|
Could as well have chosen a mathematical ball of lead with 99% water-content.
--edit
It is misleading, since we have some "experience" with potatoes not shrinking 50% when they lay in the basement.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's because they start out at 80% water, not 99%.
And because nobody regularly checks their spuds for water content... 
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: And because nobody regularly checks their spuds for water content... 
I keep potatoes in a dark and cool closet. After 3 months, they may have lost "some" weight, but not the same amount as your "mathematical" potatoes.
Non-mathematical potatoes do not loose water in a mathematical linear way.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Non-mathematical potatoes do not loose water in a mathematical linear way.
Or as quickly - unless you use the fridge / freezer as a dehydration device, as you do for Triple-Cooked Chips, where reducing the volume of the chips before the final frying probably does approach 50%
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
In which case you extracted more than 1% of liquid. This was also not about volume; are you sure the shrinking is due to the loss of water?
Or could it just be a reaction of those sticks to sudden cold when taking out of the oil? 
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Nope: you cut 'em, you simmer them until soft, then cool and into the fridge for 4 or 5 hours. When they come out, they are already smaller as the fridge has reduced the water content.
Low temperature fry - 130C - cool, and back in the fridge for another 4 to 5 hours.
When they come out, they are significantly smaller than they started!
Then the high temp fry - 190C - drain and serve.
Damn good chips - but quite a palaver (especially making enough room in the damn fridge).
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: Nope: you cut 'em, you simmer them until soft, then cool and into the fridge for 4 or 5 hours. When they come out, they are already smaller as the fridge has reduced the water content.
So, you let them dry in your fridge and obsorb all the nice smells in there? 
OriginalGriff wrote: Low temperature fry - 130C - cool, and back in the fridge for another 4 to 5 hours.
When they come out, they are significantly smaller than they started!
Which isn't very surprising after having been cooked, cooled, brought to cook in oil and cool again.
Fact remains that it is not a mathematical potato, and that you removed more than 1% of liquid.
As you probably know, lettuce IS mostly water, moreso than potatoes. Freeze your lettuce for an hour or four, then defrost. You'll find that those non-mathematical lettuce has lost more than just half of its water.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sunflower, in my (Industrial) deep fat fryer - it holds 8l of oil, so it doesn't vary much in temp when food is added, plus it's big enough to double up as the "pot" for my Sous Vide circulator when it's not frying. (Plus it has a built in tab to drain it when it's cooled to stop the oil going nasty between uses.)
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Now you're doing this by eyeball (volume) rather than weight (at least as described).
Let's consider another mechanism to the volume loss: internal hot air pockets which contract dramatically when cooled (liquids, not so much). It might be even more interesting if you froze them between rounds - water can expand and pool during the freezing, changing the qualities dramatically, to wit:
If one takes some firm ToFu and whilst still packaged in water, freezes it for a few days, it will be observed that it turns from white-to-yellow. Upon defrosting, one will find that it has transformed into a tough yet spongy mass. You can literally ring it out and sop up all sorts of flavors - then cook it and properly chew your food (I digress). The point being that the water is forced out of the ToFu structure, aggregates in small pockets, and freezes. This modifies the structure severely both where the water collected and from where it was collected. So - could you, as an aficionado of the potato process, perceive a parallel path (to a lesser degree) in you potato concoction?
None of this is judgmental on the utility/futility of the process or flavor.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
W∴ Balboos wrote: If one takes some firm ToFu and whilst still packaged in water, freezes it for a few days, it will be observed that it turns from white-to-yellow. Upon defrosting, one will find that it has transformed into a tough yet spongy mass. You can literally ring it out and sop up all sorts of flavors - then cook it and properly chew your food (I digress). The point being that the water is forced out of the ToFu structure, aggregates in small pockets, and freezes. This modifies the structure severely both where the water collected and from where it was collected. throws it in the bin in favour of BACON
FTFY!
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
I'll enjoy some crispy ToFu fries in memory of your clogged arteries and severely limited sense of taste. A consequence of living on those hog-infested islands, I suppose.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
Jörgen Andersson wrote: No googling, ok.
Given that Google's conversion tool has been claiming that an imperial pint is exactly 500ml for several months at least, I'm not sure it would help anyway. 
1 imperial pint in ml - Google Search[^]
(See the description of the first result under the tool if you're not sure what the problem is.)
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Luckily I didn't write anything about pints in the post.
|
|
|
|
|
I assumed you'd sunk a few before coming up with the question.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Well idf they are 99% water, the water weighs 1v lb and the rest weighs 99lb. so if you extract 2% of the watere, the remaining weight would be 99 +0. 98= 99.98 lb.
CQ de W5ALT
Walt Fair, Jr., P. E.
Comport Computing
Specializing in Technical Engineering Software
|
|
|
|
|
read it again.
You don't extract 2% of water.
You dry them until water makes a 98% of the weight.
It is not the same.
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
I'll chime in before I read the subsequent posts: 98.9... lbs.
[edit]OH - I'm so ashamed![/edit]
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
You're not the only one, but that's why I posted it to begin with. 
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, I have the (usually good) habit of at least quickly glancing through all the replies before I add a comment. So I saw the answer before starting to consider the problem myself. But the problem is a good one! (Although not a true paradox.)
Semi off track (but only semi!):
It reminds me of a Norwegian sausage maker boasting his sausages having a 133% meat content. Advertising authorities protested: No product, not even a boneless steak, can contain more than 100% meat. This slaughter insisted that he used 1,33 kg meat to make 1 kg of these cured (smoked and dried) sausages.
This went to court, where it was pointed out: When the meat is weighed, it contains a lot of water that weighs as meat. In the production process, when the sausages are dried, some of this water is removed. If that water was labeled as meat when you weighed the ingredients before you started, it is actually part of the meat that is removed during the drying. You can't claim that all of the meat is a part of the product when you have removed some of it.
So the slaughter lost the case, and had to change the wording from "contains 133% meat" to "For each kg of sausage, 1,33 kg of meat is used". Which isn't too bad - the sausages are tasty!
|
|
|
|
|
I would side with the sausage maker on this one! (Unless I had to code it!)
If you buy a quarter of a pound hamburger at a fast food restaurant, it probably weighs one eighth of a pound when they serve it to you.
|
|
|
|
|
The algebra (which doesn't over think it).
Givens:
A. There is 1 pound of starch (1% of 100)
B. 98% water
What is total weight X?
0.98 = (X-1)/X and X = 50
|
|
|
|
|
WEIGHT_OF_POTATOES = 100 lbs
WEIGHT_OF_WATER / WEIGHT_OF_POTATOES = 0.99
WEIGHT_OF_WATER = WEIGHT_OF_POTATOES * 0.99
WEIGHT_OF_WATER = 99 lbs;
(WEIGHT_OF_WATER - weight_to_evaporate) / (WEIGHT_OF_POTATOES - weight_to_evaporate) = 0.98
(99 - weight_to_evaporate) / (100 - weight_to_evaporate) = 0.98
weight_to_evaporate = 50 lbs;
So the final answer is WEIGHT_OF_POTATOES - weight_to_evaporate = 100lbs - 50lbs = 50lbs
|
|
|
|
|
Trust the math.
Given
100lb = 99lb-water + 1lb-potato
w = weight of water in lbs
% water = w / (w + 1lb-potato)
Initial condition = 99%. Check.
Now solve for 98% water
.98 = w / (w + 1lb-potato)
w = 49 lb
Check:
49 / (49 + 1) -> .98
add back the 1 lb of potato and the total is
50 lb total
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
