The Physics of the Perfect Pour Over
Arnold Mathijssen, a physicist at the University of Pennsylvania, is partial to pour-over coffee, which involves manually pouring hot water over ground beans and filtering it into a pot or mug below. Surely, he figured, applying the principles of fluid dynamics to the process could make it even better.
With two students of similar mind, Dr. Mathijssen began studying how to optimize the pour in a pour over. Their science-backed advice: Pour high, slow and with a steady stream of water. This ensures the greatest extraction from minimal grounds, enhancing the coffee's flavor without added beans or cost.
The findings, published this month in the journal Physics of Fluids, highlight how processes that unfold in the kitchen — from making foie gras to whipping up a plate of cacio e pepe — can inspire new scientific directions. In turn, science can enhance the art of cuisine.
'Kitchen science starts off with a relatively low entry barrier,' Dr. Mathijssen said. 'But it's more than just cute. Sometimes fundamental things can come out of it.'
Dr. Mathijssen primarily studies the physics of biological flows, such as the way bacteria swim upstream in blood vessels. But when he lost access to his lab during the Covid-19 shutdown, he started playing with his food — literally. He shook up bottles of whiskey, tested the stickiness of pasta and slid coins down slopes made of whipped cream and honey. The interest culminated in a 77-page review, structured like a menu, of the physics involved in making a meal.
'It got totally out of hand,' Dr. Mathijssen said. 'You just realize science is everywhere.'
Dr. Mathijssen has since returned to the lab, but the passion for kitchen physics has stuck. The coffee study was partly inspired by a scientist in his group who kept detailed notes about pour-over brews prepared in the lab each day. The notes included information about where the beans had come from, the extraction time and the brew's flavor profile.
Ernest Park, a graduate student in the lab, designed a formal experiment. Using silica gel beads in a glass cone, the scientists simulated the action of water being poured over coffee grounds from different heights, recording the dynamics of the system with a high-speed camera.
Then they brewed pots of real coffee, pouring from a gooseneck kettle, at varying heights. The resulting liquid was allowed to evaporate in an oven until all that remained were the coffee particles extracted from the grounds.
They found that more coffee particles remained when they had poured slowly, which increased the time the water was in contact with the grounds. Holding the kettle higher helped with the mixing, preventing the water from draining along the sides, between the grounds and the filter.
This type of flow caused what the researchers described as an avalanche effect. The water eroded the center of the pile of coffee grounds, thus suspending some of the grains, which settled and built up on the sides. Eventually, the sides collapsed inward and the process started again. This increased the flavor extracted from the coffee grounds, but only as long as the water was allowed to flow continuously.
'Your jet of water coming out should look like a smooth column all the way down,' said Margot Young, a graduate student — and former barista — involved in the study. 'If you see it starting to break up, or you can see droplets, then you have to pour from lower down.'
The scientists conducted informal taste tests, although these did not make it into the final publication. 'Taste-wise, it's very subjective,' Mr. Park said. 'So we always suggest that you try it yourself.'
Mr. Park noted that the study examined only water poured into the center of the coffee grounds, although future experiments could explore other techniques, like making swirls or spirals.
Scientific phenomena observed in the kitchen typically have analogues outside its walls. The dynamics between a jet of hot water and a bed of coffee grains, for instance, are similar to the erosion of land that can occur around waterfalls and dams. A stirred pot of soup assumes the same shape as the liquid mirrors of some telescopes. Observations of soap bubbles by Agnes Pockels, a 19th-century German homemaker, gave rise to the field of surface science and laid the groundwork for nanotechnology.
In 2022, Dr. Mathijssen helped assemble an array of studies, produced by scientists around the world, into a collection called Kitchen Flows. He is now helping compile a second collection, which so far consists of more than 30 studies, including insights into the behavior of an egg yolk, the sloshing of a bottle of beer and the most efficient way to boil pasta.
Dr. Mathijssen also plans to continue exploring the many paths to perfect coffee, such as the physics behind the formation of the milk and espresso layers in a latte. 'I want to do some more work in this direction,' he said. 'And then maybe also something about cold brews.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
10 hours ago
- Yahoo
We're within 3 years of reaching a critical climate threshold. Can we reverse course?
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. In June, more than 60 climate scientists warned that the remaining "carbon budget" to stay below a dire warming threshold will be exhausted in as little as three years at the current rate of emissions. But if we pass that critical 1.5-degree-Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) warming threshold, is a climate catastrophe inevitable? And can we do anything to reverse that temperature rise? Although crossing the 1.5 C threshold will lead to problems, particularly for island nations, and raise the risk of ecosystems permanently transforming, the planet won't nosedive into an apocalypse. And once we rein in emissions, there are ways to slowly bring temperatures down if we wind up crossing that 1.5 C threshold, experts told Live Science. Still, that doesn't mean we should stop trying to curb emissions now, which is cheaper, easier and more effective than reversing a temperature rise that has already happened, Michael Mann, a leading climate scientist and director of the Center for Science, Sustainability and the Media at the University of Pennsylvania, told Live Science in an email. "Every fraction of a degree of warming that we prevent makes us better off," Mann said. Delayed response A report released June 19 found that the world has only 143 billion tons (130 billion metric tons) of carbon dioxide (CO2) left to emit before we likely cross the 1.5 C target set in the Paris Agreement, which was signed by 195 countries to tackle climate change. We currently emit around 46 billion tons (42 billion metric tons) of CO2 per year, according to the World Meteorological Organization. The world is currently 1.2 C (2.2 F) warmer than the preindustrial average, with almost all of this increase in temperature due to human activities, according to the report. But our emissions may have had an even bigger warming impact that has so far been masked, because the ocean has soaked up a lot of excess heat. The ocean will release this extra heat over the next few decades via evaporation and direct heat transfer regardless of whether we curb emissions, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). This means that even if carbon emissions dropped to zero today, global temperatures would continue to rise for a few decades, with experts predicting an extra 0.5 C (0.9 F) of warming from oceans alone. However, temperatures would eventually stabilize as heat radiated out to space. And over several thousand years, Earth would dial temperatures back down to preindustrial levels via natural carbon sinks, such as trees and soils absorbing CO2, according to NOAA. Why 1.5 C? Climate scientists see 1.5 C as a critical threshold: Beyond this limit, levels of warming are unsafe for people living in economically developing countries, and particularly in island nations, said Kirsten Zickfeld, a professor of climate science at Simon Fraser University in Canada. The 1.5 C limit is "an indicator of a state of the climate system where we feel we can still manage the consequences," Zickfeld told Live Science. A huge amount of additional heat could be baked into the ocean and later released if we exceed 1.5 C, which is another reason why scientists are worried about crossing this threshold. Speeding past 1.5 C also increases the risk of passing climate tipping points, which are elements of the Earth system that can quickly switch into a dramatically different state. For example, the Greenland Ice Sheet could suddenly tumble into the ocean, and the Amazon rainforest could transform into a dry savanna. Reversing temperature rise Although it's best to reduce emissions as quickly as we can, it may still be possible to reverse a temperature rise of 1.5 C or more if we pass that critical threshold. The technology needed isn't quite developed yet, so there is a lot of uncertainty about what is feasible. If we do start to bring temperatures down again, it would not undo the effects of passing climate tipping points. For example, it would not refreeze ice sheets or cause sea levels to fall after they've already risen. But it would significantly reduce risks for ecosystems that respond more quickly to temperature change, such as permafrost-covered tundras. Reversing temperature rise requires not just net zero emissions, but net negative emissions, Zickfeld said. Net zero would mean we sequester as much CO2 via natural carbon sinks and negative emissions technologies as we emit. Negative emissions would require systems that suck carbon out of the atmosphere and then bury it underground — often known as carbon capture and storage. Net zero may halt warming. But if we want to reverse warming, we must remove more carbon from the atmosphere than we emit, Zickfield said. Scientists estimate that 0.1 C (0.2 F) of warming is equivalent to 243 billion tons (220 billion metric tons) of CO2, which is a "massive amount," Zickfeld said. "Let's say if we go to 1.6 C [2.9 F] and we want to drop down to 1.5 C — we need to remove around 220 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide." Currently, nature-based carbon-removal techniques, such as planting trees, sequester around 2.2 billion tons (2 billion metric tons) of CO2 each year. "So we need to scale that up by a factor of 100 to drop us down by 0.1 C" in one year, Zickfeld said. Due to competing demands for land, it is highly unlikely that we could plant enough forests or restore enough peatland to meaningfully reverse temperature change, Zickfeld said. This means we will definitely need negative emissions technologies, she said. However, most negative emissions technologies are still being tested, so it's difficult to say how effective they would be, Zickfeld said. These technologies are also extremely expensive and will likely remain so for a long time, Robin Lamboll, a climate researcher at Imperial College London and a co-author of the recent report, told Live Science in an email. "In practice we will be doing quite well if we find that the rollout of these technologies does any more than bring us to net zero," Lamboll said. There is some uncertainty about how Earth might respond to net zero, and it's possible that the planet might cool at that point. "If we cool at all, we do so very slowly. In a very optimistic case we might go down by 0.3 C [0.5 F] in 50 years," Lamboll said. RELATED STORIES —2 billion people could face chaotic and 'irreversible' shift in rainfall patterns if warming continues —Climate wars are approaching — and they will redefine global conflict —Kids born today are going to grow up in a hellscape, grim climate study finds There is no requirement under the Paris Agreement for countries to roll out negative emissions technologies. But the goal of the agreement to stay well below 2 C (3.6 F) means that governments may decide to ramp up these technologies once we pass 1.5 C, Lamboll said. Figures from the recent report indicate that at the current rate of emissions, the remaining carbon budgets to stay below 1.6 C, 1.7 C (3.1 F) and 2 C could be used up within seven, 12 and 25 years, respectively. "If we do pass 1.5 C, 1.6 C is a whole lot better than 1.7 C, and 1.7 C is a whole lot better than 1.8 C [3.2 F]," Mann said in an interview with BBC World News America in June. "At this point, the challenge is to reduce carbon emissions as quickly as we can to avert ever-worse impacts." It's worth noting that the world is making progress with emission cuts, Mann added in the interview. "Let's recognize that we're starting to turn the corner," he said. Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Nor'easters have become 20% more destructive in the last 80 years, scientists warn
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. The strongest nor'easters — a type of North Atlantic storm that can produce devastating impacts along the U.S. East Coast — appear to be intensifying as the world warms, a new study finds. Researchers found that the maximum wind speeds and hourly precipitation rates of the strongest nor'easters have increased since 1940. The trends identified have "profound implications" for people living across the eastern coast of North America, given that these storms bring damaging winds, heavy snowfall and significant coastal flooding, the researchers reported in a paper published July 14 in the journal PNAS. "While there is no apparent trend in the average intensity of nor'easters, we found that the strongest nor'easters — which do the most damage and have the most impact — are indeed getting stronger," study co-author Michael Mann, a presidential distinguished professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Science at the University of Pennsylvania, told Live Science. Nor'easters are a type of extratropical cyclone (ETC) — storms that originate outside the tropics — that form along the U.S. East Coast, particularly during late fall through early spring. These storms often cause severe damage and societal disruption because they tend to pass over densely populated regions, such as the Boston, New York and Washington, D.C. metro areas. Some of the most infamous nor'easters include the "Perfect Storm" in 1991; the "Storm of the Century" in 1993, one of the deadliest of these events on record, which claimed 208 lives; "Snowmageddon" in 2010; and the January 2018 blizzard. Related: La Niña is dead — what that means for this year's hurricanes and weather Given the potential consequences, it is crucial to understand how nor'easters are changing in response to human-caused climate change, the authors said. Yet nor'easters have traditionally received far less attention from climate researchers than tropical cyclones have. And while there is a general consensus among climate scientists that ETCs will likely decline in frequency as arctic warming decreases the temperature gradient between polar and subtropical regions, there is less agreement regarding potential changes in the future intensity of these storms. In an attempt to address some of these outstanding issues and challenges, Mann and colleagues set out to create a "virtual atlas" of nor'easters that could serve as a reliable historical database of these storms, he told Live Science. The study involved applying a cyclone-tracking algorithm to a climate dataset covering the period from 1940 to the present. Using this approach, the team identified 900 nor'easters over this period — an average of around 11 per year. The researchers then looked at trends over time, focusing on two key storm characteristics: intensity, as measured by peak sustained winds, and the average precipitation per hour. They found only a very small, statistically insignificant increase in the average intensity of all nor'easters over the study period. But among the strongest storms specifically, the authors observed a trend of increasing intensity over time — and the stronger the storm, the more pronounced that trend appeared. For the most intense nor'easters — those in the top 1% — the researchers observed an increase over the 85-year study period from peak wind speeds of around 69 mph (111 km/h) to roughly 74 mph (119 km/h). This is an increase of about 6 percent, which might seem modest — but Mann said it corresponds to a "sizable" increase of roughly 20% in the destructive potential of these storms. The trends the researchers observed regarding intensity and precipitation rates among the strongest nor'easters have likely been driven by increases in ocean temperatures and the higher capacity of a warming atmosphere to hold moisture, according to the researchers. Allison Michaelis, an assistant professor in the Department of Earth, Atmosphere, and Environment at Northern Illinois University who was not involved in the PNAS study, told Live Science that the latest research adds "important" context regarding historical nor'easter trends. "Previous studies that have examined nor'easters, or East Coast storms more generally, are more limited in scope," she said. "The most practical implication, as noted by the authors, is the potential for an increased risk of coastal flooding along the East Coast," which would directly impact people, property and infrastructure in the region. Counterintuitively, stronger nor'easters may also raise the possibility of increased winter cold-air outbreaks in inland regions along the U.S. East Coast. This is because these storms can pull cold air down from the North, as was the case in the Mid-Atlantic region with the January 2018 blizzard. RELATED STORIES —Nor'easter could drop a foot of snow on New England —Behemoth Snowstorm Watched by Satellites As It Hits US Northeast —'Bomb cyclone' set to bring blizzards and hurricane-force winds to the Northeast on Friday: Here's why. "The potential for greater likelihood of future super-nor'easters, akin to the 1993 Storm of the Century and Feb 2010 Snowmaggedon … portends prospects of paralyzing snowfalls, dangerous storm surges, and episodic cold extremes, underscoring the urgent need for coordinated efforts to assess and mitigate the devastating impacts of future such storms," the authors wrote in the paper. Edmund Chang, a professor in the School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences at Stony Brook University who was not involved with the study, told Live Science the latest research was largely well conducted, with the data supporting the conclusions. Previous studies published by Chang and colleagues have predicted that there will be an increase in the intensity of storms close to the northeastern U.S. under warming, meaning the number of strong storms is projected to increase over that region. "The results of [the PNAS] paper are consistent with those projections, but might suggest that the proposed increase in storm intensity over this region is appearing earlier than climate models predict," Chang said.
Business Wire
3 days ago
- Business Wire
Feinstein Institutes Researchers Find COVID-19 Vaccine Boosters Offer Significant Protection for Cancer Patients
BUSINESS WIRE)--Approximately 81 percent of the U.S. population received at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, and now, researchers from Northwell Health's Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research found that COVID-19 vaccine booster shots provide important protection against severe COVID-19 illness with hospitalization for people living with cancer. The retrospective cohort study, published today in JAMA Oncology, observed over 70,000 patients across four U.S. health systems — including Northwell — and examined the effectiveness of both the monovalent (original) and bivalent (updated) COVID-19 boosters. They found that both boosters significantly reduced COVID-19 hospitalizations. 'COVID-19 vaccines can offer another layer of protection for individuals navigating cancer treatment,' said James M. Crawford, MD, PhD, professor in the Institute of Health System Sciences at the Feinstein Institutes and co-PI of the study. 'This research provides critical information for doctors and patients making decisions about COVID-19 vaccination, especially for vulnerable groups.' The study showed that the both the monovalent and bivalent boosters reduced hospitalizations for whom by nearly 30 percent. While these boosters were effective, the study also revealed a concerning trend: booster uptake among cancer patients was lower than expected, with 69 percent receiving the monovalent booster and only 38 percent receiving the bivalent booster. 'Dr. Crawford and his team's research provides vital knowledge that could help protect the health and well-being of immunocompromised people, like those living with cancer,' said Ping Wang, MD, professor and chief scientific officer and senior vice president at the Feinstein Institutes. 'This study highlights the value of vaccination, particularly for those most vulnerable to serious illnesses.' The study also compared the effectiveness of the boosters in cancer patients to their effectiveness in people without compromised immune systems. While the percentage reduction in hospitalizations was similar between the two groups, the number of people who needed to be vaccinated to prevent a single hospitalization was much smaller for cancer patients. About the Feinstein Institutes The Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research is the home of the research institutes of Northwell Health, the largest health care provider and private employer in New York State. Encompassing 50+ research labs, 3,000 clinical research studies and 5,000 researchers and staff, the Feinstein Institutes raises the standard of medical innovation through its six institutes of behavioral science, bioelectronic medicine, cancer, health system science, molecular medicine, and translational research. We are the global scientific leader in bioelectronic medicine – an innovative field of science that has the potential to revolutionize medicine. The Feinstein Institutes publishes two open-access, international peer-reviewed journals Molecular Medicine and Bioelectronic Medicine. Through the Elmezzi Graduate School of Molecular Medicine, we offer an accelerated PhD program. For more information about how we produce knowledge to cure disease, visit and follow us on LinkedIn.
