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 Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.drink.tea
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 115
Default 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
  #2 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.drink.tea
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12
Default 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?
>

  #3 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.drink.tea
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 115
Default 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
  #4 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.drink.tea
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 31
Default 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.


  #5 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.drink.tea
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 115
Default 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


  #6 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.drink.tea
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14
Default 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
  #7 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.drink.tea
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,231
Default 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?


  #8 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.drink.tea
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 115
Default 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
  #9 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.drink.tea
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 115
Default 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
  #10 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.drink.tea
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 997
Default 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


  #11 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.drink.tea
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 161
Default 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
  #12 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.drink.tea
SN SN is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 267
Default 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.

  #13 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.drink.tea
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 161
Default 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
  #14 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.drink.tea
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 115
Default 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
  #15 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.drink.tea
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default 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.


  #16 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.drink.tea
SN SN is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 267
Default 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.

> >


  #17 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.drink.tea
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default 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

  #18 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.drink.tea
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 161
Default Oxygen claims (was: One 6-minute steep)

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

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


You are conflating at least three variables here.

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

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

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

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

-DM
  #19 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.drink.tea
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 111
Default 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
-__-

  #20 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.drink.tea
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 161
Default 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


  #21 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.drink.tea
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 997
Default 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
  #22 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.drink.tea
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 111
Default 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

  #23 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.drink.tea
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,096
Default 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

  #24 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.drink.tea
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 111
Default 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

  #25 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.drink.tea
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 111
Default 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
-__-



  #26 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.drink.tea
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,096
Default 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

  #27 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.drink.tea
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 161
Default 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
  #28 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.drink.tea
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,096
Default 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

  #29 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to rec.food.drink.tea
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5
Default 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
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Up to the minute... brooklyn1 General Cooking 1 04-06-2010 04:58 PM
Last minute dinner changes Nexis General Cooking 7 06-07-2008 11:11 AM
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 [email protected] General Cooking 1 04-04-2008 01:52 AM
Last minute Kitchen Nitemare General Cooking 0 14-12-2007 08:14 AM
30 minute meals linda General Cooking 0 22-11-2004 02:46 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:40 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"