DIY Techniques and Tips Part 1: The Art and Science of DIY
DIY is a mixture of art and science.
Art because flavor is subjective. And everyone tastes things differently. And how do we describe much less define flavor? I like Coke, you like Pepsi. Maybe you like Pepsi because to you it tastes like Coke tastes to me, and Coke tastes like .... to you. (I sorta doubt it, Pepsi just tastes like .... period, but it is possible) ;-). What does a Coke or a Pepsi (or ....) taste like though? Obviously a dog likes the taste of ...., never seen a dog yet that would not snarf down a random turd. But the dog can't tell us what it tastes like any better than we can.
Flavor is also very complex. Many common flavor ingredients are truly nasty. Butyric acid is a common flavoring, the pure compound smells like ... crack sweat. Phenylacetic acid, another common flavor, smells like rancid cat piss (never tasted either). However, in trace amounts both can be very pleasant in aroma and taste. So flavoring can become very complex with numerous components added in very minute amounts. The same flavors added at a higher concentration may be completely vile.
Mixtures of flavors also change over time. Everyone knows that chili or spaghetti sauce is not that great when you first make it. It needs to sit in the fridge and then the next day it is good. The culinary term for this is "marriage", the actual process is probably a complex one of blending, aging and chemical changes. Some flavors certainly oxidize over time, this may be good or bad.
Another factor is what exactly is in the flavors obtained from vendors? One "Caramel" brand may be quite different from another vendor's "Caramel".
So, with so many complexities and so many unknowns, is this a random process that is chaotic and depends on sheer luck? Absolutely not!
Let's distinguish between a couple of different types of scientific methods. The classical Newtonian method is you observe some phenomenon, study it and devise a hypothesis (often with some very complex mathematics invoked). Then you devise an experiment that hopefully either supports or refutes your hypothesis. And repeat. That does not work here. First of all there is no mathematical relationship available that allows you to predict a final flavor, hypothesize the required mix, then create it and confirm it is the Nectar of the Gods.
There is another approach - the empirical method. In this case, you perform experiments first, observe the outcomes, and build on that. Empirical methods rely heavily on some point of reference. For example, what does vanilla taste like? Well, uhh, vanilla. That is not very formal or descriptive. However if you put a hundred vanilla milkshakes and a hundred chocolate milkshakes in front of a hundred people, most maybe not all but almost all people can immediately tell you "This one is vanilla and this one is chocolate". So if you put vanilla in a mix, you can reasonably predict there will be some vanilla taste in the final product.
You build your frame of reference by experimentation and observation.
The empirical method necessarily implies there is a considerable amount of trial and error. That does not mean it is a chaotic process that depends solely on luck. You have frames of references, and you expand and refine them by further experimentation. That is a scientific technique.
The second component of the empirical process is careful technique and detailed records of what you do. If you don't know what you did, you do not build any frames of reference. And when you finally find your Holy Grail of vapors, if you did not use good technique and keep careful records, you will not easily be able to mix it again.
The empirical method is no less scientific than the Newtonian method if done properly. It is in many respects the same thing from the opposite direction. You formulate an experiment (and your experiments will become more and more methodical as you gain experience - increase your useful reference points), then you observe the phenomenon - the resulting taste. Then you may formulate some basic hypotheses, like "Too much coffee" etc.
A very useful technique in empirical science is control of variables. A simple example will illustrate. Formulate a simple mix with one tobacco flavor, and base. Observe the taste. Then add one component, say vanilla. Observe the new taste. Then you may want to make a third mix with more vanilla. Observe the taste. This will build your frame of reference of, for example what to your tastes is "good" and what is "too much vanilla".
So there is a method, not a madness, although you can expect many failures and it takes patience and perseverance.
However you must firmly grasp the critical foundation behind empirical science: You are designing an experiment and then observing the phenomenon. If your experimental technique is poor, and you do not keep detailed and accurate records, you are not developing useful points of reference, the phenomenon you observe is not the result of a careful experiment, and when you finally get that perfect taste, in this case it was simply luck, because if your technique and records are poor you don't really know what you actually did, and you will not be able to reproduce it.
Technique and records, those are the keys!
So next part, technique, technique, technique!
DIY is a mixture of art and science.
Art because flavor is subjective. And everyone tastes things differently. And how do we describe much less define flavor? I like Coke, you like Pepsi. Maybe you like Pepsi because to you it tastes like Coke tastes to me, and Coke tastes like .... to you. (I sorta doubt it, Pepsi just tastes like .... period, but it is possible) ;-). What does a Coke or a Pepsi (or ....) taste like though? Obviously a dog likes the taste of ...., never seen a dog yet that would not snarf down a random turd. But the dog can't tell us what it tastes like any better than we can.
Flavor is also very complex. Many common flavor ingredients are truly nasty. Butyric acid is a common flavoring, the pure compound smells like ... crack sweat. Phenylacetic acid, another common flavor, smells like rancid cat piss (never tasted either). However, in trace amounts both can be very pleasant in aroma and taste. So flavoring can become very complex with numerous components added in very minute amounts. The same flavors added at a higher concentration may be completely vile.
Mixtures of flavors also change over time. Everyone knows that chili or spaghetti sauce is not that great when you first make it. It needs to sit in the fridge and then the next day it is good. The culinary term for this is "marriage", the actual process is probably a complex one of blending, aging and chemical changes. Some flavors certainly oxidize over time, this may be good or bad.
Another factor is what exactly is in the flavors obtained from vendors? One "Caramel" brand may be quite different from another vendor's "Caramel".
So, with so many complexities and so many unknowns, is this a random process that is chaotic and depends on sheer luck? Absolutely not!
Let's distinguish between a couple of different types of scientific methods. The classical Newtonian method is you observe some phenomenon, study it and devise a hypothesis (often with some very complex mathematics invoked). Then you devise an experiment that hopefully either supports or refutes your hypothesis. And repeat. That does not work here. First of all there is no mathematical relationship available that allows you to predict a final flavor, hypothesize the required mix, then create it and confirm it is the Nectar of the Gods.
There is another approach - the empirical method. In this case, you perform experiments first, observe the outcomes, and build on that. Empirical methods rely heavily on some point of reference. For example, what does vanilla taste like? Well, uhh, vanilla. That is not very formal or descriptive. However if you put a hundred vanilla milkshakes and a hundred chocolate milkshakes in front of a hundred people, most maybe not all but almost all people can immediately tell you "This one is vanilla and this one is chocolate". So if you put vanilla in a mix, you can reasonably predict there will be some vanilla taste in the final product.
You build your frame of reference by experimentation and observation.
The empirical method necessarily implies there is a considerable amount of trial and error. That does not mean it is a chaotic process that depends solely on luck. You have frames of references, and you expand and refine them by further experimentation. That is a scientific technique.
The second component of the empirical process is careful technique and detailed records of what you do. If you don't know what you did, you do not build any frames of reference. And when you finally find your Holy Grail of vapors, if you did not use good technique and keep careful records, you will not easily be able to mix it again.
The empirical method is no less scientific than the Newtonian method if done properly. It is in many respects the same thing from the opposite direction. You formulate an experiment (and your experiments will become more and more methodical as you gain experience - increase your useful reference points), then you observe the phenomenon - the resulting taste. Then you may formulate some basic hypotheses, like "Too much coffee" etc.
A very useful technique in empirical science is control of variables. A simple example will illustrate. Formulate a simple mix with one tobacco flavor, and base. Observe the taste. Then add one component, say vanilla. Observe the new taste. Then you may want to make a third mix with more vanilla. Observe the taste. This will build your frame of reference of, for example what to your tastes is "good" and what is "too much vanilla".
So there is a method, not a madness, although you can expect many failures and it takes patience and perseverance.
However you must firmly grasp the critical foundation behind empirical science: You are designing an experiment and then observing the phenomenon. If your experimental technique is poor, and you do not keep detailed and accurate records, you are not developing useful points of reference, the phenomenon you observe is not the result of a careful experiment, and when you finally get that perfect taste, in this case it was simply luck, because if your technique and records are poor you don't really know what you actually did, and you will not be able to reproduce it.
Technique and records, those are the keys!
So next part, technique, technique, technique!
