On Mon 03 Aug 2009 05:08:21p, sf told us...

> On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 19:35:46 +0100, Doug Weller
> > wrote:
>
>>You're living in the past. That was true when I first came here in 1970,
>>but today London is one of the food capitals of the world.
>
> I concur, having been there just a couple of years ago.

The influence and conditions that the UK sufferened during and after WWII
was the downfall of previous good food. It took many years afterwards for
it to recover to the point it is at today. My grandparents took numerous
trips to the UK in the 1920s and 1930s and thougt the food was wonderful
then.

As a well known example, look at the menus for 1st class meals on the
Titanic.



--
Wayne Boatwright
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The story of barbecue is the story of America: Settlers arrive on
great unspoiled continent, discover wondrous riches, set them on
fire and eat them. Vince Staten

On Mon, 3 Aug 2009 15:27:22 -0400, Felice wrote:

>> On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 14:44:24 GMT, in rec.food.cooking, brooklyn1 wrote:
>
>>>Eating in the UK... Ahahahahahahahahahahaha. . . . it's pronounced OooKy
>>>for
>>>a reason.
>
> Sounds like someone who hasn't dined in the UK since his porridge days.
>
> Felice

and who the **** pronounces UK 'oooky'? aside from illiterate slobs, i
mean.

your pal,
blake

Reading from news:rec.food.cooking,
Wayne Boatwright > posted:

> I really love homemade butter and buttermilk. My dad's parents usually
> kept three milk cows and my grandmother churned the butter also yielded the
> buttermilk.

I've never had butter made from raw milk/cream, but I have made butter
from store-bought whipping cream. It tastes exactly like store-bought
stick butter, yet still satisfying to make on my own once in a while.

Damaeus

Reading from news:rec.food.cooking,
Nancy2 > posted:

> > > and fresh buttermilk. +AKA-OTOH, if you drive out into the country where there
> > > are small farms that keep a few cows, they may make small quantities for
> > > themselves and might be wiling to part with some. +AKA-Is there any Amish
> > > country within your driving distance?
> >
> > Probably not. +AKA-BUT this ties in with my growing desire to
> > experience milk that is more like nature intended!
>
> Unpasteurized milk? Let me know how the treatment for leptospirosis,
> salmonella or tuberculosis works out.....

That might come about if you drank milk from commercially-"cared for"
cows, but I think free-range, grass-eating cows that are not eating other
cows would make "cleaner" milk.

I'm 39 and I haven't had fresh, raw milk since I was a kid at my
grandmother's house, Even then, while at home in the city in the mid-70s,
we either got milk from "the milk man" who delivered it, or we got it from
the grocery store. And my uncle had a farm (E I E I O) and on his farm he
had some cows. Even as a kid, I thought it was nasty to drink milk from a
cow I could actually see. I looked inside the jug and didn't see a pure
white milk, but a darker-colored milk with streams of cream in it. Still,
while the thought of drinking it was nasty, I did find that it actually
did taste better.

Damaeus

Reading from news:rec.food.cooking,
dsi1 > posted:

> Bobo Bonobo+AK4- wrote:
> > On Jul 27, 2:13 am, dsi1 > wrote:
> >> Damaeus wrote:
> >>> What is your experience with using butter versus shortening? So far, I'm
> >>> not impressed with shortening, but I may have to blame the buttermilk if
> >>> using butter in the next go-around results in the same type of experience.
> >> I was not aware that folks made biscuits with butter. You could try but
> >> it would be important to not let the the butter melt when mixing with
> >> the flour. This pretty much means that you'll have to keep everything
> >> cool if can't keep the room below the melting point of butter. It's a
> >> novel idea though - I guess it's the way kids do things these days. :-)
> >
> > We quit putting lead in paint too. Go figure.
>
> Lead in paint is dangerous. Shortening in biscuits is not, even though
> you believe it to be. Go figure. :-)

Butter melts at body temperature. Shortening does not. Go figure.

Damaeus

Reading from news:rec.food.cooking,
John Kuthe > posted:

> Science is cool!
>
> My 2nd grade girlfriend became a scientist, a PHd in biochemistry! On
> her webpage she has a comment about when all other experiments fail,
> boil water: works every time!

For shits and giggles, I put a candy thermometer on the side of my pot
when I was boiling water for potatoes. I was actually amazed to find that
I could not get the temperature of the water beyond about 214 degrees
farenheit, even with the burner on high. Contrast that with canola oil,
which I've had as high as 400. I never knew until then that water can
apparently not be heated to a temperature higher than 214, at least not on
a stovetop. Maybe it can be done in a lab under special conditions.

Damaeus

"Damaeus" > wrote in message
> For shits and giggles, I put a candy thermometer on the side of my pot
> when I was boiling water for potatoes. I was actually amazed to find that
> I could not get the temperature of the water beyond about 214 degrees
> farenheit, even with the burner on high. Contrast that with canola oil,
> which I've had as high as 400. I never knew until then that water can
> apparently not be heated to a temperature higher than 214, at least not on
> a stovetop. Maybe it can be done in a lab under special conditions.
>
> Damaeus

Your thermometer is off by 2 degrees. You cannot get water above 212 at sea
level unless you put it under pressure. At 125 psi, you can heat water to
about 335 degrees, as an example.

How was you nap during freshman General Science class?

Damaeus wrote:
>
> For shits and giggles, I put a candy thermometer on the side of my pot
> when I was boiling water for potatoes. I was actually amazed to find that
> I could not get the temperature of the water beyond about 214 degrees
> farenheit, even with the burner on high. Contrast that with canola oil,
> which I've had as high as 400. I never knew until then that water can
> apparently not be heated to a temperature higher than 214, at least not on
> a stovetop. Maybe it can be done in a lab under special conditions.

The special conditions are pressure. That's why a
pressure cooker can reach a temperature above 212F.

When water is heated, it boils, and this boiling
holds the temperature at the boiling point.
If you pour more energy in, it just boils faster.

The canola oil will not boil. If you get it hot
enough, it cracks (molecules become shorter),
fumes, and shortly thereafter self-ignites.
At this point, you grab that open box of baking
soda and dump it in to snuff out the flames.

Mark Thorson wrote:

>
> The canola oil will not boil. If you get it hot
> enough, it cracks (molecules become shorter),
> fumes, and shortly thereafter self-ignites.
> At this point, you grab that open box of baking
> soda and dump it in to snuff out the flames.


Current theory is NOT to use baking soda since it may cause the
oil to bubble up and splash out of the pot and carry the flames
elsewhere.

You should either cover the pot with a lid or if it's a skillet,
(this sounded weird to me) with a very wet dish towel.

Can you tell I have just lived through a school's Fire Prevention
Month?

gloria p

Gloria P wrote:
>
> Mark Thorson wrote:
>
> >
> > The canola oil will not boil. If you get it hot
> > enough, it cracks (molecules become shorter),
> > fumes, and shortly thereafter self-ignites.
> > At this point, you grab that open box of baking
> > soda and dump it in to snuff out the flames.
>
> Current theory is NOT to use baking soda since it may cause the
> oil to bubble up and splash out of the pot and carry the flames
> elsewhere.

I've only used it one, and it worked great.
It fizzed a lot, but did not splash. I think
any recommendation against not using may be
assuming a worst case, like a very full pot
of hot oil. I always deep-fry in rather shallow
oil, an inch or less. If the pot is the proper
size, that isn't going to splash outside the pot.

I'm suspicious this "advice" is coming from the
legal department of a baking soda manufacturer.
They don't necessarily have the interests of the
consumer in mind.

> You should either cover the pot with a lid or if it's a skillet,
> (this sounded weird to me) with a very wet dish towel.

Unless you always have a very wet dish towel
in the kitchen, there won't be time to wet one
during an oil fire.

In article >,
Gloria P > wrote:

> Mark Thorson wrote:
>
> >
> > The canola oil will not boil. If you get it hot
> > enough, it cracks (molecules become shorter),
> > fumes, and shortly thereafter self-ignites.
> > At this point, you grab that open box of baking
> > soda and dump it in to snuff out the flames.

> You should either cover the pot with a lid or if it's a skillet,
> (this sounded weird to me) with a very wet dish towel.

My daughter was cooking a burger on a commercial stove. She took the
burger out, but the skillet was so hot that the grease caught fire. She
asked the other cook for a lid to put out the fire. No lid. The other
cook just put a larger skillet on top of the burning skillet, and that
was the end of the fire.

Handy Hint #17

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

In article >,
Damaeus > wrote:


> For shits and giggles, I put a candy thermometer on the side of my pot
> when I was boiling water for potatoes. I was actually amazed to find that
> I could not get the temperature of the water beyond about 214 degrees
> farenheit, even with the burner on high. Contrast that with canola oil,
> which I've had as high as 400. I never knew until then that water can
> apparently not be heated to a temperature higher than 214, at least not on
> a stovetop. Maybe it can be done in a lab under special conditions.

That's an important kitchen fact, although many people here have a way
around it. It's called a "pressure cooker". Many people here have the
opposite problem, that their recipes call for boiling temperatures, but
their boiling temperature is much lower due to high altitude. They
generally have to increase cooking time. Sometimes they have to alter
the ingredient mix also.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

In article >,
Damaeus > wrote:

> Reading from news:rec.food.cooking,
> dsi1 > posted:
>
> > Bobo Bonobo® wrote:
> > > On Jul 27, 2:13 am, dsi1 > wrote:
> > >> Damaeus wrote:
> > >>> What is your experience with using butter versus shortening? So far,
> > >>> I'm
> > >>> not impressed with shortening, but I may have to blame the buttermilk
> > >>> if
> > >>> using butter in the next go-around results in the same type of
> > >>> experience.
> > >> I was not aware that folks made biscuits with butter. You could try but
> > >> it would be important to not let the the butter melt when mixing with
> > >> the flour. This pretty much means that you'll have to keep everything
> > >> cool if can't keep the room below the melting point of butter. It's a
> > >> novel idea though - I guess it's the way kids do things these days. :-)
> > >
> > > We quit putting lead in paint too. Go figure.
> >
> > Lead in paint is dangerous. Shortening in biscuits is not, even though
> > you believe it to be. Go figure. :-)
>
> Butter melts at body temperature. Shortening does not. Go figure.

Body fat doesn't melt at body temperature, either. Good thing, or the
term "body flab" would take on a whole new meaning.

And it's a good thing that butterfat is a liquid at body temperature.
Butterfat comes from milk, which comes out of little tiny holes. Could
be pretty painful if it solidified in the mammary glands.

:-)

God (or Mother Nature, if you prefer) has a purpose for everything.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On 2009-10-24, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:


> How was you nap during freshman General Science class?

Probably about the same as yours:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superheating

nb

Damaeus wrote:
> Reading from news:rec.food.cooking,
> John Kuthe > posted:
>
>> Science is cool!
>>
>> My 2nd grade girlfriend became a scientist, a PHd in biochemistry! On
>> her webpage she has a comment about when all other experiments fail,
>> boil water: works every time!
>
> For shits and giggles, I put a candy thermometer on the side of my pot
> when I was boiling water for potatoes. I was actually amazed to find that
> I could not get the temperature of the water beyond about 214 degrees
> farenheit, even with the burner on high. Contrast that with canola oil,
> which I've had as high as 400. I never knew until then that water can
> apparently not be heated to a temperature higher than 214, at least not on
> a stovetop. Maybe it can be done in a lab under special conditions.
>
> Damaeus

You could get water and other liquids to boil at room temperatures under
special conditions. Blood will boil at extreme high altitudes and this
is what happens if a deep sea diver surfaces too fast.

When a liquid turns into a gas, there is a transfer of heat to the gas.
The reason water won't increase in temperature once it reaches it's
boiling point is that the water vapor is removing heat from the liquid.
Increase the heat and you'll increase the rate at which heat is removed
i.e., instead of cooking faster, you're using the energy to evaporate water.

Oddly enough, when water changes into a solid, there's a release of
heat. My guess is that the temperature of the water/ice will not drop
below the freezing point of water until it's completely frozen. That's
my assumption although I have not seen this my self. Of course,
supercooled liquids are a whole nutter thing.

dsi1 wrote:
>
> You could get water and other liquids to boil at room temperatures under
> special conditions. Blood will boil at extreme high altitudes and this
> is what happens if a deep sea diver surfaces too fast.

No, it's not boiling. The dissolved gases in the
blood come out, like opening a bottle of soda.

Damaeus wrote:
>
>
> For shits and giggles, I put a candy thermometer on the side of my pot
> when I was boiling water for potatoes. I was actually amazed to find that
> I could not get the temperature of the water beyond about 214 degrees
> farenheit, even with the burner on high. Contrast that with canola oil,
> which I've had as high as 400. I never knew until then that water can
> apparently not be heated to a temperature higher than 214, at least not on
> a stovetop. Maybe it can be done in a lab under special conditions.


You should have gone to school You would have learned that water boils
at 212F at sea level and that salt increases the boiling point a little.
at the boiling point it changes from a liquid to a vapour.

"notbob" > wrote in message
...
> On 2009-10-24, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>
>
>> How was you nap during freshman General Science class?
>
> Probably about the same as yours:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superheating
>
> nb

Sorry but that does not apply. The thermometer is a nucleation point.

Mark Thorson wrote:
> dsi1 wrote:
>> You could get water and other liquids to boil at room temperatures under
>> special conditions. Blood will boil at extreme high altitudes and this
>> is what happens if a deep sea diver surfaces too fast.
>
> No, it's not boiling. The dissolved gases in the
> blood come out, like opening a bottle of soda.

Thanks. You're correct about this. What would be the proper term for this?

Reading from news:rec.food.cooking,
"Ed Pawlowski" > posted:

>
> "Damaeus" > wrote in message
> > For shits and giggles, I put a candy thermometer on the side of my pot
> > when I was boiling water for potatoes. I was actually amazed to find that
> > I could not get the temperature of the water beyond about 214 degrees
> > farenheit, even with the burner on high. Contrast that with canola oil,
> > which I've had as high as 400. I never knew until then that water can
> > apparently not be heated to a temperature higher than 214, at least not on
> > a stovetop. Maybe it can be done in a lab under special conditions.
> >
> > Damaeus
>
> Your thermometer is off by 2 degrees. You cannot get water above 212 at sea
> level unless you put it under pressure. At 125 psi, you can heat water to
> about 335 degrees, as an example.

I'm not at sea level. I'm about 300 feet above sea level, and the water
was salted. Salted water has a higher boiling point than unsalted water.

> How was you nap during freshman General Science class?

That was a long time ago. And I don't recall hearing that water could not
be taken to a temperature higher than 212, only that it boils at 212.

Damaeus

Reading from news:rec.food.cooking,
Mark Thorson > posted:

> Damaeus wrote:
>
> > For shits and giggles, I put a candy thermometer on the side of my pot
> > when I was boiling water for potatoes. I was actually amazed to find that
> > I could not get the temperature of the water beyond about 214 degrees
> > farenheit, even with the burner on high. Contrast that with canola oil,
> > which I've had as high as 400. I never knew until then that water can
> > apparently not be heated to a temperature higher than 214, at least not on
> > a stovetop. Maybe it can be done in a lab under special conditions.
>
> The special conditions are pressure. That's why a pressure cooker can
> reach a temperature above 212F.

I was thinking about a pressure cooker, but didn't want to make myself
more ignorant than necessary on the topic. I've never used a pressure
cooker before, but we do have one.

> When water is heated, it boils, and this boiling holds the temperature
> at the boiling point. If you pour more energy in, it just boils faster.
>
> The canola oil will not boil. If you get it hot enough, it cracks
> (molecules become shorter), fumes, and shortly thereafter self-ignites.
> At this point, you grab that open box of baking soda and dump it in to
> snuff out the flames.

I've never had a fire in the kitchen, despite my probably
higher-than-average frequency of deep frying. I've had bacon grease that
smoked so much that it looked like it might catch on fire, but it never
has. Interestingly, I've also never cut myself with a knife in the
kitchen, and I keep them quite sharp.

Damaeus

Reading from news:rec.food.cooking,
Dan Abel > posted:

> In article >,
> Damaeus > wrote:
>
> > Butter melts at body temperature. Shortening does not. Go figure.
>
> Body fat doesn't melt at body temperature, either. Good thing, or the
> term "body flab" would take on a whole new meaning.
>
> And it's a good thing that butterfat is a liquid at body temperature.
> Butterfat comes from milk, which comes out of little tiny holes. Could
> be pretty painful if it solidified in the mammary glands.
>
> :-)
>
> God (or Mother Nature, if you prefer) has a purpose for everything.

I know that shortening doesn't literally flow through our veins. It's
converted somehow in the intestines, but I couldn't help but visualize
butter at body temperature flowing and not clogging arteries, while Crisco
shortening being solid at body temperature and being the culprit in
clogged arteries. I've heard that combining shortening and high-fructose
corn syrup is what both clogs and hardens arteries. That's one of the
reasons I wish Coke in the USA was made with sugar instead of corn syrup.
Coke in Mexico is made with sugar, after all. What are they trying to do
in America? Murder us with corn syrup, exploding Pyrex dishes, and
expensive pharmaceuticals?

Damaeus

Reading from news:rec.food.cooking,
Mark Thorson > posted:

> I've only used it one, and it worked great. It fizzed a lot, but did
> not splash. I think any recommendation against not using may be
> assuming a worst case, like a very full pot of hot oil. I always
> deep-fry in rather shallow oil, an inch or less.

I decided that it's better to have a lot of oil in the pot, even if you're
only frying a small handful of something, or individual frozen items. The
more hot oil you have the less the temperature will be able to drop when
you put cold items into the pan.

Damaeus

Reading from news:rec.food.cooking,
Dave Smith > posted:

> Damaeus wrote:
>
> > For shits and giggles, I put a candy thermometer on the side of my pot
> > when I was boiling water for potatoes. I was actually amazed to find that
> > I could not get the temperature of the water beyond about 214 degrees
> > farenheit, even with the burner on high. Contrast that with canola oil,
> > which I've had as high as 400. I never knew until then that water can
> > apparently not be heated to a temperature higher than 214, at least not on
> > a stovetop. Maybe it can be done in a lab under special conditions.
>
> You should have gone to school You would have learned that water boils
> at 212F at sea level and that salt increases the boiling point a little.
> at the boiling point it changes from a liquid to a vapour.

Okay, I know that. The only thing I did not know was that you could not
get water to exceed its boiling point no matter how hot the fire is under
it. And just because I was unaware of that one point does not mean I
never attended school. You sure draw some wild conclusions, don't you?
Not only did I graduate from high school with an actual diploma, I never
even had to repeat any grades or attend summer school.

Even when I went through an online career college course (graphic design),
I maintained a 4.0 GPA, even through the academic courses: critical
thinking, algebra, sociology, psychology, and humanities.

Interesting how being unaware of one small point can lead one to believe
I'm completely lacking in all forms of education.

Damaeus

"Damaeus" > wrote in message >
> That was a long time ago. And I don't recall hearing that water could not
> be taken to a temperature higher than 212, only that it boils at 212.
>
> Damaeus

It not just boils, it turns to a vapor and becomes invisible.To clarify
further, when you see steam, you are not seeing the vapor but you see the
vapor condensing.

On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 03:49:13 -0500, Damaeus
> wrote:

>Reading from news:rec.food.cooking,
>"Ed Pawlowski" > posted:
>
>>
>> "Damaeus" > wrote in message
>> > For shits and giggles, I put a candy thermometer on the side of my pot
>> > when I was boiling water for potatoes. I was actually amazed to find that
>> > I could not get the temperature of the water beyond about 214 degrees
>> > farenheit, even with the burner on high. Contrast that with canola oil,
>> > which I've had as high as 400. I never knew until then that water can
>> > apparently not be heated to a temperature higher than 214, at least not on
>> > a stovetop. Maybe it can be done in a lab under special conditions.
>> >
>> > Damaeus
>>
>> Your thermometer is off by 2 degrees. You cannot get water above 212 at sea
>> level unless you put it under pressure. At 125 psi, you can heat water to
>> about 335 degrees, as an example.
>
>I'm not at sea level. I'm about 300 feet above sea level, and the water
>was salted. Salted water has a higher boiling point than unsalted water.

The boiling point of a gallon of water with a tablespoon of salt added
is roughly 0.13 degree F above the BP of pure water. (Salt is added
to water during cooking merely for flavor; it does not increase the BP
significantly unless scads of salt is used). Above sea level, the BP
drops, it doesn't rise.

It's far more likely that the thermometer is slightly off (2 degrees
is indeed "slightly"). Not at all uncommon. We hand out thermometers
to students in freshman chemistry so that they can measure boiling
points. The BP of distilled water in our labs has been measured
literally thousands of times with laboratory thermometers. Variations
of up to 2 degrees C (about 4 F) either way are the rule. And those
are nice glass thermometers, filled with red liquid, graduated to the
nearest degree and can be estimated to about 0.2 degree.**

Best -- Terry
**I can't help it, ya punched my teaching button. There can be an
enormous difference between the read-ability of any device and its
accuracy. With the proper internal electronics, a digital thermometer
can be made to display 6 decimal places... we've done it in our labs.
But the doggone thing only reads a temperature accurately to about
half a degree, from comparison with known standards. Bringing this
back to cooking...that's why an oven is best calibrated with one or
more thermometers, to find out whether "350 degrees" is actually
320...

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 21:33:08 -0400, Dave Smith wrote:

> Damaeus wrote:
>>
>>
>> For shits and giggles, I put a candy thermometer on the side of my pot
>> when I was boiling water for potatoes. I was actually amazed to find that
>> I could not get the temperature of the water beyond about 214 degrees
>> farenheit, even with the burner on high. Contrast that with canola oil,
>> which I've had as high as 400. I never knew until then that water can
>> apparently not be heated to a temperature higher than 214, at least not on
>> a stovetop. Maybe it can be done in a lab under special conditions.
>
> You should have gone to school You would have learned that water boils
> at 212F at sea level and that salt increases the boiling point a little.
> at the boiling point it changes from a liquid to a vapour.

it suddenly occurs to me that even though we've had many, many discussions
on the best way to hard-boil an egg, we still don't know the proper
procedure on the moon.

your pal,
blake

Damaeus wrote:

>> You should have gone to school You would have learned that water boils
>> at 212F at sea level and that salt increases the boiling point a little.
>> at the boiling point it changes from a liquid to a vapour.
>
> Okay, I know that. The only thing I did not know was that you could not
> get water to exceed its boiling point no matter how hot the fire is under
> it. And just because I was unaware of that one point does not mean I
> never attended school.

Water is a liquid. Freezing and evaporation are changes of state. Water
vapour... steam... can exceed 212F. Ice is the solid form of water. At
32F it changes to a liquid, so ice does not exceed 32F.

> You sure draw some wild conclusions, don't you?
> Not only did I graduate from high school with an actual diploma, I never
> even had to repeat any grades or attend summer school.

Frankly, that surprises me. I don't know how someone could have
successfully completed a science course without knowing something as
basic as the significance of the boiling point.

blake murphy wrote:
>
> it suddenly occurs to me that even though we've had many, many discussions
> on the best way to hard-boil an egg, we still don't know the proper
> procedure on the moon.

A few years ago were were visiting my wife's cousin near Denver. We had
been staying in a suite with a kitchenette near Estes Park and my wife
had boiled some eggs to eat latter, cooking them with the timing she
uses at home. When she cracked on open at her cousin's place the yolk
was runny, and her cousin commented on her discovery that eggs take
longer to boil when you are a mile above sea level.

Reading from news:rec.food.cooking,
Dave Smith > posted:

> Damaeus wrote:
>
> > You sure draw some wild conclusions, don't you?
> > Not only did I graduate from high school with an actual diploma, I never
> > even had to repeat any grades or attend summer school.
>
> Frankly, that surprises me. I don't know how someone could have
> successfully completed a science course without knowing something as
> basic as the significance of the boiling point.

Again, I know what the boiling point is, and what happens at water's
boiling point. I was simply unaware that you could not get the water,
itself, to exceed its boiling point and simply vaporize more quickly, even
to the point of sizzling away as if you had poured water on red-hot iron.

Damaeus

On 2009-10-25, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

> Sorry but that does not apply. The thermometer is a nucleation point.

So, yer saying if a thermometer was not inserted, the water didn't actually
exceed 212 deg F? C'mon, Ed.

nb

In article >,
Damaeus > wrote:


> I know that shortening doesn't literally flow through our veins. It's
> converted somehow in the intestines, but I couldn't help but visualize
> butter at body temperature flowing and not clogging arteries, while Crisco
> shortening being solid at body temperature and being the culprit in
> clogged arteries.

I believe that fatty stuff travels through our blood system as
cholesterol. I'm not too sure about how that works, though.

> I've heard that combining shortening and high-fructose
> corn syrup is what both clogs and hardens arteries.

I've never heard that. You wouldn't happen to have more details, would
you? I've always heard that throwing salt over your shoulder does
something, but I don't remember what. I don't do it anyway. I think
people would just laugh at me.

> That's one of the
> reasons I wish Coke in the USA was made with sugar instead of corn syrup.
> Coke in Mexico is made with sugar, after all. What are they trying to do
> in America?

It's pretty simple. It's spelled $$$$$$. The people who make sugar in
the US want to make lots of money. There are price supports and tariff
restrictions so that the price of sugar in the US is *twice* the world
price. On the other hand, the US government wants to support corn
production. Just ask Earl Butts. So HFCS, which is made from corn, is
cheap in the US. So the rest of the world uses sugar for sweetening,
and the US uses HFCS.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

Damaeus wrote:

>>> You sure draw some wild conclusions, don't you?
>>> Not only did I graduate from high school with an actual diploma, I never
>>> even had to repeat any grades or attend summer school.
>> Frankly, that surprises me. I don't know how someone could have
>> successfully completed a science course without knowing something as
>> basic as the significance of the boiling point.
>
> Again, I know what the boiling point is, and what happens at water's
> boiling point. I was simply unaware that you could not get the water,
> itself, to exceed its boiling point and simply vaporize more quickly, even
> to the point of sizzling away as if you had poured water on red-hot iron.


Perhaps you should be saying that you *thought* you knew what the
boiling point. You continue to expose you misunderstanding by admitting
that you cannot get the water to get hotter than 212. You can, but you
have to pressurize it.

Dan Abel wrote:

>> That's one of the
>> reasons I wish Coke in the USA was made with sugar instead of corn syrup.
>> Coke in Mexico is made with sugar, after all. What are they trying to do
>> in America?
>
> It's pretty simple. It's spelled $$$$$$. The people who make sugar in
> the US want to make lots of money. There are price supports and tariff
> restrictions so that the price of sugar in the US is *twice* the world
> price. On the other hand, the US government wants to support corn
> production. Just ask Earl Butts. So HFCS, which is made from corn, is
> cheap in the US. So the rest of the world uses sugar for sweetening,
> and the US uses HFCS.


It may not be much of a difference in the cost per can or bottle, but
with the soft drink industry selling millions of units, it adds up to a
major savings. Soft drinks are water, a bit of flavouring and a hell of
a lot of sugar or HFCS.

On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 13:12:15 -0600 in rec.food.cooking, Gloria P
> wrote,
>Current theory is NOT to use baking soda since it may cause the
>oil to bubble up and splash out of the pot and carry the flames
>elsewhere.
>
>You should either cover the pot with a lid or if it's a skillet,
>(this sounded weird to me) with a very wet dish towel.

I'm sure it OK to use a lid on a skillet, too.
Also, it's a good idea to turn the heat off under the pan.

On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 04:05:45 -0500 in rec.food.cooking, Damaeus
> wrote,
>Okay, I know that. The only thing I did not know was that you could not
>get water to exceed its boiling point no matter how hot the fire is under
>it.

It is a fairly fundamental point about the behavior of boiling liquids,
though. It's the reason most recipes that call for boiling for a long
time say to turn the heat down to a bare simmer. Boiling faster is only
useful if you want to reduce the stock by boiling away some of the water
in it.

Similarly, as long as there is solid ice present, ice water will be very
close to the 32F freezing point regardless of the outside temperature,
give or take variation due to lack of circulation in the container.

Dan Abel wrote:
> So the rest of the world uses sugar for sweetening,
> and the US uses HFCS.
>

Maybe not - I have a bottle of high fructose rice syrup that's made in
China. It's pretty mild stuff that has the consistency of honey and a
third of the calories of corn syrup. It comes in a cute bear shaped
bottle with a little green fabric bow tie and is artificially peach
flavored. My guess is that you could probably make a pecan pie with one
third less calories with this stuff. It would be less sweet which is OK
with me.

Wayne Boatwright wrote:
> On Sat 24 Oct 2009 11:33:01p, dsi1 told us...
>
>> Mark Thorson wrote:
>>> dsi1 wrote:
>>>> You could get water and other liquids to boil at room temperatures
> under
>>>> special conditions. Blood will boil at extreme high altitudes and this
>>>> is what happens if a deep sea diver surfaces too fast.
>>> No, it's not boiling. The dissolved gases in the blood come out, like
>>> opening a bottle of soda.
>> Thanks. You're correct about this. What would be the proper term for
> this?
>
> Typically, it be just called "The Bends".

I was referring to the spontaneous release of gas in a liquid. I guess
"outgassing" is as good a term as any.

>
> From Suite101.com...
>
> The bends, or Decompression Sickness, occurs when nitrogen bubbles in the
> blood lodge in certain parts of the body. A bubble caught in a vital organ
> can be fatal. Before much was known about decompression sickness, divers
> got bubbles lodged in their joints forcing them to “bend” over in pain.
>
> Nitrogen In the Blood
> A diver breathes air from the scuba tank that contains approximately 79 %
> nitrogen and 21 % oxygen. The pressure of being underwater forces the
> nitrogen into the body’s fatty tissues. The longer and deeper the dive, the
> more nitrogen is forced into the tissues. For example, at 10 metres the
> partial pressure of each gas is doubled, so twice as much nitrogen is
> absorbed into the tissues as on the surface. At 30 metres, four times as
> much nitrogen is absorbed.
>
> When the diver comes to the surface; that is, moves from a greater pressure
> to lesser pressure, the nitrogen comes out of the tissues back into the
> blood stream. This is like a bottle of beer being opened. The gas is kept
> in solution by the pressure under the cap; when this is removed the gas
> bubbles out.
>
> Getting this nitrogen out of the tissues at the correct rate is the
> challenge for divers.
>

Dave Smith wrote:
> Dan Abel wrote:
>
>>> That's one of the
>>> reasons I wish Coke in the USA was made with sugar instead of corn
>>> syrup.
>>> Coke in Mexico is made with sugar, after all. What are they trying
>>> to do
>>> in America?
>>
>> It's pretty simple. It's spelled $$$$$$. The people who make sugar
>> in the US want to make lots of money. There are price supports and
>> tariff restrictions so that the price of sugar in the US is *twice*
>> the world price. On the other hand, the US government wants to
>> support corn production. Just ask Earl Butts. So HFCS, which is made
>> from corn, is cheap in the US. So the rest of the world uses sugar
>> for sweetening, and the US uses HFCS.
>
>
> It may not be much of a difference in the cost per can or bottle, but
> with the soft drink industry selling millions of units, it adds up to a
> major savings. Soft drinks are water, a bit of flavouring and a hell of
> a lot of sugar or HFCS.

And the ones I drink are the same thing but with artificial sweetener
versus sugar and often cost more than the ones with sugar in them. AFAIK
the only cold drinks still made with real cane sugar are the Dr.
Pepper's bottled in Waco, TX. Haven't had one in years.

"dsi1" > wrote in message
...
>
> I was referring to the spontaneous release of gas in a liquid. I guess
> "outgassing" is as good a term as any.

You can take that to the cellular level and it is cellular respiration
caused by metabolism. For example (yes, biology course material) yeast and
water with sugar added produces CO2. Hydrogen peroxide + yeast produces
oxygen and water. The enzymes present allow a chemical reaction to take
place, and sometimes the result is a gas.