the directions for brown rice:

Bring water to a rolling boil
in "uncovered" container.
I think I've seen these directions before
for frozen vegetables.

uncovered? why?
it takes Longer to boil if uncovered

marc

On Feb 29, 4:46*pm, marco > wrote:
> the directions for brown rice:
>
> Bring water to a rolling boil
> in "uncovered" container.
> I think I've seen these directions before
> for frozen vegetables.
>
> uncovered? why?
> it takes Longer to boil if uncovered
>
> marc

Not enough to worry about it.

On Wednesday, February 29, 2012 4:49:26 PM UTC-8, Andy Tillinghast wrote:
> On Feb 29, 4:46*pm, marco > wrote:
> > the directions for brown rice:
> >
> > Bring water to a rolling boil
> > in "uncovered" container.
> > I think I've seen these directions before
> > for frozen vegetables.
> >
> > uncovered? why?
> > it takes Longer to boil if uncovered
> >
> > marc
>
> Not enough to worry about it.

I'm not worried, just curious
that there may be a reason,
but I can't think of one

marc

On Feb 29, 8:03*pm, marco > wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 29, 2012 4:49:26 PM UTC-8, Andy Tillinghast wrote:
> > On Feb 29, 4:46*pm, marco > wrote:
> > > the directions for brown rice:
>
> > > Bring water to a rolling boil
> > > in "uncovered" container.
> > > I think I've seen these directions before
> > > for frozen vegetables.
>
> > > uncovered? why?
> > > it takes Longer to boil if uncovered
>
> > > marc
>
> > Not enough to worry about it.
>
> I'm not worried, just curious
> that there may be a reason,
> but I can't think of one
>
> marc

it's easier. i worked with a chinese chap, and he always boiled rice
uncovered. the extra effort of putting the lid on, he figured it
wasn't necessary. It's a bit of laziness coupled with a microsecond
or two of getting stuff done faster. That's what I think. Maybe
there's another reason.
I like to do rice in the oven. White rice, water, not 2x, but about
1.5 times water as per rice. an onion studded with cloves and bay
leaf. Oven about 350. Check at 20 minutes. My oven I think (I don't
have a proper oven thermometer) is a bit hot, so at about 25 minutes,
rice is done.

"marco" > wrote in message
news:4576403.699.1330562809037.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yngj4...
> the directions for brown rice:
>
> Bring water to a rolling boil
> in "uncovered" container.
> I think I've seen these directions before
> for frozen vegetables.
>
> uncovered? why?
> it takes Longer to boil if uncovered

Maybe because you'll notice it faster with the lid off?

marco wrote:

>On Wednesday, February 29, 2012 4:49:26 PM UTC-8, Andy Tillinghast wrote:
>> On Feb 29, 4:46*pm, marco > wrote:
>> > the directions for brown rice:
>> >
>> > Bring water to a rolling boil
>> > in "uncovered" container.
>> > I think I've seen these directions before
>> > for frozen vegetables.
>> >
>> > uncovered? why?
>> > it takes Longer to boil if uncovered
>> >
>> > marc
>>
>> Not enough to worry about it.
>
>I'm not worried, just curious
>that there may be a reason,
>but I can't think of one

Some people also preach that you *must* keep the lid on when boiling
pasta. Ho-hum.

On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 16:46:49 -0800 (PST), marco >
wrote:

>the directions for brown rice:
>
>Bring water to a rolling boil
>in "uncovered" container.
>I think I've seen these directions before
>for frozen vegetables.
>
>uncovered? why?
>it takes Longer to boil if uncovered
>
>marc

I have no idea. I cover my pot of water to bring it to a full boil,
then dump my brownridce in and recover and torn to LOW for about an
hour, for my brown rice.

John Kuthe...

On 2/29/2012 2:46 PM, marco wrote:
> the directions for brown rice:
>
> Bring water to a rolling boil
> in "uncovered" container.
> I think I've seen these directions before
> for frozen vegetables.
>
> uncovered? why?
> it takes Longer to boil if uncovered
>
> marc

My guess is that it's left uncovered so you can see when to turn the
heat down. Personally, I'd just use a glass lid.

Boiling water without a lid is wasteful energy-wise. Putting a lid on
the pot cause the water to condense back into your food. This releases
the latent heat of evaporation. My guess is that the heat returned to
the system is significant. Why is that? Because it takes a lot of heat
to change water to steam. You can either choose to use the steam to
humidify and heat up your house or you can recycle that energy.

On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 16:03:09 -1000, dsi1
> wrote:

>On 2/29/2012 2:46 PM, marco wrote:
>> the directions for brown rice:
>>
>> Bring water to a rolling boil
>> in "uncovered" container.
>> I think I've seen these directions before
>> for frozen vegetables.
>>
>> uncovered? why?
>> it takes Longer to boil if uncovered
>>
>> marc
>
>My guess is that it's left uncovered so you can see when to turn the
>heat down. Personally, I'd just use a glass lid.
>
>Boiling water without a lid is wasteful energy-wise. Putting a lid on
>the pot cause the water to condense back into your food. This releases
>the latent heat of evaporation. My guess is that the heat returned to
>the system is significant. Why is that? Because it takes a lot of heat
>to change water to steam. You can either choose to use the steam to
>humidify and heat up your house or you can recycle that energy.

Um, if you knew anything about cooking you'd know that often one cooks
uncovered intentionally to cause a reduction. And with an
uncovered/unpressurized pot you cannot produce steam, that's water
vapor evaporating... you obviously failed JHS science.

On 2/29/2012 4:31 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 16:03:09 -1000, dsi1
> > wrote:
>
>> On 2/29/2012 2:46 PM, marco wrote:
>>> the directions for brown rice:
>>>
>>> Bring water to a rolling boil
>>> in "uncovered" container.
>>> I think I've seen these directions before
>>> for frozen vegetables.
>>>
>>> uncovered? why?
>>> it takes Longer to boil if uncovered
>>>
>>> marc
>>
>> My guess is that it's left uncovered so you can see when to turn the
>> heat down. Personally, I'd just use a glass lid.
>>
>> Boiling water without a lid is wasteful energy-wise. Putting a lid on
>> the pot cause the water to condense back into your food. This releases
>> the latent heat of evaporation. My guess is that the heat returned to
>> the system is significant. Why is that? Because it takes a lot of heat
>> to change water to steam. You can either choose to use the steam to
>> humidify and heat up your house or you can recycle that energy.
>
> Um, if you knew anything about cooking you'd know that often one cooks
> uncovered intentionally to cause a reduction. And with an
> uncovered/unpressurized pot you cannot produce steam, that's water
> vapor evaporating... you obviously failed JHS science.

Surely, you can't be serious... oh wait... you are. One does a reduction
by evaporation? Amazing! This one's a keeper!

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
> marco wrote:
>
>>On Wednesday, February 29, 2012 4:49:26 PM UTC-8, Andy Tillinghast wrote:
>>> On Feb 29, 4:46 pm, marco > wrote:
>>> > the directions for brown rice:
>>> >
>>> > Bring water to a rolling boil
>>> > in "uncovered" container.
>>> > I think I've seen these directions before
>>> > for frozen vegetables.
>>> >
>>> > uncovered? why?
>>> > it takes Longer to boil if uncovered
>>> >
>>> > marc
>>>
>>> Not enough to worry about it.
>>
>>I'm not worried, just curious
>>that there may be a reason,
>>but I can't think of one
>
> Some people also preach that you *must* keep the lid on when boiling
> pasta. Ho-hum.

Who?

On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 16:46:49 -0800 (PST), marco >
wrote:

> uncovered? why?
> it takes Longer to boil if uncovered
- Boiling with the lid on increases the likelihood of boiling over.

- Boiling with the lid on causes the liquid to boil (and the food to
cook) faster than what may be desirable.

- As others have mentioned, boiling with the lid on prevents
reduction.

There are probably other good culinary reasons for boiling with the
lid (completely or partially) off when you're concerned with more than
just saving time and fuel.

--
Ann's Little Brother Bob

Bob O'Dyne wrote:

>> uncovered? why?
>> it takes Longer to boil if uncovered
> - Boiling with the lid on increases the likelihood of boiling over.
>
> - Boiling with the lid on causes the liquid to boil (and the food to
> cook) faster than what may be desirable.
>
> - As others have mentioned, boiling with the lid on prevents
> reduction.
>
> There are probably other good culinary reasons for boiling with the
> lid (completely or partially) off when you're concerned with more than
> just saving time and fuel.

I think the confusion arose from the fact that the directions said to
bring the water to a boil in an uncovered pot. Sure, there are plenty of
reasons for leaving the pot uncovered when you're cooking the food
itself. But if you're just bringing water to a boil, it's pointless to
leave the pot uncovered.

Bob

Julie Bove wrote:

>> Some people also preach that you *must* keep the lid on when boiling
>> pasta. Ho-hum.
>
>Who?

Italian nonne.

George M. Middius wrote:

>>> Some people also preach that you *must* keep the lid on when boiling
>>> pasta. Ho-hum.

>> Who?

> Italian nonne.

Some people put the lid on soon after they put pasta in the pot, to help the
water get quickly back to a rolling boil, I too do it. Otherwise I've never
seen people boiling pasta with the lid on.

"Julie Bove" > wrote in message
...
>
> "George M. Middius" > wrote in message
> ...
>> marco wrote:
>>
>>>On Wednesday, February 29, 2012 4:49:26 PM UTC-8, Andy Tillinghast wrote:
>>>> On Feb 29, 4:46 pm, marco > wrote:
>>>> > the directions for brown rice:
>>>> >
>>>> > Bring water to a rolling boil
>>>> > in "uncovered" container.
>>>> > I think I've seen these directions before
>>>> > for frozen vegetables.
>>>> >
>>>> > uncovered? why?
>>>> > it takes Longer to boil if uncovered
>>>> >
>>>> > marc
>>>>
>>>> Not enough to worry about it.
>>>
>>>I'm not worried, just curious
>>>that there may be a reason,
>>>but I can't think of one
>>
>> Some people also preach that you *must* keep the lid on when boiling
>> pasta. Ho-hum.
>
> Who?

Somebody who never cooked pasta.

Paul

"Julie Bove" > wrote in message
...
>
> "marco" > wrote in message
> news:4576403.699.1330562809037.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yngj4...
>> the directions for brown rice:
>>
>> Bring water to a rolling boil
>> in "uncovered" container.
>> I think I've seen these directions before
>> for frozen vegetables.
>>
>> uncovered? why?
>> it takes Longer to boil if uncovered
>
> Maybe because you'll notice it faster with the lid off?


Somebody call the Mythbusters!

Paul
>
>

On 1/03/2012 11:43 PM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
> "Julie > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "George M. > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> marco wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wednesday, February 29, 2012 4:49:26 PM UTC-8, Andy Tillinghast wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 29, 4:46 pm, > wrote:
>>>>>> the directions for brown rice:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bring water to a rolling boil
>>>>>> in "uncovered" container.
>>>>>> I think I've seen these directions before
>>>>>> for frozen vegetables.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> uncovered? why?
>>>>>> it takes Longer to boil if uncovered
>>>>>>
>>>>>> marc
>>>>>
>>>>> Not enough to worry about it.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not worried, just curious
>>>> that there may be a reason,
>>>> but I can't think of one
>>>
>>> Some people also preach that you *must* keep the lid on when boiling
>>> pasta. Ho-hum.
>>
>> Who?
>
> Somebody who never cooked pasta.
>
> Paul
>
>
You're probably right. I recently cooked some pasta and found no need to
put a lid on the pot. In fact, a lid would have been more of a nuisance.

--

Krypsis

On 1/03/2012 1:35 PM, dsi1 wrote:
> On 2/29/2012 4:31 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 16:03:09 -1000, dsi1
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/29/2012 2:46 PM, marco wrote:
>>>> the directions for brown rice:
>>>>
>>>> Bring water to a rolling boil
>>>> in "uncovered" container.
>>>> I think I've seen these directions before
>>>> for frozen vegetables.
>>>>
>>>> uncovered? why?
>>>> it takes Longer to boil if uncovered
>>>>
>>>> marc
>>>
>>> My guess is that it's left uncovered so you can see when to turn the
>>> heat down. Personally, I'd just use a glass lid.
>>>
>>> Boiling water without a lid is wasteful energy-wise. Putting a lid on
>>> the pot cause the water to condense back into your food. This releases
>>> the latent heat of evaporation. My guess is that the heat returned to
>>> the system is significant. Why is that? Because it takes a lot of heat
>>> to change water to steam. You can either choose to use the steam to
>>> humidify and heat up your house or you can recycle that energy.
>>
>> Um, if you knew anything about cooking you'd know that often one cooks
>> uncovered intentionally to cause a reduction. And with an
>> uncovered/unpressurized pot you cannot produce steam, that's water
>> vapor evaporating... you obviously failed JHS science.
>
> Surely, you can't be serious... oh wait... you are. One does a reduction
> by evaporation? Amazing! This one's a keeper!

I wonder what that vapourish looking stuff is that escapes from my pot
when I'm boiling water? It can't be steam because I don't have a lid on
the pot and I should have been told in JHS science that I cannot produce
team in an uncovered pot. For me, JHS was a very very long time ago.

Riddle me this... If I boil water on a stove in an uncovered pot, why
will it eventually boil dry if, as we have been told by Brooklyn, no
steam is being produced? If no steam is being produced, we cannot be
having any loss of liquid, can we?

Wait, maybe Brooklyn is wrong? Could that be possible? Did he flunk JHS
science classes? Maybe some new discovery has been made that turns the
old theory that I learnt on its head in more recent times?

--

Krypsis

On 3/2/2012 2:18 AM, Krypsis wrote:
> On 1/03/2012 1:35 PM, dsi1 wrote:
>> On 2/29/2012 4:31 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>>> On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 16:03:09 -1000, dsi1
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/29/2012 2:46 PM, marco wrote:
>>>>> the directions for brown rice:
>>>>>
>>>>> Bring water to a rolling boil
>>>>> in "uncovered" container.
>>>>> I think I've seen these directions before
>>>>> for frozen vegetables.
>>>>>
>>>>> uncovered? why?
>>>>> it takes Longer to boil if uncovered
>>>>>
>>>>> marc
>>>>
>>>> My guess is that it's left uncovered so you can see when to turn the
>>>> heat down. Personally, I'd just use a glass lid.
>>>>
>>>> Boiling water without a lid is wasteful energy-wise. Putting a lid on
>>>> the pot cause the water to condense back into your food. This releases
>>>> the latent heat of evaporation. My guess is that the heat returned to
>>>> the system is significant. Why is that? Because it takes a lot of heat
>>>> to change water to steam. You can either choose to use the steam to
>>>> humidify and heat up your house or you can recycle that energy.
>>>
>>> Um, if you knew anything about cooking you'd know that often one cooks
>>> uncovered intentionally to cause a reduction. And with an
>>> uncovered/unpressurized pot you cannot produce steam, that's water
>>> vapor evaporating... you obviously failed JHS science.
>>
>> Surely, you can't be serious... oh wait... you are. One does a reduction
>> by evaporation? Amazing! This one's a keeper!
>
> I wonder what that vapourish looking stuff is that escapes from my pot
> when I'm boiling water? It can't be steam because I don't have a lid on
> the pot and I should have been told in JHS science that I cannot produce
> team in an uncovered pot. For me, JHS was a very very long time ago.
>
> Riddle me this... If I boil water on a stove in an uncovered pot, why
> will it eventually boil dry if, as we have been told by Brooklyn, no
> steam is being produced? If no steam is being produced, we cannot be
> having any loss of liquid, can we?
>
> Wait, maybe Brooklyn is wrong? Could that be possible? Did he flunk JHS
> science classes? Maybe some new discovery has been made that turns the
> old theory that I learnt on its head in more recent times?
>

It's a strange post alright. Even little kids and high school dropouts
know what happens when you heat water up. :-)

On 3/2/2012 11:55 AM, dsi1 wrote:
> On 3/2/2012 2:18 AM, Krypsis wrote:
>> On 1/03/2012 1:35 PM, dsi1 wrote:
>>> On 2/29/2012 4:31 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 16:03:09 -1000, dsi1
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2/29/2012 2:46 PM, marco wrote:
>>>>>> the directions for brown rice:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bring water to a rolling boil
>>>>>> in "uncovered" container.
>>>>>> I think I've seen these directions before
>>>>>> for frozen vegetables.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> uncovered? why?
>>>>>> it takes Longer to boil if uncovered
>>>>>>
>>>>>> marc
>>>>>
>>>>> My guess is that it's left uncovered so you can see when to turn the
>>>>> heat down. Personally, I'd just use a glass lid.
>>>>>
>>>>> Boiling water without a lid is wasteful energy-wise. Putting a lid on
>>>>> the pot cause the water to condense back into your food. This releases
>>>>> the latent heat of evaporation. My guess is that the heat returned to
>>>>> the system is significant. Why is that? Because it takes a lot of heat
>>>>> to change water to steam. You can either choose to use the steam to
>>>>> humidify and heat up your house or you can recycle that energy.
>>>>
>>>> Um, if you knew anything about cooking you'd know that often one cooks
>>>> uncovered intentionally to cause a reduction. And with an
>>>> uncovered/unpressurized pot you cannot produce steam, that's water
>>>> vapor evaporating... you obviously failed JHS science.
>>>
>>> Surely, you can't be serious... oh wait... you are. One does a reduction
>>> by evaporation? Amazing! This one's a keeper!
>>
>> I wonder what that vapourish looking stuff is that escapes from my pot
>> when I'm boiling water? It can't be steam because I don't have a lid on
>> the pot and I should have been told in JHS science that I cannot produce
>> team in an uncovered pot. For me, JHS was a very very long time ago.
>>
>> Riddle me this... If I boil water on a stove in an uncovered pot, why
>> will it eventually boil dry if, as we have been told by Brooklyn, no
>> steam is being produced? If no steam is being produced, we cannot be
>> having any loss of liquid, can we?
>>
>> Wait, maybe Brooklyn is wrong? Could that be possible? Did he flunk JHS
>> science classes? Maybe some new discovery has been made that turns the
>> old theory that I learnt on its head in more recent times?
>>
>
> It's a strange post alright. Even little kids and high school dropouts
> know what happens when you heat water up. :-)

Yes, steam is coming off boiling water whether a lid is on the pot or
not. I think a pot of water will come to a boil faster with the lid on
since not so much heat escapes but it doesn't seem to make a lot of
difference.
--
Jim Silverton

Extraneous "not" in Reply To.

On 3/2/2012 9:51 AM, James Silverton wrote:
> On 3/2/2012 11:55 AM, dsi1 wrote:
>> On 3/2/2012 2:18 AM, Krypsis wrote:
>>> On 1/03/2012 1:35 PM, dsi1 wrote:
>>>> On 2/29/2012 4:31 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 16:03:09 -1000, dsi1
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/29/2012 2:46 PM, marco wrote:
>>>>>>> the directions for brown rice:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bring water to a rolling boil
>>>>>>> in "uncovered" container.
>>>>>>> I think I've seen these directions before
>>>>>>> for frozen vegetables.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> uncovered? why?
>>>>>>> it takes Longer to boil if uncovered
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> marc
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My guess is that it's left uncovered so you can see when to turn the
>>>>>> heat down. Personally, I'd just use a glass lid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Boiling water without a lid is wasteful energy-wise. Putting a lid on
>>>>>> the pot cause the water to condense back into your food. This
>>>>>> releases
>>>>>> the latent heat of evaporation. My guess is that the heat returned to
>>>>>> the system is significant. Why is that? Because it takes a lot of
>>>>>> heat
>>>>>> to change water to steam. You can either choose to use the steam to
>>>>>> humidify and heat up your house or you can recycle that energy.
>>>>>
>>>>> Um, if you knew anything about cooking you'd know that often one cooks
>>>>> uncovered intentionally to cause a reduction. And with an
>>>>> uncovered/unpressurized pot you cannot produce steam, that's water
>>>>> vapor evaporating... you obviously failed JHS science.
>>>>
>>>> Surely, you can't be serious... oh wait... you are. One does a
>>>> reduction
>>>> by evaporation? Amazing! This one's a keeper!
>>>
>>> I wonder what that vapourish looking stuff is that escapes from my pot
>>> when I'm boiling water? It can't be steam because I don't have a lid on
>>> the pot and I should have been told in JHS science that I cannot produce
>>> team in an uncovered pot. For me, JHS was a very very long time ago.
>>>
>>> Riddle me this... If I boil water on a stove in an uncovered pot, why
>>> will it eventually boil dry if, as we have been told by Brooklyn, no
>>> steam is being produced? If no steam is being produced, we cannot be
>>> having any loss of liquid, can we?
>>>
>>> Wait, maybe Brooklyn is wrong? Could that be possible? Did he flunk JHS
>>> science classes? Maybe some new discovery has been made that turns the
>>> old theory that I learnt on its head in more recent times?
>>>
>>
>> It's a strange post alright. Even little kids and high school dropouts
>> know what happens when you heat water up. :-)
>
> Yes, steam is coming off boiling water whether a lid is on the pot or
> not. I think a pot of water will come to a boil faster with the lid on
> since not so much heat escapes but it doesn't seem to make a lot of
> difference.

I like to keep a lid on things if I can because it makes me feel bad to
waste energy.

On Fri, 02 Mar 2012 14:51:46 -0500, James Silverton
> wrote:

>On 3/2/2012 11:55 AM, dsi1 wrote:
>> On 3/2/2012 2:18 AM, Krypsis wrote:
>>> On 1/03/2012 1:35 PM, dsi1 wrote:
>>>> On 2/29/2012 4:31 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 16:03:09 -1000, dsi1
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/29/2012 2:46 PM, marco wrote:
>>>>>>> the directions for brown rice:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bring water to a rolling boil
>>>>>>> in "uncovered" container.
>>>>>>> I think I've seen these directions before
>>>>>>> for frozen vegetables.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> uncovered? why?
>>>>>>> it takes Longer to boil if uncovered
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> marc
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My guess is that it's left uncovered so you can see when to turn the
>>>>>> heat down. Personally, I'd just use a glass lid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Boiling water without a lid is wasteful energy-wise. Putting a lid on
>>>>>> the pot cause the water to condense back into your food. This releases
>>>>>> the latent heat of evaporation. My guess is that the heat returned to
>>>>>> the system is significant. Why is that? Because it takes a lot of heat
>>>>>> to change water to steam. You can either choose to use the steam to
>>>>>> humidify and heat up your house or you can recycle that energy.
>>>>>
>>>>> Um, if you knew anything about cooking you'd know that often one cooks
>>>>> uncovered intentionally to cause a reduction. And with an
>>>>> uncovered/unpressurized pot you cannot produce steam, that's water
>>>>> vapor evaporating... you obviously failed JHS science.
>>>>
>>>> Surely, you can't be serious... oh wait... you are. One does a reduction
>>>> by evaporation? Amazing! This one's a keeper!
>>>
>>> I wonder what that vapourish looking stuff is that escapes from my pot
>>> when I'm boiling water? It can't be steam because I don't have a lid on
>>> the pot and I should have been told in JHS science that I cannot produce
>>> team in an uncovered pot. For me, JHS was a very very long time ago.
>>>
>>> Riddle me this... If I boil water on a stove in an uncovered pot, why
>>> will it eventually boil dry if, as we have been told by Brooklyn, no
>>> steam is being produced? If no steam is being produced, we cannot be
>>> having any loss of liquid, can we?
>>>
>>> Wait, maybe Brooklyn is wrong? Could that be possible? Did he flunk JHS
>>> science classes? Maybe some new discovery has been made that turns the
>>> old theory that I learnt on its head in more recent times?
>>>
>>
>> It's a strange post alright. Even little kids and high school dropouts
>> know what happens when you heat water up. :-)
>
>Yes, steam is coming off boiling water whether a lid is on the pot or
>not.

I wish people would learn the difference between steam and water
vapor.... you will hardly ever encounter steam, except in a
pressurized vessel. What you see coming off boiling water is water
vapor... steam is also not visible.

>I think a pot of water will come to a boil faster with the lid on
>since not so much heat escapes but it doesn't seem to make a lot of
>difference.

A covered pot does indeed come to a boil faster. But hardly any
cooking is done by boiling in a covered pot, unless one wants a mess
from boil overs. Covered pots entail barely a simmer.

On 02/03/2012 2:51 PM, James Silverton wrote:

>> It's a strange post alright. Even little kids and high school dropouts
>> know what happens when you heat water up. :-)
>
> Yes, steam is coming off boiling water whether a lid is on the pot or
> not. I think a pot of water will come to a boil faster with the lid on
> since not so much heat escapes but it doesn't seem to make a lot of
> difference.


Maybe it depends on how much water you are heating up. From my
experience, it doesn't seem to make much difference if you are just
heating up a small amount but it does seem to heat up faster if heating
larger amounts. The lid retains most of the heat. The heat is coming
from the bottom and when it is released at the top it isn't going to
have as much effect on the water below it, though it does raise the
ambient temperature.

One thing to keep in mind is that when you are trying to simmer
something, you can get a nice simmer going with the lid off. When you
put the lid on that simmer increases to a boil without adjusting the burner.

On 02/03/2012 2:53 PM, dsi1 wrote:
what happens when you heat water up. :-)
>>
>> Yes, steam is coming off boiling water whether a lid is on the pot or
>> not. I think a pot of water will come to a boil faster with the lid on
>> since not so much heat escapes but it doesn't seem to make a lot of
>> difference.
>
> I like to keep a lid on things if I can because it makes me feel bad to
> waste energy.
>
>

In the winter I pay for fuel to heat my house and winter air is drier
than summer air. I don't have a big problem with letting that steam into
the air.

On 02/03/2012 3:59 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:

>
> I wish people would learn the difference between steam and water
> vapor.... you will hardly ever encounter steam, except in a
> pressurized vessel. What you see coming off boiling water is water
> vapor... steam is also not visible.


Steam is water vapour. According to Wikipedia, steam is the technical
term for water that is formed when water boils.

Krypsis wrote:
>
> Riddle me this... If I boil water on a stove in an uncovered pot, why
> will it eventually boil dry if, as we have been told by Brooklyn, no
> steam is being produced? If no steam is being produced, we cannot be
> having any loss of liquid, can we?
>
> Wait, maybe Brooklyn is wrong? Could that be possible? Did he flunk JHS
> science classes? Maybe some new discovery has been made that turns the
> old theory that I learnt on its head in more recent times?

And what's up with a "steamy bathroom" after taking a long shower?

Gary

dsi1 wrote:
>
> I like to keep a lid on things if I can because it makes me feel bad to
> waste energy.

It makes you feel bad? ;-D

Gary

On 3/2/2012 12:09 PM, Gary wrote:
> dsi1 wrote:
>>
>> I like to keep a lid on things if I can because it makes me feel bad to
>> waste energy.
>
> It makes you feel bad? ;-D
>
> Gary

This pretty much means that I'm an old fart.

On Fri, 02 Mar 2012 17:06:01 -0500, Gary > wrote:

>Krypsis wrote:
>>
>> Riddle me this... If I boil water on a stove in an uncovered pot, why
>> will it eventually boil dry if, as we have been told by Brooklyn, no
>> steam is being produced? If no steam is being produced, we cannot be
>> having any loss of liquid, can we?
>>
>> Wait, maybe Brooklyn is wrong? Could that be possible? Did he flunk JHS
>> science classes? Maybe some new discovery has been made that turns the
>> old theory that I learnt on its head in more recent times?
>
>And what's up with a "steamy bathroom" after taking a long shower?

That would be fog and condensate... were steam exiting your shower
head you'd be dead. It's fine to take poetic license by using "steam"
as a euphemisn as in steamy sex but not when trying to be precise with
heating water.

dsi1 wrote:
>
> On 3/2/2012 12:09 PM, Gary wrote:
> > dsi1 wrote:
> >>
> >> I like to keep a lid on things if I can because it makes me feel bad to
> >> waste energy.
> >
> > It makes you feel bad? ;-D
> >
> > Gary
>
> This pretty much means that I'm an old fart.

Yeah, darnit..... ME TOO!

On 3/03/2012 9:42 AM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Mar 2012 17:06:01 -0500, > wrote:
>
>> Krypsis wrote:
>>>
>>> Riddle me this... If I boil water on a stove in an uncovered pot, why
>>> will it eventually boil dry if, as we have been told by Brooklyn, no
>>> steam is being produced? If no steam is being produced, we cannot be
>>> having any loss of liquid, can we?
>>>
>>> Wait, maybe Brooklyn is wrong? Could that be possible? Did he flunk JHS
>>> science classes? Maybe some new discovery has been made that turns the
>>> old theory that I learnt on its head in more recent times?
>>
>> And what's up with a "steamy bathroom" after taking a long shower?
>
> That would be fog and condensate... were steam exiting your shower
> head you'd be dead. It's fine to take poetic license by using "steam"
> as a euphemisn as in steamy sex but not when trying to be precise with
> heating water.

Let's try this again...

What is condensate if not steam that has been condensed? If you have
condensate on the walls of your bathroom after having a shower, how did
the condensate get there? Was it a "miracle"?

Now, let's look at fog. Fog is technically water vapour which has
condensed. Been down to the river lately. Go down there on a cool
morning sometime just as the sun is rising. You will see "fog" rising
from the water. This fog is just condensate. It was given off from the
surface of the water as steam or water vapour if you prefer. You cannot
actually see steam as it is, like water, colourless. What you see is the
steam as it recondenses back to water in the form of fine water droplets.

Steam will not exit the shower head but it will be given off from the
water surface as the water exits from the shower head. This is a process
known only to JHS students (obviously) as "evaporation".

Evaporation seem to be a miraculous process

Now, since you have a fixation on steamy sex, explain to me the origins
of the term. Better yet, it might be best if I explain it to you since
you seem to think it's a "euphemisn" (sic). I suspect you might have
meant euphemism! You seem to have a poor memory of your last sexual
experience so I suspect it may have been a long long time ago or
possibly you may never have had one. At any rate, "steamy sex" can be a
quite literal term, you just need to get into the deed with a little
gusto and, no, masturbation doesn't count!

When we humans engage in physical activity (sexual activity included) we
generate excesses of heat. Since our body only operates properly at a
very narrow range of temperatures, we need to get rid of this excess as
soon as possible. How do we do this? It's simple, we sweat. Sweating is
the production of a fluid consisting primarily of water as well as
various dissolved solids (chiefly chlorides), that is excreted by the
sweat glands in the skin. In humans, sweating is primarily a means of
thermoregulation, although it has been proposed that components of male
sweat can act as pheromonal cues. (There's that sweaty sex reference
again). Anyway, evaporation of sweat from the skin surface has a cooling
effect due to the latent heat of evaporation of water. Hence, in hot
weather, or when the individual's muscles heat up due to exertion, more
sweat is produced. Sweating is increased by nervousness and nausea and
decreased by cold.

Even though my wife thinks I'm pretty "hot", it's quite obvious to me
that my sweat never reaches the boiling point of water. Therefore, it
seems that evaporation of sweat from my body (and yours if you ever get
lucky!) occurs at much lower temperatures than 100C (212F) Can I see my
sweat evaporating? Not unless it occurs in vast quantities (at 74, I'm
not quite that hot any more!) or there is a cool surface such as a
mirror for the water vapour from my sweat to condense upon. Just to
clarify, we don't have ceiling mirrors in the bedroom.

Animals with few sweat glands, such as dogs, accomplish similar
temperature regulation results by panting, which evaporates water from
the moist lining of the oral cavity and pharynx. So dogs, it would seem,
do not engage in sweaty sex unless of course you consider panting to be
sweaty sex. Poor dogs!! Come to think of it, many of my friends from my
younger days used to pant at the sight of a hot girl down at the beach
so maybe dogs can have a variant of sweaty sex.

Anyway, you stick with your "poetry" and your "poetic license" and I'll
stick with the steamy sex. I sincerely hope you get lucky someday and
understand that steamy sex is a literal term. Lack of experience is a
real bitch!


--

Krypsis

On 3/03/2012 9:51 AM, Gary wrote:
> dsi1 wrote:
>>
>> On 3/2/2012 12:09 PM, Gary wrote:
>>> dsi1 wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I like to keep a lid on things if I can because it makes me feel bad to
>>>> waste energy.
>>>
>>> It makes you feel bad? ;-D
>>>
>>> Gary
>>
>> This pretty much means that I'm an old fart.
>
> Yeah, darnit..... ME TOO!

Me three!

--

Krypsis

On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 19:27:48 +1100, Krypsis >
wrote:



>
>Let's try this again...
>
>What is condensate if not steam that has been condensed? If you have
>condensate on the walls of your bathroom after having a shower, how did
>the condensate get there? Was it a "miracle"?


It sure was not from steam. To make steam, water has to be heated to
a minimum of 212F at sea level. Steam is invisible, a vapor. When we
"see" steam, it is really vapor mixed with the condensate.
>
>Now, let's look at fog. Fog is technically water vapour which has
>condensed. Been down to the river lately. Go down there on a cool
>morning sometime just as the sun is rising. You will see "fog" rising
>from the water. This fog is just condensate. It was given off from the
>surface of the water as steam or water vapour if you prefer.

Half right. No steam in the river. Have you ever seen a river boil?


Water vapor is formed by evaporation or boiling. Water vapor though,
is not steam. Water vapor can condense on the walls when you shower,
it can condense over a river, make clouds in the sky.

Sublimation can also form water vapor. Much of the snow in Alaska is
sublimated rather than melted.

On 3/03/2012 11:42 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 19:27:48 +1100, >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>> Let's try this again...
>>
>> What is condensate if not steam that has been condensed? If you have
>> condensate on the walls of your bathroom after having a shower, how did
>> the condensate get there? Was it a "miracle"?
>
>
> It sure was not from steam. To make steam, water has to be heated to
> a minimum of 212F at sea level. Steam is invisible, a vapor. When we
> "see" steam, it is really vapor mixed with the condensate.

So pray tell how evaporative cooling works? They sure as hell don't boil
the water in those systems yet they cool through latent heat of
evaporation. Something's evaporating in them and it's my guess it is the
water.
>>
>> Now, let's look at fog. Fog is technically water vapour which has
>> condensed. Been down to the river lately. Go down there on a cool
>> morning sometime just as the sun is rising. You will see "fog" rising
>>from the water. This fog is just condensate. It was given off from the
>> surface of the water as steam or water vapour if you prefer.
>
> Half right. No steam in the river. Have you ever seen a river boil?
>
Latent heat of evaporation again.
>
> Water vapor is formed by evaporation or boiling. Water vapor though,
> is not steam. Water vapor can condense on the walls when you shower,
> it can condense over a river, make clouds in the sky.
>
> Sublimation can also form water vapor. Much of the snow in Alaska is
> sublimated rather than melted.

Have you ever poured a little methylated spirits onto the skin of your
hand? Noticed that your hand suddenly begins to feel cold? Do you know
why that is?

The boiling point of methylated spirits (denatured alcohol) is very
close to that ethanol which is 78 °C (172 °F). It has a lower boiling
point than water but not by all that much in the general scheme of
things. The methylated spirits you put on your hind will soon disappear.
If you prevent runoff, it will still disappear. Where does it go? Easy,
it evaporates. It changes state and will turn into a gas. Has it reached
boiling point in order to do this? No! At least I cannot see it boiling.
The body temperature of a healthy human being is 37.5C (99.5F). So it
would seem that the heat of the human body into which this methylated
spririts is in contact is insufficient to bring it to the boil. So why
does the methylated spirits evaporate at only 37.5C? The methylated
spirits does not need to be raised to boiling point in order to
evaporate, it just needs the application of considerable amounts of heat
energy and it gets it from your body heat. That's why your hand feels
cold, its heat is being removed from the area of contact more quickly
than your blood flow can replace it.
QED, it is the amount of heat energy applied to the methylated spirits
that determines the rate of evaporation, not the absolute temperature of
the methylated spirits itself.
The same principle applies to water. Methylated spirits demonstrates the
principle better than water as you can definitely feel the heat being
removed from your skin.

Have a look at this Wikipedia entry;

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

If you're feeling brave, look at this one;

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


--

Krypsis

On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 19:27:48 +1100, Krypsis >
wrote:

>On 3/03/2012 9:42 AM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>> On Fri, 02 Mar 2012 17:06:01 -0500, > wrote:
>>
>>> Krypsis wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Riddle me this... If I boil water on a stove in an uncovered pot, why
>>>> will it eventually boil dry if, as we have been told by Brooklyn, no
>>>> steam is being produced? If no steam is being produced, we cannot be
>>>> having any loss of liquid, can we?
>>>>
>>>> Wait, maybe Brooklyn is wrong? Could that be possible? Did he flunk JHS
>>>> science classes? Maybe some new discovery has been made that turns the
>>>> old theory that I learnt on its head in more recent times?
>>>
>>> And what's up with a "steamy bathroom" after taking a long shower?
>>
>> That would be fog and condensate... were steam exiting your shower
>> head you'd be dead. It's fine to take poetic license by using "steam"
>> as a euphemisn as in steamy sex but not when trying to be precise with
>> heating water.
>
>Let's try this again...
>
>What is condensate if not steam that has been condensed?


Terlit condensate is from hot tap water vapor, and yer hot shit/****
(which you're full of), there is no steam in terlits. If your hot
water heater were to build up a head of steam your house would blow
up. Domestic hot water heaters don't even come close to boiling
water. Just because pinheads call visible water vapor steam doesn't
make it so, only proves they are uneducated.

Learn he
http://www.spiraxsarco.com/resources...t-is-steam.asp

On 4/03/2012 12:40 AM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 19:27:48 +1100, >
> wrote:
>
>> On 3/03/2012 9:42 AM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>>> On Fri, 02 Mar 2012 17:06:01 -0500, > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Krypsis wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Riddle me this... If I boil water on a stove in an uncovered pot, why
>>>>> will it eventually boil dry if, as we have been told by Brooklyn, no
>>>>> steam is being produced? If no steam is being produced, we cannot be
>>>>> having any loss of liquid, can we?
>>>>>
>>>>> Wait, maybe Brooklyn is wrong? Could that be possible? Did he flunk JHS
>>>>> science classes? Maybe some new discovery has been made that turns the
>>>>> old theory that I learnt on its head in more recent times?
>>>>
>>>> And what's up with a "steamy bathroom" after taking a long shower?
>>>
>>> That would be fog and condensate... were steam exiting your shower
>>> head you'd be dead. It's fine to take poetic license by using "steam"
>>> as a euphemisn as in steamy sex but not when trying to be precise with
>>> heating water.
>>
>> Let's try this again...
>>
>> What is condensate if not steam that has been condensed?
>

Think about how water evaporates from a puddle. Do you see clouds of
fog? No. The puddle of water is not at 100C however water molecules are
gaining enough energy to escape from the liquid state to the gaseous
state. They have a lot less energy than the gas evolved at 100C but
they are still gas. Ergo, rather than use the term steam, I should have
used the phrase, "H2O in its gaseous state".


--

Krypsis

On Sun, 04 Mar 2012 00:40:22 +1100, Krypsis >
wrote:

>On 3/03/2012 11:42 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 19:27:48 +1100, >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Let's try this again...
>>>
>>> What is condensate if not steam that has been condensed? If you have
>>> condensate on the walls of your bathroom after having a shower, how did
>>> the condensate get there? Was it a "miracle"?
>>
>>
>> It sure was not from steam. To make steam, water has to be heated to
>> a minimum of 212F at sea level. Steam is invisible, a vapor. When we
>> "see" steam, it is really vapor mixed with the condensate.
>
>So pray tell how evaporative cooling works? They sure as hell don't boil
>the water in those systems yet they cool through latent heat of
>evaporation. Something's evaporating in them and it's my guess it is the
>water.

You can have evaporate cooling with no steam and no boiling.

>>>
>>> Now, let's look at fog. Fog is technically water vapour which has
>>> condensed. Been down to the river lately. Go down there on a cool
>>> morning sometime just as the sun is rising. You will see "fog" rising
>>>from the water. This fog is just condensate. It was given off from the
>>> surface of the water as steam or water vapour if you prefer.
>>
>> Half right. No steam in the river. Have you ever seen a river boil?
>>
>Latent heat of evaporation again.

But that does not mean it was steam. Water evaporates just sitting in
a bucket, or pour on the sidewalk, etc. No steam involved.



>
>Have you ever poured a little methylated spirits onto the skin of your
>hand? Noticed that your hand suddenly begins to feel cold? Do you know
>why that is?

Yes, and it sure as hell is not steam.


>
>The boiling point of methylated spirits (denatured alcohol) is very
>close to that ethanol which is 78 °C (172 °F). It has a lower boiling
>point than water but not by all that much in the general scheme of
>things. The methylated spirits you put on your hind will soon disappear.
>If you prevent runoff, it will still disappear. Where does it go? Easy,
>it evaporates. It changes state and will turn into a gas. Has it reached
>boiling point in order to do this? No!

Exactly, but it is not steam.



>Have a look at this Wikipedia entry;
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latent_heat
>
>If you're feeling brave, look at this one;
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enthalpy_of_vaporization

If you are brave, look up steam. There is a difference between
vaporization and steam. You seem to think they are the same, but they
are not.

On Sun, 04 Mar 2012 01:08:35 +1100, Krypsis >
wrote:



>Think about how water evaporates from a puddle. Do you see clouds of
>fog? No. The puddle of water is not at 100C however water molecules are
>gaining enough energy to escape from the liquid state to the gaseous
>state. They have a lot less energy than the gas evolved at 100C but
>they are still gas. Ergo, rather than use the term steam, I should have
>used the phrase, "H2O in its gaseous state".

Hey, now you are catching on. Calling it steam is spreading
misinformation.

On Sun, 04 Mar 2012 01:08:35 +1100, Krypsis >
wrote:

>On 4/03/2012 12:40 AM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>> On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 19:27:48 +1100, >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/03/2012 9:42 AM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 02 Mar 2012 17:06:01 -0500, > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Krypsis wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Riddle me this... If I boil water on a stove in an uncovered pot, why
>>>>>> will it eventually boil dry if, as we have been told by Brooklyn, no
>>>>>> steam is being produced? If no steam is being produced, we cannot be
>>>>>> having any loss of liquid, can we?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wait, maybe Brooklyn is wrong? Could that be possible? Did he flunk JHS
>>>>>> science classes? Maybe some new discovery has been made that turns the
>>>>>> old theory that I learnt on its head in more recent times?
>>>>>
>>>>> And what's up with a "steamy bathroom" after taking a long shower?
>>>>
>>>> That would be fog and condensate... were steam exiting your shower
>>>> head you'd be dead. It's fine to take poetic license by using "steam"
>>>> as a euphemisn as in steamy sex but not when trying to be precise with
>>>> heating water.
>>>
>>> Let's try this again...
>>>
>>> What is condensate if not steam that has been condensed?
>>
>
>Think about how water evaporates from a puddle. Do you see clouds of
>fog? No. The puddle of water is not at 100C however water molecules are
>gaining enough energy to escape from the liquid state to the gaseous
>state. They have a lot less energy than the gas evolved at 100C but
>they are still gas. Ergo, rather than use the term steam, I should have
>used the phrase, "H2O in its gaseous state".

Visable water vapor is NOT water in its gaseous state... visable water
vapor is water that has precipitated out of it's gaseous state. I
strongly suggest you educate yourself by repeating JHS science, if you
ever got as far as JHS, which I seriously doubt. I'm now done with
you.