"Bob (this one)" wrote:
>
> 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.

NOT in my experience!!!

> The pot merely needs to be able to hold the
> appropriate amount of water.

Well, the pot is full - holds about 2 gallons of water!

> >> 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?

Whatever.

> >>> 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.

Well, duh! A minute *is* forever when you're trying to
get the spaghetti in the water.

> 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.

Okay, but this wasn't part of the discussion. Just getting
the spaghetti to soften enough to bend and get it all under
the water. The other points you are making are moot.

> > 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.

No, I don't. If I did I would use one. It is too cumbersome
to use the big stockpot in most instances. I've been using the
other pot for over 30 years and it works fine. The problem is
that the spaghetti is too long! Sheesh! And it takes "forever"
to soften enough to get under the water.

> 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.

My dutch oven is the same diameter as my stock pot!

> 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.

2 minutes? Yikes! That's like *forever and a day*! Sheesh!

Kate