Behmor bean vs environment temperature

[simonsk8r]

Something tells me this is one experiment I shouldn't carry out.

Haha...

Once while roasting, the roaster just turned off completely, and I was probably 5 minutes into it.

So I looked at the beans.... incredibly under roasted. So when the roaster decided to play nicely, I just chucked them back in and continued haha. Was an interesting result ;D

[Yelta]

Cut the power to 25% 2 minutes before first crack and you'll see what happens.

Something tells me this is one experiment I shouldn't carry out.

[simonsk8r]

In a practical sense, a roaster needs to make a judgement about the optimal time at which to drop the heat being applied. If you do so too early, the roast stalls. If you go too late, not so bad....but the flavour development will be inhibited. Cut the power to 25% 2 minutes before first crack and you'll see what happens.

Well said. To me the term heat momentum makes sense, as it sounds like a more practically-minded term. Not meant to refer to the physical momentum mass-based objects retain (so to speak hehe).

I see it as just how much 'oomph' the beans have to maintain heat when you've dropped heat application. Not overly sciencey hehe but makes sense to me! [emoji106]

[Acmack]

Have a look at post #12 in the Behmor Max Temps thread (i.e. the one that was on the top of the thread list before you started this one). I think it shows the 2 measures you seek. Otherwise it would make sense to the posters in that thread.

Thank you bos

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

Hi,

Has anyone seen a bean temp and environment temp at the same time? I’m interested to see what happens to the bean temp after first crack if I reduce the power? How closely does it follow the ET.

Thanks for your help!

Have a look at post #12 in the Behmor Max Temps thread (i.e. the one that was on the top of the thread list before you started this one). I think it shows the 2 measures you seek. Otherwise it would make sense to the posters in that thread.

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

Yes, it's a common term but I'm not sure what it means and so far haven't found an explanation that makes sense.

BTW the Songer paper is full of errors so I'd take his conclusions with a grain of salt.

I cited the couple of sentences from that paper (note I described it as 'rather colourful') to give you a quick description of the phenomenon that people were referring to, not as a promotion for the whole paper.

How often do you roast coffee? In a practical sense, a roaster needs to make a judgement about the optimal time at which to drop the heat being applied. If you do so too early, the roast stalls. If you go too late, not so bad....but the flavour development will be inhibited. Cut the power to 25% 2 minutes before first crack and you'll see what happens.

[Acmack]

WHAT!

Hi,

Has anyone seen a bean temp and environment temp at the same time? I’m interested to see what happens to the bean temp after first crack if I reduce the power? How closely does it follow the ET.

Thanks for your help!

[Yelta]

So how much does the bean temp rise at 1st crack if the heat is flat or falling? I’m sure all you experts will know...

WHAT!

[Acmack]

So how much does the bean temp rise at 1st crack if the heat is flat or falling? I’m sure all you experts will know...

[Lyrebird]

To each his own.

I find that it is far more constructive to troubleshoot a process when I understand what is going on within that process.

You don't need to be able to pronounce chlorogenic acid or polyphenols, but knowing that polyphenols are far less soluble than simple acids like citric helps explain why underextracted shots will tip towards sharpness whilst overextracted shots will tip towards astringency.

When the product of time x temperature is low, the more soluble components (sugars, simple acids) will dominate. When the product of time x temperature is high, the balance will tip towards the less easily extracted compounds such as polyphenols which often have higher flavour activity per unit concentration.

[Yelta]

OK, I think I know why I have everyone off side here.

As far as I can see "heat momentum" is nonsense. It cannot physically exist and to my way of thinking this means it cannot explain anything. I have a real problem with people using incorrect but "sciency" terms to try to explain things, I think it just hinders any attempt to actually understand what's going on. I understand that that can make me look like an insufferable pedant, but I'll live with it. What I really want is for the discussion to be framed in terms that are comprehensible to all participants and also accord with standard physics but if I have to choose between these I'll take the second every time.

As for the Songer paper: amongst other things he's misused the term activation energy, it has a specific meaning in reaction chemistry. Moreover, the way he misused it is typical of people who don't understand the basics of reaction kinetics and that means I can't trust that he understands what he is writing about.

This is not helped by the sentence quoted above, which invokes the idea of temperature momentum, and sentences such as "Since the system has less mass, it is able to take on heat more quickly, but because it is less dense and has lost moisture it can also lose heat more quickly." which is a confusing hodgepodge of terms where a better explanation would be simply that the system's thermal inertia has reduced.

Then he starts his discussion of the perception of acidity by talking about chlorogenic acid which is a polyphenol and will thus contribute to astringency not perceived acidity.

Altogether it sounds like he's read a bunch of stuff on this, understood little of it then mashed together an "explanation" which is close to useless.

I'm trying to translate this into terminology that will better enable me to enjoy my AM/PM cup of coffee!

Wondering out loud if being able to pronounce - chlorogenic acid and polyphenol - will help with the perceived enjoyment of what is currently residing in my cup, or even if having an understanding of the terms will result in a better brew somewhere down the track, I suspect not.

It's all about coffee for me.

[Dimal]

Don't hold back Lb, tell us what you really think...

Mal.

[Lyrebird]

OK, I think I know why I have everyone off side here.

As far as I can see "heat momentum" is nonsense. It cannot physically exist and to my way of thinking this means it cannot explain anything. I have a real problem with people using incorrect but "sciency" terms to try to explain things, I think it just hinders any attempt to actually understand what's going on. I understand that that can make me look like an insufferable pedant, but I'll live with it. What I really want is for the discussion to be framed in terms that are comprehensible to all participants and also accord with standard physics but if I have to choose between these I'll take the second every time.

As for the Songer paper: amongst other things he's misused the term activation energy, it has a specific meaning in reaction chemistry. Moreover, the way he misused it is typical of people who don't understand the basics of reaction kinetics and that means I can't trust that he understands what he is writing about.

This is not helped by the sentence quoted above, which invokes the idea of temperature momentum, and sentences such as "Since the system has less mass, it is able to take on heat more quickly, but because it is less dense and has lost moisture it can also lose heat more quickly." which is a confusing hodgepodge of terms where a better explanation would be simply that the system's thermal inertia has reduced.

Then he starts his discussion of the perception of acidity by talking about chlorogenic acid which is a polyphenol and will thus contribute to astringency not perceived acidity.

Altogether it sounds like he's read a bunch of stuff on this, understood little of it then mashed together an "explanation" which is close to useless.

[chokkidog]

Yes, it's a common term but I'm not sure what it means and so far haven't found an explanation that makes sense.

BTW the Songer paper is full of errors so I'd take his conclusions with a grain of salt.

Aaaaah crunch. Clickbait. Ok, so I haven't read the Songer paper yet, just clicked on the link and scrolled through it.
I'll read it later on. In the meantime, and to enlighten us all, perhaps, as it is so 'full of errors', you could point out not what is wrong with it but what is right,
as that is obviously, to you, the easiest thing to do.

As to "a common term" are you referring to "phenomenon" or "momentum"?

[Lyrebird]

Yes, it's a common term but I'm not sure what it means and so far haven't found an explanation that makes sense.

BTW the Songer paper is full of errors so I'd take his conclusions with a grain of salt.