Does fine champaign produce smaller bubbles?

[yukoncpa]

An attractive girl sat next to me in a bar and after some brief conversation, she ordered two glasses of Dom Perignon, for herself and for me, then another and another, till we polished off the only bottle they had. Amazingly, I managed to not get lucky in any other respect with this woman.

But during our conversation, she brought up the interesting fact that the finer the champaign, the smaller the bubbles that form in the glass. I became obsessed with this statement ( indeed, I’m quite sure that it was this obsession that prevented any further luck with the woman).

I pointed out that all the bubbles seem to be coming from fixed spots on the glass itself. And since I’ve read a bit about bubble formation, I explained that bubbles form in nucleation sites, which are tiny bits of crud on the glass or scratches on the glass. Tiny bubbles congregate on these sites until they are big enough to survive on their own, then they burst free and float to the top. I opined that the quality of the champaign may not be the attributing factor to small bubbles, but rather, the quality of the goblet. Perhaps a crystal flute, has finer scratches or imperfections, which cause finer bubbles.

At any rate, I was left high and dry and began to wonder if she was right after all. Does the quality of the champaign in any way correlate to the size of the bubbles?

edit - I wasn't being cheap with this woman. I did buy her a drink early on. When she asked for two glasses of Dom Perignon, the bartender wouldn't open the bottle unless she paid for the whole bottle, which she did and refused assistance from me.

[Neuge]

Unless the finer champaign has a smaller surface tension, I don't see how. It's entirely possible that it does however.

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
Unless the finer champaign has a smaller surface tension, I don't see how. It's entirely possible that it does however.



[/ QUOTE ] How does contraction of molecules or cohesiveness of molecules at the surface of a liquid effect bubble size? Is this cohesiveness something that is uniform throughout the liquid?

[ChrisV]

I'm not sure, but I think this relates to the mouthfeel of the champagne. It's about how much carbon dioxide is crammed into the wine. Champagne with a "fine bead" is more likely to have a "soft mousse". Bead is the term used to describe the appearance of the bubbles, while mousse describes how the bubbles feel in the mouth. A "hard mousse" is an undesirable attribute.

There might be other reasons why a fine bead is believed to be better. I will say that usually wine nuts are correct about what makes a wine better or worse even if the idea doesn't make immediate intuitive sense. For instance, wine newbies tend to scoff at the idea that glass shape makes a big difference in the way a wine tastes, but I can assure you that it does.

[Neuge]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Unless the finer champaign has a smaller surface tension, I don't see how. It's entirely possible that it does however.



[/ QUOTE ] How does contraction of molecules or cohesiveness of molecules at the surface of a liquid effect bubble size? Is this cohesiveness something that is uniform throughout the liquid?

[/ QUOTE ]
You're generally correct in your OP about bubble formation sites, and the bubbles breaking-off and rising when they become large enough. Surface tension determines how large the bubbles need be. It also determines the bubble size in that it affects the pressure inside the bubble (and hence its volume).

And no, it's not uniform throughout the liquid volume, hence the name surface tension. You should look up the wiki page or some other source for the phenomenon's cause.

Also I was wrong in my post too. The supersaturation of CO2 is likely higher in fine champaign, which would increase spontaneous nucleation nucleation sites independent of the glass condition. That would likely be the cause.

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure, but I think this relates to the mouthfeel of the champagne. It's about how much carbon dioxide is crammed into the wine. Champagne with a "fine bead" is more likely to have a "soft mousse". Bead is the term used to describe the appearance of the bubbles, while mousse describes how the bubbles feel in the mouth. A "hard mousse" is an undesirable attribute.

There might be other reasons why a fine bead is believed to be better. I will say that usually wine nuts are correct about what makes a wine better or worse even if the idea doesn't make immediate intuitive sense. For instance, wine newbies tend to scoff at the idea that glass shape makes a big difference in the way a wine tastes, but I can assure you that it does.



[/ QUOTE ]
Hey, this is very interesting. I don’t know a thing about champaign, but you mentioned cramming CO2 into the wine. Could it be that finer champaigns naturally carbonate in the bottle? If so, then you would definitely, I think, have a difference in bubble size.

[Neuge]

[ QUOTE ]
It's about how much carbon dioxide is crammed into the wine.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I realized this after my first post. It is almost certainly the major cause of bubble size differences, assuming we're using the same glass.

I won't comment on why this makes good champaign taste better. I've never had any except brief swigs from a cheap bottle on New Years Eve.

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
Also I was wrong in my post too. The supersaturation of CO2 is likely higher in fine champaign, which would increase spontaneous nucleation nucleation sites independent of the glass condition. That would likely be the cause.



[/ QUOTE ] Ok, this must be the case, if indeed her assertion is true, which I'm thinking it was. Thanks Neuge.

[Neuge]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure, but I think this relates to the mouthfeel of the champagne. It's about how much carbon dioxide is crammed into the wine. Champagne with a "fine bead" is more likely to have a "soft mousse". Bead is the term used to describe the appearance of the bubbles, while mousse describes how the bubbles feel in the mouth. A "hard mousse" is an undesirable attribute.

There might be other reasons why a fine bead is believed to be better. I will say that usually wine nuts are correct about what makes a wine better or worse even if the idea doesn't make immediate intuitive sense. For instance, wine newbies tend to scoff at the idea that glass shape makes a big difference in the way a wine tastes, but I can assure you that it does.



[/ QUOTE ]
Hey, this is very interesting. I don’t know a thing about champaign, but you mentioned cramming CO2 into the wine. Could it be that the finer champaign’s naturally carbonate in the bottle? If so, then you would definitely, I think, have a difference in bubble size.

[/ QUOTE ]
No. CO2 is always added after in any beverage preparation. Around any mass-producing brewer or bottling company you'll see one or more large silos. Most people assume it's to store the liquid in bulk. It's actually used to store all the CO2 they're gonna use.

[vhawk01]

I think the lab of Ho et al has been doing some really pioneering work on this.

[Neuge]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the lab of Ho et al has been doing some really pioneering work on this.

[/ QUOTE ]
I believe they are mostly focused on multiphase flow in microfluidic systems. I could be wrong about that, but the physics is quite a bit different.

[yukoncpa]

I changed my google queries from “champaign” to “sparkling wine”, and found an answer:

[ QUOTE ]
In addition to the normal smell and taste criteria of still wine, sparkling wine quality is judged by the size of the bubbles (smaller is better), their persistence (long-lasting is better) and their mouth feel (how well they are integrated into the wine and the relative smoothness or coarseness of their texture).


[/ QUOTE ]

link (http://www.winepros.org/wine101/sparkling.htm)

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
I changed my google queries from “champaign” to “sparkling wine”, and found an answer:

[ QUOTE ]
In addition to the normal smell and taste criteria of still wine, sparkling wine quality is judged by the size of the bubbles (smaller is better), their persistence (long-lasting is better) and their mouth feel (how well they are integrated into the wine and the relative smoothness or coarseness of their texture).


[/ QUOTE ]

link (http://www.winepros.org/wine101/sparkling.htm)

[/ QUOTE ]
Had you spelled champagne correctly originally it might have saved even more time!

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the lab of Ho et al has been doing some really pioneering work on this.

[/ QUOTE ]
I believe they are mostly focused on multiphase flow in microfluidic systems. I could be wrong about that, but the physics is quite a bit different.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I just levelled myself. I am so confused. Apparently there really is a Ho lab working on something related to this?

I was talking about Don Ho. Tiny Bubbles. /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/blush.gif

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
Had you spelled champagne correctly originally it might have saved even more time!



[/ QUOTE ] Lol hard. No wonder I kept getting a town in Illinois. Too much bubbly in my system.

[Neuge]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the lab of Ho et al has been doing some really pioneering work on this.

[/ QUOTE ]
I believe they are mostly focused on multiphase flow in microfluidic systems. I could be wrong about that, but the physics is quite a bit different.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I just levelled myself. I am so confused. Apparently there really is a Ho lab working on something related to this?

I was talking about Don Ho. Tiny Bubbles. /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/blush.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
I may have been leveled then re-leveled without realizing any of it... if that's possible. I didn't for a second consider Don Ho. It's trouble using an Asian name and research in the same sentence, there's likely someone with that name doing that research. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Anyway, yeah Chih-Ming Ho at UCLA is a major player in microfluidics.

Link (http://ho.seas.ucla.edu/professor/)
Link (http://www.esi-topics.com/mems/interviews/Chih-MingHo.html)

Quote:

"...Professor Chih-Ming Ho’s work ranks at #7, with 26 papers cited a total of 255 times to date. His paper, "Micro-electrical mechanical systems (MEMS) and fluid flows," (C.M. Ho and Y.C. Tai, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 30: 579-612, 1998) is the third most-cited paper in this field for the past decade, with 153 citations at the time of the analysis."

[BigBuffet]

Yes and I believe they are called "bibbles".

[CORed]

The traditional means of carbonating champagne is by a second fermentation in the bottle. I believe high end champagnes are still made this way. Very likely some of the cheaper stuff is carbonated by just pressurizing the bottle with CO2.

[MrMon]

This has got to be the most pathetic champagne thread ever, even worse than the OOT one on putting the cork back in half a bottle of champagne. It's the champagne equivalent of describing breasts as feeling like bags of sand.

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
This has got to be the most pathetic champagne thread ever, even worse than the OOT one on putting the cork back in half a bottle of champagne. It's the champagne equivalent of describing breasts as feeling like bags of sand.



[/ QUOTE ]


Lol. I’m very surprised to see this thing pop back up after a week of being dead. This whole thread began when I tried googling “champaign bubbles” for an answer and kept getting bathtub accessories in a small town in Illinois as a reply. I was too tipsy to realize I was misspelling champagne so I turned to the erudite folks at SMP for the answer to this most perplexing question.

[Kaj]

Champagne.