The real effect of temperature on cigars?

[Anth87]

Hi all

Question - Here in QLD avg temp in my wineador (no cooling) is around 24 c - now I never have issues with mould or beetles, would the temperature have long term effects on the flavour of the cigars?

Thanks

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[shlomo]

Temperature alone would not. But at higher temps, the air is able to hold more water, so higher temp plus 65% humidity will give too much absolute humidity in cigars for my liking. You may enjoy a wetter cigar though. I much prefer a dryer one.

Beetles....

[Fugu]

Vice versa actually - @ higher temperatures, air is holding more water, yes, but tobacco holding less. Higher temperatures while keeping rH constant will get you slightly dryer cigars (not by a wide margin though).

At elevated storage temps maturing/aging processes will run quicker (resultant influence on flavours is matter of much debate among BOTLs....).

 

(while we're at it - yet any news on your orig.-data, Piggy?)
 

[LordAnubis]

Fugus comments are they way i believe it to work as well. I could be wrong, and no doubt Ray will have the graphs for or against

[PapaDisco]

The Fish is right!  Long live the Fish! 

I've had stock stored in Saigon that was subject to constant, elevated temperatures, and 65rH bovedas.  I generally found those sticks to have a harsher profile to them compared to their brethren back in San Francisco at 65/65, however those cigars are also subjected to a much higher humidity environment when I smoke them so that could be the problem, not the temps.

[PigFish]

8 hours ago, Fugu said:

Vice versa actually - @ higher temperatures, air is holding more water, yes, but tobacco holding less. Higher temperatures while keeping rH constant will get you slightly dryer cigars (not by a wide margin though).

At elevated storage temps maturing/aging processes will run quicker (resultant influence on flavours is matter of much debate among BOTLs....).

 

(while we're at it - yet any news on your orig.-data, Piggy?)
 

Gooey is right about his. Absolute humidity is simply a pathway derived from rH, and its existence simply confuses a lot of smokers as they see it as the end all for water concentration. It all has to do with bond straight of the substrate and that varies by substance, concentration (rH or aH) and temperature. The point being that temperature is a necessary component to understand percent moisture content. The aH alone (single variable) arguments are as meaningless as the rH alone arguments.

As stated by my friend the Goo, as temperature increases you need additional rH to support the same PMC. Goo knows, I gave him the paperwork!!! -LOL

-the Pig

[Fugu]

Yeah - right in the starting blocks to do the curve fittings   

[Dimmers]

Ray....did you just breach the terms of your confidentiality deed?!?!??  

 

 

[ayepatz]

I'm starting to think Piggy-baiting is actually a thing... ?

[PigFish]

1 hour ago, Dimmers said:

Ray....did you just breach the terms of your confidentiality deed?!?!??  

 

 

... I arranged to exempt FoH advising until the first billion! I should be safe for a few more weeks yet!!! -LOL -P

[PigFish]

Piggy baiting has aways been a top drawer item! I suggest using cigars and coin of the realm, but some people don't know how to fish. I mean if you want to catch big fish, you need a big hook, right??? -LOL -the Pig

[shlomo]

Can pig or fugu, or somebody please explain my error....in primary school language? 

[earthson]

20 minutes ago, shlomo said:

Can pig or fugu, or somebody please explain my error....in primary school language? 

I'll give it a whirl:

The very formulae that define RH are based upon ambient temperature and the current dewpoint.  Sorry, guy, but you can't escape some algebra here:

http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/186/

A huge can of worms follows regarding the mechanics of air and tobacco leaf and their ability to gain (and lose) moisture content (MC). Cigars that sit in relatively undisturbed humidors over time TEND to seek equilibrium with the humidor with respect to MC.

That's essentially where my knowledge of MC and RH ends, other than subjective experience with my collection.

[PigFish]

1 hour ago, shlomo said:

Can pig or fugu, or somebody please explain my error....in primary school language? 

Lets say you are Martha Stewart and want to make a cake! Do you: leave it on the counter and see what happens, put it in the refrigerator, or put it in the oven?

While cooking may involve all sorts of processes, it primarily dehydrates hygroscopic material. It is just that simple. The warmer you get it, the faster and dryer it will cook in a given period. Martha is not checking rH to get the cake baked.

Tobacco is no different. If you put tobacco in the oven it will dry out. Eventually, even at 100rH, if the temperature is high enough, tobacco will dry!

So rH concentration is only good to the point where water is so active (because of temperature) that it cannot bond to tobacco at all. This is where many smokers who wish to relate to water in space go awry. I will get into this more if someone wants, but this was supposed to be simple. This then takes me to a point which Gooey made in passing that I really was not going to comment on. He made the statement (not by a wide margin). Well, depending on the range of temperature, this comment can go from correct to totally wrong deepening on the perspective and the envelope of heat.

I want to say that in our storage 'envelope' we are talking a 3-4 (temperature in F) to 1 verses rH. In that case the "wide margin" comment can subjectively seen as correct, in that rH is more important. More important, but not singularly more important, and certainly dependent on the temperature and the 'range in temperature.' What I mean by this is that 1 rH point is about the equivalent 3 to 4 temperature points in order to get the same equilibrium moisture content. (My ratio speculation is just that. It is based on some data that I have done some work on, and Gooey is currently working on, and it is an estimate based on non-Cuban cigar tobacco. I am therefore giving the caveat that this is just an estimation on my part, and as such, it should take its position as cigar board 'myth' and not as a proven fact).

I hope this helps Shlomey!

-Ray

[RijkdeGooier]

In laymen's terms. 

If I am fine with 65rH at 20C

I am also fine with 63rH at 12C

I am also fine with 67rH at 26C

 

Just make sure that you open your humidor for bit when the temp drops and you have enough water in your humidor if the temp rises ??

 

 

[LordAnubis]

I think the mix up is that we think we are measuring rH and therefore ASSUME our cigars are all good.

We are measuring the rH and temperature of the AIR. The rh and temperature o tobacco of the cigars is a different story. At the end of the day your aim to make sure the tobacco of the CIGARS is suitably moist for a pleasurable smoking experience. While heating up air may mean same amount of water is present in the AIR it does not directly mean the same amount of water is in the tobacco of the CIGAR.

Easy test. Get a cigar. Weigh it on a set of calibrated scales to the third decimal place. Now hold the said cigar in your hand (like a cricket bat) to ensure maximum hand to cigar contact. Just hold it for 3 minutes or so. Then weigh again. The cigar will be lighter. Why? Because the heat has meant the tobacco has lost moisture. That moisture had gone into the air and will hold perfectly fine in air. But your cigar is drier now, even though a hygrometer that you may place in the air of your humidor would indicate the same amount of water content in the air as before.

So no Rijkde, i do not believe your alternate storage conditions are necessarily correct.

[Fugu]

Sorry, just to be able to follow - who was Martha Steward again, Piggy, please? 

[Fugu]

9 hours ago, PigFish said:

This then takes me to a point which Gooey made in passing that I really was not going to comment on. He made the statement (not by a wide margin). Well, depending on the range of temperature, this comment can go from correct to totally wrong deepening on the perspective and the envelope of heat.

Yes, absolutely, I forgot to make clear - with regard to the OP's stated conditions, i.e. 24°C compared to let's say 20 °C.

A four degree C temp difference will get you about 0.5% to 1% points difference in tobacco moisture content @ 65% rH (but we need to get the orig. data for that higher humidity range from your charts, Ray, to be able to be more precise in our range of interest, as discussed....). So that surely is not completely negligible, but still a relatively small margin, e.g. in relation to a tobacco moisture content of 10%, it will make about 5 to 10 % relative difference. But, right, that might already be noticeable to a sensitive smoker.

[Fugu]

11 hours ago, shlomo said:

Can pig or fugu, or somebody please explain my error....in primary school language? 

Ok let me also wisenheim a little, Shlomo:
I addition to what Piggy has outlined, perhaps understanding the underlying molecular processes might help making it a bit more tangible:

You were basically right with the first part of your statement - keeping relative humidity of a gas volume constant means higher absolute humidity in the atmosphere for higher temperatures (= higher amount of water per air volume). We can take that as given and understood - Tick

Now, we cannot simply equate this absolute water content of the atmosphere with the water content of the hygroscopic matter that is kept within this very atmosphere! That's the basic misunderstanding! We have to consider that this process, too, is temperature dependent!

Reason: Molecular movement. To put it simple:
A hygroscopic material has water adsorbed to it. This is not a fixed state. Instead, water molecules are constantly bonding to it and leaving the solid matrix. The adsorption and desportion rate of water molecules is affected by their kinetic energy: The "warmer" it is, the more kinetic energy they hold, and the more molecules have the ambition to leave the bond and become airborne (gas). There always is a temperature-dependent equilibrium for molecules leaving and adsorbing to the matrix, and with higher temperatures this equilibrium is always shifted towards the "leaving" fraction (Martha's baking...).

This effect holds for all hygroscopic matter: So, consequently and basically: The warmer - the dryer.
Now, with higher temperatures, we are counteracting this effect of more dryness of the solid matter by introducing more moisture to the surrounding atmosphere by keeping rH constant (= increasing absolute humidity). We are increasing the amount of water molecules in the gas volume but at the same time we are increasing the desorption rate from the hygroscopic matter. What will happen? Which of both counteracting effects will be gaining the upper hand?

The exact extent of this effect and the exact position of its equilibrium is specific for each material (or strictly: material mix, as we have it here). Namley its hygroscopicity. Now comes the tobacco: For tobacco, the moisture equilibrium is shifted towards more dryness with higher temps for a given rH. That's an empirical finding, as Piggy has shown, and is nothing that can be tackled 'logically': It is a material-specific property of tobacco.

Take-home message - For the majority of our cases, in its absolute effect on tobacco moisture the relative humidity of the storage atmosphere plais the larger role compared to temperature. But temperature is not negligible (see above). And - in turn, tobacco moisture content is NOT related to absolute humidity.
 

[PigFish]

7 hours ago, Fugu said:

Yes, absolutely, I forgot to make clear - with regard to the OP's stated conditions, i.e. 24°C compared to let's say 20 °C.

A four degree C temp difference will get you about 0.5% to 1% points difference in tobacco moisture content @ 65% rH (but we need to get the orig. data for that higher humidity range from your charts, Ray, to be able to be more precise in our range of interest, as discussed....). So that surely is not completely negligible, but still a relatively small margin, e.g. in relation to a tobacco moisture content of 10%, it will make about 5 to 10 % relative difference. But, right, that might already be noticeable to a sensitive smoker.

... that 1 percent represents a 10% change in water content! (as stated). Perhaps I am being overly critical, but when we use terms like "relatively small margin" I think it is misleading. JMHO.

In a world full of assumptions (and they are no stranger to me than anyone else) if you think of a cigar that might have a difficult draw at 10% water content, 11% water content, or 10% more water than the drier condition, may could potentially make a huge difference to the smoking experience.

I simple don't know the answer! However, in my book, a 10% change in many things (including this example) is not a relatively small change. Again, MHO.

-P

[asmartbull]

I do love reading this endless conversation bit at the end of the day

...For me, temps between 60 and 65* and 62ish rh works just fine. A couple degrees or % difference for a cpl weeks is negligible

"With your shield, or on it"...

[luv2fly]

Have to say, the temps in my cabinet during the summer are around 72/73.  Cant get the house any cooler without the electric bill going sky high and the Boss killing me.  She will not let me buy a cooled cab.  And I really see no need based on my experience.

That said, for the past 3 years those temps and the RH I have maintained have produced some spectacular cigar smoking experiences.  I am happy where my cigars are at and I think that is all that matters to me.

 

Just my 2...

[Anth87]

Thanks all for the input . Makes a bit more sense. At the end of the day I have no cooling in my wineador and wanted to make sure that exposing my smokes to constant temp of 24-25 degrees for 3 months was not going to ruin my stash ?

[Fugu]

2 hours ago, PigFish said:

In a world full of assumptions (and they are no stranger to me than anyone else) if you think of a cigar that might have a difficult draw at 10% water content, 11% water content, or 10% more water than the drier condition, may could potentially make a huge difference to the smoking experience.

I simple don't know the answer! However, in my book, a 10% change in many things (including this example) is not a relatively small change. Again, MHO.

-P

... no dissent, 10 % will be a technically significant and certainly measureable difference. Whether it will be noticed depends on the smoker. But, agreed, it may make a difference between a good and an excellent smoke. And, as you say, may have its consequences on the draw in difficult-construction cigars.

However, I think we are actually moving more in the lower range of what I stated, but that is the problem of the slightly unclear scaling of said plot in that region. E.g. for 60% rH, we are talking about a 3-5% rather than a 10 % change. The effect becoming more pronounced with higher rH.

[SaintMickey®]

Great discussion everyone...very enlightening. Need more of this.