On Dec 18, 1:27*pm, sf > wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 13:59:34 -0700, notbob > wrote:
> > sf > writes:
>
> > Yikes. *Did I touch a nerve?
>
> As I was pressing send, I was thinking that you know how to get me all
> wound up. *One more "Lodge" name drop and I will walk over and
> personally klonk that poster on the head with my no name cast iron
> pan. *I think it will raise just as big a lump as if I used a name
> brand, but I can test the theory and klonk them again with their
> Lodge.

Real ironheads talk about Wagner and Griswold.

On 12/18/2010 8:50 AM, sf wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 07:49:24 -1000, > wrote:
>
>> On 12/18/2010 6:39 AM, Omelet wrote:
>>> Mom used to pop popcorn in hers. :-)
>>
>> That's the craziest thing I ever heard. Hats off to you mom for that! :-)
>
> I used mine for that too... but I used the Calpholon pans for popcorn
> after I bought them. No jiggling necessary.
>

For some reason, I've never thought to do this. These days I just stick
with the microwave stuff - I'm pretty much totally corrupt. :-)

"dsi1" > wrote in message
...
> On 12/18/2010 11:09 AM, Dan Abel wrote:
>> In >,
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Woks don't warp either - no matter how hot you make them or if you dump
>>> water into the pan. It's amazing that we can't seem to make non-warping
>>> lightweight frying pans. My guess is that 200 years from now pans still
>>> won't be able to stay flat!
>>
>> It's just natural. Look how Mother Nature does it. The only flat
>> things in nature are liquids under the effect of gravity, and just how
>> strong is that? :-) If you want to make something strong, put a curve
>> in it.
>>
>
> When I think about it, the wok is probably the most perfectly conceived
> cooking vessel on this planet. OTOH, we really need to be able to make our
> pancakes, french toast, fried chicken, and grilled cheese sandwiches so it
> looks like we're stuck with flat frypans for now. :-)

True that)))

--
--
https://www.shop.helpforheroes.org.uk/

On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 13:30:40 -0800 (PST), spamtrap1888
> wrote:

> On Dec 18, 1:27*pm, sf > wrote:
> > On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 13:59:34 -0700, notbob > wrote:
> > > sf > writes:
> >
> > > Yikes. *Did I touch a nerve?
> >
> > As I was pressing send, I was thinking that you know how to get me all
> > wound up. *One more "Lodge" name drop and I will walk over and
> > personally klonk that poster on the head with my no name cast iron
> > pan. *I think it will raise just as big a lump as if I used a name
> > brand, but I can test the theory and klonk them again with their
> > Lodge.
>
> Real ironheads talk about Wagner and Griswold.

Tell that to the Lodge name droppers in rfc.

--

Never trust a dog to watch your food.

sf wrote:

> Nobody becomes a better cook just because they store their ingredients in
> a Sub-Zero refrigerator and they cook in a $300+ copper core All Clad pan
> on a Wolf range.

In point of fact, yes, they do. If the refrigerator keeps the food in better
condition, the final dish will be better. If the expensive pan provides a
better cooking environment due to even heat distribution, then the final
dish will be better. If the range provides more consistent heat and better
control, then the final dish will be better.

Bob

Dan wrote:

> The only flat things in nature are liquids under the effect of gravity,
> and just how strong is that?

That's not really flat, it follows the contour of the curvature of the
earth. For flat, look at crystals.

Bob

On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 10:25:55 -0600, wrote:

>I'm not much of a cook at all.... but one thing I do
>like is fried potatoes and stir fry type dishes
>
>I have a nice skillet (probably too small) though.....
>but have wondered if maybe a wok is the better "tool"
>for me?
>
>Can someone give this neophyte cook some advice on the
>advantages of wok vs BIG skillet?


There is a theory that the tool determines how you use it (idiots
aside). FE: a hammer does not tell the neophyte to use it as a drill,
or to poke holes in leather, but as an instrument for bashing things.

In the same way, the skillet and the wok developed from two different
philosophies/customs of cookery. There's s little overlap but not
much.

I suggest that your background in cooking suggests that the skillet
would be a much more useful too to you, at least in the near term. A
12-15" skillet, or a 12" deep skillet would pretty much meet your
needs, I think, especially given their not inconsiderable weight.

If when you ever start experimenting with Eastern cookery, you may
discover the advantages that woks offer and use them to advantage. I
suggest that the wok is the single most useful cooking utensil ever
invented, save maybe the clay pot.

But: if you have no history or experience with these vessels, go with
the deep 12" skillet or a 15" standard depth skillet and cook to your
heart's content. What matters is the output and whether you're
comfortable with it.

HTH

Alex, who wishes you a good holiday season.

Bob wrote on Sat, 18 Dec 2010 14:12:59 -0800:

>> Nobody becomes a better cook just because they store their
>> ingredients in a Sub-Zero refrigerator and they cook in a
>> $300+ copper core All Clad pan on a Wolf range.

> In point of fact, yes, they do. If the refrigerator keeps the food in
> better condition, the final dish will be better. If
> the expensive pan provides a better cooking environment due to
> even heat distribution, then the final dish will be better. If
> the range provides more consistent heat and better control,
> then the final dish will be better.

I'll take a bet that I would not know the difference and also that most
others wouldn't either!



--

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

sf wrote:

>> > Mom used to pop popcorn in hers. :-)
>>
>> That's the craziest thing I ever heard. Hats off to you mom for that! :-)
>
> I used mine for that too... but I used the Calpholon pans for popcorn
> after I bought them. No jiggling necessary.

Name-dropper! :-)

Bob

On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 11:33:42 -1000, dsi1 > wrote:

> For some reason, I've never thought to do this. These days I just stick
> with the microwave stuff - I'm pretty much totally corrupt. :-)

I've made my popcorn with Orville's for so many years that I can't be
satisfied with the other grocery store brands and microwave popcorn
just doesn't taste right anymore.

--

Never trust a dog to watch your food.

On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 14:18:35 -0600, "Pete C." >
wrote:

>
>Brooklyn1 wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 10:25:55 -0600, wrote:
>>
>> >I'm not much of a cook at all.... but one thing I do
>> >like is fried potatoes and stir fry type dishes
>> >
>> >I have a nice skillet (probably too small) though.....
>> >but have wondered if maybe a wok is the better "tool"
>> >for me?
>> >
>> >Can someone give this neophyte cook some advice on the
>> >advantages of wok vs BIG skillet?
>>
>> Big skillet wins... raw spuds is not something lends itself to stir
>> frying. I see no point to a wok unless one cooks very teeny
>> quantities or has a huge BTU gas burner. The vast majority of folks
>> who wok at home are just fooling themselves (ie. masturbating).
>
>I agree, unless you have a high BTU burner (or cook over a wood or
>charcoal fire) you don't have enough heat input for a wok to function
>properly and you may as well use an ordinary large skillet.

I must disagree on this point. All you need is a hot point (easily
achievable with a wood fire), and you can get that with any 12000 BTU
gas burner. I use woks on butane stoves with no problems. tailgate!

Just get a cast wok and not one of those stamped steel things that are
sold to round-eyes. (Blast you, Joyce Chen!)

I put mine on a Kenmore elite gas stove top on a medium-strength
burner (@ 12000-13000 BTU) and it works fine. Put it on am 18000
burner and it goes crazy!

I believe you're thinking of restaurant woks which are super big and
use after-burner-like gas flames to drive them. Thousands of years of
wok history, and no sign of after-burner heat sources! Peasants used
them over stone fire rings, and the fires were fed with twigs. It
works. Worked then, works now. It's a very efficient vessel to cook
with. Let the flames begin.

Alex

On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 13:11:25 -0800 (PST), spamtrap1888
> wrote:

>On Dec 17, 12:18*pm, "Pete C." > wrote:
>> Brooklyn1 wrote:

>Hmm... should I go by this unsupported assertion, or rely on over
>thirty years of personal experience stir-frying on ordinary gas
>stoves?
>
Nah, let it go, man. You know the truth and that's all that matters.

Tomorrow is pork and pineapple, chowed in a cast wok, with JICAMA (if
I can find some) as a substitute for water chestnut. Sweet red
peppers, scallion, the usual suspects. Will either do it on stovetop,
on medium burner or on one of my butane stoves (like they use in
Japanese restaurants for SukiYaki or shabu-shabu.

It WILL be great.

Alex

Sycophant wrote:

> The pizza would not exactly be grilled per se'.


L'O'L'


> Wondering if I can make a rice flour based crust with tapioca flour. I
> have some rice bread recipes available but have not tried them yet.

Sure, tapioca is just an exotic form of rice. REALLY exotic, so exotic that
it's like it's not any kind of rice at all. Go' for it!

Bob

On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 14:16:35 -0800, sf > wrote:

>On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 13:11:25 -0800 (PST), spamtrap1888
> wrote:
>
>> On Dec 17, 12:18*pm, "Pete C." > wrote:
>> > Brooklyn1 wrote:

>They're from the "Tim, the Toolman, Taylor" school of thought.

OK, you've got me. I totally miss the reference.

Alex, seeking enlightenment.

On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 22:04:39 -0600, "Pete C." >
wrote:

>
>Omelet wrote:
>>
>> In article . com>,
>> "Pete C." > wrote:

>Grilled pizza is plenty popular. Those perforated pans do ok, or you can
>use a standard pizza stone. If you use the pizza stone just give it time
>to come up to temp.
>
>I've shown quite a few people how to use a pizza stone properly at high
>temp, and every one of them has continued to use them this way since it
>really does work a lot better.
>
>Normally I also do a multi-bake, where I stretch out the crust, brush
>with olive oil, bake it for a few minutes, then top it with the
>pre-cooked toppings and cheese and put it back in the oven to finish and
>melt the cheese. The first bake with olive oil seals the crust so the
>sauce doesn't penetrate and the crust stays crispy, even as leftovers.

I prefer the stone, because it allows the bottom of the pizza dough to
crisp up properly. Preheating is, in my oven, no less than 30 minutes
at 500, but I cook them a little lower. I think this is why perforated
pizza pans work better than plain cookie sheets or solid base pans.

And if you put a frozen pizza on a pan or stone, it will be terrible.
Gummi-yuck! That's why they tell you to put the thing directly on the
rack.

I clean the stones in a BGE at 700.

Alex

James wrote:

>>> Nobody becomes a better cook just because they store their
>>> ingredients in a Sub-Zero refrigerator and they cook in a
>>> $300+ copper core All Clad pan on a Wolf range.
>
>> In point of fact, yes, they do. If the refrigerator keeps the food in
>> better condition, the final dish will be better. If
>> the expensive pan provides a better cooking environment due to
>> even heat distribution, then the final dish will be better. If
>> the range provides more consistent heat and better control,
>> then the final dish will be better.
>
> I'll take a bet that I would not know the difference and also that most
> others wouldn't either!

It probably depends on what's being cooked. You could tell the difference
between crisp lettuce and wilted lettuce, couldn't you? Well, the Sub-Zero
refrigerator is better at keeping lettuce crisp. You could tell the
difference between a paella with a layer of crisp rice on the bottom and a
paella with burnt spots on the bottom, couldn't you? Even heat is the
difference between the two.

Bob

On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 16:34:58 -0600, Chemiker
> wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 14:16:35 -0800, sf > wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 13:11:25 -0800 (PST), spamtrap1888
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Dec 17, 12:18*pm, "Pete C." > wrote:
> >> > Brooklyn1 wrote:
>
> >They're from the "Tim, the Toolman, Taylor" school of thought.
>
> OK, you've got me. I totally miss the reference.
>
> Alex, seeking enlightenment.

He's the TV character that was always tinkering (trying to improve
things) and one of the show to show catch phrases was "More power!"

http://www.funtrivia.com/en/subtopic...or-173310.html


--

Never trust a dog to watch your food.

"spamtrap1888" > wrote in message
...
On Dec 17, 3:11 pm, George > wrote:
> On 12/17/2010 5:16 PM, sf wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 13:11:25 -0800 (PST), spamtrap1888
> > > wrote:
>
> >> On Dec 17, 12:18 pm, "Pete > wrote:
> >>> Brooklyn1 wrote:
>
> >>>> On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 10:25:55 -0600, wrote:
>
> >>>>> I'm not much of a cook at all.... but one thing I do
> >>>>> like is fried potatoes and stir fry type dishes
>
> >>>>> I have a nice skillet (probably too small) though.....
> >>>>> but have wondered if maybe a wok is the better "tool"
> >>>>> for me?
>
> >>>>> Can someone give this neophyte cook some advice on the
> >>>>> advantages of wok vs BIG skillet?
>
> >>>> Big skillet wins... raw spuds is not something lends itself to stir
> >>>> frying. I see no point to a wok unless one cooks very teeny
> >>>> quantities or has a huge BTU gas burner. The vast majority of folks
> >>>> who wok at home are just fooling themselves (ie. masturbating).
>
> >>> I agree, unless you have a high BTU burner (or cook over a wood or
> >>> charcoal fire) you don't have enough heat input for a wok to function
> >>> properly and you may as well use an ordinary large skillet.
>
> >> Hmm... should I go by this unsupported assertion, or rely on over
> >> thirty years of personal experience stir-frying on ordinary gas
> >> stoves?
>
> > They're from the "Tim, the Toolman, Taylor" school of thought.
>
> Or not, maybe do a little reading about "wok hei" (hint, it is the
> reason for that great flavor you get from a good Chinese restaurant that
> you can never duplicate without a big burner).

The only difference between my wok and a Chinese restaurant''s is that
they use lots of cheap (cottonseed) oil.

reply: So, you have one of those huge burners like they use in a Chinese
restaurant?

Steve

On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 14:19:29 -0800, "Bob Terwilliger"
> wrote:

> sf wrote:
>
> >> > Mom used to pop popcorn in hers. :-)
> >>
> >> That's the craziest thing I ever heard. Hats off to you mom for that! :-)
> >
> > I used mine for that too... but I used the Calpholon pans for popcorn
> > after I bought them. No jiggling necessary.
>
> Name-dropper! :-)
>
Which I should have said were worn out now.

--

Never trust a dog to watch your food.

> wrote in message
...
> "James Silverton" >
> wrote:
>
>>Overall, I do believe that if you have gas, a regular
>>wok produces the best results.
>
> I have an electric stove if that matters any
>
> I guess maybe if I did get a wok..... I should look at
> the self contained electric models?

I own an electric wok, and the only thing I use it for is to steam fish. It
works very well for that. For wokking foods, it does not attain near enough
heat, and foods have to cook much longer, making them softer, and less
tasty.

Steve

Alex wrote:

>> They're from the "Tim, the Toolman, Taylor" school of thought.
>
> OK, you've got me. I totally miss the reference.

It's a reference to the TV show "Home Improvement." Tim "the Toolman" Taylor
is a character on that show. The character's catchphrase is "MORE POWER!"

Bob

On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 10:22:51 -1000, dsi1 > wrote:

>On 12/18/2010 8:51 AM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>>
>> Woks certainly do warp with temperature change, because of how they
>> are fabricated they are loaded with stress so actually woks warp a lot
>> more than conventional pots... only since wok geometry ain't flat to
>> begin with you don't notice, but their curvature changes substantially
>> from round to elliptical. However flat bottom woks warp very
>> noticeably, their bottoms 'oil can'.
>
>My guess is that you're just guessing about a wok being loaded with
>stress and that the curvature changes substantially. Do you have any
>data on all this or is this a case of you just knowing it truly with all
>your heart? OTOH, I can use a wok in high temperature cooking and not
>have to worry about dumping water in a hot pan so from a practical
>standpoint whether or not the pan is loaded with stress or that the pan
>changes shape in some way doesn't really matter making your post either
>false or irrelevant.
>
>I wouldn't touch a flat bottom "wok" - those things would warp!

Why does it matter if a wok warps, or any pot for that matter... it
doesn't... can cook as well in an old coffee tin as a $200 pot.

"cshenk" > wrote in message
...
> "Melba's Jammin'" wrote
> wrote:
>
>>> I have a nice skillet (probably too small) though.....
>>> but have wondered if maybe a wok is the better "tool"
>>> for me?
>
>>> Can someone give this neophyte cook some advice on the
>>> advantages of wok vs BIG skillet?
>>
>> The way I cook, there is no advantage, so I don't have a wok. I do my
>> stir fries in a skillet.
>
> Pretty much same here for all that I 'asian cook' a goodly bit. The
> minimal value added on a wok is removed by the storage space needed in my
> case.

We are talking apples and oranges here. A "real" wok is fired by a very hot
flame. This is not attainable on most stoves. If you go to a Chinese
restaurant and watch them cook, they use very high temperatures for a very
short period of time. The timing of the addition of ingredients and spices
is very critical. The common home stoves just can't do what the big burner
woks do, unless you get into Vulcan, Viking, Wolf, or Dacor stuff, and even
then I don't know how big an inside burner you can get.

I have an outside Camp Chef burner with a wok ring. When I want to really
cook something in a wok, that is what I use.

I just got a Bosch 5 burner rangetop with a 15,000 btu center burner. I
need to get the wok ring, and will try that inside. My outside Camp Chef is
60,000 btu, so you can see there's quite a difference.

Most indoor gas and electrics are lucky if they're 10,000.

Steve

Brooklyn1 wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 10:22:51 -1000, dsi1 > wrote:
>
>> On 12/18/2010 8:51 AM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>>> Woks certainly do warp with temperature change, because of how they
>>> are fabricated they are loaded with stress so actually woks warp a lot
>>> more than conventional pots... only since wok geometry ain't flat to
>>> begin with you don't notice, but their curvature changes substantially
>>> from round to elliptical. However flat bottom woks warp very
>>> noticeably, their bottoms 'oil can'.
>> My guess is that you're just guessing about a wok being loaded with
>> stress and that the curvature changes substantially. Do you have any
>> data on all this or is this a case of you just knowing it truly with all
>> your heart? OTOH, I can use a wok in high temperature cooking and not
>> have to worry about dumping water in a hot pan so from a practical
>> standpoint whether or not the pan is loaded with stress or that the pan
>> changes shape in some way doesn't really matter making your post either
>> false or irrelevant.
>>
>> I wouldn't touch a flat bottom "wok" - those things would warp!
>
> Why does it matter if a wok warps, or any pot for that matter... it
> doesn't... can cook as well in an old coffee tin as a $200 pot.

Well, the latter matters on the smooth cooktops.

--
Jean B.

Chemiker wrote:
>
> On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 14:18:35 -0600, "Pete C." >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Brooklyn1 wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 10:25:55 -0600, wrote:
> >>
> >> >I'm not much of a cook at all.... but one thing I do
> >> >like is fried potatoes and stir fry type dishes
> >> >
> >> >I have a nice skillet (probably too small) though.....
> >> >but have wondered if maybe a wok is the better "tool"
> >> >for me?
> >> >
> >> >Can someone give this neophyte cook some advice on the
> >> >advantages of wok vs BIG skillet?
> >>
> >> Big skillet wins... raw spuds is not something lends itself to stir
> >> frying. I see no point to a wok unless one cooks very teeny
> >> quantities or has a huge BTU gas burner. The vast majority of folks
> >> who wok at home are just fooling themselves (ie. masturbating).
> >
> >I agree, unless you have a high BTU burner (or cook over a wood or
> >charcoal fire) you don't have enough heat input for a wok to function
> >properly and you may as well use an ordinary large skillet.
>
> I must disagree on this point. All you need is a hot point (easily
> achievable with a wood fire), and you can get that with any 12000 BTU
> gas burner. I use woks on butane stoves with no problems. tailgate!
>
> Just get a cast wok and not one of those stamped steel things that are
> sold to round-eyes. (Blast you, Joyce Chen!)
>
> I put mine on a Kenmore elite gas stove top on a medium-strength
> burner (@ 12000-13000 BTU) and it works fine. Put it on am 18000
> burner and it goes crazy!
>
> I believe you're thinking of restaurant woks which are super big and
> use after-burner-like gas flames to drive them. Thousands of years of
> wok history, and no sign of after-burner heat sources! Peasants used
> them over stone fire rings, and the fires were fed with twigs. It
> works. Worked then, works now. It's a very efficient vessel to cook
> with. Let the flames begin.
>
> Alex

Sorry, you are confusing "works" with "works as designed". You can
certainly cook food in a wok placed on an inadequate heat source and it
will cook the food, however it will not cook it the way a wok is
intended to cook it. And no, historically you don't find the 50,000
BTU/Hr wok burners of today, what you do find is wood or charcoal fires
with comparable temperatures and BTU outputs being used.

sf > wrote in news:i89qg6p8s8tbcjr71v4d16s41k8iqjeaqv@
4ax.com:

> One more "Lodge" name drop and I will walk over and
> personally klonk that poster on the head with my no name cast iron
> pan. I think it will raise just as big a lump as if I used a name
> brand, but I can test the theory and klonk them again with their
> Lodge.

I'm with you there. Cast iron is cast iron. Carbon steel is carbon steel.
According to the American Iron and Steel Institute, more than 85% of the
steel produced and shipped in the United States is carbon steel.

http://www.webcitation.org/5o9SDyEAb

--

When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag
and carrying a cross.

Sinclair Lewis

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnrYMafCzeE

"James Silverton" > wrote in message
...
> Bob wrote on Sat, 18 Dec 2010 14:12:59 -0800:
>
>>> Nobody becomes a better cook just because they store their
>>> ingredients in a Sub-Zero refrigerator and they cook in a
>>> $300+ copper core All Clad pan on a Wolf range.
>
>> In point of fact, yes, they do. If the refrigerator keeps the food in
>> better condition, the final dish will be better. If
>> the expensive pan provides a better cooking environment due to
>> even heat distribution, then the final dish will be better. If
>> the range provides more consistent heat and better control,
>> then the final dish will be better.
>
> I'll take a bet that I would not know the difference and also that most
> others wouldn't either!

Just my two cents: usually people who spend that type of money will also
either have learned how to cook, or traveled enough to learn lots of
recipes. I have some friends who fit the SubZero Wolf profile. They are
corporate world travelers, and going to their house is always a treat, as
they just throw together some absolutely fantastic stuff that they have
learned from years of cooking, going to lots of classes, and traveling the
world.

Idiots can own Wolf and SubZero et al, but generally those who do own them
are slightly more culinarily inclined.

And then, it also depends on the experience of the diner or cook. What one
diner or cook would consider "good" is swill to a trained cook, or
knowledgeable well traveled diner. Sure, steak and potatos is good. Until
you've eaten something better.

Steve

"spamtrap1888" > wrote in message
...
On Dec 17, 3:07 pm, "Pete C." > wrote:
> sf wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 13:11:25 -0800 (PST), spamtrap1888
> > > wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 17, 12:18 pm, "Pete C." > wrote:
> > > > Brooklyn1 wrote:
>
> > > > > On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 10:25:55 -0600, wrote:
>
> > > > > >I'm not much of a cook at all.... but one thing I do
> > > > > >like is fried potatoes and stir fry type dishes
>
> > > > > >I have a nice skillet (probably too small) though.....
> > > > > >but have wondered if maybe a wok is the better "tool"
> > > > > >for me?
>
> > > > > >Can someone give this neophyte cook some advice on the
> > > > > >advantages of wok vs BIG skillet?
>
> > > > > Big skillet wins... raw spuds is not something lends itself to
> > > > > stir
> > > > > frying. I see no point to a wok unless one cooks very teeny
> > > > > quantities or has a huge BTU gas burner. The vast majority of
> > > > > folks
> > > > > who wok at home are just fooling themselves (ie. masturbating).
>
> > > > I agree, unless you have a high BTU burner (or cook over a wood or
> > > > charcoal fire) you don't have enough heat input for a wok to
> > > > function
> > > > properly and you may as well use an ordinary large skillet.
>
> > > Hmm... should I go by this unsupported assertion, or rely on over
> > > thirty years of personal experience stir-frying on ordinary gas
> > > stoves?
>
> > They're from the "Tim, the Toolman, Taylor" school of thought.
>
> You'll find that same "unsupported" assertion from many professional
> chefs and you'll find they all use woks on burners with much higher BTU
> output than an "ordinary" gas stove.
>

Funnily enough, most Chinese meals are not cooked by professional
chefs, but by home cooks. A typical wok burner puts out 4.5kW, or
15,350 BTU, easily achievable from any US range.

reply: Did I get taken? I just spent a grand on a Bosch, and the biggest
burner is a 15k.

Steve

On 12/18/2010 4:23 PM, sf wrote:
> I've made my popcorn with Orville's for so many years that I can't be
> satisfied with the other grocery store brands and microwave popcorn
> just doesn't taste right anymore.

Here lately, I have been thinking about making popcorn the old fashioned
way, instead of using microwave popcorn. It has been too long since
I've had it.

Becca

"Omelet" > wrote in message
news
> In article >,
> Brooklyn1 <Gravesend1> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 07:46:40 -0800, sf > wrote:
>>
>> >On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 21:59:12 -1000, dsi1 > wrote:
>> >
>> >> You can't do fried chicken but you probably
>> >> wouldn't want to deep fry or steam or even smoke a chicken in a fry
>> >> pan.
>> >> My guess is that a wok is the safest way to deep fry
>>
>> On a typical stove top a wok is the least safe vessel for deep frying.
>>
>> >I don't deep fry very often, but I have deep fried in a wok. <shrug>
>> >It worked for me.
>
> Sis' does Tempura in hers. Takes for freakin' EVer! Last time she
> wanted to make it, I asked if she wanted to borrow my fry daddy. It
> would have been a LOT less work!
> --
> Peace! Om

How is that possible when we have heard so many times from so many people
that btu ratings have nothing to do with wokking?

Steve

"Chemiker" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 10:25:55 -0600, wrote:
>
>>I'm not much of a cook at all.... but one thing I do
>>like is fried potatoes and stir fry type dishes
>>
>>I have a nice skillet (probably too small) though.....
>>but have wondered if maybe a wok is the better "tool"
>>for me?
>>
>>Can someone give this neophyte cook some advice on the
>>advantages of wok vs BIG skillet?
>
>
> There is a theory that the tool determines how you use it (idiots
> aside). FE: a hammer does not tell the neophyte to use it as a drill,
> or to poke holes in leather, but as an instrument for bashing things.
>
> In the same way, the skillet and the wok developed from two different
> philosophies/customs of cookery. There's s little overlap but not
> much.
>
> I suggest that your background in cooking suggests that the skillet
> would be a much more useful too to you, at least in the near term. A
> 12-15" skillet, or a 12" deep skillet would pretty much meet your
> needs, I think, especially given their not inconsiderable weight.
>
> If when you ever start experimenting with Eastern cookery, you may
> discover the advantages that woks offer and use them to advantage. I
> suggest that the wok is the single most useful cooking utensil ever
> invented, save maybe the clay pot.
>
> But: if you have no history or experience with these vessels, go with
> the deep 12" skillet or a 15" standard depth skillet and cook to your
> heart's content. What matters is the output and whether you're
> comfortable with it.
>
> HTH
>
> Alex, who wishes you a good holiday season.

I have a very deep wok shaped ceramic coated stir fry pan that I can use for
a lot of things. Having a good curved pan is almost like having a wok if
you know how to use it.

Steve

On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 17:04:24 -0600, "Pete C." >
wrote:

>
>Chemiker wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 14:18:35 -0600, "Pete C." >
>> wrote:
>>



>> I believe you're thinking of restaurant woks which are super big and
>> use after-burner-like gas flames to drive them. Thousands of years of
>> wok history, and no sign of after-burner heat sources! Peasants used
>> them over stone fire rings, and the fires were fed with twigs. It
>> works. Worked then, works now. It's a very efficient vessel to cook
>> with. Let the flames begin.
>>
>> Alex
>
>Sorry, you are confusing "works" with "works as designed". You can
>certainly cook food in a wok placed on an inadequate heat source and it
>will cook the food, however it will not cook it the way a wok is
>intended to cook it. And no, historically you don't find the 50,000
>BTU/Hr wok burners of today, what you do find is wood or charcoal fires
>with comparable temperatures and BTU outputs being used.

Um, maybe I am a fool, but are you saying that 2000 years ago these
simple vessels were "designed" to run at 18000-20000 BTU? Certainly
those temperatures were available, because they made steel for swords,
but I can't see your average Joe Chu, rice farmer, wasting precious
fuel to get to those heat levels.

I don't think you understand legacy cooking at all, especially when it
comes to woks. These things were designed or evolved to meet the needs
of the poor shlubs who actually used them, not some Chinese Benihana
of 2000 years in the future, who had natural gas. When these things
were developed, they used charcoal, wood and straw as fuel. Get a
life!

Alex, who wonders just who was the genius whose "intent" was behind
the design of the wok. Who was this celestial wok-designing engineer,
my friend? Do you have a name? was it God? Bill Gates? Who?

"sf" > wrote in message
news
> On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 14:19:29 -0800, "Bob Terwilliger"
> > wrote:
>
>> sf wrote:
>>
>> >> > Mom used to pop popcorn in hers. :-)
>> >>
>> >> That's the craziest thing I ever heard. Hats off to you mom for that!
>> >> :-)
>> >
>> > I used mine for that too... but I used the Calpholon pans for popcorn
>> > after I bought them. No jiggling necessary.
>>
>> Name-dropper! :-)

Yes, she is. Up a couple of posts, she just dropped Orvil RedPecker's
popcorn, saying nothing else works.

>>
> Which I should have said were worn out now.
>
How-in-the-heck does one "wear out" calpholon pans???
Leave them on a hot burner empty?

On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 17:18:20 -0600, Ema Nymton >
wrote:

> On 12/18/2010 4:23 PM, sf wrote:
> > I've made my popcorn with Orville's for so many years that I can't be
> > satisfied with the other grocery store brands and microwave popcorn
> > just doesn't taste right anymore.
>
> Here lately, I have been thinking about making popcorn the old fashioned
> way, instead of using microwave popcorn. It has been too long since
> I've had it.
>
Make it in a heavy pot and you'll wonder why you haven't done it
sooner. I'm thinking my new slanted side pot might make awesome
popcorn. Hm. Must make popcorn this weekend!

--

Never trust a dog to watch your food.

On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 16:42:01 -0600, Chemiker
> wrote:

> I clean the stones in a BGE at 700.

What's a BGE?

--

Never trust a dog to watch your food.

On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 14:53:13 -0800, "Steve B"
> wrote:

>
> wrote in message
.. .
>> "James Silverton" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Overall, I do believe that if you have gas, a regular
>>>wok produces the best results.
>>
>> I have an electric stove if that matters any
>>
>> I guess maybe if I did get a wok..... I should look at
>> the self contained electric models?
>
>I own an electric wok, and the only thing I use it for is to steam fish. It
>works very well for that. For wokking foods, it does not attain near enough
>heat, and foods have to cook much longer, making them softer, and less
>tasty.

If I may suggest: I saw a show on TV not too recently, about how one
can smoke on the stovetop with a wok. They spake the truth.

You can take a cheap stamped wok, put chips in the bottom, put a cake
rack above that, then food, in a bed of al foil. Cover. Put it onto a
small (!) burner, turn up the heat until smoke starts coming. Back off
heat until it becomes consistent. 20 minutes. Meats get to 160, but
smoked and the smoke alarms do not go off. Another way of using the
wok without 20000 BTU of jet fuel.

Salmon this way is quite good.

Alex

On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 10:49:00 -0600, wrote:

>Chemo the Clown > wrote:
>
>>Buy them both. They really aren't that expensive.
>
>yeah I might do just that
>
>any advice on a decent wok to buy? Brand and model?

All I can say, is get a cast wok. Not a stamped steel thing. If it
looks thin, it is and will not serve you well. No cast woks are not
like cauldrons. They are cast thin, and turned to even the inner
surface. Not expensive. I bounght one at a locall asian store for
under $25. It is one of my treasures.

Stamped steel (cheap) you can get her in Texas for about 19 USD.

Alex, who reminds you there are no real brands. These items are
commodities. Everybody has one, 20000 BTU in the household or not.

sf wrote:
>
> On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 16:42:01 -0600, Chemiker
> > wrote:
>
> > I clean the stones in a BGE at 700.
>
> What's a BGE?

Big Green Egg - A brand of "ceramic cooker" an egg shaped pottery vessel
grill / smoker.

Chemiker wrote:
>
> On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 17:04:24 -0600, "Pete C." >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Chemiker wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 14:18:35 -0600, "Pete C." >
> >> wrote:
> >>
>
>
> >> I believe you're thinking of restaurant woks which are super big and
> >> use after-burner-like gas flames to drive them. Thousands of years of
> >> wok history, and no sign of after-burner heat sources! Peasants used
> >> them over stone fire rings, and the fires were fed with twigs. It
> >> works. Worked then, works now. It's a very efficient vessel to cook
> >> with. Let the flames begin.
> >>
> >> Alex
> >
> >Sorry, you are confusing "works" with "works as designed". You can
> >certainly cook food in a wok placed on an inadequate heat source and it
> >will cook the food, however it will not cook it the way a wok is
> >intended to cook it. And no, historically you don't find the 50,000
> >BTU/Hr wok burners of today, what you do find is wood or charcoal fires
> >with comparable temperatures and BTU outputs being used.
>
> Um, maybe I am a fool, but are you saying that 2000 years ago these
> simple vessels were "designed" to run at 18000-20000 BTU? Certainly
> those temperatures were available, because they made steel for swords,
> but I can't see your average Joe Chu, rice farmer, wasting precious
> fuel to get to those heat levels.

Fuel was not "precious" in those days, it was readily available.

>
> I don't think you understand legacy cooking at all, especially when it
> comes to woks. These things were designed or evolved to meet the needs
> of the poor shlubs who actually used them, not some Chinese Benihana
> of 2000 years in the future, who had natural gas. When these things
> were developed, they used charcoal, wood and straw as fuel. Get a
> life!

When was the last time you measured the temperature of burning charcoal?
(hint 1,200F+)

>
> Alex, who wonders just who was the genius whose "intent" was behind
> the design of the wok. Who was this celestial wok-designing engineer,
> my friend? Do you have a name? was it God? Bill Gates? Who?

I'm afraid your feeble brain can't handle the truth. Continue believing
your fantasy that only in the last century or two did people have the
intelligence to know how and why to cook at high temperatures and
produce cookware to take advantage of it.

On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 21:40:27 -0800, sf > wrote:

>On 18 Dec 2010 03:32:45 GMT, notbob > wrote:
>
>> On 2010-12-18, Omelet > wrote:
>> > In article >,
>> > sf > wrote:
>> >
>> >> You don't need the most expensive cooking
>> >> implements to produce tasty food.
>> >
>> ><applause!>
>> >
>> > That's sig' material!!! :-)
>>
>> So, why did she jest spend wads of money for pans from one of the most
>> expensive cookware lines on the consumer market?
>>
>They were on sale. I paid less for three items than most people here
>paid for their Kitchen Aid mixer.

Um, OK, whad'ju buy"

Alex, who is now splurging on parchment paper.