Whisky

First.Aspect

Is there a random chemistry word generator website I don't know know about? Taste is about the way evaporation causes the crystallisation of the azeotrope on the membrane of the osmosis. I don't know what any of those words mean, so it must be true.

If its all about evaporation, why not take your single malt in a bong? Or just sniff from the neck of the bottle.

Sorry chaps. You win. I can't argue against belief.

sketchley

Did you read the aspect in the link I sent. Proper science!

First.Aspect

Sketchley wrote:

unixnerd wrote:

The point isn't the final temp on your tongue, but the initial temp in the glass. If it's too cold the whisky will have less aroma when you smell it prior to drinking it.

It's more than that, it's also the intial temp of the tounge as well. If the liquid the first hits is cold it reduces certain flavour regardless of how it then warms up. Something that can be replicated by putting an ice cube on your tounge spitting it out then drink room temp whisky.

How? That's a completely unsupported statement and you are whisky whispering again. How much do you think the temperature of your tongue changes? What's the response time of the receptors on the surface? Is the difference between 298K and 280K even significant in the first place? You've not even asked the questions, let alone answered them.

A lot of these arguments are a bit like saying that when you hit a golf ball, the ball goes one way and the earth goes the other. Its true, but by how much?

sketchley

As you don't seem to want to read the link here's the abstract. This is accepted publish science in the Oxford journal from 1987. On taste on temp. I highlighted a few bits in case you don't want to read it all.

http://chemse.oxfordjournals.org/conten ... 9.abstract

"Two experiments were performed (i) to measure the effect of cooling on the perceived intensity of taste, and (ii) to determine whether the temperature of the tongue or the temperature of the solution was primarily responsible for the changes in perceived intensity that were observed. The first experiment revealed that cooling both the tongue and the taste solutions from 36 to either 28 or 20°C produced measurable reductions in the perceived intensity of the sweetness of sucrose and the bitterness of caffeine. The saltiness of NaCl and the sourness of citric acid were unaffected by cooling. The second experiment demonstrated that the temperature of the tongue was the critical factor for producing the effects on sweetness and bitterness. The latter finding implies that some of the inconsistencies in the literature on taste–temperature interactions might have been avoided if the temperature of the tongue had been routinely controlled. In addition, the importance of lingual temperature suggests that thermal effects on taste intensity may often be due to changes in the sensitivity of the gustatory transduction process rather than to changes in the molecular properties of the taste solutions."

daviesee

First.Aspect

Sketchley wrote:

Did you read the aspect in the link I sent. Proper science!

I'd argue that "proper science" doesn't include words such as "perceived", but that's for another thread I would say.

Intensity. Sure. Same as if you dilute your whisky before tasting it. Which is right, or wrong, depending on who whispers to you.

So, whisky is as mysterious as orange squash. Good. I'm glad we got there in the end.

EDIt - replies cross in the post. Thanks for highlighting those passages. Chaning the temperature of the tongue. That what it says. You read that as "changing the temperature of the food" (or similar). Not the same thing, is it.

Remember the golf ball. Does the tongue change temperature when you drop a tiny amount of water on it?

sketchley

Here's another this one from Yale.

http://www.yale.edu/opa/arc-ybc/v28.n23/story8.html

"The close relationship between temperature and taste qualities suggests receptors in the tongue that respond to chemicals have certain properties that make them vulnerable to specific kinds of temperature change"

First.Aspect

Sketchley wrote:

Here's another this one from Yale.

http://www.yale.edu/opa/arc-ybc/v28.n23/story8.html

"The close relationship between temperature and taste qualities suggests receptors in the tongue that respond to chemicals have certain properties that make them vulnerable to specific kinds of temperature change"

"Study shows tongue's temperature affects taste"
The studies show the same thing. The oxford journal study did two experiments - one changing temperature of food plus tongue, the other just changing temperature of the tongue, demonstrating that the latter was the dominant factor. You see, you have to read what it says, not what you think it says.

sketchley

OK one last bite. Forgot the whole whisky whispering thing, your right there's a lot of rubbish around whisky, just like there is with wine. However you made a statement that temperature does not affect taste as it all ends up the same temperature on the tounge eventually.

"Nothing drops out of solution with ice. Ends up at tongue temperature one way or another."

You went on to say that there was no science to support temperature effecting taste.

"As a chemist, I've never heard anything convincing to suggest anything other than all versions of water/no water, ice/no ice end up at the same point in short order."

and

"The presumption is that doing x or y with this mystical liquid will dramatically effect what you taste. That's nonsense. Cold is a sensation I happen to prefer, but by the time the 5ml diffused over your tongue its all at the same temperature as it would have been. At that stage, how is what I taste any different? "

Well here's a third artical talking about a link between temperature and taste I could go on but I'm starting to reliase you are smilpy trolling.

http://jn.physiology.org/content/95/2/674.full

In short though let us agree there a lot of rubbish talked about whisky. But temperature does effect taste, therefore adding ice can effect the taste of whisky. Some people will prefer that some will not.

First.Aspect

You keep showing me things about tongue temperature. I keep telling you that this supports my argument.

All of these articles suggest (particularly the first one, which was specifically designed to distingush between tongue and food temperature) that the taste doesn't change if the tongue is the same temperature. The temperature of the tongue is going to be the same whether you drop a tiny amount of liquid at 5C on it, or a tiny amount at 15C on it. So it will taste the same.

In case you still haven't got it. The golf ball is the whisky. The tongue is the earth.

sketchley

Initial Tounge temperature, on the surface where the taste buds are, is affected by temperature of the liquid being put on it. Yes or no?

daviesee

Sketchley wrote:

Initial Tounge temperature, on the surface where the taste buds are, is affected by temperature of the liquid being put on it. Yes or no?

Yes Sketchley, otherwise first Aspect wouldn't need ice in his whisky.
Don't bother......

sketchley

Arrghh can't stop.

http://www.foodnavigator.com/Science-Nu ... scientists

First.Aspect

Sketchley wrote:

Initial Tounge temperature, on the surface where the taste buds are, is affected by temperature of the liquid being put on it. Yes or no?

Possibly, but the Oxford article tells you that the line of reasoning you are going down is incorrect, because it tells you (or rather the abstract tells you) that peceived taste depends on the tongue temperature not the temperature of the food arriving on it. I would postulate that, as I said about 8 pages ago, that this is because everything equilibrates to "tongue" very quickly, at which point it all tastes the same.

Where is "taste" taking place? And over what timescales?

UndercoverElephant

At the risk of joining in this slap-fight, which I really don't want to do...

The tongue actually does very little when it comes to tasting - taste is roughly 80% smell. The chemicals that make something smell are very often released more when things are warm - warm bread vs. cold bread, steaming pile of dog shite vs. a colder one.

The thought that an ice cold Budweiser may become palatable to some people is surely enough proof that if a drink is cold enough it becomes less pungent. Whilst I'm sure that the whisky heats up in your mouth, I'm less sure that you get the same depth of flavour.

Tigger con carne

First Aspect wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

Initial Tounge temperature, on the surface where the taste buds are, is affected by temperature of the liquid being put on it. Yes or no?

Possibly, but the Oxford article tells you that the line of reasoning you are going down is incorrect, because it tells you (or rather the abstract tells you) that peceived taste depends on the tongue temperature not the temperature of the food arriving on it. I would postulate that, as I said about 8 pages ago, that this is because everything equilibrates to "tongue" very quickly, at which point it all tastes the same.

Where is "taste" taking place? And over what timescales?

Taste physiology 101

The tongue has buds that detect salt, sweet, bitter, sour and umami (the "meaty" flavour of things like monosodium glutamate). The rest of "taste" occurs at the olafactory bulb at the back of the throat/nose since most of what we perceive as "taste" is actually the smell of the stuff in our mouth. This is why the volatility of the components are so important in how something tastes and why the temperature it is when it enters the mouth makes a difference. As I said before, the (in this case) liquid probably doesn't hang about long enough for every thing that might become vapour at body temperature and permeate to the smell centres before it's swallowed.

First.Aspect

Sketchley wrote:

Arrghh can't stop.

http://www.foodnavigator.com/Science-Nu ... scientists

(a) 2005 (b) an article about an article.

Besides, what temperature is the whisky, when its on your tongue. I'm not arguing that temperature is relevant to taste, Sketchley, I'm just applying thermodynamics. Golf ball. Earth.

UE - good use of the 80:20 rule. It adds credibility to all made up statistics.

davis

Also, if whatever you were drinking really did warm up that quickly, then it wouldn't feel cold when swallowed.
I can taste something and still have it feel cold when swallowed, so surely* it cannot have achieved body temperature, and is tasted/smelled at a lower temperature.


*: bonus science-thinking warning word.

First.Aspect

davis wrote:

Also, if whatever you were drinking really did warm up that quickly, then it wouldn't feel cold when swallowed.
I can taste something and still have it feel cold when swallowed, so surely* it cannot have achieved body temperature, and is tasted/smelled at a lower temperature.


*: bonus science-thinking warning word.

Personally, I sip my whisky. Slowly. It definitely doesn't feel cold by the time I swallow it.

You don't mix it with Coke do you?

sketchley

First Aspect wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

Arrghh can't stop.

http://www.foodnavigator.com/Science-Nu ... scientists

(a) 2005 (b) an article about an article.

Besides, what temperature is the whisky, when its on your tongue. I'm not arguing that temperature is relevant to taste, Sketchley, I'm just applying thermodynamics. Golf ball. Earth.

UE - good use of the 80:20 rule. It adds credibility to all made up statistics.

You were, now you're moving on and changing the argument.....

First.Aspect

Sketchley wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

Arrghh can't stop.

http://www.foodnavigator.com/Science-Nu ... scientists

(a) 2005 (b) an article about an article.

Besides, what temperature is the whisky, when its on your tongue. I'm not arguing that temperature is relevant to taste, Sketchley, I'm just applying thermodynamics. Golf ball. Earth.

UE - good use of the 80:20 rule. It adds credibility to all made up statistics.

You were, now you're moving on and changing the argument.....

I'm sorry but you really aren't following at all. I'm being completely consistent and so are you.

sketchley

In which case why don't we just stop?

First.Aspect

Sketchley wrote:

In which case why don't we just stop?

It is quite dull now.

sketchley

Only now? It's been dull for a while!

First.Aspect

Sketchley wrote:

Only now? It's been dull for a while!

I still think it could get even duller.

sketchley

Are you determined to have last word?

Underscore

First Aspect wrote:

The clue with whisky is that it's clear. Nothing drops out of solution with ice.

Not wanting to get stuck into this... erm... discussion but this is not actually true in the general sense. While most mass-produced whiskies are filtered to remove, non-chill-filtered whiskies become cloudy when you add ice as proteins drop out of solution. Of course, whether this affects the taste, I will allow others to decide.

_

First.Aspect

Amazingly, there is a Scots Whisky Research Institute. They have had to tackle this issue for food standards and labelling issues. They were only ever trace amounts of protein.

Absinthe does this as well.

daviesee

Underscore wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

The clue with whisky is that it's clear. Nothing drops out of solution with ice.

Not wanting to get stuck into this... erm... discussion but this is not actually true in the general sense. While most mass-produced whiskies are filtered to remove, non-chill-filtered whiskies become cloudy when you add ice as proteins drop out of solution. Of course, whether this affects the taste, I will allow others to decide.

_

Just what the heck are you guys drinking?
Whiskey is clear before it goes in a cask but none I Have seen for sale has ever been clear.
Confusing it with meths?

First.Aspect

daviesee wrote:

Underscore wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

The clue with whisky is that it's clear. Nothing drops out of solution with ice.

Not wanting to get stuck into this... erm... discussion but this is not actually true in the general sense. While most mass-produced whiskies are filtered to remove, non-chill-filtered whiskies become cloudy when you add ice as proteins drop out of solution. Of course, whether this affects the taste, I will allow others to decide.

_

Just what the heck are you guys drinking?
Whiskey is clear before it goes in a cask but none I Have seen for sale has ever been clear.
Confusing it with meths?

Meths is clear.

Are you getting colour confused with turbidity?