Everything I've read in these groups says that to stir fry properly
requires a wok over blast furnace like heat. I have a round bottom
traditional cast iron wok which I use with a wok ring (wider side up)
on an electric stovetop. If I turn the heat to high, the wok starts
smoking after a few minutes, and when I add some peanut oil, the oil
smokes. I guess that's pretty hot.

Some recipes suggest turning the heat down if the oil begins to smoke.
Is that the opinion of the wokkers on the group? Or should we keep the
blast furnace going which surely leads to smoking oil?
The food tastes pretty good either way. Opinions?

Richard

I've cooked in a wok since 1972, and love it. I've heard this before,
that you need blast furnace like heat. It probably works best with
blast furnace like heat, but I don't recall reading about many ancient
Chinese villages having blast furnaces handy. Of course, I'm not a
early Asian historian, so I'll defer to some experts opinion on this.
OTH, I gave up trying to use my wok on an electric stove, when I had
one, years ago, and went to the Asian market and bought one of those
$20 portable propane stoves and a few little bottles of propane. Worked
fine. One of my criteria when I moved was to have a gas range. Makes
life much easier. The biggest problem with an electric heat source is
that you can't turn it up or down fast enough for wok cooking. Doubt
that I'll try it again, just too frustrating. As for the oil smoking, I
avoid it completely. I don't cook anything that hot. I use peanut oil,
which has a high smoking point. For the high heat stuff, I heat it to
just below smoking.
Or you can call up a steel company, and order yourself a blast furnace.

In article .com>,
wrote:

> Everything I've read in these groups says that to stir fry properly
> requires a wok over blast furnace like heat. I have a round bottom
> traditional cast iron wok which I use with a wok ring (wider side up)
> on an electric stovetop. If I turn the heat to high, the wok starts
> smoking after a few minutes, and when I add some peanut oil, the oil
> smokes. I guess that's pretty hot.
>
> Some recipes suggest turning the heat down if the oil begins to smoke.
> Is that the opinion of the wokkers on the group? Or should we keep the
> blast furnace going which surely leads to smoking oil?
> The food tastes pretty good either way. Opinions?

My father, who grew up in China and taught me to cook Chinese food, said
that the oil beginning to smoke is the sign that it's time to toss in
the food to be cooked. The food will bring the temperature of the oil
back down again. He taught: get the kuo (wok) smoking hot, then add
the peanut oil and get that smoking hot, then add the food to be cooked.

Priscilla

--
"It is very, very dangerous to treat any human, lowest
of the low even, with contempt and arrogant whatever.
The Lord takes this kind of treatment very, very personal."
- QBaal in newsgroup alt.religion.christian.episcopal

On 23 Jan 2005 10:00:10 -0800, "salgud"
> wrote:

>It probably works best with
>blast furnace like heat, but I don't recall reading about many ancient
>Chinese villages having blast furnaces handy. Of course, I'm not a
>early Asian historian, so I'll defer to some experts opinion on this.

Howdy,

This is an interesting matter...

Why would we assume that in ancient Chinese villages the
inhabitants were enjoying delicious meals?

I believe it far more likely that they were lucky to avoid
starvation just as were ancient peoples over much of the
planet.

This is similar to the idea that I often see when people try
to learn about making various forms of naturally leavened
bread. Often they ask "Did the original "Sourdoughs" go
through this to make their wonderful bread?" Again, assuming
that people ate wonderful food in earlier times. Nonsense.
Most starved.

All the best,

--
Kenneth

If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."

wrote:
<snip>
> Some recipes suggest turning the heat down if the oil begins to smoke.
> Is that the opinion of the wokkers on the group? Or should we keep the
> blast furnace going which surely leads to smoking oil?
> The food tastes pretty good either way. Opinions?

I get my wok hothothot, add oil, and soon a pinch of salt. If a puff of
white smoke comes off I add whatever I'm flavouring the oil with (dried
chilis, chopped garlic, minced ginger, soaked and drained preserved
black beans, minced preserved cabbage, etc), and then, after a grace
period to flavour the oil, start adding my veggies. I never turn down,
just chow faster and/or add the next veggie, e.g. if I'm makeing onions
and broc and I've added the onions first to sear, if it gets near
smoking, I add the broc. If the dish isn't done, I sprinkle some water
or broth, or, if I haven't gotten to that point yet, some soysauce or a
shot of zhoasing wine or rice vinegar, if it is going to be a vinegar
dish.
I say, have everything ready and next to you, crank of the heat, stick
to your stove (no wandering until you are really expert) and !!full
steam ahead!!.
p.s.
except for chow fun, my home wokking is just as good as a restaurant,
and better than the greazy, saltly glop the chinese restaurants crank
out around here. I don't have the heat for chow fun.
p.p.s. I learned my technique from Eileen Lo's books.
blacksalt

Kenneth wrote:

> This is similar to the idea that I often see when people try
> to learn about making various forms of naturally leavened
> bread. Often they ask "Did the original "Sourdoughs" go
> through this to make their wonderful bread?" Again, assuming
> that people ate wonderful food in earlier times. Nonsense.
> Most starved.

But some didn't, and those, at least for me personally, are the people
I'm emulating.
blacksalt
experiamenting today with a peanut paste-enriched hot and sweet sauce.

In article . com>,
"salgud" > wrote:

> I've cooked in a wok since 1972, and love it. I've heard this before,
> that you need blast furnace like heat. It probably works best with
> blast furnace like heat, but I don't recall reading about many ancient
> Chinese villages having blast furnaces handy

But they likely had coal fired stoves, which can get far hotter than a
typical home kitchen gas stove.

--
to respond (OT only), change "spamless.invalid" to "optonline.net"

<http://www.thecoffeefaq.com/>

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Everything I've read in these groups says that to stir fry properly
> requires a wok over blast furnace like heat. I have a round bottom
> traditional cast iron wok which I use with a wok ring (wider side up)
> on an electric stovetop. If I turn the heat to high, the wok starts
> smoking after a few minutes, and when I add some peanut oil, the oil
> smokes. I guess that's pretty hot.
>
> Some recipes suggest turning the heat down if the oil begins to smoke.
> Is that the opinion of the wokkers on the group? Or should we keep the
> blast furnace going which surely leads to smoking oil?
> The food tastes pretty good either way. Opinions?
>
> Richard
>

It is my understanding that you heat the wok first, then heat the oil for a
few seconds, then add the food slowly, removing same when cooked and then
adding it all together when ready to serve.

I do not think you can get enough heat with a round bottom wok on a typical
electric stove. Better to get a flat-bottomed one.

In article >,
Scott > wrote:

> In article . com>,
> "salgud" > wrote:
>
> > I've cooked in a wok since 1972, and love it. I've heard this before,
> > that you need blast furnace like heat. It probably works best with
> > blast furnace like heat, but I don't recall reading about many ancient
> > Chinese villages having blast furnaces handy
>
> But they likely had coal fired stoves, which can get far hotter than a
> typical home kitchen gas stove.

Or other natural substances. To get good heat under the wok up in VT,
my father took one of the lids off the wood cooking stove and put the
wok right down in the hole, over the fire. He had a bushel basket of
pine cones he collected just for Chinese cooking. He'd toss a handful
or two of those in under the wok, and he'd be good to go.

Priscilla

--
"It is very, very dangerous to treat any human, lowest
of the low even, with contempt and arrogant whatever.
The Lord takes this kind of treatment very, very personal."
- QBaal in newsgroup alt.religion.christian.episcopal

"Kenneth" > wrote in message
...
> On 23 Jan 2005 10:00:10 -0800, "salgud"
> > wrote:
>
>>It probably works best with
>>blast furnace like heat, but I don't recall reading about many ancient
>>Chinese villages having blast furnaces handy. Of course, I'm not a
>>early Asian historian, so I'll defer to some experts opinion on this.
>
> Howdy,
>
> This is an interesting matter...
>
> Why would we assume that in ancient Chinese villages the
> inhabitants were enjoying delicious meals?
>
> I believe it far more likely that they were lucky to avoid
> starvation just as were ancient peoples over much of the
> planet.
>
> This is similar to the idea that I often see when people try
> to learn about making various forms of naturally leavened
> bread. Often they ask "Did the original "Sourdoughs" go
> through this to make their wonderful bread?" Again, assuming
> that people ate wonderful food in earlier times. Nonsense.
> Most starved.
>
> All the best,
>
> --
> Kenneth
>
> If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."



Not at all. The 'ancient peoples'/Chinese villages used the wok as a 'one
pot fits all'. It didn't require a blast furnace, but it did require that
the veggies-that many of them grew themselves-be very dry when they went
into the wok.
Meat was at a premium and was used sparingly. It was also highly
spiced-refridgeration not available.

Essentially, they cooked what was available, in small batches, usually with
lots of rice.

On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 11:12:28 -0800, kalanamak
> wrote:

>Kenneth wrote:
>
>> This is similar to the idea that I often see when people try
>> to learn about making various forms of naturally leavened
>> bread. Often they ask "Did the original "Sourdoughs" go
>> through this to make their wonderful bread?" Again, assuming
>> that people ate wonderful food in earlier times. Nonsense.
>> Most starved.
>
>But some didn't, and those, at least for me personally, are the people
>I'm emulating.
>blacksalt
>experiamenting today with a peanut paste-enriched hot and sweet sauce.

Hello again,

When you say that "some didn't" you may be absolutely
correct, I would not know.

Do you?

That is, do you have any real reason to believe than any of
these ancient people were eating so well that you would want
to emulate their diet?

Thanks,


--
Kenneth

If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."

In article >, says...
>
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > Everything I've read in these groups says that to stir fry properly
> > requires a wok over blast furnace like heat. I have a round bottom
> > traditional cast iron wok which I use with a wok ring (wider side up)
> > on an electric stovetop. If I turn the heat to high, the wok starts
> > smoking after a few minutes, and when I add some peanut oil, the oil
> > smokes. I guess that's pretty hot.
> >
> > Some recipes suggest turning the heat down if the oil begins to smoke.
> > Is that the opinion of the wokkers on the group? Or should we keep the
> > blast furnace going which surely leads to smoking oil?
> > The food tastes pretty good either way. Opinions?
> >
> > Richard
> >
>
> It is my understanding that you heat the wok first, then heat the oil for a
> few seconds, then add the food slowly, removing same when cooked and then
> adding it all together when ready to serve.
>
> I do not think you can get enough heat with a round bottom wok on a typical
> electric stove. Better to get a flat-bottomed one.

I used a 12" non-stick skillet on my electric stove. The key was cooking
the meat first, then veggies, etc. Worked reasonably well.

Now I've got what I consider to be a lackluster gas stove. That baby
BLASTS some serious heat.

wrote:
>
> Everything I've read in these groups says that to stir fry properly
> requires a wok over blast furnace like heat. I have a round bottom
> traditional cast iron wok which I use with a wok ring (wider side up)
> on an electric stovetop. If I turn the heat to high, the wok starts
> smoking after a few minutes, and when I add some peanut oil, the oil
> smokes. I guess that's pretty hot.
>
> Some recipes suggest turning the heat down if the oil begins to smoke.
> Is that the opinion of the wokkers on the group? Or should we keep the
> blast furnace going which surely leads to smoking oil?
> The food tastes pretty good either way. Opinions?
>
> Richard

My Chinese friends always taught me to heat the wok until the metal just
starts to change colour. Then the oil is sploshed in (and it will
smoke). The thin layer of oil essentially heats up instantly. The first
batch of food goes in immediately after the oil; the oil will cool of
course.
Have watched Chinese restaurant cooks and they don't seem to turn down
the heat under the wok unless simmering something or finished cooking.

Priscilla Ballou wrote:
>
> In article >,
> Scott > wrote:
>
> > In article . com>,
> > "salgud" > wrote:
> >
> > > I've cooked in a wok since 1972, and love it. I've heard this before,
> > > that you need blast furnace like heat. It probably works best with
> > > blast furnace like heat, but I don't recall reading about many ancient
> > > Chinese villages having blast furnaces handy
> >
> > But they likely had coal fired stoves, which can get far hotter than a
> > typical home kitchen gas stove.
>
> Or other natural substances. To get good heat under the wok up in VT,
> my father took one of the lids off the wood cooking stove and put the
> wok right down in the hole, over the fire. He had a bushel basket of
> pine cones he collected just for Chinese cooking. He'd toss a handful
> or two of those in under the wok, and he'd be good to go.
>
> Priscilla
>

That's very much like a traditional cooking arrangement; the wok sits
below the surface of the cooker/stove. Same in a restaurant. The wok
doesn't sit above the surface.

Priscilla Ballou wrote:
> Or other natural substances. To get good heat under the
> wok up in VT, my father took one of the lids off the wood
> cooking stove and put the wok right down in the hole,
> over the fire. He had a bushel basket of pine cones he
> collected just for Chinese cooking. He'd toss a handful
> or two of those in under the wok, and he'd be good to go.
>
> Priscilla

I've started using my lump charcoal heated Kamado grill with my wok. I
haven't quite got the hang of the heat control yet, but it's coming along.

BOB

Kenneth wrote:

>
> When you say that "some didn't" you may be absolutely
> correct, I would not know.
>
> Do you?
>
> That is, do you have any real reason to believe than any of
> these ancient people were eating so well that you would want
> to emulate their diet?

I'm not sure how ancient people got in on this. From my newsfeed, your
point came in out of the blue. Yes, some people survived, or we would
not be here. I really don't know what you mean by ancient. And I'm not
emulating anyone's diet, really, but I do make alot of things from
scratch, and have spent a much greater than average amount of time
fiddling with starters and breads.
I'm fond of thinking of accident and necessity enabled people to live
better. I recall ding very ill and my ex brought me some boiled milk. I
took one sip, put it down on the radiator, and fell asleep. Two days
later, I recovered enough to look in the cup. There was a whey and very
best fresh cheese I've ever eaten (yes, I ate it) in the cup. Was it the
boiling? the constant heat? my spit?
If I lived off a nice trust fund, I'd have reworked the experiament, but
as it is, I don't feel I have the time. Wish I did.

As I said in my original post, the wok gets hot enough to make the wok
smoke and then the oil smokes. The food sizzles as it cooks. My concern
was the the wok was getting too hot.

Richard

On Mon 24 Jan 2005 02:57:19a, wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> As I said in my original post, the wok gets hot enough to make the wok
> smoke and then the oil smokes. The food sizzles as it cooks. My concern
> was the the wok was getting too hot.
>
> Richard

Don't know about your wok, Richard, but you should see the smoke rising from
the woks in Chinese restaurant kitchens.

Wayne

wrote:
>
> As I said in my original post, the wok gets hot enough to make the wok
> smoke and then the oil smokes. The food sizzles as it cooks. My concern
> was the the wok was getting too hot.
>
> Richard

No it isn't.

Good to hear from someone who knows. Pine cones! Bet they don't
generate "blast furnace" heat!
As for, " Nonsense.
Most starved" Then how did we get here? If most of them starved, the
population would have decreased, not increased.
Besides all that, Kenneth must thing that good food is a very recent
invention. Before he came along, everyone ate soggy rice and rotting
pork. Times were really tough in those old days, according to Kenneth!

On 24 Jan 2005 21:31:49 -0800, "salgud"
> wrote:

>Good to hear from someone who knows. Pine cones! Bet they don't
>generate "blast furnace" heat!
>As for, " Nonsense.
>Most starved" Then how did we get here? If most of them starved, the
>population would have decreased, not increased.
>Besides all that, Kenneth must thing that good food is a very recent
>invention. Before he came along, everyone ate soggy rice and rotting
>pork. Times were really tough in those old days, according to Kenneth!

Hello again,

First, the mathematics:

If most starved, the population would decrease only if those
who survived did not multiply.

About your other comments:

I said nothing about "soggy rice" or "rotting pork."

You might want to red what I wrote (and also, something
about ancient history.)

All the best,

--
Kenneth

If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 08:20:49 -0500, Kenneth
> wrote:

>red

Ooops,

I suppose that if I am suggesting that you "read", I should
be more careful with what I write...

All the best,
--
Kenneth

If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."

"I suppose that if I am suggesting that you "read", I should
be more careful with what I write..."

It's probably a little late to invoke your brain, if it stil
functions...

On 25 Jan 2005 06:48:12 -0800, "salgud"
> wrote:

>It's probably a little late to invoke your brain, if it stil
>functions...

Ooops, another error.

I hadn't understood enough about you...

All the best,

--
Kenneth

If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."