Kate Connally wrote:
> Joseph Littleshoes wrote:
>
>> Kate Connally wrote:
>>
>>> Damsel wrote:
>>>
>>>> When I was a kid, we got boxes of spaghetti that were about 4
>>>> inches square on the ends, and around 3 feet long. The pasta
>>>> inside was folded in half, so you were talking strands at least
>>>> 5-1/2 feet long. One or two were all that a fork could hold.
>>>
>>> Good grief! How did you get them into the pot to cook them if
>>> they were that long? Even folded in half they'd be too big for
>>> any pot I've ever seen.

Spaghetti will soften and become flexible within seconds of being put
into rapidly boiling water. The pot merely needs to be able to hold the
appropriate amount of water.

>> Our local Italian deli sells them, one is even a thin tubular,
>> hollow spaghetti, not a cannelloni but a long tubular spaghetti.

Called "bucatini."

>> it
>> also sells regular solid spaghetti in those lengths that are meant
>> to be broken up, but can be cooked whole in a tall stock pot.
>
> Well, Damsel was talking about stuff that was over 2 feet long after
> folding in half. I've never seen a 2 1/2-3 foot high stock pot.
>
>> But even when cooked and served whole are usually served with a
>> carving knife and the pasta is cut up into manageable pieces as it
>> is served.
>>
>>
>>> I've been around over 50 years and I've never come across
>>> spaghetti that was more than about a foot long.

I have several packages of "Gragnese" brand pasta imported from Italy in
my kitchen that are about 20 inches long. The spaghetti inside are
folded in half. I most often cook the pasta in a 12-quart stock pot and
usually put about a gallon and a half of water along with about 1/4 cup
salt like Italians in Italy do.

>> The Chinese method of making long spaghetti like noodles produces 4
>> - 5 foot long strands.
>
> Yeah, I know about that. Not the same thing. I'm talking regular
> dried spaghetti in a box.

How about in a clear plastic bag?

>>> Even foot-long spaghetti is tough to get under the water all at
>>> once, so I can't even begin to see how people would manage
>>> anything longer. I suspect it was meant to be broken into more
>>> manageable lengths when put in the pot.
>>
>>> That is how it is most often cooked but it can be cooked whole in a
>>> tall pot. It quickly softens and folds itself into the water.
>
> Not my experience, but it might happen that way with really fine
> spaghettini or angel hair. The "regular" size spaghetti, which is
> what I prefer, takes forever to soften enough to get it all under the
> water.

"Forever" is about a minute with rapidly boiling water in sufficient
quantity. At least a gallon per pound. Less than that and the water
temperature drops significantly and it won't come back to a boil very
quickly. So the pasta isn't at an appropriate level of turbulence and
temperature. Stirring it often adds to the natural convection and
turbulence of boiling. All necessary to get it done properly.

> I don't cook mine in a tall stockpot but in my dutch oven
> and even the regular foot-long stuff doesn't go completely under the
> water until it has softened up enough to bend.

That's too wide and shallow a pot and not enough water. You want a tall,
narrow pot to keep the water boiling hard. A wide-topped pot has too
much surface area for water to evaporate from, and the extra evaporation
keeps the water from a full, hard boil. A pound of pasta, any shape,
dropped into a gallon of boiling water should return to a full, rolling
boil in no more than two minutes. All stranded pasta will flex enough to
submerge in that time.

Pastorio