Heated iced tea?

simu

Has anyone tried this? I suspect it would be a little bit different from standard heated once only tea.

Or maybe triple heated iced-tea à la whiskey. (à la as in "in the manner of", not "with", although now that I mention it...)

Shabadu

Well, I have on occasion been too impatient for it to ice, so had a warm cup of tea with crushed mint, honey, and slices of lemon and orange. It was yum.

But I have never re-heated iced-tea.

Gordon

Heated ice tea?! Isn't that called "Tea"?

If I made ice tea it would be with sugar or honey and lemon. Like the mint idea though.

Saruman

I think he means if you make ice tea, once its chilled then re-heat it. The chemical process of re-heating might in theory make it taste different to a noral cup of tea!

Never tried it though.. send it in to Braniac and see if they whisk you away in their van to try it out.

Blub2k4

Saruman wrote:

The chemical process of re-heating might in theory make it taste different to a noral cup of tea!

Heating is not a "chemical process" but a physical one, heat tends to speed up chemical reactions. The only thing the heat would do is to change the flavour by heating up oils that would otherwise be tasteless if solidified, like stuff that is left in the fridge, sometimes to get its full flavour you have to let it warm up to room temperature.
That statement hurt my brain.

Shabadu

Then again Blub, you must notice that re-heated coffee tastes completely different to its first percolation? Do you know what this calls for? Scientific experimentation! Lets all experiment this weekend and come back with the results. I'm fascinated to see if there is a difference now.

Saruman

Exactly shabadu.. i have NEVER had a re-heated anything that tastes the same!! EVER!!!!

I have in fact re-heated cold tea/coffee and its very different.

I said chemical process for lack of better description. It may have justification even since we are not talking about water, we are talking about tea which has got chemicals in it i.e polyphenols So chemical process is pretty valid i think.
Im also not a scientist so can be forgiven for my ignorance if this is still incorrect.

simu

Yes - I will experiment with this soon. I'm going to try reheating my green tea as I have no ice tea at home atm and I don't want to reheat black tea because I put milk in it and that might be a bit gross.

Blub2k4

Saruman wrote:

Im also not a scientist so can be forgiven for my ignorance if this is still incorrect.

Not really when you have already been corrected, that is called wallowing in ignorance, anyway that is a side point

Shabadu

Blub! He is not wallowing in ignorance, he brought up a fairly valid point.

Maybe the heat doesn't cause the chemical change, but there must have been a chemical change for the taste to alter.

Simu, let's get nesf's opinion on the chemical side of all this?

Blub2k4

Saruman wrote:

The chemical process of re-heating might in theory make it taste different to a noral cup of tea!

This is BS, quite simply, it is a physical process.

Saruman wrote:

It may have justification even since we are not talking about water, we are talking about tea which has got chemicals in it i.e polyphenols So chemical process is pretty valid i think.

The clarification does not go deep enough to make any of this correct.
If you said that the reheating may help to speed up a chemical reaction that was already taking place, or it imparted enough energy to do anything apart from just rewarming the chemical components.
I think that the tea has cooled and started to go off, milk souring and various chemical processes taking place to do with tea that sits a bit longer, all the heat will do is possibly speed some processes up but more than likely just reheat oils.

In any case, heating is not a chemical process and no amount of pseudo science will make it such.

Saruman

Blub, i smell a muppet.. we are talking about Tea here Get off your high horse and calm down! Do i care if its a physical process or a chemical process? Not a bit.

Aside from that, i do know that Boiling and heating of chemicals is used to form chemical reactions. Everyone knows this.... Stick something in a tube, put under a bunsen burner and i dont know.. add somethign else, see what happens.. the point is heat is used and something happens... Its a chemical reaction...

Are you a scientist or just some muppet who is a "know it all"?? I mean im possibly and probably wrong.. but to be dismissed so out of hand by someone who clearly has no eral insight is not something i care for.

If someone who actually knows for absolute certain because its what they do every day and they are a chemist or do something with chemistry then by all means if they say im wrong, then im wrong. I dont care.. it was not even the point of this discussion till you hijacked the thread and threw accusations of ignorance around.
You did not contribute one thing to this other than to badmouth me.. Get a life and a new hobby that does not involve thread spoiling.

Shabadu

Let's not get personal guys, keep it civil.

nesf

Heating isn't a chemical process, Blub is correct. It is a physical process, though it can lead to chemical processes but this doesn't make it a chemical process in itself.


But I really don't see the point of this within this discussion. We are talking about taste here, and one should know that taste is a very complicated thing. Cooling something down and then reheating it can change the taste of something.

There's no need to get into the science of exactly why this is so, on here. If you want to do so on Physics/Chemistry then I'd be interested in reading the discussion. I really have not done enough chemistry (or food science) study on this area to comment with any great certainty. Chemistry wise my areas of interest were in Physical Chemistry which isn't very concerned with taste and the mechanics behind it. I could tell you a lot about the structural changes happening in the water while it's cooled and reheated though

Blub2k4

Saruman wrote:

Blub, i smell a muppet.. we are talking about Tea here Get off your high horse and calm down! Do i care if its a physical process or a chemical process? Not a bit.

Aside from that, i do know that Boiling and heating of chemicals is used to form chemical reactions. Everyone knows this.... Stick something in a tube, put under a bunsen burner and i dont know.. add somethign else, see what happens.. the point is heat is used and something happens... Its a chemical reaction...

Are you a scientist or just some muppet who is a "know it all"?? I mean im possibly and probably wrong.. but to be dismissed so out of hand by someone who clearly has no eral insight is not something i care for.

If someone who actually knows for absolute certain because its what they do every day and they are a chemist or do something with chemistry then by all means if they say im wrong, then im wrong. I dont care.. it was not even the point of this discussion till you hijacked the thread and threw accusations of ignorance around.
You did not contribute one thing to this other than to badmouth me.. Get a life and a new hobby that does not involve thread spoiling.

It's quite simple, you were talking ****e, albeit in a light hearted manner on a thread about tea, I pulled up an inaccuracy and now I am the muppet? (mildly pedantic I concede)

I dont get it, I was right the first time Shabadu, it wasn't wallowing however it was revelling in ignorance, trumpeting his thickness if you like.

Since when did personal abuse become ok here?

<edit> To Saruman: there is no need to be a scientist to know that heating something is not a chemical process,it's not rocket science to most people. I had a Thomas Salter science set when I was ten that is when I learned it, does that count?

Saruman

Blub2k4 wrote:

Since when did personal abuse become ok here?

Thats the point!! Regardless if you are right in your statement or not... You are, like it was pointed out correct. Thats fine. I on many occasions conceded i was probably wrong.

It was this statement that, and in fact another poster objected to: "Not really when you have already been corrected, that is called wallowing in ignorance, anyway that is a side point"

Thats a personal attack, that is what i objected to.

Later i went on to try and explain what i meant. Even support it slightly on the off chance i was actually right. I was not, thats fine i concede that and did not care.

Yet again though you used a statement in your last post "trumpeting his thickness if you like."

Are you serious? You think because i did not know boiling tea is a physical process not a chemical one that i am thick?

Thats the sort of thing that irritates me, you do not know me nor anything about me. You ask me how to Install and configure a firewall. Setup a server, remove a virus/spyware, recover lost data... then i will answer you and show you how thick i am.

I just dont understand how a simple discussion about tea turned into a personal attack on me and a science debate at the same time. It all started when i used the word "Chemical" instead if "physical"... everyone knew what i meant, no harm done till you had to take it further.

After you corrected me the first time i went on to explain what i meant. That was fine. no hard feelings.. you then came back with your "wallowing in ignorance" statement. There was no need for it, it was not even on topic. It was just personal.

So Blub if i in some way offended you to cuase this attack then i am sorry, i appologise. Lets leave it at that please. Just try and be a little more understanding in future that posting personal things like that about a poster can and will cause stuff like this to happen.

Sorry to go on about it and drag the thread off topic.

Anyway did anyone look into this more? Why does re-heating tea make it different?

nesf

I don't think it's valid for someone to expect someone to use the correct scientific language on this thread.

Rubbing someone's face in it and making it into some kind of "competition" over who is right is childish. There was absolutely no need for the wallowing in ignorance comment. That was pure trolling mate. You were correct, you should have left it at that or put forward a reasonable explanation of what the situation was.

Just saying "You're wrong!!" and leaving it at that is not exactly helpful imho. If you are going to correct someone on a scientific topic, the very least you could do is explain why they were wrong and link them to some useful information on the topic. Help them learn. Saruman probably didn't know what a "chemical process" means scientifically. It was an honest mistake in my eyes. And since we're not on a Chemistry board then it doesn't really matter. He was using descriptive terms not scientific ones. That is perfectly acceptable on a Food/Drink forum to my mind.


Anyways, back on topic....

Iced Tea to Tea? I'd personally think it'd be too diluted to stand up as a cuppa after reheating. I'd venture that unless you made extremely strong iced tea to begin with (ie not very drinkable) then the reheated tea would be so weak that even the smallest drop of milk would make it "not tea".

Then I like a nice strong cup of tea, so I'm horribly biased here.

Blub2k4

Ok enough with the flames,It's back to Sarumans discourse on "The effects cooling and reheating have on a cop of tea viz a viz tea straight from the pot, a pseudo scentific analysis based on atomic whatsits and thermothingies."

And it's back to you Professor Saruman.

Shabadu

Blub2k4 wrote:

Since when did personal abuse become ok here?

Oh dear, the irony is stunning.

You can consider yourself warned.