Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 09:58:43 -0800 (PST)
From: 930913 <proxify.my.em...@googlemail.com>
To: london-hack-space@googlegroups.com
Cc: nig...@googlemail.com
Message-Id: <8a26cdeb-456d-4652-bf59-31ab208df822@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <B5628AAF527646D39F56BF25D61EDE42@Vali>
References: <e6fa2e6d-20bc-4a7a-b0fb-6934b361bb92@googlegroups.com>
 <B5628AAF527646D39F56BF25D61EDE42@Vali>
Subject: Re: [london-hack-space] Instant Chip Extruder
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; 
	boundary="----=_Part_158_25983983.1352397523343"

------=_Part_158_25983983.1352397523343
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_159_4507746.1352397523345"

------=_Part_159_4507746.1352397523345
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hmm, so the longer the cooking tube, the greater the throughput. If it 
takes a latency of 20s to crisp a chip, then 10cm of tube will yield 
0.5cm/s whereas a 20cm tube will yield 1cm/s.
For perspective, that's 30cm/min and 60cm/min respectively. At 5cm for a 
chip, that's 6 or 12 chips per minute.

On Thursday, November 8, 2012 5:25:04 PM UTC, Nigel Worsley wrote:
>
> > Before I think too hard about this, can someone shoot down the idea with 
> some practicality? 
>
> I think the main problem will be throughput. Even if you keep the mash 
> reservoir 
> hot enough that the middle of the chip doesn't need any heating (which 
> will 
> mean making it out of something more heatproof than a bag!) the time 
> needed to crisp the outside will probably be too slow. 
>
> I just did a quick experiment, I held a paper napkin directly in front of 
> the 
> grille of one of these: 
> http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/accessories-tyres/42191/clarke-devil-340 
> It started to char in 5 seconds, I suspect that a chip will take at least 
> twice 
> as long due to the higher thermal conductivity. 
>
> > rotating blade to cut chips to length. 
>
> That should work fine! 
>
> Maybe we should start a pledge for one of these: http://freshchips.net/ 
>
> Nigle 
>
>
------=_Part_159_4507746.1352397523345
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hmm, so the longer the cooking tube, the greater the throughput. If it takes a latency of 20s to crisp a chip, then 10cm of tube will yield 0.5cm/s whereas a 20cm tube will yield 1cm/s.<div>For perspective, that's 30cm/min and 60cm/min respectively. At 5cm for a chip, that's 6 or 12 chips per minute.</div><br>On Thursday, November 8, 2012 5:25:04 PM UTC, Nigel Worsley wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;">&gt; Before I think too hard about this, can someone shoot down the idea with some practicality? 
<br>
<br>I think the main problem will be throughput. Even if you keep the mash reservoir
<br>hot enough that the middle of the chip doesn't need any heating (which will
<br>mean making it out of something more heatproof than a bag!) the time
<br>needed to crisp the outside will probably be too slow.
<br>
<br>I just did a quick experiment, I held a paper napkin directly in front of the
<br>grille of one of these:
<br><a href="http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/accessories-tyres/42191/clarke-devil-340" target="_blank">http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/<wbr>accessories-tyres/42191/<wbr>clarke-devil-340</a>
<br>It started to char in 5 seconds, I suspect that a chip will take at least twice
<br>as long due to the higher thermal conductivity.
<br>
<br>&gt; rotating blade to cut chips to length.
<br>
<br>That should work fine!
<br>
<br>Maybe we should start a pledge for one of these: <a href="http://freshchips.net/" target="_blank">http://freshchips.net/</a>
<br>
<br>Nigle
<br>
<br></blockquote>
------=_Part_159_4507746.1352397523345--

------=_Part_158_25983983.1352397523343--