Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A scientific run-down of coffee blooming

seriouseats.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 57 posts

Re: A scientific run-down of coffee blooming

#21

Post by slothtrop »

decafninja wrote: post #18

I went through my coffee hipster phase. But I eventually came to the conclusion that my palate is just too unsophisticated to tell the difference between supposed “hints of blueberry and molasses” in third wave hipster coffee from a boutique roaster versus the cheap coffee that my local newsstand brews every morning. Now my only concession to coffee is brewing a cup on a Technivorm. Also Hawaiian coffee is super smoo…

I'm still in that phase, but I like my coffee to taste like coffee. Not necessarily one-note, but not akin to fruity tea (as can be the case brewed with blonde roast, coarse grind, lower water temp, fast percolation). I stick with medium to full-city/espresso roast. Though some single-origin differences can cut through, they don't make much of a difference to me. Where I am enjoying variety more is in my brewing process, french press vs hario switch vs moka pot.

Re: A scientific run-down of coffee blooming

#22

Post by treflop »

carabiner wrote: post #9
0xbadcafebee wrote: post #2

In my own attempt to bloom coffee in an Aeropress, the result is, strangely, that it takes much longer to extract the coffee to 'full strength' if I bloom it, compared to not blooming it. If I bloom the coffee, then fill up with water and stir, the result is under-extracted unless I brew for longer. If I just fill up the water immediately and then stir, it takes much less long to brew to the same 'strength'. This is…

I mean 90% of coffee brewing is meaningless rituals. Could you taste the difference between a burr grinder and a blade grinder in the resulting brew? Nope, but endless pages of debate exist on this, grain size distribution, quality of burrs. It has a strong resemblance to the audiophile community.

On blind color difference tests, I score 100% when your average person scores less than 60%.

I laugh when people say two colors are the same.

Re: A scientific run-down of coffee blooming

#23

Post by notatoad »

jascination wrote: post #20
vundercind wrote: post #3

I’ve long assumed that the main effect of the bloom is to soak the grounds so the rest of the water you pour in goes through slower, and all the other alleged effects were minor compared to that. But maybe the CO2 removal stuff really is a big deal.

There was a post here a few months ago saying that blooming prevented static electricity build up within the coffee grounds which made them clump together (or something like that anyway), I thought it was interesting.

That’s not the bloom phase, that’s misting the beans before grinding.

Re: A scientific run-down of coffee blooming

#25

Post by tptacek »

CoastalCoder wrote: post #24

One coffee phenomenon I'm curious about: why does old coffee get cloudy? On the day I brew it, it's a dark brown translucent. But if I leave it in the pot overnight, it's definitely more opaque. My wife claims it tastes the same as the day before.

I assume it's just the emulsion breaking.

Re: A scientific run-down of coffee blooming

#26

Post by makeitdouble »

elwell wrote: post #6

> 30 grams of coffee, 500 grams water at 205°F Woah, that's too hot IMO, and a bit watered-down. Me: 33g coffee, 350g water at 190°F

206F/95C is the recommended temperature, some brew fine at 100C.

Obligatory James Hoffman link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_r5kpXPRYo

Re: A scientific run-down of coffee blooming

#27

Post by romafirst3 »

kitotik wrote: post #15
vundercind wrote: post #3

I’ve long assumed that the main effect of the bloom is to soak the grounds so the rest of the water you pour in goes through slower, and all the other alleged effects were minor compared to that. But maybe the CO2 removal stuff really is a big deal.

> But maybe the CO2 removal stuff really is a big deal. It’s definitely a thing. There are some super light roasts that if you try to brew them without enough resting time, you can sort of cheat by just grinding the coffee about 30mins before you brew for a hacky quick degas. It really helps get rid of that grassy vegetal taste.

There should be no grassy taste, that’s a roast defect and comes from inconsistent roasting. You should find a better roaster. You can roast really light and not get that taste, but you need to be consistent.

Re: A scientific run-down of coffee blooming

#28

Post by romafirst3 »

carabiner wrote: post #9
0xbadcafebee wrote: post #2

In my own attempt to bloom coffee in an Aeropress, the result is, strangely, that it takes much longer to extract the coffee to 'full strength' if I bloom it, compared to not blooming it. If I bloom the coffee, then fill up with water and stir, the result is under-extracted unless I brew for longer. If I just fill up the water immediately and then stir, it takes much less long to brew to the same 'strength'. This is…

I mean 90% of coffee brewing is meaningless rituals. Could you taste the difference between a burr grinder and a blade grinder in the resulting brew? Nope, but endless pages of debate exist on this, grain size distribution, quality of burrs. It has a strong resemblance to the audiophile community.

Huge difference between burr and blade.

Re: A scientific run-down of coffee blooming

#30

Post by brrrrrm »

It mentions immersion methods and then never revisits it :(

I used to use a Chemex but found the whole process so fickle and involved. I've since switched to a Clever dripper (similar to the hario switch) and found that my coffee life has improved substantially. The basic idea is to let the coffee sit with the water for a bit and then flip a switch to drain it into your coffee. I prefer the consistency of the method and haven't noticed a difference in flavor.

My latest project has been attempting to speed up the cold brew process (to get low acidity cold coffee for the summer) and I've taken to using a sous-vide. The idea is that low heat will reduce the time needed for extraction without actually causing the water to leech acidity from the beans. It's worked, but results were kinda meh. I just bought some PH strips to run a more thorough experiment, though.

Post reply on HN