I buy the gallon size of milk, split it into two plastic half-gallon
containers when I get home, and freeze one. After thawing for a
couple of hours, there is still a block of frozen milk in the center.
If I use the liquid milk at this time, will it be the same
concentration as after the whole carton thaws and is shaken?

--
Bob Simon
remove both "x"s from domain for private replies

Bob Simon wrote:
> I buy the gallon size of milk, split it into two plastic half-gallon
> containers when I get home, and freeze one. After thawing for a
> couple of hours, there is still a block of frozen milk in the center.
> If I use the liquid milk at this time, will it be the same
> concentration as after the whole carton thaws and is shaken?

Yes. Homoginized milk does not separate as it freezes.

Sheldon

On 10 Aug 2005 09:16:58 -0700, "Sheldon" > wrote:

>
>Bob Simon wrote:
>> I buy the gallon size of milk, split it into two plastic half-gallon
>> containers when I get home, and freeze one. After thawing for a
>> couple of hours, there is still a block of frozen milk in the center.
>> If I use the liquid milk at this time, will it be the same
>> concentration as after the whole carton thaws and is shaken?
>
>Yes. Homoginized milk does not separate as it freezes.
>
>Sheldon

Doesn't separation refer to separating the milk fat from the skim
milk?. Since skim milk is still opaque white, I presume that most of
the milk solids are water soluable. If true, then separation may not
be the most important process to consider.

I asked about this because this morning I drank a glass of the melted
milk and noticed that the top of the frozen block remaining was not
opaque white. Instead, it appeared to be somewhat transparent. I'm
not saying you're wrong, Sheldon, but I wonder if the frozen block
might actually be more water than the melted milk.

--
Bob Simon
remove both "x"s from domain for private replies

"Bob Simon" > wrote

> I asked about this because this morning I drank a glass of the melted
> milk and noticed that the top of the frozen block remaining was not
> opaque white. Instead, it appeared to be somewhat transparent. I'm
> not saying you're wrong, Sheldon, but I wonder if the frozen block
> might actually be more water than the melted milk.

In the past, when people have asked about freezing milk, inevitably
the answer is 'shake it once it's thawed' ... I'd give it time, then shake
it up, if I were you.

nancy

Nancy Young wrote on 10 Aug 2005 in rec.food.cooking

>
> "Bob Simon" > wrote
>
> > I asked about this because this morning I drank a glass of the
> > melted milk and noticed that the top of the frozen block remaining
> > was not opaque white. Instead, it appeared to be somewhat
> > transparent. I'm not saying you're wrong, Sheldon, but I wonder
> > if the frozen block might actually be more water than the melted
> > milk.
>
> In the past, when people have asked about freezing milk, inevitably
> the answer is 'shake it once it's thawed' ... I'd give it time, then
> shake it up, if I were you.
>
> nancy
>
>
>

The butter fat and the milk solids seperate from the water. So it is
kinda important to defrost the whole container of milk and shake it well
before drinking; if you don't want weird tasting milk. When I was married
and had 2 small children we would often freeze milk (plastic bags of 1
qt. size). And learned that you can defrost the milk fairly fast on
defrost in the microwave. And if you shook it after it was defrosted
nobody could tell the difference.


--
The eyes are the mirrors....
But the ears...Ah the ears.
The ears keep the hat up.

Mr Libido Incognito wrote:
> Nancy Young wrote on 10 Aug 2005 in rec.food.cooking
>
> >
> > "Bob Simon" > wrote
> >
> > > I asked about this because this morning I drank a glass of the
> > > melted milk and noticed that the top of the frozen block remaining
> > > was not opaque white. Instead, it appeared to be somewhat
> > > transparent. I'm not saying you're wrong, Sheldon, but I wonder
> > > if the frozen block might actually be more water than the melted
> > > milk.
> >
> > In the past, when people have asked about freezing milk, inevitably
> > the answer is 'shake it once it's thawed' ... I'd give it time, then
> > shake it up, if I were you.
> >
> > nancy
> >
> >
> >
>
> The butter fat and the milk solids seperate from the water. So it is
> kinda important to defrost the whole container of milk and shake it well
> before drinking.

The components of frozen homogenized milk to not change proportion from
the yet frozen portion upon thawing (for all intents adn purposes of
culinary use milk freezes and thaws at a constant rate), any separation
occuring is insignificant and can easily be remedied by a few shakes.
The yet frozen portion will contain precisely the same proportion of
components as from before the milk was initially frozen... it is NOT
necessary to thaw the entire container before using... in fact it is
wiser to use frozen milk while still thawing as the frozen portion
remains fresher longer, definitely do NOT permit the entire container
to thaw on the countertop, at the most allow only half to thaw without
benefit of refrigeration unless you will be using it all at the moment.

Sheldon

Sheldon wrote on 10 Aug 2005 in rec.food.cooking

>
> Mr Libido Incognito wrote:
> > Nancy Young wrote on 10 Aug 2005 in rec.food.cooking
> >
> > >
> > > "Bob Simon" > wrote
> > >
> > > > I asked about this because this morning I drank a glass of the
> > > > melted milk and noticed that the top of the frozen block
> > > > remaining was not opaque white. Instead, it appeared to be
> > > > somewhat transparent. I'm not saying you're wrong, Sheldon,
> > > > but I wonder if the frozen block might actually be more water
> > > > than the melted milk.
> > >
> > > In the past, when people have asked about freezing milk,
> > > inevitably the answer is 'shake it once it's thawed' ... I'd
> > > give it time, then shake it up, if I were you.
> > >
> > > nancy
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > The butter fat and the milk solids seperate from the water. So it
> > is kinda important to defrost the whole container of milk and
> > shake it well before drinking.
>
> The components of frozen homogenized milk to not change proportion
> from the yet frozen portion upon thawing (for all intents adn
> purposes of culinary use milk freezes and thaws at a constant rate),
> any separation occuring is insignificant and can easily be remedied
> by a few shakes. The yet frozen portion will contain precisely the
> same proportion of components as from before the milk was initially
> frozen... it is NOT necessary to thaw the entire container before
> using... in fact it is wiser to use frozen milk while still thawing
> as the frozen portion remains fresher longer, definitely do NOT
> permit the entire container to thaw on the countertop, at the most
> allow only half to thaw without benefit of refrigeration unless you
> will be using it all at the moment.
>
> Sheldon
>
>

Whatever...just be sure to shake the milk to make it taste normal...

--
The eyes are the mirrors....
But the ears...Ah the ears.
The ears keep the hat up.

Sheldon wrote:
> Mr Libido Incognito wrote:
>
>>Nancy Young wrote on 10 Aug 2005 in rec.food.cooking
>>
>>
>>>"Bob Simon" > wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>>I asked about this because this morning I drank a glass of the
>>>>melted milk and noticed that the top of the frozen block remaining
>>>>was not opaque white. Instead, it appeared to be somewhat
>>>>transparent. I'm not saying you're wrong, Sheldon, but I wonder
>>>>if the frozen block might actually be more water than the melted
>>>>milk.
>>>
>>>In the past, when people have asked about freezing milk, inevitably
>>>the answer is 'shake it once it's thawed' ... I'd give it time, then
>>>shake it up, if I were you.
>>>
>>>nancy
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>The butter fat and the milk solids seperate from the water. So it is
>>kinda important to defrost the whole container of milk and shake it well
>>before drinking.
>
>
> The components of frozen homogenized milk to not change proportion from
> the yet frozen portion upon thawing (for all intents adn purposes of
> culinary use milk freezes and thaws at a constant rate), any separation
> occuring is insignificant and can easily be remedied by a few shakes.
> The yet frozen portion will contain precisely the same proportion of
> components as from before the milk was initially frozen... it is NOT
> necessary to thaw the entire container before using... in fact it is
> wiser to use frozen milk while still thawing as the frozen portion
> remains fresher longer, definitely do NOT permit the entire container
> to thaw on the countertop, at the most allow only half to thaw without
> benefit of refrigeration unless you will be using it all at the moment.

This isn't true. Milk is a complex mixture of water-based liquids,
solids, fats, sugars and other chemicals. They each freeze or solidify
at different rates. If you take a quart of milk and freeze it and then
saw it in half, you will see distinct freeze zones. With more water at
the periphery and more solids in the center. Same as freeze-distilling
alcoholic ferments. There will be migration of various components to
different strata in from the edges.

Freezing hardens fats and makes jagged water crystals that tear the
phospholipid layer around the fat globules. The membrane material ends
up free-floating in the milk and it's cooking and fermenting properties
will have been damaged. Freezing also disrupts protein particles which
will clump when thawed. Lactose crystals can also form. It's very
different than fresh milk. Drink some side by side and the thawed milk
will have a different mouthfeel and should be slightly sweeter.

Pastorio

Sheldon wrote:

> The yet frozen portion will contain precisely the same proportion of
> components as from before the milk was initially frozen... it is NOT
> necessary to thaw the entire container before using... in fact it is
> wiser to use frozen milk while still thawing as the frozen portion
> remains fresher longer, definitely do NOT permit the entire container
> to thaw on the countertop, at the most allow only half to thaw without
> benefit of refrigeration unless you will be using it all at the moment.
>


Does this also hold true for Lady Godiva if she goes out a - trottin' on her
horse for a good whiles in the snow...???

--
Best
Greg

Sheldon wrote:

>
>
> The components of frozen homogenized milk to not change proportion from
> the yet frozen portion upon thawing (for all intents adn purposes of
> culinary use milk freezes and thaws at a constant rate), any separation
> occuring is insignificant and can easily be remedied by a few shakes.
> The yet frozen portion will contain precisely the same proportion of
> components as from before the milk was initially frozen... it is NOT
> necessary to thaw the entire container before using... in fact it is
> wiser to use frozen milk while still thawing as the frozen portion
> remains fresher longer, definitely do NOT permit the entire container
> to thaw on the countertop, at the most allow only half to thaw without
> benefit of refrigeration unless you will be using it all at the moment.
>
> Sheldon
>

I haven't found this to be true in practice. Any time I have used milk
that is partially frozen I found that that the liquid part was richer
and thicker and later when the remaining frozen part melted the milk was
thinner and weaker.

: > The components of frozen homogenized milk to not change proportion from
: > the yet frozen portion upon thawing (for all intents adn purposes of
: > culinary use milk freezes and thaws at a constant rate), any separation
: > occuring is insignificant and can easily be remedied by a few shakes.
: > The yet frozen portion will contain precisely the same proportion of
: > components as from before the milk was initially frozen... it is NOT
: > necessary to thaw the entire container before using... in fact it is
: > wiser to use frozen milk while still thawing as the frozen portion
: > remains fresher longer, definitely do NOT permit the entire container
: > to thaw on the countertop, at the most allow only half to thaw without
: > benefit of refrigeration unless you will be using it all at the moment.
: >
: > Sheldon
: >

: I haven't found this to be true in practice. Any time I have used milk
: that is partially frozen I found that that the liquid part was richer
: and thicker and later when the remaining frozen part melted the milk was
: thinner and weaker.


So, the general consensus is that Sheldon is wrong once again!

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 23:39:48 -0400, "Bob (this one)" >
wrote:

>Milk is a complex mixture of water-based liquids,
>solids, fats, sugars and other chemicals. They each freeze or solidify
>at different rates. If you take a quart of milk and freeze it and then
>saw it in half, you will see distinct freeze zones. With more water at
>the periphery and more solids in the center.

Pastorio,
Thank you for your informative analysis. But are you sure it's not
more solids outside and more water in the center? The still-frozen
core appears to me to be more transparent than the melted milk
suggesting that it contains less solids. George's comment is also
consistent with my observation.
Bob Simon

--
Bob Simon
remove both "x"s from domain for private replies

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 23:39:48 -0400, "Bob (this one)" >
wrote:

>Sheldon wrote:
>> Mr Libido Incognito wrote:
>>
>>>Nancy Young wrote on 10 Aug 2005 in rec.food.cooking
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Bob Simon" > wrote
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I asked about this because this morning I drank a glass of the
>>>>>melted milk and noticed that the top of the frozen block remaining
>>>>>was not opaque white. Instead, it appeared to be somewhat
>>>>>transparent. I'm not saying you're wrong, Sheldon, but I wonder
>>>>>if the frozen block might actually be more water than the melted
>>>>>milk.
>>>>
>>>>In the past, when people have asked about freezing milk, inevitably
>>>>the answer is 'shake it once it's thawed' ... I'd give it time, then
>>>>shake it up, if I were you.
>>>>
>>>>nancy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>The butter fat and the milk solids seperate from the water. So it is
>>>kinda important to defrost the whole container of milk and shake it well
>>>before drinking.
>>
>>
>> The components of frozen homogenized milk to not change proportion from
>> the yet frozen portion upon thawing (for all intents adn purposes of
>> culinary use milk freezes and thaws at a constant rate), any separation
>> occuring is insignificant and can easily be remedied by a few shakes.
>> The yet frozen portion will contain precisely the same proportion of
>> components as from before the milk was initially frozen... it is NOT
>> necessary to thaw the entire container before using... in fact it is
>> wiser to use frozen milk while still thawing as the frozen portion
>> remains fresher longer, definitely do NOT permit the entire container
>> to thaw on the countertop, at the most allow only half to thaw without
>> benefit of refrigeration unless you will be using it all at the moment.
>
>This isn't true. Milk is a complex mixture of water-based liquids,
>solids, fats, sugars and other chemicals. They each freeze or solidify
>at different rates. If you take a quart of milk and freeze it and then
>saw it in half, you will see distinct freeze zones. With more water at
>the periphery and more solids in the center. Same as freeze-distilling
>alcoholic ferments. There will be migration of various components to
>different strata in from the edges.
>
>Freezing hardens fats and makes jagged water crystals that tear the
>phospholipid layer around the fat globules. The membrane material ends
>up free-floating in the milk and it's cooking and fermenting properties
>will have been damaged. Freezing also disrupts protein particles which
>will clump when thawed. Lactose crystals can also form. It's very
>different than fresh milk. Drink some side by side and the thawed milk
>will have a different mouthfeel and should be slightly sweeter.
>
>Pastorio

In my experience, almost everything Sheldon posted is wrong and Bob
is right. Actually, IMO, that's true about just about everything
Sheldon posts, but that's another story .

I used to freeze homogenized milk but ended up preferring to freeze
1%. The lower fat content of 1% milk made the defrosted milk extremely
close to the unfrozen milk, but not identical. It was closer to the
original 1% milk than how frozen/defrosted homogenized milk ended up.

"Bob Simon" > wrote in message
...
> I buy the gallon size of milk, split it into two plastic half-gallon
> containers when I get home, and freeze one. After thawing for a
> couple of hours, there is still a block of frozen milk in the center.
> If I use the liquid milk at this time, will it be the same
> concentration as after the whole carton thaws and is shaken?
>

I can't speak from direct experience of personally freezing milk
However, from chemistry, theory says there should be a slight , but not
significant, difference in fat-containing milk, which depoends on the rate
of freezing-

1) There are two immisicible liquids in all but skim milks: fat-based and
water-based solutions.
The water has dissolved sugars, etc. The fat has dissolved vitamins,
etc.

2) Homogenized milk is a suspension of fat solids in water solution; the fat
is not dissolved in the milk.
Homogenizing "breaks" the cold fat into small enough particles that they
don't float in the water solution Think cold butter blasted into such tiny
particles that they remain as solids suspended in the water.

(since there is no apparent need to homogenize skim milk, is skim milk
homogenized?)

3) Dissolving compounds in a liquid lowers its freezing point, but as I
remember, adding non-dissolved solids in suspension does not.
The dissolved compounds in the solution do not separate out. They freeze
evenly.
(Think salt added to ice-water to make ice cream to lower the freezing
point, and think frozen confections which freeze with the dissolved sugars
evenly distributed. )
I believe suspended solid particles can be separated out only if the
freezing is done slow enough. Think ore refining to remove impurities, and
slow freezing with ice extraction used to concentrate solids in suspension.

4) Liquids frozen in a container do not freeze all at once (supernatant
excluded).
There are two conditions of freezing: rapid freezing, where the water
crystals in contact with the much-colder sides form first and cool so
rapidly they cannot migrate to the top of the solution, and they grow small
crystals from the sides, expanding into the rest of the solution, trapping
most of the suspended particles in the crystal matrix; and slow freezing,
where the water cools and expands and floats to form large-ice-crystal ice
on top, ice unable to trap the suspended solids until the convection slows.

Theoretically -
The water and water-soluble solids should freeze at one temp, lower than
that of water.

If you freeze the milk and suspended fats fast enough, it shouldn't
separate.

If you freeze it slow enough , the concentration of suspended particles
will vary, by location, in the container.

theoretically.....

---------

Note - due to the expansion of water as it becomes a solid, and that it
takes time-in-liquid to create large ice crystals, cells containing water
and molecules which attach to the ice crytal lattice are not damaged by very
rapid freezing, but they will be damaged by slow freezing due to the large
crystal formation. That suggests that taste may be affected by slow
freezing.

> --
> Bob Simon
> remove both "x"s from domain for private replies

hob wrote:
> "Bob Simon" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I buy the gallon size of milk, split it into two plastic half-gallon
> > containers when I get home, and freeze one. After thawing for a
> > couple of hours, there is still a block of frozen milk in the center.
> > If I use the liquid milk at this time, will it be the same
> > concentration as after the whole carton thaws and is shaken?
> >
>
> I can't speak from direct experience of personally freezing milk
> However, from chemistry, theory says there should be a slight , but not
> significant, difference in fat-containing milk, which depoends on the rate
> of freezing-
>
> 1) There are two immisicible liquids in all but skim milks: fat-based and
> water-based solutions.
> The water has dissolved sugars, etc. The fat has dissolved vitamins,
> etc.
>
> 2) Homogenized milk is a suspension of fat solids in water solution; the fat
> is not dissolved in the milk.
> Homogenizing "breaks" the cold fat into small enough particles that they
> don't float in the water solution Think cold butter blasted into such tiny
> particles that they remain as solids suspended in the water.
>
> (since there is no apparent need to homogenize skim milk, is skim milk
> homogenized?)

Yes, skim milk is homogenized... skim milk is not fat free, it contains
about 1% fat. All that you contributed is correct. Modern
homogenizing methods are very through so milk does not readily separate
when freezing or thawing, certainly not when using modern frost free
freezers and thawing, at least partially, while under refrigeration...
anyone still using old fashioned refrigerators should divide milk into
smaller containers before freezing, but should do the same with all
foods. If homogenized milk were prone to separation it would certainly
do so while under refrigeration and certainly when left at room
temperature, it does not, not to any meaningful degree. Those who claim
their frozen milk separates are doing something incorrectly, or simply
lying... old milk that is just beginning to sour will separate much
more readily... did I mention LYING. Btw, human breast milk is frozen
all the time (a very common practice), and is not homogenized,
leastways not after leaving the breast. hehe


> 3) Dissolving compounds in a liquid lowers its freezing point, but as I
> remember, adding non-dissolved solids in suspension does not.
> The dissolved compounds in the solution do not separate out. They freeze
> evenly.
> (Think salt added to ice-water to make ice cream to lower the freezing
> point, and think frozen confections which freeze with the dissolved sugars
> evenly distributed. )
> I believe suspended solid particles can be separated out only if the
> freezing is done slow enough. Think ore refining to remove impurities, and
> slow freezing with ice extraction used to concentrate solids in suspension.
>
> 4) Liquids frozen in a container do not freeze all at once (supernatant
> excluded).
> There are two conditions of freezing: rapid freezing, where the water
> crystals in contact with the much-colder sides form first and cool so
> rapidly they cannot migrate to the top of the solution, and they grow small
> crystals from the sides, expanding into the rest of the solution, trapping
> most of the suspended particles in the crystal matrix; and slow freezing,
> where the water cools and expands and floats to form large-ice-crystal ice
> on top, ice unable to trap the suspended solids until the convection slows.
>
> Theoretically -
> The water and water-soluble solids should freeze at one temp, lower than
> that of water.
>
> If you freeze the milk and suspended fats fast enough, it shouldn't
> separate.
>
> If you freeze it slow enough , the concentration of suspended particles
> will vary, by location, in the container.
>
> theoretically.....
>
> ---------
>
> Note - due to the expansion of water as it becomes a solid, and that it
> takes time-in-liquid to create large ice crystals, cells containing water
> and molecules which attach to the ice crytal lattice are not damaged by very
> rapid freezing, but they will be damaged by slow freezing due to the large
> crystal formation. That suggests that taste may be affected by slow
> freezing.
>
> > --
> > Bob Simon
> > remove both "x"s from domain for private replies

Sheldon wrote:
> hob wrote:
>
>> "Bob Simon" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> I buy the gallon size of milk, split it into two plastic
>>> half-gallon containers when I get home, and freeze one. After
>>> thawing for a couple of hours, there is still a block of frozen
>>> milk in the center. If I use the liquid milk at this time, will
>>> it be the same concentration as after the whole carton thaws and
>>> is shaken?
>>>
>>
>> I can't speak from direct experience of personally freezing milk
>> However, from chemistry, theory says there should be a slight , but
>> not significant, difference in fat-containing milk, which depends
>> on the rate of freezing-

No. The explanation here for what milk is has important missing components.

>> 1) There are two immisicible liquids in all but skim milks:
>> fat-based and water-based solutions. The water has dissolved
>> sugars, etc. The fat has dissolved vitamins, etc.
>>
>> 2) Homogenized milk is a suspension of fat solids in water
>> solution; the fat is not dissolved in the milk. Homogenizing
>> "breaks" the cold fat into small enough particles that they don't
>> float in the water solution Think cold butter blasted into such
>> tiny particles that they remain as solids suspended in the water.

But that's not what milk is. Cold butter blasted into a water-based
liquid would eventually come out of suspension unless something
prevented the butter particles from touching and rejoining. That's why
milk stays homogenized and a vinaigrette doesn't.

>> (since there is no apparent need to homogenize skim milk, is skim
>> milk homogenized?)
>
> Yes, skim milk is homogenized... skim milk is not fat free, it
> contains about 1% fat.

No. It doesn't. 1% milk has 1% fat. Skim has between 0.1% and a maximum
of 0.5% fat. And it is homogenized to keep that fat in suspension.

> All that you contributed is correct. Modern
> homogenizing methods are very through so milk does not readily
> separate when freezing or thawing, certainly not when using modern
> frost free freezers and thawing, at least partially, while under
> refrigeration... anyone still using old fashioned refrigerators
> should divide milk into smaller containers before freezing, but
> should do the same with all foods.

This is utter nonsense. Homogenization of milk is not simply a matter of
making the milk fat particles small. Homogenization is done by forcing
hot milk through tiny nozzles at high pressure. The fat globules are
reduced from about 4 micrometers down to about 1 micrometer (millionths
of a meter). The fat attracts casein protein particles which adhere to
the fat and create a membrane around each globule which interferes with
the normal fat clumping. That's why the fat stays dispersed. Each tiny
fat globule is surrounded by a membrane that keeps it separated from
every other one and prevents them from rejoining.

Freezers come in two varieties; conventional and frost-free.
Conventional freezers stay to a very narrow range of temperatures by
cycling on when the temperature in it drops below the thermostat setting
by a fixed amount. It turns on the compressor, sucks some heat out of
the freezer compartment and gets back down below that trigger temperature.

Frost-free freezers have much wider variability for temperatures. The
reason that there's no frost in them is because they are designed to
warm the interior of the freezer compartment to evaporate frost. The
evaporated water is condensed onto a coil that gets heated to make it
become water which is channeled out of the freezer compartment to an
evaporator pan where it's heated to evaporate into the room.

Neither kind makes any difference in short-term freezing of anything.
Over longer periods, the frost-free will cause a great deal more freezer
burn because of the temperature variations and subsequent moisture
migration. This is an absolute irrelevancy in the matter of what happens
to milk when frozen. And Sheldon's prattle is, from the viewpoint of
physics, absolutely backwards.

> If homogenized milk were prone to
> separation it would certainly do so while under refrigeration and
> certainly when left at room temperature, it does not, not to any
> meaningful degree.

Given that the fat globules are held separate by proteins that aren't
themselves subject to variations at above-freezing temperatures, this is
just more Sheldon nonsense. He simply doesn't understand what milk is.
And is not.

> Those who claim their frozen milk separates are
> doing something incorrectly, or simply lying... old milk that is just
> beginning to sour will separate much more readily... did I mention
> LYING.

More Sheldon nasty bullshit from the normal complement of Sheldon ignorance.

> Btw, human breast milk is frozen all the time (a very common
> practice), and is not homogenized, leastways not after leaving the
> breast. hehe

Hehe. He said "breast." hehe... Idiot.

The milk will separate into its fat and cream components. The protein
matrix has never formed, so can't be broken by freezing.

>> 3) Dissolving compounds in a liquid lowers its freezing point, but
>> as I remember, adding non-dissolved solids in suspension does not.
>> The dissolved compounds in the solution do not separate out. They
>> freeze evenly. (Think salt added to ice-water to make ice cream to
>> lower the freezing point, and think frozen confections which
>> freeze with the dissolved sugars evenly distributed.)

Not completely accurate. Look at large blocks of ice made from water
than hasn't been de-ionized and boiled to remove dissolved gases.
There's always a cloudy center. Commercial ice makers make clear ice
from moving water for that reason. Home-made ice cubes will all have a
cloudy center. It's dissolved minerals and gases, and they've migrated
to the center.

>> I believe
>> suspended solid particles can be separated out only if the freezing
>> is done slow enough. Think ore refining to remove impurities, and
>> slow freezing with ice extraction used to concentrate solids in
>> suspension.

And think of freeze-distillation of fermented alcohols. The water
freezes out leaving a more concentrated alcohol behind. It can be done
several times, each time concentrating the alcohol further until it
reaches a point where the concentration is so high that it would require
extraordinary temperatures to do it again.

>> 4) Liquids frozen in a container do not freeze all at once
>> (supernatant excluded). There are two conditions of freezing: rapid
>> freezing, where the water crystals in contact with the much-colder
>> sides form first and cool so rapidly they cannot migrate to the top
>> of the solution, and they grow small crystals from the sides,
>> expanding into the rest of the solution, trapping most of the
>> suspended particles in the crystal matrix; and slow freezing, where
>> the water cools and expands and floats to form large-ice-crystal
>> ice on top, ice unable to trap the suspended solids until the
>> convection slows.

This doesn't take into account the nature of milk as described above.
Freezing will disrupt the protein matrix surrounding each fat globule so
that upon thawing, the fat will clump. The protein will, as well, and
change the mouthfeel. Agitation can help to redistribute the fat, but
not to the condition before freezing.

>> Theoretically - The water and water-soluble solids should freeze at
>> one temp, lower than that of water.
>>
>> If you freeze the milk and suspended fats fast enough, it shouldn't
>> separate.
>>
>> If you freeze it slow enough , the concentration of suspended
>> particles will vary, by location, in the container.
>>
>> theoretically.....

And a very nice theory it is. Except for the chemistry and physics of
milk, it's lovely. The complexity of milk, however, removes it from this
view.

I suggest reading "On Food and Cooking" revised 2004 for a much longer
and scientifically clear discussion of milk and everything about it.
Harold McGee is one of my heroes. Good science and good writing.

Pastorio

> ---------
>>
>> Note - due to the expansion of water as it becomes a solid, and
>> that it takes time-in-liquid to create large ice crystals, cells
>> containing water and molecules which attach to the ice crytal
>> lattice are not damaged by very rapid freezing, but they will be
>> damaged by slow freezing due to the large crystal formation. That
>> suggests that taste may be affected by slow freezing.
>>
>>> -- Bob Simon remove both "x"s from domain for private replies
>
>

I think you don't very much like to get caught being wrong, again.
Let's stick to the basics and to the facts germane to the discussion and
refrain from left field factoids about refrigerators and the absolute size
of the suspensoid.

specifics below

"Bob (this one)" > wrote in message
...
> Sheldon wrote:
> > hob wrote:
> >
> >> "Bob Simon" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>
> >>> I buy the gallon size of milk, split it into two plastic
> >>> half-gallon containers when I get home, and freeze one. After
> >>> thawing for a couple of hours, there is still a block of frozen
> >>> milk in the center. If I use the liquid milk at this time, will
> >>> it be the same concentration as after the whole carton thaws and
> >>> is shaken?
> >>>
> >>
> >> I can't speak from direct experience of personally freezing milk
> >> However, from chemistry, theory says there should be a slight , but
> >> not significant, difference in fat-containing milk, which depends
> >> on the rate of freezing-
>
> No. The explanation here for what milk is has important missing
components.

Missing components? If there are somethings in milk other than solute,
suspended particles, and dissolved stuff, please, tell us.
And none of that "It's so complex, it can't be studied or follow any rules
of science"

Is the 1 micron particle size of butterfat important? (Apparently mom shook
that old milk bottle so hard she turned the fat from your existing 4 micron
globs into 2-3 micron particles but couldn't quite get that last micron,
since it took a day or two for the cream to separate again. And I didn't
realize my eyes were that good.)
By explaining in such detail the size of the particle, are you disputing
the statement that the fat is suspended in the liquid, i.e., an emulsion?

By explaining in great detail how a frost-free refrigerator works
(incorrectly I might add - it sounds far more like a Google answer than a
refrigeration engineer's answer) compared to non-frost-free unit, are you
saying that the rate of refrigeration has nothing to do with how much of the
suspended matter is trapped in the ice-crystal matrix?

>
> >> 1) There are two immisicible liquids in all but skim milks:
> >> fat-based and water-based solutions. The water has dissolved
> >> sugars, etc. The fat has dissolved vitamins, etc.
> >>
> >> 2) Homogenized milk is a suspension of fat solids in water
> >> solution; the fat is not dissolved in the milk. Homogenizing
> >> "breaks" the cold fat into small enough particles that they don't
> >> float in the water solution Think cold butter blasted into such
> >> tiny particles that they remain as solids suspended in the water.
>
> But that's not what milk is. Cold butter blasted into a water-based
> liquid would eventually come out of suspension unless something
> prevented the butter particles from touching and rejoining. That's why
> milk stays homogenized and a vinaigrette doesn't.

And the homogenized salad dressing?

reality is that the smaller the particle, the longer to takes to "cluster"
in a solute. If you get homogenized milk fat small enough to last three
weeks in the cold carton before it noticeably separates, and by then the
milk is either drunk or bad, so who could tell and who would care? Get it
superfine and it will last months in warm ultra-cartons.

>
> >> (since there is no apparent need to homogenize skim milk, is skim
> >> milk homogenized?)
> >
> > Yes, skim milk is homogenized... skim milk is not fat free, it
> > contains about 1% fat.
>
> No. It doesn't. 1% milk has 1% fat. Skim has between 0.1% and a maximum
> of 0.5% fat. And it is homogenized to keep that fat in suspension.
>
> > All that you contributed is correct. Modern
> > homogenizing methods are very through so milk does not readily
> > separate when freezing or thawing, certainly not when using modern
> > frost free freezers and thawing, at least partially, while under
> > refrigeration... anyone still using old fashioned refrigerators
> > should divide milk into smaller containers before freezing, but
> > should do the same with all foods.
>
> This is utter nonsense.

Nonsense? Are you saying that the air (moved by the defrosting fan) does not
remove heat from the surface of the container more rapidly than does natural
convection from still air?
That sure put a hole in my year of thermodynamics and all that convection
theory, and there will be a lot of commercial freezing operations happy to
hear that they can save a lot of money by turning off fans if they follow
your advice.

>Homogenization of milk is not simply a matter of
> making the milk fat particles small. Homogenization is done by forcing
> hot milk through tiny nozzles at high pressure. The fat globules are
> reduced from about 4 micrometers down to about 1 micrometer (millionths
> of a meter). The fat attracts casein protein particles which adhere to
> the fat and create a membrane around each globule which interferes with
> the normal fat clumping.

(Actually less than 1 micron) Which is how homogenized 1% and whole milk
both have the same protein when protein-attracting-fat is removed from one
and not the other?

And BTW,
that arguement makes that 1 micron bit of fat a suspended particle.

It is either dissolved or suspended or solute.

It either floats or it sinks.

And please refrain from telling me that before homogenization, there was a
floating fat layer on the top and sinking protein layer on the bottom of the
glass bottles - and in milk tanks - so they even out in bouyancy with water.
And if that isn't enough, that casein on my cocoa floats, too.

>That's why the fat stays dispersed. Each tiny
> fat globule is surrounded by a membrane that keeps it separated from
> every other one and prevents them from rejoining.
>

The "why" the particle stays small is not germaine to freezing- the
identification as a suspended particle rather than dissolved is.

So we agree that milk is a solute with suspended and dissolved parts.


> Freezers come in two varieties; conventional and frost-free.
> Conventional freezers stay to a very narrow range of temperatures by
> cycling on when the temperature in it drops below the thermostat setting
> by a fixed amount. It turns on the compressor, sucks some heat out of
> the freezer compartment and gets back down below that trigger temperature.
>

> Frost-free freezers have much wider variability for temperatures.

Utter bull.

That would be because the fan moves the air instead of letting it stratify?
How does that "air moving in the freezer making for more variability in
temperature " work?

Take it from someone who designs such systems - the temperature control
is the same for both types. Set point and hysterisis. See the thermostat on
each one's schematic.

The frost-free uses a fan to move air RAPIDLY IN THE FREEZER and enhance
sublimation there, where frost builds up. It also has a bi-metal
sensor/heater ON THE ENCLOSED COOLING COIL which is OUTSIDE THE FREEZER
COMPARTMENT (or behind the panel, if you will), which heats the freezer
coil itself for a very short time once a day, and cuts off the fan when it
does, if there is ice.
And it has features common to that level of appliance - e.g., mullion
heaters in the non-frozen area, which have little to do with defrosting.

>The
> reason that there's no frost in them is because they are designed to
> warm the interior of the freezer compartment to evaporate frost.

No, it's becuase the heater warms the ice-colecting cooling coil metal as
needed (bi-metal), and the cooling coils are not in the freezer compartment,
but rather in a separate compartment. Moving cold air sublimates ice there
and everywhere else- see the ice cube trays in the airflow.

The
> evaporated water is condensed onto a coil that gets heated to make it
> become water which is channeled out of the freezer compartment to an
> evaporator pan where it's heated to evaporate into the room.
>

> Neither kind makes any difference in short-term freezing of anything.

Thus increased convection has no effect on removing heat? You sound like one
of those who think wind has no effect on the rate of heat loss of an engine.

> Over longer periods, the frost-free will cause a great deal more freezer
> burn because of the temperature variations and subsequent moisture
> migration. This is an absolute irrelevancy in the matter of what happens
> to milk when frozen. And Sheldon's prattle is, from the viewpoint of
> physics, absolutely backwards.
>

I think you know little of the freezing process, or else you wouldn't make
such foolish statements.

> > If homogenized milk were prone to
> > separation it would certainly do so while under refrigeration and
> > certainly when left at room temperature, it does not, not to any
> > meaningful degree.
>
> Given that the fat globules are held separate by proteins that aren't
> themselves subject to variations at above-freezing temperatures, this is
> just more Sheldon nonsense. He simply doesn't understand what milk is.
> And is not.
>

That is an unbelievable statement. No variations in an organic molecule at
above-freezing temperatures? An emulsion of a solid in a liquid only
because of proteins? Proteins don't stick together? Emulsions of all other
homogenized substances cannot exist, and all suspensions cannot exist,
without a protective layer on the suspensoid? There goes the year of
chemistry and a whole field of science has to be revamped.
Instead of all those years of school and experience and the accumulateed
scientific knowledge, we could have just googled some prof-pretender with MS
powerpoint.

No, I think you are reaching so you don't have to admit your error.

The graspings of a man who defends his own error only makes himself look a
fool.

----What is in the water component is either dissolved or suspended----.

Don't believe everything you google up or everything you hear.

> > Those who claim their frozen milk separates are
> > doing something incorrectly, or simply lying... old milk that is just
> > beginning to sour will separate much more readily... did I mention
> > LYING.
>
> More Sheldon nasty bullshit from the normal complement of Sheldon
ignorance.
>
> > Btw, human breast milk is frozen all the time (a very common
> > practice), and is not homogenized, leastways not after leaving the
> > breast. hehe
>
> Hehe. He said "breast." hehe... Idiot.
>
> The milk will separate into its fat and cream components. The protein
> matrix has never formed, so can't be broken by freezing.
>
> >> 3) Dissolving compounds in a liquid lowers its freezing point, but
> >> as I remember, adding non-dissolved solids in suspension does not.
> >> The dissolved compounds in the solution do not separate out. They
> >> freeze evenly. (Think salt added to ice-water to make ice cream to
> >> lower the freezing point, and think frozen confections which
> >> freeze with the dissolved sugars evenly distributed.)
>
> Not completely accurate. Look at large blocks of ice made from water
> than hasn't been de-ionized and boiled to remove dissolved gases.
> There's always a cloudy center. Commercial ice makers make clear ice
> from moving water for that reason. Home-made ice cubes will all have a
> cloudy center. It's dissolved minerals and gases, and they've migrated
> to the center.

So milk then would also likewise separate, with the dissolved being more
concentrated in the center. And the original poster should wait until his
milk is all thawed.
Which is not what you have been saying, or is it?

>
> >> I believe
> >> suspended solid particles can be separated out only if the freezing
> >> is done slow enough. Think ore refining to remove impurities, and
> >> slow freezing with ice extraction used to concentrate solids in
> >> suspension.
>
> And think of freeze-distillation of fermented alcohols. The water
> freezes out leaving a more concentrated alcohol behind. It can be done
> several times, each time concentrating the alcohol further until it
> reaches a point where the concentration is so high that it would require
> extraordinary temperatures to do it again.
>

Again, the dissolved in milk then concentrates if you thaw the ice out
first, so the original psoter should wait until it is all thawed.

> >> 4) Liquids frozen in a container do not freeze all at once
> >> (supernatant excluded). There are two conditions of freezing: rapid
> >> freezing, where the water crystals in contact with the much-colder
> >> sides form first and cool so rapidly they cannot migrate to the top
> >> of the solution, and they grow small crystals from the sides,
> >> expanding into the rest of the solution, trapping most of the
> >> suspended particles in the crystal matrix; and slow freezing, where
> >> the water cools and expands and floats to form large-ice-crystal
> >> ice on top, ice unable to trap the suspended solids until the
> >> convection slows.
>
> This doesn't take into account the nature of milk as described above.
> Freezing will disrupt the protein matrix surrounding each fat globule so
> that upon thawing, the fat will clump.

assuming it 1) it can clump that fast, and 2) the protein theory exists and
has merit

The protein will, as well, and
> change the mouthfeel. Agitation can help to redistribute the fat, but
> not to the condition before freezing.
>
> >> Theoretically - The water and water-soluble solids should freeze at
> >> one temp, lower than that of water.
> >>
> >> If you freeze the milk and suspended fats fast enough, it shouldn't
> >> separate.
> >>
> >> If you freeze it slow enough , the concentration of suspended
> >> particles will vary, by location, in the container.
> >>
> >> theoretically.....
>
> And a very nice theory it is. Except for the chemistry and physics of
> milk, it's lovely. The complexity of milk, however, removes it from this
> view.

If your hypothesis were true, then basic and organic chemistry laws have
been debunked.

Since they have not, a reasonable man assumes you are incorrect in your
assumptions, and your hypothesis is incorrect.

>
> I suggest reading "On Food and Cooking" revised 2004 for a much longer
> and scientifically clear discussion of milk and everything about it.
> Harold McGee is one of my heroes. Good science and good writing.
>
He's a hack who I have read, and who needs some peer review of his hackneyed
pop theories - as I noted in earlier posts.

> Pastorio
>
> > ---------
> >>
> >> Note - due to the expansion of water as it becomes a solid, and
> >> that it takes time-in-liquid to create large ice crystals, cells
> >> containing water and molecules which attach to the ice crytal
> >> lattice are not damaged by very rapid freezing, but they will be
> >> damaged by slow freezing due to the large crystal formation. That
> >> suggests that taste may be affected by slow freezing.
> >>
> >>> -- Bob Simon remove both "x"s from domain for private replies
> >
> >

hob wrote:

> I think you don't very much like to get caught being wrong, again.

I think I haven't been caught being wrong at all in this discussion. Or
are we still dealing with that last go round we had when you played the
fool nearly as elaborately as this time?

> Let's stick to the basics and to the facts germane to the discussion and
> refrain from left field factoids about refrigerators and the absolute size
> of the suspensoid.

I started this with the intent to actually answer the things you raise -
and see if I could actually get you to understand that we were talking
about *freezers* not refrigerators. And the actual nature of the
dispersed fat globules in homogenized milk. But your inability to recall
the subject and your elaborate insistence on not comprehending the
empirical information about milk points to an exercise in futility.

So the more I read, the more obvious became your ****witted bullshit,
confused about what was written by whom, so far from correct in your
corrections, and so dismally ignorant of the chemical and physical
character of milk that I'm going to forgo the delight. Snide absurdities
compounded by misunderstandings and what appears to be deliberate
obtuseness to set up merely nasty comment for the sheer sake of nasty
comment. What high aspirations you show.

When I read your characterization of Harold McGee, I knew you were
merely another blowhard who knows more than anybody else. You,
unfortunately, haven't gotten any brighter since last we met. Nor more
convincing.

>>I suggest reading "On Food and Cooking" revised 2004 for a much longer
>>and scientifically clear discussion of milk and everything about it.
>>Harold McGee is one of my heroes. Good science and good writing.
>>
> He's a hack who I have read, and who needs some peer review of his hackneyed
> pop theories - as I noted in earlier posts.

Right. Every responsible food scientist says he's good, thorough and
authoritative but you know better. He gets wonderful reviews for his old
and revised versions of his book from Scientific American but you know
better. He's recognized by science groups inside and outside the worlds
of culinaria as accurate and complete, but you know better. His new book
has been unanimously lauded in both the popular and technical press, but
you know better.

Fifteen page bibliography, has Dr. McGee in the book cited. You talk
about "his hackneyed pop theories..." as though he invents rather than
researches and reports. You obstreperous buffoon.

Good job. Wherever did you get those charming floppy shoes and that
dear, dear red wig?

No, seriously...

Pastorio

hob wrote:

> I can't speak from direct experience of personally freezing milk
> However, from chemistry, theory says there should be a slight , but not
> significant, difference in fat-containing milk, which depoends on the rate
> of freezing-
>
> 1) There are two immisicible liquids in all but skim milks: fat-based and
> water-based solutions.
> The water has dissolved sugars, etc. The fat has dissolved vitamins,
> etc.
>
> 2) Homogenized milk is a suspension of fat solids in water solution; the fat
> is not dissolved in the milk.
> Homogenizing "breaks" the cold fat into small enough particles that they
> don't float in the water solution Think cold butter blasted into such tiny
> particles that they remain as solids suspended in the water.
>
> (since there is no apparent need to homogenize skim milk, is skim milk
> homogenized?)
>
> 3) Dissolving compounds in a liquid lowers its freezing point, but as I
> remember, adding non-dissolved solids in suspension does not.
> The dissolved compounds in the solution do not separate out. They freeze
> evenly.
> (Think salt added to ice-water to make ice cream to lower the freezing
> point, and think frozen confections which freeze with the dissolved sugars
> evenly distributed. )
This is so incorrect. Have you ever frozen anything in your life? Ice
cubes with disolved oxygen? Lemonade? Beer? The water or the material
with the highest freeze point separates and freezes first. The old
trick of partially freezing hard cider to increase the alcohol content
is another example.

Ice cream freezers put salt on solid ice, not water. You remind me of
the guy in the federal express commercials. You don't get french
benefits.

snip

--
Del Cecchi
"This post is my own and doesn’t necessarily represent IBM’s positions,
strategies or opinions.”

"Del Cecchi" > wrote in message
...
> hob wrote:
>
> > I can't speak from direct experience of personally freezing milk
> > However, from chemistry, theory says there should be a slight , but not
> > significant, difference in fat-containing milk, which depoends on the
rate
> > of freezing-
> >
> > 1) There are two immisicible liquids in all but skim milks: fat-based
and
> > water-based solutions.
> > The water has dissolved sugars, etc. The fat has dissolved vitamins,
> > etc.
> >
> > 2) Homogenized milk is a suspension of fat solids in water solution; the
fat
> > is not dissolved in the milk.
> > Homogenizing "breaks" the cold fat into small enough particles that
they
> > don't float in the water solution Think cold butter blasted into such
tiny
> > particles that they remain as solids suspended in the water.
> >
> > (since there is no apparent need to homogenize skim milk, is skim milk
> > homogenized?)
> >
> > 3) Dissolving compounds in a liquid lowers its freezing point, but as I
> > remember, adding non-dissolved solids in suspension does not.
> > The dissolved compounds in the solution do not separate out. They
freeze
> > evenly.
> > (Think salt added to ice-water to make ice cream to lower the freezing
> > point, and think frozen confections which freeze with the dissolved
sugars
> > evenly distributed. )
> This is so incorrect.

Try the basic chemistry class, oh very wrong one.

May I refer you to an introductory text on Chemistry from the University of
Minnesota, re Zumdahl, Houghton Mifflin, 1997 pp 529-530?

"FREEZING POINT DEPRESSION
When a solute is dissolved in a solvent, the freezing point of the
solution is lower than that of the pure solvent."

think anti-freeze. Perhaps the knocking sound in your universe in winter is
the ice chunks formed in your engine rattling around as the water-ice
"freezes out" of the anti-freeze? In mine, the mix freezes as one.

Do not confuse vapor state phase changes with solid state phase changes.

note also on page 28 of the text that the methods of separating liquid
components are listed as distillation, filtration, and chromatography. Not
freezing.

Also see
Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, p 15-21, tables of Cryosopic constants
and the description of temperature lowering by addition of solute and its
calculation.

>Have you ever frozen anything in your life? Ice
> cubes with disolved oxygen? Lemonade? Beer? The water or the material
> with the highest freeze point separates and freezes first. The old
> trick of partially freezing hard cider to increase the alcohol content
> is another example.

Ice cubes with dissolved OXYGEN? The highest freeze point separates FIRST?

You are on the wrong end of state-change energy, my friend. We are not
talking distillation due to vapor energy differences, we are talking solid
from liquid.

As to the old cider "trick", done here a few times in my youth - works only

IF you a) filter out the ice or b) have it so very damn cold and still
outside that ice forms on the margins and top of the tub from stratification
of the lighter colder water, and heat loss from evaporation at the surface,
and you pull the ice off the edges. See my original post as to how this
occurs.

>
> Ice cream freezers put salt on solid ice, not water.

Apparently you didn't read the instructions carefully.
"Liquid contact improves conduction of heat out of the mix, and added salt
lowers the freezing point of the salt-water mix up to the saturation point."

You remind me of
> the guy in the federal express commercials. You don't get french
> benefits.
>
> snip
>
> --
> Del Cecchi
> "This post is my own and doesn’t necessarily represent IBM’s positions,
> strategies or opinions.”

hob wrote:
> "Del Cecchi" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> hob wrote:
>>
>>> I can't speak from direct experience of personally freezing milk
>>> However, from chemistry, theory says there should be a slight ,
>>> but not significant, difference in fat-containing milk, which
>>> depoends on the rate of freezing-
>>>
>>> 1) There are two immisicible liquids in all but skim milks:
>>> fat-based and water-based solutions. The water has dissolved
>>> sugars, etc. The fat has dissolved vitamins, etc.

No. Fat in milk isn't a liquid until it gets above about 93°F. Until
then, it's a solid.

>>> 2) Homogenized milk is a suspension of fat solids in water
>>> solution; the fat is not dissolved in the milk. Homogenizing
>>> "breaks" the cold fat into small enough particles that they don't
>>> float in the water solution Think cold butter blasted into such
>>> tiny particles that they remain as solids suspended in the water.

You can't make a fat stay in suspension unless there are other
mechanisms in action to prevent the clumping of fat globules. If they
could aggregate, there would quickly come a point in which they would
clump and float to the top. Like in unpasteurized milk.

"Initially, the milk fat exists as tiny globules in the milky starting
mixture. Milk proteins on the globules' surface work as an emulsifier to
keep the fat in solution. To make the ice-cream structure, these fats
need to be destabilized so that they coalesce into larger networks."
<http://pubs.acs.org/cen/whatstuff/stuff/8245icecream.html>

>>> (since there is no apparent need to homogenize skim milk, is skim
>>> milk homogenized?)
>>>
>>> 3) Dissolving compounds in a liquid lowers its freezing point,
>>> but as I remember, adding non-dissolved solids in suspension does
>>> not. The dissolved compounds in the solution do not separate
>>> out. They freeze evenly. (Think salt added to ice-water to make
>>> ice cream to lower the freezing point, and think frozen
>>> confections which freeze with the dissolved sugars evenly
>>> distributed. )

Adding salt to water doesn't lower the temperature of the solution. It
lowers the point at which the solution will itself freeze. This is a
bizarre misunderstanding of the physics at hand.

Frozen confections will freeze evenly if frozen extremely quickly, as in
nitrogen dipping. Make a sorbet in your home freezer without turbulence
and see how evenly it freezes. Or a granita which, by every recipe,
needs to be stirred so the flavors and sugar are dispersed.

Make your own ice cream and see the physical and chemical process in
action...
<http://www.usoe.k12.ut.us/curr/science/sciber00/8th/matter/sciber/phaseact.htm>

>> This is so incorrect.
>
> Try the basic chemistry class, oh very wrong one.

Try the basic empirical ice cream freezing class oh theoretical
blathering one. Just like people have been doing it for a couple
centuries. And it's more physics than chemistry.

Here's one with pictures to make it easier for your scant comprehension
to envelop and make all yours.
<http://houseandhome.msn.com/Food/Old-FashionedIceCream0.aspx>

And here, buzzwit, is what the ACS has to say about ice cream (and the
structure of the fat globules in homogenized milk which I put above,
since you obviously didn't get it the first time around). Real science
guys talking there, Sparky, not theoretician buffoons:
<http://pubs.acs.org/cen/whatstuff/stuff/8245icecream.html>

> May I refer you to an introductory text on Chemistry from the
> University of Minnesota, re Zumdahl, Houghton Mifflin, 1997 pp
> 529-530?
>
> "FREEZING POINT DEPRESSION When a solute is dissolved in a solvent,
> the freezing point of the solution is lower than that of the pure
> solvent."

Lovely, but irrelevant. It's ice and salt, not water and salt. And the
freezing point of the solution is irrelevant to the discussion. Adding
salt to water lowers the point at which that solution will freeze.
Nothing to do with making ice cream, only to do with freezing salty water.

> think anti-freeze. Perhaps the knocking sound in your universe in
> winter is the ice chunks formed in your engine rattling around as the
> water-ice "freezes out" of the anti-freeze? In mine, the mix
> freezes as one.

Really? Your anti-freeze freezes?

> Do not confuse vapor state phase changes with solid state phase
> changes.

Do not introduce irrelevant prattle. Making ice cream is liquid to solid
state change.

> note also on page 28 of the text that the methods of separating
> liquid components are listed as distillation, filtration, and
> chromatography. Not freezing.

Do lose the theoretical foolishness. Any school kid knows you can
concentrate the alcohol in a fermented fruit juice solution. You put the
container of low-percentage-alcohol wine into the freezer and leave it
there overnight. Tomorrow, you remove the ice and the hygrometer floats
a little differently.

Paracelsus commented that if a glass of wine were left out in freezing
weather, it will leave some liquor unfrozen *in the center* which he
said was better than heat-distilled alcohol. [emphasis added] Asian
nomads did the same with their fermented mare's milk - koumiss - and
apple brandy - applejack - was made in colonial America the same way.

Freeze-concentration retains sugars and volatile flavors better than
heat distillation and, so, leave a fresher taste to the finished product.

> Also see Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, p 15-21, tables of
> Cryosopic constants and the description of temperature lowering by
> addition of solute and its calculation.
>
>> Have you ever frozen anything in your life? Ice cubes with
>> disolved oxygen? Lemonade? Beer? The water or the material with
>> the highest freeze point separates and freezes first. The old
>> trick of partially freezing hard cider to increase the alcohol
>> content is another example.
>
> Ice cubes with dissolved OXYGEN? The highest freeze point separates
> FIRST?

Ice cubes with dissolved gases, oxygen among them. Absolutely. That's
part of the cloudiness in your ice cubes at home. And minerals. Or is
there some other theoretical explanation on some other page of that book
you so desperately misapply?

The highest freeze point means the highest temperature at which anything
in the mix will freeze. Water freezes out of the cider before the
alcohol because it has the higher freeze point of the two.

"This freezing-point depression is a colligative property arising from
the sugars and salts in the ice-cream solution. As crystals of pure ice
form, the solution's sugar and salt concentration increases, depressing
the freezing point further."
<http://pubs.acs.org/cen/whatstuff/stuff/8245icecream.html>

> You are on the wrong end of state-change energy, my friend. We are
> not talking distillation due to vapor energy differences, we are
> talking solid from liquid.

You are blathering about irrelevancies in the face of practical experience.

> As to the old cider "trick", done here a few times in my youth -

Apparently your youth didn't include the low-tech approach. Leave a
bucket of fermented cider outside in the winter and pick out the hard
stuff (we science types call it "ice") so you don't have to drink as
much to get that lovely warm-ear feeling. And if the day is cold enough,
you can do it again to make the ears even more appreciative.

> works only
>
> IF you a) filter out the ice or b) have it so very damn cold and
> still outside that ice forms on the margins and top of the tub from
> stratification of the lighter colder water, and heat loss from
> evaporation at the surface, and you pull the ice off the edges. See
> my original post as to how this occurs.

<LOL> Blah, blah, blah... Theory rampant; no correlation to the real world.

>> Ice cream freezers put salt on solid ice, not water.
>
> Apparently you didn't read the instructions carefully. "Liquid
> contact improves conduction of heat out of the mix, and added salt
> lowers the freezing point of the salt-water mix up to the saturation
> point."

Apparently you've never made ice cream. Putting ice around the dasher
tub and sprinkling salt on it causes some of the ice to melt, so there
is liquid contact and, thus, more efficient heat transfer, but there's
still plenty of ice at the end of mixing/freezing cycle.

And the dasher has, among others, the job of insuring even dispersion of
flavor and texture ingredients. They don't do that by themselves.

Pastorio

>> You remind me of
>> the guy in the federal express commercials. You don't get french
>> benefits.
>>
>> snip
>>
>> -- Del Cecchi "This post is my own and doesn’t necessarily
>> represent IBM’s positions, strategies or opinions.”

Again, when your logic is refuted and your own words are used to refute your
claims, you move rapidly to the general defamation and avoid the specifics
of the argument.

And magnanimously on your part, instead of you understanding, you deigned to
help the ignorant among you understand your "truth" by

"I started this with the intent to actually answer the things you raise -
and see if I could actually get you to understand that we were talking
about *freezers* not refrigerators."

Perhaps you could contribute by your doing the understanding?

Please do answer the things I raised - logically and to the point, without
the chaff and wanderings, please.

and you said

> I think I haven't been caught being wrong at all in this discussion.

I could see how you think that, given your avoidance of any argument that
goes badly for you.

1) Sheldon said -
certainly not when using modern
> > frost free freezers

(freezers)

>> and thawing, at least partially, while under
> > refrigeration... anyone still using old fashioned refrigerators

(refrigerators)
> > should divide milk into smaller containers before freezing, but
> > should do the same with all foods.
>
you said
> This is utter nonsense.

I said - Nonsense? Are you saying that the air (moved by the defrosting fan)
does not
remove heat from the surface of the container more rapidly than does natural
convection from still air?

you obviously were wrong since you did not.could not bring yourself to
answer.

2) you said
> Frost-free freezers have much wider variability for temperatures.

I said -

That would be because the fan moves the air instead of letting it stratify?
How does that "air moving in the freezer making for more variability in
temperature " work?

you were obviously wrong again

3) You were dismissive of Sheldon's position once again, without refutation

> Given that the fat globules are held separate by proteins that aren't
> themselves subject to variations at above-freezing temperatures, this is
> just more Sheldon nonsense. He [Sheldon] simply doesn't understand what
milk is.

to which I noted

-That is an unbelievable statement. No variations in an organic molecule at
above-freezing temperatures? An emulsion of a solid in a liquid only
because of proteins? Proteins don't stick together? Emulsions of all other
homogenized substances cannot exist, and all suspensions cannot exist,
without a protective layer on the suspensoid?

4) You said

> Not completely accurate. Look at large blocks of ice made from water
> than hasn't been de-ionized and boiled to remove dissolved gases.
> There's always a cloudy center. Commercial ice makers make clear ice
> from moving water for that reason. Home-made ice cubes will all have a
> cloudy center. It's dissolved minerals and gases, and

Note ------>>> they've migrated to the center.

I said -
So milk then would also likewise separate, with the dissolved being more
concentrated in the center. And the original poster should wait until his
milk is all thawed.
Which is not what you have been saying, or is it?

and you are mute, except as to how I am ignorant and beneath your deigning
to enlighten

wrong or not? does the dissolved cluster in the center and thus the milk is
diluted, or not?

5) and you said

> And think of freeze-distillation of fermented alcohols. The water
> freezes out leaving a more concentrated alcohol behind. It can be done
> several times, each time concentrating the alcohol further until it
> reaches a point where the concentration is so high that it would require
> extraordinary temperatures to do it again.
>

and I said -
Again, the dissolved in milk then concentrates if you thaw the ice out
first, so the original poster should wait until it is all thawed?

and you said are again mute, for you have no answer except "oops"? or the
petulant "I won't sully my hands answering [that which shows my error]".

I enjoy hanging pontificating asses on their own words. Unlike those people
of science and culture who admit an error and seek common ground on
differences to advance knowledge, the pontificators run true to form - weak
arguments that sound good, arguments speckled with a few unrelated facts to
give definition; they always avoid the logic, rely on the pathetic, lack the
ethic, and attack the character of the other side when trapped in their
error.

Its sad, though, in that it's actually a waste of an otherwise good mind.

Finally -

I said

>The "why" the particle stays small is not germane to freezing- the
>identification as a suspended particle rather than dissolved is.

> So we agree that milk is a solute with suspended and dissolved parts.




"Bob (this one)" > wrote in message
...
> hob wrote:
>
> > I think you don't very much like to get caught being wrong, again.
>
> I think I haven't been caught being wrong at all in this discussion. Or
> are we still dealing with that last go round we had when you played the
> fool nearly as elaborately as this time?
>
> > Let's stick to the basics and to the facts germane to the discussion and
> > refrain from left field factoids about refrigerators and the absolute
size
> > of the suspensoid.
>
> I started this with the intent to actually answer the things you raise -
> and see if I could actually get you to understand that we were talking
> about *freezers* not refrigerators. And the actual nature of the
> dispersed fat globules in homogenized milk. But your inability to recall
> the subject and your elaborate insistence on not comprehending the
> empirical information about milk points to an exercise in futility.
>
> So the more I read, the more obvious became your ****witted bullshit,
> confused about what was written by whom, so far from correct in your
> corrections, and so dismally ignorant of the chemical and physical
> character of milk that I'm going to forgo the delight.

Apparently getting caught supporting the position you opposed by your own
facts does not sit well with you. Hung on your own pitard, as it were.

Snide absurdities
> compounded by misunderstandings and what appears to be deliberate
> obtuseness to set up merely nasty comment for the sheer sake of nasty
> comment. What high aspirations you show.
>
> When I read your characterization of Harold McGee, I knew you were
> merely another blowhard who knows more than anybody else. You,
> unfortunately, haven't gotten any brighter since last we met. Nor more
> convincing.
>
> >>I suggest reading "On Food and Cooking" revised 2004 for a much longer
> >>and scientifically clear discussion of milk and everything about it.
> >>Harold McGee is one of my heroes. Good science and good writing.
> >>
> > He's a hack who I have read, and who needs some peer review of his
hackneyed
> > pop theories - as I noted in earlier posts.
>
> Right. Every responsible food scientist says he's good, thorough and
> authoritative but you know better.

You define responsible as agreeing with every aspect of his book. Isn't that
a circular defintion?

He gets wonderful reviews for his old
> and revised versions of his book from Scientific American but you know
> better.

It's an entertainment book, not a scientific paper, fer chris' sake.

He's recognized by science groups inside and outside the worlds
> of culinaria as accurate and complete, but you know better.

No, it isn't. Cite even a few reputable ones, Rush.

His new book
> has been unanimously lauded in both the popular and technical press, but
> you know better.

Popular and technical press is not science, it is journalism.

>
> Fifteen page bibliography, has Dr. McGee in the book cited. You talk
> about "his hackneyed pop theories..." as though he invents rather than
> researches and reports. You obstreperous buffoon.
>
that's Dr Buffoon, to you.

Want to go head to head on his claims in his book? Lets start at the
beginning. They are simplified for the masses - "pop". Some accurate, some
basically accurate, and some stretches by any standard.

> Good job. Wherever did you get those charming floppy shoes and that
> dear, dear red wig?
>
And when will you address your own facts that contravene your own position
on handling freezing milk?

> No, seriously...

Yes, stick to the question of freezing milk. Address the issues presented
instead of making straw men to sound as if you have all the answers.
>
> Pastorio

hob wrote:

> Again, when your logic is refuted and your own words are used to refute your
> claims, you move rapidly to the general defamation and avoid the specifics
> of the argument.

When I'm shown to be in error, much as I don't like it - just like
everybody - I can admit error and have done so here. But your obtuse
pettifoggery only clouds issues and your insistence on bringing your
chemistry books to a physics discussion adds irrelevant and erroneous
information. You seem to have made a science of being off-the-mark.

When you call my explanation of the structure of homogenized milk a
"theory" and it's, in fact, cited science, it shows rather graphically
that your interest is triumph rather than discourse. Trying to offer
alternative to you is like trying to debate with a red-faced, white
knuckled Cliff Claven who has backed himself into an irretrievable corner.

When your replies contain the sort of condescending twaddle as this post
of yours does, and in such frantic, self-satisfied grandeur, it shows
that your interest is greater in the combat than in the resolution.

I will comment on your posts and correct them, as I did just a few
moments ago with your wildly inaccurate and bizarrely interpreted
business about adding salt to ice water to make ice cream, and freezing
solutions to separate components. But I won't any longer try to engage
you in discussion. Your goals are not the same as mine, and I don't feel
constrained to assist you in your perfervid raging and florid bloviating.

You cite textbooks of theory and ignore the empirical. You demean the
citations and experiences of others; apparently only your textbooks have
any valuable information. Or your decades of unsupported experience.

You may swagger and sneer to your heart's content, and I like that
dueling game as much as any. But the part missing from your performance
is *applicable* and *germane* information. Theory is grand. Empiricism
is better. The wedding of the two is best. You fail.

Pastorio


> And magnanimously on your part, instead of you understanding, you deigned to
> help the ignorant among you understand your "truth" by
>
> "I started this with the intent to actually answer the things you raise -
> and see if I could actually get you to understand that we were talking
> about *freezers* not refrigerators."
>
> Perhaps you could contribute by your doing the understanding?
>
> Please do answer the things I raised - logically and to the point, without
> the chaff and wanderings, please.
>
> and you said
>
>
>>I think I haven't been caught being wrong at all in this discussion.
>
>
> I could see how you think that, given your avoidance of any argument that
> goes badly for you.
>
> 1) Sheldon said -
> certainly not when using modern
>
>>>frost free freezers
>
>
> (freezers)
>
>
>>>and thawing, at least partially, while under
>>>refrigeration... anyone still using old fashioned refrigerators
>
>
> (refrigerators)
>
>>>should divide milk into smaller containers before freezing, but
>>>should do the same with all foods.
>>
> you said
>
>>This is utter nonsense.
>
>
> I said - Nonsense? Are you saying that the air (moved by the defrosting fan)
> does not
> remove heat from the surface of the container more rapidly than does natural
> convection from still air?
>
> you obviously were wrong since you did not.could not bring yourself to
> answer.
>
> 2) you said
>
>>Frost-free freezers have much wider variability for temperatures.
>
>
> I said -
>
> That would be because the fan moves the air instead of letting it stratify?
> How does that "air moving in the freezer making for more variability in
> temperature " work?
>
> you were obviously wrong again
>
> 3) You were dismissive of Sheldon's position once again, without refutation
>
>
>>Given that the fat globules are held separate by proteins that aren't
>>themselves subject to variations at above-freezing temperatures, this is
>>just more Sheldon nonsense. He [Sheldon] simply doesn't understand what
>
> milk is.
>
> to which I noted
>
> -That is an unbelievable statement. No variations in an organic molecule at
> above-freezing temperatures? An emulsion of a solid in a liquid only
> because of proteins? Proteins don't stick together? Emulsions of all other
> homogenized substances cannot exist, and all suspensions cannot exist,
> without a protective layer on the suspensoid?
>
> 4) You said
>
>
>>Not completely accurate. Look at large blocks of ice made from water
>>than hasn't been de-ionized and boiled to remove dissolved gases.
>>There's always a cloudy center. Commercial ice makers make clear ice
>>from moving water for that reason. Home-made ice cubes will all have a
>>cloudy center. It's dissolved minerals and gases, and
>
>
> Note ------>>> they've migrated to the center.
>
> I said -
> So milk then would also likewise separate, with the dissolved being more
> concentrated in the center. And the original poster should wait until his
> milk is all thawed.
> Which is not what you have been saying, or is it?
>
> and you are mute, except as to how I am ignorant and beneath your deigning
> to enlighten
>
> wrong or not? does the dissolved cluster in the center and thus the milk is
> diluted, or not?
>
> 5) and you said
>
>
>>And think of freeze-distillation of fermented alcohols. The water
>>freezes out leaving a more concentrated alcohol behind. It can be done
>>several times, each time concentrating the alcohol further until it
>>reaches a point where the concentration is so high that it would require
>>extraordinary temperatures to do it again.
>>
>
>
> and I said -
> Again, the dissolved in milk then concentrates if you thaw the ice out
> first, so the original poster should wait until it is all thawed?
>
> and you said are again mute, for you have no answer except "oops"? or the
> petulant "I won't sully my hands answering [that which shows my error]".
>
> I enjoy hanging pontificating asses on their own words. Unlike those people
> of science and culture who admit an error and seek common ground on
> differences to advance knowledge, the pontificators run true to form - weak
> arguments that sound good, arguments speckled with a few unrelated facts to
> give definition; they always avoid the logic, rely on the pathetic, lack the
> ethic, and attack the character of the other side when trapped in their
> error.
>
> Its sad, though, in that it's actually a waste of an otherwise good mind.
>
> Finally -
>
> I said
>
> >The "why" the particle stays small is not germane to freezing- the
>
>>identification as a suspended particle rather than dissolved is.
>
>
> > So we agree that milk is a solute with suspended and dissolved parts.
>
>
>
>
> "Bob (this one)" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>hob wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I think you don't very much like to get caught being wrong, again.
>>
>>I think I haven't been caught being wrong at all in this discussion. Or
>>are we still dealing with that last go round we had when you played the
>>fool nearly as elaborately as this time?
>>
>>
>>>Let's stick to the basics and to the facts germane to the discussion and
>>>refrain from left field factoids about refrigerators and the absolute
>
> size
>
>>>of the suspensoid.
>>
>>I started this with the intent to actually answer the things you raise -
>>and see if I could actually get you to understand that we were talking
>>about *freezers* not refrigerators. And the actual nature of the
>>dispersed fat globules in homogenized milk. But your inability to recall
>>the subject and your elaborate insistence on not comprehending the
>>empirical information about milk points to an exercise in futility.
>>
>>So the more I read, the more obvious became your ****witted bullshit,
>>confused about what was written by whom, so far from correct in your
>>corrections, and so dismally ignorant of the chemical and physical
>>character of milk that I'm going to forgo the delight.
>
>
> Apparently getting caught supporting the position you opposed by your own
> facts does not sit well with you. Hung on your own pitard, as it were.
>
> Snide absurdities
>
>>compounded by misunderstandings and what appears to be deliberate
>>obtuseness to set up merely nasty comment for the sheer sake of nasty
>>comment. What high aspirations you show.
>>
>>When I read your characterization of Harold McGee, I knew you were
>>merely another blowhard who knows more than anybody else. You,
>>unfortunately, haven't gotten any brighter since last we met. Nor more
>>convincing.
>>
>>
>>>>I suggest reading "On Food and Cooking" revised 2004 for a much longer
>>>>and scientifically clear discussion of milk and everything about it.
>>>>Harold McGee is one of my heroes. Good science and good writing.
>>>>
>>>
>>>He's a hack who I have read, and who needs some peer review of his
>
> hackneyed
>
>>>pop theories - as I noted in earlier posts.
>>
>>Right. Every responsible food scientist says he's good, thorough and
>>authoritative but you know better.
>
>
> You define responsible as agreeing with every aspect of his book. Isn't that
> a circular defintion?
>
> He gets wonderful reviews for his old
>
>>and revised versions of his book from Scientific American but you know
>>better.
>
>
> It's an entertainment book, not a scientific paper, fer chris' sake.
>
> He's recognized by science groups inside and outside the worlds
>
>>of culinaria as accurate and complete, but you know better.
>
>
> No, it isn't. Cite even a few reputable ones, Rush.
>
> His new book
>
>>has been unanimously lauded in both the popular and technical press, but
>>you know better.
>
>
> Popular and technical press is not science, it is journalism.
>
>
>>Fifteen page bibliography, has Dr. McGee in the book cited. You talk
>>about "his hackneyed pop theories..." as though he invents rather than
>>researches and reports. You obstreperous buffoon.
>>
>
> that's Dr Buffoon, to you.
>
> Want to go head to head on his claims in his book? Lets start at the
> beginning. They are simplified for the masses - "pop". Some accurate, some
> basically accurate, and some stretches by any standard.
>
>
>>Good job. Wherever did you get those charming floppy shoes and that
>>dear, dear red wig?
>>
>
> And when will you address your own facts that contravene your own position
> on handling freezing milk?
>
>
>>No, seriously...
>
>
> Yes, stick to the question of freezing milk. Address the issues presented
> instead of making straw men to sound as if you have all the answers.
>
>>Pastorio
>
>
>

"Bob (this one)" > wrote in message
...
> hob wrote:
> > "Del Cecchi" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >> hob wrote:
> >>
> >>> I can't speak from direct experience of personally freezing milk
> >>> However, from chemistry, theory says there should be a slight ,
> >>> but not significant, difference in fat-containing milk, which
> >>> depoends on the rate of freezing-
> >>>
> >>> 1) There are two immisicible liquids in all but skim milks:
> >>> fat-based and water-based solutions. The water has dissolved
> >>> sugars, etc. The fat has dissolved vitamins, etc.
>
> No. Fat in milk isn't a liquid until it gets above about 93°F. Until
> then, it's a solid.

That the fat was solid in the freezing milk was well stated.

>
> >>> 2) Homogenized milk is a suspension of fat solids in water
> >>> solution; the fat is not dissolved in the milk. Homogenizing
> >>> "breaks" the cold fat into small enough particles that they don't
> >>> float in the water solution Think cold butter blasted into such
> >>> tiny particles that they remain as solids suspended in the water.
>
> You can't make a fat stay in suspension unless there are other
> mechanisms in action to prevent the clumping of fat globules. If they
> could aggregate, there would quickly come a point in which they would
> clump and float to the top. Like in unpasteurized milk.

better read your ice cream links on clumping -

>
> "Initially, the milk fat exists as tiny globules in the milky starting
> mixture. Milk proteins on the globules' surface work as an emulsifier to
> keep the fat in solution. To make the ice-cream structure, these fats
> need to be destabilized so that they coalesce into larger networks."
> <http://pubs.acs.org/cen/whatstuff/stuff/8245icecream.html>
>

are they using homgenized milk to make ice cream, or does all milk have the
proteins, homogenized or not and the protein is a red herring for suspension
when freezing?

pick one.

> >>> (since there is no apparent need to homogenize skim milk, is skim
> >>> milk homogenized?)
> >>>
> >>> 3) Dissolving compounds in a liquid lowers its freezing point,
> >>> but as I remember, adding non-dissolved solids in suspension does
> >>> not. The dissolved compounds in the solution do not separate
> >>> out. They freeze evenly. (Think salt added to ice-water to make
> >>> ice cream to lower the freezing point, and think frozen
> >>> confections which freeze with the dissolved sugars evenly
> >>> distributed. )
>
> Adding salt to water doesn't lower the temperature of the solution. It
> lowers the point at which the solution will itself freeze. This is a
> bizarre misunderstanding of the physics at hand.
>
bizarre? what is bizarre about
"Dissolving compounds in a liquid lowers its freezing point, but adding
non-dissolved solids in suspension does not."
And if your understanding is at odds with that basic chemistry, do not use
your bizarre understanding to reference my accurate understanding as
"bizarre"

> Frozen confections will freeze evenly if frozen extremely quickly, as in
> nitrogen dipping.

evenly

Make a sorbet in your home freezer without turbulence
> and see how evenly it freezes.

evenly

Or a granita which, by every recipe,
> needs to be stirred so the flavors and sugar are dispersed.

now unevenly? what the hell is your point, other than to spew unrelated
facts? two freeze evenly and one freeezes unevenly and needs to be stirred.
Point about thawing the milk completely to prevent concentration is once
again made.

>
> Make your own ice cream and see the physical and chemical process in
> action...
>
<http://www.usoe.k12.ut.us/curr/scien...ciber/phaseact.
htm>
>

note the part that says -"pour the water out of the large can". Water that
unsalted freezes solid.
and I have made ice cream for years - my hand-made ice cream is asked for by
my guests - I have three hand and one electric.

> >> This is so incorrect.
> >
> > Try the basic chemistry class, oh very wrong one.
>
> Try the basic empirical ice cream freezing class oh theoretical
> blathering one. Just like people have been doing it for a couple
> centuries. And it's more physics than chemistry.

More Physics than Chemistry? What the hell does THAT mean? That the
depression of the freezing point in solute and phase change heat transfer is
physics now?
Most relevant to the complete thawing of milk to prevent concentration
>
> Here's one with pictures to make it easier for your scant comprehension
> to envelop and make all yours.
> <http://houseandhome.msn.com/Food/Old-FashionedIceCream0.aspx>

what does this link have to do with anything?

>
> And here, buzzwit, is what the ACS has to say about ice cream (and the
> structure of the fat globules in homogenized milk which I put above,
> since you obviously didn't get it the first time around). Real science
> guys talking there, Sparky, not theoretician buffoons:
> <http://pubs.acs.org/cen/whatstuff/stuff/8245icecream.html>

Ah, yes, it is real science, which you apparently did not read.

From your link -

"Initially, the milk fat exists as tiny globules in the milky starting
mixture. Milk proteins on the globules' surface work as an emulsifier to
keep the fat in solution. To make the ice-cream structure, these fats need
to be destabilized so that they coalesce into larger networks."
Which, based on your earlier dissertation and dissemination of Google
factoids on homogenization, must mean that all ice cream was made from
homogenized milk, "for a couple hundred years"?

So, are the fat globules coated by proteins in the homogenization
process, as you state as the sole reason for non-aggregation; are the fat
globules always covered by protein and aggregate anyway as they do in
pasteurized un-homogenized milk as your link here says and homogenization
does not rely on proteins; or is it that ice cream has always been made
using only homogenized milk ?
You really should read your links.

And this one from your link, from "real science guys" who state exactly
what I stated, and refute your milk advice -

"This freezing-point depression is a colligative property arising from the
sugars and salts in the ice-cream solution. As crystals of pure ice form,
the solution's sugar and salt concentration increases, depressing the
freezing point further"

>
> > May I refer you to an introductory text on Chemistry from the
> > University of Minnesota, re Zumdahl, Houghton Mifflin, 1997 pp
> > 529-530?
> >
> > "FREEZING POINT DEPRESSION When a solute is dissolved in a solvent,
> > the freezing point of the solution is lower than that of the pure
> > solvent."
>
> Lovely, but irrelevant. It's ice and salt, not water and salt.

No, its milk - fat and sugar and water and protiens

And the
> freezing point of the solution is irrelevant to the discussion. Adding
> salt to water lowers the point at which that solution will freeze.
> Nothing to do with making ice cream, only to do with freezing salty water.

Since you totally missed the basics on this one, I'll take the extra time to
increase your understanding -
The point --->> if the solute froze out of a solution, the freezing
point of the solution would not depress - the solute would just freeze out
at its particular undiluted freezing point. Since that does not happen, but
rather the solution freezing point depresses, the solute does not
appreciably separate from the solution when freezing. (within concentration
limits)
Simpler still -If the ice freezes out of the mix rather than the mix
freezing, the ice freezes at 32F. But the mix actually freezes lower than
32F -- which it can't do if the ice had formed at 32F mix temp and left the
solution.

So the mix freezes evenly when there is rapid heat transfer, and in
higher temperature gradients in the mix the surface conditions can change
the water in contact with the cooling surfaces to ice, before the ice holds
the other compounds. Think ice cream dasher.

>
> > think anti-freeze. Perhaps the knocking sound in your universe in
> > winter is the ice chunks formed in your engine rattling around as the
> > water-ice "freezes out" of the anti-freeze? In mine, the mix
> > freezes as one.
>
> Really? Your anti-freeze freezes?
>
Yes, untechnical one - check the bottle for the temp as which the various
water-glycol ratios freeze

> > Do not confuse vapor state phase changes with solid state phase
> > changes.
>
> Do not introduce irrelevant prattle. Making ice cream is liquid to solid
> state change.

You really are lost, aren't you? It is MILK freezing and either partially or
completely thawing , not ice cream.

Talk about prattle.

>
> > note also on page 28 of the text that the methods of separating
> > liquid components are listed as distillation, filtration, and
> > chromatography. Not freezing.
>
> Do lose the theoretical foolishness. Any school kid knows you can
> concentrate the alcohol in a fermented fruit juice solution. You put the
> container of low-percentage-alcohol wine into the freezer and leave it
> there overnight. Tomorrow, you remove the ice and the hygrometer floats
> a little differently.
>
> Paracelsus commented that if a glass of wine were left out in freezing
> weather, it will leave some liquor unfrozen *in the center* which he
> said was better than heat-distilled alcohol. [emphasis added] Asian
> nomads did the same with their fermented mare's milk - koumiss - and
> apple brandy - applejack - was made in colonial America the same way.
>
> Freeze-concentration retains sugars and volatile flavors better than
> heat distillation and, so, leave a fresher taste to the finished product.
>
> > Also see Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, p 15-21, tables of
> > Cryosopic constants and the description of temperature lowering by
> > addition of solute and its calculation.
> >
> >> Have you ever frozen anything in your life? Ice cubes with
> >> disolved oxygen? Lemonade? Beer? The water or the material with
> >> the highest freeze point separates and freezes first. The old
> >> trick of partially freezing hard cider to increase the alcohol
> >> content is another example.
> >
> > Ice cubes with dissolved OXYGEN? The highest freeze point separates
> > FIRST?
>
> Ice cubes with dissolved gases, oxygen among them. Absolutely. That's
> part of the cloudiness in your ice cubes at home. And minerals. Or is
> there some other theoretical explanation on some other page of that book
> you so desperately misapply?

I have no problem with the cloudiness being entrapped air or minerals - so
why the dissertation on cloudiness and the disparaging remarks on reference
books.
You do know that one uses accepted reviewe references to resolve disputes
in science, rather than google clips, right?

1) for clear cubes, filter it and freeze it slowly to remove air .....
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl....DTL&type=wine

""Water that has not been filtered can become cloudy ice.
"Minerals in unfiltered water reflect light when the ice is formed, making
it look milky," says Wisecarver.

Cloudiness can also be the result of water freezing too quickly, trapping
small air bubbles inside the cube before they have a chance to disperse.
Commercial ice-making machines, commonly used in bars and restaurants, are
designed to filter away the minerals in water, and to freeze it at a rate
that prevents cloudiness.

Making clear ice at home can be tricky. Wisecarver suggests making ice cubes
from distilled water that has been heated to near boiling, which slows down
the freezing process. But this doesn't always produce perfect results, so
consider buying commercially made ice at your local supermarket for your
next cocktail party. ""

2) for clear cubes, freeze rapidly
from http://www.repairclinic.com/NL08-04.asp -

8. How can I get clear ice cubes from my icemaker?
You can't. The cloudiness is caused by entrapped air bubbles. The clear ice
cubes you get at a store or a restaurant are rapidly frozen by commercial
equipment

3) for clear cubes, agititate, dip, or spray.

From patent office:

"While ice cubes having contained fractures, dissolved gasses and dissolved
minerals are fine for home use, industrial institutions such as restaurants,
hotels and cocktail lounges have shown a preference for ice cubes which are
clear and free of fractures and dissolved gasses and minerals. To
accommodate the desires of these users, various methods and apparatus have
been developed to form ice cubes which are crystal clear. These methods
include cyclically dipping a die in water or immersing a die in water and
agitating the water. An example of the former is shown in U.S. Pat. No.
3,418,823 to Vivai dated May 15, 1967. In this teaching, a plurality of
molds are sequentially dipped into a pan of water to form successive ice
layers which subsequently grow into an ice cube of desired size. Formation
of several ice layers insures the completed ice cube will be transparent. As
stated in Vivai, it is also important the water be stirred. An example of
the latter is found in U.S. Pat. No. 4,199,956 to Lunde dated Apr. 29, 1980.
Paddles are used to agitate the water. In U.S. Pat. No. 2,253,512 to Fechner
et al. a propeller stirs a water bath to provide agitation. As noted in U.S.
Pat. No. 4,199,956 the art has known that agitation or movement of the water
during the freezing is necessary to form the clear ice cube. The agitation
washes gasses and minerals away from the surface of the ice cube during its
formation. Agitation can be provided through mechanical means such as
paddles or it can be provided due to convection currents found in the ice
making apparatus. The amount of agitation which is necessary will vary
depending upon the chemistry of the water"


>
> The highest freeze point means the highest temperature at which anything
> in the mix will freeze. Water freezes out of the cider before the
> alcohol because it has the higher freeze point of the two.
>
> "This freezing-point depression is a colligative property arising from
> the sugars and salts in the ice-cream solution. As crystals of pure ice
> form, the solution's sugar and salt concentration increases, depressing
> the freezing point further."
> <http://pubs.acs.org/cen/whatstuff/stuff/8245icecream.html>
>
> > You are on the wrong end of state-change energy, my friend. We are
> > not talking distillation due to vapor energy differences, we are
> > talking solid from liquid.
>
> You are blathering about irrelevancies in the face of practical
experience.
>

Don't let science get in the way of your "understanding"

> > As to the old cider "trick", done here a few times in my youth -
>
> Apparently your youth didn't include the low-tech approach. Leave a
> bucket of fermented cider outside in the winter and pick out the hard
> stuff (we science types call it "ice") so you don't have to drink as
> much to get that lovely warm-ear feeling. And if the day is cold enough,
> you can do it again to make the ears even more appreciative.
>
> > works only
> >
> > IF you a) filter out the ice or b) have it so very damn cold and
> > still outside that ice forms on the margins and top of the tub from
> > stratification of the lighter colder water, and heat loss from
> > evaporation at the surface, and you pull the ice off the edges. See
> > my original post as to how this occurs.
>
> <LOL> Blah, blah, blah... Theory rampant; no correlation to the real
world.
>
How ever would you know the real world to tell?

> >> Ice cream freezers put salt on solid ice, not water.

I make ice cream in 20-30 minutes in my hand-crank model, using
ice-salt-water. Ice-salt took forever and the quality was less smooth than
ice-water-salt.

> >
> > Apparently you didn't read the instructions carefully. "Liquid
> > contact improves conduction of heat out of the mix, and added salt
> > lowers the freezing point of the salt-water mix up to the saturation
> > point."
>
> Apparently you've never made ice cream.

Every summer.

>Putting ice around the dasher
> tub and sprinkling salt on it causes some of the ice to melt, so there
> is liquid contact and, thus, more efficient heat transfer, but there's
> still plenty of ice at the end of mixing/freezing cycle.
>
LOL -
Man, you are really, utterly, hopelessly lost - the salt does not "CAUSE THE
ICE TO MELT". The heat transfer into the mix causes the ice to give up its
transformation energy and melt.
The temperature at which the water exists simultaneously in two states
(ice and water) is lowered by the addition of salt - creating a lower temp
below that of a pure ice-water mix (32F), necessary because a temp of 32F is
not low enough to freeze the water-fat-sugar ice cream mix.


> And the dasher has, among others, the job of insuring even dispersion of
> flavor and texture ingredients. They don't do that by themselves.
>
It's main purposes are to limit crystal growth and increase mix surface
contact with the reduced temp ice-water-salt solution to hasten the
freezing.

> Pastorio
>
> >> You remind me of
> >> the guy in the federal express commercials. You don't get french
> >> benefits.
> >>
> >> snip
> >>
> >> -- Del Cecchi "This post is my own and doesn’t necessarily
> >> represent IBM’s positions, strategies or opinions.”

hob wrote:
> "Bob (this one)" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>hob wrote:
>>
>>>"Del Cecchi" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>hob wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I can't speak from direct experience of personally freezing milk
>>>>> However, from chemistry, theory says there should be a slight ,
>>>>>but not significant, difference in fat-containing milk, which
>>>>>depoends on the rate of freezing-
>>>>>
>>>>>1) There are two immisicible liquids in all but skim milks:
>>>>>fat-based and water-based solutions. The water has dissolved
>>>>>sugars, etc. The fat has dissolved vitamins, etc.
>>
>>No. Fat in milk isn't a liquid until it gets above about 93°F. Until
>>then, it's a solid.
>
> That the fat was solid in the freezing milk was well stated.

Milk fat is solid in *liquid* milk. Fat is *solid* in room temperature
milk. It's in such tiny pieces that it doesn't look like it.

>>>>>2) Homogenized milk is a suspension of fat solids in water
>>>>>solution; the fat is not dissolved in the milk. Homogenizing
>>>>>"breaks" the cold fat into small enough particles that they don't
>>>>>float in the water solution Think cold butter blasted into such
>>>>>tiny particles that they remain as solids suspended in the water.
>>
>>You can't make a fat stay in suspension unless there are other
>>mechanisms in action to prevent the clumping of fat globules. If they
>>could aggregate, there would quickly come a point in which they would
>>clump and float to the top. Like in unpasteurized milk.
>
> better read your ice cream links on clumping -

The information is immediately below. You read it.

>>"Initially, the milk fat exists as tiny globules in the milky starting
>>mixture. Milk proteins on the globules' surface work as an emulsifier to
>>keep the fat in solution. To make the ice-cream structure, these fats
>>need to be destabilized so that they coalesce into larger networks."
>><http://pubs.acs.org/cen/whatstuff/stuff/8245icecream.html>
>>
>
> are they using homgenized milk to make ice cream, or does all milk have the
> proteins, homogenized or not and the protein is a red herring for suspension
> when freezing?
>
> pick one.

Do go read about the constituent parts of *all* milk and milk products.
Then you won't ask stupid questions, loaded up to preclude an answer.

>>>>>(since there is no apparent need to homogenize skim milk, is skim
>>>>> milk homogenized?)
>>>>>
>>>>>3) Dissolving compounds in a liquid lowers its freezing point,
>>>>>but as I remember, adding non-dissolved solids in suspension does
>>>>>not. The dissolved compounds in the solution do not separate
>>>>>out. They freeze evenly. (Think salt added to ice-water to make
>>>>>ice cream to lower the freezing point, and think frozen
>>>>>confections which freeze with the dissolved sugars evenly
>>>>>distributed. )
>>
>>Adding salt to water doesn't lower the temperature of the solution. It
>>lowers the point at which the solution will itself freeze. This is a
>>bizarre misunderstanding of the physics at hand.
>>
>
> bizarre? what is bizarre about
> "Dissolving compounds in a liquid lowers its freezing point, but adding
> non-dissolved solids in suspension does not."

That's not what's bizarre. Your trying to make it applicable to freezing
milk or ice cream without knowing the components or structure of it is.

> And if your understanding is at odds with that basic chemistry, do not use
> your bizarre understanding to reference my accurate understanding as
> "bizarre"

The *relevance* to making ice cream says you don't understand any of the
basic processes and are happily proud of that fact, cheerfully willing
to demonstrate it. Bring it back to reality. The physics I refer to are
the ones in making ice cream.

>>Frozen confections will freeze evenly if frozen extremely quickly, as in
>>nitrogen dipping.
>
> evenly

I believe I said that.

>>Make a sorbet in your home freezer without turbulence
>>and see how evenly it freezes.
>
> evenly

You've never made a sorbet.

>> Or a granita which, by every recipe,
>>needs to be stirred so the flavors and sugar are dispersed.
>
> now unevenly? what the hell is your point, other than to spew unrelated
> facts? two freeze evenly and one freeezes unevenly and needs to be stirred.

The nitrogen freeze happens in a matter of seconds. That means, physics
here, that the crystals will be small and convection won't much happen
and the freeze will happen essentially throughout and immediately
because of conduction. The process is the determinant.

Sorbet made in a home freezer won't be evenly frozen without turbulence.
Nor will any other "quiescently frozen confection" done at home.

> Point about thawing the milk completely to prevent concentration is once
> again made.

Why do you think I've brought so many references to the unevenness of
the freezing process? What, do you think, could impel me to mention and
re-mention, despite your objections, that milk doesn't freeze all of a
constant component relationship? Did you simply not even read my
comments to the nonsense that Sheldon was peddling in the very first
post of mine in this thread?

>>Make your own ice cream and see the physical and chemical process in
>>action...
>>
> <http://www.usoe.k12.ut.us/curr/scien...ciber/phaseact.
> htm>
>
> note the part that says -"pour the water out of the large can". Water that
> unsalted freezes solid.

Water that has been used to freeze ice cream when it was once hard and
brittle - called ice.

Could you be more dense. Pour the water out of the can *after* the ice
cream is made. The ice melted in the process of making it *in a freakin
tin can*.

> and I have made ice cream for years - my hand-made ice cream is asked for by
> my guests - I have three hand and one electric.

And you use ice water and salt? I don't believe it.

>>>>This is so incorrect.
>>>
>>>Try the basic chemistry class, oh very wrong one.
>>
>>Try the basic empirical ice cream freezing class oh theoretical
>>blathering one. Just like people have been doing it for a couple
>>centuries. And it's more physics than chemistry.
>
> More Physics than Chemistry? What the hell does THAT mean? That the
> depression of the freezing point in solute and phase change heat transfer is
> physics now?
> Most relevant to the complete thawing of milk to prevent concentration

Right. You seem to leap from one thing to another as your excesses are
cataloged. The reference is to *ice cream* in those part. Try to keep up.

>>Here's one with pictures to make it easier for your scant comprehension
>>to envelop and make all yours.
>><http://houseandhome.msn.com/Food/Old-FashionedIceCream0.aspx>
>
> what does this link have to do with anything?

To show you how competent people can make ice cream.

>>And here, buzzwit, is what the ACS has to say about ice cream (and the
>>structure of the fat globules in homogenized milk which I put above,
>>since you obviously didn't get it the first time around). Real science
>>guys talking there, Sparky, not theoretician buffoons:
>><http://pubs.acs.org/cen/whatstuff/stuff/8245icecream.html>
>
> Ah, yes, it is real science, which you apparently did not read.

<LOL> You really, really wish...

> From your link -
>
> "Initially, the milk fat exists as tiny globules in the milky starting
> mixture. Milk proteins on the globules' surface work as an emulsifier to
> keep the fat in solution. To make the ice-cream structure, these fats need
> to be destabilized so that they coalesce into larger networks."
> Which, based on your earlier dissertation and dissemination of Google
> factoids on homogenization, must mean that all ice cream was made from
> homogenized milk, "for a couple hundred years"?
>
> So, are the fat globules coated by proteins in the homogenization
> process, as you state as the sole reason for non-aggregation;

Yes. Funny how they don't aggregate when they're coated with protein, huh?

> are the fat
> globules always covered by protein and aggregate anyway as they do in
> pasteurized un-homogenized milk as your link here says and homogenization
> does not rely on proteins;

I'm sorry this got past you: "Milk proteins on the globules' surface
work as an emulsifier to keep the fat in solution." It's right above, I
can see how you'd miss it.

The protein in question, casein, predominately, is present in all milk.
It's a fact of milk chemistry. Raw milk doesn't have the dispersion of
fats and will settle into a fat layer on top of the watery layer. The
protein is in the water part. When the fat is *melted* by heating the
milk, and the milk is forced through small nozzles, the reduced-size fat
globules are immediately surrounded by protein and are thus prevented
from combining, *despite being hot and in a liquid state*. The fat
globules *don't* combine in unhomogenized milk. If they did, it would be
a layer of butter on top of the watery matrix.

> or is it that ice cream has always been made
> using only homogenized milk ?

Commercial ice cream is made with pasteurized, homogenized milk. That
what the guys at ACS were dealing with. Sorry you missed it.

> You really should read your links.

<LOL> You really should understand what you read.

> And this one from your link, from "real science guys" who state exactly
> what I stated, and refute your milk advice -

You keep trying to change my milk advice from what I posted. Here's what
I said in response to Sheldon's assertion that it all freezes evenly:

"This isn't true. Milk is a complex mixture of water-based liquids,
solids, fats, sugars and other chemicals. They each freeze or solidify
at different rates. If you take a quart of milk and freeze it and then
saw it in half, you will see distinct freeze zones. With more water at
the periphery and more solids in the center. Same as freeze-distilling
alcoholic ferments. There will be migration of various components to
different strata in from the edges."

Do read what's written.

> "This freezing-point depression is a colligative property arising from the
> sugars and salts in the ice-cream solution. As crystals of pure ice form,
> the solution's sugar and salt concentration increases, depressing the
> freezing point further"

My milk advice is that it freezes unevenly and needs to be completely
thawed for the solution to include everything started out with. Do go
back and see that.

>>>May I refer you to an introductory text on Chemistry from the
>>>University of Minnesota, re Zumdahl, Houghton Mifflin, 1997 pp
>>>529-530?
>>>
>>>"FREEZING POINT DEPRESSION When a solute is dissolved in a solvent,
>>>the freezing point of the solution is lower than that of the pure
>>>solvent."
>>
>>Lovely, but irrelevant. It's ice and salt, not water and salt.
>
> No, its milk - fat and sugar and water and protiens

He twists, he turns, he weaves and dodges...

Milk is organic, perhaps you noticed that. You keep insisting on trying
to deal with it as though it were some simple inorganic compound. You
oversimplify to the point of error.

>>And the
>>freezing point of the solution is irrelevant to the discussion. Adding
>>salt to water lowers the point at which that solution will freeze.
>>Nothing to do with making ice cream, only to do with freezing salty water.
>
>
> Since you totally missed the basics on this one, I'll take the extra time to
> increase your understanding -

Save your condescension for when you're remotely correct.

> The point --->> if the solute froze out of a solution, the freezing
> point of the solution would not depress

The *solvent* freezes out of the solution so that the freezing point of
the *remaining* solution depresses because solutes concentrate as
solvent is removed from the solution.

> - the solute would just freeze out
> at its particular undiluted freezing point. Since that does not happen, but
> rather the solution freezing point depresses, the solute does not
> appreciably separate from the solution when freezing. (within concentration
> limits)

Funny how the guys from ACS think otherwise. Oh, and they explain it, too.

> Simpler still -If the ice freezes out of the mix rather than the mix
> freezing, the ice freezes at 32F. But the mix actually freezes lower than
> 32F -- which it can't do if the ice had formed at 32F mix temp and left the
> solution.

The ice cream freezes gradually, as water forms ice crystals and leaves
the liquid solution. That was very fully explained by the ACS reference.
Of course the remaining solution freezes at increasingly lower
temperatures as the solution concentrates.

> So the mix freezes evenly when there is rapid heat transfer, and in
> higher temperature gradients in the mix the surface conditions can change
> the water in contact with the cooling surfaces to ice, before the ice holds
> the other compounds. Think ice cream dasher.

So I guess you want to keep doing this theoretical stuff instead of what
the guys from ACS told you?

>>>think anti-freeze. Perhaps the knocking sound in your universe in
>>>winter is the ice chunks formed in your engine rattling around as the
>>> water-ice "freezes out" of the anti-freeze? In mine, the mix
>>>freezes as one.
>>
>>Really? Your anti-freeze freezes?
>>
> Yes, untechnical one - check the bottle for the temp as which the various
> water-glycol ratios freeze

Have you actually ever tried this one? I did in a blast freezer back in
the 70's. We got a sludgy, thick mixture that wept a sugary-feeling
exudate. I got your untechnical right here.

>>>Do not confuse vapor state phase changes with solid state phase
>>>changes.
>>
>>Do not introduce irrelevant prattle. Making ice cream is liquid to solid
>>state change.
>
> You really are lost, aren't you? It is MILK freezing and either partially or
> completely thawing , not ice cream.

No. It's frozen milk, not ice cream.

> Talk about prattle.

Try hard, Zippy. So far it ain't flying.

>>>note also on page 28 of the text that the methods of separating
>>>liquid components are listed as distillation, filtration, and
>>>chromatography. Not freezing.
>>
>>Do lose the theoretical foolishness. Any school kid knows you can
>>concentrate the alcohol in a fermented fruit juice solution. You put the
>>container of low-percentage-alcohol wine into the freezer and leave it
>>there overnight. Tomorrow, you remove the ice and the hygrometer floats
>>a little differently.
>>
>>Paracelsus commented that if a glass of wine were left out in freezing
>>weather, it will leave some liquor unfrozen *in the center* which he
>>said was better than heat-distilled alcohol. [emphasis added] Asian
>>nomads did the same with their fermented mare's milk - koumiss - and
>>apple brandy - applejack - was made in colonial America the same way.

Nothing to say to our good friend Paracelsus?

>>Freeze-concentration retains sugars and volatile flavors better than
>>heat distillation and, so, leave a fresher taste to the finished product.
>>
>>
>>>Also see Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, p 15-21, tables of
>>>Cryosopic constants and the description of temperature lowering by
>>>addition of solute and its calculation.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Have you ever frozen anything in your life? Ice cubes with
>>>>disolved oxygen? Lemonade? Beer? The water or the material with
>>>>the highest freeze point separates and freezes first. The old
>>>>trick of partially freezing hard cider to increase the alcohol
>>>>content is another example.
>>>
>>>Ice cubes with dissolved OXYGEN? The highest freeze point separates
>>>FIRST?
>>
>>Ice cubes with dissolved gases, oxygen among them. Absolutely. That's
>>part of the cloudiness in your ice cubes at home. And minerals. Or is
>>there some other theoretical explanation on some other page of that book
>>you so desperately misapply?
>
>
> I have no problem with the cloudiness being entrapped air or minerals - so
> why the dissertation on cloudiness and the disparaging remarks on reference
> books.

<LOL> Your tactics are grand. Lump together two unrelated items and look
like you're actually asking a question. Huzzah.

You seem to have a large problem with entrapped gases and *dissolved*
minerals and are arguing on both sides of it. First, solutions freeze
uniformly. Then they don't. Pick one.

> You do know that one uses accepted reviewe references to resolve disputes
> in science, rather than google clips, right?

The next time I'm presenting before the National Academy of Sciences,
I'll do that. This is a newsgroup. And, oh, the reference I offered was
the ACS. Heard of them? Reviewed references have their place,
absolutely, but give it up. The simple fact is that the one technical
reference from the ACS demolishes your whole intellectual house of cards.

So far, you haven't done your admonition very well. You've used a
textbook, you say, that doesn't address the specific subject. To
contrast with one that is exactly about it from ACS online.

> 1) for clear cubes, filter it and freeze it slowly to remove air .....
> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl....DTL&type=wine
>
> ""Water that has not been filtered can become cloudy ice.
> "Minerals in unfiltered water reflect light when the ice is formed, making
> it look milky," says Wisecarver.

Water that isn't filtered *will* be cloudy ice.

> Cloudiness can also be the result of water freezing too quickly, trapping
> small air bubbles inside the cube before they have a chance to disperse.
> Commercial ice-making machines, commonly used in bars and restaurants, are
> designed to filter away the minerals in water, and to freeze it at a rate
> that prevents cloudiness.

Commercial ice machines freeze in a *process* that prevents cloudiness.
Has nothing to do with rate. They freeze *moving water* so bubbles won't
be entrapped. But dissolved minerals will still show up as cloudiness as
happened when I ran a ski resort that used hundreds of pounds of ice a
day. The water was extremely hard and required extraordinary softening.

> Making clear ice at home can be tricky. Wisecarver suggests making ice cubes
> from distilled water that has been heated to near boiling, which slows down
> the freezing process. But this doesn't always produce perfect results, so
> consider buying commercially made ice at your local supermarket for your
> next cocktail party. ""

Do yourself a favor. Try this advice. See how well it works. I think the
last sentence makes it all clear. It almost never works. I used to make
my own ice blocks for carving. We had to go to extreme lengths to get
clear ice. Couldn't splash while pouring our boiled, de-ionized water
into the block molds.

> 2) for clear cubes, freeze rapidly
> from http://www.repairclinic.com/NL08-04.asp -
>
> 8. How can I get clear ice cubes from my icemaker?
> You can't. The cloudiness is caused by entrapped air bubbles. The clear ice
> cubes you get at a store or a restaurant are rapidly frozen by commercial
> equipment
>
> 3) for clear cubes, agititate, dip, or spray.
>
> From patent office:
>
> "While ice cubes having contained fractures, dissolved gasses and dissolved
> minerals are fine for home use, industrial institutions such as restaurants,
> hotels and cocktail lounges have shown a preference for ice cubes which are
> clear and free of fractures and dissolved gasses and minerals. To
> accommodate the desires of these users, various methods and apparatus have
> been developed to form ice cubes which are crystal clear. These methods
> include cyclically dipping a die in water or immersing a die in water and
> agitating the water. An example of the former is shown in U.S. Pat. No.
> 3,418,823 to Vivai dated May 15, 1967. In this teaching, a plurality of
> molds are sequentially dipped into a pan of water to form successive ice
> layers which subsequently grow into an ice cube of desired size. Formation
> of several ice layers insures the completed ice cube will be transparent. As
> stated in Vivai, it is also important the water be stirred. An example of
> the latter is found in U.S. Pat. No. 4,199,956 to Lunde dated Apr. 29, 1980.
> Paddles are used to agitate the water. In U.S. Pat. No. 2,253,512 to Fechner
> et al. a propeller stirs a water bath to provide agitation. As noted in U.S.
> Pat. No. 4,199,956 the art has known that agitation or movement of the water
> during the freezing is necessary to form the clear ice cube. The agitation
> washes gasses and minerals away from the surface of the ice cube during its
> formation. Agitation can be provided through mechanical means such as
> paddles or it can be provided due to convection currents found in the ice
> making apparatus. The amount of agitation which is necessary will vary
> depending upon the chemistry of the water"

I love how, in science, we always use reviewed references. Oh, wait...

>>The highest freeze point means the highest temperature at which anything
>>in the mix will freeze. Water freezes out of the cider before the
>>alcohol because it has the higher freeze point of the two.
>>
>>"This freezing-point depression is a colligative property arising from
>>the sugars and salts in the ice-cream solution. As crystals of pure ice
>>form, the solution's sugar and salt concentration increases, depressing
>>the freezing point further."
>><http://pubs.acs.org/cen/whatstuff/stuff/8245icecream.html>
>>
>>>You are on the wrong end of state-change energy, my friend. We are
>>>not talking distillation due to vapor energy differences, we are
>>>talking solid from liquid.
>>
>>You are blathering about irrelevancies in the face of practical experience.
>
> Don't let science get in the way of your "understanding"
>
>
>>>As to the old cider "trick", done here a few times in my youth -
>>
>>Apparently your youth didn't include the low-tech approach. Leave a
>>bucket of fermented cider outside in the winter and pick out the hard
>>stuff (we science types call it "ice") so you don't have to drink as
>>much to get that lovely warm-ear feeling. And if the day is cold enough,
>>you can do it again to make the ears even more appreciative.
>>
>>
>>>works only
>>>
>>>IF you a) filter out the ice or b) have it so very damn cold and
>>>still outside that ice forms on the margins and top of the tub from
>>>stratification of the lighter colder water, and heat loss from
>>>evaporation at the surface, and you pull the ice off the edges. See
>>>my original post as to how this occurs.
>>
>><LOL> Blah, blah, blah... Theory rampant; no correlation to the real world.
>
> How ever would you know the real world to tell?

Nice. But no rebuttal or "reviewed" information to offer, I note.

>>>>Ice cream freezers put salt on solid ice, not water.
>
> I make ice cream in 20-30 minutes in my hand-crank model, using
> ice-salt-water. Ice-salt took forever and the quality was less smooth than
> ice-water-salt.

Notice *ice* in your description. Not just salt and water like your
ridiculous examples.

>>>Apparently you didn't read the instructions carefully. "Liquid
>>>contact improves conduction of heat out of the mix, and added salt
>>>lowers the freezing point of the salt-water mix up to the saturation
>>>point."
>>
>>Apparently you've never made ice cream.
>
> Every summer.
>
>>Putting ice around the dasher
>>tub and sprinkling salt on it causes some of the ice to melt, so there
>>is liquid contact and, thus, more efficient heat transfer, but there's
>>still plenty of ice at the end of mixing/freezing cycle.
>>
> LOL -
> Man, you are really, utterly, hopelessly lost - the salt does not "CAUSE THE
> ICE TO MELT".

I guess I can tell the road department to stop spreading it on icy roads
in winter. I mean since it doesn't melt ice and all... Of course, salt
melts ice.

> The heat transfer into the mix causes the ice to give up its
> transformation energy and melt.

That's *one* mechanism, but not the only one.

blah, blah, blah...

> The temperature at which the water exists simultaneously in two states
> (ice and water) is lowered by the addition of salt - creating a lower temp
> below that of a pure ice-water mix (32F), necessary because a temp of 32F is
> not low enough to freeze the water-fat-sugar ice cream mix.

Uh, huh. So plain salt and water won't do it. Thanks.

>>And the dasher has, among others, the job of insuring even dispersion of
>>flavor and texture ingredients. They don't do that by themselves.
>>
> It's main purposes are to limit crystal growth and increase mix surface
> contact with the reduced temp ice-water-salt solution to hasten the
> freezing.

<LOL> Mr. Last word.

Wipe your mouth.

Pastorio