4 ms·

This was also discussed on HN a few days ago.[1] [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48552440 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48552440

embedding-shape 3mo ago
I guess that might explain why they had it at such a low temperature (way to low I'd say), as they wanted to make a point about the lower energy consumption? If you wanted it hotter, then it might not actually save energy at all potentially?
- asdff 3mo ago
  Probably best suited for cold drinks where the heat is just purely wasted against the ice and diluting the drink.
  - TheDong 3mo ago
    The heat isn't wasted, it has a significant impact on flavor. Extraction of flavor etc from coffee grounds changes based on the water temperature. You can easily experiment with this by taking some coffee grounds and trying to brew with various temperatures, and noticing what flavors you get out. There's a reason cold-brew needs hours and hours to extract a good coffee flavor while regular espresso or pourover is done in a matter of minutes.
    - SamBam 3mo ago
      > For the espresso samples, participants could not reliably tell the traditional and ultrasonic versions apart. There were no significant differences in aroma, flavour, bitterness or overall liking.
      - appplication 3mo ago
        Yeah, I don’t buy it. Just because you make some claims and say it was scientific doesn’t make it good science. It goes completely against a much wider body of knowledge about organic material extraction, well beyond just coffee.
      - godelski 3mo ago
        There's a lot of variables at play and it's not like we know much about that trial. Also, please see the community guides. Treat comments in good faith (i.e. the strongest interpretation of their comment) and try to encourage productive conversations. IMO just quoting is degenerative to the conversation. Quote, but say more. Put your actual voice in the comment
    - asdff 3mo ago
      That isn't a comparable experiment to what you'd get from sound wave espresso though.

embedding-shape 3mo ago

I guess that might explain why they had it at such a low temperature (way to low I'd say), as they wanted to make a point about the lower energy consumption? If you wanted it hotter, then it might not actually save energy at all potentially?

asdff 3mo ago
Probably best suited for cold drinks where the heat is just purely wasted against the ice and diluting the drink.
- TheDong 3mo ago
  The heat isn't wasted, it has a significant impact on flavor. Extraction of flavor etc from coffee grounds changes based on the water temperature. You can easily experiment with this by taking some coffee grounds and trying to brew with various temperatures, and noticing what flavors you get out. There's a reason cold-brew needs hours and hours to extract a good coffee flavor while regular espresso or pourover is done in a matter of minutes.
  - SamBam 3mo ago
    > For the espresso samples, participants could not reliably tell the traditional and ultrasonic versions apart. There were no significant differences in aroma, flavour, bitterness or overall liking.
    - appplication 3mo ago
      Yeah, I don’t buy it. Just because you make some claims and say it was scientific doesn’t make it good science. It goes completely against a much wider body of knowledge about organic material extraction, well beyond just coffee.
    - godelski 3mo ago
      There's a lot of variables at play and it's not like we know much about that trial. Also, please see the community guides. Treat comments in good faith (i.e. the strongest interpretation of their comment) and try to encourage productive conversations. IMO just quoting is degenerative to the conversation. Quote, but say more. Put your actual voice in the comment
  - asdff 3mo ago
    That isn't a comparable experiment to what you'd get from sound wave espresso though.