When using alcohol to deglaze a pan or into a sauce, I'm wondering what
the difference in taste is if you do or don't set it ablaze? I mean, how
does burning it change the flavor?
Anyone know?

"Goomba" > wrote in message
...
> When using alcohol to deglaze a pan or into a sauce, I'm wondering what
> the difference in taste is if you do or don't set it ablaze? I mean, how
> does burning it change the flavor?
> Anyone know?

If you burn off the alcohol you don't taste alcohol. D-uh.


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

Goomba > wrote in news:6fjd3oFbvh94U1
@mid.individual.net:

> When using alcohol to deglaze a pan or into a sauce, I'm wondering what
> the difference in taste is if you do or don't set it ablaze? I mean, how
> does burning it change the flavor?
> Anyone know?
>



IIRC, the burning doesn't change the flavour, it just gets rid of the
alcohol, so you don't get shitfaced while you're eating.



--
Peter Lucas
Brisbane
Australia


If we are not meant to eat animals,
why are they made of meat?

PeterLucas wrote:

> IIRC, the burning doesn't change the flavour, it just gets rid of the
> alcohol, so you don't get shitfaced while you're eating.
>
Seriously? Oh. I just assumed there was more to it than that?
Well, I don't ever strive to get "shitfaced" but... getting a little
mellow is always welcome

On Sat 02 Aug 2008 08:34:14a, Goomba told us...

> When using alcohol to deglaze a pan or into a sauce, I'm wondering what
> the difference in taste is if you do or don't set it ablaze? I mean, how
> does burning it change the flavor?
> Anyone know?

IME, if you don't burn it off, it tastes boozier. By burning it off, it
leaves only the essence of the flavor and not particularly the taste of
alcohol. Depending on what you're making, sometimes either case may be
desirable. I find, for example, that I enjoy Bananas Foster better when the
rum isn't entirely burned off. OTOH, a sauce for meat with brandy as a final
component, is not one where I want it to taste of booze.

--
Wayne Boatwright
-------------------------------------------
Saturday, 08(VIII)/02(II)/08(MMVIII)
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
Don't start an argument with somebody
who has a microphone when you don't;
they'll make you look like chopped
liver. --Harlan Ellison, on hecklers
-------------------------------------------

On Sat 02 Aug 2008 08:53:47a, Goomba told us...

> PeterLucas wrote:
>
>> IIRC, the burning doesn't change the flavour, it just gets rid of the
>> alcohol, so you don't get shitfaced while you're eating.
>>
> Seriously? Oh. I just assumed there was more to it than that?
> Well, I don't ever strive to get "shitfaced" but... getting a little
> mellow is always welcome

You're better off getting mellow from drinking some wine with the meal.



--
Wayne Boatwright
-------------------------------------------
Saturday, 08(VIII)/02(II)/08(MMVIII)
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
Don't start an argument with somebody
who has a microphone when you don't;
they'll make you look like chopped
liver. --Harlan Ellison, on hecklers
-------------------------------------------

On Aug 2, 11:44�am, PeterLucas > wrote:
> Goomba > wrote in news:6fjd3oFbvh94U1
> @mid.individual.net:
>
> > When using alcohol to deglaze a pan or into a sauce, I'm wondering what
> > the difference in taste is if you do or don't set it ablaze? I mean, how
> > does burning it change the flavor?
> > Anyone know?
>
> IIRC, the burning doesn't change the flavour, it just gets rid of the
> alcohol, so you don't get shitfaced while you're eating.

There's no difference whether lit or not, because only the alcohol
vapors burn, if unlit they simply disapate into the atmosphere...
flambeing is purely for show, it changes the flavor not one iota.

"Goomba" > ha scritto nel messaggio
...
> PeterLucas wrote:
>
>> IIRC, the burning doesn't change the flavour, it just gets rid of the
>> alcohol, so you don't get shitfaced while you're eating.
>>
> Seriously? Oh. I just assumed there was more to it than that?
> Well, I don't ever strive to get "shitfaced" but... getting a little
> mellow is always welcome

A lot of it depends. In some instances you can get caramelization, like
when you burn rum and sugar together. Some dishes for which you burn
alcohol over a skin or rind will alter in taste because of the applied heat.

What you could try is making some really easy flambé dish side by side-- one
you burn, the other you don't.
>

On Aug 2, 11:44�am, "cybercat" > wrote:
> "Goomba" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > When using alcohol to deglaze a pan or into a sauce, I'm wondering what
> > the difference in taste is if you do or don't set it ablaze? I mean, how
> > does burning it change the flavor?
> > Anyone know?
>
> If you burn off the alcohol you don't taste alcohol. D-uh.

Pure alcohol has no flavor. D-uh

Only pure alcohol vapors ignite... they would evaporate anyway,
whether ignited or not. You can't cook off all the alcohol before
making the dish inedible. Igniting the alcohol vapors changes the
dish's flavor not one iota. Evaporating the alcohol through cooking
is what changes the flavor, but by reduction... the same effect will
occur were the flavoring addition alcohol free.

On Aug 2, 8:34 am, Goomba > wrote:
> When using alcohol to deglaze a pan or into a sauce, I'm wondering what
> the difference in taste is if you do or don't set it ablaze? I mean, how
> does burning it change the flavor?
> Anyone know?

My first thought is that flaming it concentrates the flavor faster.
When you put brandy into coq au vin you flame it, mainly, I think, so
you can move on to the next step more quickly without having to wait
for several minutes of boiling. When you later add a lot of red wine
you certainly don't try to flame that because it's going to simmer
quite a while and you know much of the alcohol will dissipate.

For the pan sauce you're talking about it's a pretty small quantity of
alcohol, maybe 1/4 to 1/2 cup, right? Sometimes I fire it up,
sometimes I just let it bubble. The longer it bubbles/boils, the more
alcohol evaporates even without flaming. Under normal circumstances I
wouldn't expect there to be a noticeable taste difference.

It's possible to create a difference in taste by using flaming to
create a hint of charring. when you leave some ingredient in the pan.
Say you brown chicken pieces in your stainless or cast iron pan, then
squeeze some lime juice over them, followed by some tequila. Now you
can just let the liquid bubble while you scrape the browned bits off
the bottom of the pan, or you can flame it first. If you get enough
flame there will be a small effect on the chicken skin, I think. (A
little dried orange peel goes well in this, by the way.)

As opposed to that, say you cook fish fillets in butter, remove them
to a warm plate, add some shallots and capers to the pan with some
white wine, let it bubble for a couple of minutes, stir in a bit of
cold butter and pour it over the fish. I don't see anything to be
gained by flaming this. -aem

"Goomba" > wrote in message
...
> When using alcohol to deglaze a pan or into a sauce, I'm wondering what
> the difference in taste is if you do or don't set it ablaze? I mean, how
> does burning it change the flavor?
> Anyone know?

Well as some have said you risk getting shitfaced, assuming 1 ounce of
liquor can do that to you.

Alcohol in a sauce makes it have a kind of bite and an aroma that can
compete with the food. Depends too on what you are putting the sauce on.
French sea scallops would not benefit but a slab of sliced medallions of
tenderloin in a cognac sauce would not suffer.

IN general it lends a sharp, acidic flavor plus an alcohol fume aroma.

Paul

aem > wrote in news:ff62fab2-6b4c-4bfe-8f52-
:

> As opposed to that, say you cook fish fillets in butter, remove them
> to a warm plate, add some shallots and capers to the pan with some
> white wine, let it bubble for a couple of minutes, stir in a bit of
> cold butter and pour it over the fish. I don't see anything to be
> gained by flaming this. -aem
>
>

Best of luck attempting to ignite wine...I don't believe anything with less
than 50 proof alcohol content will ignite.

If you notice, there is no smoke when alcohol burns...so all the
combustable subtances have been consumed in the flame. So there is no
residue or anything left to flavour anything. Burning off the alcohol is
showy and a good timer as to when most of the alcohol has left. But leaves
no added taste.

--

The house of the burning beet-Alan

PeterLucas wrote:

> Goomba > wrote in news:6fjd3oFbvh94U1
> @mid.individual.net:
>
> > When using alcohol to deglaze a pan or into a sauce, I'm wondering what
> > the difference in taste is if you do or don't set it ablaze? I mean, how
> > does burning it change the flavor?
> > Anyone know?
> >
>
> IIRC, the burning doesn't change the flavour, it just gets rid of the
> alcohol, so you don't get shitfaced while you're eating.

Bear in mind that when you heat the booze before flambeeing, it is the fumes
that ignite, not the sauce it is added to, so it stands to reason that those
alcohol fumes would have evaporated whether it was burring or not. The flames
keep the liquid hot, so more alcohol evaporates.

On Sat 02 Aug 2008 10:53:58a, Dave Smith told us...

> PeterLucas wrote:
>
>> Goomba > wrote in news:6fjd3oFbvh94U1
>> @mid.individual.net:
>>
>> > When using alcohol to deglaze a pan or into a sauce, I'm wondering
>> > what the difference in taste is if you do or don't set it ablaze? I
>> > mean, how does burning it change the flavor?
>> > Anyone know?
>> >
>>
>> IIRC, the burning doesn't change the flavour, it just gets rid of the
>> alcohol, so you don't get shitfaced while you're eating.
>
> Bear in mind that when you heat the booze before flambeeing, it is the
> fumes that ignite, not the sauce it is added to, so it stands to reason
> that those alcohol fumes would have evaporated whether it was burring or
> not. The flames keep the liquid hot, so more alcohol evaporates.

Yes, more alcohol evaporates, which also makes it taste less "boozey".

--
Wayne Boatwright
-------------------------------------------
Saturday, 08(VIII)/02(II)/08(MMVIII)
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
Don't start an argument with somebody
who has a microphone when you don't;
they'll make you look like chopped
liver. --Harlan Ellison, on hecklers
-------------------------------------------

Goomba wrote:

> PeterLucas wrote:
>
> > IIRC, the burning doesn't change the flavour, it just gets rid of the
> > alcohol, so you don't get shitfaced while you're eating.
> >
> Seriously? Oh. I just assumed there was more to it than that?
> Well, I don't ever strive to get "shitfaced" but... getting a little
> mellow is always welcome

You would have to add a lot of booze to a dish before you would have to
worry about getting shitfaced. There aren't many dishes that call for more
than a cup of wine .... two glasses, and those usually feed a half dozen
people.or more, When you flambe you usually use only an ounce or two.

I know there are supposed to be studies out there that say that the alcohol
does not all burn off ia flambe or boil off in a braised dish, but that
leaves me wondering. You have to use alcohol to flambe because there is not
enough alcohol in wine.

"Goomba" > wrote in message
...
> When using alcohol to deglaze a pan or into a sauce, I'm wondering what
> the difference in taste is if you do or don't set it ablaze? I mean, how
> does burning it change the flavor?
> Anyone know?

IHMO there is no change in flavor.

As the alcohol boils it released vapors and it is the vapors which burn
usually above the pan with no effect to the contents. The only possible
effect is a small about of radiant heat to the pan and contents. Since
there is a certain amount of water present in order to be effected the water
must evaporate first. By that time the alcohol would have evaporated and
the flame gone out.


--
Old Scoundrel

(AKA Dimitri)

On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 11:34:14 -0400, Goomba >
wrote:

>When using alcohol to deglaze a pan or into a sauce, I'm wondering what
>the difference in taste is if you do or don't set it ablaze? I mean, how
>does burning it change the flavor?
>Anyone know?

Igniting is just table side or TV showmanship. I never light up, and
the alcohol evaporates anyway while the pan liquid reduces.

Be sure to add a little lemon to a white wine reduction sauce to keep
it from being too sweet. No matter how dry the wine, it still has
some inherent sweetness.




--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

hahabogus wrote:
>
> If you notice, there is no smoke when alcohol burns...so all the
> combustable subtances have been consumed in the flame. So there is no
> residue or anything left to flavour anything. Burning off the alcohol is
> showy and a good timer as to when most of the alcohol has left. But leaves
> no added taste.

A recent episode of America's Test Kitchen did
a pan-roasted lobster flambe, and I believe they
did claim a flavor difference from the flame.

Sheldon wrote:

> There's no difference whether lit or not, because only the alcohol
> vapors burn, if unlit they simply disapate into the atmosphere...
> flambeing is purely for show, it changes the flavor not one iota.

So you think it is only a step for show? It makes no diff in flavor outcome?

Giusi wrote:

> A lot of it depends. In some instances you can get caramelization, like
> when you burn rum and sugar together. Some dishes for which you burn
> alcohol over a skin or rind will alter in taste because of the applied heat.
>
Ah, but I figure I'd get caramelized flavor cooking the sugar on its
own, yet if I then add the liquor component and not flame it, will it be
the same end resulting flavor? I dunno...?

> What you could try is making some really easy flambé dish side by side-- one
> you burn, the other you don't.
>
Tru'dat. As Wayne suggested, I suppose bananas Foster would be a good
recipe to test this on. I have all the ingredients but currently no
kitchen, lol! The construction begins again on Monday...<small happy dance>

aem wrote:

> My first thought is that flaming it concentrates the flavor faster.
> When you put brandy into coq au vin you flame it, mainly, I think, so
> you can move on to the next step more quickly without having to wait
> for several minutes of boiling. When you later add a lot of red wine
> you certainly don't try to flame that because it's going to simmer
> quite a while and you know much of the alcohol will dissipate.
>
> For the pan sauce you're talking about it's a pretty small quantity of
> alcohol, maybe 1/4 to 1/2 cup, right? Sometimes I fire it up,
> sometimes I just let it bubble. The longer it bubbles/boils, the more
> alcohol evaporates even without flaming. Under normal circumstances I
> wouldn't expect there to be a noticeable taste difference.
>
> It's possible to create a difference in taste by using flaming to
> create a hint of charring. when you leave some ingredient in the pan.
> Say you brown chicken pieces in your stainless or cast iron pan, then
> squeeze some lime juice over them, followed by some tequila. Now you
> can just let the liquid bubble while you scrape the browned bits off
> the bottom of the pan, or you can flame it first. If you get enough
> flame there will be a small effect on the chicken skin, I think. (A
> little dried orange peel goes well in this, by the way.)
>
> As opposed to that, say you cook fish fillets in butter, remove them
> to a warm plate, add some shallots and capers to the pan with some
> white wine, let it bubble for a couple of minutes, stir in a bit of
> cold butter and pour it over the fish. I don't see anything to be
> gained by flaming this. -aem

Thank you for your input, and it makes a lot of sense to me.
The chicken idea sounds great, by the way!

Dave Smith wrote:

> You would have to add a lot of booze to a dish before you would have to
> worry about getting shitfaced. There aren't many dishes that call for more
> than a cup of wine .... two glasses, and those usually feed a half dozen
> people.or more, When you flambe you usually use only an ounce or two.
>
> I know there are supposed to be studies out there that say that the alcohol
> does not all burn off ia flambe or boil off in a braised dish, but that
> leaves me wondering. You have to use alcohol to flambe because there is not
> enough alcohol in wine.
>
Oh I know a little alcohol won't make (most) anyone "shitfaced" LOL
I was just commenting on his comment. But if the point of the burn is to
change the flavor or to remove the alcohol is what I ponder....

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...
> Goomba wrote:
>
>> PeterLucas wrote:
>>
>> > IIRC, the burning doesn't change the flavour, it just gets rid of the
>> > alcohol, so you don't get shitfaced while you're eating.
>> >
>> Seriously? Oh. I just assumed there was more to it than that?
>> Well, I don't ever strive to get "shitfaced" but... getting a little
>> mellow is always welcome
>
> You would have to add a lot of booze to a dish before you would have to
> worry about getting shitfaced. There aren't many dishes that call for
> more
> than a cup of wine .... two glasses, and those usually feed a half dozen
> people.or more, When you flambe you usually use only an ounce or two.
>
> I know there are supposed to be studies out there that say that the
> alcohol
> does not all burn off ia flambe or boil off in a braised dish, but that
> leaves me wondering. You have to use alcohol to flambe because there is
> not
> enough alcohol in wine.

No what you are looking for is the residual flavor left after the alcohol
has burned off. With Gin for example it would be the juniper berry
flavors. With French vermouth it is the herbs. Chardonnay the sweetness.

If there is enough wine you can get a small flame as the concoction boils.
However most table wines are 12 to 25% alcohol and most spirits are 40%
alcohol.

Goomba wrote:

> Giusi wrote:
>
>> A lot of it depends. In some instances you can get caramelization, like
>> when you burn rum and sugar together. Some dishes for which you burn
>> alcohol over a skin or rind will alter in taste because of the applied heat.
>>
> Ah, but I figure I'd get caramelized flavor cooking the sugar on its
> own, yet if I then add the liquor component and not flame it, will it be
> the same end resulting flavor? I dunno...?
>
>> What you could try is making some really easy flambé dish side by side-- one
>> you burn, the other you don't.
>>
> Tru'dat. As Wayne suggested, I suppose bananas Foster would be a good
> recipe to test this on. I have all the ingredients but currently no
> kitchen, lol! The construction begins again on Monday...<small happy dance>

With this post, since I've always been interested in word and phrase
origins in general, I'm kicking off a new feature specific to this
newsgroup: Blinky's Food Name Trivia.

Blinky's Food Name Trivia - Bananas Foster: "The dish was created in 1951
by Paul Blangé at Brennan's Restaurant in New Orleans, Louisiana. It was
named for Richard Foster, a friend of Owen Brennan's and New Orleans Crime
Commission chairman."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bananas_Foster


--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html

On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 14:02:09 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>I know there are supposed to be studies out there that say that the alcohol
>does not all burn off ia flambe or boil off in a braised dish, but that
>leaves me wondering. You have to use alcohol to flambe because there is not
>enough alcohol in wine.

From what I've read *here* in quoted studies, some but not all of the
alcohol burns off. Why anyone cares is beyond me.


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 12:52:41 -0700, "Dimitri" >
wrote:

>With French vermouth it is the herbs.

so what flavor is left with an American vermouth?


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 17:59:42 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
> wrote:

>Yes, more alcohol evaporates, which also makes it taste less "boozey".

Which brings me back to my first (and only) attempt at Cherries
Jubilee. I didn't lower the lights because we didn't have dimmers, so
I ignited and expected a bigger flame. Poured again, ignited...
repeat process. Oh, man.... it was BOOZEY. That put me off of
Cherries Jubilee for a lifetime. Never again. Blech. What a waste
of good brandy.

The only flambéed dessert I'll eat now is crepes Suzette and I haven't
had that in years.


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

"sf" wrote in message news
> On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 12:52:41 -0700, "Dimitri" >
> wrote:
>
>>With French vermouth it is the herbs.
>
> so what flavor is left with an American vermouth?
>
>
> --
> I never worry about diets. The only carrots that interest me are the
> number of carats in a diamond.
>
> Mae West

LOL No such thing no matter where its made.

:-)


--
Old Scoundrel

(AKA Dimitri)

sf wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 14:02:09 -0400, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
>> I know there are supposed to be studies out there that say that the alcohol
>> does not all burn off ia flambe or boil off in a braised dish, but that
>> leaves me wondering. You have to use alcohol to flambe because there is not
>> enough alcohol in wine.
>
> From what I've read *here* in quoted studies, some but not all of the
> alcohol burns off. Why anyone cares is beyond me.

The only reason I can think of (that makes sense to me) for people to
care would be the raging alcoholic who is taking the drug Antabuse. ANY
contact with alcohol causes them to become violently sick to their
stomach. It is the purpose of this drug (adversion therapy) and those
folks might want to know?

On Sat 02 Aug 2008 02:00:46p, told us...

> On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 17:59:42 GMT, Wayne Boatwright
> > wrote:
>
>>Yes, more alcohol evaporates, which also makes it taste less "boozey".
>
> Which brings me back to my first (and only) attempt at Cherries
> Jubilee. I didn't lower the lights because we didn't have dimmers, so
> I ignited and expected a bigger flame. Poured again, ignited...
> repeat process. Oh, man.... it was BOOZEY. That put me off of
> Cherries Jubilee for a lifetime. Never again. Blech. What a waste
> of good brandy.
>
> The only flambéed dessert I'll eat now is crepes Suzette and I haven't
> had that in years.
>
>

Next time reach for the dimmer. (I assume you have one.) Or, have candles
on the table and turn the overhead light off altogether.

--
Wayne Boatwright
-------------------------------------------
Saturday, 08(VIII)/02(II)/08(MMVIII)
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
Don't start an argument with somebody
who has a microphone when you don't;
they'll make you look like chopped
liver. --Harlan Ellison, on hecklers
-------------------------------------------

In article >,
Goomba > wrote:

> Oh I know a little alcohol won't make (most) anyone "shitfaced" LOL
> I was just commenting on his comment. But if the point of the burn is to
> change the flavor or to remove the alcohol is what I ponder....

The best Beef Wellington I ever ate was followed by the worst Crêpe
Suzette for dessert. I think they put out the flambe way too soon, and a
raw alcohol taste was definitely present. It sorely detracted from the
dish.

leo

"Goomba" > wrote in message
...
> PeterLucas wrote:
>
>> IIRC, the burning doesn't change the flavour, it just gets rid of the
>> alcohol, so you don't get shitfaced while you're eating.
>>
> Seriously? Oh. I just assumed there was more to it than that?
> Well, I don't ever strive to get "shitfaced" but... getting a little
> mellow is always welcome
>

Peter must be a real cheap date.

Paul

"Paul M. Cook" > wrote in news:g72sng$pp0$1
@registered.motzarella.org:

>
> "Goomba" > wrote in message
> ...
>> PeterLucas wrote:
>>
>>> IIRC, the burning doesn't change the flavour, it just gets rid of
the
>>> alcohol, so you don't get shitfaced while you're eating.
>>>
>> Seriously? Oh. I just assumed there was more to it than that?
>> Well, I don't ever strive to get "shitfaced" but... getting a little
>> mellow is always welcome
>>
>
> Peter must be a real cheap date.
>


Not when you have a 4 course meal and *everything* is made with or has
alcohol in it :-)


The ladies at the table certainly ended up shitfaced........ or maybe it
was just the drinks I was supplying with the dinner??

Fresh mango pieces mascerated in Grand Marnier for 3 days, a spoonful in
a balloon glass and topped with bubbly :-)

4 couples were at that dinner party, 2 of the females became pregnant
because of it... so I officially called the drink I created, 'The
Babymaker' (unofficially, it's The Legopener);-P


--
Peter Lucas
Brisbane
Australia


If we are not meant to eat animals,
why are they made of meat?

Goomba > wrote in
:

> Dave Smith wrote:
>
>> You would have to add a lot of booze to a dish before you would have
>> to worry about getting shitfaced. There aren't many dishes that call
>> for more than a cup of wine .... two glasses, and those usually feed
>> a half dozen people.or more, When you flambe you usually use only an
>> ounce or two.
>>
>> I know there are supposed to be studies out there that say that the
>> alcohol does not all burn off ia flambe or boil off in a braised
>> dish, but that leaves me wondering. You have to use alcohol to flambe
>> because there is not enough alcohol in wine.
>>
> Oh I know a little alcohol won't make (most) anyone "shitfaced" LOL
> I was just commenting on his comment. But if the point of the burn is
> to change the flavor or to remove the alcohol is what I ponder....


http://www.sheknows.com/articles/1804.htm



--
Peter Lucas
Brisbane
Australia


If we are not meant to eat animals,
why are they made of meat?

Dimitri wrote:

> "Goomba" > wrote in message
> ...
> > When using alcohol to deglaze a pan or into a sauce, I'm wondering what
> > the difference in taste is if you do or don't set it ablaze? I mean, how
> > does burning it change the flavor?
> > Anyone know?
>
> IHMO there is no change in flavor.
>
> As the alcohol boils it released vapors and it is the vapors which burn
> usually above the pan with no effect to the contents. The only possible
> effect is a small about of radiant heat to the pan and contents. Since
> there is a certain amount of water present in order to be effected the
water
> must evaporate first. By that time the alcohol would have evaporated and
> the flame gone out.


On teevee the other night I learned that flaming saganaki was invented by a
Greek restauranter right here in Chicawgo...

"Oopah...!!!"


--
Best
Greg

PeterLucas wrote:

>> Oh I know a little alcohol won't make (most) anyone "shitfaced" LOL
>> I was just commenting on his comment. But if the point of the burn is
>> to change the flavor or to remove the alcohol is what I ponder....
>
>
> http://www.sheknows.com/articles/1804.htm
>
Oh pooh. I truly don't think a splash of liquor or wine in a recipe is a
good reason to keep kids from eating the dish, do you?
I get so angry when people equate ANY alcohol intake as dangerous
<gasp!> and fear it. Healthy
I'm sure your meal was a lot of fun, and I can see the humor and fun you
had at your "babymaker"<drink> party.

On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 17:08:19 -0400, Goomba >
wrote:

>sf wrote:
>> On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 14:02:09 -0400, Dave Smith
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> I know there are supposed to be studies out there that say that the alcohol
>>> does not all burn off ia flambe or boil off in a braised dish, but that
>>> leaves me wondering. You have to use alcohol to flambe because there is not
>>> enough alcohol in wine.
>>
>> From what I've read *here* in quoted studies, some but not all of the
>> alcohol burns off. Why anyone cares is beyond me.
>
>The only reason I can think of (that makes sense to me) for people to
>care would be the raging alcoholic who is taking the drug Antabuse. ANY
>contact with alcohol causes them to become violently sick to their
>stomach. It is the purpose of this drug (adversion therapy) and those
>folks might want to know?
>

Thanks, that's a good answer, but it seems to me that a caring person
who made a meal for someone taking that drug would NOT use alcohol in
any dish and it wouldn't be a hardship on the cook. How often do you
use alcohol when cooking? Slim to none? If the cook knows a guest is
taking the drug, it's easy enough to plan around it.


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

Goomba > wrote in news:6fl08gFc4infU1
@mid.individual.net:

> PeterLucas wrote:
>
>>> Oh I know a little alcohol won't make (most) anyone "shitfaced" LOL
>>> I was just commenting on his comment. But if the point of the burn
is
>>> to change the flavor or to remove the alcohol is what I ponder....
>>
>>
>> http://www.sheknows.com/articles/1804.htm
>>
> Oh pooh. I truly don't think a splash of liquor or wine in a recipe is
a
> good reason to keep kids from eating the dish, do you?


Nope..... but there are 'wowsers' out there :-)


> I get so angry when people equate ANY alcohol intake as dangerous
> <gasp!> and fear it. Healthy
> I'm sure your meal was a lot of fun, and I can see the humor and fun
you
> had at your "babymaker"<drink> party.
>


Everyone seemed to enjoy themselves :-)

From the time my friends had their babies, I used to call one of the
kids 'Mango', and the other (a girl) 'Bubbles' :-)

--
Peter Lucas
Brisbane
Australia


If we are not meant to eat animals,
why are they made of meat?

On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 00:51:32 -0500, "Gregory Morrow"
> wrote:

>On teevee the other night I learned that flaming saganaki was invented by a
>Greek restauranter right here in Chicawgo...

huh. Never heard of it.


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

sf wrote:

> Thanks, that's a good answer, but it seems to me that a caring person
> who made a meal for someone taking that drug would NOT use alcohol in
> any dish and it wouldn't be a hardship on the cook. How often do you
> use alcohol when cooking? Slim to none? If the cook knows a guest is
> taking the drug, it's easy enough to plan around it.
>
I can easily imagine times where the cook has NO idea a diner takes the
drug.