What in the holy hell are you talking about. Even if you get get energy past a barrier (which is completely plausible) you still need an insulating layer between the cooked food and ice or else it will melt. Meat has to be cooked over 160F or somewhere around there (probably higher) and you're telling me that the heat won't escape from the meat and melt the ice around it? That it won't soak into the wax and deform it?
@i_ just because you don't understand it or find it difficult to believe does not make it untrue. This technology exists and has been displayed and if you truly want to argue against it then do so on sites where there are actual discussions happening about it. The people there actually understand the science behind it and can answer all of your queries. Let us marvel at modern tech in peace
You can't violate the fundamental laws of thermodynamics. You can certainly cook food within a container without injecting energy directly into the container as with microwaving a Hot Pocket for example. The insides get hotter much faster than the outsides. But then if you leave it to soak, the shell does in fact get hot because simple thermal conduction makes it happen. Unless the thing is just an overglorified microwave that cooks food lickity split, it's not possible. Additionally, there MUST be an insulating layer between the food and container. The cardboard of a hot pocket doesn't feel too hot because the wrap keeps the heat away from it. Take away the wrap and let the innards spill onto the cardboard, and the cardboard heats up fast.
I'm doing you the courtesy of looking through the link again. I did see the video of the wax that I missed on my first pass and here's my explanation for it.
The melting point of beeswax is about 145F. Medium-rare is about 140F. Medium is 160F, Well done is 170F. It's entirely possible that the meat was very lightly cooked within the wax container but that doesn't detract from the fact that you can't heat something up without the energy trying to escape. The wax in the video was so fucking soft when they pulled it off so it was really close to melting. The biggest takeaway from that video is that the oven can monitor and adjust its temperature extremely precisely.
Ice has a very low melting temperature as you should know, so there's no way that an ice block would survive food cooking inside it.
Listen up you dipfucks. I'm going to explain this as simply as I can and still leave a way for this "ice bullshit" to be plausible.
===Let's start with the facts===
Heat flows from hot to cold. Undeniable fact and if you argue then fuck you, you're moron #1 on this godforsaken site.
Liquid water has a (relatively) very high specific heat, meaning that it takes a lot of energy to raise the temperature a little bit. In other words, it's a great heater or coolant.
Water conducts heat very well. This means that the entire body of water will heat up as a whole system as opposed to say...rubber where if you hold a flame to one side you can still put your hand on the other side and not feel any heat.
The transition between ice and water requires even more energy. It's actually harder to melt ice than heat water.
USDA recommends the final temperature of meat to be at least 145F to be healthy. Rare meat can be as low as 120 (or just defrosted if you're some bloodthirsty freak but whatever).
My assumptions when I made my previous arguments:
The steak encased in wax was cooked well done
The fish was encased in a layer of ice only a few centimeters thick at most
When cooked, the fish was cooked at least medium-well and the ice was completely intact
The first is false because it's just not possible at all to have solid wax at temperatures required to cook meat well done.
The second is false because that's a fucking massive block of ice
I assume the third is false for reasons that will be explained
I'm going to assume that there's various "grades" of "done-ness" in fish cooking as there is with steak and lamb and pork and whatnot. I'm also going to assume that the fish is cooked medium-rare at most. I think I saw somewhere that the fish was cooked 8 minutes (?) so that's my working assumption as well.
Let's work with the (false) assumption that the ice was completely intact. Obviously this is false and what my initial argument was based upon. It's just not possible because of thermal conduction. What likely happened is that the inside bits of ice touching the fish turned into water but the outside of the ice (presumably a relatively significant thickness) remained solid. But why is this possible if thermal conduction happens like I keep harping on about? Well keep reading to find out.
8 minutes actually isn't a lot of time if you're trying to melt a big block of ice. It took me about five minutes to completely melt a massive block of bullshit that accumulated in my freezer with a blowtorch. And that's like 3500F flame which is ridiculous compared to a measly 145F slab of meat. Fact 4 says that it takes a lot of heat to melt ice. That means that given the short amount of time to cook combined with the fact that it's really not TOO hot, the ice doesn't melt ALL THAT FAST. Now that the ice around the fish has melted, there's an insulating layer of water. Fact 2 and 3 combine here to show that whatever heat enters the water gets dissipated throughout the entirety of the liquid so the water heats up pretty slowly. Let's return to fact 4. The heat that's now in the water now has to get removed to melt the ice, but that takes even more heat.
All this combines to say that the ice melts really slowly. A lot slower than one would think, but it is still melting.
So why is it that you asswipes are claiming that the ice and wax are completely intact? That's because it really does appear that way.
The wax is really just on the edge of melting. It's so soft and peel-able but it stays solid thanks to physics and chemistry. So yeah I suppose you can cook meat in wax but I hate my meat bleeding all over my veggies so I've never imagined that you would cook meat at such a low temperature. You can barely cook meat safely in wax-safe temperatures.
The ice is fucking massive. That's why you dipshits think the ice isn't melting. It is, but it wasn't allowed the time to melt completely. If the ice was only an inch or two thick, you'd definitely see it gone. That fish might be cooked but it's swimming in a pool of warm (?) water.
Oh, and I forgot to add this bit. Ice can be lower than 32F so energy that would be used to melt ice would first be needed to bring it up to 32F to begin with. So that's another reason why it could be melting slowly.
And for all you lazy cunts who don't want to read my rage filled, science inspired, well thought-out argument, here's a TLDR
I'm right. Mostly. You can "cook" meat in wax just fine but if you served that to me I'd ask for it to be cooked better.
You're dead fucking wrong about the ice. It's definitely melting but the ice is so big, being heated at a low-ish temperature, for a really short amount of time so you're just not seeing it.
If you are so sure about being right, I have to point the question why you see yourself obviously forced to enhance each of your arguments by insulting the people discussing with you. This is -at least in the culture I was born and raised- the opposite of well tought-out and far away from what you should have been tought as a kid already.
If you really need your self esteem being supported by "winning" discussions over new oven technologies on the internet, please at least refrain from scathing about the people sharing another opinion than yours, which potentially might end up in them listening to you.
May your wax always be solid and your ice never melting.
I insult you all because you mother fuckers aren't giving me any sort of counterargument besides "oh that's just the way it is".
Your "argument" is the easiest way to frustrate someone and turn them away from your point of view because you're so staunchly advocating for something without any sort of intelligent basis. Alright well I guess it LOOKS like it's happening but WHY. I 100% know I'm not wrong but why does it look different? Well I looked up some basic facts and explained it. And you dipshits are just like YOU'RE WRONG THAT'S JUST THE WAY THINGS ARE IT'S ON TV LOL.
And my insults aren't enhancing my arguments. Take them out and my assessment still holds the same import. I'm just throwing them in as barbs against your seeming inability to form an explanation.
Now that you fucks have had 22 hours to contemplate the truths I'm so violently spewing, are we going to agree that I'm right? Or are we just going to assume that I'm wrong because I'm hurting your precious little feelings because you people obviously aren't considering basic scientific principles when considering the possibilities of this oven?
First of all, there's no video. And if there is, it's included in that first massive media link which will take me two hours to download so I'm not going to bother with that.
The ice block shown clearly has part of the fish exposed.
If it was cooked this way, that means that it's possible to cook the fish from the exposed side and allow heat to conduct away from there.
If the fish was in fact completely covered with ice, I'm proven right. Also, look at the ice surrounding the fish. It looks a bit fucky, sort of like maybe perhaps there's something else besides water mixed into the ice? Maybe because it melted and some fish juice mixed in perhaps? It might have refrozen maybe? Why don't you use some critical thinking and skepticism for once?
https://www.cnet.com/products/miele-dialog-oven/preview/ http://ovens.reviewed.com/features/we-tried-an-oven-that-cooks-by-listening-to-your-food-and-its-amazing-miele-dialog
These two links have the only "vaguely" sciencey explanations out there for how this works.
Having read these, I will further my hypothesis and explanations.
=AND HERE WE GO=
The most important thing I read was that the the oven adjusts amplitude, direction, and phase of the RF. The second most important thing was that RF penetrates ice very well; it's not absorbed into heat. A quibbling point I read was that there were small pieces of cod, implying the whole fish wasn't completely cooked but that's pedantic and I'm not going to argue pedantics because that's insulting to everyone involved.
A disclaimer, I don't know how well flesh conducts heat. I worked with a researcher for a few months on surgical tissue welding but that's an entirely different story. But I do remember him saying that flesh could take a surprisingly large thermal gradient, but "surprisingly large" is a relative term.
IN ANY CASE
We know that the oven is very precise. I didn't pay much attention in electromagnetic physics but from what little I do remember, you can put waves in phase to do really cool shit like cancel each other out or supercharge each other. This is how the oven cooks so precisely, it takes waves and adjusts them such that they supercharge at the food's location and cancel most everywhere else. This combined with the fact that the frequencies they use don't interact much with ice conclude that the ice is basically undisturbed by the heat source.
https://www.quora.com/Is-human-flesh-a-good-conductor-of-heat
If we assume human flesh and fish flesh are more or less similar, we can see that their thermal conductivity is low. I can't find the TC of fish flesh because what little research is out there is hidden behind those bullshit paywalls.
If we assume that only the internals of the fish are being cooked with the vaunted precision of the oven, then the ice should remain relatively intact because the outside flesh provides a thermal barrier.
And this is literally all I was asking for when this whole line of bullshit began. All you had to tell me was that only the inside of the fish was cooked and flesh conducts heat poorly and none of this would have happened. But let's continue for the sake of argument because fuck all of you and I'm on a roll.
Let's assume that the previous statements are correct. Fish only cooked on inside, fish good thermal insulator. I still believe the ice is being affected. Look back and you'll see that I mention that the ice looks a bit fucky. If you've ever played with supercooled ice and a lot of heat, you would see that the transparency and clarity of the ice changed when you heat it up. I don't know why or how but that's what I've experimentally/anecdotally experienced. So the ice could be super cold and the parts near the fish are heating up a bit, but not enough to melt a lot due to the flesh insulation. Alternatively it could have melted just a bit throughout the whole thing and then refrozen.
So what was wrong with my previous assumptions? The biggest one (that I haven't listed) is that the fish is completely and thoroughly cooked to a nice hot temperature. If this was the case there is no way an ice block would not have hollowed out.
You see? This is how you construct an argument. You can't just throw media at people, you have to disassemble it, analyze it, construct your argument around why and how things could have happened. You're just throwing recursive definitions at me.
Why does the ice not melt? Because TV said so. Well who told the TV? The oven. But how does the oven work? Just look on TV. But the TV only shows me what happens, not why it happens.
See the problem with your argument? It doesn't matter how polite or impolite it is. If it's not structured, how can it even be called an argument? It's just throwing unorganized evidence and hoping some understanding comes out of it.
And so what can we conclude about all this? You didn't give me any sort of initial premise to work with so I just made my own assumptions based on what ordinary people would do. My conclusions are not wrong if my initial premise is correct, and technically I'm still not wrong because if left long enough, my predictions are correct.
2 Minutes of research...
The melting point of beeswax is about 145F. Medium-rare is about 140F. Medium is 160F, Well done is 170F. It's entirely possible that the meat was very lightly cooked within the wax container but that doesn't detract from the fact that you can't heat something up without the energy trying to escape. The wax in the video was so fucking soft when they pulled it off so it was really close to melting. The biggest takeaway from that video is that the oven can monitor and adjust its temperature extremely precisely.
Ice has a very low melting temperature as you should know, so there's no way that an ice block would survive food cooking inside it.
===Let's start with the facts===
Heat flows from hot to cold. Undeniable fact and if you argue then fuck you, you're moron #1 on this godforsaken site.
Liquid water has a (relatively) very high specific heat, meaning that it takes a lot of energy to raise the temperature a little bit. In other words, it's a great heater or coolant.
Water conducts heat very well. This means that the entire body of water will heat up as a whole system as opposed to say...rubber where if you hold a flame to one side you can still put your hand on the other side and not feel any heat.
The transition between ice and water requires even more energy. It's actually harder to melt ice than heat water.
USDA recommends the final temperature of meat to be at least 145F to be healthy. Rare meat can be as low as 120 (or just defrosted if you're some bloodthirsty freak but whatever).
The steak encased in wax was cooked well done
The fish was encased in a layer of ice only a few centimeters thick at most
When cooked, the fish was cooked at least medium-well and the ice was completely intact
The first is false because it's just not possible at all to have solid wax at temperatures required to cook meat well done.
The second is false because that's a fucking massive block of ice
I assume the third is false for reasons that will be explained
Let's work with the (false) assumption that the ice was completely intact. Obviously this is false and what my initial argument was based upon. It's just not possible because of thermal conduction. What likely happened is that the inside bits of ice touching the fish turned into water but the outside of the ice (presumably a relatively significant thickness) remained solid. But why is this possible if thermal conduction happens like I keep harping on about? Well keep reading to find out.
All this combines to say that the ice melts really slowly. A lot slower than one would think, but it is still melting.
The wax is really just on the edge of melting. It's so soft and peel-able but it stays solid thanks to physics and chemistry. So yeah I suppose you can cook meat in wax but I hate my meat bleeding all over my veggies so I've never imagined that you would cook meat at such a low temperature. You can barely cook meat safely in wax-safe temperatures.
The ice is fucking massive. That's why you dipshits think the ice isn't melting. It is, but it wasn't allowed the time to melt completely. If the ice was only an inch or two thick, you'd definitely see it gone. That fish might be cooked but it's swimming in a pool of warm (?) water.
Oh, and I forgot to add this bit. Ice can be lower than 32F so energy that would be used to melt ice would first be needed to bring it up to 32F to begin with. So that's another reason why it could be melting slowly.
I'm right. Mostly. You can "cook" meat in wax just fine but if you served that to me I'd ask for it to be cooked better.
You're dead fucking wrong about the ice. It's definitely melting but the ice is so big, being heated at a low-ish temperature, for a really short amount of time so you're just not seeing it.
If you really need your self esteem being supported by "winning" discussions over new oven technologies on the internet, please at least refrain from scathing about the people sharing another opinion than yours, which potentially might end up in them listening to you.
May your wax always be solid and your ice never melting.
Your "argument" is the easiest way to frustrate someone and turn them away from your point of view because you're so staunchly advocating for something without any sort of intelligent basis. Alright well I guess it LOOKS like it's happening but WHY. I 100% know I'm not wrong but why does it look different? Well I looked up some basic facts and explained it. And you dipshits are just like YOU'RE WRONG THAT'S JUST THE WAY THINGS ARE IT'S ON TV LOL.
Go suck a dick
The ice block shown clearly has part of the fish exposed.
If it was cooked this way, that means that it's possible to cook the fish from the exposed side and allow heat to conduct away from there.
If the fish was in fact completely covered with ice, I'm proven right. Also, look at the ice surrounding the fish. It looks a bit fucky, sort of like maybe perhaps there's something else besides water mixed into the ice? Maybe because it melted and some fish juice mixed in perhaps? It might have refrozen maybe? Why don't you use some critical thinking and skepticism for once?
http://ovens.reviewed.com/features/we-tried-an-oven-that-cooks-by-listening-to-your-food-and-its-amazing-miele-dialog
These two links have the only "vaguely" sciencey explanations out there for how this works.
Having read these, I will further my hypothesis and explanations.
=AND HERE WE GO=
The most important thing I read was that the the oven adjusts amplitude, direction, and phase of the RF. The second most important thing was that RF penetrates ice very well; it's not absorbed into heat. A quibbling point I read was that there were small pieces of cod, implying the whole fish wasn't completely cooked but that's pedantic and I'm not going to argue pedantics because that's insulting to everyone involved.
IN ANY CASE
We know that the oven is very precise. I didn't pay much attention in electromagnetic physics but from what little I do remember, you can put waves in phase to do really cool shit like cancel each other out or supercharge each other. This is how the oven cooks so precisely, it takes waves and adjusts them such that they supercharge at the food's location and cancel most everywhere else. This combined with the fact that the frequencies they use don't interact much with ice conclude that the ice is basically undisturbed by the heat source.
If we assume human flesh and fish flesh are more or less similar, we can see that their thermal conductivity is low. I can't find the TC of fish flesh because what little research is out there is hidden behind those bullshit paywalls.
If we assume that only the internals of the fish are being cooked with the vaunted precision of the oven, then the ice should remain relatively intact because the outside flesh provides a thermal barrier.
And this is literally all I was asking for when this whole line of bullshit began. All you had to tell me was that only the inside of the fish was cooked and flesh conducts heat poorly and none of this would have happened. But let's continue for the sake of argument because fuck all of you and I'm on a roll.
So what was wrong with my previous assumptions? The biggest one (that I haven't listed) is that the fish is completely and thoroughly cooked to a nice hot temperature. If this was the case there is no way an ice block would not have hollowed out.
Why does the ice not melt? Because TV said so. Well who told the TV? The oven. But how does the oven work? Just look on TV. But the TV only shows me what happens, not why it happens.
See the problem with your argument? It doesn't matter how polite or impolite it is. If it's not structured, how can it even be called an argument? It's just throwing unorganized evidence and hoping some understanding comes out of it.
And so what can we conclude about all this? You didn't give me any sort of initial premise to work with so I just made my own assumptions based on what ordinary people would do. My conclusions are not wrong if my initial premise is correct, and technically I'm still not wrong because if left long enough, my predictions are correct.