HomeRoast Digest


Topic: ziplock bags (was Re: +Mason jar lids with quality degas valves) (48 msgs / 1543 lines)
1) From: David Martin
I usually use 8-oz mason jars. Staling is a non-issue for me because
I'm still using the Fresh Roast Plus 8 that I got when I started
roasting 18 months ago, and I can't roast in enough volume to have to
worry about long-term storage.
However, I don't have very many jars, and I sometimes can't find one,
in which case I just use a ziplock bag, squeezing as much air out as I
can. Can anyone see a problem with this storage method? It seems like
it would be at least as good as a mason jar.
-Dave

2) From: Scott Marquardt
I'm hearing "small batches that get used up fast" quite a bit in this
conversation.
In other conversations, I've heard a lot about how, for example, the Idido
is excellent when rested about 10 days.
If beans need to rest a long time before they're optimal, they need to be
in a good container that prevents staling. If beans are used up quickly,
it'd be handy if they're something that doesn't need a long rest.
Something like that.    ;-)
But I think not worrying about staling 'cause beans get used fast is
probably not sound. True, the beans might not have time to stale much -- but
that reaction is still occuring.
It's like the guy who was low on gas but 30 miles from the nearest station,
so he drove darned fast to get there before he'd run out.    ;-)
- S
On 7/30/07, Rick Copple  wrote:
<Snip>

3) From: Scott Marquardt
I can't imagine why a bag wouldn't work for you. I just don't know of
anything more effective. I'm not sure that other things are dramatically
less effective, consistent with wisdom about headspace in the container,
frequency of opening it, etc. But the bags are fine.
Now and then a ziplock seal will pretend to be closed when it's not, so the
main challenge to the use of valve bags, I think, may be along those lines.
Just exercise careful scrutiny.
- Scott
On 7/31/07, Stephen Carey  wrote:
<Snip>

4) From: David Martin
Heh. I've been sitting here thinking contrary thoughts about what you
said. Then I brewed up the last of the Yirgacheffe that I roasted 6
days ago and kept in an 8-oz mason jar. Damn but if it doesn't taste
stale! It's true that this particular jar got opened way too many
times during the week, but still, I'm a convert. Next time I order
from SM I'm getting some of those valve bags. :-)
-Dave
On 7/31/07, Scott Marquardt  wrote:
...
<Snip>

5) From: Rick Copple
Scott Marquardt wrote:
<Snip>
As mentioned, I use valve bags, roast two pounds at a time, last for 
just over a week, and I've never had stale coffee. I don't do much 
special, just roast 'em, drop them in the bag and shut it. I open it, 
pour it into my Zass hopper and shut it back up. They taste great all 
the way through.
<Snip>
Sure it is occurring, but if you use them within three days, they are 
simply rested and haven't had a chance to stale much. I doubt what you 
store them in aside from an open container wouldn't make a noticeable 
difference. So if they are roasting in something that roast 3oz at a 
time, there isn't much chance for stale taste to develop. IOW, the next 
gas station isn't 30 miles away, it is 5. So there's no hurry. :)
But the value bags have worked great for me if we are talking about 
roasting and drinking the beans within the 10-13 day window of peak 
flavors. Longer term storage than that might require some extra steps to 
not end up with stale coffee, I would agree.
As a matter of fact, my current cup of Guat. Huehue. La Maravilla I 
roasted last Tuesday still has that great Dutch cocoa flavor lingering 
on the tongue. Gotta love it. :)
-- 
Rick Copplehttp://www.copple.us/blog/

6) From: Ross
Dave,
I think the oxidation difference between a non vacuumed valve bag and a 
mason jar for a few days is more psychological effect than reality.  But it 
affects taste either way,  so .....go for it. 
Ross

7) From: Scott Marquardt
Well, I don't know about that.
Just here, "for a few days" is a phrase intended to connote a negligible
effect with regard to staling. Yet in most threads on the list, "a few days"
signifies the difference between a nondescript cup and a blueberry bouquet.
One thing I don't know (I've got everything else covered ;-)  is what the
threshold for staling detection might be. I guess someone would have to
blind cup beans stored under varying circumstances.
Think of it this way -- resting is at least more than tangentially related
to outgassing of CO2, whereas staling has more to do with exposure to O2 at
reactive temperatures (room temperature being the most common). One relation
between them is the extent to which the outgassing of CO2 can impede beans'
exposure to O2 by displacement. On the other hand, the introduction of O2 by
means of sub-optimal storage will have little effect on outgassing (and
thus, I humor my ignorance, little effect on resting) but will certainly
exacerbate oxidation of reactive components of the roasted bean.
Did I just say anything? I can't even tell.
LOL
- S
On 7/31/07, Ross  wrote:
<Snip>

8) From: Ross
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
Scott,
Yes, I think you agreed with me. 
Ross

9) From: raymanowen
Some things have to be seen to be believed. The following allegory will
never acted out on my beans, hence will never be seen. Credulity would be
the only basis for believing, lacking the reality:
"someone would have to blind cup beans stored under varying circumstances.
Think of it this way --" ° No way Josť !
Or this way -- ° Josť- No way !
resting is at least more than tangentially related to outgassing of CO2,
whereas staling has more to do with exposure to O2 at reactive temperatures
(room temperature being the most common). One relation between them is the
extent to which the outgassing of CO2 can impede beans' exposure to O2 by
displacement. On the other hand, the introduction of O2 by means of
sub-optimal storage will have little effect on outgassing (and thus, I humo=
r
my ignorance, little effect on resting) but will certainly exacerbate
oxidation of reactive components of the roasted bean.
Did I just say anything? I can't even tell.
"
On 7/31/07, Scott Marquardt < scott.marquardt > wrote:
<Snip>
ys"
<Snip>
t.
<Snip>
d
<Snip>
at
<Snip>
ion
<Snip>
s'
<Snip>
 by
<Snip>
t
<Snip>
h
<Snip>
-- 
"When the theme hits the bass, I dance the Jig!" - -Virgil Fox at the Might=
y
Wichita (ex- NYC Paramount) WurliTzer- 1976

10) From: an iconoclast
On 7/30/07, David Martin  wrote:
<Snip>
unusually
sensitive nose, but after they've been in a ziplock bag for even just a
short time, I
can't stand the smell.
I use valve bags for the first 24 hrs and then transfer to
stainless steel containers with a latch and seal. I label them with a china
marker, black for caff, white for decaf and wipe the name off with a Magic
Eraser
sponge.These containers may not be completely airtight, but they are very
close.
They stack well as I we roast at least 3-4 origins at a time, so saves
counter space
and I don't get wrist pain from twisting. They work well for us.
Take care,
Ann
-- 
Sweet Maria's list searchable archiveshttp://themeyers.org/HomeRoast/index.htm

11) From: Brett Mason
This discussion is almost at a threshold where someone should apply for a
government grant to study the storage and staling of green coffee beans...
Is there any more information or opinion that could possibly extend the
diatribe - I mean, dialogue?
Brett
On 8/1/07, raymanowen  wrote:
<Snip>
.
<Snip>
es
<Snip>
e
<Snip>
mor
<Snip>
e
<Snip>
days"
<Snip>
uet.
<Snip>
e to
<Snip>
ure
<Snip>
. One
<Snip>
ect
<Snip>
) but
<Snip>
ed
<Snip>
e
<Snip>
-- 
Cheers,
Bretthttp://homeroast.freeservers.com

12) From: Scott Marquardt
Argh.
I won't question whether the method works well for you -- especially if you
go through your beans fast. But the way you said something there reflects
what I'm reading elsewhere in this thread: "may not be completely airtight,
but they are very close." My contention would be that saying it that way is
missing the point IF you end up with a substantial volume of that container
being empty for any significant period of time.
My point is simply made with a question: what good is an airtight container
if in having it airtight one thing you're doing is locking in a healthy
amount of oxygen? That's that empty space I yammer about.
- Scott
On 8/1/07, an iconoclast  wrote:
<Snip>

13) From: Rich
I would have to say that you are either mired in the minutia, or have already made up your mind and 
are only looking for confirmation.
--Original Message Text---
From: Scott Marquardt
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 07:36:27 -0500
Argh.
I won't question whether the method works well for you -- especially if you go through your beans fast. 
But the way you said something there reflects what I'm reading elsewhere in this thread: "may not be 
completely airtight, but they are very close." My contention would be that saying it that way is missing 
the point IF you end up with a substantial volume of that container being empty for any significant 
period of time. 
My point is simply made with a question: what good is an airtight container if in having it airtight one 
thing you're doing is locking in a healthy amount of oxygen? That's that empty space I yammer about. 
- Scott
On 8/1/07, an iconoclast  wrote: I use valve bags for the first 24 hrs and 
then transfer to 
stainless steel containers with a latch and seal. I label them with a china 
marker, black for caff, white for decaf and wipe the name off with a Magic Eraser 
sponge.These containers may not be completely airtight, but they are very close. 
They stack well as I we roast at least 3-4 origins at a time, so saves counter space
and I don't get wrist pain from twisting. They work well for us. 

14) From: Scott Marquardt
Argh. Of course I've already made up my mind. I'm not the one who started
the thread with an inquiry; I'm an opinionated respondent.
But as for being mired in minutiae, remember again -- we're dealing with a
craft where a couple days' rest can mean the difference between ho-hum and
wonderful. To consider a couple days' rest significant while imagining that
a couple days exposure to too much oxygen is a trivial thing, is
inconsistent.
At any rate, those who have ably defended their use of mason jars haven't
thought the concerns about staling to be minutiae; to the contrary they've
defended their use just in terms of how said use does not encounter the
concerns I raised about them. Such defense seems to acknowledge, rather than
moot, my concern with oxygen exposure.
- Scott
On 8/1/07, Rich  wrote:
<Snip>

15) From: Rich
As I have stated several times along with several other respondents CO2 is denser (heavier) than 
"air" and will tend to cover the coffee in the jar.  Therefore: no O2 reaches the bean.  Now if you 
shake the jar and/or stir the beans then this does not apply.
And, as I have also stated on several (more than two) times you can purchase N@ in small cans, 
commonly refered to as Foo-Foo cans, in the paint section of your favorite big box store which would 
allow flushing the remaining beans in the jar which will positively insure that no  significant O2 
touches your bean.  If you remember back to real oil based paint there would be a rubbery skin form 
over the remaining paint in the can.  Flushing with a heavy gas (N2) to displace the O2 that oxidizes 
the linseed oil prevents the skin.  It also works with the latex paints.  Glass is not permeable, plastic 
is.
Vacuum packing will reduce the residual O2 from a nominal 21% to something like 3% at best.  The 
heavy gas will get you to 0%.  Take your pick.  The vacuum machine is expensive and the bags are not 
real cheap either.  The can of gas is considerably cheaper and will not suffer consumer device end of 
life.
--Original Message Text---
From: Scott Marquardt
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 08:43:05 -0500
Argh. Of course I've already made up my mind. I'm not the one who started the thread with an inquiry; 
I'm an opinionated respondent.
But as for being mired in minutiae, remember again -- we're dealing with a craft where a couple 
days' rest can mean the difference between ho-hum and wonderful. To consider a couple days' rest 
significant while imagining that a couple days exposure to too much oxygen is a trivial thing, is 
inconsistent. 
At any rate, those who have ably defended their use of mason jars haven't thought the concerns about 
staling to be minutiae; to the contrary they've defended their use just in terms of how said use does 
not encounter the concerns I raised about them. Such defense seems to acknowledge, rather than 
moot, my concern with oxygen exposure. 
- Scott
On 8/1/07, Rich  wrote: I would have to say that you are either mired in the 
minutia, or have already made up your mind and are only looking for confirmation.

16) From: miKe mcKoffee
<Snip>
[mailto:homeroast-admin] On Behalf Of Rich
<Snip>
	
<Snip>
something like 3% at best. The heavy gas will get you to 0%. Take your pick.
The vacuum machine is expensive and the bags are not real cheap either. The
can of gas is considerably cheaper and will not suffer consumer device end
of life.
<Snip>
Granted for long term shelf storage with "best if used by" months or years
away getting as close to 0% oxygen is critical. Does 3% oxygen content make
a difference for home roast storage of a couple weeks? Many taste tests by
many people seems to say yes.
Vacuum sealing roasts in mason jars takes no bag material. Mason jar dome
lids can opened and re-vacuum sealed hundreds and hundreds of times. So your
considerably cheaper foo-foo can of N2 will outlast my over decade old
Foodsaver that is still going strong? Re-flushing jar after each time taking
beans out that can just keeps going and going like the Energizer Bunny never
running out. I think not, it's a consumable item which you'll be buying over
and over. Oh, and as I mentioned for cannister/canning jar sealing the
"expensive" FoodSaver unit is ~$20. Hmmm, at 10 year life already that's a
whopping $2 per year. How much do those considerably cheaper foo-foo N2 cans
cost each time and how many times can you flush a jar per can? 	
Pacific Northwest Gathering VIhttp://home.comcast.net/~mckona/PNWGVI.htmKona Kurmudgeon miKe mcKoffee
URL to Rosto mods, FrankenFormer, some recipes etc:http://www.mckoffee.com/Ultimately the quest for Koffee Nirvana is a solitary path. To know I must
first not know. And in knowing know I know not. Each Personal enlightenment
found exploring the many divergent foot steps of Those who have gone before.
Sweet Maria's List - Searchable Archiveshttp://themeyers.org/HomeRoast/

17) From: Jim Carter
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
well, somebody could suggest applying for a government grant to study 
the issue. That would extend it. ;-)
Brett Mason wrote:
<Snip>
-- 
Amber Systems, Inc.
414 Main Street Suite 211-C
Rochester, Michigan 48307
www.ambersystems.com
p. 248-652-3140 ext. 224
f. 248-652-3402

18) From: Scott Marquardt
This is consistent with descriptions by those who store the beans only
briefly, and generally fill the space in the container. Discussion of the
need to allow for burping of the pressure generated by outgassing fairly
explains how no staling hazard to the beans is encountered with such use.
My concern with jars assumes occasional dipping into the beans for a brewing
portion. As you indicate, that would substantially compromise any protection
present CO2 would afford the beans under undisturbed circumstances.
As for N2, I think we could propose to Mike that he should purge with that
before drawing his vacuum on the jars, which would totally eliminate O2. And
do so each time he opens the jar, of course.
This would combine the inexpense of his vacuum method with the expense of
the N2 approach which he protests. The inexpense and expense cancel each
other, resulting in a zero-sum solution that costs him null dollars and
requires null time to implement.   :-P
- Scott
On 8/1/07, Rich  wrote:
<Snip>

19) From: miKe mcKoffee
<Snip>
[mailto:homeroast-admin] On Behalf Of Scott Marquardt
<Snip>
	
<Snip>
with that before drawing his vacuum on the jars, which would totally
eliminate O2. And do so each time he opens the jar, of course.
<Snip>
For the record I've never "protested" the effectiveness of N2 flushing but
rather misstatements concerning vacuum sealing. Indeed combination of both
is closer to ideal and indeed what is often done commercially.
<Snip>
expense of the N2 approach which he protests. The inexpense and expense
cancel each other, resulting in a zero-sum solution that costs him null
dollars and requires null time to implement.   :-P 
<Snip>
Too bad the bank wouldn't see it that way!:-)
Pacific Northwest Gathering VIhttp://home.comcast.net/~mckona/PNWGVI.htmKona Kurmudgeon miKe mcKoffee
URL to Rosto mods, FrankenFormer, some recipes etc:http://www.mckoffee.com/Ultimately the quest for Koffee Nirvana is a solitary path. To know I must
first not know. And in knowing know I know not. Each Personal enlightenment
found exploring the many divergent foot steps of Those who have gone before.
Sweet Maria's List - Searchable Archiveshttp://themeyers.org/HomeRoast/

20) From: raymanowen
This was bad math when I was in 6th grade:
"This would combine the inexpense of his vacuum method with the expense of
the N2 approach which he protests. The inexpense and expense cancel each
other, resulting in a zero-sum solution that costs him null dollars."
I no longer have my Sargent Welch Lab vacuum pump, but it cost $2,000 at VWR
Scientific. Inexpense was Incorrect.
The alleged Zero-Sum solution is a fraud too.
If it cost you one gallon of gas to drive to the Cajon Pass from
Victorville, CA, then you shut off the engine and coast to San Bernardino
for 0 gas, you get the picture.
Maybe not- If the favorite coffee chain has a "BOGO" sale on their
coffeelike drinks, the freebie doesn't cancel the full price paid for the
first one. No Zero-Sum.
If, on the other hand, the Fairness Doctrine were in effect and you actually
could indulge the second coffeelike drink in one sitting without tossing it
over your shoulder, it's not only a freebie but the price of the first C/L
drink is refunded, only then would you have a Zero-Sum situation. 1+0=1 in
my trailer.
Cheers -RayO, aka Opa!
Your Major expense should be the Grinder.

21) From: an iconoclast
On 8/1/07, Scott Marquardt  wrote:
<Snip>
I actually have 4 sizes of containers and, being slightly anal, as soon as I
can fit the beans in a smaller container, I move them to a smaller
container. We roast every week, so beans don't sit long. If I could get a
better rubber or silicone seal to make it even more airtight, I would, but
I'm NOT going to get my vac sealer plugged in, pull out the hose, hook it
up, push down the latch, wait for the machine to seal the canister and undo
what I just did for EVERY pot of coffee.  I'd hate it and I'd be gritting my
teeth every time I did it.  I do use a Vacuvin for ground coffee at work and
am willing to use the hand pump for 20 secs twice a day, but I just can't be
THAT anal....I try to modify my type A-ness to prevent dying from a heart
attack...so I do the best I can.
Take care,
Ann
-- 
Sweet Maria's list searchable archiveshttp://themeyers.org/HomeRoast/index.htm

22) From: Rich
What you seem to be missing here is with a ridgid container the inert gas (N2 or CO2) covers and 
protects the beans.  The "air" is displaced by the inert gas.  That is what all of this "more dense" talk 
is about.  Even if disterbed by spooning out beans as long as the heavy gas is not "poured" out of the 
jar it will return to covering the beans.  This means that 2 or 3 inches of beans in a quart mason jar 
initially full of inert gas will protect the beans as long as you are carefull and the lid does not have to 
be air tight either.  This means that one of the plastic storage screw caps will work fine.  How to get 
the beans out of the jar.  Find an old table spoon or small serving spoon, bend bowl at 90 degrees to 
handle,  use is now obvious.  If you place the beans in the jar when freshly roasted and still warm 
they will make all of the inert gas you need.
--Original Message Text---
From: an iconoclast
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 23:57:31 -0700
On 8/1/07, Scott Marquardt  wrote: Argh.
I won't question whether the method works well for you -- especially if you go through your beans fast. 
But the way you said something there reflects what I'm reading elsewhere in this thread: "may not be 
completely airtight, but they are very close." My contention would be that saying it that way is missing 
the point IF you end up with a substantial volume of that container being empty for any significant 
period of time. 
My point is simply made with a question: what good is an airtight container if in having it airtight one 
thing you're doing is locking in a healthy amount of oxygen? That's that empty space I yammer about. 
I actually have 4 sizes of containers and, being slightly anal, as soon as I can fit the beans in a 
smaller container, I move them to a smaller container. We roast every week, so beans don't sit long. If 
I could get a better rubber or silicone seal to make it even more airtight, I would, but I'm NOT going to 
get my vac sealer plugged in, pull out the hose, hook it up, push down the latch, wait for the machine 
to seal the canister and undo what I just did for EVERY pot of coffee.  I'd hate it and I'd be gritting my 
teeth every time I did it.  I do use a Vacuvin for ground coffee at work and am willing to use the hand 
pump for 20 secs twice a day, but I just can't be THAT anal....I try to modify my type A-ness to prevent 
dying from a heart attack...so I do the best I can. 
Take care,
Ann
-- 
Sweet Maria's list searchable archiveshttp://themeyers.org/HomeRoast/index.htm

23) From: Scott Marquardt
I realize this is the theory, but there's been as much discussion of how
brownian motion (etc.) defeats this arrangement. To the extent that there's
mixing when scooping out beans, you're not going to have separation again. I
do not consider it a risk to my health to lie in a ditch (though I
infrequently do, though many may not believe that), despite the prospects of
CO2 pooling there.
In short, although I'd like to believe this claim, I do doubt it. Perhaps
it's the dismal existential Scandinavian in me, or perhaps it's how I'm
always looking over my shoulder for Murphy. Not sure.    ;-)
On 8/2/07, Rich  wrote:
<Snip>

24) From: Michael I
As the improbability of this approaches the infinite, we can use this
equation to calculate it:
However, you will need a good Brownian motion generator to power your
calculating device, or Infinite Improbability Drive, whichever you've got.
As I'm fresh out of tea, it will have to be coffee - I'll go make a nice hot
cup.
-AdkMike  
From: homeroast-admin
[mailto:homeroast-admin] On Behalf Of Scott Marquardt
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 11:38 AM
To: homeroast
Subject: Re: ziplock bags (was Re: +Mason jar lids with quality degas
valves)
I realize this is the theory, but there's been as much discussion of how
brownian motion (etc.) defeats this arrangement. To the extent that there's
mixing when scooping out beans, you're not going to have separation again. I
do not consider it a risk to my health to lie in a ditch (though I
infrequently do, though many may not believe that), despite the prospects of
CO2 pooling there. 
In short, although I'd like to believe this claim, I do doubt it. Perhaps
it's the dismal existential Scandinavian in me, or perhaps it's how I'm
always looking over my shoulder for Murphy. Not sure.    ;-) 

25) From: Rich
Well, Scott, I would say that you have already made up your mind as to what you want to do here.
--Original Message Text---
From: Scott Marquardt
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 10:38:17 -0500
I realize this is the theory, but there's been as much discussion of how brownian motion (etc.) defeats 
this arrangement. To the extent that there's mixing when scooping out beans, you're not going to have 
separation again. I do not consider it a risk to my health to lie in a ditch (though I infrequently do, 
though many may not believe that), despite the prospects of CO2 pooling there. 
In short, although I'd like to believe this claim, I do doubt it. Perhaps it's the dismal existential 
Scandinavian in me, or perhaps it's how I'm always looking over my shoulder for Murphy. Not sure.    
;-) 
On 8/2/07, Rich  wrote: What you seem to be missing here is with a ridgid container 
the inert gas (N2 or CO2) covers and protects the beans. The "air" is displaced by the inert gas. That is what all of this 
"more dense" talk is about. Even if disterbed by spooning out beans as long as the heavy gas is not "poured" out of the 
jar it will return to covering the beans. This means that 2 or 3 inches of beans in a quart mason jar initially full of 
inert gas will protect the beans as long as you are carefull and the lid does not have to be air tight either. This means 
that one of the plastic storage screw caps will work fine. How to get the beans out of the jar. Find an old table spoon or 
small serving spoon, bend bowl at 90 degrees to handle, use is now obvious. If you place the beans in the jar when 
freshly roasted and still warm they will make all of the inert gas you need. 
--Original Message Text---
From: an iconoclast
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 23:57:31 -0700 
On 8/1/07, Scott Marquardt < scott.marquardt> wrote: Argh.
I won't question whether the method works well for you -- especially if you go through your beans fast. But the way 
you said something there reflects what I'm reading elsewhere in this thread: "may not be completely airtight, but 
they are very close." My contention would be that saying it that way is missing the point IF you end up with a 
substantial volume of that container being empty for any significant period of time. 
My point is simply made with a question: what good is an airtight container if in having it airtight one thing you're 
doing is locking in a healthy amount of oxygen? That's that empty space I yammer about. 
I actually have 4 sizes of containers and, being slightly anal, as soon as I can fit the beans in a smaller container, I 
move them to a smaller container. We roast every week, so beans don't sit long. If I could get a better rubber or 
silicone seal to make it even more airtight, I would, but I'm NOT going to get my vac sealer plugged in, pull out the 
hose, hook it up, push down the latch, wait for the machine to seal the canister and undo what I just did for EVERY 
pot of coffee. I'd hate it and I'd be gritting my teeth every time I did it. I do use a Vacuvin for ground coffee at work and 
am willing to use the hand pump for 20 secs twice a day, but I just can't be THAT anal....I try to modify my type A-ness 
to prevent dying from a heart attack...so I do the best I can. 
Take care,
Ann
-- 
Sweet Maria's list searchable archiveshttp://themeyers.org/HomeRoast/index.htm

26) From: Scott Marquardt
Aargh!
Yes! As I said, I'm an opinionated party responding to someone else's
inquiries. I'm gratuitously tossing my own skepticism and advocacy into the
discussion. It's not in the least remarkable that I've made up my mind.
That's not a secret that needs ferreting out.
No ill will from me, but I don't understand the significance of your
observation. I could be convinced otherwise by evidence that CO2 pools, but
I've read enough threads in enough forums that dispute this claim, that it
would be an existential leap of faith in the face of contrary experience
were I to grant credence to the notion without further examination. Yes, I'm
opinionated -- but on the merits of deference to the experience of a lot of
other people. I'm not the expert here -- I'm the learner. But being taught
-- in my case -- means becoming convinced of things on the basis of evidence
or really good argument.
You may not be aware how much I'd like to believe the "pooling CO2" theory.
It was to my disappointment, in times past, that I've read experience to the
contrary. I'm interested in what is the case, though, not what I want to be
the case.
Two cents.
- Scott
On 8/2/07, Rich  wrote:
<Snip>

27) From: Edward Rasmussen
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
Well, this discussion lead me to conduct a little science experiment in
my basement coffee lab.  I have two quart mason jars of coffee that I
roasted more than a week ago.  One jar has been sitting, unused, with
about one and a half inches of air space from the top of the beans to
the rim of the jar.  This jar has had a lid sitting on it, but not
tightened so as to allow gases to escape without building up pressure.
The other jar I have, once or twice a day,  been scooping beans out of
gently so as not to stir the gases up in the jar.  
 
I just went down and opened the "in use" jar, lit a match and lowered it
into the jar until it was an inch or so above the surface of the beans.
The match continued to burn brightly.  Then I lit a match and started to
lower it into the jar that I have not been dipping from yet.  The match
extinguished the instant it got below the rim of the jar.  I would
assume that as long as the beans are still out gassing, the beans will
be protected from the oxygen, but after they have stopped out gassing,
three or four days?, even gentle scooping will eventually stir up the
atmosphere in the jar so that oxygen will be introduced.  
 
Perhaps the beans below the surface level will still have some degree of
protection, I don't know.  To protect these "in use" beans that are no
longer out gassing, you'd probably need to introduce canned carbon
dioxide or nitrogen as has already been suggested
 
Don't try this experiment at home, boys and girls, without asking your
mother's permission.  Mr. coffee science will not be responsible for any
home fires resulting from these tests.
 
Ed
From: Scott Marquardt [mailto:scott.marquardt] 
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 9:38 AM
To: homeroast
Subject: Re: ziplock bags (was Re: +Mason jar lids with quality degas
valves)
	I realize this is the theory, but there's been as much
discussion of how brownian motion (etc.) defeats this arrangement. To
the extent that there's mixing when scooping out beans, you're not going
to have separation again. I do not consider it a risk to my health to
lie in a ditch (though I infrequently do, though many may not believe
that), despite the prospects of CO2 pooling there. 
	 
	In short, although I'd like to believe this claim, I do doubt
it. Perhaps it's the dismal existential Scandinavian in me, or perhaps
it's how I'm always looking over my shoulder for Murphy. Not sure.
;-) 
	
	 
		
		On 8/1/07, Scott Marquardt < scott.marquardt
 > wrote: Argh.
		
		I won't question whether the method works well for you
-- especially if you go through your beans fast. But the way you said
something there reflects what I'm reading elsewhere in this thread: "may
not be completely airtight, but they are very close." My contention
would be that saying it that way is missing the point IF you end up with
a substantial volume of that container being empty for any significant
period of time. 
		
		My point is simply made with a question: what good is an
airtight container if in having it airtight one thing you're doing is
locking in a healthy amount of oxygen? That's that empty space I yammer
about. 
		
		I actually have 4 sizes of containers and, being
slightly anal, as soon as I can fit the beans in a smaller container, I
move them to a smaller container. We roast every week, so beans don't
sit long. If I could get a better rubber or silicone seal to make it
even more airtight, I would, but I'm NOT going to get my vac sealer
plugged in, pull out the hose, hook it up, push down the latch, wait for
the machine to seal the canister and undo what I just did for EVERY pot
of coffee. I'd hate it and I'd be gritting my teeth every time I did it.
I do use a Vacuvin for ground coffee at work and am willing to use the
hand pump for 20 secs twice a day, but I just can't be THAT anal....I
try to modify my type A-ness to prevent dying from a heart attack...so I
do the best I can. 
		
		Take care,
		Ann
		
		
		

28) From: Scott Marquardt
That's a pretty good start in terms of empirical examination of the
situation. Thank you!
- Scott
On 8/2/07, Edward Rasmussen  wrote:
<Snip>

29) From: Rich
CO2 and/or N2 does indeed pool, or go to the bottom in an "air" CO2 mixture unless you introduce air 
currents or differential heating.  You may not believe it and that is indeed your choice.  The pooling of 
CO2 in air is a very well demonstrated phenomena and, is also a well known industrial safety hazard, 
causes death in most cases.
--Original Message Text---
From: Scott Marquardt
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 11:21:59 -0500
Aargh!
Yes! As I said, I'm an opinionated party responding to someone else's inquiries. I'm gratuitously tossing 
my own skepticism and advocacy into the discussion. It's not in the least remarkable that I've made up 
my mind. That's not a secret that needs ferreting out. 
No ill will from me, but I don't understand the significance of your observation. I could be convinced 
otherwise by evidence that CO2 pools, but I've read enough threads in enough forums that dispute this 
claim, that it would be an existential leap of faith in the face of contrary experience were I to grant 
credence to the notion without further examination. Yes, I'm opinionated -- but on the merits of 
deference to the experience of a lot of other people. I'm not the expert here -- I'm the learner. But 
being taught -- in my case -- means becoming convinced of things on the basis of evidence or really 
good argument. 
You may not be aware how much I'd like to believe the "pooling CO2" theory. It was to my 
disappointment, in times past, that I've read experience to the contrary. I'm interested in what is the 
case, though, not what I want to be the case. 
Two cents. 
- Scott
On 8/2/07, Rich  wrote: Well, Scott, I would say that you have already made up your 
mind as to what you want to do here. 
--Original Message Text---
From: Scott Marquardt
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 10:38:17 -0500 
I realize this is the theory, but there's been as much discussion of how brownian motion (etc.) defeats this 
arrangement. To the extent that there's mixing when scooping out beans, you're not going to have separation again. 
I do not consider it a risk to my health to lie in a ditch (though I infrequently do, though many may not believe that), 
despite the prospects of CO2 pooling there. 
In short, although I'd like to believe this claim, I do doubt it. Perhaps it's the dismal existential Scandinavian in me, 
or perhaps it's how I'm always looking over my shoulder for Murphy. Not sure. ;-) 
On 8/2/07, Rich  wrote: What you seem to be missing here is with a ridgid container the 
inert gas (N2 or CO2) covers and protects the beans. The "air" is displaced by the inert gas. That is what all of this 
"more dense" talk is about. Even if disterbed by spooning out beans as long as the heavy gas is not "poured" out of the 
jar it will return to covering the beans. This means that 2 or 3 inches of beans in a quart mason jar initially full of 
inert gas will protect the beans as long as you are carefull and the lid does not have to be air tight either. This means 
that one of the plastic storage screw caps will work fine. How to get the beans out of the jar. Find an old table spoon or 
small serving spoon, bend bowl at 90 degrees to handle, use is now obvious. If you place the beans in the jar when 
freshly roasted and still warm they will make all of the inert gas you need. 
--Original Message Text---
From: an iconoclast
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 23:57:31 -0700 
On 8/1/07, Scott Marquardt < scott.marquardt> wrote: Argh.
I won't question whether the method works well for you -- especially if you go through your beans fast. But the way 
you said something there reflects what I'm reading elsewhere in this thread: "may not be completely airtight, but 
they are very close." My contention would be that saying it that way is missing the point IF you end up with a 
substantial volume of that container being empty for any significant period of time. 
My point is simply made with a question: what good is an airtight container if in having it airtight one thing you're 
doing is locking in a healthy amount of oxygen? That's that empty space I yammer about. 
I actually have 4 sizes of containers and, being slightly anal, as soon as I can fit the beans in a smaller container, I 
move them to a smaller container. We roast every week, so beans don't sit long. If I could get a better rubber or 
silicone seal to make it even more airtight, I would, but I'm NOT going to get my vac sealer plugged in, pull out the 
hose, hook it up, push down the latch, wait for the machine to seal the canister and undo what I just did for EVERY 
pot of coffee. I'd hate it and I'd be gritting my teeth every time I did it. I do use a Vacuvin for ground coffee at work and 
am willing to use the hand pump for 20 secs twice a day, but I just can't be THAT anal....I try to modify my type A-ness 
to prevent dying from a heart attack...so I do the best I can. 
Take care,
Ann
-- 
Sweet Maria's list searchable archiveshttp://themeyers.org/HomeRoast/index.htm

30) From: True, Dennis W. FC1 (CVN69)
42 the answer is 42 I'm sure of it!

31) From: Rich
Once out gassing has stopped the removal of beans from a jar that is full to the top will end up 
introducing air which might contact the beans.  In your case it seems to have done so.
--Original Message Text---
From: Edward Rasmussen
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 10:23:04 -0600
Well, this discussion lead me to conduct a little science experiment in my basement coffee lab.  I have two quart mason jars of coffee 
that I roasted more than a week ago.  One jar has been sitting, unused, with about one and a half inches of air space from the top of 
the beans to the rim of the jar.  This jar has had a lid sitting on it, but not tightened so as to allow gases to escape without building up 
pressure.  The other jar I have, once or twice a day,  been scooping beans out of gently so as not to stir the gases up in the jar.   
I just went down and opened the "in use" jar, lit a match and lowered it into the jar until it was an inch or so above the surface of the 
beans.  The match continued to burn brightly.  Then I lit a match and started to lower it into the jar that I have not been dipping from 
yet.  The match extinguished the instant it got below the rim of the jar.  I would assume that as long as the beans are still out 
gassing, the beans will be protected from the oxygen, but after they have stopped out gassing, three or four days?, even gentle 
scooping will eventually stir up the atmosphere in the jar so that oxygen will be introduced.   
Perhaps the beans below the surface level will still have some degree of protection, I don't know.  To protect these "in use" beans that 
are no longer out gassing, you'd probably need to introduce canned carbon dioxide or nitrogen as has already been suggested 
Don't try this experiment at home, boys and girls, without asking your mother's permission.  Mr. coffee science will not be responsible 
for any home fires resulting from these tests. 
Ed 
From: Scott Marquardt [mailto:scott.marquardt] 
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 9:38 AM
To: homeroast
Subject: Re: ziplock bags (was Re: +Mason jar lids with quality degas valves)
I realize this is the theory, but there's been as much discussion of how brownian motion (etc.) defeats this arrangement. To the extent 
that there's mixing when scooping out beans, you're not going to have separation again. I do not consider it a risk to my health to lie in 
a ditch (though I infrequently do, though many may not believe that), despite the prospects of CO2 pooling there. 
In short, although I'd like to believe this claim, I do doubt it. Perhaps it's the dismal existential Scandinavian in me, or perhaps it's how 
I'm always looking over my shoulder for Murphy. Not sure.    ;-) 
On 8/1/07, Scott Marquardt < scott.marquardt> wrote: Argh.
I won't question whether the method works well for you -- especially if you go through your beans fast. But the way 
you said something there reflects what I'm reading elsewhere in this thread: "may not be completely airtight, but 
they are very close." My contention would be that saying it that way is missing the point IF you end up with a 
substantial volume of that container being empty for any significant period of time. 
My point is simply made with a question: what good is an airtight container if in having it airtight one thing you're 
doing is locking in a healthy amount of oxygen? That's that empty space I yammer about. 
I actually have 4 sizes of containers and, being slightly anal, as soon as I can fit the beans in a smaller container, I 
move them to a smaller container. We roast every week, so beans don't sit long. If I could get a better rubber or 
silicone seal to make it even more airtight, I would, but I'm NOT going to get my vac sealer plugged in, pull out the 
hose, hook it up, push down the latch, wait for the machine to seal the canister and undo what I just did for EVERY 
pot of coffee. I'd hate it and I'd be gritting my teeth every time I did it. I do use a Vacuvin for ground coffee at work and 
am willing to use the hand pump for 20 secs twice a day, but I just can't be THAT anal....I try to modify my type A-ness 
to prevent dying from a heart attack...so I do the best I can. 
Take care,
Ann

32) From: Rich
I would hazard a guess that in the process of extracting beans from the storage container you are 
introducing some "air".  It all depends on how you do this bean removal operation.  The cylinder is 
probably acrylic plastic.  The beans will change flavor over time even in an inert atmosphere.  The 
change will be much less and occour over a longer time period when compared to beans stored in a 
non inert atmosphere.
--Original Message Text---
From: Peter Z
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 09:52:09 -0700
Okay,
I am not an expert either, and my taster leaves a lot to be desired. BUT
I usually roast about 680 Gr at a time in my air roaster that recirculates air and smoke :( some say.
When the roast is finished I dump it into a large plexiglas? cylinder with a silicon seal and a latch lid.
There it sits on the counter with a coffee scoop in it, and coffee is scooped daily for about a week.
We never pour out the CO2 nor do we go out of our way to add O2. We just scoop and reseal.
The beans change flavor over the time that we use them.
Now, could this change be due to the chemical reaction that happens within the bean as it ages and 
eventually gets to it's sweet spot? No matter how you store it?
Or is it staling?
I contend that the beans will change flavor over time, a bit, no matter how you store them. Yup, they 
will probably get pretty gross if you just leave them lying flat on the counter for 10 days or so, but ....
HTH
PeterZ
Roasting in 116F degree weather, here in LHC, AZ
Scott Marquardt wrote: Aargh!
Yes! As I said, I'm an opinionated party responding to someone else's inquiries. I'm gratuitously tossing 
my own skepticism and advocacy into the discussion. It's not in the least remarkable that I've made up 
my mind. That's not a secret that needs ferreting out. 
No ill will from me, but I don't understand the significance of your observation. I could be convinced 
otherwise by evidence that CO2 pools, but I've read enough threads in enough forums that dispute this 
claim, that it would be an existential leap of faith in the face of contrary experience were I to grant 
credence to the notion without further examination. Yes, I'm opinionated -- but on the merits of 
deference to the experience of a lot of other people. I'm not the expert here -- I'm the learner. But 
being taught -- in my case -- means becoming convinced of things on the basis of evidence or really 
good argument. 
You may not be aware how much I'd like to believe the "pooling CO2" theory. It was to my 
disappointment, in times past, that I've read experience to the contrary. I'm interested in what is the 
case, though, not what I want to be the case. 
Two cents. 
- Scott
On 8/2/07, Rich  wrote: Well, Scott, I would say that you have already made up your 
mind as to what you want to do here. 
--Original Message Text---
From: Scott Marquardt
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2007 10:38:17 -0500 
I realize this is the theory, but there's been as much discussion of how brownian motion (etc.) defeats this 
arrangement. To the extent that there's mixing when scooping out beans, you're not going to have separation again. 
I do not consider it a risk to my health to lie in a ditch (though I infrequently do, though many may not believe that), 
despite the prospects of CO2 pooling there. 
In short, although I'd like to believe this claim, I do doubt it. Perhaps it's the dismal existential Scandinavian in me, 
or perhaps it's how I'm always looking over my shoulder for Murphy. Not sure. ;-) 
On 8/2/07, Rich  wrote: What you seem to be missing here is with a ridgid container the 
inert gas (N2 or CO2) covers and protects the beans. The "air" is displaced by the inert gas. That is what all of this 
"more dense" talk is about. Even if disterbed by spooning out beans as long as the heavy gas is not "poured" out of the 
jar it will return to covering the beans. This means that 2 or 3 inches of beans in a quart mason jar initially full of 
inert gas will protect the beans as long as you are carefull and the lid does not have to be air tight either. This means 
that one of the plastic storage screw caps will work fine. How to get the beans out of the jar. Find an old table spoon or 
small serving spoon, bend bowl at 90 degrees to handle, use is now obvious. If you place the beans in the jar when 
freshly roasted and still warm they will make all of the inert gas you need. 
--Original Message Text---
From: an iconoclast
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 23:57:31 -0700 
On 8/1/07, Scott Marquardt < scott.marquardt> wrote: Argh.
I won't question whether the method works well for you -- especially if you go through your beans fast. But the way 
you said something there reflects what I'm reading elsewhere in this thread: "may not be completely airtight, but 
they are very close." My contention would be that saying it that way is missing the point IF you end up with a 
substantial volume of that container being empty for any significant period of time. 
My point is simply made with a question: what good is an airtight container if in having it airtight one thing you're 
doing is locking in a healthy amount of oxygen? That's that empty space I yammer about. 
I actually have 4 sizes of containers and, being slightly anal, as soon as I can fit the beans in a smaller container, I 
move them to a smaller container. We roast every week, so beans don't sit long. If I could get a better rubber or 
silicone seal to make it even more airtight, I would, but I'm NOT going to get my vac sealer plugged in, pull out the 
hose, hook it up, push down the latch, wait for the machine to seal the canister and undo what I just did for EVERY 
pot of coffee. I'd hate it and I'd be gritting my teeth every time I did it. I do use a Vacuvin for ground coffee at work and 
am willing to use the hand pump for 20 secs twice a day, but I just can't be THAT anal....I try to modify my type A-ness 
to prevent dying from a heart attack...so I do the best I can. 
Take care,
Ann
-- 
Sweet Maria's list searchable archiveshttp://themeyers.org/HomeRoast/index.htm
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. 
Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.11.2/933 - Release Date: 8/2/2007 2:22 PM

33) From: Justin Marquez
From an industrial safety standpoint, you must assume that ANY confined
space entry represents a special hazard and must always be treated as a
lethal hazard. Very special preparation, equipment and procedures must be
followed to prevent injury and death.
A large confined space with a small opening to the outside and  filled with
CO2 or N2 will certainly remain hazardous for some time. Eventually,
brownian motion will even it out to the atmosphere, but with no agitation or
flow induction it will take a while.
A quart-sized Mason jar has a much larger relative opening and is much more
subject to air infiltration when you open it.  While it is closed, brownian
motion will eventually even out the composition inside. The CO2 will not
stay at the bottom forever.  If the molecules were so easily separated by
gravity, it wouldn't require a big cryogenic gas processing facility to
separate the components of air. Or to separate the components in a natural
gas stream, etc.
I actually participated in installing and running a test system which
actually tried to do that - to separate gas molecules through induced
centrifugal forces. The inventor of the system was trying to separate CO2
from methane - about a 2x difference in density. It did not work. (The same
thing works marvelously well for separating LIQUIDS from GASES.)
Safe Journeys and Sweet Music
Justin Marquez (CYPRESS, TX)
On 8/2/07, Rich  wrote:
<Snip>
--

34) From: Michael I
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
Undoubtedly correct.but what's the Question?  
From: homeroast-admin
[mailto:homeroast-admin] On Behalf Of True, Dennis W.
FC1 (CVN69)
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 12:44 PM
To: homeroast
Subject: RE: ziplock bags (was Re: +Mason jar lids with quality degas
valves)
42 the answer is 42 I'm sure of it!

35) From: Michael I
Since when does age have anything to do with appreciation of fine
literature?

36) From: True, Dennis W. FC1 (CVN69)
Nope the answer to that is 38!

37) From: Michael I
To bring things back on topic -- I wonder if I could make a Pan Galactic
Gargle Blaster using coffee instead of the Santraginus V seawater...
Oh, and for confirmation of Dennis' answer, ask this of Google calculator:
"the answer to life, the universe, and everything".  If Google says it, it
must be True (sorry for the pun, Dennis, but I'm sure Douglas would
approve).
-AdkMike

38) From: True, Dennis W. FC1 (CVN69)
Almost as sweet as Gorgon Poetry to my ears!
Dennis
Oh, and for confirmation of Dennis' answer, ask this of Google
calculator: "the answer to life, the universe, and everything".  If
Google says it, it must be True (sorry for the pun, Dennis, but I'm sure
Douglas would approve).
-AdkMike

39) From: True, Dennis W. FC1 (CVN69)
Vogon I can't type and talk any more!!!!
ACK!!!

40) From: Larry Johnson
After reading approximately 67 entries to this thread, I've decided to
encase each bean in a 3" cube of lucite and be done with it.
On 8/2/07, True, Dennis W. FC1 (CVN69)  wrote:
<Snip>
-- 
Larry J
The greatest pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do.  -
Walter Bagehot

41) From: Brett Mason
No No No Larry - that's too easy.  You must endure more.  Imagine the vast
learning we are gaining!
Has anyone considered wrapping the beans in aluminum foil, then inserting
into a ziplock, which is then placed in a Mason Jar, then inside a vacuum
cleaner, and then encased in lucite?
Please opine.  Inquiring minds want to know....
Brett
On 8/2/07, Larry Johnson  wrote:
<Snip>
-- 
Cheers,
Bretthttp://homeroast.freeservers.com

42) From: Aaron
If not lucite, you can encase it in acrylic, and make a book end out of it.
Aaron

43) From: Dan Bollinger
Uh, Lucite is a acrylic.  Lucite and Plexiglas are both registered trademarks 
for the plastic resin named acrylic.
<Snip>

44) From: Larry Johnson
Don't forget to put it in the freezer.
On 8/2/07, Brett Mason  wrote:
<Snip>
-- 
Larry J
The greatest pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do.  -
Walter Bagehot

45) From: Scott Marquardt
Actually, the best thing would be to follow the "whole home" trend in water
filtration and so forth, and have a "whole home" nitrogen flooding system.
Instead of segregating the beans from the atmosphere in the home, the
denizens would be separated (wearing a hood with air tanks).
The beans could just be entirely exposed, lying about everywhere.
Optionally, air conditioners could freeze the home as well.
On 8/2/07, Larry Johnson  wrote:
<Snip>

46) From: David Martin
That's a really excellent idea, but people already think I'm
unhealthily obsessed with coffee as it is. I think for now I'll just
stick with mason jars and not worry about it. :-)
On 8/2/07, Scott Marquardt  wrote:
<Snip>

47) From: raymanowen
"At first, used mason jars, but saw the value of allowing the CO2 to
escape..."
Hmmm- I guess I'm slow. Educate me how I'm misusing the Mason jars and lids,
and how much better the coffee will taste if I do something differently- I'm
drooling already!
The seven square inches of lid piston area within the seal diameter make it
a trick for me every time I try to withdraw beans without letting any of the
compressible, pressurized gas escape.
Just like dipping macaroni out of boiling water, you'd have to try to dip
beans out of the CO2 and exchange much more than the volume of beans. Only
slightly more hassle than not spilling the hot water after cooking macaroni.
Exercise minimal care and enjoy coffee fresh out of a puddle of CO2.
If you open the lid and don't get a puff of aroma out of it, I hope the
beans are about gone because they are past fresh. All the beans are headed
that way once they are roasted and pass the sweet age.
Cheers -RayO, aka Opa!
Roast early and roast often

48) From: raymanowen
Brownian motion explains Brownian motion.
 wrote:
<Snip>
-- 
"When the theme hits the bass, I dance the Jig!" - -Virgil Fox at the Mighty
Wichita (ex- NYC Paramount) WurliTzer- 1976


HomeRoast Digest