Comments
21_MushroomCupcakes t1_ixkxwwk wrote
Ooh that's a good one for this sub.
lemoinem t1_ixm0kzy wrote
I dunno, I've never tried... Let me cool down some water to 25°C
foundfrogs t1_ixm7hww wrote
Let me know when you get to the steam.
timmyboyoyo t1_ixojvkr wrote
They mean they always use boiling water to wash their hands
quackl11 t1_ixoqi90 wrote
Converting this to farenheit (even tho I'm canadian and know celcius) 25=77 and 125=257
bazmonkey t1_ixks4fh wrote
No, because heat doesn’t absorb/spread instantly through food, through material. If you cook it twice as fast for half as long, you’ll get a too-hot outside and a too-cold inside.
Now… at 6,000 degrees, you’re past the auto ignition temperature of the food and parts of the oven itself. It’s going to burst into flames any moment now… I’m surprised it’s still a solid object. You don’t wanna make it that hot :-)
Purplekeyboard t1_ixleo6f wrote
Heh, at 6000 degrees the steel the oven was made from would melt, as would any glass parts. You would have a nice pile of red hot molten steel and glass burning through your floor.
natetcu t1_ixktjzz wrote
That cooking method is called searing. It is great for steaks.
bazmonkey t1_ixktsxp wrote
Twice as hot and half as long? Yeah, sometimes it’s what’s intended. I guess my underlying point is that slower/longer and faster/shorter won’t get you the same results. Perhaps good results, but not identical.
ShalmaneserIII t1_ixls3r6 wrote
Yes, but there a too-hot outside and a too-cold inside is delicious. Pittsburgh Rare is a fine thing.
It's not so great for cooking chicken.
username001999 t1_ixkrlnz wrote
Why can I survive 100 tiny pin pricks, but not survive a 10 inch knife to the chest?
please_PM_ur_bewbs t1_ixktsjs wrote
Remember that absolute temperature is in Kelvin, not Fahrenheit or Celsius. So doubling the temperature in Fahrenheit is not the same as doubling the absolute temperature.
rslashmiko t1_ixku9zd wrote
Thank you!
Mortomes t1_ixlnpq5 wrote
Yes, multiplication is arbitrary and meaningless if you use a scale that does not actually start at 0.
1selfharm t1_ixkrs7y wrote
Both are not the same.
Cooking hard vegetables or meat will make the food soft and easy to eat.
Raising the temperature very high will burn the food.
jdogx17 t1_ixkryk2 wrote
The purpose of the time and temperature is to cook both the inside and the outside to the desired degree. So a low temp long time gives you an even cook throughout, higher temp shorter time cooks the outside more and the inside.
[deleted] t1_ixksei9 wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_ixks816 wrote
[removed]
Neospecial t1_ixktjeh wrote
I barely remember my basic physics but tldr look up thermal conductivity/transfer as every type of material has their own specifics of how well/rate they conduct the heat to the next object ie. deeper into the food.
Whatmeworry4 t1_ixl0o1a wrote
Your math is wonky especially using a Fahrenheit scale, but let’s assume that overall heat remains the same but over a different amount of time.
Cooking generally requires that you cook the food all the way through, and the heat takes time to get from the outside of the food to the inside. So if you cook too fast the heat will cook the outside, but never have time to cook the inside before that outside gets over-cooked and burns.
Animastar t1_ixl2yqj wrote
That's how Lisa Simpson made the fries that were burnt on the outside but still frozen on the inside.
[deleted] t1_ixl83hs wrote
[removed]
18_USC_47 t1_ixlhmkb wrote
So you’ve already had some food for thought about why you can’t just turn an oven higher, like burning the outside of the food, and melting the oven.
There’s a cooking aspect too. Not all food is just instantly cooked to what we want when it reaches a specific temperature.
An example would be like beef stew, or pulled pork. It is technically edible very early on in the process, but the breakdown of muscle fibers, fats, collagens etc takes time to get to the soft falling apart phase appropriate for the dish.
[deleted] t1_ixlhn99 wrote
[removed]
Doraellen t1_ixmppdo wrote
Lots of good explanations here. Essentially we usually want to make sure something cooks through without burning on the outside, and thermal transfer takes time. Most baking temps top out around 450F, except commercial pizza ovens, which can be as hot as 1000F and do bake a pizza in literally one or two minutes. That works because pizzas are flat and thin, and cook through quickly.
Just adding that smaller changes in time/temp are used deliberately by cooks and bakers all of the time. It's common for muffin recipes to have the first 10 minutes of cook time at 50 F higher to activate the baking powder and make them rise quickly. Then the oven gets turned down to make sure they bake through without burning. Likewise it's common to sear meat at high heat in a pan and then put it in the oven at a lower temp to cook through.
But there are actually lots of examples of the opposite of your question--cooking something longer at a lower temp. Immersion cooking (sous vide) uses pretty low temps (less than 200F) and can hold a protein at that temp for hours without overcooking. A crock pot or slow cooker also uses this "low and slow" method.
Divinate_ME t1_ixmqzom wrote
Time and temperature are not equal parts of the equation. If you subject something to the surface temperature of the sun for a minute, it will not turn out well done. This is because the surrounding molecules are moving that incredibly quickly that your cake or whatever would burn to a crisp.
[deleted] t1_ixn8kwq wrote
[removed]
foundfrogs t1_ixkrt6l wrote
Let me ask you this:
Is putting your hand in 25°C water for 25 seconds the same as putting your hand in 125°C steam for 5 seconds?