Jump to content
  • Welcome to the eG Forums, a service of the eGullet Society for Culinary Arts & Letters. The Society is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization dedicated to the advancement of the culinary arts. These advertising-free forums are provided free of charge through donations from Society members. Anyone may read the forums, but to post you must create a free account.

Modernist and Baldwin Slab Charts -- Sous Vide


sigma
 Share

Recommended Posts

So, I'm looking at the two charts, and Baldwin seems to suggest that which is intuitive to me. That is to say that cooking a meat in slab form should take longer than in cylinder form for each thickness of meat. On the other hand, Modernist seems to suggest that, for all but the largest sizes, cylinders should take more time. This makes no sense at all. In fact, Modernist estimates that a 15 cm diameter cylinder of 3 cm thickness would take 1:21 to cook to 55 degrees, while a slab of at least 5x length and width of the same thickness would take approx 50 minutes. But this makes no sense because the slab is at least 15x15 cm, by definition, and in that case you could inscribe the cylinder in the slab. But by doing this, by cutting off the meat and making it smaller, without changing thickness, you would increase the cooking time! That seems impossible. I am sure I am reading the whole thing incorrectly, but I would really appreciate an answer from somebody else who has puzzled over the same issue. Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tables 1 and 4. Table one assumes a diameter of 15 cm. Table two assumes of 15 cm but infinite diameters. It isn't operative for this question, though, since slab and fixed diameter both deal with increasing thicknesses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Sigma--I'll take a gander, but I don't have a copy of MC, and I find your description of the various dimensions a little hard to parse. Can you post a visual aide with the dimensions labeled (either a scan of the MC page or one you draw yourself)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can try, though it really isn't my strongsuit...

So, here is the cylinder chart from Modernist which assumes a 15 cm diameter. Choosing a thickness of 3 cm, the diameter is 5x the thickness. Choosing a delta T of 55, we get 1hr 21m.

dsc0039qx.jpg

Here is the slab chart from modernist. It assumes a length and width at least 5x the thickness, so once again we choose 3 cm thickness, and we have a slab that is no smaller than 15x15x3, given the book description. Once again we choose a delta T of 55, and the time, according to the book is 49 min 45 sec.

dsc0041di.jpg

Since we have chosen the smallest possible size for the slab (it must be at least 5x length and width) the logic here should hold no for all possibilities. Now, since the cylinder from chart one can be inscribed in the slab from chart two, it is clearly smaller in some way. However, the time suggested is longer. In fact, the book suggests that by increasing the size of the cylinder to make it a slab, in other words by filling in the area left by the inscription, we can lower our cooking time by 26 minutes. This seems absurd, so either I am reading the charts incorrectly, or there is something very wrong with their model. Given that nathanm et al are clearly brighter than I am, I would assume the former, but Baldwin's chart, which you can see on his site, conforms to my theory.

I'd love an explanation from the Modernist people, or from anybody else, or a critique of my argument. Also, sorry if there is a copyright issue, I couldn't figure another way to do this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like the approximations crossover when the thickness is between 5cm and 6cm--all the 5cm times are shorter for the slab, and all the 6cm times are shorter for the cylinder. I'd say the slab times are all probably "correct," and the MC model is broken for thin cylinders. I too would be interested in how the MC team came up with such wonky numbers for thin cylinders.

Another oddity: take a look at the cylinder times for a delta of 65F. If you look at how much additional time is required per additional centimeter of meat you get this:

3cm --> 4cm: 41min

4cm --> 5cm: 44min

5cm --> 6cm: 35min

Huh? At the very least, those numbers should be monotonically increasing or decreasing. There's something seriously wrong with that table.

Edited by emannths (log)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I wonder if they got the terms screwed up in the cylinder table.

It doesn't make much sense to me to have a cylinder of a constant diameter, but varying thickness -- that's just a round slab.

If however, the captions were reversed, and they were talking about a cylinder with a fixed 15cm/6 inch LENGTH, and variable DIAMETER, that would make a whole lot more sense!

I know that the errata says that the 6cm column for all three pages of tables are wrong, but I don't recall seeing anything else.

Nathan?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should have gone back to the book, rather than just looking at sigma's copy. Table 1 is for a cylinder of a fixed diameter but varying thickness (a round slab, in other words), while Table 2 is for something like a sausage of fixed length but different diameters. (That is the only "cylinder" table that makes any sense to me.)

But comparing the times for a round slab that is 5 times the thickness, vs. a square slab that is 5 times the thickness in both directions, the times ought be approximately the same, or the round slab should take less time, so something is clearly screwed up.

The errata for the 6cm column for Table 1 shows 3 h 32min for a 65C delta T. That would be 43 minutes for the 5cm to 6cm difference, as opposed to 35 minutes. Compared to the 44 minutes for the 4cm to 5 cm, that's at least in the ball park. But you are right -- someone ought to rerun the calculations again, and explain their assumptions. That ways, someone like Douglas Baldwin could rerun them as well. Right now, we have apples and oranges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Similar Content

    • By Anonymous Modernist 16589
      I'm looking to buy some new pots and pans and would like to tap into your knowledege and experiance with them. Which pans tend to yield the best and most consistant results. Same for pots. Any and all recommendations would be greatly appriciated, thank you in advance.
      Herman 8D
    • By Doodad
      Has anybody tried making a dark roux in a pressure cooker? Can this be done without scortching do you think? I have made roux in the oven before and started wondering about this topic.
    • By kostbill
      I really want to improve the flavor of my chicken breast so I want to try to inject brine with fat and flavors.
       
      I would like to try brining with some hydrocolloids. The one example I found is this: https://torontofoodlab.com/2013/08/20/meat-tenderizing-with-a-carrageenan-brine/.
       
      However I cannot apply that to my chicken breast because I am cooking it sous vide, so the chicken will not reach the temperature needed for the carrageenan to gel.
       
      I am thinking of using Methyl cellulose, first disperse in hot water, then leave it for 24 hours in the fridge, then add salt, fat and flavors and inject it.
      I am afraid that until it reaches the 50C or 60C that the Methyl cellulose needs in order to gel, the liquid will escape.
      Any ideas?
      Thanks.
    • By Anonymous Modernist 760
      Thanks for putting up this forum 🙂
      I would like to bake using a combination of sous vide and a conventional oven. Would it be possible to put the dough in a vacuum bag cook it sous vide at 37C for the dough to raise optimal and then put it in a conventional oven?
      Thanks
    • By PedroG
      Olla podrida sous vide
      Origin
      Not rotten pot, but mighty or rich pot! Originated in 16th century Spain, olla poderida became olla podrida and was falsely translated into French as pot-pourri.
      Ingredients
      For two servings
      * 100g Brisket well marbled, cooked SV 48h/55°C, large dice †
      * 100g Pork meat well marbled, cooked SV 24h/55°C, large dice †
      * 100g Lamb chops without bone, cooked SV 4h/55°C, large dice †
      * 100g Chicken breast, cooked SV 2h/58°C, large dice †
      * 100g Chorizo, sliced approximately 4mm †
      * 125g Chickpeas (garbanzos), soaked overnight in water †
      * 1 Onion chopped medium-fine †
      * ½ Savoy cabbage approx. 200g cut into pieces, thick leaf veins removed
      * ½ Celeriac approx. 200g quartered, sliced about 2mm
      * 2 Carrots sliced approximately 120g about 3mm
      * 1 Leek approximately 20cm / 100g sliced about 5mm
      * Extra virgin olive oil
      * Rice bran oil
      * Dried parsley qs, aromatic, black pepper
      † Beef, pork, lamb and chicken (or at least two kinds of meat) as well as chorizo, chickpeas and onions are mandatory ingredients, other vegetables vary according to desire and availability.
      Cooking
      Boil chickpeas in water for 30-60 min.
      Sauté onions in olive oil, add chorizo, continue sautéing, add chickpeas including its cooking water, add remaining vegetables, cover and cook to the desired softness, stir from time to time. If additional liquid is needed, you may add Sherry instead of water.
      Reduce heat. Season to taste. Add parsley.
      In a heavy skillet, sear the meat dice in just smoking hot rice bran oil (very high smoking point allows very quick sear, not overdoing the center of the meat).
      Sear one kind of meat at a time and transfer to the pan with the vegetables.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...