Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Tea (rec.drink.tea) Discussion relating to tea, the world's second most consumed beverage (after water), made by infusing or boiling the leaves of the tea plant (C. sinensis or close relatives) in water. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
Posted to rec.food.drink.tea
|
|||
|
|||
One 6-minute steep vs two 3-minute steeps
Is it true that a batch of tea leaves can be reused (re-steeped) at
least once? I use a Chatsford teapot. I put the loose leaves in, add boiling water, set the timer, then pour it through a strainer into a cup or thermos. To make a second steep, can I just dump the leaves back into the pot and go again? I just tried that with a batch of Earl Grey. The second steep was slightly weaker than the first, but still fairly good. Is the second steep the same time as the first? Perhaps I should have steeped it a bit longer the second time. Is the second steep likely to be bitter? This one wasn't. It was actually a bit milder on both the taste scale as well as the bitterness scale. Everyone keep saying that steeping too long causes the tea to be bitter. How come two 3-minutes steeps are not bitter but one 6-minute steep is? -- For email, use usenet-20060507[at]spamex[dot]com |
Posted to rec.food.drink.tea
|
|||
|
|||
One 6-minute steep vs two 3-minute steeps
If you use a Chatsford, why don't you use the basket? Then you could
just lift the leaves out. Some teas will stand a second steep, some won't. In general, oolongs and greens and pu ers will give you a nice second steep, but black teas won't. Of course, you may like the way your Earl Grey comes out on a second steep where other people wouldn't. But then you come up against the one abolute rule about making tea: If you like the results, you're doing it right. dmh LurfysMa wrote: > Is it true that a batch of tea leaves can be reused (re-steeped) at > least once? > > I use a Chatsford teapot. I put the loose leaves in, add boiling > water, set the timer, then pour it through a strainer into a cup or > thermos. > > To make a second steep, can I just dump the leaves back into the pot > and go again? I just tried that with a batch of Earl Grey. The second > steep was slightly weaker than the first, but still fairly good. > > Is the second steep the same time as the first? Perhaps I should have > steeped it a bit longer the second time. > > Is the second steep likely to be bitter? This one wasn't. It was > actually a bit milder on both the taste scale as well as the > bitterness scale. Everyone keep saying that steeping too long causes > the tea to be bitter. How come two 3-minutes steeps are not bitter but > one 6-minute steep is? > |
Posted to rec.food.drink.tea
|
|||
|
|||
One 6-minute steep vs two 3-minute steeps
On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 20:13:00 -0500, "David M. Harris"
> wrote: >If you use a Chatsford, why don't you use the basket? Then you could >just lift the leaves out. I used to use the basket, but the leaves seemed all bunched up. Now they seem free to float around better. I have a great little strainer and it is actually a little easier than using the basket. >Some teas will stand a second steep, some won't. In general, oolongs >and greens and pu ers will give you a nice second steep, but black teas >won't. Of course, you may like the way your Earl Grey comes out on a >second steep where other people wouldn't. But then you come up against >the one abolute rule about making tea: If you like the results, you're >doing it right. > >dmh > >LurfysMa wrote: >> Is it true that a batch of tea leaves can be reused (re-steeped) at >> least once? >> >> I use a Chatsford teapot. I put the loose leaves in, add boiling >> water, set the timer, then pour it through a strainer into a cup or >> thermos. >> >> To make a second steep, can I just dump the leaves back into the pot >> and go again? I just tried that with a batch of Earl Grey. The second >> steep was slightly weaker than the first, but still fairly good. >> >> Is the second steep the same time as the first? Perhaps I should have >> steeped it a bit longer the second time. >> >> Is the second steep likely to be bitter? This one wasn't. It was >> actually a bit milder on both the taste scale as well as the >> bitterness scale. Everyone keep saying that steeping too long causes >> the tea to be bitter. How come two 3-minutes steeps are not bitter but >> one 6-minute steep is? >> -- For email, use usenet-20060507[at]spamex[dot]com |
Posted to rec.food.drink.tea
|
|||
|
|||
One 6-minute steep vs two 3-minute steeps
it's true leaves can circulate better without the strainer, but I defy
anyone to be able to tell the difference in a cup of tea from one that had the strainer to one that didn't by taste alone. I think the concept of "cramping" the tea is a little overwrought. |
Posted to rec.food.drink.tea
|
|||
|
|||
One 6-minute steep vs two 3-minute steeps
On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 05:32:00 GMT, "Barky Bark"
> wrote: >it's true leaves can circulate better without the strainer, but I defy >anyone to be able to tell the difference in a cup of tea from one that had >the strainer to one that didn't by taste alone. OK, but where do you draw the line? I also doubt that most people could tell the difference from a cup of tea brewed with a tea bag vs the basket give the same amount of the exact same tea. >I think the concept of >"cramping" the tea is a little overwrought. My main point was that I find the strainer easier to use than the basket. So, is it OK with you if I continue to use the strainer even if I can't tell the difference in the taste? Or even if I just think that the leaves are less cramped? ;-) -- For email, use usenet-20060507[at]spamex[dot]com |
Posted to rec.food.drink.tea
|
|||
|
|||
One 6-minute steep vs two 3-minute steeps
On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 17:28:17 -0700, LurfysMa wrote:
> Is it true that a batch of tea leaves can be reused (re-steeped) at least > once? > > I use a Chatsford teapot. I put the loose leaves in, add boiling water, > set the timer, then pour it through a strainer into a cup or thermos. > > To make a second steep, can I just dump the leaves back into the pot and > go again? I just tried that with a batch of Earl Grey. The second steep > was slightly weaker than the first, but still fairly good. > > Is the second steep the same time as the first? Perhaps I should have > steeped it a bit longer the second time. > > Is the second steep likely to be bitter? This one wasn't. It was actually > a bit milder on both the taste scale as well as the bitterness scale. > Everyone keep saying that steeping too long causes the tea to be bitter. > How come two 3-minutes steeps are not bitter but one 6-minute steep is? Steep once in the volume of one cup for 3 minutes, or once in the volume of two cups for 6 minutes. JB |
Posted to rec.food.drink.tea
|
|||
|
|||
One 6-minute steep vs two 3-minute steeps
In a nutshell the six minute brew reaches a state of solution. The two
three minute brews are partial solutions which are not additive based on time. Jim LurfysMa wrote: .... > Everyone keep saying that steeping too long causes > the tea to be bitter. How come two 3-minutes steeps are not bitter but > one 6-minute steep is? |
Posted to rec.food.drink.tea
|
|||
|
|||
One 6-minute steep vs two 3-minute steeps
On Tue, 06 Jun 2006 08:07:50 +0100, danube > wrote:
>On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 17:28:17 -0700, LurfysMa wrote: > >> Is it true that a batch of tea leaves can be reused (re-steeped) at least >> once? >> >> I use a Chatsford teapot. I put the loose leaves in, add boiling water, >> set the timer, then pour it through a strainer into a cup or thermos. >> >> To make a second steep, can I just dump the leaves back into the pot and >> go again? I just tried that with a batch of Earl Grey. The second steep >> was slightly weaker than the first, but still fairly good. >> >> Is the second steep the same time as the first? Perhaps I should have >> steeped it a bit longer the second time. >> >> Is the second steep likely to be bitter? This one wasn't. It was actually >> a bit milder on both the taste scale as well as the bitterness scale. >> Everyone keep saying that steeping too long causes the tea to be bitter. >> How come two 3-minutes steeps are not bitter but one 6-minute steep is? > >Steep once in the volume of one cup for 3 minutes, or once in the volume >of two cups for 6 minutes. >JB Doh. Some scientist I am. Two separate 3-minute steeps is not comparable to one 6-minute steep because the volume of the water is also doubled. Now I have to go run some tests: Tea Water Time Result 1 tsp 1 cup 3 min My regular brew 1 tsp 1 cup 6 min Bitter? 1 tsp 2 cups 3 min Weak? 1 tsp 2 cups 6 min ??? -- For email, use usenet-20060507[at]spamex[dot]com |
Posted to rec.food.drink.tea
|
|||
|
|||
One 6-minute steep vs two 3-minute steeps
On 6 Jun 2006 06:22:14 -0700, "Space Cowboy" >
wrote: >LurfysMa wrote: >... >> Everyone keep saying that steeping too long causes >> the tea to be bitter. How come two 3-minutes steeps are not bitter but >> one 6-minute steep is? >In a nutshell the six minute brew reaches a state of solution. The two >three minute brews are partial solutions which are not additive based >on time. You're making that up, right, Mr. Science? -- For email, use usenet-20060507[at]spamex[dot]com |
Posted to rec.food.drink.tea
|
|||
|
|||
One 6-minute steep vs two 3-minute steeps
LurfysMa > writes:
> Is it true that a batch of tea leaves can be reused (re-steeped) at > least once? With most teas, yes. With some, believe it or not, you might get ten or even more good steeps. > [...] > > Is the second steep the same time as the first? Perhaps I should have > steeped it a bit longer the second time. This varies a lot. There are some teas, like sencha, where you should probably pour off the second steep instantly. > Is the second steep likely to be bitter? This one wasn't. It was > actually a bit milder on both the taste scale as well as the > bitterness scale. Everyone keep saying that steeping too long causes > the tea to be bitter. Sorry to be wishy-washy once again, but teas vary a lot; some just don't have any bitterness in them. > How come two 3-minutes steeps are not bitter but one 6-minute steep > is? This is very interesting, now that you mention it. I've noticed this often myself. Dog Ma, are you there? /Lew --- Lew Perin / http://www.panix.com/~perin/babelcarp.html |
Posted to rec.food.drink.tea
|
|||
|
|||
One 6-minute steep vs two 3-minute steeps
Lewis Perin wrote:
> This is very interesting, now that you mention it. I've noticed this > often myself. Dog Ma, are you there? No. Not until my Zen teacher gets back, anyway. So much to say, so few actual facts, so much mythology unshakably installed in uninquiring minds... Here are two propositions that may be useful (or not): 1. Reciprocity. In an arithmetically linear system, twice the (x) for half the (y) gives the same (z). Twice the wattage added to a fixed mass of water for half the time gives the same rise in temperature. And it doesn't matter how fast, or in what order, or what kind. The only problem is that nothing in real life is linear. Not only is arithmetic commutativity rare, but there is often a strong history dependence. For one small example, that second steep is generally made on a pot and contents at higher temperature than the first. And extraction of some components probably rises rapidly with temperature, while others may actually decline. (Yes, inverse temperature coefficient of solubility really happens. It usually results from entropy-driven changes in structure and/or hydration.) It is most improbable that one long steep at any chosen temperature will produce the same results as even a mix of sequential steeps, much less any one of them individually. My attitude is that if one enjoys the blend effect, then go for it. Many of us prefer to attend and appreciate the sequence of (often dramatic) changes that occur through four to twenty steeps of tea that was made for this. (I.e., almost anything but dust/fannings and CTC reds that are bruised to put the juice within easy reach.) It means more involvement, which can be soothing ritual, amusing experimentation or a big inconvenience. No judgment; just choice. When I want a jolt, it's red tea and milk, one long and very hot steep every time. For enjoying the tea, much lower temperatures and rarely fewer than 8~10 small steeps. 2. Flavor masking, balancing and other non-scaling experiential factors. If life is non-linear generally, sensory systems are much more so. Lots of things saturate or change significantly in perceived qualities at high concentrations. Hydrogen sulfide is famously dangerous because, already much more toxic than cyanide, it numbs the nose below the danger threshold. Durian, conversely, is pretty vile even to most of us aficionados. But at nasal saturation, it's not much worse than at lower levels, and the wonderful flavor takes over. Not having seen (or sought) any scientific publications on the subject, I wouldn't know for sure. But my personal experience is consistently that many notes in tea reach saturation quickly, while others scale monotonically. So where short, repeated steeps of some oolongs and green Pu-erhs come out sweet, fragrant and smooth, slightly longer ones are bitter, tannic, harsh. One might infer that the "nice" notes saturate while the "nasty" ones just keep building. Good argument for gong-fu brewing. There is a great deal more one could say about both of these points. But who cares, other than for idle curiosity or sententious argument? Why not just find your preferred way to make tea, and enjoy it? The main value of such understanding, even to those who have (which is far fewer than pretend to it, or have been told they have it by others who also don't) is probably to point experimentation in directions most likely to be personally fruitful. And speaking of myth, just to raise the stakes: a cake of my best Pu-erh to anyone who can provide some convincing science to support the oft-cited "fact" that oxygen in water is critical to making good tea. -DM |
Posted to rec.food.drink.tea
|
|||
|
|||
One 6-minute steep vs two 3-minute steeps
DogMa wrote: > a cake of my best Pu-erh > to anyone who can provide some convincing science to support the > oft-cited "fact" that oxygen in water is critical to making good tea. me first! ahem, water = H2O no O = no water (?--> hydrogen tea infusion... O_O ?) please, ship the pu-erh insured thx. |
Posted to rec.food.drink.tea
|
|||
|
|||
One 6-minute steep vs two 3-minute steeps
SN wrote:
>>a cake of my best Pu-erh >>to anyone who can provide some convincing science to support the >>oft-cited "fact" that oxygen in water is critical to making good tea. > > me first! > ahem, > water = H2O > no O = no water (?--> hydrogen tea infusion... O_O ?) In general, non-aqueous solvent extractions of plant materials will produce a very different product. However, there are two small but significant categories of materials that often do what water can, and sometimes even better: the so-called "super-solvents" that are both highly polar and aprotic, and close homologues to water. The former include hexamethylphosphoramide, dimethylformamide and dimethylsulfoxide; the latter ammonia, hydrogen fluoride and hydrogen sulfide. The former all contain oxygen. Please let me know when you have confirmed that NH3, HF and H2S do not make good tea, and the cake is yours. Come to think of it, better include hydrazine. (Or you can just buy one from Eric at Pu-erhtea.com; it's under $50, unlabeled but about 14 years old, and absolutely delicious. Thanks to Mike P. for letting me know about it.) -DM |
Posted to rec.food.drink.tea
|
|||
|
|||
One 6-minute steep vs two 3-minute steeps
On 7 Jun 2006 01:41:07 -0700, "SN" > wrote:
> >DogMa wrote: >> a cake of my best Pu-erh >> to anyone who can provide some convincing science to support the >> oft-cited "fact" that oxygen in water is critical to making good tea. > >me first! > >ahem, > >water = H2O > >no O = no water (?--> hydrogen tea infusion... O_O ?) You are disqualified. The oxygen he is referring to is dissolved oxygen, not the oxygen that is part of the water molecule. If you remove the O from H2O, you no longer have water, it's just H2 (and you better not be smoking). If you remove the dissolved oxygen (according to some) you get a flat tasteless water. But then maybe you knew that are were just playing. -- For email, use usenet-20060507[at]spamex[dot]com |
Posted to rec.food.drink.tea
|
|||
|
|||
One 6-minute steep vs two 3-minute steeps
DogMa > wrote:
> In general, non-aqueous solvent extractions of plant materials will > produce a very different product. Hello, Dogma, thanks for the education. I look forward to seeing a demonstration of tea brewed with dimethyl sulfoxide or hydrogen fluoride. But for the latter, what pot? A teflon gaiwan? I restrict my tea-related solvents to water. Given that admittedly harsh limitation, what can be done? For one thing, water's ionic properties can be altered with dissolved solids, right? Remember that Lu" Yu, in his _Classic of Tea_, condemns those who add spices, butter, and onions to tea as barbarians but demands that we add salt. No hint of how much though. Because it is added during "the first stage of boiling", and water drawn from the kettle during the second stage, it will raise the temperature of the brew. I'll let Dogma do the calculation of how much - my Handbook of Chemistry and Physics is gone. Best, Rick. |
Posted to rec.food.drink.tea
|
|||
|
|||
One 6-minute steep vs two 3-minute steeps
LurfysMa,
technically, his contract stated as per [2] did not specify the oxygen as being oxygen _dissolved_ in water, but as "oxygen in water", ... well i guess my argument wont stand up in court since the contract is ambiguous in expression... :P (unless the judge doesnt know the difference) but now, i'll go try some microwaved water tea, to see if it tastes any different... maybe a blind test... LurfysMa wrote: [1] > The oxygen he is referring to is dissolved oxygen, not the oxygen that > is part of the water molecule. [2] > >DogMa wrote: > >> a cake of my best Pu-erh > >> to anyone who can provide some convincing science to support the > >> oft-cited "fact" that oxygen in water is critical to making good tea. > > |
Posted to rec.food.drink.tea
|
|||
|
|||
One 6-minute steep vs two 3-minute steeps
> And speaking of myth, just to raise the stakes: a cake of my best Pu-erh
> to anyone who can provide some convincing science to support the > oft-cited "fact" that oxygen in water is critical to making good tea. Bold words! Presumably, you wouldn't argue that boiling the living daylights out of a pot of water (let's say five minutes of hard boiling, to reduce dissolved oxygen) will alter the taste of subsequent tea brewed using it, in comparison with brewing once the water just reaches the temperature appropriate for your leaves? Definitely worth taking the taste challenge with, methinks! Toodlepip, Hobbes |
Posted to rec.food.drink.tea
|
|||
|
|||
Oxygen claims (was: One 6-minute steep)
|
Posted to rec.food.drink.tea
|
|||
|
|||
Oxygen claims (was: One 6-minute steep)
Greetings, greetings,
It's very interesting to read your description, and I must confess that I hadn't considered the other components of the equation, taking "oxygen content" as a common shorthand. It is of course plausible that determining the effect on brew-taste of changing just the dissolved oxygen content of the water suffers from a poor signal-to-noise ratio. However, if this is the real point of the challenge-question ("...provide some convincing science to support the oft-cited "fact" that oxygen in water is critical to making good tea"), then it is not a little specious in its wording, one must concede. Given that excessive boiling results in several chemical alterations occuring simultaneously, no tea drinker could probably claim to be truly concerned about the effect of changing just one of them - because changing just one of them doesn't happen in the course of conventional brewing. That is, *if* the chemical alterations are truly coupled and are inseparable given the utensils and environment of the common tea-house. In this case, it is not relevant to be interested in the effect of variation of just one of these obfuscated variables - from the point of view of tasting brewed tea, and is thus specious to question "oxygen in water". I'll be honest: ...it sounds as if a reader, who has invested some of their time in understanding the physical process of water's chemical content, has come across people discussing "dissolved oxygen" and wants to make the point that it is a variable obfuscated by others. This is fair. However, rather than stating this fact, the reader prefers to the spectacle of offering his "best puerh", and saving the fact for later. I'm fine with that, but it does seem a little tedious (and fairly ostentatious). You do contribute some excellent information, for which I thank you, but it's dressed up in the language of pedantry, for which I cannot thank you. Keep up the good work, but do please consider a more congenial approach. If each of us were similarly ostentatious about our fields, it wouldn't be much of a fun group, would it? Toodlepip, Hobbes -__- |
Posted to rec.food.drink.tea
|
|||
|
|||
Pedantry and tea BS (was Oxygen claims)
These thoughts offered not in contention but to share perspective on
both content and process with those of healthy and unfirm convictions. HobbesOxon wrote: > I must confess > that I hadn't considered the other components of the equation, taking > "oxygen content" as a common shorthand. There's been a lot of discussion and even a successful book recently on the topic of BS as a social phenomenon. Harry G. Frankfurt asserts that BS is much more damaging to society than outright lying. The liar, it is pointed out, needs a deep regard for and understanding of truth in order to craft his deceptions. The BSer simply doesn't care, hence diluting the underlying value of truth to the whole culture. A lot of tea mythology is useful, whether or not correct. A lot is fun to have and to share, whether or not correct. Some of it actually interferes with most people's ability to enjoy tea to the fullest. Injunctions that include words like must - always - never and other universal quantifiers are rarely defensible in practice, beyond deliberately stylized ritual. Aside from significant inconsistency between and even within some rule sets, the failure to allow for personal preference and variations in all of the ingredients of tea enjoyment make this kind of compulsive orthodoxy as much an annoyance as a support beyond professional circles and the like. The BS factor really comes to the fore when people start making assertions about things like how water *must* be handled, brewing temperature rules, and other matters of operational significance. The whole "oxygen" thing may be true; I've just never seen supportive evidence. Slinging jargon like that lends an unearned air (so to speak) of technical competence, hence credibility, that serves the speaker's ego at cost to the listener's own insight. Beyond the social costs of such empty posturing, the displacement of real knowledge or honest ignorance with cant and empty formalism interferes in important ways with learning. For example, focusing on dissolved gases can distract attention from mineral content and other factors that are not, in fact, tightly coupled to oxygen content. One could identify a dozen other common examples relating to tea varietals, purchasing, storage, handling, use in combination with foods, health effects good and bad, etc. > However, if this is the real point of the challenge-question > ... then it is not a little specious in its wording, one must concede. Concedo nulli, especially if the assertion is incomprehensible. The real point of the "challenge question" was twofold: to aim critical thinking at claims that are probably untrue and the quality of thinking and discourse that gives rise to them; and also to elicit evidence if any exists, or at least a higher level of inquiry on this oft-encountered topic. > Given that excessive boiling results in several chemical alterations > occuring simultaneously For "results" substitute "may, in some common circumstances, result" or an equivalent formulation. , no tea drinker could probably claim to be > truly concerned about the effect of changing just one of them - because > changing just one of them doesn't happen in the course of conventional > brewing. No tea drinker? And it does; that's a key point. Where I live, the concentration of divalent carbonates in water is nil, so boiling doesn't matter much. Extensive reboiling of water makes no difference to tea taste that I can detect (except when chlorine or organics happen to be running high). When I've lived in chalky parts of the UK, the effect was dramatic. However, I'll stand by the assertion that even there, the main effect of overboiling is to deposit more lime scale in the kettle. > ...it sounds as if a reader, who has invested some of their time in > understanding the physical process of water's chemical content, has > come across people discussing "dissolved oxygen" and wants to make the > point that it is a variable obfuscated by others. This is fair. > However, rather than stating this fact, the reader prefers to the > spectacle of offering his "best puerh", and saving the fact for later. I might comment if I could parse the foregoing paragraph. Is this the current state of Oxford English? > ... it does seem a little tedious (and fairly ostentatious). > ... it's dressed up in the language of pedantry, for which I cannot > thank you. > Keep up the good work Thank you for the diluted approbation. It makes my otherwise dreary day. More to the point, you might want to consider the distinction between pedantry for the sake of social hierarchy and precision for the sake of clarity. If you can render my OP without the technical language in less than double its tedious length without losing meaning, I will be grateful for the writing lesson. I tried pretty hard to offer information at several levels, including search terms for people who actually want to understand and even experiment with this sort of thing and qualitative descriptions for the less scientifically inclined. > If each of us were similarly ostentatious about our fields, > it wouldn't be much of a fun group, would it? Ignoring the implied value judgment on ostentation (seen any beams lately?), it's the diversity of posting styles, content, background and predilections that makes this place fun. Hobbes, I'd urge you to killfile any poster whose ostentation offends, certainly including this one. -DM |
Posted to rec.food.drink.tea
|
|||
|
|||
Pedantry and tea BS (was Oxygen claims)
DogMa > writes:
> HobbesOxon wrote: > > [...] > > If each of us were similarly ostentatious about our fields, > > it wouldn't be much of a fun group, would it? > > Ignoring the implied value judgment on ostentation (seen any beams > lately?), it's the diversity of posting styles, content, background > and predilections that makes this place fun. Hobbes, I'd urge you to > killfile any poster whose ostentation offends, certainly including > this one. Exactly. Welcome, Hobbes! Long may you wave, Dog! /Lew --- Lew Perin / http://www.panix.com/~perin/babelcarp.html |
Posted to rec.food.drink.tea
|
|||
|
|||
Ask not for whom the bell tolls
Greetings, greetings,
First of all, thanks for the reply. I always enjoy reading text that has a little care taken over it, and it seems as if the tone is friendly. For not being aggressive, you have my thanks. It would be rude of me not to reply after such a message, so here goes: > There's been a lot of discussion and even a successful book recently on .... > handling, use in combination with foods, health effects good and bad, etc. I don't think the avoidance of absolutes in the context of tea brewing and drinking can be contested. De gustibus non disputandum est. > Concedo nulli, especially if the assertion is incomprehensible. As you do later in your message, I appreciate when you tell me that you cannot understand my writing, because it gives me the opportunity to clarify. My point here was restated in a subsequent paragraph, but I introduced it gently in an attempt to avoid offence. I claimed that the "challenge question" is specious. You've gone some way to explaining the context surrounding your question, which is gratefully received. > The real > point of the "challenge question" was twofold: to aim critical thinking > at claims that are probably untrue and the quality of thinking and > discourse that gives rise to them; and also to elicit evidence if any > exists, or at least a higher level of inquiry on this oft-encountered > topic. I cannot second-guess your motives, of course, and my reply is based only on the superficial appearance of your responses in this thread. I don't have access to the "background discussion" that has, apparently, prompted this challenge, and, as I mention above, I'm glad of your rehearsal. > > Given that excessive boiling results in several chemical alterations > > occuring simultaneously > > For "results" substitute "may, in some common circumstances, result" or > an equivalent formulation. On a purely pedantic note, I should definitely challenge this given my assumption that surely more than one chemical alteration occurs simultaneously during excess boiling. The chemical properties of boiling water is not a field that I have spent any considerable effort researching, but it would surprise me if in the overwhelming majority of examples, only a single chemical alteration occurred (given the complexity of the solution). Of course, I'm always willing to be proven wrong, and I would welcome any further information from someone who has spent some time researching boiling water. > Where I live, the > concentration of divalent carbonates in water is nil, so boiling doesn't > matter much. Extensive reboiling of water makes no difference to tea > taste that I can detect (except when chlorine or organics happen to be > running high). When I've lived in chalky parts of the UK, the effect was > dramatic. However, I'll stand by the assertion that even there, the main > effect of overboiling is to deposit more lime scale in the kettle. This really is very surprising to me, and I welcome your opinion. I suppose that this is the crux of the discussion, and the singular point of interest, for me. I'm fascinated to hear that excessive boiling of water might not alter your perception of the taste of tea brewed using it. Like you, I've had the dubious pleasure of some extremely chalky water supplies in the UK, in various districts. My home city was built on ground which is fenland and chalk, and it certainly has an unpleasant effect on the health of the long-term inhabitants - particularly kidney accumulatives and "stones". > > ...it sounds as if a reader, who has invested some of their time in > > understanding the physical process of water's chemical content, has > > come across people discussing "dissolved oxygen" and wants to make the > > point that it is a variable obfuscated by others. This is fair. > > However, rather than stating this fact, the reader prefers to the > > spectacle of offering his "best puerh", and saving the fact for later. > > I might comment if I could parse the foregoing paragraph. Is this the > current state of Oxford English? I must confess to being sincerely surprised that this paragraph would cause difficulties, and I'm thankful that you raise it so that I can bear it in mind for Newsgroup writing in future. I suppose that, yes, this is the current state of Oxford English. I tested it out on 2.5 random victims (one being split between here and another place) and it didn't seem to cause too much agony. I'll be careful when posting in future, though, so again, thanks. > I tried pretty hard to offer > information at several levels, including search terms for people who > actually want to understand and even experiment with this sort of thing > and qualitative descriptions for the less scientifically inclined. Honestly, if your motives are for an investigation of the topic without a desire to show off, the effort that you have taken is genuinely appreciated. We cannot guess your motives, but can only form opinions based on the text, which is borderline ostentation. If I promise to be more direct in my wording to reduce reader confusion, I would welcome a slightly more amiable approach to discussion of the investigation (though let it be said that the manners with which it is discussed are refreshingly good). > It's the diversity of posting styles, content, background and > predilections that makes this place fun. Hobbes, I'd urge you to > killfile any poster whose ostentation offends, certainly including this one. On this subject, I have absolutely nothing worthy of ostentation. I simply have not spent time with the literature in this area. As I mentioned above, contributions from those for whom this is one of their research topics are welcome - provided they are worded in a format that doesn't lead to discomfort. It's dangerous knowing a subject in detail - it has to be communicated carefully, in order to avoid the audience jumping to undesirable conclusions. I certainly agree that this is a fun place, and I trust that the spirit of my reply has not offended. I certainly wouldn't dream of adding to a killfile any poster who is able to provide good information in an area of which I have little technical familiarity. I prefer to provide a gentle prod towards making that valuable content appear in a more congenial form. Addio, addio, Hobbes |
Posted to rec.food.drink.tea
|
|||
|
|||
Ask not for whom the bell tolls
HobbesOxon wrote: > I certainly wouldn't dream of adding to a killfile any poster who is > able to provide good information in an area of which I have little > technical familiarity. I prefer to provide a gentle prod towards > making that valuable content appear in a more congenial form. > > > Addio, addio, > > Hobbes Very respectfully and with no malice or bad intentions, I would say that in my time here a few posters can be a bit too "heady" for their own good and really go overboard trying to sound important. Not to single out, but I could summarize most of what Dog Ma said in many of his paragraphs into single sentences in plain English. At first a few posters here rubbed me the wrong way, but in general they are harmless. I've learned to just stay out of certain posters threads/topics and my enjoyment skyrocketed. I try to stick to actual topics about tea now, and I also keep in mind that this NG is very different than most with an almost absolute lack of SPAM and junk... as well as a group of different folks who all enjoy tea. I do my part to try to keep things light-hearted and fun, instead of going down these long dark roads to nowhere about minutia. I have read a number of great texts, and as always I reccomend "The Book of Tea" by Okakura (available free online at Project Gutenberg) or for $4 at a local bookstore. I also place myself in the mindset of ancient tea masters and the technology/techniques of the time when it comes to such discussions as these. Think about the tools, environment, technology, and surroundings. Think about how they would be using fresh spring water for the most part, think about what minerals/contents of that water would be. Think about using a wood fire and iron pot to heat the water, how would that affect the taste? Think about how they most certainly would reboil their water to conserve the heat and to minimize trips to a stream. Etc. Tea is a very singular experience. Tea ceremonies are nice, but not what tea is truly about. Try to understand and appreciate other's experiences, but do not judge your own by them. IMHO trying to make tea a scientific endeavor is pointless. I also feel we spend too much time on semantics and minute unimportant details and are missing the bigger picture much of the time. All that said, though, I have learned a lot about other's experiences and also had some new teas opened up to me that would otherwise have not been known here at this NG and still enjoy my time here even with a few rough spots. - Dominic |
Posted to rec.food.drink.tea
|
|||
|
|||
Ask not for whom the bell tolls
Well said, that man, and thanks for the reference from Project
Gutenberg - I'm digging it out in my other window at the moment. Toodlepip, Hobbes |
Posted to rec.food.drink.tea
|
|||
|
|||
Ask not for whom the bell tolls
This book is turning out to be more interesting even than the tea scope
that I anticipated, thank you - I spend a fair amount of my time on my black cushion, and the chapters relating it to Zen are fascinating. By pure coincidence, I've been writing on a similar topic in my diaries (though of course in an infinitely less accomplished fashion than Okakura). It just goes to show that there are no coincidences. Thanks again - there are several Zen chums here who will enjoy this, too, so you've done more than one person a favour. Toodlepip, Hobbes -__- |
Posted to rec.food.drink.tea
|
|||
|
|||
Ask not for whom the bell tolls
Dominic T. wrote: > Very respectfully and with no malice or bad intentions, I would say > that in my time here a few posters can be a bit too "heady" for their > own good and really go overboard trying to sound important. Not to > single out, but I could summarize most of what Dog Ma said in many of > his paragraphs into single sentences in plain English. > > At first a few posters here rubbed me the wrong way, but in general > they are harmless. I've learned to just stay out of certain posters > threads/topics and my enjoyment skyrocketed. If you will allow me to reply to myself, I would like to publicly appologize in that I really was not trying to single out DogMa. I actually think he made great efforts to *explain* what he was talking about while he was posting, such as with reciprocity and the many other variables in real life to be factored into equations. I think at times to outsiders or less technical/scientific people it sounds a bit uppity and forced. I can be guilty of this too, which is why I'd never meant to take aim at DogMa. I should have left all names out of my post, that was my fault. We all know those who can be abrasive, curmudgeonly, holier-than-thou, etc. and I guess that is up to each of us to decide on our own terms just like tastes in tea. The many backgrounds, nationalities, and tastes represented here is what makes it unique... and keeps me around.. good, bad, indifferent. Strong personalities and opinions are a good thing, and are what makes things interesting. My appologies DogMa... I ain't mad 'atcha Dog. - Dominic |
Posted to rec.food.drink.tea
|
|||
|
|||
Ask not for whom the bell tolls
Dominic T. wrote:
> My appologies DogMa... I ain't mad 'atcha Dog. No offense taken, not that this Zen adept can be unsettled by mere words (excepting mystical incantations like "dan cong oolong" or "extra-bitter chocolate" or "free lunch." Besides, to paraphrase a young philosopher out of Wadham College: .... taking ritual at its superficial level can be misleading, or even harmful to the realization of Tea Mind. And while agreeing with some on the necessity for tea practice to reach outside the sphere of casual reading, which is in itself merely the intellect seeking to further reinforce itself, one should remember that "hard" scientific epistemology usually belongs to schools other than Cha Dao. Whether or not it is useful in achieving pleasure or insight is not for me to say, but that "direct tasting" has traditionally eschewed many intellectual practices carried out in the West. -DM |
Posted to rec.food.drink.tea
|
|||
|
|||
Ask not for whom the bell tolls
DogMa wrote: > Dominic T. wrote: > > My appologies DogMa... I ain't mad 'atcha Dog. > > No offense taken, not that this Zen adept can be unsettled by mere words > (excepting mystical incantations like "dan cong oolong" or "extra-bitter > chocolate" or "free lunch." Besides, to paraphrase a young philosopher > out of Wadham College: > > ... taking ritual at its superficial level can be misleading, or even > harmful to the realization of Tea Mind. And while agreeing with some on > the necessity for tea practice to reach outside the sphere of casual > reading, which is in itself merely the intellect seeking to further > reinforce itself, one should remember that "hard" scientific > epistemology usually belongs to schools other than Cha Dao. Whether or > not it is useful in achieving pleasure or insight is not for me to say, > but that "direct tasting" has traditionally eschewed many intellectual > practices carried out in the West. > > > -DM Nice quote. And on the extra-bitter chocolate topic... last Christmas I bought my father (a huge dark chocolate fan) what I thought would be the holy grail when I found a German Dark Chocolate with 85% cocao... not realizing that more is not always better with dark chocolate. He said it was bitter as sin, and also darn near broke a tooth on the hardness of it. "Free lunch" is a phrase that tugs at my heartstrings as well - Dominic |
Posted to rec.food.drink.tea
|
|||
|
|||
One 6-minute steep vs two 3-minute steeps
LurfysMa, This area is too vast for one post, but this board has
several great suggestions and it really comes down to the type and quality of tea (and your own taste vs. others). Good quality Chinese/ Tawainese are meant to be re-steeped, and the best taste often does not come from the fist steep. A http://blog.ateava.com/ LurfysMa wrote: > Is it true that a batch of tea leaves can be reused (re-steeped) at > least once? > > I use a Chatsford teapot. I put the loose leaves in, add boiling > water, set the timer, then pour it through a strainer into a cup or > thermos. > > To make a second steep, can I just dump the leaves back into the pot > and go again? I just tried that with a batch of Earl Grey. The second > steep was slightly weaker than the first, but still fairly good. > > Is the second steep the same time as the first? Perhaps I should have > steeped it a bit longer the second time. > > Is the second steep likely to be bitter? This one wasn't. It was > actually a bit milder on both the taste scale as well as the > bitterness scale. Everyone keep saying that steeping too long causes > the tea to be bitter. How come two 3-minutes steeps are not bitter but > one 6-minute steep is? > > -- > For email, use usenet-20060507[at]spamex[dot]com |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Up to the minute... | General Cooking | |||
Last minute dinner changes | General Cooking | |||
flug new york los angeles last minute fluege new york billige fluegefrankfurt new york billigflieger new york flugangebote new york billig flugnew york last minute hotel new york flug hannover new york lastminute flug newyork fluege frankfurt new yor | General Cooking | |||
Last minute | General Cooking | |||
30 minute meals | General Cooking |