h a l f b a k e r yThis would work fine, except in terms of success.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
We start with a tallish vortex container. The device
pumps air through a loop. In the main chamber
(openable)
we insert our frozen french fries, ready to be cooked.
When the device is turned on, a blast of air lifts the
potato
pieces up off the floor of the chamber, where they
basically
continuously fall through the moving air.
Now we inject a very hot cooking-oil mist or fog, using a
"superspray" type of device (see link). The particles of
oil
are so fine that they are barely able to "wet" any surface
they touch, much less "soak" it. It is our fog-filled
vortex
of air that the overall device blows through its loop.
There is a place in the loop where we can apply a static-
electric charge to the oil drops, after which they can be
attracted out of the moving air, re-heated, and re-
sprayed
back into the moving air, which itself will get hotter,
also.
Net effect, the hot air provides the heat that cooks the
oil-
free interior of the fries, finishing about the same time
that droplets of hot oil, interacting with the surface,
have given us
that
crispy coating we all like so much.
Superspray
http://books.google...0superspray&f=false
As mentioned in the main text. [Vernon, Jan 03 2014]
A little something about electrically charged mists
http://www.popsci.c...t%20charge%20energy
Just so you know it can be done. [Vernon, Jan 03 2014]
Actifryer review
http://doesthisshit...ry-without-the-oil/
It's not as "active" as a sustained air-vortex, but I think the "hot-oil fog" principle is used in one of these things. [Zeuxis, Jan 06 2014]
Nathan Myhrvold
http://www.amazon.c...oking/dp/0982761007
Actually not sure if he is a real person... [4whom, Jan 06 2014]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Destination URL.
E.g., https://www.coffee.com/
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)
|
| |
To cause [xenzag] to begin frothing at the mouth,
we
make the main chamber of this cooking device both
transparent and globular.... |
|
| |
//The particles of oil are so fine that they are barely
able to "wet" any surface they touch, much less
"soak" it// |
|
| |
Why? Surely they will wet and soak into the surface
as easily as bulk oil? |
|
| |
[MaxwellBuchanan], I should not have needed to
remind you of "surface tension" and how it is
stronger in relation to small droplets, than it is in
relation to large droplets. Or, is the surface tension
of oil droplets SO much less than that of water that
that is the reason for your post??? |
|
| |
That was exactly my point and no, you don't need
to remind me about surface tension since a lot of
my work at the moment involves trying to
generate micron-sized water droplets in oil, inside
a structure which is variable wetted by oil and by
water. I know more than I want to about surface
tension. |
|
| |
The surface tension which causes oil to wet a solid
in bulk will have the same effect in droplets (in
fact, it will be slightly worse in droplets - think of
the vectors of the surface tension). |
|
| |
Try spray-painting something - you'll find that it
works jolly well. |
|
| |
[bigsleep], Good Point. I had neglected to think
of that. Obviously we need to remove the oxygen
from the system before introducing the oil.
Hmmmm...a magnesium "getter"? |
|
| |
[MaxwellBuchanan], having encountered a number
of fogs of water over the years, it is my
observation that the tiny water droplets don't
easily "wet" the fabric on which they set. If my
assumption that oil droplets would behave similarly
is mistaken, OK. That just becomes a way in
which this Idea is Half-Baked! |
|
| |
As long as you don't add a spark it should be simply a matter of keeping the temperature under the oil's flash point. |
|
| |
//tiny water droplets don't easily "wet" the fabric
on which they set// That's usually because the
fibres are either synthetic, or have a certain
amount of natural oils on them. |
|
| |
Also, fibres are small and rough. Roughening a
surface exaggerates its hydrophilicity or
hydrophobicity: a roughened hydrophilic surface
is even more hydrophilic; a roughened
hydrophobic surface is even more hydrophobic. I
think the same will apply to oil (ie, its affinity for
the chip's surface will be affected by the chip's
roughness, not by the format in which the oil is
delivered). |
|
| |
Coming back to chips, there's another important
factor. When chips are immersed in very hot oil,
their water content boils. This creates bubbles
which, in turn, drive the oil away and stop it
soaking in. With your oil mist, I don't think the
chip's water will be vaporized quickly enough to
do this. |
|
| |
// Why is [8th] not here to bun this idea many times over ? // |
|
| |
//static- electric charge to the oil drops //
// Now where could a vortex of air and superheated oil mist go wrong
? // |
|
| |
Mmmmm, carburettor, spark ignition, nice ... |
|
| |
[MaxwellBuchanan], thanks for the info. There
still remains a sort of "permeation speed" issue.
When dunked into oil, any oil that permeates into
the body of a potato-piece can be immediately
replaced by more oil. That density of oil is not
present here! |
|
| |
Also, keep in mind that hot air will be doing a
significant part of the cooking (and in theory we
could add a microwave-oven component to this
device, too!). So we have a kind of "race"
between the rate at which oil from the fog can
permeate the potato, and the time it takes it to
cook. |
|
| |
Experimentation seems to be in order! |
|
| |
//microwave oven// I was thinking that as stream heater: the oil would heat up and, being so fine, quickly distribute the heat to the air, hopefully before it caught fire when you didn't want it to. |
|
| |
There are already implementations of super efficient
fryers that use a combination of (I think)
steam and a tiny amount of oil to cook with minimal
greasage - I'm sure there's a link out there somewhere. |
|
| |
There's also the fact that deep frying works because
it produces extremely rapid heat transfer into the
object, resulting in a crispy exterior with a cooked,
but not over cooked interior. |
|
| |
This approach, due to the much more limited amount
of oil in contact at any one time, will have a much
slower cooking rate, producing, at best, something
similar to pan frying. |
|
| |
How about soaking the chips in a strong alkali, then
dunking them into strong acid? The local heating
would cook the exterior and, if everything were
timed right, you'd have neutral chips. |
|
| |
Impingement ovens work with superheated, super desiccated air, relying on the oils on the foods stuffs to created the flavours associated with frying. As [MechE] says, more akin to pan or oven roast than deep frying. Pizzas work especially well in impingement ovens, and this method is commonly used in fast food pizza. Of course adding a vortex that suspends the food is a must, so definite bun. Personally I would not suspend fine particles of fat, or oil, in this superheated vortex. I am going to assume a certain amount of work has been done to avoid the towering firenado of fuel and oxygen that will take place in version 1 thru 3.5 of this device. |
|
| |
Firstly, the oils, as small spheres with large surface area, and a high temperature, will deteriorate from their original esters way before any interaction with the desired food product. Now this will be a complicated set of reactions, depending on what you oil you put in and at what temp, and how much water still remains in your "air". Regardless of the above the result will inevitably be a fine coating of carbon soot and aldehydes, maybe in a crunchy form, but nonetheless unpalatable. |
|
| |
My suggestion would be to suspend your food product in an impingement vortex, let the natural oils of the food do the rest. |
|
| |
NB: calculations only work for perfectly spherical foods, in a vacuum... |
|
| |
[Max...] Have contacted Nathan Myhrvold, he is very interested in your above method, in the most basic sense. Having a bit of a problem with the //soaking in strong alkali// bit. By all accounts this might caustic to the pan. Nonetheless he will give it a shot. What's he got to lose? Life's a pH. |
|
| |
//Have contacted Nathan Myhrvold// Is he a real
person? He sounds more like an anagram. |
|
| |
Before baking, pretzels are dipped in or sprayed
with an alkali solution[*], so doing the same thing
with potato sticks could potentially result in
yummieness. |
|
| |
However, I do not see the point of the oil. If your
fries are levitating due to high speed upward
moving air, the rate of heat transfer should be
very high, just as if the fries were immersed in oil. |
|
| |
Remember, it's that high rate of heat transfer
which allows the outside of the fry to become
crisp and brown, without dehydrating the interior. |
|
| |
The fact that the heat transfer medium is typcailly
oil, is not relevant to the crispyness. |
|
| |
this is a good way of making rancid, oxidized fats. |
|
| |
Centrifuge. There needs to be a centrifuge. |
|
| |