The USDA does tons of research on food that not many people are aware of. In addition to this sort of thing, they do all sorts of economic research on agricultural commodities.
I wonder if there is a way to make ceviche using lemon KoolAide instead of lime juice by soaking it longer?
Have you considered asking the government?
I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you cook.
You think of a kind of food, and there's a wicked detailed government doc about its safe preparation and handling.
The primary function of government is to serve its citizens.
To the OP: Does this mean I can no longer feel like a rebel when I cook stuffing inside the turkey?
One of my daughter's cartoons had a "to serve man" joke she wanted explained. I spent half an hour on it (including a clip of the Twilight Zone scene), and I'm still not sure she got it.
This reminded me of something from the early days of the internet which maybe I just imagined -- people exchanging recipes for cooking aliens? Was that really a thing?
I don't remember that. I remember Mr. T and Chewbacca eating balls.
"Balls" because you don't eat pop culture icons like that all in one sitting.
No, no, Mr. T ate all the balls he could get his hands on. I don't think he was concerned with the non-testicular residue, which is why all those tell-all "Ate My Balls" stories were publishable. It was a horrible time.
To the OP (before this turns into a sex thread):
Does this really make that much difference in how much something will be cooked? If you have to get something to 146 degrees and hold it there for four minutes, I don't see how you keep the temperature from rising to somewhere well past 150. If it's a smaller cut on a grill or something, you really can't hold something at a constant temperature very easily. It's going to cool or keep getting warmer. If it's a larger piece of meat and you're roasting it, people already account for carry-over in heating after you pull the meat from the oven, which would seem to be sort of the same thing.
If it's a smaller cut on a grill or something, you really can't hold something at a constant temperature very easily.
?? With a charcoal grill, bank coals to one side-- the part of the grill farthest from the coals basically bakes rather than searing. Also, cut the airflow to reduce heat output of the coals. Baking on the grill with a little judicious searing at the beginning and end of the process is pretty straightforward. That's basically how to jerk chicken, right?
I only know mouse orgasms, not chicken.
Anyway, I don't have the patience for grilling with coals. Propane has less of a wait.
I don't see how you keep the temperature from rising to somewhere well past 150
If you get something to 150, it's also going to rise well past 150.
If you give a pig enough to heat to raise its internal temperature to 146 degrees...
I was just making reference to a popular book for children.
15: This is a big deal in sous vide cooking, where you set the temperature of the water bath and let it sit there for as long as you like, and this table is useful for that kind of thing (Last week I did chicken breasts at 134F, for about two hours).
If you raise the heat gradually enough the bird won't fly away.
I was going to add "except with sous vide cooking" to 15, but I couldn't remember how to spell it and didn't feel like looking it up.
Makes you consider willing your estate to the government, no? I am continually amazed at the extensive data the government holds on a number of topics I find interesting.
So much meat has been dried out and ruined by overcooking to achieve over-aggressive USDA standards. I'd much rather cook chicken for a few minutes at 145 than try to get it all the way up to 160. Unfortunately, having looked at the doc, I'm still not clear on exactly how many minutes that needs to be.
27.1: Not really, but more willing to restore the estate tax to prior levels so I can will other peoples' estates to the government.
Right now, in the room next to me, there are government officials trying to work out a statistical model for optimizing the usage of maritime passenger transport. They are being pretty fucking loud about it, too.
I mean, to optimize maritime passenger transport. You can also threaten a flood that will destroy the whole world and tell people to get on boats now.
Have they been drinking? Surely not at this time in the morning.
("BRO! No, LISTEN! We just build ONE HUGE SHIP and put ALL THE PASSENGERS ON IT! ALL OF THE PASSENGERS!"
"NO, SHUT UP BRO! We give EVERYONE their OWN SHIP! Or like an inner tube or something!")
Holy shit Spike, it just came to me, this is the moment for EKRANOPLAN.
35 is right. Burst in to the room and convince them.
Far more boring. "How can we change licensing for cargo ships that want to carry passengers?" "What is the difference in travel patterns between those going between islands for tourism, vs for employment?" "Do you think the model should accommodate the hurricane season?"
this is the moment for EKRANOPLAN.
This and every other moment. Seriously, Spike, keep them talking. It's a quiet day and I can be there in like 11 hours if I leave now. I'll need to nip home first to get some visual aids.
You need to get them to think outside the box. And by that I mean, point a gun at them while explaining about ekranoplanes.
Actually, wouldn't ekranoplans be perfect for travel between West Coast and Hawaii?
38: Reading the other thread I kept wanting to come up with some joke where I could accuse VW of "mansplaining the ekranoplan" but I didn't even come close to anything remotely sensical
I wonder if you could take, say, an old DC-10 and convert that to an ekranoplan.
Wouldn't the ocean waves prevent it from flying low enough to get maximal ground effect efficiency?
This Gizmodo piece confirms that I'm not the only one who immediately thought of the Spruce Goose* when they first saw ekranoplan pictures.
*Which on its test flight never got beyond ground effect altitude.
Ekranoplans can only really manage over-water travel, and they operate at about 200-300 knots. So about half the speed of a jet airliner. LAX-Hawaii would be a nine to ten hour trip. But then again, door to door the time wouldn't be that much different because handling and checkin time would be the same each way.
From my Cessna pilot days, I vaguely recall that the height of the ground effect is about half the wingspan. I think a DC-10 wingspan could get you high enough above the waves, while still being within the zone. Though a rouge wave, I'd be concerned about.
Ekranoplans can only really manage over-water travel,
Mostly over water. Also over ice and frozen tundra, which explains the appeal to the Russians.
What about vast, unpeopled deserts like Nevada and Arizona?
Note to my employer: I regard getting to some variant of the joke 6 before Moby as sufficient achievement for one day so I am doing nothing but sitting on my class and white-male privileged ass in this conference room with a fabulous view of bridges, river and downtown buildings.
46: The disaster movie almost writes itself. Especially if there's a shark in the wave.
The trouble with using a DC-10 is that the engines are under the wings, putting them very close indeed to the sea. Water ingestion isn't great. You want something with engines as high up as possible, like a VC10. But really it still wouldn't be optimised for WIGE flight. You need something purpose built. If anyone has an old VC10 we could fit a new wing to it?
I wonder if you could take, say, an old DC-10 and convert that to an ekranoplan.
Isn't that basically what the Nimrods were?
I find the answer key to cooking temps and you people want to talk about impractical modes of transport. Here comes the Unfogged Rickshaw Army.
I think you could lose the two engines on the wings of the DC 10, and just make do with the one engine on the tail. You only need enough power to get into ground effect, after all. I think you could do that on one engine.
Alternately, the 727 has a good engine configuration for this. But those things are smaller than a DC-10, so you would have trouble fitting in a disco, and the various other needed amenities.
54: How about the double-ended unicycle?
I want a purpose-driven form of transportation.
you people want to talk about impractical modes of transport
You're right; there are too many car threads here, aren't there?
Back to cooking ... has anyone here retrofitted a crockpot for temperature control to allow faux sous vide cooking? I long for this but could never pull it off myself and for some reason the better half is like eh can't be bothered. We have a retrofit temp control on the coffee machine and it works great.
I wouldn't even know how to go about it.
There are loads of exhaustive looking things on the internet about it but all assume a level of tinkering knowledge waaaaaay beyond me. Some guy in Texas I think retrofits coffee machines as a business but apparently no one does it for crockpot bc too simple.
The crazy guy who grows amazing tarragon is coming back to the market soon, another year's opportunity to poach chicken in butter and tarragon is in danger of slipping by!
I though about it (I have a spare temperature controller or two from the brewing hobby) but my crockpot is too electronic and doesn't default to on, so external power-cycling doesn't work. I decided that spending money rather than time and puttering with parts was a better plan and bought one of the Anova devices.
Back to cooking ... has anyone here retrofitted a crockpot for temperature control to allow faux sous vide cooking?
I didn't use a crockpot for my faux soux vide. Instead, I filled a cooler up with some 130 degree water, and topped it off with a tea kettle from time to time. There wasn't a lot of heat loss from the cooler, so it basically worked.
The food was good enough - although not as spectacular as sous vide is allegedly supposed to be - but it was a bunch of extra work and water spilled in the kitchen. Also, the process seemed silly to me because, after all that, you have to sear the meat in a pan anyway.
You could sear it ahead of time. It won't have the same texture on the outside, I guess, but the flavor is what's important with searing.
Before or after, doesn't matter... its the two-step process I object to. If I'm going to sear it in a pan, I might as well cook it in a pan, and eat an hour sooner.
NickS is the one who figured out why that's a problem for me.
LAX-Hawaii would be a nine to ten hour trip. But then again, door to door the time wouldn't be that much different because handling and checkin time would be the same each way.
And probably a much more comfortable trip, arguably, for vacationers, more a part of the vacation.
Unless Elon Musk has come up with a way to make his hypertrain rails float.
Yes cooler seems too fiddly, and not willing to pay the $$$ for the readymade but no fancy devices, they seem very neither fish nor fowl.
No searing involved in butter poached chicken, just lots of butter and then a whole mess of peas rolling around in the reduced butter and meat juice mmmmmmmm .... also if it worked would simplify cooking quantities of duck legs in fat. Two steps inherent in that as legs age in the fat for a couple of weeks before you crisp them up and plop onto a pile of bitter greens.
Oh well.
The cooler is fiddly, but its worth doing one time.
A gravity train would get you LAX to Honolulu in 42 minutes.
I find the answer key to cooking temps and you people want to talk about impractical modes of transport.
So why haven't they invented a taco truck that actually runs on tacos? Or better still, is made of tacos?
one of the Anova devices
That's what I'm going to get. Seems dead simple. What do you use for the bags?
72.2 is an awesome idea, but it would be hard to say "aloha" with your lips all squeezed up around your gums from the g-force.
I understand there are reusable silicone bags, seem preferable to plastic baggies to me. Could go old fashioned and use pig bladder! How much are people paying for annovas these days, and how big are they? I heard they can be unreliable. All info welcomed!
I've used plain zip-top bags with water-sealing, and it was OK, but I used this as an excuse to get a cheaper ($60?) FoodSaver. This way I can keep (say) chicken portioned in bags the deep-freeze and just throw it straight into the water, or cut and reseal once if I want to add some seasonings.
your lips all squeezed up around your gums from the g-force.
No, the G Force isn't a problem. You are in free fall the whole time, so basically it makes you weightless.
The immense pressure and burning hot magma, now that's a problem.
What are you sealing with? Sorry, I'm trying to avoid hours of research for each little piece of the rig.
We saw a group of tacos in the bay to breakers last week, I guess you'd call them a platos?
Is it just me, or does anyone else imagine plain chicken breast cooked sous vide, maybe with a side of cottage cheese, to be the single item offered at the cafeteria in Hell?
In Hell, though, a sous vide machine actually works more like a refrigerator.
But lamb brains poached in butter, yummy! Could probably do a mean ouef en gelée too.
Me, I just boil scrapple in a ziplock.
Because prions will destroy my brain and I'll be lost.
Because I don't parlay the French, I read sous vide and thought you guys were talking about pressed duck again.
I like that the duck is preferred to be from Rouen.
I find it convenient to blame my inability to type accurately on my phone or do any of that fancy formatting stuff on indulgence in delicious lamb brains back in the day.
not as spectacular as sous vide is allegedly supposed to be
I've had it in restaurants, also not spectacular. I'm pretty sure the vast majority of people couldn't blind-distinguish between sous-vide stuff and competently cooked stuff (not counting sous vide oddities like unseared steak). In commercial kitchens, there's a big advantage wrt timing, and certain cuts of meat benefit, but IME it's mostly a gee-whiz thing, with a soupçon of conviction that the pretty-looking food must be tasting better*.
*which, aesthetically pleasing is a legit part of the eating experience, but it's also possible to be seduced by it into transferring pleasing appearance onto taste.
From Stanley's link:
It has been considered "the height of elegance."I thought ortolan was supposed to be the height of elegance. Will the pressed duck–ortolan matchup come down to a rap battle?
I might as well cook it in a pan, and eat an hour sooner.
I think the advantages of sous vide wouldn't really kick in until at least a few hours of cooking. That's the supposed advantage, right? You can cook it almost indefinitely without ever moving the temperature up high enough to overcook it. So you could use a tougher but more flavorful cut for your steak and then just cook it for however many hours it takes to make it tender without resorting to braising it rather than cooking it as a steak..
92: I think this is true for virtually all of the delicious food styles overwhelmingly popular today. The attraction for me stems from my love for lots of old fashioned food and cooking styles completely out of fashion right now. Love me a good mushy veg, delicate meats poached ever so gently in herb perfumed butter, or suspended in limpid meat jelly. Badly done they are indeed a horror, but when cooked well they are all gorgeous. Two major menaces in this widely conceived style of cooking, let's call it haut pablum, are waterlogging and overcooking so that the delicate texture is destroyed. I'm hankering after a low tech and cheap way to eliminate these stumbling blocks to a spectacular chicken chaud froid.
Fun fact: the Virgin Islands currently ranks last among 56 American states, territories and the District of Columbia in access to broadband service.
How many territories and Districts of Columbia are there?
Guam, Puerto Rico, Ontario, Quemoy, and Matsu?
I think the currently list is Guam, PR, VI, American Samoa, DC, and the Northern Marianas.
If there had better broadband, maybe they could finally get laid.
104: "There"? Who wrote that? Should be "they" twice.
If they they had better broadband, they would watch a lot of porn, never venture outside their mom's basement, and continue to not get laid.
I've had it in restaurants, also not spectacular. I'm pretty sure the vast majority of people couldn't blind-distinguish between sous-vide stuff and competently cooked stuff (not counting sous vide oddities like unseared steak)
Or sous vide oddities like pink-in-the-middle-and-yet-tender short ribs, which is apparently possible.
Oh, I've got expertise in your mom's basement, alright.
The programmable Instant Pot will do sous vide and more. I have friends who've jiggered the cheaper original I Pot, but it did involve desoldering something.
Having read the science in 114, I'm now wondering what a feasable gravity train would actualy look like. I mean, you couldn't realistically drill as far down miles down under the surface, into the mantle to build a tunnel between Alameda and Weehawken. But you could get as deep as, say, a kilometer or so. So, if you build your "chord tunnel" so that the deepest point is a kilometer, which cuts off an arch that is part of a great circle, 40,000km in circumference.... uh, lets see, the hypotinuseof a right triangle is 40K/pi = 12732, same as the earth diameter, other leg of the triangle is 40k/pi - 1km = 12731, do the pathagarian thing gives you 12732^2 - 12731^2 = 160^2.
So, you could realistically build a gravity train that goes 1km deep and is about 160 kilometers long. Converted to American Units, that 100 miles. The distance on the surface would be a bit longer, but I'm not calculating that.
In other words, we should totally build a gravity train from DC to Philadelphia.
The deepest mines in South Africa are 4 km deep, so that means you could have 640km-long gravity trains.
(For 1km depth it's 320km, not 160km, remember, because your calculation only gives you the distance from the surface to the deepest point. Double that for the full length of the tunnel. You need to have two right-angled triangles back to back.)
115: Ignoring the friction/air-resistance issues. What's the component of the force of gravity at the surface at that angle? Is it so weak that we'd have to evacuate the tunnel?
There's no reason your tunnel has to be a straight line, as long as there's enough of a gradient.
For 1km depth it's 320km, not 160km
Ah, right. I figured I'd screw up the math. So, DC to New York in 42 minutes, then.
Although I guess the shorter the tunnel and the shallower the gradient the slower you'll go. Maybe the express gravity trains will incorporate an initial dramatic ~4 km drop and then coast to the other end's ~4 km rise.
What's the component of the force of gravity at the surface at that angle?
My math is probably wrong again, but I've calculated thats an angled of .358 degrees. So, pretty small. I think you would certainly have to evacuate the tunnel, and do some electromagnetic levitation jonx. Same as with the burrito tunnel, or that thing Elon Musk came up with.
A drop of 4 km through vacuum will get you up to almost 300 km/second, so not as good as going straight through the planet, but you'll get pretty far in a short amount of time coasting on a level depth arc.
Aren't gravity-powered travel times for any straight tunnel through a planet the same, no matter the length? I seem to remember calculating this in high school physics.
You'd need to evacuate the tunnel anyway.
And wiki informs me that it would be a hypocycloid, not a straight line, anyway. Which reduces the point-to-point distance for a given maximum depth. DAMN IT.
A drop of 4 km through vacuum will get you up to almost 300 km/second, so not as good as going straight through the planet
If you get up to 300 km/second, you are going to run out of tunnel really, really fast. And I think the g-force of even a minute gradient to go back up the hill would kill you.
Aren't gravity-powered travel times for any straight tunnel through a planet the same, no matter the length?
Yes - any straight gravity tunnel on Earth takes 42 minutes.
How much does this digging cost per mile, ignoring extras for this project like maintaining vacuum? The value proposition of a gold mine is pretty different.
"In the event of a granite landing, heroin masks will deploy from the compartment above you."
How much does this digging cost per mile
Right now, the Chinese are digging a 123km underwater tunnel for $48 billion, or around $2.5 billion a km. So, if we get the Chinese to do it, the 320km DC-New York tunnel would only cost $800 billion to dig, or approximately the same cost as the Second Avenue Subway.
125: It's not the gradient that imposes g-force, it's the change in gradient. I guess if you're worried about people being squished we could smooth out the initial drop and final rise, but it'll cost you travel time.
This is now remindinding me of space fountains, the realistic (in comparison) alternative to space elevators.
I guess if you're worried about people being squished we could smooth out the initial drop and final rise
Of course, if you smoothed it out enough, you would have a hypocycloid. So, if instead of DC-NY at a kilometer depth, you did DC-Baltimore, but keeping the same depth so its steeper and you go faster... would you still end up at 42 minutes, or does it quicken things up if you aren't maximizing surface distance?
