Personal computing discussed
Moderators: askfranklin, renee, emkubed, Captain Ned
whm1974 wrote:That's funny, how did you find that?
whm1974 wrote:Stevia tastes completely nasty to me. Splenda is the best low-calorie sweetener.I only had to put two packets of Stevia in instead of three or four.
ludi wrote:whm1974 wrote:Why would anyone even drink that that?
I'm told the civet is a finicky critter that only eats the best coffee cherries on the bush. Then the acids and enzymes in their G.I. tract, having stripped away the cherry flesh for digestion, have a pleasant effect on the seed's character.
I've never tried it myself. But I have tried many varieties of something that a yeast culture ate and peed out, generally with pleasant results.
whm1974 wrote:ludi wrote:whm1974 wrote:Why would anyone even drink that that?
I'm told the civet is a finicky critter that only eats the best coffee cherries on the bush. Then the acids and enzymes in their G.I. tract, having stripped away the cherry flesh for digestion, have a pleasant effect on the seed's character.
Even so people who buy this stuff are literally drinking expensive Sh*t.
Kretschmer wrote:I'm going to hijack this travesty of this thread to ask if there is any decaffeinated brand that can compare to bold dark caffeinated coffee. I try and manage caffeine intake but miss that intoxicating taste.
CO2 process
This process has been referred to as CO2 Method, Liquid Carbon Dioxide Method, and Supercritical Carbon Dioxide method but it is technically known as supercritical fluid extraction.
The supercritical CO2 acts selectively on the caffeine, releasing the alkaloid and nothing else. Water-soaked coffee beans are placed in an extraction vessel. The extractor is then sealed and supercritical CO2 is forced into the coffee at pressures of 1,000 pounds per square inch (about 69 bar) to extract the caffeine.[3] The CO2 acts as the solvent to dissolve and draw the caffeine from the coffee beans, leaving the larger-molecule flavor components behind. The caffeine-laden CO2 is then transferred to another container called the absorption chamber where the pressure is released and the CO2 returns to its gaseous state and evaporates, leaving the caffeine behind.[3] The caffeine is removed from the CO2 using charcoal filters, and the caffeine free CO2 is pumped back into a pressurized container for reuse on another batch of beans. This process has the advantage that it avoids the use of potentially harmful substances. Because of its cost, this process is primarily used to decaffeinate large quantities of commercial-grade, less-exotic coffee found in grocery stores.[3]
Kretschmer wrote:I'm going to hijack this travesty of this thread to ask if there is any decaffeinated brand that can compare to bold dark caffeinated coffee. I try and manage caffeine intake but miss that intoxicating taste.
Aether wrote:Kretschmer wrote:I'm going to hijack this travesty of this thread to ask if there is any decaffeinated brand that can compare to bold dark caffeinated coffee. I try and manage caffeine intake but miss that intoxicating taste.
While I have had decaf that I would call good, I have never had any with the same flavor complexity as bold dark caffeinated coffee.
JustAnEngineer wrote:Stevia tastes completely nasty to me. Splenda is the best low-calorie sweetener.
Aether wrote:Kretschmer wrote:I'm going to hijack this travesty of this thread to ask if there is any decaffeinated brand that can compare to bold dark caffeinated coffee. I try and manage caffeine intake but miss that intoxicating taste.
While I have had decaf that I would call good, I have never had any with the same flavor complexity as bold dark caffeinated coffee.
Chuckaluphagus wrote:Aether wrote:Kretschmer wrote:I'm going to hijack this travesty of this thread to ask if there is any decaffeinated brand that can compare to bold dark caffeinated coffee. I try and manage caffeine intake but miss that intoxicating taste.
While I have had decaf that I would call good, I have never had any with the same flavor complexity as bold dark caffeinated coffee.
I'm with Aether on this - I have a back of good decaf beans on the shelf that I will be making use of in an hour or so for my afternoon cup. It's from a local roaster, Barismo. It makes a good cup of coffee, and the best decaf I've ever had, but it's not quite as good as the morning cup of medium dark roast.
whm1974 wrote:If you don't want the caffeine, then why drink coffee? Oh and by the way, decaff still does have some caffeine in it.
Chuckaluphagus wrote:whm1974 wrote:If you don't want the caffeine, then why drink coffee? Oh and by the way, decaff still does have some caffeine in it.
Because coffee tastes good? I mean, that's why I drink it in the first place: I like the taste and the fact that it's a hot beverage. The caffeine is welcome, but not necessary. And I've found that a cup of regular coffee in the afternoon or evening leads me to staying awake later at night, which I don't necessarily want. Therefore, decaf in the afternoon.
And while there is a trace amount of caffeine remaining in decaf, by law it has to be so small as to have no effect.
Redocbew wrote:400 milligrams is an often quoted value for the safe daily allowance of caffeine. Do the math, and you'd need to be drinking a bucket of decaf coffee everyday in order to get anywhere near that much in your system. Even then, you'd have to down the buckets pretty quickly to sustain that amount before it gets metabolized out.
Chuckaluphagus wrote:Redocbew wrote:400 milligrams is an often quoted value for the safe daily allowance of caffeine. Do the math, and you'd need to be drinking a bucket of decaf coffee everyday in order to get anywhere near that much in your system. Even then, you'd have to down the buckets pretty quickly to sustain that amount before it gets metabolized out.
Pfft. LD50 or nothing.
(Before anyone even thinks I'm serious - do not test the LD50 figures.)
whm1974 wrote:Chuckaluphagus wrote:Redocbew wrote:400 milligrams is an often quoted value for the safe daily allowance of caffeine. Do the math, and you'd need to be drinking a bucket of decaf coffee everyday in order to get anywhere near that much in your system. Even then, you'd have to down the buckets pretty quickly to sustain that amount before it gets metabolized out.
Pfft. LD50 or nothing.
(Before anyone even thinks I'm serious - do not test the LD50 figures.)
I think with caffeine a healthy human would have to consume multiple grams of the stuff in a day just to reach intoxication much less LD50. With coffee, tea,and most sodas, that is almost impossible unless you are also downing pills with them.
Chuckaluphagus wrote:In case you're thinking of putting this to the test, the estimate (because we can't test it to be certain) for human LD50 that I read years ago is 2500 mg -- 2.5 g -- or 250 mg/kg of body weight, whichever comes first. That is very easily achievable with a combination of beverages and caffeine pills, so please, don't mess around with it.
Chuckaluphagus wrote:whm1974 wrote:Chuckaluphagus wrote:
I think with caffeine a healthy human would have to consume multiple grams of the stuff in a day just to reach intoxication much less LD50. With coffee, tea,and most sodas, that is almost impossible unless you are also downing pills with them.
In case you're thinking of putting this to the test, the estimate (because we can't test it to be certain) for human LD50 that I read years ago is 2500 mg -- 2.5 g -- or 250 mg/kg of body weight, whichever comes first. That is very easily achievable with a combination of beverages and caffeine pills, so please, don't mess around with it.
Captain Ned wrote:Chuckaluphagus wrote:In case you're thinking of putting this to the test, the estimate (because we can't test it to be certain) for human LD50 that I read years ago is 2500 mg -- 2.5 g -- or 250 mg/kg of body weight, whichever comes first. That is very easily achievable with a combination of beverages and caffeine pills, so please, don't mess around with it.
You're short a zero in your total mass measurement for a 100kg person.
Chuckaluphagus wrote:Captain Ned wrote:Chuckaluphagus wrote:In case you're thinking of putting this to the test, the estimate (because we can't test it to be certain) for human LD50 that I read years ago is 2500 mg -- 2.5 g -- or 250 mg/kg of body weight, whichever comes first. That is very easily achievable with a combination of beverages and caffeine pills, so please, don't mess around with it.
You're short a zero in your total mass measurement for a 100kg person.
It was "whichever came first," meaning that 2.5 g of caffeine taken at once was the hypothetical LD50 for a human regardless of body mass.
Redocbew wrote:LD50 is the estimated dose that will kill half of the people for which it is given. If you're not part of that half, then lucky you, but it's still a very very bad idea.
