Dumb Question (?) - Propane Torches
~patches~
You know, the propane torches you can buy at the hardware or do I have
to buy something special?
zxcvbob
Regular Bernzomatic torch works just fine. (so does an electric heat gun)
Bob
Marcella Peek
~patches~ <noone...@thisaddress.com> wrote:
Yep. Same thing.
I had one of those stupid little ones they sell for too much money in
kitchen stores for creme brulee. Oh brother. You could wave that
little thing for hours before the sugar carmelized. It was the pitts
especially if you were doing several little ones.
Went to the hardware and got a regular torch. heaven. Fast, hot,
cheaper that than little thing too. Same fuel, bigger canister.
marcella
Bob
"~patches~" <noone...@thisaddress.com> wrote in message
news:11s07fv...@corp.supernews.com...
> Can I just use a regular run of the mill propane torch for browning? You
> know, the propane torches you can buy at the hardware or do I have to buy
> something special?
I've seen the old plumbing/soldering torches used in restaurants for creme
brulee ... I personally have not used 'em for this purpose.
Bob
Mark Thorson
Food-grade propane is odorless.
If it has an odor, don't use it for food.
Dave Smith
For browning what? They do a great job on caramelizing the tops of Creme
Brulee, and at a fraction of the cost of a special kitchen model.
OmManiPadmeOmelet
Yes,
and
No.
A regular torch from the hardware store is what I use!
--
Om.
"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch." -Jack Nicholson
OmManiPadmeOmelet
OmManiPadmeOmelet
Marcella Peek <marc...@extra.peek.org> wrote:
<lol>
I just reserve it for the kitchen so it stays cleaner. :-)
OmManiPadmeOmelet
"Bob" <Ju...@bin.net> wrote:
Give it a shot dear!
I also use mine for singing pinfeathers when I process my own meat birds.
My kitchen tool drawer also contains a hacksaw that is clean and
reserved for cutting bones to size for the pot.
OmManiPadmeOmelet
Mark Thorson <nos...@sonic.net> wrote:
Weird.
My propane torch from the hardware store does not have any smell.....
At all.
Works for me and always has.
Worked for Julia Childs too.
<shrugs>
ensenadajim
Elitist!
jim
Dave Smith
WTF ?????
Where the hell did you come up with this food grade propane stuff?
I confess that I was curious. I searched for close to an hour, looking up
information about butane and propane torches, cooking sites with information
about using torches to caramelize sugar. I could not find a single reference
to food grade propane (or butane), and various cooking sites said to use
broiler, butane kitchen torch, welders propane torch or whatever was handy.
OmManiPadmeOmelet
OmManiPadmeOmelet
Dave Smith <adavid...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
You're a braver person than I am jellie bean....
I blew it off. ;-)
Watched too many cooking shows on the food channel with mom to believe
it for even a second!!!
Reg
You've got to be kidding here.
In all the restos and catering places I've been not one
has ever used anything other than plain old propane.
When they're not using them on the food they use them
to solder plumbing joints.
--
Reg email: RegForte (at) (that free MS email service) (dot) com
Mark Thorson
Trying using Google. Here's at least one place
that refers to odorless/food-grade propane
(though not for carmelizing sugar):
http://www.oilcn.com/Detail_Offer.aspx?id=14145
Scroll down for the English version.
Dave Smith
>
> > > Food-grade propane is odorless.
> > > If it has an odor, don't use it for food.
> >
> > WTF ?????
> > Where the hell did you come up with this food grade propane stuff?
> >
> > I confess that I was curious. I searched for close to an hour, looking up
> > information about butane and propane torches, cooking sites with information
> > about using torches to caramelize sugar. I could not find a single reference
> > to food grade propane (or butane), and various cooking sites said to use
> > broiler, butane kitchen torch, welders propane torch or whatever was handy.
>
> Trying using Google. Here's at least one place
> that refers to odorless/food-grade propane
> (though not for carmelizing sugar):
>
> http://www.oilcn.com/Detail_Offer.aspx?id=14145
>
> Scroll down for the English version.
At least one??? That one is so obscure that it is in Chinese, and appears to have
something to do with someone tendering out a project. For all I know it could be
the Chinese version of the Nigerian scam.
I found lots that said to use butane, propane, plumbers blow torch or whatever you
have handy. You scrambled to try to find one to support your food grade propane
suggestion and the best you could do was some obscure Chinese document that also
involves a compressor.
MoM
> browning? You know, the propane torches you can buy at the
> hardware or do I have to buy something special?
Yes.
MoM
Mark Thorson
>
> At least one??? That one is so obscure that it is in Chinese,
> and appears to have something to do with someone tendering out
> a project. For all I know it could be the Chinese version of
> the Nigerian scam.
Huh? It's accompanied by a full English translation.
You do read English, right?
> I found lots that said to use butane, propane, plumbers
> blow torch or whatever you have handy. You scrambled to
> try to find one to support your food grade propane
> suggestion and the best you could do was some obscure
> Chinese document that also involves a compressor.
I didn't say it was the best, and I certainly didn't
"scramble" for it, whatever that means. Here's three more
that mention "food grade propane" (do a text search to
skip to the places where it is mentioned):
Mark Thorson
>
> I believe these references are talking about using the propane
> and butane as a solvent for food products; they're not actually
> using the propane as a fuel.
Dave seemed to be questioning whether there even
was such a thing as "food grade propane".
I think that question is completely settled.
> I would thnk it's safe to use any propane, butane, or
> natural gas, scented or not, for carmelizing sugar.
Note that a warning scent is not the only feature
that distinguishes between a fuel-grade and food-grade
product. Gases derived from petroleum may be
contaminated with lightweight aromatic compounds
such as napthalene ("aromatic" in the sense of
having benzene-type ring systems, not necessarily
anything with an odor). Many aromatics are
carcinogens. With a propane that meets regulatory
standards for a food-grade product, you can be
sure that these contaminants are not present.
Dave Smith
> At least one??? That one is so obscure that it is in Chinese,
> and appears to have something to do with someone tendering out
> a project. For all I know it could be the Chinese version of
> the Nigerian scam.Huh? It's accompanied by a full English translation.
You do read English, right?
Equipment Requirements:
Equipment must use propane, butane or iso-butane
as an edible oil solvent. We would initially be interested in three unit
sizes:
1.) a piloting unit that we could use in the
lab with a capacity of about 50lbs.
2.) a commercial unit with a capacity of about 30
tons
3.) a commercial unit with a capacity of about 100
tons
4.) We would prefer that all units to be stainless
steel / food grade, but we
would also be interested in units make of carbon steel.
5.) We would be interested in receiving an
immediate price quote in US$.
6.) We presently have toll processing business
that could be booked
for these units as soon as we could get them up and running.
7.) Is it possible to get some photographs
of this equip. and some
basics specifications as to size, weight and scale for each unit.
Also space requirements for unit's operation and set up.
8.) Can a standardized protocol be written
in English both for the
operation and maintenance of the units?
9.) How many operators per shift are required
to run a unit?
10.)How skilled are the operators?
11.)Does the unit fully desolventize the separated
oil or meal during
a desolventizing phase of the extraction cycle? If desolventizing
does not occur in the unit itself, then what is the protocol for
desolventizing after extraction.
12.) Is there a unit now functioning in China that
runs on propane (food grade) alone - not a mix of propane / butane
or butane only.
13.) We need a unit that can reliably run on odorless
/ food grade propane
at ambient temperature and low pressure. What are the temperature and
pressure ranges for this equipment?
14.) The energy requirements for running the unit.
15.) The type and kind of energy used by the unit
16.) Does the unit price include a compressor?
If so what type of compressor is specified?
17.) How is heat introduced to the unit? Is
a heating element such as a boiler inlcuded with the equip.
and is it reflected in the price quote?
18.) If the desolventizing phase of the extraction
cycle is performed outside of the unit is equipment
for same included for the set up / installation and is it included in the
price.
19.) Where in China is this equip. manufactured
and where is the closest sea port for shipping same.
Pray tell..... where does it say anything about using food grade propane for caramelizing?
Yes, these three versions of the same thing deal with the use of food grade
propane as a solvent in the in the process of extracting cocoa fat from
cocoa mass and has nothing to do with using food grade propane for caramelizing
sugar. For crying out loud, if you are going to cite a web source
to help prove your point you should at least read it and ensure that it
has something to do with the issue you are discussing and not just the
simple appearance of the words you used.
Reg
> Note that a warning scent is not the only feature
> that distinguishes between a fuel-grade and food-grade
> product. Gases derived from petroleum may be
> contaminated with lightweight aromatic compounds
> such as napthalene ("aromatic" in the sense of
> having benzene-type ring systems, not necessarily
> anything with an odor). Many aromatics are
> carcinogens. With a propane that meets regulatory
> standards for a food-grade product, you can be
> sure that these contaminants are not present.
Do you know of any health and safety codes that
prohibit use of non food grade propane? Without
that, this would be of no concern to me.
When you breath exhaust fumes from a car,
even at low concentrations when walking down the
street, you're being exposed to carcinogens too.
I don't know of a way to attain zero exposure
to any and all carcinogens, which seems to
be your criteria here.
Dave Smith
> Steve Wertz wrote:
> >
> > I believe these references are talking about using the propane
> > and butane as a solvent for food products; they're not actually
> > using the propane as a fuel.
>
> Dave seemed to be questioning whether there even
> was such a thing as "food grade propane".
> I think that question is completely settled.
No. This Dave was questioning where you came up with the nonsense
about using food grade propane for caramelizing sugar. The OP had
asked a legitimate question about using the type of propane torch
available in hardware stores for caramelizing, and you replied
"Food-grade propane is odourless. If it has an odour, don't use it
for food." which is utter nonsense since nobody was talking about a
process that involved eating the gas, just using it for heat.
Isaac Wingfield
Mark Thorson <nos...@sonic.net> wrote:
And how much of those *flammable* odorants and impurities do you think
make it through the 2500 F flame on the front of the torch and get stuck
to the food?
Isaac
George
Don't think there is such a thing. I think both propane and nat gas must
include an odorant (usually methyl mercaptan).
Mark Thorson
>
> Mark Thorson wrote:
>
> > was such a thing as "food grade propane".
> > I think that question is completely settled.
>
> No. This Dave was questioning where you came up with the nonsense
> about using food grade propane for caramelizing sugar.
May I remind you of your earlier words.
You know seem to be back-pedalling.
> WTF ?????
> Where the hell did you come up with this food grade propane stuff?
You also said this, which seemed to reject the
evidence of a website for no better reason than
you didn't scroll down to the English version
of the text (as I had instructed):
> At least one??? That one is so obscure that it is in Chinese,
> and appears to have something to do with someone tendering out
> a project. For all I know it could be the Chinese version of
> the Nigerian scam.
I don't know what you meant by the "Nigerian scam"
comment, but it sure seemed like you were rejecting
the evidence of the website for reasons that had
nothing to do with carmelizing sugar.
You'll have to try better than that if you want
to wiggle out of this one.
Mark Thorson
>
> And how much of those *flammable* odorants and impurities
> do you think make it through the 2500 F flame on the front
> of the torch and get stuck to the food?
Lots, especially the aromatics. Propane is
a linear chain only three carbon atoms long.
Combustion initiates from the ends, and
propane is mostly end.
Aromatics are rings (although they also may
have stubs sticking out of the rings).
They can burn in a flame, but they won't burn
nearly so readily as propane. The optimal
conditions for burning propane are not sufficient
for efficient burning of aromatics.
A flame front is not some magic thing that
completely burns every flammable molecule that
passes through it. If such were the case,
it would not be possible to get soot from
a gas flame. In fact, the opposite is true.
The vast majority of all carbon black (lampblack),
which is an industrial commodity manufactured
in huge amounts for coloring ink, plastics,
car tires, etc., comes from deposition of
soot from gas flames.
Mark Thorson
>
> Mark Thorson wrote:
> >
> > Food-grade propane is odorless.
> > If it has an odor, don't use it for food.
>
> Don't think there is such a thing. I think both propane
> and nat gas must include an odorant (usually methyl mercaptan).
Why don't you go to this page and search
on "odorless":
Mark Thorson
>
> Do you know of any health and safety codes that
> prohibit use of non food grade propane? Without
> that, this would be of no concern to me.
I've never heard of any codes specific to making
creme brulee, if that's what you mean. It's such
a specialty, that I wouldn't expect such codes
to exist, even if there were a known hazard.
> When you breath exhaust fumes from a car,
> even at low concentrations when walking down the
> street, you're being exposed to carcinogens too.
> I don't know of a way to attain zero exposure
> to any and all carcinogens, which seems to
> be your criteria here.
I didn't say that. You're inventing a clearly
absurd criterion, and using that to criticize me.
Dave Smith
> > No. This Dave was questioning where you came up with the nonsense
> > about using food grade propane for caramelizing sugar.
>
> May I remind you of your earlier words.
> You know seem to be back-pedalling.
>
> > WTF ?????
> > Where the hell did you come up with this food grade propane stuff?
Yes of course. You had warned the OP not to use propane for food unless
it us food grade. The OP had asked about using a regular propane torch
or if a special one was needed.
>
> You also said this, which seemed to reject the
> evidence of a website for no better reason than
> you didn't scroll down to the English version
> of the text (as I had instructed):
What a curiously asinine suggestion that is. You have tried to
discredit by rebuttal with the suggestion that I can not read. That was
after I made a comment to the effect that it appeared to have something
to do with someone trying to tender out a project. Since I my system
does not recognize Chinese characters and I do not read Chinese, it is
pretty lame on your part to suggest that I cannot read English. To make
matters worse, when I went back and quoted the English portion of the
cited page, you stupidly question whether I had followed your
instructions. We duh.... how stupid can you be to suggest that.
>
> > At least one??? That one is so obscure that it is in Chinese,
> > and appears to have something to do with someone tendering out
> > a project. For all I know it could be the Chinese version of
> > the Nigerian scam.
>
> I don't know what you meant by the "Nigerian scam"
> comment, but it sure seemed like you were rejecting
> the evidence of the website for reasons that had
> nothing to do with carmelizing sugar.
I am sorry if the reference to the Nigerian scam went over your head. I
find it ironic that you would accuse me of not following your
instructions to scroll to the English text, or to be unable to read
English in light of the fact that I cut and pasted the entire English
text on that site. You're so damned smart maybe you can tell us what
the hell the guy is asking about. It's got nothing to with using a
propane torch to caramelize sugar.
> You'll have to try better than that if you want
> to wiggle out of this one.
There is nothing for me to wiggle out of. I wasn't the one who suggested
that you had to use food grade propane for the purposes of the OP.
Accusing me of not being able to read your obscure and irrelevant web
sites isn't going to help you much.
Mark Thorson
>
> What a curiously asinine suggestion that is. You have tried to
> discredit by rebuttal with the suggestion that I can not read. That was
> after I made a comment to the effect that it appeared to have something
> to do with someone trying to tender out a project. Since I my system
> does not recognize Chinese characters and I do not read Chinese, it is
> pretty lame on your part to suggest that I cannot read English. To make
> matters worse, when I went back and quoted the English portion of the
> cited page, you stupidly question whether I had followed your
> instructions. We duh.... how stupid can you be to suggest that.
Dave, you obviously have some sort of emotional issues.
It's wrong for you to displace your anger from whatever
source -- perhaps those women at the bake sale -- on
to me. You need psychiatric help.
> > > At least one??? That one is so obscure that it is in Chinese,
> > > and appears to have something to do with someone tendering out
> > > a project. For all I know it could be the Chinese version of
> > > the Nigerian scam.
> >
> > I don't know what you meant by the "Nigerian scam"
> > comment, but it sure seemed like you were rejecting
> > the evidence of the website for reasons that had
> > nothing to do with carmelizing sugar.
>
> I am sorry if the reference to the Nigerian scam went over your head.
If you have a rational explanation for your comment,
let's hear it. I suspect not.
Wayne Boatwright
Thorson?
> Dave Smith wrote:
>>
>> What a curiously asinine suggestion that is. You have tried to
>> discredit by rebuttal with the suggestion that I can not read. That was
>> after I made a comment to the effect that it appeared to have something
>> to do with someone trying to tender out a project. Since I my system
>> does not recognize Chinese characters and I do not read Chinese, it is
>> pretty lame on your part to suggest that I cannot read English. To make
>> matters worse, when I went back and quoted the English portion of the
>> cited page, you stupidly question whether I had followed your
>> instructions. We duh.... how stupid can you be to suggest that.
>
> Dave, you obviously have some sort of emotional issues.
> It's wrong for you to displace your anger from whatever
> source -- perhaps those women at the bake sale -- on
> to me. You need psychiatric help.
Precisely why he resides in my killfile.
>> > > At least one??? That one is so obscure that it is in Chinese, and
>> > > appears to have something to do with someone tendering out a
>> > > project. For all I know it could be the Chinese version of the
>> > > Nigerian scam.
>> >
>> > I don't know what you meant by the "Nigerian scam"
>> > comment, but it sure seemed like you were rejecting
>> > the evidence of the website for reasons that had nothing to do with
>> > carmelizing sugar.
>>
>> I am sorry if the reference to the Nigerian scam went over your head.
>
> If you have a rational explanation for your comment,
> let's hear it. I suspect not.
>
--
Wayne Boatwright *¿*
__________________________________________________________________
And if we enter a room full of manure, may we believe in the pony.
OmManiPadmeOmelet
Mark Thorson <nos...@sonic.net> wrote:
> Aromatics are rings (although they also may
> have stubs sticking out of the rings).
> They can burn in a flame, but they won't burn
> nearly so readily as propane. The optimal
> conditions for burning propane are not sufficient
> for efficient burning of aromatics.
I would argue with that...
Most aromatics (afaik) are Esters.
Esters are alcohol based so have a lower burning point
than most hydrocarbons.
I may be wrong, but...
Cheers!
OmManiPadmeOmelet
Mark Thorson <nos...@sonic.net> wrote:
> The vast majority of all carbon black (lampblack),
> which is an industrial commodity manufactured
> in huge amounts for coloring ink, plastics,
> car tires, etc., comes from deposition of
> soot from gas flames.
I NEVER get soot on anything I use a propane torch on!
IMHO it does indeed burn much, much hotter than your average gas flame.
Soot is produced by _incomplete_ burning due to the flame not being hot
enough. The propane torch pretty much solves that with sufficient oxygen
mix. Now if the flame is being used too low of a setting, that would be
different.
I run it as hot and high as I can get it. ;-)
OmManiPadmeOmelet
special torch.
By far, the vast majority of cooks just use the torches and fuel from
the hardware store...
We are not all getting stomach cancer are we? ;-)
Still waiting for Bob Pastorio to put his 2 cents in here on this one,
and Sheldon.
Mark Thorson
>
> In article <43C1481C...@sonic.net>,
> Mark Thorson <nos...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
> > Aromatics are rings (although they also may
> > have stubs sticking out of the rings).
> > They can burn in a flame, but they won't burn
> > nearly so readily as propane. The optimal
> > conditions for burning propane are not sufficient
> > for efficient burning of aromatics.
>
> I would argue with that...
>
> Most aromatics (afaik) are Esters.
I was referring to the chemical use of the term
"aromatics", i.e. molecules with benzene-like
rings in them. I wasn't referring to molecules
that necessarily have odor.
> Esters are alcohol based so have a lower burning
> point than most hydrocarbons.
Esters are like carboxylic acids, but with
a carbon-based group substituted at the
site of the active (acid) hydrogen. Esters
may be formed by reacting a carboxylic acid
with an alcohol, but do not necessarily have
any of the characteristics of either.
For example, many waxes are esters.
Esters may contain benzene-like rings, but
most do not.
> I may be wrong, but...
Indeed.
Mark Thorson
>
> I NEVER get soot on anything I use a propane torch on! IMHO it
> does indeed burn much, much hotter than your average gas flame.
>
> Soot is produced by _incomplete_ burning due to the flame not
> being hot enough. The propane torch pretty much solves that with
> sufficient oxygen mix. Now if the flame is being used too low
> of a setting, that would be different.
Even if it produces much less, there will still be
some incompletely combusted by-products. This is
especially concerning for compounds like napthalene
and anthracene which are common in fossil fuels and
while not carcinogenic in their unmodified forms,
become intensely carcinogenic in some of their
modified forms which can occur from the chemistry
in a flame.
Mark Thorson
>
> I think the overall point here is that, no, you really
> do not need a special torch.
Not a special torch, no. Unless you mean an electric one.
> By far, the vast majority of cooks just use the torches
> and fuel from the hardware store...
True. And there's never been a case in which something
"everybody does" later turned out to be harmful, right?
> We are not all getting stomach cancer are we? ;-)
How do you know that? Back in the 19th century,
the famous doctor John Harvey Kellogg was saying
that smoking cigarettes caused lung cancer.
He didn't have proof, so only people like the
health nuts who attended his Battle Creek Sanitarium
believed him.
> Still waiting for Bob Pastorio to put his 2 cents
> in here on this one, and Sheldon.
There are some comments even I won't touch. :-)
OmManiPadmeOmelet
Mark Thorson <nos...@sonic.net> wrote:
Ok, so I only got a B in organic Chemsitry..... ;-)
Are you sure tho' that their vapor points are higher than Propane fuel?
OmManiPadmeOmelet
Mark Thorson <nos...@sonic.net> wrote:
I'll bet you never BBQ over a wood fire either........ :-)
I just feel that, sometimes, paranoia can be taken too far.
Even if you are correct (which you probably are), is it really any big
deal?
OmManiPadmeOmelet
Mark Thorson <nos...@sonic.net> wrote:
> OmManiPadmeOmelet wrote:
> >
> > I think the overall point here is that, no, you really
> > do not need a special torch.
>
> Not a special torch, no. Unless you mean an electric one.
>
> > By far, the vast majority of cooks just use the torches
> > and fuel from the hardware store...
>
> True. And there's never been a case in which something
> "everybody does" later turned out to be harmful, right?
No comment. <G>
>
> > We are not all getting stomach cancer are we? ;-)
>
> How do you know that? Back in the 19th century,
> the famous doctor John Harvey Kellogg was saying
> that smoking cigarettes caused lung cancer.
> He didn't have proof, so only people like the
> health nuts who attended his Battle Creek Sanitarium
> believed him.
Ok, so where does one purchase "food grade" propane LOCALLY???
There is also convenience to be considered. IMHO the flame is not in
contact with the food long enough to really matter.
BBQ'ing over charcoal is probably far more hazardous.
So is carmelizing food and toasting bread, right?
I'm wondering just how dangerous this really is considering the
frequency?
>
> > Still waiting for Bob Pastorio to put his 2 cents
> > in here on this one, and Sheldon.
>
> There are some comments even I won't touch. :-)
<snicker>
zxcvbob
> In article <43C1481C...@sonic.net>, Mark Thorson
> <nos...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>
>> Aromatics are rings (although they also may have stubs sticking out
>> of the rings). They can burn in a flame, but they won't burn nearly
>> so readily as propane. The optimal conditions for burning propane
>> are not sufficient for efficient burning of aromatics.
>
>
> I would argue with that...
>
> Most aromatics (afaik) are Esters. Esters are alcohol based so have a
> lower burning point than most hydrocarbons.
>
> I may be wrong, but...
>
> Cheers!
You would be wrong on that small point and Mark would be right.
"Aromatic" hydrocarbons by definition contain benzene rings. Many of
the compounds in foods (especially fruits) that give them their
characteristic aromas are esters; that's where you got confused.
But other than that, Mark's assertion about food-grade propane is
ridiculous. IMHO, of course.
Best regards,
Bob
Mark Thorson
>
> Are you sure tho' that their vapor points are higher than Propane fuel?
They aren't, but that won't prevent them from
being present in the fuel stream coming out
of the tank, if any got into the tank to begin
with. The difference in partial pressure between
propane and (for example) napthalene will affect
their ratio in the gas stream, but both components
will be present.
Mark Thorson
>
> I'll bet you never BBQ over a wood fire either........ :-)
Not any more.
> I just feel that, sometimes, paranoia can be taken too far.
Another way to phrase that is: No individual case of
lung cancer can be proven to have been caused by
cigarettes.
> Even if you are correct (which you probably are), is it really any big
> deal?
If you already smoke cigarettes, don't worry about it.
Have a cigarette and forget about the creme brulee.
If you are more than 30 pounds overweight, don't worry
about it. Have another creme brulee.
If you are an alcoholic, don't worry about it.
Have another shot of whiskey, and don't even bother
to forget about it. (That part will take care of itself.)
Mark Thorson
>
> I think somebody was maybe confusing food grade gases such as CO2
> or N2O and figured there must be a food grade version of
> propane/butane, too...
>
> But instead of simply admitting his mistake, went to unnecessary
> lengths to try and cover it up.
Try telling that to the USDA:
http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publications.htm?SEQ_NO_115=121505
Search on that page for "food-grade butane".
~patches~
> I think the overall point here is that, no, you really do not need a
> special torch.
>
> By far, the vast majority of cooks just use the torches and fuel from
> the hardware store...
>
> We are not all getting stomach cancer are we? ;-)
>
> Still waiting for Bob Pastorio to put his 2 cents in here on this one,
> and Sheldon.
I started this thread but sure didn't think it would turn to this.
Thanks for your reply. I'm going to try one from the hardware store and
if not pleased with the results, I can always use it to kill weeds. DH
is still laughing at that one. He said I should make sure not to try
killing any weeds near the house THEN he said a propane torch used in
the kitchen might not be the best idea. I'll show him!
Bob (this one)
> I think the overall point here is that, no, you really do not need a
> special torch.
Exactly.
> By far, the vast majority of cooks just use the torches and fuel from
> the hardware store...
>
> We are not all getting stomach cancer are we? ;-)
>
> Still waiting for Bob Pastorio to put his 2 cents in here
You rang...?
There's no such thing as "food-grade" propane... except when it's used
as a propellant in aerosols, and even then, since it's considered safe,
there's no rush to deal with it as a food additive by the government.
The FDA regulations mention propane in the GRAS (Generally Recognized as
Safe) listings and says this about it:
"The Food and Drug Administration is developing food-grade
specifications for propane in cooperation with the National Academy of
Sciences. In the interim, the ingredient must be of a purity suitable
for its intended use." This can't be much of an emergency since the CFR
is dated last April.
If you're burning propane, there are no standards for its being
"food-grade."
Here's a long list of Material Safety Data Sheets for gases from a
company in the U.K. No mention of "food-grade" propane although lots of
other "food-grade" gases are mentioned.
<http://www.truckservice.co.uk/air_products/msds.htm>
Use the Bernz-o-matic torch and forget all this nonsense.
Pastorio
OmManiPadmeOmelet
modom
wrote:
The abstract doesn't make any reference to burning either butane or
propane. It refers to "A new commercial invention incorporating a
supercritical, low-pressure, liquified gas extraction process using
food-grade butane as the extraction gas is currently being used to
extract chocolate liquor..." Apparently the butane works in a manner
analogous to a solvent in this process.
modom
OmManiPadmeOmelet
Steve Wertz <swe...@cluemail.compost> wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 14:16:35 -0600, OmManiPadmeOmelet
> <Ome...@brokenegz.com> wrote:
>
> >I think the overall point here is that, no, you really do not need a
> >special torch.
> >
> >By far, the vast majority of cooks just use the torches and fuel from
> >the hardware store...
>
> I think somebody was maybe confusing food grade gases such as CO2
> or N2O and figured there must be a food grade version of
> propane/butane, too...
>
> But instead of simply admitting his mistake, went to unnecessary
> lengths to try and cover it up.
>
> Go Steelers!
>
> -sw
Hook 'em horns!!!
OmManiPadmeOmelet
Mark Thorson <nos...@sonic.net> wrote:
But will the temp. be high enough to burn them off?
The question is, will they really effect the food quality/safety?
OmManiPadmeOmelet
Mark Thorson <nos...@sonic.net> wrote:
> OmManiPadmeOmelet wrote:
> >
> > I'll bet you never BBQ over a wood fire either........ :-)
>
> Not any more.
Bummer.
I don't do it on a regular basis, but that's only because I don't have
time. I BBQ maybe 3 or 4 times per year when I just REALLY want a wood
fire cooked steak or burger.
>
> > I just feel that, sometimes, paranoia can be taken too far.
>
> Another way to phrase that is: No individual case of
> lung cancer can be proven to have been caused by
> cigarettes.
That's a bad example.
And you know it.
Try again please. ;-)
>
> > Even if you are correct (which you probably are), is it really any big
> > deal?
>
> If you already smoke cigarettes, don't worry about it.
> Have a cigarette and forget about the creme brulee.
>
> If you are more than 30 pounds overweight, don't worry
> about it. Have another creme brulee.
>
> If you are an alcoholic, don't worry about it.
> Have another shot of whiskey, and don't even bother
> to forget about it. (That part will take care of itself.)
<snerk>
Life is a risk in general.
Don't breathe the air, drink the water, or eat veggies that have
pesticides in them or toxic compounds absorbed from our contaminated
water tables, and don't eat meat! It might contain prions.
Become a Breatharian......
;-)
Cheers!
Bob (this one)
> OmManiPadmeOmelet wrote:
>
>>We are not all getting stomach cancer are we? ;-)
>
> How do you know that? Back in the 19th century,
> the famous doctor John Harvey Kellogg was saying
> that smoking cigarettes caused lung cancer.
> He didn't have proof, so only people like the
> health nuts who attended his Battle Creek Sanitarium
> believed him.
Most of his pronouncements were crap. And about crap.
"Nonetheless, Dr. Kellogg engaged in questionable medical practices. The
San offered hydropathy, electropathy, mechanotherapy and radium cures.
For a time, Kellogg promoted "Fletcherizing" or chewing food until it
slithered down the throat. He changed his mind about Fletcherizing when
he decided that excessive chewing destroyed the fiber content of the
food. Kellogg opposed sexual activity from masturbation to marital
intercourse. A doctor, he never made love to his wife!
"Kellogg 's great obsession was the bowel and elimination."
<http://www.mtn.org/quack/amquacks/kellogg.htm>
Find him on the "Great American Quack" website.
Good reference you chose here. Even a stopped clock is right twice a
day. And he was a stopped clock. Maybe a *stopped up* clock.
"By pumping yogurt cultures into the rectums of America's well to do,
Kellogg claimed that he had managed to cure "cancer of the stomach,
ulcers, diabetes, schizophrenia, manic depressives, acne, anemia ...
asthenia, migraine and premature old age."... from the same web site.
Pastorio
OmManiPadmeOmelet
~patches~ <noone...@thisaddress.com> wrote:
<lol> I never thought to use it for that...... ;-)
Good idea!!!!!!
It would sure make clearing the herb garden borders easier!
OmManiPadmeOmelet
"Bob (this one)" <B...@nospam.com> wrote:
> OmManiPadmeOmelet wrote:
> > I think the overall point here is that, no, you really do not need a
> > special torch.
>
> Exactly.
>
> > By far, the vast majority of cooks just use the torches and fuel from
> > the hardware store...
> >
> > We are not all getting stomach cancer are we? ;-)
> >
> > Still waiting for Bob Pastorio to put his 2 cents in here
>
> You rang...?
Muchas Gracias! :-)
>
> There's no such thing as "food-grade" propane... except when it's used
> as a propellant in aerosols, and even then, since it's considered safe,
> there's no rush to deal with it as a food additive by the government.
>
> The FDA regulations mention propane in the GRAS (Generally Recognized as
> Safe) listings and says this about it:
> "The Food and Drug Administration is developing food-grade
> specifications for propane in cooperation with the National Academy of
> Sciences. In the interim, the ingredient must be of a purity suitable
> for its intended use." This can't be much of an emergency since the CFR
> is dated last April.
>
> If you're burning propane, there are no standards for its being
> "food-grade."
>
> Here's a long list of Material Safety Data Sheets for gases from a
> company in the U.K. No mention of "food-grade" propane although lots of
> other "food-grade" gases are mentioned.
> <http://www.truckservice.co.uk/air_products/msds.htm>
>
> Use the Bernz-o-matic torch and forget all this nonsense.
>
> Pastorio
Thanks for the recommend!
I don't know what brand I have in the cabinet, I'd have to look.
I bought it for singing feathers when I was processing ducks and
emus......
OmManiPadmeOmelet
modom <mo...@nonkoyote.com> wrote:
Google for butane extraction of Honey Oil in Hemp processing...... ;-)
Cheers!
Dave Smith
> Dave Smith wrote:
> >
> > What a curiously asinine suggestion that is. You have tried to
> > discredit by rebuttal with the suggestion that I can not read. That was
> > after I made a comment to the effect that it appeared to have something
> > to do with someone trying to tender out a project. Since I my system
> > does not recognize Chinese characters and I do not read Chinese, it is
> > pretty lame on your part to suggest that I cannot read English. To make
> > matters worse, when I went back and quoted the English portion of the
> > cited page, you stupidly question whether I had followed your
> > instructions. We duh.... how stupid can you be to suggest that.
>
> Dave, you obviously have some sort of emotional issues.
> It's wrong for you to displace your anger from whatever
> source -- perhaps those women at the bake sale -- on
> to me. You need psychiatric help.
I have problems? That's rich. I guess that is your way of acknowledging that
you gave bullshit advice, but refuse to retract it and prefer instead to
insist that the page you cited had anything at all to do with what we were
discussing.
OmManiPadmeOmelet
"Bob (this one)" <B...@nospam.com> wrote:
Wasn't he the sick, sorry SOB that performed a Clitoridectomy on some
poor kid because her father was worried about the spiritual damnation of
her soul for masturbating??????
Nancy Young
"Bob (this one)" <B...@nospam.com> wrote
> "By pumping yogurt cultures into the rectums of America's well to do,
> Kellogg claimed that he had managed to cure "cancer of the stomach,
> ulcers, diabetes, schizophrenia, manic depressives, acne, anemia ...
> asthenia, migraine and premature old age."... from the same web site.
Wow! Has Tom Cruise heard about this? He's gotta get the word
out!
nancy
Mark Thorson
>
> On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 13:10:40 -0800, Mark Thorson <nos...@sonic.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Steve Wertz wrote:
> >>
> >> I think somebody was maybe confusing food grade gases such as CO2
> >> or N2O and figured there must be a food grade version of
> >> propane/butane, too...
> >>
> >> But instead of simply admitting his mistake, went to unnecessary
> >> lengths to try and cover it up.
> >
> >Try telling that to the USDA:
> >
> >http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/publications/publications.htm?SEQ_NO_115=121505
> >
> >Search on that page for "food-grade butane".
>
> The abstract doesn't make any reference to burning
> either butane or propane.
I didn't say it did. Some goofball expressed
doubt that there is such as thing as
"a food grade version of propane/butane", and I
provided evidence that the USDA thinks there is.
I did not say that this referred specifically
to burning it or using it to make creme brulee.
Mark Thorson
>
> In article <43C17DAC...@sonic.net>,
> Mark Thorson <nos...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
> > OmManiPadmeOmelet wrote:
> > >
> > > Are you sure tho' that their vapor points are higher than Propane fuel?
> >
> > They aren't, but that won't prevent them from
> > being present in the fuel stream coming out
> > of the tank, if any got into the tank to begin
> > with. The difference in partial pressure between
> > propane and (for example) napthalene will affect
> > their ratio in the gas stream, but both components
> > will be present.
>
> But will the temp. be high enough to burn them off?
Some of them, yes. All of them, no.
Very few combustion processes are 100% efficient.
Flames fueled by mixed hydrocarbons (especially
if they contain hydrocarbons that offer few ends
on which combustion may initiate) will leave
unburned or partially burned hydrocarbons in their
exhaust.
> The question is, will they really effect the food quality/safety?
What if the answer is unproven? Would the safe thing
be to believe the tobacco company presidents who
said smoking does not cause lung cancer?
Wayne Boatwright
Thorson?
An acetylene torch would probably be quicker.
--
Wayne Boatwright *¿*
__________________________________________________________________
And if we enter a room full of manure, may we believe in the pony.
OmManiPadmeOmelet
Mark Thorson <nos...@sonic.net> wrote:
> OmManiPadmeOmelet wrote:
> >
> > In article <43C17DAC...@sonic.net>,
> > Mark Thorson <nos...@sonic.net> wrote:
> >
> > > OmManiPadmeOmelet wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Are you sure tho' that their vapor points are higher than Propane fuel?
> > >
> > > They aren't, but that won't prevent them from
> > > being present in the fuel stream coming out
> > > of the tank, if any got into the tank to begin
> > > with. The difference in partial pressure between
> > > propane and (for example) napthalene will affect
> > > their ratio in the gas stream, but both components
> > > will be present.
> >
> > But will the temp. be high enough to burn them off?
>
> Some of them, yes. All of them, no.
> Very few combustion processes are 100% efficient.
> Flames fueled by mixed hydrocarbons (especially
> if they contain hydrocarbons that offer few ends
> on which combustion may initiate) will leave
> unburned or partially burned hydrocarbons in their
> exhaust.
Would not that show up as soot on the food?
I've never had that problem, but I've not made Creme Brulee. ;-)
I've just used it for pinfeather cleanup.
>
> > The question is, will they really effect the food quality/safety?
>
> What if the answer is unproven? Would the safe thing
> be to believe the tobacco company presidents who
> said smoking does not cause lung cancer?
See above.
No deposits, no problem.
Dave Smith
>
> > I started this thread but sure didn't think it would turn to this.
> > Thanks for your reply. I'm going to try one from the hardware store and
> > if not pleased with the results, I can always use it to kill weeds. DH
> > is still laughing at that one. He said I should make sure not to try
> > killing any weeds near the house THEN he said a propane torch used in
> > the kitchen might not be the best idea. I'll show him!
>
> <lol> I never thought to use it for that...... ;-)
>
> Good idea!!!!!!
> It would sure make clearing the herb garden borders easier!
They are great for burning weeds in locations where you don't want to spray or dig
up soil. They work especially well on weeds that come up in the cracks of side
walks and patios. I thought that I had discovered that weed solution on my own,
but then I saw an add for a super duper weed burner in the Lee Valley catalogue.
OmManiPadmeOmelet
Wayne Boatwright <ROTFLMA...@msn.com> wrote:
Cool........ ;-D
I dare you to try that in the kitchen!!!
OmManiPadmeOmelet
Dave Smith <adavid...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
You have no idea how much I appreciate that post....... :-)
zxcvbob
>
> An acetylene torch would probably be quicker.
>
You laff, but I've done that before (to blister the skins on peppers)
Bob
Dave Smith
> > The abstract doesn't make any reference to burning
> > either butane or propane.
>
> I didn't say it did. Some goofball expressed
> doubt that there is such as thing as
> "a food grade version of propane/butane", and I
> provided evidence that the USDA thinks there is.
>
> I did not say that this referred specifically
> to burning it or using it to make creme brulee.
Maybe that was in response to another goofball's warning about using food grade
propane for browning.
I don't suppose that you have found a source for food grade butane.
Mark Thorson
>
> In article <43C18FF2...@sonic.net>,
> Mark Thorson <nos...@sonic.net> wrote:
> >
> > Some of them, yes. All of them, no.
> > Very few combustion processes are 100% efficient.
> > Flames fueled by mixed hydrocarbons (especially
> > if they contain hydrocarbons that offer few ends
> > on which combustion may initiate) will leave
> > unburned or partially burned hydrocarbons in their
> > exhaust.
>
> Would not that show up as soot on the food?
If there were a really huge amount, yes.
If there were only enough to give you cancer,
possibly not. Some of the most powerful known
carcinogens are formed from incomplete combustion
of aromatic hydrocarbons, such as dibenzpyrene
and benzo[a]pyrene.
Mark Thorson
>
> I have problems? That's rich. I guess that is your way of acknowledging
> that you gave bullshit advice, but refuse to retract it and prefer
> instead to insist that the page you cited had anything at all to do
> with what we were discussing.
Dave, trust me when I say that I mean this
in the most constructive way possible, but
you're a nutcase.
Paul M. Cook
"Mark Thorson" <nos...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:43C022C4...@sonic.net...
> ~patches~ wrote:
> >
> > Can I just use a regular run of the mill propane torch for browning?
> > You know, the propane torches you can buy at the hardware or do I have
> > to buy something special?
>
> Food-grade propane is odorless.
> If it has an odor, don't use it for food.
"Propane is God's gas" - Hank Hill
OmManiPadmeOmelet
OmManiPadmeOmelet
Mark Thorson <nos...@sonic.net> wrote:
And then there is LSD that works in Microgram doses....... ;-)
OmManiPadmeOmelet
No, that's Methane........
<smirk>
modom
wrote:
>Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>>
>> An acetylene torch would probably be quicker.
>>
>
>You laff, but I've done that before (to blister the skins on peppers)
>
I stopped using such things after I set my pants on fire in a
beginning sculpture class many years ago. That's a major reason I'm a
painter.
modom
modom
wrote:
>"Nonetheless, Dr. Kellogg engaged in questionable medical practices. The
>San offered hydropathy, electropathy, mechanotherapy and radium cures.
>For a time, Kellogg promoted "Fletcherizing" or chewing food until it
>slithered down the throat. He changed his mind about Fletcherizing when
>he decided that excessive chewing destroyed the fiber content of the
>food. Kellogg opposed sexual activity from masturbation to marital
>intercourse. A doctor, he never made love to his wife!
>
>"Kellogg 's great obsession was the bowel and elimination."
><http://www.mtn.org/quack/amquacks/kellogg.htm>
>
>Find him on the "Great American Quack" website.
>
>Good reference you chose here. Even a stopped clock is right twice a
>day. And he was a stopped clock. Maybe a *stopped up* clock.
>
>"By pumping yogurt cultures into the rectums of America's well to do,
>Kellogg claimed that he had managed to cure "cancer of the stomach,
>ulcers, diabetes, schizophrenia, manic depressives, acne, anemia ...
>asthenia, migraine and premature old age."... from the same web site.
>
K E double L O double G --
Good --
Kellogg's best for you!
modom
Mark Thorson
>
> K E double L O double G --
> Good --
> Kellogg's best for you!
Different Kellogg. Although John Harvey Kellogg
co-invented corn flakes, it was his younger brother
William Keith Kellogg who started the breakfast food
industry. There was a movie The Road To Wellville
which was remarkably historically accurate, even as
a work of fiction.
J. H. Kellogg was a respected doctor and surgeon, and
a charismatic promoter of his maverick theories about
health and nutrition. Some of these theories turned out
to be true (smoking tobacco _does_ cause lung cancer),
but many others turned out to be false. His Seventh-Day
Adventist background influenced his beliefs. He believed
that coffee, spicy foods, white sugar, vinegar, and meat
were all very destructive to health. He also believed that
frequent colonic purges were important for good health.
Although the practices of the Battle Creek Sanitarium
over which he was Superintendent would be considered
quackery by today's standards, they were not
unreasonable by the standards of the late 19th century
and early 20th century. Some of the research and
programs at Battle Creek Sanitarium played an important
role in the development of modern nutritional science.
They published the first cookbook that listed calorie
counts and other nutritional information (protein,
fat, carbohydrate, etc.) for all recipes.
Their head dietitian was founder of the American
Dietetics Association, the professional organization
for dietitians.
George
> George wrote:
>
>>Mark Thorson wrote:
>>
>>>Food-grade propane is odorless.
>>>If it has an odor, don't use it for food.
>>
>>and nat gas must include an odorant (usually methyl mercaptan).
>
>
> Why don't you go to this page and search
> on "odorless":
>
> http://www.oilcn.com/Detail_Offer.aspx?id=14145
But that doesn't give any usable information because it is just a vague
request for quote. We have absolutely no idea what context "odorless"
is used in because no specification is cited.
OmManiPadmeOmelet
Mark Thorson <nos...@sonic.net> wrote:
Sorry dude, he may have had a few good ideas, but he was also a sick and
twisted person with strict beliefs about the sin of masturbation.
He hurt a LOT of people!
http://www.ejhs.org/volume1/fisher/nun70.htm
Mark Thorson
>
> But that doesn't give any usable information because it is just
> a vague request for quote. We have absolutely no idea what
> context "odorless" is used in because no specification is cited.
Quoting from U.S. Patent 6,610,343:
"Most preferably, the solvent is a category I solvent
approved by The Council of the European Committees
(Jun. 13, 1988 Council Directive) for use in food
processing. Food grade propanes and butanes generally
meet all of the above stated preferences."
I don't know what's in the Council Directive,
or whether it spells out the requirements
for a food-grade propane or butane.
Mark Thorson
>
> Sorry dude, he may have had a few good ideas, but he was also a sick and
> twisted person with strict beliefs about the sin of masturbation.
>
> He hurt a LOT of people!
>
> http://www.ejhs.org/volume1/fisher/nun70.htm
Sorry, but that link only mentions J. H. Kellog once,
here:
"It was thought that certain food products could
help quell the urge to masturbate. J.H. Kellogg
produced corn flakes for that reason."
That's not quite true. Corn flakes were an
accidental invention. JH Kellogg and his younger
brother WK Kellog were doing experiments with
rolling cooked corn into sheets, and one
batch was left overnight before being rolled.
When rolled, it turned into flakes, and that led
to the new product, which was used experimentally
as a breakfast food at Battle Creek Sanitarium
for a few years. It wasn't until WK Kellogg
added sugar to the formula (total anathema
to JH Kellogg) and left the San to start his own
company that the product took off.
Although JH Kellogg practiced sexual restraint
and promoted it at the San, his main therapies
were diet, exercise, and colonic purges.
OmManiPadmeOmelet
Mark Thorson <nos...@sonic.net> wrote:
> Although JH Kellogg practiced sexual restraint
> and promoted it at the San, his main therapies
> were diet, exercise, and colonic purges.
Wrong.
He also promoted Clitoridectomy.
That is seriously sick in my book.
Mark Thorson
>
> In article <43C1A57C...@sonic.net>,
> Mark Thorson <nos...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
> > Although JH Kellogg practiced sexual restraint
> > and promoted it at the San, his main therapies
> > were diet, exercise, and colonic purges.
>
> Wrong.
>
> He also promoted Clitoridectomy.
What is your source of information on that?
I've read quite a lot about JH Kellogg, and
I've never heard that before.
Dave Smith
Thanks for the advice. I will go out and get some food grade propane if you
can tell me where to get it.
~patches~
> On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 16:19:31 -0500, ~patches~
> <noone...@thisaddress.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I started this thread but sure didn't think it would turn to this.
>
>
> Participating in RFC is like walking through a cow pasture on a
> moonless night.
>
> -sw
Isn't it though and it is particularily full of cow dung today :( I've
stayed out of the cat fight but my gosh, what a waste! A simple
question turned into carcinogens, name calling, and other nonsense. I
wouldn't have posed the question if I thought that would happen. Then
to hear of Dams problems with her computer. I did mention the problem
with PSs, hackers, and ICQ but people scoffed. To think we are not even
two weeks into the new year.
~patches~ --> who had a non-descript pork roast for dinner but I did
add roasted garlic to the gravy before thickening then strained. It
really gave a nice flavour! I'm now off to curl up on the couch and
watch food tv. Perhaps the morning will bring a bit more sense to this
ng ;)
Reg
> Reg wrote:
>
>>Do you know of any health and safety codes that
>>prohibit use of non food grade propane? Without
>>that, this would be of no concern to me.
>
>
> I've never heard of any codes specific to making
> creme brulee, if that's what you mean. It's such
> a specialty, that I wouldn't expect such codes
> to exist, even if there were a known hazard.
Are there at least any advisories? Any authoritative
sources who agree with your statement? Something
other than your personal opinion is what I'm
looking for here. I'm flexible.
>>When you breath exhaust fumes from a car,
>>even at low concentrations when walking down the
>>street, you're being exposed to carcinogens too.
>>I don't know of a way to attain zero exposure
>>to any and all carcinogens, which seems to
>>be your criteria here.
>
>
> I didn't say that. You're inventing a clearly
> absurd criterion, and using that to criticize me.
You didn't say it explicitly, it's very much
implied.
You posed the prospect that there may be some
amount of carcinogens present, then suggest
that it therefore must be hazardous, regardless
of degree of exposure.
--
Reg email: RegForte (at) (that free MS email service) (dot) com
OmManiPadmeOmelet
Mark Thorson <nos...@sonic.net> wrote:
> OmManiPadmeOmelet wrote:
> >
> > In article <43C1A57C...@sonic.net>,
> > Mark Thorson <nos...@sonic.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Although JH Kellogg practiced sexual restraint
> > > and promoted it at the San, his main therapies
> > > were diet, exercise, and colonic purges.
> >
> > Wrong.
> >
> > He also promoted Clitoridectomy.
>
> What is your source of information on that?
> I've read quite a lot about JH Kellogg, and
> I've never heard that before.
I'm too lazy to google it right now......
but I read it in an article on Infibulation.
The dude was mentally ill.
OmManiPadmeOmelet
Steve Wertz <swe...@cluemail.compost> wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 16:19:31 -0500, ~patches~
> <noone...@thisaddress.com> wrote:
>
> >I started this thread but sure didn't think it would turn to this.
>
> Participating in RFC is like walking through a cow pasture on a
> moonless night.
>
> -sw
ROFL!!!
But you can find treasure doing that too! ;-D
Just take a flashlight...
OmManiPadmeOmelet
Steve Wertz <swe...@cluemail.compost> wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 09:13:00 -0800, Mark Thorson
> <nos...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
> >A flame front is not some magic thing that
> >completely burns every flammable molecule that
> >passes through it. If such were the case,
> >it would not be possible to get soot from
> >a gas flame. In fact, the opposite is true.
> >The vast majority of all carbon black (lampblack),
> >which is an industrial commodity manufactured
> >in huge amounts for coloring ink, plastics,
> >car tires, etc., comes from deposition of
> >soot from gas flames.
>
> If these odorants were harmful in any way, I don't think the FDA
> would have allowed them in the use of natural gas, which most of
> us use to cook our food.
>
> Any food cooked in the oven would be directly exposed to any
> contaminants.
>
> -sw
Now that is a point I had not thought of yet.
Well done!
Reg
> I did not say that this referred specifically
> to burning it or using it to make creme brulee.
You absolutely did. The OP explicitly referred to it.
I'd begun to suspect a troll here, but now I'm leaning
the other way. Trolls usually don't backpedal like this.
Bob (this one)
> news:43C022C4...@sonic.net...
>
>>~patches~ wrote:
>>
>>>Can I just use a regular run of the mill propane torch for browning?
>>>You know, the propane torches you can buy at the hardware or do I have
>>>to buy something special?
>>
>>Food-grade propane is odorless.
Propane is naturally odorless.
"Propane is an odorless gas. The distinctive "rotten egg" smell of
propane has been added as a safety warning feature to alert people to
its presence."
<http://www.mipga.org/Safety.htm>
>>If it has an odor, don't use it for food.
When propane and butane are used as solvents, no indicators are
included. The only reason the "food-grade" designation is used is
because the names of the procedures include it.
You can't buy odorless propane for home use. And it wouldn't make any
difference if you could. "Every year more than 60 million Americans use
more than 11 million gallons of propane"
You'd think that if there were health hazards with burning it in our
homes that it would have been identified by now...
Pastorio
Bob (this one)
It means butane and propane to which no scent indicators are added. It
means that they are non-toxic and can be used as solvents in food
production processes. The major reason for excluding the indicators is
that they might alter the scent of the foods being processed. Chocolate
that smelled like the rotten cabbage, skunk, garlic odor of propane
indicators would probably not get a big share of the market. Ya think...?
Mark you're talking shit and have been throughout this thread. It would
be best if you just skulked off and cooked something.
Pastorio