In recent posts, I've described the characteristics of 'agony of the
leaf' witnessed in a glass pot. They either samba on the surface,
tango in the middle of the pot, or hoedown on the bottom. They will
spend their energy and fall lifeless to the bottom. A new observation
is the water volume absorbed by the leaves. While the amount of tea
for each infusion is by 'feel' the fill water line for each infusion
is the same. Some infusions might drop the water line 1% and others
up to 5%. The variance seems to be tied to the size of the leaf.
Makes sense larger leaf will soak more water. Then Archimedes jumps
in with precursor calculus and estimates the surface volume of the
smaller leaf is the same as the large leaf. He jumps out of the
infusion and runs down the street naked screaming something. Have any
idea of what that could be? I know I should replace 'feel' with
weight but I bet they are gong fu close.

Jim

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 04:28:36 -0700, Space Cowboy wrote:

> In recent posts, I've described the characteristics of 'agony of the leaf'
> witnessed in a glass pot. They either samba on the surface, tango in the
> middle of the pot, or hoedown on the bottom. They will spend their energy
> and fall lifeless to the bottom. A new observation is the water volume
> absorbed by the leaves. While the amount of tea for each infusion is by
> 'feel' the fill water line for each infusion is the same. Some infusions
> might drop the water line 1% and others up to 5%. The variance seems to
> be tied to the size of the leaf. Makes sense larger leaf will soak more
> water. Then Archimedes jumps in with precursor calculus and estimates the
> surface volume of the smaller leaf is the same as the large leaf. He
> jumps out of the infusion and runs down the street naked screaming
> something. Have any idea of what that could be? I know I should replace
> 'feel' with weight but I bet they are gong fu close.
>
> Jim

Jim, I don't quite understand, why should larger leaves soak more water
and thus drop the waterline more (if that is what you are observing). The
waterline can oly drop if the water is removed. And since you are not
putting empty spaces into the water but tea leaves, the waterline should
rise. It can then fall again if the leaves soak up the water but the
waterline will always be higher than the line without tealeaves.
However, if larger leaves make the waterline drop more than smaller leaves
then this can only mean that larger leave soak up water but do not release
it again, making a weaker infusion than smaller leaves - which is what I
can observe as well. Teabag powder is probably the prime example - water
goes in and out of the powder particles very easily, keeping the waterline
steady (if you think this is so) but giving a very strong infusion.

JB

I put in the leaf first and then fill to arbitrary water line. The
water line drops for all infusions with smaller leaf less than larger.
The smaller grade leaf is black and larger oolong. The larger leaves
appear to be more 'bloated' than smaller sizes. The smaller leaf
infuses faster than the larger. I haven't used scales but I suspect
n/g of large grade will drop the water line more than n/g of smaller
grade. I really need to find various grades of green tea along with
various grades of black and oolong and note the observation. I think
teabags are a special case because they act like little beaver dams.
Still I can't really account for the remarkable difference in the
water line besides my guess of leaf volume. In years past my glass
pots were round and I never noticed the water level but this one is a
30 oz cylindrical (2 cups) with a convenient visible water line mark.
I really noticed it when I was getting short changed on the second
cup from various infusions and then noticed the water line drop. The
observation is serendipity.

Jim

J Boehm > wrote in message . net>...
> On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 04:28:36 -0700, Space Cowboy wrote:
>
> > A new observation is the water volume
> > absorbed by the leaves. While the amount of tea for each infusion is by
> > 'feel' the fill water line for each infusion is the same. Some infusions
> > might drop the water line 1% and others up to 5%. The variance seems to
> > be tied to the size of the leaf. Makes sense larger leaf will soak more
> > water. Then Archimedes jumps in with precursor calculus and estimates the
> > surface volume of the smaller leaf is the same as the large leaf. He
> > jumps out of the infusion and runs down the street naked screaming
> > something. Have any idea of what that could be? I know I should replace
> > 'feel' with weight but I bet they are gong fu close.
> >
> > Jim
>
> Jim, I don't quite understand, why should larger leaves soak more water
> and thus drop the waterline more (if that is what you are observing). The
> waterline can oly drop if the water is removed. And since you are not
> putting empty spaces into the water but tea leaves, the waterline should
> rise. It can then fall again if the leaves soak up the water but the
> waterline will always be higher than the line without tealeaves.
> However, if larger leaves make the waterline drop more than smaller leaves
> then this can only mean that larger leave soak up water but do not release
> it again, making a weaker infusion than smaller leaves - which is what I
> can observe as well. Teabag powder is probably the prime example - water
> goes in and out of the powder particles very easily, keeping the waterline
> steady (if you think this is so) but giving a very strong infusion.
>
> JB

I'm not a scientist, I don't even play one on an infomercial, but
here's my thought. If, at a microscopic or cellular level, there are
more open "cavaties" in a large leaf than a small one (because the
small one has had more of it's "cavaties" crushed in the processing)
then there would be more little pockets for the water to seep into
after you had poured it in initially. If the water was able to get
everywhere it eventually would be able to (by steeping for a period of
time) when it was first poured in, then you wouldn't see a water drop
because, indeed, the water isn't being removed. The only reason it
could be dropping is if it were seeping into spaces it couldn't access
immediately after you poured the water in. I hope that made sense,
bleh....I need another cuppa....

Melinda

A brain teazer. I'd agree but traditionally oxidized smaller leaf
infuses more quickly so it must be more 'porous' or it could simply be
skimming or sloughing the crusted oxidized surface. I can't even
account for the quicker infusion. As I noted before the smaller leaf
does not seem as 'bloated' proportionally as the larger oolong leaf.
I need to get leaf grades in black, oolong and green and notice the
absorbtion in each category. It is hard to get graded leaf across
each spectrum. I tried a new oolong yesterday expecting expecting a
more noticeable water drop but it behaved like some smaller blacks. I
suspect it was a less oxidized than the other oolongs. Just more
variables.

Jim

(Melinda) wrote in message . com>...
> I'm not a scientist, I don't even play one on an infomercial, but
> here's my thought. If, at a microscopic or cellular level, there are
> more open "cavaties" in a large leaf than a small one (because the
> small one has had more of it's "cavaties" crushed in the processing)
> then there would be more little pockets for the water to seep into
> after you had poured it in initially. If the water was able to get
> everywhere it eventually would be able to (by steeping for a period of
> time) when it was first poured in, then you wouldn't see a water drop
> because, indeed, the water isn't being removed. The only reason it
> could be dropping is if it were seeping into spaces it couldn't access
> immediately after you poured the water in. I hope that made sense,
> bleh....I need another cuppa....
>
> Melinda

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 04:28:36 -0700, Space Cowboy wrote:

> In recent posts, I've described the characteristics of 'agony of the leaf'
> witnessed in a glass pot. They either samba on the surface, tango in the
> middle of the pot, or hoedown on the bottom. They will spend their energy
> and fall lifeless to the bottom. A new observation is the water volume
> absorbed by the leaves. While the amount of tea for each infusion is by
> 'feel' the fill water line for each infusion is the same. Some infusions
> might drop the water line 1% and others up to 5%. The variance seems to
> be tied to the size of the leaf. Makes sense larger leaf will soak more
> water. Then Archimedes jumps in with precursor calculus and estimates the
> surface volume of the smaller leaf is the same as the large leaf. He
> jumps out of the infusion and runs down the street naked screaming
> something. Have any idea of what that could be? I know I should replace
> 'feel' with weight but I bet they are gong fu close.
>
> Jim

Jim, I don't quite understand, why should larger leaves soak more water
and thus drop the waterline more (if that is what you are observing). The
waterline can oly drop if the water is removed. And since you are not
putting empty spaces into the water but tea leaves, the waterline should
rise. It can then fall again if the leaves soak up the water but the
waterline will always be higher than the line without tealeaves.
However, if larger leaves make the waterline drop more than smaller leaves
then this can only mean that larger leave soak up water but do not release
it again, making a weaker infusion than smaller leaves - which is what I
can observe as well. Teabag powder is probably the prime example - water
goes in and out of the powder particles very easily, keeping the waterline
steady (if you think this is so) but giving a very strong infusion.

JB

I'm not a scientist, I don't even play one on an infomercial, but
here's my thought. If, at a microscopic or cellular level, there are
more open "cavaties" in a large leaf than a small one (because the
small one has had more of it's "cavaties" crushed in the processing)
then there would be more little pockets for the water to seep into
after you had poured it in initially. If the water was able to get
everywhere it eventually would be able to (by steeping for a period of
time) when it was first poured in, then you wouldn't see a water drop
because, indeed, the water isn't being removed. The only reason it
could be dropping is if it were seeping into spaces it couldn't access
immediately after you poured the water in. I hope that made sense,
bleh....I need another cuppa....

Melinda