluesea wrote:
>
> > As for commercially available decaf'd green tea, my favorites are
Upton's
> > decaf green (ZG09) and The Tea Table's (http://www.theteatable.com)
decaf
> > green tea (it's sencha) with apricot (DGTA).
> >
>
> Thanks to both you and RJP. That's two votes for Upton's. Guess I'll
> place my order today, perhaps after giving the home version a few more
> times.

The Upton's, the decaf apricot green, and Upton's Lung Ching are my standard
green teas and I enjoy the decaf greens both hot and refrigerator brewed.

I think the main advantage to a commercially CO2 decaf'd tea is that 99% of
the caffeine is removed without any residual chemical alteration of the
tea's flavor compared to up to 80% for the do-it-yourself method.

--
~~Bluesea~~
Spam is great in musubi but not in email.
Please take out the trash before sending a direct reply.

"RJP" > wrote in message
...
> "gomper" > wrote:
>
> > Bluesea wrote:
> >>
> >> 1. Pour water.
> >> 2. Let steep for 30 - 45 seconds - no stirring required.
> >> 3. Pour water out.
> >> 4. Using fresh water, steep as usual.
> >
> > Sorry, one more question: does this steeping time also go for green teas
(as their steeping time normally is shorter
> > than most blacks)?
>
> As Bluesea doesn't seem to be around today, I'll give you my answer,
> which I bet is the same thing (s)he will say. Yes, this decaffeinating
> steep time is independent of tea type. The fact that greens get
astringent
> at normal steep times for blacks is not really relevant - its how quickly
> the caffeine goes into solution, which ought not to depend so much
> on tea type (although it probably varies with leaf size).

Thanks, Randy. I've been busy off-line poring over an Upton catalog for gift
selections for a couple of friends .

Yes, I agree. Because caffeine is water soluble, the degree of oxidation
(black, green, white, etc.) doesn't really matter. However, leaf
type/location on the plant does matter because, for example, a tippy leaf
(first or second) contains more caffeine than do other leaves.

Which leads me to think that the reason that older/bigger leaves contain
less caffeine is simply because they've been exposed to more rain which has
rinsed some of the caffeine away. This is, of course, if all other factors
such as variety of tea plant, soil and climate conditions, altitude, etc.,
are the same.

But, when self-decaffeinating, a smaller leaf (particle) will release its
caffeine faster than a larger leaf so a small leaf may reach the 80% level
in 20 seconds while a large leaf may need 30 seconds or a little longer to
reach the 80% level.

Interestingly enough, an article in Food Research International, Vol 29,
325-330 (1996), compared the content of caffeine in various teas finding
that one of the Formosa oolongs had less caffeine than the green and black
teas on a dry weight basis, but they all had similar caffeine levels when
prepared to the directions provided.

--
~~Bluesea~~ Caffeine: an exception to "i before e except after c."
Spam is great in musubi but not in email.
Please take out the trash before sending a direct reply.

gomper > wrote:
>Bluesea wrote:
>>
>> 1. Pour water.
>> 2. Let steep for 30 - 45 seconds - no stirring required.
>> 3. Pour water out.
>> 4. Using fresh water, steep as usual.
>
>Sorry, one more question: does this steeping time also go for green teas
>(as their steeping time normally is shorter than most blacks)?

Yes. That time is related to the solubility of the caffeine. Now, it will
affect the taste more for green teas since it's now longer in proportion
to the total steeping time, but it still works well and doesn't make much
of a change.

This may not work well for something like a gunpowder tea which is in
balls that need some soaking to open, because you won't have as good an
opportunity to get the caffeine into solution.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 21 Aug 2005 10:31:59 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>gomper > wrote:
>>Bluesea wrote:
>>>
>>> 1. Pour water.
>>> 2. Let steep for 30 - 45 seconds - no stirring required.
>>> 3. Pour water out.
>>> 4. Using fresh water, steep as usual.
<snip>
>This may not work well for something like a gunpowder tea which is in
>balls that need some soaking to open, because you won't have as good an
>opportunity to get the caffeine into solution.
>--scott

Hi Scott, I just posted something very similar to this in the puerh
caffeine thread. To rinse a ball type tea, or flaked but still
compressed pieces of puerh, I have found that it works well to do one
rinse, then let the tea sit for a minute or two so the compressed tea
can start to absorb some moisture and expand a little, then rinse it a
second time. The effect on the flavor of puerh, not sure about
gunpowder, is negligible.
Mike Petro
http://www.pu-erh.net
"In this work, when it shall be found that much is omitted, let it not be forgotten that much likewise is performed."
Samuel Johnson, 1775, upon finishing his dictionary.

I think caffeine is directly proportional to taste. It is just another
component that makes up tea taste. A weak tasting second cup means
much less caffeine than the first. If multilple infusions hold up in
taste then more caffeine in each cup. Most of the elements that make
up tea taste are determined by leaching rates and not solubility. The
CO2 processing for reducing caffeine and not affecting taste is a
different principle than adding water to leaves and pouring off the
first infusion and declaring the caffeine arbitrarily reduced by a
percentage.

Jim

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> gomper > wrote:
> >Bluesea wrote:
> >>
> >> 1. Pour water.
> >> 2. Let steep for 30 - 45 seconds - no stirring required.
> >> 3. Pour water out.
> >> 4. Using fresh water, steep as usual.
> >
> >Sorry, one more question: does this steeping time also go for green teas
> >(as their steeping time normally is shorter than most blacks)?
>
> Yes. That time is related to the solubility of the caffeine. Now, it will
> affect the taste more for green teas since it's now longer in proportion
> to the total steeping time, but it still works well and doesn't make much
> of a change.
>
> This may not work well for something like a gunpowder tea which is in
> balls that need some soaking to open, because you won't have as good an
> opportunity to get the caffeine into solution.
> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 21 Aug 2005 09:37:36 -0700, "Space Cowboy" >
wrote:

>I think caffeine is directly proportional to taste. It is just another
>component that makes up tea taste.

True, caffeine does affect taste, it is bitter.

>A weak tasting second cup means
>much less caffeine than the first.

>If multilple infusions hold up in
>taste then more caffeine in each cup.

Neither of these statements make much scientific sense unless it is
just coincidence based on your method of brewing. To draw these
conclusions you must assume that caffeine will be extracted at the
same rate as the other flavor components, it has been scientifically
proven that these components dissolve at very different rates and that
caffeine is one of the fastest dissolving components by a long shot.

>Most of the elements that make
>up tea taste are determined by leaching rates and not solubility.

What is the difference? Are they not flip sides of the same coin with
regards to extraction?

>The
>CO2 processing for reducing caffeine and not affecting taste is a
>different principle than adding water to leaves and pouring off the
>first infusion and declaring the caffeine arbitrarily reduced by a
>percentage.

Nothing arbitrary as the caffeine is significantly reduced, it is
quite proven, now the exact percentage extracted depends on several
variables mostly involving leaf permeability and the process of
extraction being used, time, temp, method, etc.

In addition to the CO2 process there is also a "Swiss Water" process
that uses only water to decaffeinate the beans, unfortunately in the
case of coffee it also removes flavor components as well.
http://www.swisswater.com/decaf


Mike Petro
http://www.pu-erh.net
"In this work, when it shall be found that much is omitted, let it not be forgotten that much likewise is performed."
Samuel Johnson, 1775, upon finishing his dictionary.

Space Cowboy > wrote:
>I think caffeine is directly proportional to taste. It is just another
>component that makes up tea taste.

It is, it adds some bitterness to the taste. But it's only one component,
and it's one that is more soluble than most of the others.

>A weak tasting second cup means
>much less caffeine than the first. If multilple infusions hold up in
>taste then more caffeine in each cup. Most of the elements that make
>up tea taste are determined by leaching rates and not solubility.

I suspect you'll find that they are almost nearly the same thing. But
it shouldn't take much to find out. Xanthine titres are easy to do in
your kitchen without much work.

The
>CO2 processing for reducing caffeine and not affecting taste is a
>different principle than adding water to leaves and pouring off the
>first infusion and declaring the caffeine arbitrarily reduced by a
>percentage.

It certainly is, but what does that have to do with anything?
There are a bunch of other solvent methods possible as well.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

You need to drink more types of tea and then come back in 30 years and
give us your answer versus the amount of caffeine in multiple infusions
as a general rule. Some teas maintain their astringency after several
infusions and for a few it even gets worse. That means the caffeine is
still present while the taste is gone. It is easily reproducible in
some cases by drinking the first infusion then drinking the second a
while later and noting the physical characteristcs like the jitters,
sweating, alertness, palpatations, etc. I say that in general where
there is taste there is caffeine. When you do drink tea that is decaf
it seems to be missing something. So when we speak of caffeine water
solubility that doesn't preclude a leaching rate which might be similar
to the other taste components. It doesn't take a chemistry major to
conclude the less caffeine by weight in the first cup by weight the
less in the second if taste is the starting point. I use a lot less
puerh per cup than say Yunnan black gold which I think the stronger the
better. I wouldn't drink it before bedtime because it makes a lousy
cup of weak tea. It's a great breakfast drink. I say that one is a
good candidate for caffeine in the second or third infusion with the
described physical caffeine reaction. I think the Yunnan's in general
have multiple infusions with caffeine and taste. In other words they
hold something back on the first infusion all things being equal. It
is the cultivar and not some given rate of caffeine solution for all
teas. Duh.

Jim

Mike Petro wrote:
> On 21 Aug 2005 09:37:36 -0700, "Space Cowboy" >
> wrote:
>
> >I think caffeine is directly proportional to taste. It is just another
> >component that makes up tea taste.
>
> True, caffeine does affect taste, it is bitter.
>
> >A weak tasting second cup means
> >much less caffeine than the first.
>
> >If multilple infusions hold up in
> >taste then more caffeine in each cup.
>
> Neither of these statements make much scientific sense unless it is
> just coincidence based on your method of brewing. To draw these
> conclusions you must assume that caffeine will be extracted at the
> same rate as the other flavor components, it has been scientifically
> proven that these components dissolve at very different rates and that
> caffeine is one of the fastest dissolving components by a long shot.
>
> >Most of the elements that make
> >up tea taste are determined by leaching rates and not solubility.
>
> What is the difference? Are they not flip sides of the same coin with
> regards to extraction?
>
> >The
> >CO2 processing for reducing caffeine and not affecting taste is a
> >different principle than adding water to leaves and pouring off the
> >first infusion and declaring the caffeine arbitrarily reduced by a
> >percentage.
>
> Nothing arbitrary as the caffeine is significantly reduced, it is
> quite proven, now the exact percentage extracted depends on several
> variables mostly involving leaf permeability and the process of
> extraction being used, time, temp, method, etc.
>
> In addition to the CO2 process there is also a "Swiss Water" process
> that uses only water to decaffeinate the beans, unfortunately in the
> case of coffee it also removes flavor components as well.
> http://www.swisswater.com/decaf
>
>
> Mike Petro
> http://www.pu-erh.net
> "In this work, when it shall be found that much is omitted, let it not be forgotten that much likewise is performed."
> Samuel Johnson, 1775, upon finishing his dictionary.

On 21 Aug 2005 14:28:12 -0700, "Space Cowboy" >
wrote:

>You need to drink more types of tea and then come back in 30 years and
>give us your answer versus the amount of caffeine in multiple infusions
>as a general rule.

I do believe I have paid the price of admission Jim. Just because I
have a website about puerh doesn't mean I don't drink other teas. I
drink a lot of them. I now drink so much Shincha/Sencha/Gyokuro that I
order them directly from Japan, I drink a lot of the same Yunnan teas
you describe, I drink a lot of oolongs as well although I have not
developed a full appreciation for them yet, I also drink the
occasional first flush cream of the crop Indian teas thanks to some
friends of mine. So please lets just debate the facts.

> Some teas maintain their astringency after several
>infusions and for a few it even gets worse. That means the caffeine is
>still present while the taste is gone. It is easily reproducible in
>some cases by drinking the first infusion then drinking the second a
>while later and noting the physical characteristcs like the jitters,
>sweating, alertness, palpatations, etc. I say that in general where
>there is taste there is caffeine.

Here is the fallacy of your assumptions. You make it sound like you
can measure caffeine content strictly by taste, I sincerely doubt that
your taste buds are that calibrated. Astringency does not "equal"
caffeine content. Caffeine is bitter but so are a lot of other things.
Just because a tea is astringent does NOT mean that caffeine is the
source of that astringency. Caffeine is NOT proportional to total
flavor, it is but one component that has been proven to dissolve
quicker than most others. There may be trace amounts left in the 8th
steep but percentage wise it is almost negligible. Now I do agree that
in some teas there enough "other" components that get extracted with a
hot rinse to make them taste bland however that is not the case with
puerh. I also would assume that you could play with the temperature to
find a happy medium in those cases.

<snip>

>It
>is the cultivar and not some given rate of caffeine solution for all
>teas. Duh.

To look only at the cultivars is to look at the issue in a vacuum. The
brewing method, length of steep, temperature of water, size and age of
the leaf, all have an effect on caffeine content and extraction.

Once again, the "original thread" here was that you can decaffeinate
tea to a large degree by flushing it with hot water, you have offered
no proof to the contrary other than to deviate from the topic. I
cannot quote precise quantities because that would require laboratory
equipment that most of us don't have but all existing data from
existing research back up this method.

Mike Petro
http://www.pu-erh.net
"In this work, when it shall be found that much is omitted, let it not be forgotten that much likewise is performed."
Samuel Johnson, 1775, upon finishing his dictionary.

"Space Cowboy" wrote:
> ... Some teas maintain their astringency after several
> infusions and for a few it even gets worse. That means the caffeine is
> still present while the taste is gone.

Astringency and bitterness are often associated, but need not be linked.
Slightly under-ripe persimmons taste fairly sweet but are extremely
astringent. Most alkaloids are very bitter, but not all are astringent.
Astringency ("drawing together" - literally, making the mouth pucker) is
separate from taste.

Tannins and the like can be very astringent, and extract relatively slowly.
Caffeine, which is very bitter, extracts rapidly and is not particularly
astringent. We ought to be more careful with nomenclature if we're going to
use it as a basis for ad-hominem attacks or to confuse newbies and others
who (at their own risk) seek authoritative and/or scientific knowledge.

-DM

"Dog Ma 1" (reply w/o spam)> writes:

> [...]
> Tannins and the like can be very astringent, and extract relatively slowly.
> Caffeine, which is very bitter, extracts rapidly and is not particularly
> astringent. We ought to be more careful with nomenclature if we're going to
> use it as a basis for ad-hominem attacks or to confuse newbies and others
> who (at their own risk) seek authoritative and/or scientific knowledge.

On the contrary, if we're to confuse newbies, and especially if we're
to engage in ad-hominem attacks, careless nomenclature is essential,
you cur!

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

Okay here is some more anecdotal evidence that bebunks the idea that
caffeine is soluable at a fundamentally different rate than the
components of 'taste'. A decaf tea taste 'flat' with no complexity,
richness of the desired benchmarks we describe in tea. All it is
missing is the caffeine. You can only approximate that decaf taste
when any tea goes flat after single or multiple infusions where most
would agree there is no taste. Caffeine is a stimulant that increases
the absorbtion rate of taste. That is the upset empty stomach
syndrome. If no caffeine not much tea taste. Brew your strongest most
astringent tea in the sun for 24 hours. It will be much more mild than
anything you could brew yourself. The 24 hour soak does not even come
close to producing the same taste because less solution, less caffeine,
less taste. If you can't wait 24 hours try the same with a 5 minute
soak at room temperature. Drink that solution and you won't experience
the same caffeine side effects as brewing. This is one reason while
water extraction techniques don't work to make decaf. All you would
have to do is a soak and dry at the factory. It isn't because you are
reducing the taste but can't extract the caffeine. Gongfu brewing
essentially produces a saturated solution of caffeine and taste
components which is consistent from infusion to infusion. Otherwise
the side effects of caffeine from the first cup would physically
interfere with the subsequent tastings. The subtle taste of subsequent
infusions can only be delivered by caffeine as a stimulant on the
tastebuds. The first rinse eliminates the debris and not caffeine.
There are some teas where multiple infusions carry the same caffeine
effect as the first. You'll discover this by accident an you return to
cold pots and don't start fresh. The percentage of caffeine by weight
argument in the first infusion doesn't carry much weight when applied
to what we experience in the taste of tea. The caffeine by weight in
solution is the exception and not the rule. Where you find taste you
will see caffeine side effects. Any statements like caffeine is more
soluable than other taste componets is like saying the earth is flat to
the horizion for a surveyor. It is a scientific factoid with no
meaning to the amount of caffeine in your cup. If the caffeine is gone
the taste is gone because the water solution rate is not fundamentally
different than the leaching rates of other tasting components. You
won't discover that by drinking a few teas for a year. Some teas like
the British blends give up the taste and caffeine in the first
infusion. Other teas maintain caffeine and taste into multiple
infusions. In those cases like black Puerh or gongfu the first cup
contains the less caffeine. You don't need to titrate but trust your
tastebuds and note your physical reaction if caffeine is a problem.
You will get in trouble if you trust the 80% solution argument. You're
better off to experiment with more water, less tea and drink sooner.

Jim

Mike Petro wrote:
> On 21 Aug 2005 14:28:12 -0700, "Space Cowboy" >
> wrote:
> So please lets just debate the facts.
>
> > Some teas maintain their astringency after several
> >infusions and for a few it even gets worse. That means the caffeine is
> >still present while the taste is gone. It is easily reproducible in
> >some cases by drinking the first infusion then drinking the second a
> >while later and noting the physical characteristcs like the jitters,
> >sweating, alertness, palpatations, etc. I say that in general where
> >there is taste there is caffeine.
>
> Here is the fallacy of your assumptions. You make it sound like you
> can measure caffeine content strictly by taste, I sincerely doubt that
> your taste buds are that calibrated. Astringency does not "equal"
> caffeine content. Caffeine is bitter but so are a lot of other things.
> Just because a tea is astringent does NOT mean that caffeine is the
> source of that astringency. Caffeine is NOT proportional to total
> flavor, it is but one component that has been proven to dissolve
> quicker than most others. There may be trace amounts left in the 8th
> steep but percentage wise it is almost negligible. Now I do agree that
> in some teas there enough "other" components that get extracted with a
> hot rinse to make them taste bland however that is not the case with
> puerh. I also would assume that you could play with the temperature to
> find a happy medium in those cases.

Space Cowboy > wrote:
>Okay here is some more anecdotal evidence that bebunks the idea that
>caffeine is soluable at a fundamentally different rate than the
>components of 'taste'.

But there are LOTS of components of taste, and they are all soluble at
different rates.

That's why tea tastes different the longer you steep it. If everything
had the same solubility, then tea steeped for ten minutes and diluted
would taste the same as tea steeped for one minute (at least assuming
nothing dissolved to the point of saturation). This is very clearly not
the case. The taste changes dramatically as the steeping is extended,
because the less soluble products are starting to go into solution.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

The only reason tea taste different over time is the concentration of
solution not the variability of the components. Proportionally they
are the same in a weak cup versus a strong cup. The components of the
taste are the same only different in concentration. The Gongfu method
relies on saturation of all taste components for consistency in taste.
The argument that there are fundamentally different dilution rates is a
meaningless factoid when applied to taste. Take any tea you want, brew
it according to any method you want, and it will essentially taste the
same as any other method. The subsequent subtleties argument is
nothing more than idiosyncractic personality quirks. The gongfu method
can produce more infusions but the taste from a brown betty allowing
for volume is the same that is you couldn't tell the difference if
blindfolded. If 80% caffeine is extracted in all teas for the first
infusion then what percentage of overall taste also is also extracted?
You'll find from experience about the same for any given rate of
caffeine or any other taste component. Different rates of solution
even out in what we describe as taste. Next time don't pick my post
apart unless you can reply with more evidence to back up any assertion
be it scientific or anecdotal.

Jim

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Space Cowboy > wrote:
> >Okay here is some more anecdotal evidence that bebunks the idea that
> >caffeine is soluable at a fundamentally different rate than the
> >components of 'taste'.
>
> But there are LOTS of components of taste, and they are all soluble at
> different rates.
>
> That's why tea tastes different the longer you steep it. If everything
> had the same solubility, then tea steeped for ten minutes and diluted
> would taste the same as tea steeped for one minute (at least assuming
> nothing dissolved to the point of saturation). This is very clearly not
> the case. The taste changes dramatically as the steeping is extended,
> because the less soluble products are starting to go into solution.
> --scott
>
>
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Space Cowboy > wrote:
>The only reason tea taste different over time is the concentration of
>solution not the variability of the components.

In that case, why don't we make a very strong tea and then dilute it
down for drinking? That way, we'd get more tea from a given amount of
leaf. But we do not do this. Why? Because it tastes noxious if tea
is steeped too long and then diluted. Because your basic premise is
incorrect.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Isn't that how the samvoir works? Tea concentrate in a pot at the top, and a
whole keg of hot water?

> In that case, why don't we make a very strong tea and then dilute it
> down for drinking? That way, we'd get more tea from a given amount of
> leaf. But we do not do this. Why? Because it tastes noxious if tea
> is steeped too long and then diluted. Because your basic premise is
> incorrect.
> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"Marlene Wood" > writes:

> Scott Dorsey:
>
> > In that case, why don't we make a very strong tea and then dilute it
> > down for drinking? That way, we'd get more tea from a given amount of
> > leaf. But we do not do this. Why? Because it tastes noxious if tea
> > is steeped too long and then diluted. Because your basic premise is
> > incorrect.
>
> Isn't that how the samvoir works? Tea concentrate in a pot at the top, and a
> whole keg of hot water?

Madam, you arouse the librarian in me:

http://home.fazekas.hu/~nagydani/rth...-HOWTO-v2.html

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

Tea doesn't continuously get stronger. At some point the infusion
reaches stasis. Some teas taste more bitter than others the longer
they sit. However that bitter taste is present from the beginning and
only manifest itself as a concentrate. It is not a magical byproduct
of too much time in the pot. I think Yunnan green silver tips is a
perfect example of this. You brew a concentrate and you can raise the
hair on a dog. I like the background astringency. I'll even go so far
and say where it is present you can smell it without brewing. You
could let a sun tea sit as long as you like and it won't get any more
bitter after 48hr than 24hr. The Russians drink a form of concentrated
tea. However they start with a lot and continuously brew all day long
with simply adding more water causing a continous saturation like
gongfu that stops the bitter taste from developing. Ice tea in the
South in brewed as a concentrate. Just look at the size of the quart
teabags. It is diluted in a gallon pitcher. Lipton's ice tea is well
known for it's 'brisk' taste. I contend if caffeine is missing from
the taste of tea we consider it flat like decaf tea and no longer worth
drinking. And to put the inferior decaf bag tea argument to rest I can
buy a full leaf CO2 decaf Ceylon whose initial first infusion isn't as
good as the second infusion of any district I have in stock. That is a
weak example because I don't consider any Ceylon or Indian tea really
worth a second cup but I do sometimes because I am too lazy to start
with fresh tea. That is experience in taste over time without
planning. All you have to do is drink some decaf of a taste you know
well and ask yourself what is the missing ingredient. Besides the
obvious answer just note how much is missing in the taste. Don't make
me get curt and accuse you of riding my coattails. If you know
anything about tea change the subject and start your own thread. I've
given my side of the story explaining why taste and caffeine go hand in
hand because of similar rates in leaching and solution. It isn't an
academic argument perse but something to give you pause to ponder when
another cup has more kick and taste than predicted by an unproven
assumption about solution rates of caffeine by weight. Your tastebuds
and physiology are a better indicator of caffeine solution in any
subsequent infusion than a meaningless factoid which is no different in
kind than the medical claims of Puerh also supported by scientific
research. The oil industry has their scientists saying there is no
global warming and the tobacco industry scientists saying smoking
doesn't cause cancer.

Jim

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Space Cowboy > wrote:
> >The only reason tea taste different over time is the concentration of
> >solution not the variability of the components.
>
> In that case, why don't we make a very strong tea and then dilute it
> down for drinking? That way, we'd get more tea from a given amount of
> leaf. But we do not do this. Why? Because it tastes noxious if tea
> is steeped too long and then diluted. Because your basic premise is
> incorrect.
> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Marlene Wood > wrote:
>Isn't that how the samvoir works? Tea concentrate in a pot at the top, and a
>whole keg of hot water?

Yes, absolutely! And the end result is extremely tannic tea, because more
tannic acid goes into the concentrated solution compared with the other
elements that give tea flavour. This is why people using samovars do
goofy things like add rasperry jam to their tea.

I don't know where the notion of pouring the tea into the saucer to cool
faster and drinking out of the saucer came from, though.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 22 Aug 2005 07:30:19 -0700, "Space Cowboy" >
wrote:

<major snippage and quoting>
>I think caffeine is directly proportional to taste. It is just another
>component that makes up tea taste. A weak tasting second cup means
>much less caffeine than the first. If multilple infusions hold up in
>taste then more caffeine in each cup.

Your argument is weak, my tea is not....
Here's Tea Chemistry 101:
The perceived flavor of tea is composed of many components. Each one
of these components has a different solubility rate; hence the longer
the leaf is in solution the more you will get out of the lower
solubility items, and conversely, the higher solubility components
will reach exhaustion earlier. Naturally, temperature will also affect
the rate of extraction. Some of the more commonly identified
components are as follows:
Flavonoids such as theaflavins and thearubigins
Polyphenol
Amino acids
Caffeine
Catechins are the tannins responsible for tea's astringency, and green
tea contains high concentrations. When green tea is fermented into
black tea, the catechin content diminishes.

Here is an interesting link describing the specific component and its
associated flavor note. Please notice that caffeine is not among them.
Caffeine is generally considered to add "briskness" but not flavor.
http://www.teatalk.com/science/compounds.htm
And another:
http://www.fmltea.com/Teainfo/tea-chemistry%20.htm
Also See Table 4.1(3)


>Most of the elements that make
>up tea taste are determined by leaching rates and not solubility.

Webster says: "Solubility: the extent to which one substance is able
to dissolve in another"
Webster says: "Leaching: intransitive verb; to lose soluble material
by dissolution"
Again, I ask what is the difference? Every bit of education I have
tells me that solubility is the relevant principle, and "leaching," as
you put it, is just another facet of solubility.


>So when we speak of caffeine water
>solubility that doesn't preclude a leaching rate which might be similar
>to the other taste components.

I do not disagree. It doesn't preclude other components from having
similar solubility, but that wasn't the point. The point with which I
disagree is your equation of a proportional relationship between taste
and caffeine, and I am challenging you to prove it with more than
loose assumptions. I believe there are many teas (most notably puerh)
that maintain a substantial, and, in some cases, preferable, amount of
flavor even after the caffeine is predominantly extracted.

"Due to the water-solubility of caffeine, much of it is extracted from
the leaf in the first 20-30 seconds of infusion, allowing you to
"decaffeinate" it yourself by steeping the leaves for approximately a
minute and discarding this first infusion. Then proceed as usual,
allowing slightly more time to achieve the desired strength.
(Employing this method, of course, will naturally sacrifice some
flavor.)" (2)


>It
>is the cultivar and not some given rate of caffeine solution for all
>teas. Duh.

Camellia Sinensis has caffeine levels of approximately 2.5 - 4%.
However, the distribution of caffeine in the plant depends on the part
of the plant from which it is derived. For example:
Bud 4.70 % First leaf 4.20 % Second Leaf 3.50 % Third Leaf 2.90 %
Upper stem 2.50 % Lower stem 1.40 %
Hence a large leaf green puerh can easily have less caffeine than a
tippy black puerh full of buds. These are facts, Jim, not assumptions
based upon subjective tastebuds.



>Caffeine is a stimulant that increases
>the absorbtion rate of taste. That is the upset empty stomach
>syndrome. If no caffeine not much tea taste.

Hmm. Please supply a reference for this as I don't buy it.


>Gongfu brewing
>essentially produces a saturated solution of caffeine and taste
>components which is consistent from infusion to infusion.

Here is where I will be subjective. I brew Gongfu style almost daily,
and that is a distinct change in the flavor nuances from steep to
steep. The flavor is not consistent but rather evolves as the steeps
progress. I have experienced this evolution of flavor from both puerh
and oolongs almost every time I brew them. The changes in
concentration between the different notes are definitely NOT linear.

>Otherwise
>the side effects of caffeine from the first cup would physically
>interfere with the subsequent tastings. The subtle taste of subsequent
>infusions can only be delivered by caffeine as a stimulant on the
>tastebuds.

Huh????? Are you saying I cannot taste subtleties without the presence
of caffeine? Blasphemy!

>The percentage of caffeine by weight
>argument in the first infusion doesn't carry much weight when applied
>to what we experience in the taste of tea. The caffeine by weight in
>solution is the exception and not the rule.

Seems to me it is a matter of chemistry, and in your case -
perception.



> Any statements like caffeine is more
>soluable than other taste componets is like saying the earth is flat to
>the horizion for a surveyor. It is a scientific factoid with no
>meaning to the amount of caffeine in your cup.

Back it up with proof please, and not subjective taste arguments.
Simply saying it over and over again doesn't make it so.


>If the caffeine is gone
>the taste is gone because the water solution rate is not fundamentally
>different than the leaching rates of other tasting components.

Hmm, me thinks science proves differently. Solubility of caffeine and
of tannins is very different.
This link shows the ratio differences in concentration of tea
components over time.
http://carcin.oxfordjournals.org/cgi...ll/24/2/263/T1
Even as early as 1900 they knew the extraction rates of caffeine and
tannins were different. This was before we learned of polyphenols and
the like.
http://www.ibiblio.org/herbmed/eclec...apter-vii.html


>The only reason tea taste different over time is the concentration of
>solution not the variability of the components. Proportionally they
>are the same in a weak cup versus a strong cup. The components of the
>taste are the same only different in concentration. The Gongfu method
>relies on saturation of all taste components for consistency in taste.
>The argument that there are fundamentally different dilution rates is a
>meaningless factoid when applied to taste. Take any tea you want, brew
>it according to any method you want, and it will essentially taste the
>same as any other method. The subsequent subtleties argument is
>nothing more than idiosyncractic personality quirks. The gongfu method
>can produce more infusions but the taste from a brown betty allowing
>for volume is the same that is you couldn't tell the difference if
>blindfolded.

Hmm, here is a quote from a leading journal.
"About 80% of Cr, Cu, Mn, Ni and Zn and 60% of Fe were in the first
infusion of a tea" (1)

>Next time don't pick my post
>apart unless you can reply with more evidence to back up any assertion
>be it scientific or anecdotal.

Hmm. He who lives in glass houses…….


>Don't make
>me get curt and accuse you of riding my coattails. If you know
>anything about tea change the subject and start your own thread.

Threatening now, are we?

>It isn't an
>academic argument perse

That's for sure….
So let's DO get academic then. All of this highly questionable
subjectivity is getting boring. Here are some more interesting links
for those who are interested:
http://home.netvigator.com/~aa321123/chemistry.html
http://www.dilmahtea.com/web/faq.asp
http://itech.pjc.edu/tgrow/2210L/chm2210LCafext.pdf
http://www.ansinet.org/fulltext/pjbs/pjbs63208-212.pdf
http://www.centurybio.com.cn/Tea_polyphenols.htm



References
(1)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract
(2) http://www.imperialtea.com/about/FAQ.asp
(3) http://www.rirdc.gov.au/reports/NPP/04-033.pdf
See table 2.4- 2.5-4.1






Mike Petro
http://www.pu-erh.net
"In this work, when it shall be found that much is omitted, let it not be forgotten that much likewise is performed."
Samuel Johnson, 1775, upon finishing his dictionary.

You did some homework so I'll take the time. The different rates of
solubility for any perceived tea taste is a meaningless factoid
argument. The fundamental fallacy on which your argument really hinges
is they turn on at different times so you can claim a taste like
'sweetness' not present in the first cup. That sweetness is present in
the first cup along with any other tasting component you wish to
describe. The fact you taste it in any cup is the accumlation of that
particular taste chemistry on your tastebuds. It doesn't act as the
rabbit in the hat. Gongfu in particular depends on this through
saturation. Some teas are noted for their finish. Puerh in
particular. The ghost in the machine translation calls it 'returns to
Ganzu' meaning aftertaste. I only argue that caffeine is part and
parcel of the complete taste spectrum in tea. If no taste no caffeine.
Caffeine is water soluable and some components aren't so can only be
leached. That is the process of moving the elements through the cell
membraine. Notice a spent leaf is still a leaf. It is the process of
extraction. AFAIK soluble means simple chemical binding so in this
case the caffeine can sneak through the cell membrane hitched to a
water molecule. Leaching results from the break down of a barrier and
allows separation of components. The cell walls are broken down by
water solubility releasing the components of taste. I would imagine at
this point the cell walls look like cheese. The cell walls in green
tea haven't been maserated through oxidation like the black. So black
infuses faster that green. I accept the percentage of caffeine by leaf
weight. I give you the weights from any table. I said that more than
once. It's like using wind chill or heat index to describe weather.
Yeah so what. However that roughly leaves most of the leaf weight to
something else. Caffeine increases the absorbtion of nutrients through
the stomach walls. That is uncontestable like your caffeine weights.
I'll call that a meangingless factoid but it does account for an empty
upset stomach. So lets jump too your favorite subject Puerh. A gram
of Puerh has more 'taste' than a gram of white tea. They both maintain
a taste through multiple infusions. However that 'taste' in the white
tea will require more comparative weight. You pick the number two,
three, four, whatever times. Ergo more caffeine using your percentage
by weight proposition. I also claim the caffeine percentage is also
'proportionally' distributable among infusions according to taste if
the tea supports it. You may not notice that perse from infusion to
infusion over a short time period but let a pot sit between infusions
and you'll notice the caffeine effects. You don't so much taste
caffeine but notice the physiological reaction. And putting on my
science cap I don't see much analysis of the multiple infusion style
tea compared to a single infusion style tea noted in your footnotes so
anecdotally I stick with my claim of proportional taste and caffeine.
A weak cup of tea taste like a strong cup accept only in the
concentration of solution. I think I could dig up a few mass
spectrometry articles about tea which supports this claim using PubMed.
We all agree it is easy to moderate any tea taste including caffeine
by volume, weight and time making any percentage by weight argument
your chance of winning the lotto. It simply reduces to, no taste no
caffeine, because ultimately different solution rates are nothing more
than concentrations which we call tea taste. IMHO is based on
experience. You show me where 80% of the caffeine goes and I'll show
you where 80% of the taste goes. There is nothing left but 20% taste
and caffeine. That can be a single or multiple infusion depending on
the tea.

Jim

Mike Petro wrote:
> On 22 Aug 2005 07:30:19 -0700, "Space Cowboy" >
> wrote:
>
> <major snippage and quoting>
> >I think caffeine is directly proportional to taste. It is just another
> >component that makes up tea taste. A weak tasting second cup means
> >much less caffeine than the first. If multilple infusions hold up in
> >taste then more caffeine in each cup.
>
> Your argument is weak, my tea is not....
> Here's Tea Chemistry 101:
> The perceived flavor of tea is composed of many components. Each one
> of these components has a different solubility rate; hence the longer
> the leaf is in solution the more you will get out of the lower
> solubility items, and conversely, the higher solubility components
> will reach exhaustion earlier. Naturally, temperature will also affect
> the rate of extraction. Some of the more commonly identified
> components are as follows:
> Flavonoids such as theaflavins and thearubigins
> Polyphenol
> Amino acids
> Caffeine
> Catechins are the tannins responsible for tea's astringency, and green
> tea contains high concentrations. When green tea is fermented into
> black tea, the catechin content diminishes.
>
> Here is an interesting link describing the specific component and its
> associated flavor note. Please notice that caffeine is not among them.
> Caffeine is generally considered to add "briskness" but not flavor.
> http://www.teatalk.com/science/compounds.htm
> And another:
> http://www.fmltea.com/Teainfo/tea-chemistry%20.htm
> Also See Table 4.1(3)
>
>
> >Most of the elements that make
> >up tea taste are determined by leaching rates and not solubility.
>
> Webster says: "Solubility: the extent to which one substance is able
> to dissolve in another"
> Webster says: "Leaching: intransitive verb; to lose soluble material
> by dissolution"
> Again, I ask what is the difference? Every bit of education I have
> tells me that solubility is the relevant principle, and "leaching," as
> you put it, is just another facet of solubility.
>
>
> >So when we speak of caffeine water
> >solubility that doesn't preclude a leaching rate which might be similar
> >to the other taste components.
>
> I do not disagree. It doesn't preclude other components from having
> similar solubility, but that wasn't the point. The point with which I
> disagree is your equation of a proportional relationship between taste
> and caffeine, and I am challenging you to prove it with more than
> loose assumptions. I believe there are many teas (most notably puerh)
> that maintain a substantial, and, in some cases, preferable, amount of
> flavor even after the caffeine is predominantly extracted.
>
> "Due to the water-solubility of caffeine, much of it is extracted from
> the leaf in the first 20-30 seconds of infusion, allowing you to
> "decaffeinate" it yourself by steeping the leaves for approximately a
> minute and discarding this first infusion. Then proceed as usual,
> allowing slightly more time to achieve the desired strength.
> (Employing this method, of course, will naturally sacrifice some
> flavor.)" (2)
>
>
> >It
> >is the cultivar and not some given rate of caffeine solution for all
> >teas. Duh.
>
> Camellia Sinensis has caffeine levels of approximately 2.5 - 4%.
> However, the distribution of caffeine in the plant depends on the part
> of the plant from which it is derived. For example:
> Bud 4.70 % First leaf 4.20 % Second Leaf 3.50 % Third Leaf 2.90 %
> Upper stem 2.50 % Lower stem 1.40 %
> Hence a large leaf green puerh can easily have less caffeine than a
> tippy black puerh full of buds. These are facts, Jim, not assumptions
> based upon subjective tastebuds.
>
>
>
> >Caffeine is a stimulant that increases
> >the absorbtion rate of taste. That is the upset empty stomach
> >syndrome. If no caffeine not much tea taste.
>
> Hmm. Please supply a reference for this as I don't buy it.
>
>
> >Gongfu brewing
> >essentially produces a saturated solution of caffeine and taste
> >components which is consistent from infusion to infusion.
>
> Here is where I will be subjective. I brew Gongfu style almost daily,
> and that is a distinct change in the flavor nuances from steep to
> steep. The flavor is not consistent but rather evolves as the steeps
> progress. I have experienced this evolution of flavor from both puerh
> and oolongs almost every time I brew them. The changes in
> concentration between the different notes are definitely NOT linear.
>
> >Otherwise
> >the side effects of caffeine from the first cup would physically
> >interfere with the subsequent tastings. The subtle taste of subsequent
> >infusions can only be delivered by caffeine as a stimulant on the
> >tastebuds.
>
> Huh????? Are you saying I cannot taste subtleties without the presence
> of caffeine? Blasphemy!
>
> >The percentage of caffeine by weight
> >argument in the first infusion doesn't carry much weight when applied
> >to what we experience in the taste of tea. The caffeine by weight in
> >solution is the exception and not the rule.
>
> Seems to me it is a matter of chemistry, and in your case -
> perception.
>
>
>
> > Any statements like caffeine is more
> >soluable than other taste componets is like saying the earth is flat to
> >the horizion for a surveyor. It is a scientific factoid with no
> >meaning to the amount of caffeine in your cup.
>
> Back it up with proof please, and not subjective taste arguments.
> Simply saying it over and over again doesn't make it so.
>
>
> >If the caffeine is gone
> >the taste is gone because the water solution rate is not fundamentally
> >different than the leaching rates of other tasting components.
>
> Hmm, me thinks science proves differently. Solubility of caffeine and
> of tannins is very different.
> This link shows the ratio differences in concentration of tea
> components over time.
> http://carcin.oxfordjournals.org/cgi...ll/24/2/263/T1
> Even as early as 1900 they knew the extraction rates of caffeine and
> tannins were different. This was before we learned of polyphenols and
> the like.
> http://www.ibiblio.org/herbmed/eclec...apter-vii.html
>
>
> >The only reason tea taste different over time is the concentration of
> >solution not the variability of the components. Proportionally they
> >are the same in a weak cup versus a strong cup. The components of the
> >taste are the same only different in concentration. The Gongfu method
> >relies on saturation of all taste components for consistency in taste.
> >The argument that there are fundamentally different dilution rates is a
> >meaningless factoid when applied to taste. Take any tea you want, brew
> >it according to any method you want, and it will essentially taste the
> >same as any other method. The subsequent subtleties argument is
> >nothing more than idiosyncractic personality quirks. The gongfu method
> >can produce more infusions but the taste from a brown betty allowing
> >for volume is the same that is you couldn't tell the difference if
> >blindfolded.
>
> Hmm, here is a quote from a leading journal.
> "About 80% of Cr, Cu, Mn, Ni and Zn and 60% of Fe were in the first
> infusion of a tea" (1)
>
> >Next time don't pick my post
> >apart unless you can reply with more evidence to back up any assertion
> >be it scientific or anecdotal.
>
> Hmm. He who lives in glass houses.......
>
>
> >Don't make
> >me get curt and accuse you of riding my coattails. If you know
> >anything about tea change the subject and start your own thread.
>
> Threatening now, are we?
>
> >It isn't an
> >academic argument perse
>
> That's for sure....
> So let's DO get academic then. All of this highly questionable
> subjectivity is getting boring. Here are some more interesting links
> for those who are interested:
> http://home.netvigator.com/~aa321123/chemistry.html
> http://www.dilmahtea.com/web/faq.asp
> http://itech.pjc.edu/tgrow/2210L/chm2210LCafext.pdf
> http://www.ansinet.org/fulltext/pjbs/pjbs63208-212.pdf
> http://www.centurybio.com.cn/Tea_polyphenols.htm
>
>
>
> References
> (1)
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract
> (2) http://www.imperialtea.com/about/FAQ.asp
> (3) http://www.rirdc.gov.au/reports/NPP/04-033.pdf
> See table 2.4- 2.5-4.1
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Mike Petro
> http://www.pu-erh.net
> "In this work, when it shall be found that much is omitted, let it not be forgotten that much likewise is performed."
> Samuel Johnson, 1775, upon finishing his dictionary.

>You show me where 80% of the caffeine goes and I'll show
>you where 80% of the taste goes. There is nothing left but 20% taste
>and caffeine. That can be a single or multiple infusion depending on
>the tea.


I have an easy solution for your taste debate; I don't care about the
caffine point. Find someone that knows how to do gongfu well and drink
the first pao. After they have finished laughing at you, then try the
second pao. Usually, you'll find that the second and third (4th too,
depending on grade) are stronger than the first because the leaf has
begun to absorb more of the water and more of the actual tea is
infused. Using your logic, wouldn't the taste of the subsequent
second, third, and fourth pao be weaker than the first?

>The gongfu method
>can produce more infusions but the taste from a brown betty allowing
>for volume is the same that is you couldn't tell the difference if
>blindfolded. If 80% caffeine is extracted in all teas for the first
>infusion then what percentage of overall taste also is also extracted?

Since you're talking anecdotal evidence, you can't assume that you're
100 percent correct on the issue; show us some numbers if you want to
get all scientific on us. What does it matter if 80 percent of the
caffine is extracted or not? Caffine does not = taste. If 80 percent
of the taste in tea was extracted by a first flush, I seriously doubt
some of us would be spending like a hundred bucks on some tasteless,
green/brown Chinese tea.


>Take any tea you want, brew
>it according to any method you want, and it will essentially taste the
>same as any other method.

I disagree with this statement wholeheartedly. You cannot say that
brewing high grade TGY in a large pot would yield the same flavor as
using a yixing pot even if the amounts were proportional. I have
seen/tasted many a brew of tea ruined by friends, some that know a bit
about tea, of mine that I have sent tea to as an example. There is no
better way to drink Chinese tea than the way they drink it (gongfu),
and they drink it that way for a reason. It isn't as much about
ceremony, like in Japan, as it is with trying to get the best out of
the tea that they possibly can.

I realize many of us don't have the time to enjoy the tea in this way
all the time, but they really don't know what they are missing. I WILL
NOT drink my Chinese tea in any other way.

What scientific evidence do you have that the gongfu method is the best
method for making tea? Sounds anecdotal too me. Here is an Einstein
thought experiment. It is only valid for sake of illustration. I brew
tea in a brown betty. You sit in front of a gongfu master who secretly
fills the pot from the brown betty. You think each cup taste
different. That is the Schrodinger Cat paradox. The brown betty is a
better pot for making tea than gongfu because you get something to eat.

Jim

Mydnight wrote:
....eaten by caffeine...
> >Take any tea you want, brew
> >it according to any method you want, and it will essentially taste the
> >same as any other method.
>
> I disagree with this statement wholeheartedly. You cannot say that
> brewing high grade TGY in a large pot would yield the same flavor as
> using a yixing pot even if the amounts were proportional. I have
> seen/tasted many a brew of tea ruined by friends, some that know a bit
> about tea, of mine that I have sent tea to as an example. There is no
> better way to drink Chinese tea than the way they drink it (gongfu),
> and they drink it that way for a reason. It isn't as much about
> ceremony, like in Japan, as it is with trying to get the best out of
> the tea that they possibly can.
>
> I realize many of us don't have the time to enjoy the tea in this way
> all the time, but they really don't know what they are missing. I WILL
> NOT drink my Chinese tea in any other way.

> > We ought to be more careful with nomenclature if we're going to
> > use it as a basis for ad-hominem attacks or to confuse newbies and
others
> > who (at their own risk) seek authoritative and/or scientific knowledge.
>
> On the contrary, if we're to confuse newbies, and especially if we're
> to engage in ad-hominem attacks, careless nomenclature is essential,
> you cur!

I con-cur with your discursion. But compelling confusion rests on a solidly
corrupt foundation of credibility, which is best achieved by consistency in
the erroneous message.

Works for certain administrations, anyway.

-DM

ObTea: In addition to what others have said in this thread, one ought to
consider the several nonlinearities present in brewing. Progressive leaf
hydration was already mentioned by implication, with changes ranging from
disrupted hydrophobic interactions and cavity entrainment at the molecular
scale, to modified boundary-layer transport at the macro level. In the first
couple of steeps, as well, local concentration of solutes at the leaf
surface may be so high as to modify solvent properties materially, which
would change both the absolute rate of brewing and the relative dissolution
rates of very hydrophilic (sugars, amino acids) and more hydrophobic
(polyphenols) components.

>...eaten by caffeine...

I didn't say that I had evidence other than anecdotal. If you set up
the experiment, I'd be the first to try.

On 23 Aug 2005 09:21:43 -0700, "Space Cowboy" >
wrote:

>The different rates of
>solubility for any perceived tea taste is a meaningless factoid
>argument.

How is it meaningless? If there is more or less of something in the
extract over time there is a corresponding influence on taste.

>The fundamental fallacy on which your argument really hinges
>is they turn on at different times so you can claim a taste like
>'sweetness' not present in the first cup. That sweetness is present in
>the first cup along with any other tasting component you wish to
>describe.

Jim, it is proven that tannins for example extract later than other
components, steep a cup of black tea for 8 minutes and see for
yourself. I said that the sweetness was there all along, only in early
steeps it is masked by stronger elements in the tea. Once the
concentration of the stronger elements, as a ratio of the total, is
reduced the sweetness is simply more perceptible. This was documented
on a Taiwanese site (858tea I think) but I am still looking for the
exact link.

>I only argue that caffeine is part and
>parcel of the complete taste spectrum in tea. If no taste no caffeine.

I do not disagree with this a bit, If no taste whatsoever exists you
probably don't have any caffeine either because you would probably
taste something bitter if there was any, but that is the flip side of
your previous argument. I do not agree that caffeine is a prerequisite
for flavor, there are too many other flavor components.

>However that roughly leaves most of the leaf weight to
>something else.

BINGO! Roughly 30% of that something else is Polyphenols (see
http://www.fmltea.com/Teainfo/tea-chemistry%20.htm) which greatly
contribute to flavor. If you extract just the caffeine there are still
these Polyphenols left to give flavor. Granted "some" of them probably
have solubility rates in water that are to similar to caffeine, but it
has been proven that many of them don't.

> I also claim the caffeine percentage is also
>'proportionally' distributable among infusions according to taste if
>the tea supports it.

But this is where the solubility factor comes in, the solubility of
caffeine is NOT linear with respect to all of the other taste factors.
Everybody knows that tannins affect flavor, unfavorably in high
concentrations, that's why you don't steep black tea more than 3
minutes. Hence the ratio of tannins to caffeine changes the longer you
steep. This was documented in
http://www.ibiblio.org/herbmed/eclec...apter-vii.html Notice
that after 10 minutes the concentration of caffeine only increased by
10 percent but the concentration of tannins increased by 25 percent.
This proves that the 2 are not linear over time, and both affect
taste! This debunks you proportional theory.

>And putting on my
>science cap I don't see much analysis of the multiple infusion style
>tea compared to a single infusion style tea noted in your footnotes so
>anecdotally I stick with my claim of proportional taste and caffeine.

No, I have not seen any either but
http://www.ibiblio.org/herbmed/eclec...apter-vii.html clearly
shows the non-linear relationship over time. I think one could infer
that the results of multiple steeps would be similar.

Mike
Mike Petro
http://www.pu-erh.net
"In this work, when it shall be found that much is omitted, let it not be forgotten that much likewise is performed."
Samuel Johnson, 1775, upon finishing his dictionary.

It only proves your numbers like caffeine percentage by weight and
differential rates of solution contributing to the taste of tea don't
add up. The computations or analysis are so complex to determine the
taste components at anypoint in time even your references just refer to
them as a percentage in time. I go one step further and try to account
for what I taste at anypoint in time. I know that taste is
proportional in the sense there is no fundamental difference in taste
no matter what method or how I brew the tea. As soon as the water hits
the tea all the taste components come into play. The differentials
rates of any given taste component is a concentration your tastebuds
can detect. It is like racing. All the horses are in the race till
taste crosses the finish line first. The longer the brew the more
percentage of the leaf is leached but only in proportions. The only
difference you can tell between a 10% and 25% tannin solution is what
you perceive as a concentration. Also the relative percentage of
tannin is also the relative percentage of any other taste component
including caffine. The only tea taste you can select for is weak to
strong or in gongfu as an average. If your gongfu cup taste
fundamentally different from cup to cup find another master. What I
call trace elements in tea are also alway present in solution but
trigger your tastebuds through accumulation. The gongfu pot will
produce the same tea taste as a brown betty all things being equal. In
other words I can produce any comparable tea taste in a brown betty you
find desirable in any particular gongfu infusion. What you perceive as
the difference between the two pots is nothing more than
concentrations. Some teas produce concentrations good for one infusion
and some teas good over multiple infusions. A concentration is an
average of all components you can taste and not some meaningless
scientific factoid that claims tea taste depends on differential rates
of solution which you could never taste from one split second to the
next.

Jim

Mike Petro wrote:
> On 23 Aug 2005 09:21:43 -0700, "Space Cowboy" >
> wrote:
> > I also claim the caffeine percentage is also
> >'proportionally' distributable among infusions according to taste if
> >the tea supports it.
>
> But this is where the solubility factor comes in, the solubility of
> caffeine is NOT linear with respect to all of the other taste factors.
> Everybody knows that tannins affect flavor, unfavorably in high
> concentrations, that's why you don't steep black tea more than 3
> minutes. Hence the ratio of tannins to caffeine changes the longer you
> steep. This was documented in
> http://www.ibiblio.org/herbmed/eclec...apter-vii.html Notice
> that after 10 minutes the concentration of caffeine only increased by
> 10 percent but the concentration of tannins increased by 25 percent.
> This proves that the 2 are not linear over time, and both affect
> taste! This debunks you proportional theory.

Then don't claim I need to supply scientific evidence for my IMHO
anecdotal tea tasting experiences. All the science presented so far is
meaningless factoids. You can't win at lotto unless you buy a ticket.

Jim

Mydnight wrote:
> >...eaten by caffeine...
>
> I didn't say that I had evidence other than anecdotal. If you set up
> the experiment, I'd be the first to try.

Space Cowboy > wrote:
>Then don't claim I need to supply scientific evidence for my IMHO
>anecdotal tea tasting experiences. All the science presented so far is
>meaningless factoids. You can't win at lotto unless you buy a ticket.

No, not at all. The science presented has been admittedly only qualitative,
but getting quantitative measurements of, say, three elements in tea like
tannic acid, caffeine, and total aromatic content should be easy enough to
do, and will show exactly the same results that the qualitative evaluation
will. I question your understanding of the scientific process.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 2005-08-21, Scott Dorsey > wrote:
> gomper > wrote:
> Yes. That time is related to the solubility of the caffeine. Now, it will
> affect the taste more for green teas since it's now longer in proportion
> to the total steeping time, but it still works well and doesn't make much
> of a change.

I seem to recall Dog Ma musing about whether caffeine's solubility
relative to other flavor components in colder water might let you
steep in cool water long enough saturate the leaf to get caffeine out,
with more thorough decaffeination and less flavor loss than discarding
an initial steep in hot water. If so, green teas might be more
amenable to this kind of treatment.

(As I don't keep HPLC gear in my basement and am not overly sensitive
to caffeine, I filed this away under "interesting ideas that I will
never investigate".)


N.

Space Cowboy wrote:
> A concentration is an
> average of all components you can taste and not some meaningless
> scientific factoid that claims tea taste depends on differential rates
> of solution which you could never taste from one split second to the
> next.

Well Jim,

It seems you debunk any collaborating studies I have presented as
"factoids"(1) yet you present no collaboration for your theory
whatsoever. I don't see where this can possibly go any further.

Mike

(1)Webster says: "something that may not be true but is widely accepted
as true because it is repeatedly quoted"
or " a small and often unimportant bit of information"

The next time I hear you claim that aging improves the taste of puerh I
expect scientific evidence. I also expect you to stand behind every
medical claim made about puerh in a scientific reference. Especially
the ones where it says little or no caffeine. You can't explain
multiple infusions. I can. You can't explain why gongfu works. I can.
You can't explain why the last cup of gongfu isn't pure tannins. I
can. The reason your references are meaningless factoids is because
they can't predict anything. Caffeine by weight is more or less a
constant so the caffeine reaction to all types should be the same. It
ain't. The differential rates of solutions should produce different
tasting cups of the same tea. It doesn't. Learn how science works. I
don't make the argument you do.

Jim

Mike Petro wrote:
> Space Cowboy wrote:
> > A concentration is an
> > average of all components you can taste and not some meaningless
> > scientific factoid that claims tea taste depends on differential rates
> > of solution which you could never taste from one split second to the
> > next.
>
> Well Jim,
>
> It seems you debunk any collaborating studies I have presented as
> "factoids"(1) yet you present no collaboration for your theory
> whatsoever. I don't see where this can possibly go any further.
>
> Mike
>
> (1)Webster says: "something that may not be true but is widely accepted
> as true because it is repeatedly quoted"
> or " a small and often unimportant bit of information"

Space Cowboy wrote:
> The next time I hear you claim that aging improves the taste of puerh I
> expect scientific evidence. I also expect you to stand behind every
> medical claim made about puerh in a scientific reference. Especially
> the ones where it says little or no caffeine. You can't explain
> multiple infusions. I can. You can't explain why gongfu works. I can.
> You can't explain why the last cup of gongfu isn't pure tannins. I
> can. The reason your references are meaningless factoids is because
> they can't predict anything. Caffeine by weight is more or less a
> constant so the caffeine reaction to all types should be the same. It
> ain't. The differential rates of solutions should produce different
> tasting cups of the same tea. It doesn't. Learn how science works. I
> don't make the argument you do.
>
> Jim


Jim, you were doing so good at keeping this civil then you go and blow
it! Why?

You didn't substantiate a single thing you said, I did at least
substantiate large portions of what I proposed. It seems that it
doesn't matter what I say you will argue it anyway, so it's like - why
should I bother.

Just for the record, you have NEVER heard me make a "medicinal" claim
about puerh, ever, and explaining multiple infusions was never my
argument. I can explain them I just cant find any hard scientific data
on the subject.

My argument was with your statement "I think caffeine is directly
proportional to taste" and the Francis Leggett study, amongst others,
proves otherwise, it's that simple and that's the extent of my
argument. Arguing with you any further about it won't prove a thing,
even when proof is presented you wont acknowledge it, so what's the
point of arguing with you?

Cheers Dude........