Teflon talk

"Kenneth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Your comments above would make more sense to me were the
Teflon, for example, as thick as the pan beneath. But,
(whatever its insulating properties) it is only a film.

It does not have to be thick. Any plastic or polymer is a much better
insulator or barrier than aluminum. It will have an affect on the transfer
of heat.

"Kenneth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Hi Edwin,

Well, I'm sure too... <g>

What might it mean to "grab" proteins?

The protein will stick to the porous pan and be browned better than a slick
surface.

-patches-

You are right. I use cast iron pans that my rhat my
greatgrandmother, grandmother , fatherand mother used and passed down
to me (a riches of well seasoned and well made pans).
I recently bought a good non-stick skillet that my teenagers use
all the time and I use for omelets because I am losing the biceps to
make omelets in the cast iron.

DESPITE this my children and both my niece and nephew have said they
want one or more of my cast iron pans when they have their
own apartments.

They were given to me because no other family member loved cooking
or knew how to take care of them (my greatgrandmother had a number of
cooking tasks for each of her cast iron pans and never deviated from
it, eg. only one worked perfectly for corn bread and another for
pancakes etc.)

Non-stick is great for low faat cooking but if you are willing to
take the seasoning time or are lucky enough th inherit a cast iron pan
low-fat frying works fine and you kids will want one when they move
out.

They do add iron to the food you cook in them and if they re old enough
they almost
am affection link to you're past.

I DID NOT KNOW NONSTICK CAST IRON WAS AVAILABLE---sounds like the
perfect marriage of old and new

please forgive spelling/typos I am losing my sight (MS) but I loved
your reply

"Kenneth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On 4 Oct 2005 19:02:26 -0700, "Sheldon" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Peter Aitken said:

"Kenneth" wrote:
> "Peter Aitken" wrote:
>
>>I think you are right. If I really want to brown the [censored] (bad pun,

sorry)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>out of something I use stainless, cast iron, or le Creuset. Even so,
>>non-stick has a host of valid uses.
>
> Might you know why...?
>
> I've noticed that NS pans don't brown things very well, but
> have no real understanding of the reason. It would seem that
> the temperature is the same regardless of the material. So,
> I've wondered about the real reason.

No - I do not know the reason.

Teflon is an excellent insulator, does not transfer heat very well...

Hello again,

That would seem to slow its increase in temperature.

Given the thickness of the Teflon on a pan, the additional
time to temp would seem to be trivial.

No?

Thanks,

That layer has virtually zero thermal storage capacity and so cools soon as
food is put onto it. Because it doesn't transmit heat quickly, now that it
is giving its heat up to the food, it will not ever get quite as hot as an
all-metal pan surface.

Shaun aRe

"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Kenneth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I've noticed that NS pans don't brown things very well, but
have no real understanding of the reason. It would seem that
the temperature is the same regardless of the material. So,
I've wondered about the real reason.

Browning is the result of Maillard Reaction. It is a reaction between
proteins and carbohydrates. It will occur at room temperature, but is
accelerated by heat. If a pan is non stick, it will not "grab" the
proteins and carbs as well as the bare metal. I'm sure there is a better
and more detailed description than that too.

Now that you mention it, my experience has been that browning in a metal pan
is better if you want lots of the "browned bits" to stick to the pan for
deglazing. If you brown in nonstick all the browned parts stay on the meat.

--
Peter Aitken

Shaun aRe said:

That layer has virtually zero thermal storage capacity and so cools soon as
food is put onto it. Because it doesn't transmit heat quickly, now that it
is giving its heat up to the food, it will not ever get quite as hot as an
all-metal pan surface.

Hi Shaun,

That would seem to be a bit of "one way thermodynamics."<g>

Indeed, the NS layer has little mass, and so, little
"thermal storage capacity. The pan beneath is vastly more
massive however, and is hot.

If you believe that the (cool) food cools off the NS layer,
it would also seem reasonable to believe (as I do) that the
(hot) pan heats it up.

So, please say something more about this...

Thanks,
--
Kenneth

If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."

Kenneth said:

Shaun aRe said:

That layer has virtually zero thermal storage capacity and so cools soon as
food is put onto it. Because it doesn't transmit heat quickly, now that it
is giving its heat up to the food, it will not ever get quite as hot as an
all-metal pan surface.

Hi Shaun,

That would seem to be a bit of "one way thermodynamics."<g>

Indeed, the NS layer has little mass, and so, little
"thermal storage capacity. The pan beneath is vastly more
massive however, and is hot.

If you believe that the (cool) food cools off the NS layer,
it would also seem reasonable to believe (as I do) that the
(hot) pan heats it up.

So, please say something more about this...

Would be true were one cooking in a vacuum, but you forget about the
exteriour of that metal pan giving up heat energy to the atmosphere at
a greater rate than it does to the non-stick coating... that's how the
thermodynamics of insulation works... now wipe ignorant [censored]
smugness off your ugli puss.

Sheldon

"Bob (this one)" <[email hidden]> whined in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Alan S said:

"Bob (this one)" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Wow! What a shovelful. Haha... you are one impressive illiterate who
doesn't know what demagogue means.

One definition of demagogue: "an orator who appeals to the passions and
prejudices of his audience" I realize you were really typing and not
talking, but I am sure you get the point.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Lighten up. Smile! ... Enjoy your day!

Do you think I do this for fun...? Oh, wait. That's why I do post to empty
nonsense like this. Well, that and typing practice.

Yes it is quite obvious that you get a charge out of communicating like this
just from the nature of your verbiage. Terms like "Puhleeze" and "nuh-uh"
illustrate your arrogant nature. Lots of <LOL> inserts do too. Usenet is
like a combination of a filthy bus station and a library, you fit right in.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Actually, there's no "viable" argument for toxicity of aluminum. Nor for
iron in any amounts likely to be ingested. No science that agrees with
anything in your stance. Lots of foil helmet types agree with you,
though...

There has been a long standing concern that Aluminum could be related to
Alzheimers disease due to the fact that there are concentrated levels of
Aluminum in Alzheimers patient's brains. Since there has been no proof it
remains subjective. One thing I read that I thought was interesting was that
Aluminum assists in the absorption of Mercury. I am not a scientist and I do
not proclaim to be an expert, the concern and study of the toxicity of
Aluminum is an issue and has been an issue for a long time and there is a
lot of information about it. I do not lose any sleep over it. The foil
helmet stuff is pretty funny though, I found a web site yesterday that was
going all off on Aluminum in chemtrails from airplanes and how it can be an
antenna in your brain for the government to do it's mind control. Now,
there's a computer junky that needs to step away from the bong for a few
minutes.

Quoted message said:

Oh, sure it does. You see yourself as better informed and all smug and
superior about it. And, with one small quibble, it's so; that better
informed part. The quibble is that what you think you know is nonsense.

Your comment here is purely meant as an insult. It's not nice to insult
people.

The polished side has been milled, they are not the same. Once again, eat

Quoted message said:

it if you want, I could care less

Nah. Aluminum foil is rolled, not milled. Milling aluminum is a very
touchy process, and virtually impossible in such thin sheets. Once again,
you don't know what you're talking about.

Pardon the error in terminology, you understood what I meant

The rest of that post was just a load of inflammatory tripe. I am neither
fevered nor frantic, once again, relax! take a nice deep breath and try to
enjoy your day, life is too short to have your brain all clouded up with
adversarial nonsense. As far as nicknames go, you can call me Sparky if I
can call you PeeWee, deal?

- A -

Bob (this one) said:

Alan S said:

"Ken Davey" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Alan S wrote:

> "Bob (this one)" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> news:[email hidden]...
>
>> Alan S wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>

Milled?!?
Aluminum foil is rolled.
The finish is a reflection of the finish on the rollers.
The only difference is that the shiny side will reflect more heat
thaan the dill side - basic physics.

The shiny side will reflect *light* more obviously because the dull
side is not as smooth and will do more diffusion. Heat will be
absorbed equally by either surface.

Sorry - this is not correct.
The degree of reflection (or absorption) of light is almost identical to the
degree of reflection of heat.
Radiant heat is simply a different wave length.
The difference in heat transferrence between the shiny side versus the dull
side is not trivial.
It would be interesting to get someone who is in school and studying physics
(they do still teach that?) to set up an experiment to measure and quantify
the difference.

Regards.
Ken.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Ken.
The polished side has less friction and is thus less apt to rub
Aluminum off onto your food. Even so, I am sure it is not that big
of a deal.

Nonsense. How can a surface have less friction? You might be talking
about coefficients of friction, but that has nothing to do with
rubbing aluminum into your food.

Aluminum has not been shown to be toxic except in huge doses. Like
everything else.

Pastorio

"Sheldon" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Nancy Young said:

Although it wasn't my question

You didn't ask a quesion, you *opined* and I concurred... and then I
extrapolated and elaborated. But you really didn't ask any question,
you just wondered out loud, you do that.

True enough, but I was answering the question because it was
specifically directed to me, and I was answering without the facts
to back it up, just my gut feeling. Or experience. However one
wants to characterize it.

nancy

Alan S said:

"Bob (this one)" <[email hidden]> whined in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Alan S said:

"Bob (this one)" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Wow! What a shovelful. Haha... you are one impressive illiterate who
doesn't know what demagogue means.

One definition of demagogue: "an orator who appeals to the passions
and prejudices of his audience" I realize you were really typing and
not talking, but I am sure you get the point.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Lighten up. Smile! ... Enjoy your day!

Do you think I do this for fun...? Oh, wait. That's why I do post to
empty nonsense like this. Well, that and typing practice.

Yes it is quite obvious that you get a charge out of communicating
like this just from the nature of your verbiage. Terms like
"Puhleeze" and "nuh-uh" illustrate your arrogant nature. Lots of
<LOL> inserts do too. Usenet is like a combination of a filthy bus
station and a library, you fit right in.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>

Actually, there's no "viable" argument for toxicity of aluminum. Nor
for iron in any amounts likely to be ingested. No science that
agrees with anything in your stance. Lots of foil helmet types agree
with you, though...

There has been a long standing concern that Aluminum could be related
to Alzheimers disease due to the fact that there are concentrated
levels of Aluminum in Alzheimers patient's brains. Since there has
been no proof it remains subjective.

*EH* ?
Concentrated levels of aluminum??
Total bunk!

Ken.

"Ken Davey" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Alan S said:

"Bob (this one)" <[email hidden]> whined in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Alan S wrote:
> "Bob (this one)" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> news:[email hidden]...
>

Quoted message said:

Wow! What a shovelful. Haha... you are one impressive illiterate who
doesn't know what demagogue means.

One definition of demagogue: "an orator who appeals to the passions
and prejudices of his audience" I realize you were really typing and
not talking, but I am sure you get the point.

Quoted message said:

> Lighten up. Smile! ... Enjoy your day!

Do you think I do this for fun...? Oh, wait. That's why I do post to
empty nonsense like this. Well, that and typing practice.

Yes it is quite obvious that you get a charge out of communicating
like this just from the nature of your verbiage. Terms like
"Puhleeze" and "nuh-uh" illustrate your arrogant nature. Lots of
<LOL> inserts do too. Usenet is like a combination of a filthy bus
station and a library, you fit right in.

Quoted message said:

>>

Actually, there's no "viable" argument for toxicity of aluminum. Nor
for iron in any amounts likely to be ingested. No science that
agrees with anything in your stance. Lots of foil helmet types agree
with you, though...

There has been a long standing concern that Aluminum could be related
to Alzheimers disease due to the fact that there are concentrated
levels of Aluminum in Alzheimers patient's brains. Since there has
been no proof it remains subjective.

*EH* ?
Concentrated levels of aluminum??
Total bunk!

Ken.

Here let me hold your hand for a second and help you with this one Ken ...
I should have written concentrated amounts, all better now?

Alan S said:

"Ken Davey" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Alan S said:

"Bob (this one)" <[email hidden]> whined in message
news:[email hidden]...
> Alan S wrote:
>> "Bob (this one)" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>> news:[email hidden]...
>>

>
> Wow! What a shovelful. Haha... you are one impressive illiterate
> who doesn't know what demagogue means.
>
One definition of demagogue: "an orator who appeals to the passions
and prejudices of his audience" I realize you were really typing and
not talking, but I am sure you get the point.
>
>
>> Lighten up. Smile! ... Enjoy your day!
>
> Do you think I do this for fun...? Oh, wait. That's why I do post
> to empty nonsense like this. Well, that and typing practice.
>
Yes it is quite obvious that you get a charge out of communicating
like this just from the nature of your verbiage. Terms like
"Puhleeze" and "nuh-uh" illustrate your arrogant nature. Lots of
<LOL> inserts do too. Usenet is like a combination of a filthy bus
station and a library, you fit right in.
>>>
>
> Actually, there's no "viable" argument for toxicity of aluminum.
> Nor for iron in any amounts likely to be ingested. No science that
> agrees with anything in your stance. Lots of foil helmet types
> agree with you, though...
>
There has been a long standing concern that Aluminum could be
related to Alzheimers disease due to the fact that there are
concentrated levels of Aluminum in Alzheimers patient's brains.
Since there has been no proof it remains subjective.

*EH* ?
Concentrated levels of aluminum??
Total bunk!

Ken.

Here let me hold your hand for a second and help you with this one
Ken ... I should have written concentrated amounts, all better now?

No.
Still total [censored]!

Ken Davey said:

Bob (this one) said:

Alan S said:

"Ken Davey" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

>Alan S wrote:
>
>
>>"Bob (this one)" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>>news:[email hidden]...
>>
>>
>>>Alan S wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>Milled?!?
>Aluminum foil is rolled.
>The finish is a reflection of the finish on the rollers.
>The only difference is that the shiny side will reflect more heat
>thaan the dill side - basic physics.

The shiny side will reflect *light* more obviously because the dull
side is not as smooth and will do more diffusion. Heat will be
absorbed equally by either surface.

Sorry - this is not correct.
The degree of reflection (or absorption) of light is almost identical to the
degree of reflection of heat.

I didn't say it would reflect more light, I said the reflection would be
more obvious. On the shiny side, it looks like a mirror and reflects a
more familiar image. The dull side is less "polished" and therefore
doesn't reflect an image as crisply. But the same amount of light is
hitting and bouncing off. It's just more scattered from the dull side
and is a more spread-out reflectance. Same total reflectivity from
either side. One side is "prettier."

Quoted message said:

Radiant heat is simply a different wave length.

But conducted and convected heat also play their roles here.

Quoted message said:

The difference in heat transferrence between the shiny side versus the dull
side is not trivial.

This is a guess.

Quoted message said:

It would be interesting to get someone who is in school and studying physics
(they do still teach that?) to set up an experiment to measure and quantify
the difference.

Bob (this one) said:

Ken Davey said:

Bob (this one) said:

Alan S wrote:

> "Ken Davey" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> news:[email hidden]...
>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The shiny side will reflect *light* more obviously because the dull
side is not as smooth and will do more diffusion. Heat will be
absorbed equally by either surface.

Sorry - this is not correct.
The degree of reflection (or absorption) of light is almost
identical to the degree of reflection of heat.

I didn't say it would reflect more light, I said the reflection would
be more obvious. On the shiny side, it looks like a mirror and
reflects a more familiar image. The dull side is less "polished" and
therefore
doesn't reflect an image as crisply. But the same amount of light is
hitting and bouncing off. It's just more scattered from the dull side
and is a more spread-out reflectance. Same total reflectivity from
either side. One side is "prettier."

Again I have to say - not true.

Sigh.
Time for a 'basic' lesson in physics.

Firstly let me say there is *no* perfect reflector.
Now *all* surfaces reflect heat/light.
A perfect surface would reflect 100% of the light/heat (same thing - really)
Now, as I said, there is no such thing as a perfect reflector.
All surfaces absorb some of the energy that strikes them.

And - the rougher the surface the more the energy that gets absorbed and the
less that gets reflected.
This is an immutable law of physics.

To explain let's compare the shiny and dull side of a piece of aluminum
foil.
The shiny side has a surface that has fewer imperfections than the dull
side.
By imperfections (in the context of this discussion) the dull side has hills
and valleys and voids that, in effect, 'trap' rays of light/energy.
By trap I mean that the light bounces around in these 'imperfections' and at
each 'bounce' some energy is absorbed into the surface.
The rougher the surface the more the 'bounce' and more energy is absorbed
reather than reflected.

You are correct that it is a guess as to how much more energy is
absorbed/reflected shiny versus dull but it is measurable and is observable
when the foil is utilized in cooking (Finally on topic!).
I have tried to find a definitive study on this subject but had to give up
after wading through thousands of web pages.
This is not meant to be a 'lecture'.
Basic physics is poorly understood by most people but in this case it can be
used to prove that there is a significant difference between the shiny and
the dull side of a piece of foil.
And we are not discussing conduction or convection - that is a totally
unrelated topic..

Regards.
Ken.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Radiant heat is simply a different wave length.

But conducted and convected heat also play their roles here.

Quoted message said:

The difference in heat transferrence between the shiny side versus
the dull side is not trivial.

This is a guess.

Quoted message said:

It would be interesting to get someone who is in school and studying
physics (they do still teach that?) to set up an experiment to
measure and quantify the difference.

Ken Davey said:

Bob (this one) said:

Ken Davey said:

Bob (this one) wrote:

>Alan S wrote:
>
>>"Ken Davey" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>>news:[email hidden]...
>>
>The shiny side will reflect *light* more obviously because the dull
>side is not as smooth and will do more diffusion. Heat will be
>absorbed equally by either surface.

Sorry - this is not correct.
The degree of reflection (or absorption) of light is almost
identical to the degree of reflection of heat.

I didn't say it would reflect more light, I said the reflection would
be more obvious. On the shiny side, it looks like a mirror and
reflects a more familiar image. The dull side is less "polished" and
therefore
doesn't reflect an image as crisply. But the same amount of light is
hitting and bouncing off. It's just more scattered from the dull side
and is a more spread-out reflectance. Same total reflectivity from
either side. One side is "prettier."

Again I have to say - not true.

Sigh.
Time for a 'basic' lesson in physics.

<sigh> Ok.

Quoted message said:

Firstly let me say there is *no* perfect reflector.
Now *all* surfaces reflect heat/light.

You need to take a walk through the Hirschhorn museum to see the "Black
Hole" that's a hemisphere with such a low albedo that you can't focus
your eyes on it. In normal, bright museum light, it's the blackest thing
I've ever seen. Or, rather, not seen.

Quoted message said:

A perfect surface would reflect 100% of the light/heat (same thing - really)
Now, as I said, there is no such thing as a perfect reflector.
All surfaces absorb some of the energy that strikes them.

And - the rougher the surface the more the energy that gets absorbed and the
less that gets reflected.
This is an immutable law of physics.

With a good definition of "rough" that includes certain characteristics.
A wavy mirror and a flat mirror will have virtually no difference in
their energy performance. It's not until the irregularities begin to
force reflection to another part of the surface that any increase in
energy absorption occurs.

Quoted message said:

To explain let's compare the shiny and dull side of a piece of aluminum
foil.
The shiny side has a surface that has fewer imperfections than the dull
side.
By imperfections (in the context of this discussion) the dull side has hills
and valleys and voids that, in effect, 'trap' rays of light/energy.

That's guesswork. There are certainly surface irregularities, but the
necessary physical condition for your thesis to obtain is for the
valleys and hills to be jagged and capable of trapping light for many
bounces before exiting. Being non-specular, reflections from the dull
side merely demonstrate that there are many angles of
incidence/reflectance at work, but they don't necessarily imply an
appreciable difference in energy absorption.

Quoted message said:

By trap I mean that the light bounces around in these 'imperfections' and at
each 'bounce' some energy is absorbed into the surface.
The rougher the surface the more the 'bounce' and more energy is absorbed
reather than reflected.

Dealing with light, the energy is trivial. Dealing with heat scales up
the quantities a good bit. The assumption of "imperfections" capable of
trapping heat or light is guesswork.

Quoted message said:

You are correct that it is a guess as to how much more energy is
absorbed/reflected shiny versus dull but it is measurable and is observable
when the foil is utilized in cooking (Finally on topic!).

This is in the realm of laboratory micro-measurements, not kitchens. The
energy delta between the two sides will be meaninglessly small in
practical application. I'd be interested to see some hard numbers about
this. My own experience with foil in restaurant use doesn't bear it out.

Quoted message said:

I have tried to find a definitive study on this subject but had to give up
after wading through thousands of web pages.
This is not meant to be a 'lecture'.
Basic physics is poorly understood by most people but in this case it can be
used to prove that there is a significant difference between the shiny and
the dull side of a piece of foil.

Here;'s a funny "Ask a scientist" site I just found:
<http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/gen01/gen01407.htm>

Scientists disagreeing with each other. Wonderful.

Quoted message said:

And we are not discussing conduction or convection - that is a totally
unrelated topic..

As I'm seeing it, the conversation is about heat transfer/reflectivity
in aluminum foil.

Pastorio

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Radiant heat is simply a different wave length.

But conducted and convected heat also play their roles here.

Quoted message said:

The difference in heat transferrence between the shiny side versus
the dull side is not trivial.

This is a guess.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It would be interesting to get someone who is in school and studying
physics (they do still teach that?) to set up an experiment to
measure and quantify the difference.