Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
TOT: one for you scientists
30 views
Skip to first unread message
Bill Wright
May 19, 2013, 9:28:12 PM5/19/13
to
If you have a fixed quantity of frozen peas and you want to cook them as
quickly as possible in the microwave, should you boil the kettle and
then (a) add just enough boiled water to cover the peas comfortably or
(b) add more water than that. In both cases you will bring the water
back to the boil in the microwave, at which point you will regard the
peas as cooked.
It is assumed that the kettle has been boiled in anticipation, so only
the time in the microwave is at issue.
Bill
quickly as possible in the microwave, should you boil the kettle and
then (a) add just enough boiled water to cover the peas comfortably or
(b) add more water than that. In both cases you will bring the water
back to the boil in the microwave, at which point you will regard the
peas as cooked.
It is assumed that the kettle has been boiled in anticipation, so only
the time in the microwave is at issue.
Bill
Java Jive
May 19, 2013, 11:13:58 PM5/19/13
to
We can probably assume that the amount of heat energy absorbed by food
in a microwave is approximately proportional to the time spent in it.
We can assume further that the amount of energy to boil the peas
themselves is fixed. I have no idea what amount of peas you mean, nor
of their specific heat, though I can guess that, since living things
mostly consist of water, it won't be much different from that of
water. But anyway, to raise a given amount of peas to boiling
requires a given input into the system which is unaffected by how much
water you add. Let's call this amount of energy P.
However the water added will lose heat energy during the transfer, and
not all of that heat will go into the peas, it being necessary to
replace any amount lost by energy from the microwave. Further, the
more water you add, the more heat will go astray, and have to be
replaced.
Let us consider two quantities of water as examples.
Suppose that first we add just enough water to cover the peas. Some
of its heat will be transferred to the peas, but some will be lost to
the environment. Let's call the amount of energy introduced by this
amount of water W, and the amount lost dW. Thus the microwave has to
supply P - W + dW to bring the peas to the boil.
Let's now try doubling the amount of water. The amount of heat
required from the microwave is now P -2W + 2dW.
Well, actually, it's more, because heat is being lost to the
environment all the time, even while the microwave is cooking the
food, and because the greater amount of water will take longer to
heat, more heat will lost to the environment during the process, and
have to be replaced by even longer cooking.
So a lot depends on whether dW is greater than W. It is relevant here
is that the amount of heat lost is dependent largely on the heat
gradient - that is the hotter the water is relative to its
surroundings, the greater the heat gradient between itself and its
surroundings, so the more rapidly it is losing energy to those
surroundings. The water will be losing heat most rapidly at the
moment of power disconnection.
However, a full analysis would require actual numbers which you
haven't supplied and which, OOTTOMH, would be difficult to guess with
sufficient accuracy. Without hard numbers, it's not possible to say
either way.
Of course, if you're concerned about the energy consumption of the
entire process, including the kettle, not just narrowly about the time
spent in the microwave, it is certain you should use as little water
as possible. Certainly, that's what I would do.
On Mon, 20 May 2013 02:28:12 +0100, Bill Wright <bi...@invalid.com>
wrote:
--
=========================================================
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html
in a microwave is approximately proportional to the time spent in it.
We can assume further that the amount of energy to boil the peas
themselves is fixed. I have no idea what amount of peas you mean, nor
of their specific heat, though I can guess that, since living things
mostly consist of water, it won't be much different from that of
water. But anyway, to raise a given amount of peas to boiling
requires a given input into the system which is unaffected by how much
water you add. Let's call this amount of energy P.
However the water added will lose heat energy during the transfer, and
not all of that heat will go into the peas, it being necessary to
replace any amount lost by energy from the microwave. Further, the
more water you add, the more heat will go astray, and have to be
replaced.
Let us consider two quantities of water as examples.
Suppose that first we add just enough water to cover the peas. Some
of its heat will be transferred to the peas, but some will be lost to
the environment. Let's call the amount of energy introduced by this
amount of water W, and the amount lost dW. Thus the microwave has to
supply P - W + dW to bring the peas to the boil.
Let's now try doubling the amount of water. The amount of heat
required from the microwave is now P -2W + 2dW.
Well, actually, it's more, because heat is being lost to the
environment all the time, even while the microwave is cooking the
food, and because the greater amount of water will take longer to
heat, more heat will lost to the environment during the process, and
have to be replaced by even longer cooking.
So a lot depends on whether dW is greater than W. It is relevant here
is that the amount of heat lost is dependent largely on the heat
gradient - that is the hotter the water is relative to its
surroundings, the greater the heat gradient between itself and its
surroundings, so the more rapidly it is losing energy to those
surroundings. The water will be losing heat most rapidly at the
moment of power disconnection.
However, a full analysis would require actual numbers which you
haven't supplied and which, OOTTOMH, would be difficult to guess with
sufficient accuracy. Without hard numbers, it's not possible to say
either way.
Of course, if you're concerned about the energy consumption of the
entire process, including the kettle, not just narrowly about the time
spent in the microwave, it is certain you should use as little water
as possible. Certainly, that's what I would do.
On Mon, 20 May 2013 02:28:12 +0100, Bill Wright <bi...@invalid.com>
wrote:
=========================================================
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html
Steve Terry
May 19, 2013, 11:31:24 PM5/19/13
to
Steve Terry
--
Get a free GiffGaff PAYG Sim and �5 bonus after activation at:
http://giffgaff.com/orders/affiliate/gfourwwk
Rod Speed
May 20, 2013, 1:24:21 AM5/20/13
to
Bill Wright <bi...@invalid.com> wrote
> If you have a fixed quantity of frozen peas and you want to
> cook them as quickly as possible in the microwave, should
> you boil the kettle and then (a) add just enough boiled
> water to cover the peas comfortably or (b) add more
> water than that. In both cases you will bring the water
> back to the boil in the microwave, at which point you
> will regard the peas as cooked.
I don't use any water at all, just put the peas in a glass cup,
zap them for as long as it takes depending on the quantity,
tip them into the plastic sieve to get rid of the remaining
water which is mostly from the ice that's in with the frozen
peas in the packet.
That way the minimum of water is used, so
the peas are heated as quickly as possible and
you don't wash away any of the nutritional value.
> It is assumed that the kettle has been boiled in anticipation,
> so only the time in the microwave is at issue.
Why does it matter ? I find that the peas take
the least time for any meal, so they go into
the microwave later than everything else.
> If you have a fixed quantity of frozen peas and you want to
> cook them as quickly as possible in the microwave, should
> you boil the kettle and then (a) add just enough boiled
> water to cover the peas comfortably or (b) add more
> water than that. In both cases you will bring the water
> back to the boil in the microwave, at which point you
> will regard the peas as cooked.
zap them for as long as it takes depending on the quantity,
tip them into the plastic sieve to get rid of the remaining
water which is mostly from the ice that's in with the frozen
peas in the packet.
That way the minimum of water is used, so
the peas are heated as quickly as possible and
you don't wash away any of the nutritional value.
> It is assumed that the kettle has been boiled in anticipation,
> so only the time in the microwave is at issue.
the least time for any meal, so they go into
the microwave later than everything else.
Brian Gaff
May 20, 2013, 2:47:35 AM5/20/13
to
However, if you can seal them in, water boils at a higher temp than in
normal atmosphere.
Does this all really matter, I'm a great one for testing things. Its
amazing how often I find stuff that is mega hot in one place but not in
another, even if the majority of the thing is water.
Brian
--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"Bill Wright" <bi...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:knbu7c$i82$2...@speranza.aioe.org...
normal atmosphere.
Does this all really matter, I'm a great one for testing things. Its
amazing how often I find stuff that is mega hot in one place but not in
another, even if the majority of the thing is water.
Brian
--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"Bill Wright" <bi...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:knbu7c$i82$2...@speranza.aioe.org...
Brian Gaff
May 20, 2013, 2:53:40 AM5/20/13
to
Could one ask for what reason this really matters in the vast scheme of
things?
Incidentally, there is a place darn sarf, that is called Peas Pottage. I
don't know if the folk there are more knowledgable about peas though.
Brian
--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"Bill Wright" <bi...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:knbu7c$i82$2...@speranza.aioe.org...
things?
Incidentally, there is a place darn sarf, that is called Peas Pottage. I
don't know if the folk there are more knowledgable about peas though.
Brian
--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"Bill Wright" <bi...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:knbu7c$i82$2...@speranza.aioe.org...
Paul D Smith
May 20, 2013, 3:23:30 AM5/20/13
to
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message news:kncgmk$gtv$1...@dont-email.me...
However, if you can seal them in, water boils at a higher temp than in
normal atmosphere.
Does this all really matter, I'm a great one for testing things. Its
amazing how often I find stuff that is mega hot in one place but not in
another, even if the majority of the thing is water.
+++++++++++++
Yes and no! The pressure will not rise UNTIL the water starts to boil so
you will create pressure but only once the water has started boiling anyway.
From then on any subsequent water that boils will boil at a slightly higher
temperature thus pressure cookers [1].
But as you say, for frozen peas, who cares? I suspect that using the "no
water" method explained by another poster, the peas will be done almost
before you've got the kettle filled.
Paul DS.
[1] And why you can't get a decent cup of tea whilst skiing in the Alps for
the opposite reason.
However, if you can seal them in, water boils at a higher temp than in
normal atmosphere.
Does this all really matter, I'm a great one for testing things. Its
amazing how often I find stuff that is mega hot in one place but not in
another, even if the majority of the thing is water.
Yes and no! The pressure will not rise UNTIL the water starts to boil so
you will create pressure but only once the water has started boiling anyway.
From then on any subsequent water that boils will boil at a slightly higher
temperature thus pressure cookers [1].
But as you say, for frozen peas, who cares? I suspect that using the "no
water" method explained by another poster, the peas will be done almost
before you've got the kettle filled.
Paul DS.
[1] And why you can't get a decent cup of tea whilst skiing in the Alps for
the opposite reason.
Terry Fields
May 20, 2013, 3:43:54 AM5/20/13
to
water will screen them from the microwave energy. Therefore, they will cook in the sake time using any other
form of heat to boil the water.
Putting the peas directly in the microwave cooks them with the microwave energy that can penetrate the peas.
This is likely to be an order of magnitude faster than the diffusion method.
--
Terry Fields
dennis@home
May 20, 2013, 4:00:59 AM5/20/13
to
them. That is the quickest, cheapest and produce the best taste. A rare
case of win, win, win.
Message has been deleted
The Natural Philosopher
May 20, 2013, 4:50:03 AM5/20/13
to
and for best results use a bit of plastic film to cover them
--
Ineptocracy
(in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.
polygonum
May 20, 2013, 4:55:01 AM5/20/13
to
On 20/05/2013 09:27, Tim Streater wrote:
> In article <knc56m$8p8$1...@dont-email.me>,
> longer. Also a microwave is tuned to a frequency so that water absorbs
> the energy. I expect that's a different frequency for petrol.
>
Have often thought it would be interesting to have a tunable microwave.
That frequency is just right for oil so will make a nice hot surface on
a chip. This is spot on for alcohol so will be ideal for warming brandy
to flame the Christmas pudding.
And, of course, we'd need the frequencies for tar, Araldite, etc...
--
Rod
> In article <knc56m$8p8$1...@dont-email.me>,
> "Steve Terry" <gfou...@tesco.net> wrote:
>
>> Bill Wright wrote:
>> > If you have a fixed quantity of frozen peas and you want to cook them
>> > as quickly as possible in the microwave, should you boil the kettle
>> > and then (a) add just enough boiled water to cover the peas
>> > comfortably or (b) add more water than that. In both cases you will
>> > bring the water back to the boil in the microwave, at which point you
>> > will regard the peas as cooked.
>> >
>> > It is assumed that the kettle has been boiled in anticipation, so only
>> > the time in the microwave is at issue.
>> > Bill
>> >
>> Easy, before placing in the microwave, use petrol instead of water.
>
> Petrol boils at a lower temp than water, so the cooking will take
>
>> Bill Wright wrote:
>> > If you have a fixed quantity of frozen peas and you want to cook them
>> > as quickly as possible in the microwave, should you boil the kettle
>> > and then (a) add just enough boiled water to cover the peas
>> > comfortably or (b) add more water than that. In both cases you will
>> > bring the water back to the boil in the microwave, at which point you
>> > will regard the peas as cooked.
>> >
>> > It is assumed that the kettle has been boiled in anticipation, so only
>> > the time in the microwave is at issue.
>> > Bill
>> >
>> Easy, before placing in the microwave, use petrol instead of water.
>
> longer. Also a microwave is tuned to a frequency so that water absorbs
> the energy. I expect that's a different frequency for petrol.
>
Have often thought it would be interesting to have a tunable microwave.
That frequency is just right for oil so will make a nice hot surface on
a chip. This is spot on for alcohol so will be ideal for warming brandy
to flame the Christmas pudding.
And, of course, we'd need the frequencies for tar, Araldite, etc...
--
Rod
Paul Ratcliffe
May 20, 2013, 4:19:23 AM5/20/13
to
On Mon, 20 May 2013 04:13:58 +0100, Java Jive <ja...@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> We can probably assume that the amount of heat energy absorbed by food
> in a microwave is approximately proportional to the time spent in it.
>
> We can assume further that the amount of energy to boil the peas
> themselves is fixed. I have no idea what amount of peas you mean, nor
> of their specific heat, though I can guess that, since living things
> mostly consist of water, it won't be much different from that of
> water. But anyway, to raise a given amount of peas to boiling
> requires a given input into the system which is unaffected by how much
> water you add. Let's call this amount of energy P.
>
> However the water added will lose heat energy during the transfer, and
> not all of that heat will go into the peas, it being necessary to
> replace any amount lost by energy from the microwave. Further, the
> more water you add, the more heat will go astray, and have to be
> replaced.
>
> Let us consider two quantities of water as examples.
>
> Suppose that first we add just enough water to cover the peas. Some
> of its heat will be transferred to the peas, but some will be lost to
> the environment. Let's call the amount of energy introduced by this
> amount of water W, and the amount lost dW. Thus the microwave has to
> supply P - W + dW to bring the peas to the boil.
>
> Let's now try doubling the amount of water. The amount of heat
> required from the microwave is now P -2W + 2dW.
He isn't trying to get a PhD, he's trying to cook a few f*cking peas.
> We can probably assume that the amount of heat energy absorbed by food
> in a microwave is approximately proportional to the time spent in it.
>
> We can assume further that the amount of energy to boil the peas
> themselves is fixed. I have no idea what amount of peas you mean, nor
> of their specific heat, though I can guess that, since living things
> mostly consist of water, it won't be much different from that of
> water. But anyway, to raise a given amount of peas to boiling
> requires a given input into the system which is unaffected by how much
> water you add. Let's call this amount of energy P.
>
> However the water added will lose heat energy during the transfer, and
> not all of that heat will go into the peas, it being necessary to
> replace any amount lost by energy from the microwave. Further, the
> more water you add, the more heat will go astray, and have to be
> replaced.
>
> Let us consider two quantities of water as examples.
>
> Suppose that first we add just enough water to cover the peas. Some
> of its heat will be transferred to the peas, but some will be lost to
> the environment. Let's call the amount of energy introduced by this
> amount of water W, and the amount lost dW. Thus the microwave has to
> supply P - W + dW to bring the peas to the boil.
>
> Let's now try doubling the amount of water. The amount of heat
> required from the microwave is now P -2W + 2dW.
I would have done it in three minutes using no (or just a splash of)
water, and afterwards my head wouldn't have hurt.
PeterC
May 20, 2013, 5:49:05 AM5/20/13
to
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway
Message has been deleted
Max Demian
May 20, 2013, 6:05:44 AM5/20/13
to
only takes five minutes from frozen.
--
Max Demian
Dave Liquorice
May 20, 2013, 6:27:26 AM5/20/13
to
On Mon, 20 May 2013 11:05:44 +0100, Max Demian wrote:
> Peas are so quick to cook, why use a microwave at all? Boiling or
> steaming only takes five minutes from frozen.
Cause you have to heat the water to boil/steam 'em.
> Peas are so quick to cook, why use a microwave at all? Boiling or
> steaming only takes five minutes from frozen.
Some one else has already pointed oout there is enough water on frozen
peas to just bung 'em in a bowl, cover an nuke for a few minutes. No need
for any additional energy absorbing water that you pour down the drain.
--
Cheers
Dave.
Norman Wells
May 20, 2013, 6:42:54 AM5/20/13
to
John Williamson
May 20, 2013, 6:49:11 AM5/20/13
to
--
Tciao for Now!
John.
Norman Wells
May 20, 2013, 7:02:58 AM5/20/13
to
the peas on the filter as you pour the water out into your teapot, then
transfer peas direct to plate.
What could be nicer than a cup of tea and a plate of peas?
Rod Speed
May 20, 2013, 7:06:23 AM5/20/13
to
"Max Demian" <max_d...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:avuaro...@mid.individual.net...
> "Bill Wright" <bi...@invalid.com> wrote in message
> news:knbu7c$i82$2...@speranza.aioe.org...
>> If you have a fixed quantity of frozen peas and you want to cook them as
>> quickly as possible in the microwave, should you boil the kettle and then
>> (a) add just enough boiled water to cover the peas comfortably or (b) add
>> more water than that. In both cases you will bring the water back to the
>> boil in the microwave, at which point you will regard the peas as cooked.
>>
>> It is assumed that the kettle has been boiled in anticipation, so only
>> the time in the microwave is at issue.
> Peas are so quick to cook, why use a microwave at all?
Because it�s a lot easier to just tip the frozen peas
> news:knbu7c$i82$2...@speranza.aioe.org...
>> If you have a fixed quantity of frozen peas and you want to cook them as
>> quickly as possible in the microwave, should you boil the kettle and then
>> (a) add just enough boiled water to cover the peas comfortably or (b) add
>> more water than that. In both cases you will bring the water back to the
>> boil in the microwave, at which point you will regard the peas as cooked.
>>
>> It is assumed that the kettle has been boiled in anticipation, so only
>> the time in the microwave is at issue.
> Peas are so quick to cook, why use a microwave at all?
into a cup and zap them than anything else.
> Boiling or steaming only takes five minutes from frozen.
peas you need into a cup and zap them than anything else.
polygonum
May 20, 2013, 7:07:45 AM5/20/13
to
--
Rod
Rod Speed
May 20, 2013, 7:16:25 AM5/20/13
to
"Norman Wells" <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:W6nmt.68242$ne1....@fx07.fr7...
hell of a lot easier to get them out of what you cook them in too.
Norman Wells
May 20, 2013, 7:23:10 AM5/20/13
to
Bill Wright
May 20, 2013, 7:30:34 AM5/20/13
to
Rod Speed wrote:
> Why does it matter ?
I have the spirit of scientific enquiry in my soul.
> Why does it matter ?
Bill
Bill Wright
May 20, 2013, 7:31:40 AM5/20/13
to
Brian Gaff wrote:
> Its
> amazing how often I find stuff that is mega hot in one place but not in
> another, even if the majority of the thing is water.
Well you shouldn't wank in the bath.
> Its
> amazing how often I find stuff that is mega hot in one place but not in
> another, even if the majority of the thing is water.
Bill
Bill Wright
May 20, 2013, 7:42:26 AM5/20/13
to
Bill
John Williamson
May 20, 2013, 9:38:06 AM5/20/13
to
Norman Wells wrote:
> What could be nicer than a cup of tea and a plate of peas?
A plate of peas *without* the cup of tea. The smell of most tea makes me
> What could be nicer than a cup of tea and a plate of peas?
feel mauseous.
Norman Wells
May 20, 2013, 9:43:54 AM5/20/13
to
John Williamson wrote:
> Norman Wells wrote:
>> What could be nicer than a cup of tea and a plate of peas?
>
> A plate of peas *without* the cup of tea. The smell of most tea makes
> me feel mauseous.
How mouselike?
> Norman Wells wrote:
>> What could be nicer than a cup of tea and a plate of peas?
>
> A plate of peas *without* the cup of tea. The smell of most tea makes
> me feel mauseous.
Bill Wright
May 20, 2013, 11:21:26 AM5/20/13
to
John Williamson wrote:
> Norman Wells wrote:
>> What could be nicer than a cup of tea and a plate of peas?
>
> A plate of peas *without* the cup of tea. The smell of most tea makes me
> feel mauseous.
>
Help is at hand
> Norman Wells wrote:
>> What could be nicer than a cup of tea and a plate of peas?
>
> A plate of peas *without* the cup of tea. The smell of most tea makes me
> feel mauseous.
>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK92NYwBMts
Bill
The Natural Philosopher
May 20, 2013, 12:18:32 PM5/20/13
to
the BEST way to cook frozen peaks bar non.
Java Jive
May 20, 2013, 12:30:12 PM5/20/13
to
Quite. Me too, and I wouldn't've felt the need to ask a question on
the internet about it either.
However, the OP DID ask a question about, so he's either trying a
wind-up, or he is genuinely interested. The best way to counter the
first is to ignore it, in other words answer the question as though
tongue wasn't in cheek, which also conveniently covers the second
possibility.
On Mon, 20 May 2013 08:19:23 GMT, Paul Ratcliffe
<ab...@orac12.clara34.co56.uk78> wrote:
>
> He isn't trying to get a PhD, he's trying to cook a few f*cking peas.
>
> I would have done it in three minutes using no (or just a splash of)
> water, and afterwards my head wouldn't have hurt.
--
=========================================================
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html
the internet about it either.
However, the OP DID ask a question about, so he's either trying a
wind-up, or he is genuinely interested. The best way to counter the
first is to ignore it, in other words answer the question as though
tongue wasn't in cheek, which also conveniently covers the second
possibility.
On Mon, 20 May 2013 08:19:23 GMT, Paul Ratcliffe
<ab...@orac12.clara34.co56.uk78> wrote:
>
> He isn't trying to get a PhD, he's trying to cook a few f*cking peas.
>
> I would have done it in three minutes using no (or just a splash of)
> water, and afterwards my head wouldn't have hurt.
=========================================================
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html
John Rumm
May 20, 2013, 1:08:53 PM5/20/13
to
On 20/05/2013 02:28, Bill Wright wrote:
> If you have a fixed quantity of frozen peas and you want to cook them as
> quickly as possible in the microwave, should you boil the kettle and
> then (a) add just enough boiled water to cover the peas comfortably or
> (b) add more water than that. In both cases you will bring the water
> back to the boil in the microwave, at which point you will regard the
> peas as cooked.
>
> It is assumed that the kettle has been boiled in anticipation, so only
> the time in the microwave is at issue.
I suspect there is not much in it, however if speed is the main concern
> If you have a fixed quantity of frozen peas and you want to cook them as
> quickly as possible in the microwave, should you boil the kettle and
> then (a) add just enough boiled water to cover the peas comfortably or
> (b) add more water than that. In both cases you will bring the water
> back to the boil in the microwave, at which point you will regard the
> peas as cooked.
>
> It is assumed that the kettle has been boiled in anticipation, so only
> the time in the microwave is at issue.
then more boiling water will be faster than less.
If your peas are at freezer temperature (say -15 to -25) and you mix
them with boiling water, the peas are going to warm up[1] and the
boiling water will cool down until some equilibrium is reached. The less
boiling water you add, the less its thermal heat capacity, and the more
its temperature will fall in the process. You now need to return the
mixture to boiling which, will require replacing the amount of energy in
the water which was absorbed by the peas so far, plus an additional
amount required to peas the remainder of the way. The amount of heat you
need to put back into the water is dictated by the thermal mass of peas
rather than anything much to do with the amount of water. However the
more boiling water you had to start with, the more initial energy was
available to pre heat the peas.
For the ultimate in speed pea cooking, chuck a load of boiling water
into the bowl with the peas. Leave it for a little while for the
temperature to equalise. Drain off the water, and then microwave the
part cooked peas for a few seconds on their own to finish them off.
(microwaving the peas on their own from the start may be slightly slower
(although probably the least energy inefficient) since the microwave
energy is not absorbed by the ice quite as rapidly as by water, so you
can short circuit that process with the boiling water from the kettle)
[1] An amount equal to heating ice from below freezing to freezing
point, providing the latent heat of fusion to change the state of said
ice to liquid, and then to heat that water further to the equilibrium
point.
--
Cheers,
John.
/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/
David.WE.Roberts
May 20, 2013, 1:32:50 PM5/20/13
to
On Mon, 20 May 2013 02:28:12 +0100, Bill Wright wrote:
> If you have a fixed quantity of frozen peas and you want to cook them as
> quickly as possible in the microwave, should you boil the kettle and
> then (a) add just enough boiled water to cover the peas comfortably or
> (b) add more water than that. In both cases you will bring the water
> back to the boil in the microwave, at which point you will regard the
> peas as cooked.
>
> It is assumed that the kettle has been boiled in anticipation, so only
> the time in the microwave is at issue.
>
> Bill
> If you have a fixed quantity of frozen peas and you want to cook them as
> quickly as possible in the microwave, should you boil the kettle and
> then (a) add just enough boiled water to cover the peas comfortably or
> (b) add more water than that. In both cases you will bring the water
> back to the boil in the microwave, at which point you will regard the
> peas as cooked.
>
> It is assumed that the kettle has been boiled in anticipation, so only
> the time in the microwave is at issue.
>
May have already been suggested, but why not put the peas in the kettle?
Cheers
Dave R
ARW
May 20, 2013, 3:18:46 PM5/20/13
to
Bill Wright wrote:
> If you have a fixed quantity of frozen peas and you want to cook them
> as quickly as possible in the microwave, should you boil the kettle
> and then (a) add just enough boiled water to cover the peas
> comfortably or (b) add more water than that. In both cases you will
> bring the water back to the boil in the microwave, at which point you
> will regard the peas as cooked.
>
> It is assumed that the kettle has been boiled in anticipation, so only
> the time in the microwave is at issue.
Anyone got any ideas what happens if you have a variable quantity of frozen
> If you have a fixed quantity of frozen peas and you want to cook them
> as quickly as possible in the microwave, should you boil the kettle
> and then (a) add just enough boiled water to cover the peas
> comfortably or (b) add more water than that. In both cases you will
> bring the water back to the boil in the microwave, at which point you
> will regard the peas as cooked.
>
> It is assumed that the kettle has been boiled in anticipation, so only
> the time in the microwave is at issue.
peas?
Do frozen peas not have cooking instructions?
Should the time waiting for the kettle to boil not be part of the equation?
Did you like the peas?
--
Adam
ARW
May 20, 2013, 3:21:35 PM5/20/13
to
polygonum wrote:
>
> And, of course, we'd need the frequencies for tar, Araldite, etc...
Odd menu, but I'll try everything once:-)
>
> And, of course, we'd need the frequencies for tar, Araldite, etc...
--
Adam
John Williamson
May 20, 2013, 3:55:03 PM5/20/13
to
polygonum
May 20, 2013, 3:55:46 PM5/20/13
to
--
Rod
alan
May 20, 2013, 3:59:11 PM5/20/13
to
On 20/05/2013 02:28, Bill Wright wrote:
> If you have a fixed quantity of frozen peas and you want to cook them as
> quickly as possible in the microwave, should you boil the kettle and
> then (a) add just enough boiled water to cover the peas comfortably or
> (b) add more water than that. In both cases you will bring the water
> back to the boil in the microwave, at which point you will regard the
> peas as cooked.
>
> It is assumed that the kettle has been boiled in anticipation, so only
> the time in the microwave is at issue.
>
> Bill
> If you have a fixed quantity of frozen peas and you want to cook them as
> quickly as possible in the microwave, should you boil the kettle and
> then (a) add just enough boiled water to cover the peas comfortably or
> (b) add more water than that. In both cases you will bring the water
> back to the boil in the microwave, at which point you will regard the
> peas as cooked.
>
> It is assumed that the kettle has been boiled in anticipation, so only
> the time in the microwave is at issue.
>
Add no extra water and just boil the water in the peas.
--
mailto:news{at}admac(dot}myzen{dot}co{dot}uk
Rod Speed
May 20, 2013, 4:13:09 PM5/20/13
to
news:knd1gp$oo6$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
> Rod Speed wrote:
>
>> Why does it matter ?
> I have the spirit of scientific enquiry in my soul.
I only have a couple of soles myself.
>
>> Why does it matter ?
> I have the spirit of scientific enquiry in my soul.
Message has been deleted
Simon Brown
May 20, 2013, 4:23:53 PM5/20/13
to
"John Rumm" <see.my.s...@nowhere.null> wrote in message
news:kpGdnaKZKsozxQfM...@brightview.co.uk...
> On 20/05/2013 02:28, Bill Wright wrote:
>> If you have a fixed quantity of frozen peas and you want to cook them as
>> quickly as possible in the microwave, should you boil the kettle and
>> then (a) add just enough boiled water to cover the peas comfortably or
>> (b) add more water than that. In both cases you will bring the water
>> back to the boil in the microwave, at which point you will regard the
>> peas as cooked.
>>
>> It is assumed that the kettle has been boiled in anticipation, so only
>> the time in the microwave is at issue.
>
> I suspect there is not much in it, however if speed is the main concern
> then more boiling water will be faster than less.
No, because that just sees more water stopping the microwave
>> If you have a fixed quantity of frozen peas and you want to cook them as
>> quickly as possible in the microwave, should you boil the kettle and
>> then (a) add just enough boiled water to cover the peas comfortably or
>> (b) add more water than that. In both cases you will bring the water
>> back to the boil in the microwave, at which point you will regard the
>> peas as cooked.
>>
>> It is assumed that the kettle has been boiled in anticipation, so only
>> the time in the microwave is at issue.
>
> I suspect there is not much in it, however if speed is the main concern
> then more boiling water will be faster than less.
energy getting into the peas.
> If your peas are at freezer temperature (say -15 to -25) and you mix them
> with boiling water, the peas are going to warm up[1] and the boiling water
> will cool down until some equilibrium is reached. The less boiling water
> you add, the less its thermal heat capacity, and the more its temperature
> will fall in the process. You now need to return the mixture to boiling
> which, will require replacing the amount of energy in the water which was
> absorbed by the peas so far, plus an additional amount required to peas
> the remainder of the way. The amount of heat you need to put back into the
> water is dictated by the thermal mass of peas rather than anything much to
> do with the amount of water. However the more boiling water you had to
> start with, the more initial energy was available to pre heat the peas.
into the peas directly, so the peas will in fact heat up much
quicker in the microwave with no added water at all.
> For the ultimate in speed pea cooking, chuck a load of boiling water into
> the bowl with the peas. Leave it for a little while for the temperature to
> equalise. Drain off the water, and then microwave the part cooked peas for
> a few seconds on their own to finish them off.
the peas without any added water at all.
> (microwaving the peas on their own from the start may be slightly slower
> (although probably the least energy inefficient) since the microwave
> energy is not absorbed by the ice quite as rapidly as by water,
> so you can short circuit that process with the boiling water from the
> kettle)
any added water.
Rod Speed
May 20, 2013, 4:25:14 PM5/20/13
to
"David.WE.Roberts" <nos...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:avv521...@mid.individual.net...
> On Mon, 20 May 2013 02:28:12 +0100, Bill Wright wrote:
>
>> If you have a fixed quantity of frozen peas and you want to cook them as
>> quickly as possible in the microwave, should you boil the kettle and
>> then (a) add just enough boiled water to cover the peas comfortably or
>> (b) add more water than that. In both cases you will bring the water
>> back to the boil in the microwave, at which point you will regard the
>> peas as cooked.
>>
>> It is assumed that the kettle has been boiled in anticipation, so only
>> the time in the microwave is at issue.
>
>> If you have a fixed quantity of frozen peas and you want to cook them as
>> quickly as possible in the microwave, should you boil the kettle and
>> then (a) add just enough boiled water to cover the peas comfortably or
>> (b) add more water than that. In both cases you will bring the water
>> back to the boil in the microwave, at which point you will regard the
>> peas as cooked.
>>
>> It is assumed that the kettle has been boiled in anticipation, so only
>> the time in the microwave is at issue.
> May have already been suggested, but why not put the peas in the kettle?
Because it takes longer to heat the kettle than to microwave
the cup of peas without any added water and it’s a lot harder
to get the peas out of the kettle than the cup.
Rod Speed
May 20, 2013, 4:27:26 PM5/20/13
to
"ARW" <adamwa...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:kndsnb$3u1$1...@dont-email.me...
> Bill Wright wrote:
>> If you have a fixed quantity of frozen peas and you want to cook them
>> as quickly as possible in the microwave, should you boil the kettle
>> and then (a) add just enough boiled water to cover the peas
>> comfortably or (b) add more water than that. In both cases you will
>> bring the water back to the boil in the microwave, at which point you
>> will regard the peas as cooked.
>>
>> It is assumed that the kettle has been boiled in anticipation, so only
>> the time in the microwave is at issue.
> Anyone got any ideas what happens if you have a variable quantity of
> frozen peas?
It takes longer with more peas.
>> If you have a fixed quantity of frozen peas and you want to cook them
>> as quickly as possible in the microwave, should you boil the kettle
>> and then (a) add just enough boiled water to cover the peas
>> comfortably or (b) add more water than that. In both cases you will
>> bring the water back to the boil in the microwave, at which point you
>> will regard the peas as cooked.
>>
>> It is assumed that the kettle has been boiled in anticipation, so only
>> the time in the microwave is at issue.
> Anyone got any ideas what happens if you have a variable quantity of
> frozen peas?
> Do frozen peas not have cooking instructions?
produce the quickest hot peas that he wants.
Ian Field
May 20, 2013, 5:05:27 PM5/20/13
to
"Tim Streater" <timst...@greenbee.net> wrote in message
news:timstreater-9357...@news.individual.net...
> In article <knc56m$8p8$1...@dont-email.me>,
> "Steve Terry" <gfou...@tesco.net> wrote:
>
>> Bill Wright wrote:
>> > If you have a fixed quantity of frozen peas and you want to cook them
>> > as quickly as possible in the microwave, should you boil the kettle
>> > and then (a) add just enough boiled water to cover the peas
>> > comfortably or (b) add more water than that. In both cases you will
>> > bring the water back to the boil in the microwave, at which point you
>> > will regard the peas as cooked.
>> >
>> > It is assumed that the kettle has been boiled in anticipation, so only
>> > the time in the microwave is at issue.
>> > Bill
>
>> Bill Wright wrote:
>> > If you have a fixed quantity of frozen peas and you want to cook them
>> > as quickly as possible in the microwave, should you boil the kettle
>> > and then (a) add just enough boiled water to cover the peas
>> > comfortably or (b) add more water than that. In both cases you will
>> > bring the water back to the boil in the microwave, at which point you
>> > will regard the peas as cooked.
>> >
>> > It is assumed that the kettle has been boiled in anticipation, so only
>> > the time in the microwave is at issue.
>> >
>> Easy, before placing in the microwave, use petrol instead of water.
>
> Petrol boils at a lower temp than water, so the cooking will take longer.
> Also a microwave is tuned to a frequency so that water absorbs the energy.
> I expect that's a different frequency for petrol.
A bog roll soaked in bleach works quite well.
Ian Field
May 20, 2013, 5:09:15 PM5/20/13
to
"John Williamson" <johnwil...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:avudd2...@mid.individual.net...
> Norman Wells wrote:
>> Max Demian wrote:
>> Max Demian wrote:
>>> "Bill Wright" <bi...@invalid.com> wrote in message
>>> news:knbu7c$i82$2...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>>> If you have a fixed quantity of frozen peas and you want to cook
>>>> them as quickly as possible in the microwave, should you boil the
>>>> kettle and then (a) add just enough boiled water to cover the peas
>>>> comfortably or (b) add more water than that. In both cases you will
>>>> bring the water back to the boil in the microwave, at which point
>>>> you will regard the peas as cooked.
>>>> It is assumed that the kettle has been boiled in anticipation, so
>>>> only the time in the microwave is at issue.
>>>
>>>> them as quickly as possible in the microwave, should you boil the
>>>> kettle and then (a) add just enough boiled water to cover the peas
>>>> comfortably or (b) add more water than that. In both cases you will
>>>> bring the water back to the boil in the microwave, at which point
>>>> you will regard the peas as cooked.
>>>> It is assumed that the kettle has been boiled in anticipation, so
>>>> only the time in the microwave is at issue.
>>>
>>> Peas are so quick to cook, why use a microwave at all? Boiling or
>>> steaming only takes five minutes from frozen.
>>
>>> steaming only takes five minutes from frozen.
>>
>> Exactly. Just shove them in the kettle.
>
>
> They won't fit through the filter on mine.
Mushy peas will - as long as it isn't scaled with lime.
Ian Field
May 20, 2013, 5:11:06 PM5/20/13
to
news:avun9o...@mid.individual.net...
taste nice.
> Norman Wells wrote:
>> What could be nicer than a cup of tea and a plate of peas?
>
> A plate of peas *without* the cup of tea. The smell of most tea makes me
> feel mauseous.
Herbal tea is the only thing I can think of that smells nice but doesn't
>> What could be nicer than a cup of tea and a plate of peas?
>
> A plate of peas *without* the cup of tea. The smell of most tea makes me
> feel mauseous.
taste nice.
Phil Cook
May 20, 2013, 5:37:40 PM5/20/13
to
--
Phil Cook
ARW
May 20, 2013, 5:40:45 PM5/20/13
to
Rod Speed wrote:
> "ARW" <adamwa...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:kndsnb$3u1$1...@dont-email.me...
>> Bill Wright wrote:
>>> If you have a fixed quantity of frozen peas and you want to cook
>>> them as quickly as possible in the microwave, should you boil the
>>> kettle and then (a) add just enough boiled water to cover the peas
>>> comfortably or (b) add more water than that. In both cases you will
>>> bring the water back to the boil in the microwave, at which point
>>> you will regard the peas as cooked.
>>>
>>> It is assumed that the kettle has been boiled in anticipation, so
>>> only the time in the microwave is at issue.
>
>> Anyone got any ideas what happens if you have a variable quantity of
>> frozen peas?
>
> It takes longer with more peas.
Thanks for that info Professor Speed.
> "ARW" <adamwa...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:kndsnb$3u1$1...@dont-email.me...
>> Bill Wright wrote:
>>> If you have a fixed quantity of frozen peas and you want to cook
>>> them as quickly as possible in the microwave, should you boil the
>>> kettle and then (a) add just enough boiled water to cover the peas
>>> comfortably or (b) add more water than that. In both cases you will
>>> bring the water back to the boil in the microwave, at which point
>>> you will regard the peas as cooked.
>>>
>>> It is assumed that the kettle has been boiled in anticipation, so
>>> only the time in the microwave is at issue.
>
>> Anyone got any ideas what happens if you have a variable quantity of
>> frozen peas?
>
> It takes longer with more peas.
--
Adam
bm
May 20, 2013, 6:06:50 PM5/20/13
to
news:kne51h$m9c$1...@dont-email.me...
Whooda thunk it?
Paul Ratcliffe
May 20, 2013, 7:29:46 PM5/20/13
to
On Mon, 20 May 2013 17:30:12 +0100, Java Jive <ja...@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
> Quite. Me too, and I wouldn't've felt the need to ask a question on
> the internet about it either.
>
> However, the OP DID ask a question about, so he's either trying a
> wind-up, or he is genuinely interested. The best way to counter the
> first is to ignore it, in other words answer the question as though
> tongue wasn't in cheek, which also conveniently covers the second
> possibility.
>
> On Mon, 20 May 2013 08:19:23 GMT, Paul Ratcliffe
><ab...@orac12.clara34.co56.uk78> wrote:
>>
>> He isn't trying to get a PhD, he's trying to cook a few f*cking peas.
>>
>> I would have done it in three minutes using no (or just a splash of)
>> water, and afterwards my head wouldn't have hurt.
<whoosh>
> Quite. Me too, and I wouldn't've felt the need to ask a question on
> the internet about it either.
>
> However, the OP DID ask a question about, so he's either trying a
> wind-up, or he is genuinely interested. The best way to counter the
> first is to ignore it, in other words answer the question as though
> tongue wasn't in cheek, which also conveniently covers the second
> possibility.
>
> On Mon, 20 May 2013 08:19:23 GMT, Paul Ratcliffe
><ab...@orac12.clara34.co56.uk78> wrote:
>>
>> He isn't trying to get a PhD, he's trying to cook a few f*cking peas.
>>
>> I would have done it in three minutes using no (or just a splash of)
>> water, and afterwards my head wouldn't have hurt.
Paul Ratcliffe
May 20, 2013, 7:36:32 PM5/20/13
to
On Mon, 20 May 2013 20:18:46 +0100, ARW <adamwa...@blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote:
> Did you like the peas?
Oh dear Norma, I seem to have dropped them on the floor.
Got any O's?
wrote:
> Did you like the peas?
Got any O's?
Paul Ratcliffe
May 20, 2013, 7:39:32 PM5/20/13
to
On Mon, 20 May 2013 20:21:35 +0100, ARW <adamwa...@blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote:
>> And, of course, we'd need the frequencies for tar, Araldite, etc...
>
> Odd menu, but I'll try everything once:-)
Once is probably the only opportunity you'll get.
>> And, of course, we'd need the frequencies for tar, Araldite, etc...
>
> Odd menu, but I'll try everything once:-)
John Rumm
May 20, 2013, 8:00:57 PM5/20/13
to
On 20/05/2013 21:23, Simon Brown wrote:
>> For the ultimate in speed pea cooking, chuck a load of boiling water
>> into the bowl with the peas. Leave it for a little while for the
>> temperature to equalise. Drain off the water, and then microwave the
>> part cooked peas for a few seconds on their own to finish them off.
>
> That is still going to be slower than just microwaving
> the peas without any added water at all.
I have my doubts, since the water can impart lots of heat very quickly
>> For the ultimate in speed pea cooking, chuck a load of boiling water
>> into the bowl with the peas. Leave it for a little while for the
>> temperature to equalise. Drain off the water, and then microwave the
>> part cooked peas for a few seconds on their own to finish them off.
>
> That is still going to be slower than just microwaving
> the peas without any added water at all.
(admittedly this is cheating since you are excluding the kettle heating
time for the water from the equation).
However since I have neither the inclination, and I don't like peas
anyway I am not about to do the experiment to find out ;-)
So, whatever...
John Rumm
May 20, 2013, 8:01:55 PM5/20/13
to
On 20/05/2013 23:06, bm wrote:
> "ARW" <adamwa...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:kne51h$m9c$1...@dont-email.me...
>> Rod Speed wrote:
>>> "ARW" <adamwa...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:kndsnb$3u1$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>> Bill Wright wrote:
>>>>> If you have a fixed quantity of frozen peas and you want to cook
>>>>> them as quickly as possible in the microwave, should you boil the
>>>>> kettle and then (a) add just enough boiled water to cover the peas
>>>>> comfortably or (b) add more water than that. In both cases you will
>>>>> bring the water back to the boil in the microwave, at which point
>>>>> you will regard the peas as cooked.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is assumed that the kettle has been boiled in anticipation, so
>>>>> only the time in the microwave is at issue.
>>>
>>>> Anyone got any ideas what happens if you have a variable quantity of
>>>> frozen peas?
>>>
>>> It takes longer with more peas.
>>
>> Thanks for that info Professor Speed.
>
> Whooda thunk it?
You learn some profound stuff sometimes...
> "ARW" <adamwa...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:kne51h$m9c$1...@dont-email.me...
>> Rod Speed wrote:
>>> "ARW" <adamwa...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:kndsnb$3u1$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>> Bill Wright wrote:
>>>>> If you have a fixed quantity of frozen peas and you want to cook
>>>>> them as quickly as possible in the microwave, should you boil the
>>>>> kettle and then (a) add just enough boiled water to cover the peas
>>>>> comfortably or (b) add more water than that. In both cases you will
>>>>> bring the water back to the boil in the microwave, at which point
>>>>> you will regard the peas as cooked.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is assumed that the kettle has been boiled in anticipation, so
>>>>> only the time in the microwave is at issue.
>>>
>>>> Anyone got any ideas what happens if you have a variable quantity of
>>>> frozen peas?
>>>
>>> It takes longer with more peas.
>>
>> Thanks for that info Professor Speed.
>
> Whooda thunk it?
and then sometimes you don't
Simon Brown
May 21, 2013, 12:01:58 AM5/21/13
to
"John Rumm" <see.my.s...@nowhere.null> wrote in message
> On 20/05/2013 21:23, Simon Brown wrote:
>
>>> For the ultimate in speed pea cooking, chuck a load of boiling water
>>> into the bowl with the peas. Leave it for a little while for the
>>> temperature to equalise. Drain off the water, and then microwave the
>>> part cooked peas for a few seconds on their own to finish them off.
>>
>> That is still going to be slower than just microwaving
>> the peas without any added water at all.
> I have my doubts, since the water can impart lots of heat very quickly
Not as quickly as the microwave can with the much
>
>>> For the ultimate in speed pea cooking, chuck a load of boiling water
>>> into the bowl with the peas. Leave it for a little while for the
>>> temperature to equalise. Drain off the water, and then microwave the
>>> part cooked peas for a few seconds on their own to finish them off.
>>
>> That is still going to be slower than just microwaving
>> the peas without any added water at all.
> I have my doubts, since the water can impart lots of heat very quickly
lower thermal mass of the peas with no added water.
> (admittedly this is cheating since you are excluding the kettle heating
> time for the water from the equation).
Conduction from the hot water is going to be slower
than when the microwave is heating the peas with no
added water by absorption of the microwave energy.
polygonum
May 21, 2013, 3:12:37 AM5/21/13
to
boiling water it does take a finite time for the heat to get right
through the peas.
And collecting up a portion of peas from the ocean of boiling water
could well end up taking longer still...
--
Rod
Martin Brown
May 21, 2013, 3:52:42 AM5/21/13
to
On 21/05/2013 01:00, John Rumm wrote:
> On 20/05/2013 21:23, Simon Brown wrote:
>
>>> For the ultimate in speed pea cooking, chuck a load of boiling water
>>> into the bowl with the peas. Leave it for a little while for the
>>> temperature to equalise. Drain off the water, and then microwave the
>>> part cooked peas for a few seconds on their own to finish them off.
The latent heat of fusion of ice makes this impractical. You need a pan
> On 20/05/2013 21:23, Simon Brown wrote:
>
>>> For the ultimate in speed pea cooking, chuck a load of boiling water
>>> into the bowl with the peas. Leave it for a little while for the
>>> temperature to equalise. Drain off the water, and then microwave the
>>> part cooked peas for a few seconds on their own to finish them off.
full of boiling water and a handful of peas and they would cook just
like they used to do in boiling water in the old days before microwaves!
>>
>> That is still going to be slower than just microwaving
>> the peas without any added water at all.
>
> I have my doubts, since the water can impart lots of heat very quickly
> (admittedly this is cheating since you are excluding the kettle heating
> time for the water from the equation).
But not enough to be worthwhile. Assuming roughly hexagonal close
>> That is still going to be slower than just microwaving
>> the peas without any added water at all.
>
> I have my doubts, since the water can impart lots of heat very quickly
> (admittedly this is cheating since you are excluding the kettle heating
> time for the water from the equation).
packing of the peas you get a 3:1 peas to water ratio. The boiling water
you add to cover them is not enough to get the peas to even melt.
Assuming peas are close to the specific heat of water and a freezer
temperature of -18C you would need 3:2 peas to boiling water to end up
with thawed peas in water just above freezing. Then you have to heat the
entire mass up to 100C. Swings and roundabouts - to first order it makes
no difference how much boiling water you add. In practice I suspect a
small amount of liquid helps the oven couple to the peas.
It is possible that adding some liquid water will also prevent the peas
at the top from dessicating, but choosing the right shaped container to
cook them in would make a much larger difference to cooking time.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
Java Jive
May 21, 2013, 6:56:54 AM5/21/13
to
Whoosh squared. Have a think about how ...
"so he's either trying a wind-up, ...
The best way to counter ... is to ignore it, in other words answer the
question as though tongue wasn't in cheek ...."
... applies equally well to our own exchange.
On Mon, 20 May 2013 23:29:46 GMT, Paul Ratcliffe
<ab...@orac12.clara34.co56.uk78> wrote:
>
> <whoosh>
--
=========================================================
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html
"so he's either trying a wind-up, ...
The best way to counter ... is to ignore it, in other words answer the
question as though tongue wasn't in cheek ...."
... applies equally well to our own exchange.
On Mon, 20 May 2013 23:29:46 GMT, Paul Ratcliffe
<ab...@orac12.clara34.co56.uk78> wrote:
>
> <whoosh>
--
=========================================================
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html
Max Demian
May 21, 2013, 7:35:09 AM5/21/13
to
"John Rumm" <see.my.s...@nowhere.null> wrote in message
news:CY6dnQKViLHfJAfM...@brightview.co.uk...
> However since I have neither the inclination, and I don't like peas anyway
> I am not about to do the experiment to find out ;-)
ridiculously expensive with their annoying BOGOF offers where you have to
buy a bag of peas *and* a bag of broad beans (which they may not have in
stock). Or halve the price one week and double it the next.
--
Max Demian
The Natural Philosopher
May 21, 2013, 7:43:30 AM5/21/13
to
and frozen peas.
The worst is on pod in supermarkets. Tasteless.
The best is straight off the plants. Frozen are a good second best.
--
Ineptocracy
(in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.
Bill Wright
May 21, 2013, 8:43:13 AM5/21/13
to
I experimented yesterday, using sprouts not peas. They actually took the
same time without water as with. The problem doing them without water
was that the heating was uneven. There were boiling bits and still
frozen bits side by side.
Bill
same time without water as with. The problem doing them without water
was that the heating was uneven. There were boiling bits and still
frozen bits side by side.
Bill
Ian Field
May 21, 2013, 8:43:20 AM5/21/13
to
"Max Demian" <max_d...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:b014fb...@mid.individual.net...
Jim Lesurf
May 21, 2013, 7:39:54 AM5/21/13
to
In article <avvf3k...@mid.individual.net>, Simon Brown <s...@kigfr.com>
wrote:
> No, because that just sees more water stopping the microwave energy
> getting into the peas.
the 'microwave' radiation as effectively as water. So more power may be
reflected until such time as enough ice melts to increase the rate of heat
input accepted by the peas.
And I'm far from sure the absorbtion is due to a resonant line of the
water.
So experiment may be a better guide than some of the theories I've seen
here.
Slainte,
Jim
--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html
wrote:
> No, because that just sees more water stopping the microwave energy
> getting into the peas.
> Yes, but that water stops the microwave energy from getting into the
> peas directly, so the peas will in fact heat up much quicker in the
> microwave with no added water at all.
Not necessarily. A point that may be overlooked is that ice doesn't absorb
> peas directly, so the peas will in fact heat up much quicker in the
> microwave with no added water at all.
the 'microwave' radiation as effectively as water. So more power may be
reflected until such time as enough ice melts to increase the rate of heat
input accepted by the peas.
And I'm far from sure the absorbtion is due to a resonant line of the
water.
So experiment may be a better guide than some of the theories I've seen
here.
Slainte,
Jim
--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html
polygonum
May 21, 2013, 8:49:24 AM5/21/13
to
the till.
--
Rod
Ian Field
May 21, 2013, 8:52:08 AM5/21/13
to
"polygonum" <rmoud...@vrod.co.uk> wrote in message
news:b018qq...@mid.individual.net...
Ian Jackson
May 21, 2013, 8:54:35 AM5/21/13
to
In message <knfq51$dh6$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Bill Wright
<bi...@invalid.com> writes
If you microwave fresh sprouts without water, you tend to fry the outer
leaves, with the inside uncooked. Even when reheating cooked sprouts,
you can fry the outer leaves if you blast them with full power.
--
Ian
<bi...@invalid.com> writes
leaves, with the inside uncooked. Even when reheating cooked sprouts,
you can fry the outer leaves if you blast them with full power.
--
Ian
polygonum
May 21, 2013, 8:58:23 AM5/21/13
to
very different properties to peas.
--
Rod
Ian Field
May 21, 2013, 8:58:56 AM5/21/13
to
"Jim Lesurf" <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote in message
news:534f49c...@audiomisc.co.uk...
> In article <avvf3k...@mid.individual.net>, Simon Brown <s...@kigfr.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>> No, because that just sees more water stopping the microwave energy
>> getting into the peas.
>
>> Yes, but that water stops the microwave energy from getting into the
>> peas directly, so the peas will in fact heat up much quicker in the
>> microwave with no added water at all.
>
> Not necessarily. A point that may be overlooked is that ice doesn't absorb
> the 'microwave' radiation as effectively as water. So more power may be
> reflected until such time as enough ice melts to increase the rate of heat
> input accepted by the peas.
Every uW oven I've seen has a defrost function - which usually just switches
> wrote:
>
>
>> No, because that just sees more water stopping the microwave energy
>> getting into the peas.
>
>> Yes, but that water stops the microwave energy from getting into the
>> peas directly, so the peas will in fact heat up much quicker in the
>> microwave with no added water at all.
>
> Not necessarily. A point that may be overlooked is that ice doesn't absorb
> the 'microwave' radiation as effectively as water. So more power may be
> reflected until such time as enough ice melts to increase the rate of heat
> input accepted by the peas.
it on & off for the programmed duration.
IMO this damages the magnetron - the anode voltage is there instantly, but
the heater takes a sec', the not quite hot heater has no space charge - so
it strips the cathode coating.
I've seen a uW oven with a separate heater transformer - whether they used
this to keep the heater on all the time during defrost is another matter.
polygonum
May 21, 2013, 9:02:38 AM5/21/13
to
Used to use JS as a main source. Now go almost everywhere else and only
use them for a few things only they do.
I object to having to walk from one end of the row of tills to the other
to find one that is open. Finding open tills for their self-checkout
totally unused and yet not a single basket till open. Etc. Plus their
car park is horrible.
--
Rod
The Natural Philosopher
May 21, 2013, 10:14:20 AM5/21/13
to
On 21/05/13 12:39, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <avvf3k...@mid.individual.net>, Simon Brown <s...@kigfr.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>> No, because that just sees more water stopping the microwave energy
>> getting into the peas.
>> Yes, but that water stops the microwave energy from getting into the
>> peas directly, so the peas will in fact heat up much quicker in the
>> microwave with no added water at all.
> Not necessarily. A point that may be overlooked is that ice doesn't absorb
> the 'microwave' radiation as effectively as water. So more power may be
> reflected until such time as enough ice melts to increase the rate of heat
> input accepted by the peas.
>
> And I'm far from sure the absorbtion is due to a resonant line of the
> water.
>
> So experiment may be a better guide than some of the theories I've seen
> here.
well why NOT ignore what most of us have been saying here, that
> In article <avvf3k...@mid.individual.net>, Simon Brown <s...@kigfr.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>> No, because that just sees more water stopping the microwave energy
>> getting into the peas.
>> Yes, but that water stops the microwave energy from getting into the
>> peas directly, so the peas will in fact heat up much quicker in the
>> microwave with no added water at all.
> Not necessarily. A point that may be overlooked is that ice doesn't absorb
> the 'microwave' radiation as effectively as water. So more power may be
> reflected until such time as enough ice melts to increase the rate of heat
> input accepted by the peas.
>
> And I'm far from sure the absorbtion is due to a resonant line of the
> water.
>
> So experiment may be a better guide than some of the theories I've seen
> here.
EXPERIMENT shows the peas need no extra water, will defrost and cook in
pure microwaves and take a couple of minutes at full power?
And don't lose any flavour to the water, which is now nonexistent.
ALL veg cooks remarkably well in a microwave. There is enough water in
veg to do the job, they get warmed from the inside out, and all you have
to do to avoid drying out is use a covered dish.
Only if you want a hot dry crust, do you need to use externally applied
heat, like chips or roast potatoes or parsnips.
In short if you are boiling or streaming veg, don't. Microwave em
instead for better results.
> Slainte,
>
> Jim
The Natural Philosopher
May 21, 2013, 10:15:33 AM5/21/13
to
Tim+
May 21, 2013, 10:26:21 AM5/21/13
to
"Ian Field" <gangprob...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> Every uW oven I've seen has a defrost function - which usually just
> switches it on & off for the programmed duration.
>
> IMO this damages the magnetron - the anode voltage is there instantly,
> but the heater takes a sec', the not quite hot heater has no space charge
> - so it strips the cathode coating.
>
> I've seen a uW oven with a separate heater transformer - whether they
> used this to keep the heater on all the time during defrost is another matter.
Hmm, I'm not sure our 33 year old microwave fits with your theory though.
> Every uW oven I've seen has a defrost function - which usually just
> switches it on & off for the programmed duration.
>
> IMO this damages the magnetron - the anode voltage is there instantly,
> but the heater takes a sec', the not quite hot heater has no space charge
> - so it strips the cathode coating.
>
> I've seen a uW oven with a separate heater transformer - whether they
> used this to keep the heater on all the time during defrost is another matter.
Mostly used for defrosting and not cooking and still going strong.
Tim
Simon Brown
May 21, 2013, 2:15:28 PM5/21/13
to
news:b00l3b...@mid.individual.net...
And stops the microwaves from getting into the peas directly too.
> And collecting up a portion of peas from the ocean of boiling water could
> well end up taking longer still...
That one is less likely to be a problem with normal quantities of
boiling water and peas. You just pour the lot through a sieve or
use the lid to keep the peas in the container while pouring off
the water. Sure, it will take marginally longer with more water,
but nothing like the time to boil the water first.
> And collecting up a portion of peas from the ocean of boiling water could
> well end up taking longer still...
boiling water and peas. You just pour the lot through a sieve or
use the lid to keep the peas in the container while pouring off
the water. Sure, it will take marginally longer with more water,
but nothing like the time to boil the water first.
Simon Brown
May 21, 2013, 2:22:08 PM5/21/13
to
> In article <avvf3k...@mid.individual.net>, Simon Brown <s...@kigfr.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>> No, because that just sees more water stopping the microwave energy
>> getting into the peas.
>
>> Yes, but that water stops the microwave energy from getting into the
>> peas directly, so the peas will in fact heat up much quicker in the
>> microwave with no added water at all.
> Not necessarily. A point that may be overlooked is that ice
> doesn't absorb the 'microwave' radiation as effectively as water.
It does absorb it well enough for it to be perfectly viable
> wrote:
>
>
>> No, because that just sees more water stopping the microwave energy
>> getting into the peas.
>
>> Yes, but that water stops the microwave energy from getting into the
>> peas directly, so the peas will in fact heat up much quicker in the
>> microwave with no added water at all.
> Not necessarily. A point that may be overlooked is that ice
> doesn't absorb the 'microwave' radiation as effectively as water.
to heat anything frozen solid, in the microwave.
> So more power may be reflected until such time as enough ice
> melts to increase the rate of heat input accepted by the peas.
stuff like pies or meat in the microwave.
> And I'm far from sure the absorbtion
> is due to a resonant line of the water.
> So experiment may be a better guide
> than some of the theories I've seen here.
microwave with no added water. Very fast indeed.
Rod Speed
May 21, 2013, 2:23:30 PM5/21/13
to
Message has been deleted
Paul D Smith
May 22, 2013, 5:29:18 AM5/22/13
to
>Not necessarily. A point that may be overlooked is that ice doesn't absorb
>the 'microwave' radiation as effectively as water. So more power may be
>reflected until such time as enough ice melts to increase the rate of heat
>input accepted by the peas.
++++++++++
>the 'microwave' radiation as effectively as water. So more power may be
>reflected until such time as enough ice melts to increase the rate of heat
>input accepted by the peas.
Worth looking up "inverse backed alaska". So you can....
- boil water in an "ice-cup"
- heat jam inside ice cream
etc., etc.
And you might want to look up the sparking grape-peel whilst you're at it.
Hours of fun for the amateur scientist with a microwave :-).
Paul DS
Jim Lesurf
May 22, 2013, 4:36:36 AM5/22/13
to
In article <b01sbk...@mid.individual.net>, Simon Brown <s...@kigfr.com>
> > So more power may be reflected until such time as enough ice melts to
> > increase the rate of heat input accepted by the peas.
> You don<t get that effect when heating frozen stuff like pies or meat in
> the microwave.
How did you measure the VSWR? And how did it change with time as different
parts of your 'pie' melted? Did you adopt the approach theorists love: i.e.
start with a spherical pie? How did this compare with when you tried one
pea?
> > So experiment may be a better guide than some of the theories I've
> > seen here.
> I do that every time I zap a cup of peas in the microwave with no added
> water. Very fast indeed.
Fine as an anecdote. How about some controlled comparison measurements,
though? That way it would be easier for people to have a basis for drawing
a reliable general conclusion rather than asserting their beliefs based on
a few examples.
N.B. I'm not advocating either opinion. Just pointing out the lack of
assessable data in this thread where people are firmly asserting their
conflicting personal beliefs. I've noticed that the title of this thread
invites "scientists" to consider the content. So I'm reminding people
of what science is based upon. :-)
wrote:
> "Jim Lesurf" <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:534f49c...@audiomisc.co.uk...
> > In article <avvf3k...@mid.individual.net>, Simon Brown
> > <s...@kigfr.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> No, because that just sees more water stopping the microwave energy
> >> getting into the peas.
> >
> >> Yes, but that water stops the microwave energy from getting into the
> >> peas directly, so the peas will in fact heat up much quicker in the
> >> microwave with no added water at all.
> > Not necessarily. A point that may be overlooked is that ice doesn't
> > absorb the 'microwave' radiation as effectively as water.
> It does absorb it well enough for it to be perfectly viable to heat
> anything frozen solid, in the microwave.
Alas, "viable" != "most efficient" returns TRUE. :-)
> "Jim Lesurf" <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:534f49c...@audiomisc.co.uk...
> > In article <avvf3k...@mid.individual.net>, Simon Brown
> > <s...@kigfr.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> No, because that just sees more water stopping the microwave energy
> >> getting into the peas.
> >
> >> Yes, but that water stops the microwave energy from getting into the
> >> peas directly, so the peas will in fact heat up much quicker in the
> >> microwave with no added water at all.
> > Not necessarily. A point that may be overlooked is that ice doesn't
> > absorb the 'microwave' radiation as effectively as water.
> It does absorb it well enough for it to be perfectly viable to heat
> anything frozen solid, in the microwave.
> > So more power may be reflected until such time as enough ice melts to
> > increase the rate of heat input accepted by the peas.
> the microwave.
How did you measure the VSWR? And how did it change with time as different
parts of your 'pie' melted? Did you adopt the approach theorists love: i.e.
start with a spherical pie? How did this compare with when you tried one
pea?
> > So experiment may be a better guide than some of the theories I've
> > seen here.
> I do that every time I zap a cup of peas in the microwave with no added
> water. Very fast indeed.
though? That way it would be easier for people to have a basis for drawing
a reliable general conclusion rather than asserting their beliefs based on
a few examples.
N.B. I'm not advocating either opinion. Just pointing out the lack of
assessable data in this thread where people are firmly asserting their
conflicting personal beliefs. I've noticed that the title of this thread
invites "scientists" to consider the content. So I'm reminding people
of what science is based upon. :-)
Jim Lesurf
May 22, 2013, 7:41:51 AM5/22/13
to
In article <hb3pp8te32tq25l3r...@4ax.com>, brightside S9
<address@replyto_is_not.invalid> wrote:
Thanks for that. I've bookmarked it. :-) Quite a nice page on the behaviour
of pure liquid water in bulk. Shaped films contaminated with various
substances thinly placed over other items, or inside them, with all
dimensions much smaller than the wavelength can complicate the issue,
though.
<address@replyto_is_not.invalid> wrote:
> On Tue, 21 May 2013 12:39:54 +0100, Jim Lesurf <no...@audiomisc.co.uk>
> wrote:
> >In article <avvf3k...@mid.individual.net>, Simon Brown
> ><s...@kigfr.com> wrote:
> >
> >So experiment may be a better guide than some of the theories I've seen
> >here.
> >
> Does this help? http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/microwave.html
> wrote:
> >In article <avvf3k...@mid.individual.net>, Simon Brown
> ><s...@kigfr.com> wrote:
> >
> >So experiment may be a better guide than some of the theories I've seen
> >here.
> >
Thanks for that. I've bookmarked it. :-) Quite a nice page on the behaviour
of pure liquid water in bulk. Shaped films contaminated with various
substances thinly placed over other items, or inside them, with all
dimensions much smaller than the wavelength can complicate the issue,
though.
Simon Brown
May 22, 2013, 4:29:30 PM5/22/13
to
news:534fbcc...@audiomisc.co.uk...
Even real scientists don�t bother to drive head first into a brick
wall with no helmet to prove that that does damage your head
just a tad at the higher speeds.
wall with no helmet to prove that that does damage your head
just a tad at the higher speeds.
Bill Wright
May 22, 2013, 8:37:21 PM5/22/13
to
Simon Brown wrote:
> Even real scientists don�t bother to drive head first into a brick
> wall with no helmet to prove that that does damage your head
> just a tad at the higher speeds.
No, they use crash dummies.
> Even real scientists don�t bother to drive head first into a brick
> wall with no helmet to prove that that does damage your head
> just a tad at the higher speeds.
Bill
Simon Brown
May 22, 2013, 10:13:38 PM5/22/13
to
"Bill Wright" <bi...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:knjoc7$ss7$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
dummies to see how effective the design of the car is at
avoiding those injuries.
Bill Wright
May 22, 2013, 11:19:11 PM5/22/13
to
Bill
Simon Brown
May 23, 2013, 12:51:24 AM5/23/13
to
news:knk1rk$j3u$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
No, nothing like it. They don�t need to do any crash test
to know that it fucks the occupants if its fast enough.
They use crash test dummies to work out how to minimise
the damage to the dummies with car design and how well
a particular design does protect the occupants.
to know that it fucks the occupants if its fast enough.
They use crash test dummies to work out how to minimise
the damage to the dummies with car design and how well
a particular design does protect the occupants.
polygonum
May 23, 2013, 3:52:03 AM5/23/13
to
There were, however, lots of questions over how well a corpse represents
a living human given the considerable differences in how dead and living
bodies are before and behave during a crash.
--
Rod
Max Demian
May 23, 2013, 5:13:09 AM5/23/13
to
"polygonum" <rmoud...@vrod.co.uk> wrote in message
news:b0605b...@mid.individual.net...
And child-sized dummies are usually just small scaled versions of the adult
ones, though a child's body behaves quite differently from an adult's in a
crash. Apparently bereaved parents are reluctant to have their offspring's
body embalmed and wired up with sensors before being slammed into a wall.
--
Max Demian
The Natural Philosopher
May 23, 2013, 5:22:32 AM5/23/13
to
On 23/05/13 08:52, polygonum wrote:
> On 23/05/2013 05:51, Simon Brown wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Bill Wright" <bi...@invalid.com> wrote in message
>> news:knk1rk$j3u$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>> Simon Brown wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Bill Wright" <bi...@invalid.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:knjoc7$ss7$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>>>> Simon Brown wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Even real scientists don’t bother to drive head first into a brick
> On 23/05/2013 05:51, Simon Brown wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Bill Wright" <bi...@invalid.com> wrote in message
>> news:knk1rk$j3u$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>> Simon Brown wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Bill Wright" <bi...@invalid.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:knjoc7$ss7$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>>>> Simon Brown wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> wall with no helmet to prove that that does damage your head
>>>>>> just a tad at the higher speeds.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, they use crash dummies.
>>>>
>>>> They don’t use crash dummies to prove that, they use crash
>>>>>> just a tad at the higher speeds.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, they use crash dummies.
>>>>
>>>> dummies to see how effective the design of the car is at
>>>> avoiding those injuries.
>>
>>> Well it's the same thing.
>>
>> No, nothing like it. They don’t need to do any crash test
>>>> avoiding those injuries.
>>
>>> Well it's the same thing.
>>
>> to know that it fucks the occupants if its fast enough.
>>
>> They use crash test dummies to work out how to minimise
>> the damage to the dummies with car design and how well
>> a particular design does protect the occupants.
>
> Although "they" have used corpses to investigate the effects of
> crashes. There were, however, lots of questions over how well a corpse
> represents a living human given the considerable differences in how
> dead and living bodies are before and behave during a crash.
>
The nazis used live humans to do mortality tests. very useful they
>>
>> They use crash test dummies to work out how to minimise
>> the damage to the dummies with car design and how well
>> a particular design does protect the occupants.
>
> Although "they" have used corpses to investigate the effects of
> crashes. There were, however, lots of questions over how well a corpse
> represents a living human given the considerable differences in how
> dead and living bodies are before and behave during a crash.
>
turned out to be. How long you could survive in icy water and so on.
They regarded them, as war surrplus..
dennis@home
May 23, 2013, 5:53:05 AM5/23/13
to
On 23/05/2013 08:52, polygonum wrote:
> Although "they" have used corpses to investigate the effects of crashes.
> There were, however, lots of questions over how well a corpse represents
> a living human given the considerable differences in how dead and living
> bodies are before and behave during a crash.
>
They use data from real crashes to verify that the crash dummies show
> Although "they" have used corpses to investigate the effects of crashes.
> There were, however, lots of questions over how well a corpse represents
> a living human given the considerable differences in how dead and living
> bodies are before and behave during a crash.
>
similar "injury".
Much of the original work was done by volunteers, frequently testing
their own designs on themselves.
Bill Wright
May 23, 2013, 6:54:44 AM5/23/13
to
Simon Brown wrote:
>
>
> "Bill Wright" <bi...@invalid.com> wrote in message
> news:knk1rk$j3u$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>> Simon Brown wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Bill Wright" <bi...@invalid.com> wrote in message
>>> news:knjoc7$ss7$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>>> Simon Brown wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Even real scientists don�t bother to drive head first into a brick
>>>>> wall with no helmet to prove that that does damage your head
>>>>> just a tad at the higher speeds.
>>>>
>>>> No, they use crash dummies.
>>>
>>> They don�t use crash dummies to prove that, they use crash
>>> dummies to see how effective the design of the car is at
>>> avoiding those injuries.
>
>> Well it's the same thing.
>
> No, nothing like it. They don�t need to do any crash test
> to know that it fucks the occupants if its fast enough.
>
> They use crash test dummies to work out how to minimise
> the damage to the dummies with car design and how well
> a particular design does protect the occupants.
All right then, I'll put it a different way. In the event that 'they'
>
>
> "Bill Wright" <bi...@invalid.com> wrote in message
> news:knk1rk$j3u$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>> Simon Brown wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Bill Wright" <bi...@invalid.com> wrote in message
>>> news:knjoc7$ss7$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>>> Simon Brown wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Even real scientists don�t bother to drive head first into a brick
>>>>> wall with no helmet to prove that that does damage your head
>>>>> just a tad at the higher speeds.
>>>>
>>>> No, they use crash dummies.
>>>
>>> They don�t use crash dummies to prove that, they use crash
>>> dummies to see how effective the design of the car is at
>>> avoiding those injuries.
>
>> Well it's the same thing.
>
> No, nothing like it. They don�t need to do any crash test
> to know that it fucks the occupants if its fast enough.
>
> They use crash test dummies to work out how to minimise
> the damage to the dummies with car design and how well
> a particular design does protect the occupants.
decided that they did want to carry out the experiment you postulate,
that is, to test the hypothesis that driving 'head first into a brick
wall with no helmet to prove that that does damage your head
just a tad at the higher speeds', I think they'd use a crash dummy.
Bill
Bill Wright
May 23, 2013, 7:03:19 AM5/23/13
to
polygonum wrote:
> Although "they" have used corpses to investigate the effects of crashes.
As soon as those two Muslims are fit and well they should strap them
> Although "they" have used corpses to investigate the effects of crashes.
into a test car and crash it at high speed.
Bill
Ian Field
May 23, 2013, 2:42:38 PM5/23/13
to
news:knkt1s$d6a$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
Too quick!
Simon Brown
May 23, 2013, 3:50:34 PM5/23/13
to
news:knkshp$b90$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
I know they wouldn�t bother because they know what the result would be.
Ian Field
May 23, 2013, 5:38:47 PM5/23/13
to
the sides of their head!
Alan Braggins
May 24, 2013, 8:07:48 AM5/24/13
to
In article <y%vnt.22587$mi1....@fx14.am4>, Ian Field wrote:
>"Bill Wright" <bi...@invalid.com> wrote in message
>news:knjoc7$ss7$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>> Simon Brown wrote:
>>
>>> Even real scientists don�t bother to drive head first into a brick
>"Bill Wright" <bi...@invalid.com> wrote in message
>news:knjoc7$ss7$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>> Simon Brown wrote:
>>
>>> wall with no helmet to prove that that does damage your head
>>> just a tad at the higher speeds.
>>
>> No, they use crash dummies.
>
>I always watch out for car drivers coming toward me that have BMW badges on
>the sides of their head!
I find statistically a BMW badge on the front of the car is a pretty good
>>> just a tad at the higher speeds.
>>
>> No, they use crash dummies.
>
>I always watch out for car drivers coming toward me that have BMW badges on
>the sides of their head!
warning you have to watch out for them turning without indicating or looking
in their mirrors.
Phil Cook
May 24, 2013, 10:24:14 AM5/24/13
to
On 24/05/2013 13:07, Alan Braggins wrote:
> In article <y%vnt.22587$mi1....@fx14.am4>, Ian Field wrote:
>> "Bill Wright" <bi...@invalid.com> wrote in message
>> news:knjoc7$ss7$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>> Simon Brown wrote:
>>>
>>>> Even real scientists don�t bother to drive head first into a brick
> In article <y%vnt.22587$mi1....@fx14.am4>, Ian Field wrote:
>> "Bill Wright" <bi...@invalid.com> wrote in message
>> news:knjoc7$ss7$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>>> Simon Brown wrote:
>>>
>>>> wall with no helmet to prove that that does damage your head
>>>> just a tad at the higher speeds.
>>>
>>> No, they use crash dummies.
>>
>> I always watch out for car drivers coming toward me that have BMW badges on
>> the sides of their head!
>
> I find statistically a BMW badge on the front of the car is a pretty good
> warning you have to watch out for them turning without indicating or looking
> in their mirrors.
It happens with other trendy marques too these days. Remember that ad
>>>> just a tad at the higher speeds.
>>>
>>> No, they use crash dummies.
>>
>> I always watch out for car drivers coming toward me that have BMW badges on
>> the sides of their head!
>
> I find statistically a BMW badge on the front of the car is a pretty good
> warning you have to watch out for them turning without indicating or looking
> in their mirrors.
with the Audi being driven by an oik banker where it turned out he was
on a test drive and handed it back saying, "Not for me."? Audi drivers
are worse than BeeEms these days. Worst of the lot are still the
Chelsea Tractors though.
--
Phil Cook
Paul Ratcliffe
May 25, 2013, 6:32:56 AM5/25/13
to
On Tue, 21 May 2013 14:02:38 +0100, polygonum <rmoud...@vrod.co.uk> wrote:
>> That's about all their feeble carrier bags can carry!
>
> I concur.
Tesco's are worse. They biodegrade between the till and the car.
> Used to use JS as a main source. Now go almost everywhere else and only
> use them for a few things only they do.
>
> I object to having to walk from one end of the row of tills to the other
> to find one that is open.
They are all as bad as each other regarding tills now.
> Finding open tills for their self-checkout totally unused and yet not a
> single basket till open.
Not in my experience. Usually they are queued 6 deep. I object to having to
queue to scan my own bloody shopping and then have to wait for some muppet
to come and assist with something which the system won't or can't do.
>> That's about all their feeble carrier bags can carry!
>
> I concur.
Tesco's are worse. They biodegrade between the till and the car.
> Used to use JS as a main source. Now go almost everywhere else and only
> use them for a few things only they do.
>
> I object to having to walk from one end of the row of tills to the other
> to find one that is open.
They are all as bad as each other regarding tills now.
> Finding open tills for their self-checkout totally unused and yet not a
> single basket till open.
Not in my experience. Usually they are queued 6 deep. I object to having to
queue to scan my own bloody shopping and then have to wait for some muppet
to come and assist with something which the system won't or can't do.
Ian Field
May 25, 2013, 8:44:45 AM5/25/13
to
"Paul Ratcliffe" <ab...@orac12.clara34.co56.uk78> wrote in message
news:slrnkq14qn...@news.pr.network...
> On Tue, 21 May 2013 14:02:38 +0100, polygonum <rmoud...@vrod.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>>> That's about all their feeble carrier bags can carry!
>>
>> I concur.
>
> Tesco's are worse. They biodegrade between the till and the car.
I rarely go in Tesco - but I'd noticed sainsburys bags do that.
> wrote:
>
>>> That's about all their feeble carrier bags can carry!
>>
>> I concur.
>
> Tesco's are worse. They biodegrade between the till and the car.
Morrisons bags seem to be at least adequate - whenever I can get away with
it, I pinch a wad.
Bill Wright
May 25, 2013, 11:15:50 AM5/25/13
to
Paul Ratcliffe wrote:
> Not in my experience. Usually they are queued 6 deep. I object to having to
> queue to scan my own bloody shopping and then have to wait for some muppet
> to come and assist with something which the system won't or can't do.
I dare say the 'muppet' would say, 'I object to having to assist these
> Not in my experience. Usually they are queued 6 deep. I object to having to
> queue to scan my own bloody shopping and then have to wait for some muppet
> to come and assist with something which the system won't or can't do.
bloody muppets who can't work a simple checkout machine.' Certainly when
I get in difficulties (every time) I get that impression.
Bill
Ian Field
May 25, 2013, 11:33:03 AM5/25/13
to
news:knqkjd$1ca$2...@speranza.aioe.org...
The only time I use the automatic checkout is when I need to empty the penny
jar.
jar.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages