LoveKnowledge
- 51
- 0
IF I am cooking something like potatoes, vigorously boiling water won't reduce my cooking time. What does it do then?
The discussion revolves around the effects of vigorously boiling water on cooking, particularly in relation to food preparation techniques and outcomes. Participants explore the implications of boiling water on cooking times, heat transfer, and the physical interactions between boiling water and food items like pasta and potatoes.
The discussion contains multiple competing views regarding the effects of vigorous boiling on cooking time and food texture. Participants do not reach a consensus on whether vigorous boiling is more beneficial than simmering or how it affects different types of food.
Participants express uncertainty about the precise effects of boiling techniques on cooking outcomes and the implications of heat transfer in various cooking scenarios. There are also references to personal cooking experiences that may not generalize to all situations.
This discussion may be of interest to home cooks, culinary students, and anyone exploring the science of cooking techniques and their effects on food preparation.
LoveKnowledge said:IF I am cooking something like potatoes, vigorously boiling water won't reduce my cooking time. What does it do then?
pallidin said:As boiling water has a higher temp than non-boiling water cooking time is, in fact, reduced.
The term is vigorous, not rigorous. A vigorous boil (aka a rolling boil or a roiling boil) does a lot more than wasting heat. You don't want to use a rolling boil for something delicate such as eggs or cauliflower heads because if you do the eggs will break from all the bouncing that goes on while the cauliflower heads will be torn to shreds. You do want to use a rolling boil for something like spaghetti because if you don't you will end up with an inedible lump of pasta.Danger said:But rigorous boiling is no hotter than a simmer. All that is does is waste input heat.
D H said:The difference between the two lies in the amount of motion and commotion going on.
D H said:The term is vigorous, not rigorous.
This might explain your problem with cooking spaghetti. You do not want the water just slightly above a simmer. That water needs to be moving so as to avoid having clumps of glued-together spaghetti noodles at the end. The resultant splatter is to some extent an inevitable byproduct of the process. You can cut down on the splatter by using a tall pot and not filling the pot full of water. Leaving quite a few inches between the top of the pot and the top of the water will keep most of the splatter in the pot.Danger said:A "rolling boil", on the other hand, is just slightly above a simmer and doesn't cause an unnecessary mess.
D H said:You can cut down on the splatter by using a tall pot and not filling the pot full of water. Leaving quite a few inches between the top of the pot and the top of the water will keep most of the splatter in the pot.
There are some disadvantages to cooking with technicolor unwashed pots. Food cooked in those biology-experiment-run-wild pots can have deleterious affects.Danger said:If it means that I'll have to start washing the old ones, I'll be very ticked off.
Danger said:A "rolling boil", on the other hand, is just slightly above a simmer and doesn't cause an unnecessary mess.
D H said:This might explain your problem with cooking spaghetti. You do not want the water just slightly above a simmer. That water needs to be moving so as to avoid having clumps of glued-together spaghetti noodles at the end.
Danger said:Aha! If I ever again buy spaghetti noodles, I'll try that. I've always used a pot that was just large enough to hold what I was cooking, so as to avoid wasting energy heating up excess water.
Danger said:Some of you people are starting to make sense. That scares me.
That's cool; I still have Lucy's supper dish. I'll have to nuke the food, though, because it's made out of plastic. (I hope that you don't mind the taste of left-over Purina.)pallidin said:Uh... i'll bring the cooking pot.