How hard do you have to hit a chicken to cook it? (2020)
james-simon.github.io
james-simon.github.io
Clearly, we could simply knock its head off with a bat, since today I learned you can physically cook chickens with bats and professional batters, via a method well suited to humanity's eminent migration to outer space.
But I expect with some years of strength training and finesse, a very hard flick to the back of the chicken's lower noggin could dislodge the first cervical vertebrate from the skull, severing the spinal cord's integration with the brain stem.
Whether actually dead, or merely in a persistent vegetative state, the chicken may now be cooked.
However, if the chicken is merely headless [0], but in good health, one should not cook it.
https://www.wdrb.com/news/crime-reports/uofl-student-sentenc...
> Worldwide: As of 2015, approximately 7 billion male chicks were culled annually around the world
Could we do better or have better practices? Sure. Is there an argument for not eating meat at all? Sure.
But if you were going to die you would have a lot bigger problem being slowly roasted alive versus instant brain destruction.
Energy in general really feels weird, when you look at the numbers. Like potential energy or kinetic on relatively low speeds... And then compared to chemical energy...
Edit: Also how do you get it there? Wouldn't you need to hit it with higher frequency to start with to get to temp?
Assuming the chicken has a surface area A=1m^2 (corresponding to a perfectly spherical chicken of radius=25cm/diameter=50cm, a little bigger than usual) and is a perfect blackbody (just going to handwave this one).
with the incorrect temperature: A blackbody with T=165°C (438 K) and A=1m^2 radiates P=2090 W.
with the correct temperature: A blackbody with T=74°C (347 K) and A=1m^2 radiates P=824 W.
Also neglected is the incoming radiation from the ambient environment. Without this, the "power loss" is closer to measuring the chicken in deep interstellar space. from a room temperature environment: T=20°C (293 K) and A=1m^2 radiates P=419 W onto the chicken.
The net power loss of the cooling chicken on the kitchen counter is therefore something like 824-419 = 405W, rapidly decreasing as the temperature drops towards room temperature. e.g. at 50°C it's around 200W.
> In his 1807 Almanach des Gourmands, gastronomist Grimod de La Reynière presents his rôti sans pareil ("roast without equal")—a bustard stuffed with a turkey, a goose, a pheasant, a chicken, a duck, a guinea fowl, a teal, a woodcock, a partridge, a plover, a lapwing, a quail, a thrush, a lark, an ortolan bunting and a garden warbler—although he states that, since similar roasts were produced by ancient Romans, the rôti sans pareil was not entirely novel.
https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/3j96p1/a...
Where did they even get 165F from in the first place? The “classic solution” article uses 400F, a much more appropriate oven temperature.
That gets you your log7 reduction of salmonella, so it is safe to eat, but I don't know if it would be "cooked" (changing to an acceptable texture) if you could instantaneously bring it to 165 F.
I have no idea what that cooking process is like. In a water bath, I run chicken breast at 62C instead of 60C because the texture is better for dicing and putting in kid's lunches or wraps. I might try 60C if I was searing and serving whole. I haven't done dark meat this way, but I suspect it'd need a higher temperature or time to break down connective tissue. And I know that for lower temperatures (58C? - I haven't made that in years), you need to hold short ribs for a couple of days.
This reminds me of the old blacksmithing trick: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4I68Cik7ywg
Disappointed they didn’t factor in other inputs to the propulsion (e.g. battery assist, etc).
The effect will diminish over time if you don't use it, but not completely until over a year or more of not using it, and you can do it before cold weather hits. It probably happens somewhat to you already if you are experiencing it enough, however you might not really get the effects naturally until we are already nearing spring, or if you only ever experience it for 15 minutes at a time and then go roast your hands on a heater, versus training it in the fall so when deep winter hits you are already very well acclimated to it.
Its the same effect that lets people wear shorts or kilts or whatever in the winter and snow. They aren't unusual or weird or got warm blood, they just exposed their legs often enough to cold for the body to learn and adapt until it no longer bothered them. It can even go pretty extreme to people being barefoot in the snow for hours at a time, when someone unused to it would have frost bite in 20 minutes.
I’m pretty sure NASA used a version of this to test the resiliency of the space shuttle tiles. Not fast enough to cook tho.
Then made it impenetrable to non-Americans by using imperial.
So now I will remember it a bit better and for longer
Hackernews is actually like Anki cards for nerd (and in this case useless) Internet stuff
SR-71 external temp reached 600F or so at Mach-3, so that might result in a charred chicken.
I guess even cooking a rare steak (beyond just searing the outside) takes a couple of minutes, so maybe it'd need some Mach-3 horizontal flying time.
The trouble would be imparting and spreading enough energy through the entire mass uniformly enough to have something remain.
It likely wouldn't work in the real world because the result would obliterate bones resulting in something worse than Chicken McNuggets, and not cook it sufficiently long to be safe from bacterial contamination.
If attempting such a feat, it would generate visible light. There's a good chance of generating some long-wave UV at the energies involved (several MJ, which would be a chicken flying at about 2 km/s. It would instantly disintegrate.)
"We call them heaters in that one case."
Or put it in mirror chamber - a bit less trouble than windmilling baseball bats ...
Of course, overheating might have negative effects on the eating satisfaction test.
Certainly holds true for the Gen Z sense of the word.
You can't give birth to a baby in one month using 9 women.
If I had bothered to think I would have known this theoretically = being a physics and mecheng guy.
https://showcase.nano-banana.ai/ai-generated/fal_nano-banana...
But in OPs context, I don't even know what it was supposed to mean. Like... just cooked? Are we including a final sear after the circulator?
Edit: and actually, "sous-vide" means "vacuum sealed" (or even more literally "in a vacuum"), so you technically "cook it sous-vide", you don't "sous-vide it", because it's not a verb. But also yes: language is how people use it.
And, since the volume is more confined, it should have the benefit of slightly reducing the required kinetic cooking energy.
By the way, it's got a Youtube channel now and it's as good as ever: https://www.youtube.com/@xkcd_whatif