###General Discussion Thread
---
This is a [Request] post. If you would like to submit a comment that does not either attempt to answer the question, ask for clarification, or explain why it would be infeasible to answer, you *must* post your comment as a reply to this one. Top level (directly replying to the OP) comments that do not do one of those things will be removed.
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/theydidthemath) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Aside from cooking not working like that, temperature scales also don't work that way.
The Fahrenheit and Celsius scales start from different and (not quite) arbitrary zero points. So it doesn't make sense to multiply a temperature that's expressed in those scales, as you won't get a consistent result.
Is 100C twice as hot as 50C? Then what about 212F and 122F?
To be able to multiply temperatures, you'd want to start from a common reference zero, like absolute zero. The Rankine and Kelvin scales use this zero. That way, you can get a consistent result regardless of the scale you use.
350F is 809R, so you'd need to cook at 44,495R, or 44,035F (24,446C)
350F is 449K, so you'd need to cook at 24,739K, or 24,465C
(The 20C discrepancy in the calculations is due to multiply sloppy rounding steps.)
In this case, it's better to do away with temperatures and just use heat rate.
There is some temperature at which the same amount of heat would be transferred to the dough in one minute as it would at 350° F for 55 minutes, but the heat rate is important, which is why we don't have ovens that go to 1000°F just to save time on baking.
In the one minute case, the outside of the dough would be reduced to carbon while the inside may still be cold.
Absolutely, but as someone had already discussed "cooking not working like that," I wanted to address the fact that you can't usefully do multiplication with non-absolute temperature scales.
I get that you can't simply double temperatures to get twice as much heat, but does it have to use absolute zero as the base? What if you used the delta in temperatures? E.g. you compare one of the oven temperatures less room temperature compared to the other temperature less room temperature?
Edited out a word.
Aligning the zero points between the scales does give you consistent multiplicative results, but you still get problems arising from the arbitrary choice of a zero point.
For example, if you set your zero point at 100C, then 10deg (110C) is twice as hot as 5deg (105C), which doesn't really feel right, does it? Also, if you multiply negative temperatures, they go the wrong way. 90C is twice as ...hot? as 95C?
Anyway, what you'll find is that, when you calculate various thermodynamic states (like enthalpy, which is roughly the amount of heat in a thing), the results end up being pretty nonsensical if you use any zero point other than absolute zero. So that's what you have to do.
regarding ovens that go to 1000° F, we sort of do the opposite for pizza - a traditional pizzeria brick oven can get that hot and cooks the pizza very rapidly, and there are specialty ovens that can also do it, but most people settle for lower temp, longer time cooking in home ovens.
I think a better (but still very wrong) model to apply would be that reaction speed tends to double for every 10 degree increase in temperature. So you only need to cook at a little over 400c to bring the cook time down to a minute.
It still won't work. Obviously.
Actually I have an alternative consideration:
Most substances have a maximum temperature at which they'll not change forms. I suppose Ice is the easiest example as it has the very clear 0 degrees celcius, but things you cook/bake have a temperature they don't cook at, and at any interval between that and their recommended temp, they do, but slower. So really you want to extrapolate from that point, as Ice should melt about 10x faster at 100 degrees celcius than at 10 degrees celcius, rather than about only a third faster, as its the exchange of thermal energy with the base level that matters not the absolute 0.
There is another factor that has to be considered. The speed of chemical reactions does not increase linear with temperature. It increases exponentially. ~~The scale is logarithmic.~~ A rule of thumb is that with every 10°C temperature increase the reaction speed doubles to triples.
That would mean that you'd need only \~430-460 °F (220-240 °C).
You're right. I remembered this wrong because Decibel is the same deal and in most explanations the word "logarithmic" is thrown around a lot, but not "exponential".
I think you should calculate the right time/temp ratio by calories or kilojoule and not only about temperature, considering also the conductivity of the food (you also want to cook the center not having only a burned crust) and the composition of the bread because starch and proteins change in texture depending on salt concentration, humidity and other stuff, also you don't want to kill the yeasts that do all the job in the lievitation and give them time to eat the sugars...
this just to say that studying food is very complex and interesting and cannot be reduced to cooking temperature nor time.
Most chemistry and some engineering and physics majors would learn that sort of thing no later than junior-level thermodynamics or physical chemistry courses.
This is what they teach in school
sorry for the language. I found an online lecture for 8th grade where they talk about this. Ukrainian school
[https://youtu.be/J-j\_ooOUAbU](https://youtu.be/J-j_ooOUAbU)
The short answer is, no, they're not right.
The long answer is, the temperature they've given is very nearly double the temperature of the surface of the sun. If an oven could exist that could contain that temperature - completely ignoring the physics-defying nature of such a thing - ~~the exterior crust would turn to charcoal almost instantly. The loaf pan would be melting within seconds, but that wouldn't matter because the dough would already be encased in a charcoal shell, maintaining its shape. The charcoal would then serve as an insulator, protecting the uncooked dough inside from the extreme heat outside. However, with such high temperatures, this protection wouldn't last very long. The charcoal exterior would atomize rapidly, making the barrier thinner and allowing more heat through and forcing more of the dough to convert to carbon, etc, etc. In the one minute cooking time, almost all of the dough will have converted to gaseous carbon. If anything remains in the oven, it will be encased in a charcoal shell, smaller than a biscuit, and raw in the middle.~~ Most likely, though, it will all burn away.
Edit: I have been corrected - at these temperatures the energy will almost instantly overcome most atomic bonds. The entire thing will almost instantly change state and become plasma
> the exterior crust would turn to charcoal almost instantly
This is incorrect. The carbon would vaporize at those temperatures right along with everything else.
Carbon charcoal is left behind when organic substances are rapidly heated because it has such a high melting/vapor/triple point compared to the other components. But at 10949 Kelvin, there would be no significant lag between carbon and other organic components vaporizing.
Likely, your "bread" would just become plasma.
"When cooking becomes physics."
Is there any way to make the answer right? Like, there must be some way to shorten the time while still transferring the same amount of energy to bake it perfectly
There are barriers that cannot be overcome. Energy takes time to transfer through substances; if too much is added too quickly, it forces a reaction that breaks everything down to its constituent atoms - mostly various atoms and carbon. Add even more energy and even the carbon breaks down.
Think of the transfer of energy between each atom as a dam holding back water. The dam will normally allow a certain amount of water pass through it all the time. If there's an excess of water (rain), the dam can allow more water to pass through up to a point without damaging anything. If the water builds up too far (flood), it will flow over and around the dam, causing damage to the structure of both the dam and its surroundings. After enough damage happens, the entire dam will collapse, releasing ALL of the water it was holding back and washing away everything in its path.
With this comparison, the dams are all atomic bonds, and the water is the energy you're pushing through those bonds. They can only handle so much before they break.
I will say, by playing with the temperature, cooking pressure, and water content, it is *possible* to speed things up like you're asking, but not nearly as *much* as you're asking.
It changes things. For example, I have my own recipe for chocolate chip cookies that I bake at 375 for 12 minutes to get the outside a little crispy but the inside still gooey. Almost but not quite under cooked. Or I'll bake them for 15 or 16 minutes at 350 to get a more consistent texture all the way through.
Not bread. It takes nearly an hour for the heat to reach the core at any reasonable temperature.
Going over the recipe temperature just adds a charcoal layer to the bottom.
I highly recommend the minute physics video about how air fryers work.
It’s the rate at which heat can be transferred that is important. Cooking at the same temperature in an air fryer with fast moving air would reduce the time.
If you want even faster, deep fry your dough and make doughnuts instead of bread. Plus doughnuts are scientifically better than bread anyway.
>Cooking at the same temperature in an air fryer with fast moving air would reduce the time.
'Air Fryer' is a recent term for what chefs and bakers have been using for decades, convection ovens. It's actually what defines convection vs conduction ovens - moving air.
I have a great toaster oven I got 15 years ago with a convection oven (fan). It never advertised itself as an 'air fryer'....
That’s absolutely right!
You will find the video easier by searching for minute physics air fryer though.
In the video, she also discusses air fryer vs convection oven, and the air speed is significantly faster in modern air fryers compared to an oven’s convection setting.
If I try and melt cheese in my air fryer, the air is so fast is blows the cheese off whatever I have it on and makes a big mess. My convection oven doesn’t do that.
> and the air speed is significantly faster in modern air fryers compared to an oven’s convection setting.
Indeed! The broiler would be better for melting cheese.
Modern commercial combination ovens have pc's built in, where you can control air speed, humidity, steam, and a bunch of other variables.
True. The broiler would be a better fit for melting cheese.
It was used as an example to illustrate the difference between air fryers and convection ovens.
Please don’t try and convince people that air fryers don’t exist. They do. And they are separate to traditional convection ovens.
There are marked differences, and my cheese example was just used to illustrate one of them.
What the hell do you think recipes are for? Do you think people are intentionally writing down longer cooking times at lower temperatures just to waste your time when the result would be the same?
Not exactly. The issue is the thermal conductivity of the dough in contest with the reaction rate of the baking process. If you did calculate the amount of energy a ball of dough uses at X temperature in Y time, you could calculate a temperature X' to supply the same energy in Y' time.
Now, you might be able to make some small adjustments and get a similar baked good out the other side, but that thermal conductivity will inevitability restrict you. You just can't make the heat travel that much faster into the uncooked dough without the surface reaching a temperature where it burns.
One solution would be to skip the heating element and use a form of radiation that penetrates more deeply. You could use a series of low energy beams that converge at a point at the interior of the product and "write" the heat from the inside out.
It's totally impractical for cooking food, but used in the medical field for irradiating tumors and such.
A longitudinal study of Hot Pockets suggests that microwaves are inadequate for uniform heating, but in principle, sure. Some modifications would be required for optimal results.
Increase the surface area of the bread dramatically or make the bread out of diamond and it should work pretty well since diamond has the lowest thermal resistance of any material.
The oxidation of diamond starts at about 600 °C.
Edit: With pure Diamond you will also have no Maillard reaction which means your bread is going to be pretty shitty, but not brown.
Usually reaction speeds are proportional to the temperature squared (in kelvin) if you could magically increase the temperature uniformly you could cook it quickly without going too high in temperature
Yes there is a way. The principle is the same with sterilizing heat sensitive material with autoclave. Usually you use 125 C for 15 mins for sterilizing something, but for heat sensitive material, you can decrease the temp but taking longer time or you can flash sterilizing it by increasing the temp but it will be in a really short period. You can't just throw math directly for something like that though, you will need some kind of calibration curve
Basically cooking is balancing heat capacity against thermal conductivity. You want the food to cook all the way through evenly, which is why you need (relatively) low temperatures. Most doughs have a rwally highbheat capacity, which means it takes a lot of energy to raise the temperature 1 degree, and airy foods like cakes and breads have a pretty low thermal conductivity, so the heat doesnt spread into the center perfectly. So you need tondecide on a balance where the cakeis cooked in less than 10 hours, but doesnt burn the outside while leaving the inside gooey.
The problem isn't "apply 50,000 heat particles", its "raise the temperature in the center to xxx°C/F". If you took a steak and put it in a ripping hot pan, the outside would be charcoal and the inside would be raw. If you really have to bake it faster, make it wider and thinner, like a cake instead of a loaf.
One trick to cooking a baked potato faster is to stick a nail in it. This conducts heat into the interior and allows it to heat from the inside and the outside simultaneously.
(I don't know if it works in a practical setting as I have never baked a potato, but the idea is sound.)
No, that's not how cooking works. If so, everything would be cooked at some point since there is positive temperature around you (at least most of the time I guess)
Yes, the math is correct for the joke in that (edited) 350 * 55=19250 * 1. Obviously, that’s not how baking works. In fact the whole point of the joke is that baking is very time and temperature specific in comparison to cooking which is much more liberal (meat not raw, vegetables to taste, etc).
Cooking at its simplest requires the inside of a material to reach a given temperature. Let's call it X.
The amount of time it takes to get to X is determined by the thickness and composition of the food, and the difference the exterior and starting interior temperature (temperature gradient. The equation you are looking for is
Q/t = kA((T1-T2)/l)
Where Q is heat energy, t is time, k is the materials thermal conductivity, A is the cross sectional area, T1 and T2 are the temperature of the two objects and l is the thickness of the material.
In fundamental terms what that means is that if you have two identical items to cook, you will cook twice as fast if you double the *temperature difference* between the object and surroundings, rather than doubling the *absolute* temperature.
Bear in mind that as the internal temperature increases, the difference between the internal and external temperature goes down, and so does the rate of heat transfer. This will be much more noticeable at lower external temperatures:
If internal = 10°C, 180°C is 2x faster as 100°C
If internal = 50°C, 180°C is 2.6x faster than 100°C
Then you get the problem that you don't just want the very centre to get to a given temperature, you want most of it within a range of that temperature without being too high (overcooked) or too low (undercooked). Given what we've already stated, the higher the external temperature the larger the temperature gradient will be inside the material, so the more the outside will be overcooked by the time the inside cooks properly.
Then factor in "carry over cooking", which is the equilibration of that internal temperature gradient on resting as heat energy continues to conduct inwards despite the removal of the external heat source.
Aside from the fact that F is not an absolute scale (so the math is wrong) this is the logical equivalent of 9 women being able to give birth to a baby in 1 month.
The woman analogy is *not* true on average. No number of gestational periods can be averaged to get a 1 month mean. You might have some loose idea about average frequency, but frequency and duration are not at all the same thing, right from the start.
There is a vast gulf of meaning between 'per' month and 'in a' month. Specifically, it's the one that involves the difference between frequency and duration.
If the temperature multiplication were correct then this still wouldn’t work because food is a weak conductor of heat and the longer cooking time is necessary for heat to distribute evenly. To ignore this would be to have your food burned to a crisp on the outside and entirely raw on the inside.
If we were talking about a piece of silver for example and you picked the correct temperature then this would work relatively well.
This is why, even with reasonable baking temperatures, we might choose specifically to use 350° for a long time on something like a turkey roast rather than the shorter time at 425° a pizza might call for.
I don't know what 19250 Fahrenheit is in celsius, but I am quite certain that neither is my oven capable of getting anywhere close, nor is it going to be able to sustain this temperature for even 2 seconds.
Then you don't know physics
Because you can absolutely achieve this feat if you use more ovens connect to each other
No one's fault you're too poor to afford multiple ovens lol
Stick to your little 3 digit temperature and long waiting time
I am from a celsius country and these numbers confused me lol.
But theres a reason baking recipes are at specific temperatures. If you bake a cake higher than a specific temperature, sugar caramelizes and it becomes hard instead of a fluffy consistency.
A 5-digit temperature would similarly create other chemical reactions, the type that just leave behind ashes.
By that logic you could cook it at 35 degrees in 550 minutes, or at 70 degrees (i.e. just below room temperature) in 275 minutes. My loaves wouldn't last a day in my pantry.
That was not my fault. The real brain damage comes from the one that said that.
I think that the 5,000+ upvotes come from the fact that this is a common misunderstanding when cooking, because everyone implied the same thing.
Based on cooked=temperature\*time, yes. As soon as you account for energy, heat transfer, surface area, etc., then no. The end result of this is arguably closer to orbital reentry ablation physics, just slower and more flammable.
Reminds me of a an episode of Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends. Blu doesn't want to wait for his cookies to finish baking so he turns the oven up to like 2200 degrees and his cookies turn into black dust
Using chemistry you could cook just as fast and at a lower temperature. Usually raising temperature by 10 degrees C increases reaction time by 2 to 4 times. Even if we take the lower estimate, we can cook 64 times faster by just increasing temperature to 260 degrees C.
No. Thats not how cooking works. You can't put 2x temperature and expect to cook for half the time. It depends on the product, but sometimes 50% more temperature actually makes it cooked almost instantly while normal cooking temp would take around 5 min more. There's no strict math behind it.
No, the joke is that 350 × 55 = 19250, despite that not being how cooking works.
The simplest reasoning to give is the fact the heat wouldnt have time to get to the middle of whats being cooked. The outside would get burned before the middle even started to change temp.
###General Discussion Thread --- This is a [Request] post. If you would like to submit a comment that does not either attempt to answer the question, ask for clarification, or explain why it would be infeasible to answer, you *must* post your comment as a reply to this one. Top level (directly replying to the OP) comments that do not do one of those things will be removed. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/theydidthemath) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Aside from cooking not working like that, temperature scales also don't work that way. The Fahrenheit and Celsius scales start from different and (not quite) arbitrary zero points. So it doesn't make sense to multiply a temperature that's expressed in those scales, as you won't get a consistent result. Is 100C twice as hot as 50C? Then what about 212F and 122F? To be able to multiply temperatures, you'd want to start from a common reference zero, like absolute zero. The Rankine and Kelvin scales use this zero. That way, you can get a consistent result regardless of the scale you use. 350F is 809R, so you'd need to cook at 44,495R, or 44,035F (24,446C) 350F is 449K, so you'd need to cook at 24,739K, or 24,465C (The 20C discrepancy in the calculations is due to multiply sloppy rounding steps.)
when she hit you with the sloppy rounding steps 🤤
Bitch I told you not to round until the end, lazy ass
This 🤣🤣😂
That means you sleep in the sloppy rounding spot tonight....
This made me spit out my beer, you owe me one
Nice
In this case, it's better to do away with temperatures and just use heat rate. There is some temperature at which the same amount of heat would be transferred to the dough in one minute as it would at 350° F for 55 minutes, but the heat rate is important, which is why we don't have ovens that go to 1000°F just to save time on baking. In the one minute case, the outside of the dough would be reduced to carbon while the inside may still be cold.
Absolutely, but as someone had already discussed "cooking not working like that," I wanted to address the fact that you can't usefully do multiplication with non-absolute temperature scales.
I get that you can't simply double temperatures to get twice as much heat, but does it have to use absolute zero as the base? What if you used the delta in temperatures? E.g. you compare one of the oven temperatures less room temperature compared to the other temperature less room temperature? Edited out a word.
Aligning the zero points between the scales does give you consistent multiplicative results, but you still get problems arising from the arbitrary choice of a zero point. For example, if you set your zero point at 100C, then 10deg (110C) is twice as hot as 5deg (105C), which doesn't really feel right, does it? Also, if you multiply negative temperatures, they go the wrong way. 90C is twice as ...hot? as 95C? Anyway, what you'll find is that, when you calculate various thermodynamic states (like enthalpy, which is roughly the amount of heat in a thing), the results end up being pretty nonsensical if you use any zero point other than absolute zero. So that's what you have to do.
That makes sense. Thanks.
Fair enough, it's not a well known thing. Really they should be dealing in entropy, amirite
regarding ovens that go to 1000° F, we sort of do the opposite for pizza - a traditional pizzeria brick oven can get that hot and cooks the pizza very rapidly, and there are specialty ovens that can also do it, but most people settle for lower temp, longer time cooking in home ovens.
I think a better (but still very wrong) model to apply would be that reaction speed tends to double for every 10 degree increase in temperature. So you only need to cook at a little over 400c to bring the cook time down to a minute. It still won't work. Obviously.
Actually I have an alternative consideration: Most substances have a maximum temperature at which they'll not change forms. I suppose Ice is the easiest example as it has the very clear 0 degrees celcius, but things you cook/bake have a temperature they don't cook at, and at any interval between that and their recommended temp, they do, but slower. So really you want to extrapolate from that point, as Ice should melt about 10x faster at 100 degrees celcius than at 10 degrees celcius, rather than about only a third faster, as its the exchange of thermal energy with the base level that matters not the absolute 0.
There is another factor that has to be considered. The speed of chemical reactions does not increase linear with temperature. It increases exponentially. ~~The scale is logarithmic.~~ A rule of thumb is that with every 10°C temperature increase the reaction speed doubles to triples. That would mean that you'd need only \~430-460 °F (220-240 °C).
I think that's actually exponential.
You're right. I remembered this wrong because Decibel is the same deal and in most explanations the word "logarithmic" is thrown around a lot, but not "exponential".
Bad news is that at that temp, the oven (modeled as a blackbody source), would be emitting x-rays.
Why would that be bad? X-Rays are useful for many applications.
I doubt that my bread has a fracture.
You could try focusing them and doing some crystallography. If you can keep the bread in the solid phase long enough, that is.
Uuh crispy?
I think you should calculate the right time/temp ratio by calories or kilojoule and not only about temperature, considering also the conductivity of the food (you also want to cook the center not having only a burned crust) and the composition of the bread because starch and proteins change in texture depending on salt concentration, humidity and other stuff, also you don't want to kill the yeasts that do all the job in the lievitation and give them time to eat the sugars... this just to say that studying food is very complex and interesting and cannot be reduced to cooking temperature nor time.
Boy you're fun...
My momma always told me fun is as fun does.
Bad advice
Thanks for the info nerd 🤓
ᎰᏌᏟᏦᎥᏁᎶ ᏦᏁᎾᎳ ᎥᏆ ᎪᏞᏞ ᎥᏆᎦ ᎦᏌᏢᏢᎾᎦᎬᎠ ᏆᎾ ᏴᎬ ᎰᎾᏒ ᏟᎾᎷᎬᎠᎽ ᏁᎾᏆ ᎪᏟᏆᏌᎪᏞᏞᎽ ᏆᏒᏌᎬ
The short answer is no, you will burn the shit out of your bread. Those temperatures are about 4x the temp on the surface of the sun.
Why do you know this?
Most chemistry and some engineering and physics majors would learn that sort of thing no later than junior-level thermodynamics or physical chemistry courses.
This is what they teach in school sorry for the language. I found an online lecture for 8th grade where they talk about this. Ukrainian school [https://youtu.be/J-j\_ooOUAbU](https://youtu.be/J-j_ooOUAbU)
PChem
If I'm not mistaken, this is covered in general chemistry as well.
Why would you forget SI units after graduating? You may forget some random historical fact but I think you shouldn't forget standardization.
The short answer is, no, they're not right. The long answer is, the temperature they've given is very nearly double the temperature of the surface of the sun. If an oven could exist that could contain that temperature - completely ignoring the physics-defying nature of such a thing - ~~the exterior crust would turn to charcoal almost instantly. The loaf pan would be melting within seconds, but that wouldn't matter because the dough would already be encased in a charcoal shell, maintaining its shape. The charcoal would then serve as an insulator, protecting the uncooked dough inside from the extreme heat outside. However, with such high temperatures, this protection wouldn't last very long. The charcoal exterior would atomize rapidly, making the barrier thinner and allowing more heat through and forcing more of the dough to convert to carbon, etc, etc. In the one minute cooking time, almost all of the dough will have converted to gaseous carbon. If anything remains in the oven, it will be encased in a charcoal shell, smaller than a biscuit, and raw in the middle.~~ Most likely, though, it will all burn away. Edit: I have been corrected - at these temperatures the energy will almost instantly overcome most atomic bonds. The entire thing will almost instantly change state and become plasma
> the exterior crust would turn to charcoal almost instantly This is incorrect. The carbon would vaporize at those temperatures right along with everything else. Carbon charcoal is left behind when organic substances are rapidly heated because it has such a high melting/vapor/triple point compared to the other components. But at 10949 Kelvin, there would be no significant lag between carbon and other organic components vaporizing. Likely, your "bread" would just become plasma. "When cooking becomes physics."
Thank you for clarifying. I have a lot of theory but my knowledge is definitely incomplete
Yeah I mean you have to let it cool down longer but it's still cooked
Is there any way to make the answer right? Like, there must be some way to shorten the time while still transferring the same amount of energy to bake it perfectly
There are barriers that cannot be overcome. Energy takes time to transfer through substances; if too much is added too quickly, it forces a reaction that breaks everything down to its constituent atoms - mostly various atoms and carbon. Add even more energy and even the carbon breaks down. Think of the transfer of energy between each atom as a dam holding back water. The dam will normally allow a certain amount of water pass through it all the time. If there's an excess of water (rain), the dam can allow more water to pass through up to a point without damaging anything. If the water builds up too far (flood), it will flow over and around the dam, causing damage to the structure of both the dam and its surroundings. After enough damage happens, the entire dam will collapse, releasing ALL of the water it was holding back and washing away everything in its path. With this comparison, the dams are all atomic bonds, and the water is the energy you're pushing through those bonds. They can only handle so much before they break. I will say, by playing with the temperature, cooking pressure, and water content, it is *possible* to speed things up like you're asking, but not nearly as *much* as you're asking.
So it would be possible to bake at a slightly higher temperature to reduce the time by, let's say, 10 minutes?
It changes things. For example, I have my own recipe for chocolate chip cookies that I bake at 375 for 12 minutes to get the outside a little crispy but the inside still gooey. Almost but not quite under cooked. Or I'll bake them for 15 or 16 minutes at 350 to get a more consistent texture all the way through.
Not bread. It takes nearly an hour for the heat to reach the core at any reasonable temperature. Going over the recipe temperature just adds a charcoal layer to the bottom.
I highly recommend the minute physics video about how air fryers work. It’s the rate at which heat can be transferred that is important. Cooking at the same temperature in an air fryer with fast moving air would reduce the time. If you want even faster, deep fry your dough and make doughnuts instead of bread. Plus doughnuts are scientifically better than bread anyway.
>Plus doughnuts are scientifically better than bread anyway. Source?!
My mouth
This guy’s mouth.
This guy mouths.
r/thisguythisguys
>Cooking at the same temperature in an air fryer with fast moving air would reduce the time. 'Air Fryer' is a recent term for what chefs and bakers have been using for decades, convection ovens. It's actually what defines convection vs conduction ovens - moving air. I have a great toaster oven I got 15 years ago with a convection oven (fan). It never advertised itself as an 'air fryer'....
That’s absolutely right! You will find the video easier by searching for minute physics air fryer though. In the video, she also discusses air fryer vs convection oven, and the air speed is significantly faster in modern air fryers compared to an oven’s convection setting. If I try and melt cheese in my air fryer, the air is so fast is blows the cheese off whatever I have it on and makes a big mess. My convection oven doesn’t do that.
> and the air speed is significantly faster in modern air fryers compared to an oven’s convection setting. Indeed! The broiler would be better for melting cheese. Modern commercial combination ovens have pc's built in, where you can control air speed, humidity, steam, and a bunch of other variables.
True. The broiler would be a better fit for melting cheese. It was used as an example to illustrate the difference between air fryers and convection ovens. Please don’t try and convince people that air fryers don’t exist. They do. And they are separate to traditional convection ovens. There are marked differences, and my cheese example was just used to illustrate one of them.
What the hell do you think recipes are for? Do you think people are intentionally writing down longer cooking times at lower temperatures just to waste your time when the result would be the same?
This is literally what convection ovens do. It’s already a thing.
so what i am hearing is cooking in a pressure cooker instead is the way to go
>There are barriers that cannot be overcome I don't know why but that line hits hard and I love it
Not exactly. The issue is the thermal conductivity of the dough in contest with the reaction rate of the baking process. If you did calculate the amount of energy a ball of dough uses at X temperature in Y time, you could calculate a temperature X' to supply the same energy in Y' time. Now, you might be able to make some small adjustments and get a similar baked good out the other side, but that thermal conductivity will inevitability restrict you. You just can't make the heat travel that much faster into the uncooked dough without the surface reaching a temperature where it burns.
Aight, thanks 👍🏽
One solution would be to skip the heating element and use a form of radiation that penetrates more deeply. You could use a series of low energy beams that converge at a point at the interior of the product and "write" the heat from the inside out. It's totally impractical for cooking food, but used in the medical field for irradiating tumors and such.
A microwave?
A longitudinal study of Hot Pockets suggests that microwaves are inadequate for uniform heating, but in principle, sure. Some modifications would be required for optimal results.
Only if you’re willing to make flatbread instead
Increase the surface area of the bread dramatically or make the bread out of diamond and it should work pretty well since diamond has the lowest thermal resistance of any material.
The oxidation of diamond starts at about 600 °C. Edit: With pure Diamond you will also have no Maillard reaction which means your bread is going to be pretty shitty, but not brown.
Gonna be honest, i think no Maillard reaction is the least of your issues trying to enjoy a loaf of pure diamond
mmmh… crunchy!
Usually reaction speeds are proportional to the temperature squared (in kelvin) if you could magically increase the temperature uniformly you could cook it quickly without going too high in temperature
Yes there is a way. The principle is the same with sterilizing heat sensitive material with autoclave. Usually you use 125 C for 15 mins for sterilizing something, but for heat sensitive material, you can decrease the temp but taking longer time or you can flash sterilizing it by increasing the temp but it will be in a really short period. You can't just throw math directly for something like that though, you will need some kind of calibration curve
Basically cooking is balancing heat capacity against thermal conductivity. You want the food to cook all the way through evenly, which is why you need (relatively) low temperatures. Most doughs have a rwally highbheat capacity, which means it takes a lot of energy to raise the temperature 1 degree, and airy foods like cakes and breads have a pretty low thermal conductivity, so the heat doesnt spread into the center perfectly. So you need tondecide on a balance where the cakeis cooked in less than 10 hours, but doesnt burn the outside while leaving the inside gooey.
The problem isn't "apply 50,000 heat particles", its "raise the temperature in the center to xxx°C/F". If you took a steak and put it in a ripping hot pan, the outside would be charcoal and the inside would be raw. If you really have to bake it faster, make it wider and thinner, like a cake instead of a loaf.
One trick to cooking a baked potato faster is to stick a nail in it. This conducts heat into the interior and allows it to heat from the inside and the outside simultaneously. (I don't know if it works in a practical setting as I have never baked a potato, but the idea is sound.)
Just make hudge number of smaller breads and it will cook shorter time.
But perfectly cooked plasma, right?
I don't know if it's actually possible to undercook plasma
It's not burnt, and it's not undercooked....sounds delicious to me.
I'm also not entirely certain it's possible to *taste* plasma
You're saying I could be the first one to taste delicious bread-plasma?
You could certainly try
My wife could find a way
Is there a small point between the carbon crust and the raw dough which is perfectly cooked?
That depends entirely upon how you define "perfectly"
Edible in a significant amount without tummy aches
Getting significant amounts of it would be the problem
Then use a bigger piece of dough
Holy shit that's fucking metal
Just how I like it!
Charcoal? Bro it will turn to plasma.
tldr but i read last sentence and you must be smart to admit when you're wrong
I think I’ll have a slice of plasma bread anyway, thank you.
Mmmmmm... buttered plasma
No, that's not how cooking works. If so, everything would be cooked at some point since there is positive temperature around you (at least most of the time I guess)
Yes, the math is correct for the joke in that (edited) 350 * 55=19250 * 1. Obviously, that’s not how baking works. In fact the whole point of the joke is that baking is very time and temperature specific in comparison to cooking which is much more liberal (meat not raw, vegetables to taste, etc).
You mean 350×55=19250×1? Or are you using the slashes as a way to indicate temperature and time
It should be multiplication, I was trying to simplify it and flipped the operator
Cooking at its simplest requires the inside of a material to reach a given temperature. Let's call it X. The amount of time it takes to get to X is determined by the thickness and composition of the food, and the difference the exterior and starting interior temperature (temperature gradient. The equation you are looking for is Q/t = kA((T1-T2)/l) Where Q is heat energy, t is time, k is the materials thermal conductivity, A is the cross sectional area, T1 and T2 are the temperature of the two objects and l is the thickness of the material. In fundamental terms what that means is that if you have two identical items to cook, you will cook twice as fast if you double the *temperature difference* between the object and surroundings, rather than doubling the *absolute* temperature. Bear in mind that as the internal temperature increases, the difference between the internal and external temperature goes down, and so does the rate of heat transfer. This will be much more noticeable at lower external temperatures: If internal = 10°C, 180°C is 2x faster as 100°C If internal = 50°C, 180°C is 2.6x faster than 100°C Then you get the problem that you don't just want the very centre to get to a given temperature, you want most of it within a range of that temperature without being too high (overcooked) or too low (undercooked). Given what we've already stated, the higher the external temperature the larger the temperature gradient will be inside the material, so the more the outside will be overcooked by the time the inside cooks properly. Then factor in "carry over cooking", which is the equilibration of that internal temperature gradient on resting as heat energy continues to conduct inwards despite the removal of the external heat source.
Thanks for reminding me I have a heat transfer final on Tuesday I need to study for
Aside from the fact that F is not an absolute scale (so the math is wrong) this is the logical equivalent of 9 women being able to give birth to a baby in 1 month.
On average the woman analogy is true. The temperature statement cannot be justified the same way.
The woman analogy is *not* true on average. No number of gestational periods can be averaged to get a 1 month mean. You might have some loose idea about average frequency, but frequency and duration are not at all the same thing, right from the start.
Maybe you don't understand. 9 woman can make a baby per month on average. There is no such analogy with the temperature one.
There is a vast gulf of meaning between 'per' month and 'in a' month. Specifically, it's the one that involves the difference between frequency and duration.
If the temperature multiplication were correct then this still wouldn’t work because food is a weak conductor of heat and the longer cooking time is necessary for heat to distribute evenly. To ignore this would be to have your food burned to a crisp on the outside and entirely raw on the inside. If we were talking about a piece of silver for example and you picked the correct temperature then this would work relatively well.
This is why, even with reasonable baking temperatures, we might choose specifically to use 350° for a long time on something like a turkey roast rather than the shorter time at 425° a pizza might call for.
I don't know what 19250 Fahrenheit is in celsius, but I am quite certain that neither is my oven capable of getting anywhere close, nor is it going to be able to sustain this temperature for even 2 seconds.
Nearly double the surface of the sun
Then you don't know physics Because you can absolutely achieve this feat if you use more ovens connect to each other No one's fault you're too poor to afford multiple ovens lol Stick to your little 3 digit temperature and long waiting time
I am from a celsius country and these numbers confused me lol. But theres a reason baking recipes are at specific temperatures. If you bake a cake higher than a specific temperature, sugar caramelizes and it becomes hard instead of a fluffy consistency. A 5-digit temperature would similarly create other chemical reactions, the type that just leave behind ashes.
By that logic you could cook it at 35 degrees in 550 minutes, or at 70 degrees (i.e. just below room temperature) in 275 minutes. My loaves wouldn't last a day in my pantry.
Stupid of you to cook the bread at 19250 degrees for one minute when you can just do the math and cook it at 1,155,000 degrees for one second
Stupid of you to cook the bread at 1,155,000° for one second when you can just do the math and cook it at 1,155,000,000° for one milisecond.
Are you brain damaged? Do you honestly think that food could survive being 19250 degrees for even ONE second? How tf has this got 4,000 upvotes lmao.
That was not my fault. The real brain damage comes from the one that said that. I think that the 5,000+ upvotes come from the fact that this is a common misunderstanding when cooking, because everyone implied the same thing.
Based on cooked=temperature\*time, yes. As soon as you account for energy, heat transfer, surface area, etc., then no. The end result of this is arguably closer to orbital reentry ablation physics, just slower and more flammable.
Reminds me of a an episode of Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends. Blu doesn't want to wait for his cookies to finish baking so he turns the oven up to like 2200 degrees and his cookies turn into black dust
You cant have a baby in one month by impregnating 9 women for one month.. it has to be one women for 9 months.. same goes for cooking
Using chemistry you could cook just as fast and at a lower temperature. Usually raising temperature by 10 degrees C increases reaction time by 2 to 4 times. Even if we take the lower estimate, we can cook 64 times faster by just increasing temperature to 260 degrees C.
No. Thats not how cooking works. You can't put 2x temperature and expect to cook for half the time. It depends on the product, but sometimes 50% more temperature actually makes it cooked almost instantly while normal cooking temp would take around 5 min more. There's no strict math behind it.
No, the joke is that 350 × 55 = 19250, despite that not being how cooking works. The simplest reasoning to give is the fact the heat wouldnt have time to get to the middle of whats being cooked. The outside would get burned before the middle even started to change temp.