Jon

Theabroma, your marzipan suggestion sounds delicious, though also scary because we haven't done much with marzipan before. Thanks for helping us thing outside of our accustomed box. Over the weekend we made another test cake, this time with Rose Levy Beranbaum's Silk Meringue Buttercream. It didn't go so well because our cheap candy thermometer is worthless when gauging the temperature of small / shallow batches of anything. I also underestimated the amount of frosting I would need, and ended up with only a messy crumb coat. Of course, this is why testing is necessary. We will forge ahead!

Sure, Jeanne. The curd doesn't seem to be a problem, probably because we're keeping it thin. We've already made a 6" square test cake using about 3 1/2T of curd per layer, and it was fine. The cake layers themselves are thin too, so it all balances out. The cake we did for my parents' anniversary (pic at top) was the same deal, but with mango curd.

Thanks for the suggestions so far. We are already doing some testing, and are thankful to have the time to do more. To answer some questions: There will probably be about 125 guests. We're planning on doing two different flavors of cake split between the tiers; a buttermilk cake with raspberry curd filling, and a chocolate cake with ganache filling, probably with a bit of Chambord in the ganache and/or Chambord syrup spritzed on the cake before assembly. Same frosting over all. It's sounding like we might need a tent or shade fly if it's a sunny day. I just checked with the National Weather Service and learned that average early June high temps are low to mid-70s at the wedding location. Not so bad.

On the strength of a cake my wife and I made for my parents' 40th anniversary party, a friend has asked us to make her wedding cake. We've agreed. We have the cake recipe pretty well nailed, but are less sure about the frosting. My parents' anniversary party was held indoors, in cool weather. We used a buttercream infused with Grand Marnier, and everyone loved it. The wedding cake, however, will be served outdoors, in June, in the Adirondacks. At a YMCA camp. With sun. And bugs. I would very much appreciate suggestions as to what sort of frosting might be most appropriate for this sort of situation. Flavor is more important than refined appearance; we're probably not interested in fondant. We are ambitious home cooks, but this is a challenging project for us. Please aim us in the right direction.

Hmm, never made a souffle before. My initial search turned up several recipes that use whole eggs rather than whites, but I'm sure I just need to look more carefully. Thanks for the ideas (sweet ones included).

I'm about to bake and frost a large (wedding-scale) cake that calls for far more yolks than whole eggs. I expect to have at least a quart of egg whites left over. I don't ordinarily bake big cakes, so I'm new to this challenge. Other than meringue, what can I do with them? Savory suggestions especially appreciated.

Flan?

I really appreciate the input everyone has offered, and I'm sorry I haven't participated more actively in the discussion. My wife and I are leaving on a trip this morning and the preparations have consumed more time than I expected. We'll try out some of these methods when we return. Thanks!

Thanks for the link, John. I thought the flour seemed like an odd addition, too. So why would corn syrup be important here? Is it that the sugar needs to be a liquid? My wife has an Omnivore's Dilemma/everything's -made-of-corn problem with corn syrup, so she's wondering about potential substitutes. What differences do you see when using the higher-end chocolates and cocoa powders? We live in a semi-rural area, so getting Valrhona or the like means a long drive and a startling price tag -- not very conducive to satisfying a spontaneous craving.

My wife was jonesing, last night, for a better chocolate sauce than I usually concoct, and found one that sounded good on Cooks.com. The actual results were disappointing, and we'd like to understand what might've gone awry. The problem is that, while it tasted great in the pot, it hardened into an unpleasantly chewy, sticky, non-saucy solid when it hit the ice cream it was intended for. My wide thinks she may have added too much flour (she eyeballed it). I suggested that the butter may be the problem. Confectionery isn't either of our either of our strong suits, so we're hoping someone can offer some insights as to what the various ingredients and processes in this recipe might be intended to do. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- HOT FUDGE SAUCE 2 c. white sugar 1 c. brown sugar 1 c. cocoa (Hershey's) 4 tbsp. flour 1/4 c. butter 1 1/2 c. water 1/2 tsp. salt 1/2 tsp. vanilla (added later) In a saucepan - mix dry ingredients. Add butter and water. Bring to a boil, and continue boiling for 10 minutes, or slightly longer. Remove from heat and add vanilla. Serve over ice cream.

Wow, thanks for all the ideas here. I did read the egullet course & Q&A threads, and was reassured that other people had similar difficulties. I also read wikipedia, answers.com and HowStuffWorks pages on emulsions in general and mayo in particular, and am starting to feel a little less ignorant. So far, I've got the general idea that mayo is an emulsion of lots of oil dispersed in a little water (the water coming, I assume, from the egg and whatever acid is employed), stabilized primarily by lecithin from egg yolks but also by mustard. The vinegar or lemon juice provides water in which to disperse the oil, contributes flavor, potentially lowers the pH far enough to prevent the growth of dangerous bacteria, and possibly helps stabilize the emulsion as well (though I only found this last point mentioned once, in the egci Q&A, and nowhere else). Salt is just (just!) there for flavor. More sources recommend room-temp ingredients than cold; those that suggest cold ingredients generally point to commercial manufacturing techniques, which make me wonder whether it has more to do with safety than ease. The likely problems seem to come down to the mayo being too thin (add more oil), too thick (add more acid), or broken/seperated/not emulsified (start over). The last problem being the hardest (or at least most wasteful) to fix, one should avoid it by using fresh eggs, room temp ingredients, making sure the egg/acid mixture is thoroughly beaten before adding any oil, and then adding the oil very, very (very) slowly at first. I find all of this theory so comforting. Now I need an excuse to make more mayo. Thanks everyone!

Thanks, I missed that course. Most of my ingredients are typically at room temp., except the egg and possibly the acid (if I use a refrigerated lemon). Oh, and the mustard... I will read through that course. Thanks again.

I'm hoping somebody (or many somebodies) might help me understand the art and craft and science of making mayonnaise. I don't need it very often, so it's not a stock item in my fridge. The components of it, however, are always around, so I do occasionally put egg, vinegar, mustard, etc. into my food processor in various proportions, turn the machine on and start drizzling in some oil. Sometimes it works fine but, too often, it doesn't come together the way it should. I've tried recipes from a variety of sources, from the Joy of Cooking to whatever Google drags in. None has worked consistently for me. I just hate it when I follow directions carefully and don't get the promised results, and I have yet to find an explanation of what can go wrong, why it happens or how to avoid it. I don't mean to pose an overly broad question, but would anyone be willing to educate me or point me to a good resource?

Could it be that your hood can be ducted out it's back(horizontal) or up through the top (vertical), and your choice would affect the CFMs slightly? Anyhow, yes, it sounds good.

I can't think of any reason it wouldn't be feasible. I think that putting a stove under a window in the first place is what's unusual. That said, does your lab hood have grease filters? I have a feeling that it may not be designed for cooking exhaust...

Should anyone be interested, an ebay seller is offering several 36" Zephyr hoods very cheaply. They're last year's models, but the prices are unbeatable. Wish I had room for a 36" hood!

From what I've read any hood not vented outside is really a last-ditch option. If your lucky the filters might take some of the grease out of the air, but gasses, steam and smoke will just be blown back out into the room. Why can't you vent outside?

*sigh* The Vent-a-Hood looks lovely but is simply beyond what my budget will tolerate.

Thanks for Scantland's article; it's great to see someone look at the topic rationally. I'm a furniture maker with my own shop, and I had to engineer my dust collection system last year. I learned a lot in the process, and there are a lot of parallels to the range-hood issue. One thing that became clear was that the CFM rating of a dust collector (or range hood) is, by itself, fairly meaningless. The ductwork that directs the smoke/dust where it needs to go creates resistance and slows down the air flow, so a hood that's rated for X CFMs when running wide open may only move a fraction of that amount of air when it's got to push it through a rectangular-to-round transition, a 90 degree elbow, 18 feet of straight pipe and a damper. The resistance caused by a specific ductwork component is expressed as "static pressure loss" but the static pressure loss is dependent on the speed at which air moves through the duct; the faster the air is moving through the duct, the more resistance it generates. To really know the performance of a given fan in a specific installation you'd need to consult its "performance curve" which is a graph (which, unfortunately, range hood makers don't seem to make easily available) showing how much air it can move at a given static pressure. That amount of air is equivalent to a certain airspeed (in feet per minute) for a particular diameter of pipe. You'd then look for the point on the performance curve at which the fan can deliver the volume that corresponds to the same speed and volume at the same static pressure for your particular duct design, blah, blah, blah... Ultimately there are more variables affecting performance than the manufacturer can anticipate, and to really know for sure what's sufficient requires more complex calculations than most cooks or contractors are up for. So they don't even ask you to figure anything out; they just say "more is better" and leave it at that. I'm skeptical of the rules of thumb that try to relate needed CFMs to the square footage of your kitchen or your range's BTU output. My semi-educated opinion is that the relative length or simplicity of ductwork and the distance between stovetop and hood have a much greater effect than room area, and I can't imagine what BTU output would have to do with it unless the manufacturer is calculating that a consumer who can afford a high-powered range can also afford a high-powered range hood. The performance of any given hood will be optimized by placing it closer to the stove and keeping the ductwork short, simple and large in diameter. Period. I'm also confident that, since much of the noise generated by the hood is the generated by the resistance of forcing a lot of air through a small intake, and since higher-CFM hoods have bigger intakes, it makes sense that a large-CFM hood run at low speed will be quieter than a lower-CFM hood run on high speed, even if they're moving the same amount of air. Now, If I only knew what airspeed would be required to divert an airborne particle of smoke or droplet of oil, and I had some performance curves for different fans, then I might be able to bring some real clarity to this... but of course, I don't and I can't. I like the Zephyrs because their installation manuals (downloadable as PDFs) at least make the attempt to guide your duct design by using the resistance caused by a single linear foot of straight ductwork as a unit of measurement. A 90 degree turn = 15 "feet". Don't exceed 100 "feet" total. The company is at least making an effort.

Another in the seemingly infinite parade of decisions a remodel inspires: how good are the better range hoods? I grew up with, and now have in my own house (or did until yesterday when I pulled it off the wall), cheap range hoods that didn't move much air and were so noisy they were usually left off anyhow. As a result I periodically look at the cabinets and walls around the stove and discover that everything's covered with a sticky yellow residue. If I forget the toast in the broiler and make wheat-based charcoal out of it, even the high speed does little to clear the air. With the remodel I have a chance to remedy that, but I don't have a huge buget to work with. Where's the line between a practical, functional piece of hardware and an industrially designed fetish? My best bet is on a 400 CFM model that can be had for about $260, but never having actually had a range hood I was happy with, I'm wondering about other people's experiences. If you're a pro, how good are those big commercial hoods? If you've got a hood that's easy to clean and clears the air without requiring you to turn up the radio or raise your voice in conversation, I'd love to hear about it.

MFK Fisher's How To Cook A Wolf is a great read along this theme, published during WWII I think: part practical survival manual, part tempting anecdotes about the meals of easier times. --Jon

Thanks, I'll see if I can get a copy through the college's interlibrary program. I've already read "Small Kitchens" by Robin Murrell and though it's aesthetically dated and leans a bit heavily on European appliances, I thought it was a good, concise introduction to basic kitchen design concepts. I've also got another, more general, U.K. design book that I've found inspiring. As far as regrettable demolition goes, there's not much to worry about; the house isn't much more than walls and doors. The glass cabinets that delimit the kitchen are original -- built from leftover pine tounge and groove subfloor. They were rough constructions 70 years ago, and haven't aged very well. --Jon

That's a lovely little house; considerably more extravagant than mine, but yeow, the price! If that were down the street from me I'd expect it to sell for about one fourth of that, and probably with a bigger piece of ground attatched to it. I just did a google image search for "Bungalow" and they're all over the map style-wise. My archetypical image of "bungalow" is a smallish storey-and-a-half, gable-roofed construction, usually with a front porch of some sort. That's exactly what we've got. Our whole first floor is only 600 sq. feet, which makes for pretty austere living. We like it, though - easy to clean. --Jon

Heh, around here (Northeast Ohio) bungalows are regarded as cheap postwar housing, though come to think of it mine is of 1930's vintage so it doesn't quite fit that mold. In any case, noone pays obscene amounts of anything for them. The bay-area fetish you describe makes me wonder whether, out there, the term "bungalow" means something more specific than it does here; ours seems like a very generic (though generally cozy) little house, with very few outstanding features that I can imagine someone being hungry to preserve. One that I can point to, however, is an archway with nicely rounded corners, between the living room and dining area. That's one reason for my rounded counters, but another is that major traffic paths go through these rooms, and I didn't want a lot of sharp projections to whack myself on as I passed through. --Jon

Thanks for the tip, I'll check it out. Another good thought. On the floorplan I originally posted I was thinking of lowering part of the counter on the left (the upper, rounded end) as a low work area, and also to put it closer to table level so it could hold serving dishes when the table was expanded for entertaining. --Jon