pbear

Oh, I don't think they're a knock-off. A licensing deal seems more likely, though, than a factory clearance halfway around the planet ten years after the product ceased distribution. But, yeah, part of my point is that anyone can use the surface at this point, although they wouldn't be able to use the Cybernox trademark without Sitram's consent. The same thing happened, of course, with Teflon.

That is, indeed, an interesting development. For the convenience of others, here's the current Amazon listing. I also had a few pieces, back in the Y2K days. I got mine from Dvorson's, which at the time told me they had exclusive distribution rights in the U.S. Which, I think, may be part of why the product never got any legs. They're nice folks, but weren't in a position to give the sort of distribution needed to fulfill Sitram's rosy projections in 1999 that Cybernox would be the next big thing. Incidentally, I did some digging six months ago when you mentioned Cybernox in the fish searing thread. What I found wasn't germane to that thread, so I didn't share, but I will now. Apparently the surface uses quasicrystals, which have the property of being both smooth and very hard. Here's a technical article briefly discussing Cybernox from a materials science point of view. Perhaps most importantly, based on that article, I was able to track down the patent (cross-registered from France), which had priority from 1988, meaning it expired in 2008 (under both American and French law, patents have a twenty year term). When I learned this, i.e., six months ago, I wondered why no one has given the technology another go, given the current consumer interest in alternatives to PTFE/Teflon. Perhaps the Japanese have decided to take the plunge, while licensing the trademark for marketing reasons and/or to get access to know-how not disclosed in the patent. But, to be clear, that's only speculation on my part. As for the pans, I respectfully disagree as to their nonstickness. I'd call them "low stick," better than stainless steel but not nearly as good as PTFE or well-seasoned cast iron or carbon steel. Comparable to non-PTFE ceramic, but durable where the former is not. Also, I didn't find the pans comfortable. FWIW, if one does an eGullet archive search for Cybernox, about nine threads come up (including this one) with reviews going both ways. A Google search discloses a similar multiplicity of views. Which is to say, I think Cybernox is something folks might want to explore, but as with any novel technology, it would be best (as the stuff ain't cheap) to start with one pan to see how well it works for the tester.

Quoted for emphasis. This is a very good idea for all food safety purposes, not just cook-chill sous vide. I've tried several and particularly like this one.

Well, the obvious alternative is tri-ply stainless steel, which weighs half as much as cast iron (or less). And there are others.

What does this mean? You've mentioned it twice.

The answer to that question is "no." OTOH, there are several applications of SV/LT (sous vide/low temp) which don't require that level of precision and for which the NuWave would indeed be adequate. If you care to discuss, we probably should take it to another thread.

Pretty sure what she's talking about is something like this, i.e., a hot plate where the heating coil is enclosed in cast iron. It's main advantage (I have one) is that it's not rickety like conventional coil type hot plates. BTW, picking up on Shel's question earlier, I have no trouble holding a simmer with a NuWave induction cooktop.

Yeah, I didn't know either and it kinda bugs me that it's not labeled. As for your question, I did a similar meander and tripped across something called Patapar paper, which reportedly isn't coated. BTW, gulfporter, cool tip (so to speak). Thanks for sharing.

FWIW, a quick UTube search turned up a bunch of videos. Didn't check out any, but perhaps they'll give you a basis for comparison.

Yes, it's total weight. But, if the amount of water is negligible, there's no need to add more salt on its account. In this context, the difference between 1000 and 1015 grams is trivial. As mentioned in my second post, though, the water does have to be taken into account if there's much of it.* When cooking low temp, I tend to use the minimum amount of water possible, in part because I use a vacuum sealer. If using zip-top bags, there's no reason more water can't be added; just compensate by adding a proportionate amount of salt. * On review, I notice a small error in the calculation for the whole bird brine. I cribbed that from my recipe for a 5 lb chicken, which for brevity I referred to as being two kilos; in fact, 5 lb is more like 2.25 kg. Notably, it's 2250 x 0.7 x 0.007 which equals 11 g; the same calculation for 2000 comes in at 9.8 g. The difference wouldn't actually matter for cooking purposes, but there's not much point in giving an example for illustration if I get the math wrong. Sorry about that.. As for you last question, good enough for what? If you're brining for seasoning and cook in the brine, it won't matter much. If you doing it for texture, I imagine you'll get about half the advantage, but I've not done the experiment.

Oops, overlooked the sugar question. FWIW, no, I don't generally bother with sugar. As for time, when possible, I like to let chicken sit on the brine for a couple days, but it's not essential for thighs. Breast, on the other hand, gets a big texture advantage from brining and you'll only get this if the salt penetrates before cooking. BTW, an equilibrium brine can used for whole chicken, but of course you'll need much more water, say two litres for a two kilo bird. You use the same proportion, i.e., 11 g for the chicken (which is about 70% meat and skin) and 14 g for the water. This needs to rest a couple days, as you'll drain the brine before cooking.

I do this a lot. It doesn't take much salt, between 0.7% and 1.0% by weight depending on personal preference. Say you have a kilo of thighs (2.2 lb), 0.7% would be 7 grams, just over a tsp of finely ground salt. This will dissolve in 2 tbsp water (15 g). Divide thighs between two bags; prepare half quantities of the brine/cure and add to each; seal and cook. The cool thing about this approach (called an equilibrium brine) is that the chicken can't get too salty, as you've given it exactly the amount you want the final product to have.

Why do you resist adding salt to the dough? It's not hard to do.

Having had a grandmother in a similar situation, I understand gulfporter's not wanting to burden the caretakers with another chore. Yes, this would be a burden. Not arduous, of course, but it would be another thing to do and keep track of.

Don't have, but have used one (or similar) in a friend's kitchen. It's all right, but can be tricky. In particular, since the heating unit is also the lid, you need some place to set it down while working with whatever is in the bowl. Of which speaking, it's a wizard way to roast veggies. A rack under the pan makes it (the pan) easier to get in and out.

OTOH, an ordinary saute also will tame garlic for sous vide.

I'm curious, in what sorts of dishes or preparations is this fastidiously blanched garlic being used?

A few thoughts. First, according to McGee, the reason blanching makes garlic milder is that it inactivates an enzyme. This makes sense to me, as roasting and toasting have similar effects without liquid. Second, according to this blog post, it was Keller & Co. who devised the method of blanching in milk. Which makes me feel better, as I hadn't heard of it before. Third, it escapes my why more than one blanching would be more effective, but Kenji mentions this also. In any event, I suspect most of the effect is obtained in the first round. I don't actually know, though, as I generally use toasting if I want mild garlic.

Come now. To pick an obvious example, surely you can tell the difference between a stock which has been degreased and one which has not. And, yes, I'm talking about both when warm.

I'm hypersenstitive to rancidity and have never noticed any such effect on salted butter. Have you?

Plainly, we perceive the texture of fats. The linked article and the paper it discusses acknowledge this. (We also perceive the textures of gelatin, starch colloids and all sorts of things.) Even stipulating we have separate taste receptors for fat, the strength of that signal is minuscule compared to the texture signal, as evidenced by the difficulty they had teasing out the former clinically. It's problematic scientifically to attribute to the taste receptors something as broad as why we like fats. If we're to focus on the tongue, the texture signal is a much more likely candidate. In fact, ISTM, the aroma components arising from cooking fatty foods dwarf both in this regard.

Interesting, Martin. For context, butter which has 95 mg sodium per tbsp, 679 mg per 100 g, is about 1.77% salt by weight. That works out to just under a quarter gram per tbsp, 1/8 tsp for 3 tbsp, or (or course) 1.77 g per 100 g. Whereas butter with 3% salt would have 161 mg sodium per tbsp, 1150 mg per 100 g. The key conversion factor, btw, is that one needs to multiply or divide by 0.3833 to switch between sodium and salt. Meanwhile, I agree with Tri2Cook (and others) that there are many recipes, in baking especially, where using salted butter without adjustment will change the outcome noticeably. But, with adjustment, the substitution generally works fine, buttercream being a prominent exception.

Wiki explains, "cherpumple is a holiday novelty dessert inspired by turducken." Frankly, I don't feel the slightest need to make one.

The explanation Smithy mentions is the one I've generally seen, i.e., that it originally had to do with rancidity. I think that concern has become obsolete, as I haven't run into rancid butter in decades. OTOH, there's something to be said for simplicity and consistency. Unsalted is customary in recipes and, in fact, that's how I've written all of mine. BTW, it's easy to duplicate/confirm Porthos' calculation. (This has come up for me mainly in the context of friends asking how to substitute salted butter in a recipe.) A tsp of salt, 6 g, has 2300 milligrams sodium. Butter in my neck of the woods typically has 95 milligram sodium per tbsp (14 g), at a guess because it looks good in the nutrition analysis. That works out to 1/8 tsp salt for 3 tbsp butter. Just a hair under, actually (0.1239), but close enough for cooking purposes.

I have several foibles of this type, of which perhaps the most unusual is an aversion to tomatillo seeds. To the extent that many years ago I got a 1 mm disk for my food mill (at the time, hard to find) just so I could remove them from purees. That said, peeling or removing strings from celery seems weird to me.