|
In the taint-thread mindphlux just asked the following:mindphlux posted:alright, this never stops bothering me irl. I think I've asked this question in here before several years back, but don't think I ever got a satisfactory answer Dear mindphlux, As I am not smarter than you with regard to  I decided to do an empiric test instead.So I decided to use my stove for the test - the stove is a SMEG induction stove - the plate I am using is pumping out 3,5kw - so it is pretty quick when it is at highest (boosted) setting.  I decided to use this pot, which is 2,5l 7ply plate iron pot with some sort of core - it really doesn't matter, because I used it for both runs.  The pot then got weighed without water  The reason why I chose to go by weight, rather than volume was that weight is more precise, and eliminates my need to ensure the same temperature of the water. After this I added water - 400 grams of it, which is 4dl or 0,4l by volume - or a quarterpounder and a tiddlewink over a who-gives-a-gently caress in american terms.  Here's a water action shot  After having admired my work - I lidded my pot, to ensure that I would get the same starting point for my later measures - I wanted to keep as much steam in the pot as possible during the initial warm up, such that I didn't have to be too carefull about timing for the warm-up  I then let loose the unholy 3.5kw, on full boost, which gave me a time until boil of around 20sec (not that it is relevant - this is just bragging).  I spend the 20 seconds to set my watch to two minutes  When the water was boiling I removed the lid of the pot, and started the countdown - here you see a picture of water boiling - hard.. it is really boiling like well.. water.. boiling.. like as if it was around a hundred degrees, and then it started to bubble - well.. you get the picture - it was boiling.  After the two minutes was up I shut off the stove (here induction is your friend), and slammed the lid down to hold in all unholy vapours, then setting the watch to 5 minutes to ensure that I had a cool down period, such that it wouldn't change weight while being weighed.  (here the watch says 4:48, this is because I used 12 seconds on slamming lids down and pressing start - incidentally 12 seconds is almost enough to boil 400 grams of water if you have a decent stove, it is just 8 seconds short of a good boil - I don't know how it is with indecent stoves, but it would likely be more than 20 seconds, which is enough if your stove is pretty ok).  After having waited the allotted 5 minutes - I took off the lid - shook off as much as I could into the pot (of the condensation - this is pre-shake, but post initial dribble)  Then I weighed the pot with water  As can be seen the weight now is 1333 grams - which is the same as 4 fieldstones, a horseshoe and an ant-pecker in american measures. After that I dried off everything (lid and pot and my eyes) and ensured that it weighed the same as before (heat didn't change the weight of the pot, and no dirty residue from the water was left either - so it weighed in at 1510 again with the added 400g of water.  I have now dropped some of the process shots, because the process is pretty much the same as before, except that now I would turn down the heat to 6 (slow boil) when removing the lid. Here's a picture of my stove saying '6'  Look - water boiling, but slowly, like not moving as fast as fast boiling water - but still looking like water, that is kinda boiling.  I then repeated the process from before - slamming down the lid, waiting for five minutes while I whistled a ditty, and then I weighed it, in the same manner as before. The result was as follows  So to summarize there was quite a difference - a fast boil reduced the water down to 1333g, while a slow boil reduced it down to 1441g - that is a difference of 108g. So empirically a rolling boil is more efficient (perhaps not when you take power consumption into account), however, tasting the water revealed that a slow boil was better at extracting volatile essences from the medium. Thank you for giving me this opportunity Love from your pal Happy Hat
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2015 23:28
|
|
#paging subG
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 20:18 |
|
|
Water was not distilled and thus subject to fluoridation, providing inexact results. 1/5.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 00:40
|
|
|
Happy Hat? More like Happy Flat Boardy Thing Also With Hanging Stringy Thing Hat!
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 01:25
|
|
|
happy hat you are my favorite poster thank you from the depths of my heart for your thorough exploration of amalgymated thermodynamics on my behalf
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 09:57
|
|
|
It was fun, because I actually had the same expectation that you did.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 09:59
|
|
|
Happy Hat posted:It was fun, because I actually had the same expectation that you did. well gently caress, you're just going after my heartstrings now
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 10:02
|
|
|
Nice work, Happy Hat. That's really interesting research. Thanks for providing the American conversions. I would have been completely lost without them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 16:02
|
|
|
contrapants posted:Thanks for providing the American conversions. I would have been completely lost without them. Agreed, although I think he may have been off by an ant-pecker or two on the second run.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2015 16:42
|
|
|
"[i]ndecent stove" describes my 20's so accurately it's like you were there, man.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
bumping this because <3 awesome happy hat effort thread
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 20:18 |
|
|
mindphlux posted:bumping this because <3 awesome happy hat effort thread ya mostly this
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2015 07:30
|
|