Bringing back an older discussion, "Good Eats" on the Food Network
here in the states just had an episode addressing food myths.

Perhaps the most useful to me, personally, is the debunking of the
myth that mushrooms absorb a lot of water so you should brush them off
rather than washing them. While they do absorb some water, it really
is very little. So just rinse the 'shrooms off and don't waste time
brushing them.

Anyway, they also addressed the "water exploding in the microwave"
myth. All of the issues we had brought up here - superheating of the
water, nucleation sites, etc -- were mentioned. The "on air"
demonstration did, in fact, explode.

The point that was made, however, was that the water has to be kept
still. They used a Snapple-type bottle, which had a relatively small
opening compared with the volume of water. When it exploded, it
emptied about 2/3 of the water.

The suggestions were to always use a wide-mouth container, and to stir
it every couple of minutes. This prevents the stillness of the water
which is necessary for superheating.

So, in conclusion, we appear to have come to the correct conclusions.

--
Derek

"Judge of a man by his questions rather than by his answers." --
Voltaire

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 21:35:14 -0600
Derek > wrote:

> Bringing back an older discussion, "Good Eats" on the Food Network
> here in the states just had an episode addressing food myths.
>
> Perhaps the most useful to me, personally, is the debunking of the
> myth that mushrooms absorb a lot of water so you should brush them off
> rather than washing them. While they do absorb some water, it really
> is very little. So just rinse the 'shrooms off and don't waste time
> brushing them.


I think AB should repeat that experiment with some 6oz bellas that are
showing a lot of gill. they're damn sponges.

White button mushrooms? meh, nothing's gonna make 'em worse. Well, short
of putting them in a can.

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 21:04:25 -0700, Eric Jorgensen wrote:

> I think AB should repeat that experiment with some 6oz bellas that are
> showing a lot of gill. they're damn sponges.
>
> White button mushrooms? meh, nothing's gonna make 'em worse. Well, short
> of putting them in a can.

In hindsight, I had the same thought. I tried a recipe a little while
back that called for the portobellas to be sautéed, and then
specifically mentioned using the remaining juice to cook the garlic.

What juice? Those bellas sucked up everything that went into the pan.
--
Derek

"USA Today has come out with a new survey - apparently, three out of
every four people make up 75% of the population." -- David Letterman

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 09:24:12 -0600
Derek > wrote:

> On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 21:04:25 -0700, Eric Jorgensen wrote:
>=20
> > I think AB should repeat that experiment with some 6oz bellas that
> > are
> > showing a lot of gill. they're damn sponges.=20
> >=20
> > White button mushrooms? meh, nothing's gonna make 'em worse. Well,
> > short
> > of putting them in a can.
>=20
> In hindsight, I had the same thought. I tried a recipe a little while
> back that called for the portobellas to be saut=E9ed, and then
> specifically mentioned using the remaining juice to cook the garlic.
>=20
> What juice? Those bellas sucked up everything that went into the pan.


If you cook them long enough, they purge much of what they sucked up.
You have to be careful with the temperature, and make sure they don't sear.
Because of this, personally I'm wary of calling it a sautee, it's almost
more of a sweat.=20

But what I'm wondering is, cook the garlic after the fungus? heresy!
Both at the same time for me. But for me brown mushrooms and garlic are
almost their own food group.=20

The problem with getting them wet is that instead of getting sauteed
they get steamed. they never absorb enough oil, and come out tough.=20

I think the problem is directly proportional to the density of the
mushroom. This is no problem at all with oysters, enoki, white buttons,
etc - and a real big problem with larger cap type mushrooms that have
opened their gills.=20

Getting back to the subject - the one and only time I've had the
exploding water thing happen, it was a tall plastic tumbler, fairly new
and very slick on the inside. about 12oz of water went in, about 10oz of
water came out when i reached for it. I was not badly burned, but it sure
was unpleasant.=20

"Derek" > wrote in message ...
> Bringing back an older discussion, "Good Eats" on the Food Network
> here in the states just had an episode addressing food myths.
>
> Anyway, they also addressed the "water exploding in the microwave"
> myth. All of the issues we had brought up here - superheating of the
> water, nucleation sites, etc -- were mentioned. The "on air"
> demonstration did, in fact, explode.
>
> The point that was made, however, was that the water has to be kept
> still. They used a Snapple-type bottle, which had a relatively small
> opening compared with the volume of water. When it exploded, it
> emptied about 2/3 of the water.
>
> The suggestions were to always use a wide-mouth container, and to stir
> it every couple of minutes. This prevents the stillness of the water
> which is necessary for superheating.

I dunno. I have my doubts. As I posted previously, my personal experience of
exploding water was out of a 32 oz Pyrex measuring cup (wide opening) on a
turntable (moving, not still) although I wasn't stirring it because I didn't
know that water could explode so, maybe the water remained too stable
despite the movement of the turntable, a manual wind-up model.

There was another show late last month or early this month, I think it was
on the Food Network, that agreed with the FDA's recommendation of adding a
foreign material before heating the water. The TV show noted that it may be
anything that's microwave-safe such as one of those plastic stir-sticks that
fast-food places provide for coffee or a wooden spoon or stick. Why not
serve two purposes by using that microwave thermometer, the link to which
you(?) posted in another thread?

--
~~Bluesea~~
Spam is great in musubi but not in email.
Please take out the trash before sending a direct reply.

I had one of those Pyrex measuring cups explode altogether on me on the
stove. I found out that in this case, Pyrex is not lab pyrex. I always
thought it was the same stuff, hence the whole selling point of
so-called "Pyrex" glassware. Apparently not. Says so right on the darn
cup--my bad.

Steve

Bluesea wrote:
> I dunno. I have my doubts. As I posted previously, my personal experience of
> exploding water was out of a 32 oz Pyrex measuring cup (wide opening) on a
> turntable (moving, not still) although I wasn't stirring it because I didn't

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 03:06:48 -0600, Bluesea wrote:

> Why not
> serve two purposes by using that microwave thermometer, the link to which
> you(?) posted in another thread?

I do believe that I was the one who suggested a microwave thermometer.

--
Derek

"Men are equal; it is not birth but virtue that makes the difference."
-- Voltaire

On 2/24/2005 10:35 PM, Derek wrote:
> Bringing back an older discussion, "Good Eats" on the Food Network
> here in the states just had an episode addressing food myths.
>
> Perhaps the most useful to me, personally, is the debunking of the
> myth that mushrooms absorb a lot of water so you should brush them off
> rather than washing them. While they do absorb some water, it really
> is very little. So just rinse the 'shrooms off and don't waste time
> brushing them.
>
> Anyway, they also addressed the "water exploding in the microwave"
> myth. All of the issues we had brought up here - superheating of the
> water, nucleation sites, etc -- were mentioned. The "on air"
> demonstration did, in fact, explode.
>
> The point that was made, however, was that the water has to be kept
> still. They used a Snapple-type bottle, which had a relatively small
> opening compared with the volume of water. When it exploded, it
> emptied about 2/3 of the water.
>
> The suggestions were to always use a wide-mouth container, and to stir
> it every couple of minutes. This prevents the stillness of the water
> which is necessary for superheating.
>
> So, in conclusion, we appear to have come to the correct conclusions.

I've had two microwave explosions: one was clear broth in a microwave
safe, glass soup bowl - diameter of bowl was about 8 inches, soup
half-filled it. The other was a Pyrex "custard cup" or ramekin - about 4
inches in diameter, and water was a bit above the half way mark.

I was told (by Corning) that they probably had small scratches on them,
and the scratches were actually the culprit, but that gently
"disturbing" the liquid, or cooking them with a chopstick or other
microwave safe item in it, would work.

Since then, I always slowly put a spoon in and stir before touching it -
and it hasn't happened again. Could be luck, could be technique, but I'm
not giving up the technique.

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 09:25:28 -0500, Serendip wrote:

> I was told (by Corning) that they probably had small scratches on them,
> and the scratches were actually the culprit, but that gently
> "disturbing" the liquid, or cooking them with a chopstick or other
> microwave safe item in it, would work.

That's interesting because the physics behind the explosion would
suggest that the scratches would act as nucleation sites and promote
the formation of bubbles, not suppress them.

In fact, the "explosion" of water is actually the formation of one big
bubble that has nowhere to go but up.

--
Derek

When people are free to do as they please, they usually imitate each
other.

My satellite service has a channel of English broadcast Chinese Central
TV. I've been keeping an eye out for something about tea. No luck so
far but interesting subjects like Chinese/Russian border towns.
Apparently the Russians like to party in China. One of the shows has
an English girl doing features who can speak Chinese like a native.
I'm going to send her some email about puerh. Who knows.

Jim

Derek wrote:
> Bringing back an older discussion, "Good Eats" on the Food Network
> here in the states just had an episode addressing food myths.