S2S
I agree, it is fun throwing some curve balls now and then. Also, I like science, but I dislike when it drifts off from my plane of reality...
Stay here “my” science!
I just want to point out a few things I did/didn’t say:
1) It depends on the level of temperature and vacuum. I said: “Plus a vacuum can also be used to marinate and tenderize meat, and it still has a cooking effect in changing the food structure to make it more palatable and easier to digest (fibre/starch breakdown if used together with low temp heat)” I did include heat in the brackets! I am not saying no heat, nor that a total vacuum will cook food. I am saying that a combination of lower temperature, moderate vacuum will cook better than just standard 1bar 100-250C cooking.
Making it tender doesn’t make it safe to eat though, and edible raw food is generally healthy, apart from potatoes etc. In the case of a “third world” cooker though, I would assume health safety, ie microorganism destruction, is more important than having a tender meal. But as I proposed by using a combination, you could have both. Also food handling esp. without clean hands is the main transmission path for disease in food, bacterial destruction then becomes paramount. Alternatively I have seen ultrasonic molecular disassociation used for food that also kills bacteria etc. We also use ultrasonics pre-treatment for our biogas process to increase the “food” surface area, which helps promote bacteria numbers for methane production. The high pressure/temperature micro cavities actually have the power to rip open cell walls and fray fibrous materials without hydrolization. BTW this process is also commonly used for milk homogenisation and pasteurisation.
2)Agreed. Most pathogens are aerobic (air breathing) and therefore restricting the available oxygen via a vacuum creates an inhospitable environment. That is why vacuums are used in food preserving techniques like canning and bottling, like Diver explained.
Structurally a plastic bag will not retain its shape when a vacuum is formed inside the bag, however we want to store/process/cook food in these “bags”, therefore the bag will simply take the form of it’s contents, as is done in vacuum infusion. Structurally vacuum bags can easily sustain 500mbar if they only form a layer on the contents. In regards to heating such vacuum bag, the interior will only return to ambient pressure to the extent of gases (generally non-oxygen) released by the food, this will vary from food to food, and could be negligible or considerable in volume. Regardless of this, the bag will retain the food longer for lack of oxidisation/spoilage.
3) Ummm some people call machines that use atmospheric pressure changes “wind turbines”. Windmills are commonly used to drive piston pumps also. Other indirectly driven ones are wave generators, these are sometimes using atmospheric/ambient pressure twice: once from wind caused waves, secondly from air fluctuations caused by the rising and falling of the waves to drive an air turbine. If you want a vacuum, instead of electricity, then a leveraged plunger device would work as well. Sorry I ambushed you on that one.
4) Agreed, apart from this addition on the end of your sentence: “Nobody has ever proven reliably that anything in physics is working outside these postulates” (that you know about!). So do you agree that the universe is in perpetual motion (PM exists), but man-made devices suffer under the man made laws of thermodynamics and can never achieve perpetual motion (ie life)? I know this might be becoming a circular argument, and we have had this discussion before about keeping an “open mind” to new information, and that we do not by far “know much at all” in the grand scheme of things. I am really only trying to tickle your ganglion for your perspective on the matter. BTW I am a firm believer in the perpetual design of nature and that we as humans need to tap into this perpetual nature to become sustainable, as well as live more comfortable.
5) So does this mean you agree that our "known" universe is only what we can explain through our perception? I also agree that our language is the barrier to more universal understanding; our definitions are to lax and constantly misused, or used out of context (mostly by me!). It seems that knowledge and understanding only exists "between the lines" of the written and spoken word. Sometimes I wish there was a way to restructure the recipients brain telepathically, so they can instantly understand what I mean without fail.
BTW I have another slogan for you: “we can’t afford to have free(monetary) energy” in a capitalist system!
-
Also in regards to divulging some more alternative theories, and I know you don’t like PM’s and such theories etc but these are really worth checking out. Scalar wave field theory is the subject; have you heard of landsmann Prof. Dr.-Ing. Konstantin Meyl? His site:
http://www.meyl.eu/go/index.php?dir=10_Home&page=1&sublevel=0
This video is a good primer, however sadly only in German, I will try to find some in English versions: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzsqeFH9Z_o
-
On the point of "Gravity is not an energy, it is a force". A science professor once said: "Einstein's genius was being able to move away from the Newtonian view that gravity is a force - it is not. Mass tells spacetime how to curve. Spacetime tells mass how to move. Gravity is an effect you observe in the dimensions we can sense." IE our perception of the universe is not necessarily the way it works, as per my previous metaphysical toast...
Hope Einstein was right for the nukes sake!
Also another argument could be made with gravity as a force being a “potential energy”, therefore "literally" speaking it is an energy... It's a shame that even science has problems defining itself. :0
Should we now put Einstein and Newton on the too much grog crew too?
Are my interpretations really that horrible to scientists? (or do I have horrible science?)
I'm so sorry about that!
BTW Diver thx for backing me up on my posts!
Posted Saturday 23 Oct 2010 @ 4:34:41 pm from IP
#