
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


Bloomberg
23 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Other Nations Move Toward Making Their Own Vaccines as US Cuts Funding
At least a dozen countries are interested in developing their own vaccines because they're losing confidence that the US government will have immunizations ready for the next pandemic, a top biotech investor said. Other nations have largely depended on the US to make shots that are deployed globally. The Covid-19 vaccines, developed by Pfizer Inc. and Moderna Inc. and embraced by the US government, were used by tens of millions of people around the world.

Politico
3 hours ago
- Politico
Bhattacharya and Kennedy split on mRNA cuts
AROUND THE AGENCIES National Institutes of Health Director Jay Bhattacharya is making the case that mRNA vaccine technology is 'promising, but not yet ready for prime time.' He cites a lack of public trust in the technology as the reason his boss, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.,recently canceled $500 million in mRNA vaccine development projects. Bhattacharya weighed in on Kennedy's decision in a conversation over the weekend with Steve Bannon, the longtime Trump ally and prominent MAGA figure, on Bannon's 'War Room' podcast: 'The reason that he did that — and I think it's very important for people to understand — as far as public health goes for vaccines, the mRNA platform is no longer viable,' Bhattacharya said. 'You can't have a platform where such a large fraction of the population distrusts the platform, if you're going to use it for vaccines, and expect it to work.' But, but, but: Kennedy, who has long been suspicious of the mRNA vaccine platform, offered an explanation for the funding cuts that contradicts Bhattacharya's reasoning. 'After reviewing the science and consulting top experts at NIH and FDA, HHS has determined that mRNA technology poses more risk than benefits for these respiratory viruses,' Kennedy said in a video posted on social media last week, referring to Covid-19 and flu mRNA vaccines. Big picture: Scientists and drugmakers worry that Kennedy's skepticism of mRNA could stifle cancer treatment developments, our Lauren Gardner reports. mRNA technology can instruct the immune system to attack problem proteins, so it holds promise as a customized treatment for rare cancers and diseases. As such, dozens of mRNA therapies are being studied or are in the drug-development pipeline. Bhattacharya seemed aware of the technology's use beyond flu and Covid vaccines. After telling Bannon that mRNA technology wasn't ready for widespread vaccine use, he added: 'For cancer, maybe it's another story.' WELCOME TO FUTURE PULSE This is where we explore the ideas and innovators shaping health care. A swarm of jellyfish shut down reactors at a French nuclear power station, Ketrin Jochecová, our POLITICO colleague in Europe, reports. Share any thoughts, news, tips and feedback with Ruth Reader at rreader@ or Erin Schumaker at eschumaker@ Want to share a tip securely? Message us on Signal: RuthReader.02 or ErinSchumaker.01. OPERATING ROOM A large-scale study of New York's Mount Sinai Health System suggests that artificial intelligence could help emergency departments better handle their patient loads. In the study, researchers from Mount Sinai trained an AI model on 1.8 million emergency department visits between January 2019 and December 2023. Then they tested the model by comparing it with two months' worth of nurse triage assessments of nearly 50,000 patient visits across the system's urban and suburban hospitals. The result: Nurse predictions were 81.6 percent accurate, while the AI model's assessments were 85.4 percent accurate. The study, published in the journal Mayo Clinic Proceedings: Digital Health in July, had a few limitations, the authors noted, including that the research was conducted at a single health system over a short time span. Outcomes might differ in another setting, and longer-term trends could yield different results. Bird's eye view: 'The strength of this approach is its ability to turn complex data into timely, actionable insights for clinical teams — freeing them up to focus less on logistics and more on delivering the personal, compassionate care that only humans can provide,' Dr. Eyal Klang, study co-author and director of the Generative AI Research Program at Mount Sinai, said in a statement.


Los Angeles Times
11 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
RFK Jr.'s cancellation of mRNA vaccine research is even worse than it first seemed
On first glance, the data that Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. cited to justify canceling some $500 million in federal grants for mRNA vaccine research looked impressive. The data, according to the agency, were embodied in some 400 research papers listed in a compilation that ran to 181 pages. The document was headlined 'COVID-19 mRNA 'vaccine' harms research collection.' 'After reviewing the science and consulting top experts at NIH and FDA,' Kennedy said on a video posted on X, referring to the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration, 'HHS has determined that mRNA technology poses more risk than benefits' for respiratory viruses such as COVID-19 and flu. 'We reviewed the science, listened to the experts, and acted,' he wrote in an accompanying post. Is that so? A close look at the so-called data reveals that the vast majority of the cited papers — all but about 40 — have little or nothing to do with the vaccines. They concern the consequences of COVID-19 infection, not the shots. Many of the papers that do reference the vaccines are studies not of human subjects, but laboratory mice; in some of these studies the mice received the vaccines via injections directly into the brain or intravenously, which is not how people receive the vaccines. What's also important is the lack of evidence supporting the agency's claims. The data packet fails to include well-researched studies attesting to the safety and efficacy of the mRNA vaccines, including some published very recently. Among those is an exhaustive study by Danish researchers of more than 1 million recipients of the latest mRNA COVID booster, published July 28. That study investigated the incidence of 29 potential adverse side effects from the vaccine, including heart, liver and kidney failure; neurological conditions; diabetes; and arthritis. It found 'no statistically significant risk' of any of them from the vaccine. That includes myocarditis, an inflammation of the heart muscle that is often cited by anti-vaccine agitators as a dangerous side effect of the mRNA vaccines. That condition was most commonly seen among young men, particularly if they had received two shots within a short time span. But for the most part it was mild and short-term; once the booster was reformulated after 2022, the effect appeared to disappear. No deaths from the condition were known to have occurred, and myocarditis effects were more common and serious among unvaccinated people infected with COVID. Nor did the agency's data packet include an estimate of lives saved by the COVID vaccines, led by Stanford epidemiologist John P.A. Ioannidis and published July 25. That study calculated that from the beginning of the global vaccination campaign in 2020 through September 2024 as many as 4 million lives were saved by the vaccines. Ioannidis acknowledged that his estimate is 'conservative.' Indeed, in 2022 the Commonwealth Fund estimated that in just the first two years the vaccines were available, the shots prevented more than 18 million hospitalizations and more than 3 million COVID-related deaths in the U.S. alone. A 2022 study in The Lancet, a British medical journal, estimated as many as 20 million COVID-related lives saved around the world in just the first year of vaccination. Weigh those figures against Kennedy's assertion that the mRNA vaccines pose 'more risks than benefits,' and it becomes evident that decision-making has gone seriously awry at the Department of Health and Human Services under Kennedy's leadership. To Jake Scott, an infectious disease expert at Stanford Medical School who painstakingly examined the agency's data citations, they point to 'textbook confirmation bias'—the quest for information that confirms someone's preexisting beliefs. In this case, that someone is Kennedy, whose record of anti-vaccine advocacy is indisputable. The mismatch between the data packet cited by Kennedy and the established facts of the vaccines' safety and efficacy explain why Kennedy's cancellation of 22 contracts supporting mRNA vaccine research has been greeted by experts as a senseless and devastating blow against science and public health. 'I have have been in this business for over 50 years on the front lines of public health,...and I can say unequivocally that this was the most dangerous public health decision I have ever seen made by a government body,' Michael Osterholm, an expert in infectious diseases at the University of Minnesota, told PBS. At the very least, if Kennedy is so convinced that the effects mRNA vaccines are not sufficiently well-understood, the solution is more research, not less. I asked Kennedy's department to respond to criticism of his decision, but received no response. A few words about the mRNA technology. Using messenger RNA as an intermediary in their actions, the vaccines instruct the body how to manufacture parts of a pathogen that its immune system can recognize and fight. For immunologists, the virtues of the new technology are manifest. Vaccines to combat new pathogens or new versions of existing pathogens can be engineered quickly, allowing them to be rolled out to stifle pandemics before they even emerge. The potential utility of mRNA vaccines is unprecedentedly broad. The possible targets under study today — including in some of the research contracts Kennedy cancelled — include flu, HIV, hepatitis C, malaria, tuberculosis, and cancer, Drew Weissman of the University of Pennsylvania and other scientists told Nature in 2021. Weissman shared the Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine with Katalin Karikó in 2023 for their work on mRNA vaccines. In the U.S., the development of the mRNA COVID vaccine was sponsored by $2.5 billion in grants and purchase guarantees from the federal government to Moderna, one of the two drugmakers that brought out the COVID vaccines, partially through Operation Warp Speed, an R&D effort under the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, or BARDA. That's the agency that Kennedy has ordered to cancel the mRNA contracts. President Trump bragged about the achievement during his first term, but reversed course after the vaccines became the target of fearmongering from the right-wing and the anti-vaccine camp. Kennedy's video on X explaining his decision was replete with fundamental misconceptions about the vaccines, according to scientists and real-world data. 'As the pandemic showed us, mRNA vaccines don't perform well against viruses that infect the upper respiratory tract,' he said. But that's plainly contradicted by the record of lives saved and hospitalizations averted. Statistics published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which falls under Kennedy's jurisdiction, show that the average weekly COVID case rate in late 2020 was 347.8 per 100,000 population among the unvaccinated, but 25 per 100,000 among the fully vaccinated and boosted population. The weekly average death rate in the same period was 7.8 among the unvaccinated and 0.1 among the vaccinated. He claimed that the vaccines promote the mutation of COVID; 'one mutation, and the vaccine becomes ineffective,' Kennedy said. Neither of those statements is supported by science. 'MRNA vaccines do not cause the virus to mutate — they do that all on their own,' writes Steven Novella, a neurologist and veteran misinformation debunker. 'What causes new variants to arise more quickly is allowing a virus to spread uninhibited throughout a population — the more it replicates, the more opportunities there are for new mutations. Widespread vaccination therefore decreases new mutations and variants.' Moreover, no 'one mutation' causes the vaccines to become ineffective; as vaccinologist Peter Hotez observes, in no known case has a single mutation rendered the vaccine ineffective. Boosters developed for COVID variants have remained relatively effective even as new variants become dominant. Anyway, the virtue of mRNA technology is that the vaccine can be rapidly retooled to meet the challenge of new variants. That brings us to the data package Kennedy's agency offered to defend his decision. It's not the product of U.S. government scientists, although one of its developers, Steven Hatfill, is currently on the HHS staff. Its other chief compilers are identified as Martin Wucher, a dentist ; Byram Bridle, a faculty member at a Canadian veterinary college; and Erik Sass, a nonfiction author. I reached out to all three for comment but received no reply. The compilation originated as material for a book titled 'TOXIC SHOT: Facing the Dangers of the COVID 'Vaccines',' an anthology of essays by prominent anti-vaxxers. The compilation doesn't make the case for canceling the research. A paper listed as support for the myocarditis threat, for example, states, 'no causality can be assumed or established' linking the condition to the vaccine because of the lack of a control group for comparison. 'There is no direct evidence of a vaccine-induced inflammatory response' to the vaccine. Kennedy's action is almost certain to hamstring American science for years, possibly decades, to come. It's the antithesis of Trump's claim to put 'America First,' for it cedes the development of a life-saving medical technology to Europe and China. And it's not limited to the development of vaccines for respiratory diseases. During a recent appearance on a podcast hosted by the right-wing influencer Steve Bannon, the newly-appointed commissioner of the National Institutes of Health, Jay Bhattacharya, declared, 'As far as public health goes for vaccines, the mRNA platform is no longer viable.' Bhattacharya justified this statement by noting a rise in public skepticism about mRNA technology. What he didn't say was that the skepticism was promoted by Kennedy and other anti-vaxxers denigrating the technology; a competent and responsible NIH chief would be defending a technological innovation, not magnifying disinformation about it. The truth is that the mRNA platform is likely to be seen in retrospect as a historic advance in healthcare ... everywhere but in the United States.