Attn pinkerton, wire is not wire.

[Fella]

>>Stewart Pinkerton wrote
>>
>>
>> No one, and I mean *no one*, can
>>hear differences among nominally competent cable. That's *no one*, and
>>I've put £1,000 of my own money behind this for five years, with no
>>takers.
>

I challenged the "Randi challenge" a while back with speaker cables in
mind. The cables I use against zip cord, said I. James Randi answered
back that he acknowledges that "wire is not wire" ... He did not accept
my challenge. Furthermore, I then found out from the krooborg that the
wire = wire equation is applicable only when the wires in question are
of the same length, gauge and construct. :)

So I am SURE pinky that if I swing around to your part of woods to take
you on with that challenge you will define that term "nominally
competent cable" as to mean some lamp cord bought from radioshack. The
vowen teflon shielded home-made cables that I use would somehow be out
of the realm of "nominally competent cable". :) Just as if two CD
players, for instance, do not sound the same one of them is
"malfunctioning" !! ... :)

You borgs .. Killfile the lot'of'em, says I.

Here is the link to the discussion on the subject:

http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?q=James+Randi:+%22Wire+is+not+wire.+I+accep t+that

[[email protected]]

The point is not that zip cord is a preferred product but that cables
of standard products by firms such as Belden, packard Wire, and other
such companies are as good as can be had.

Allow no PTFE insulated anything in environments with valued birds,
such as macaws, etc. A short will give off insulation fumes that are
only mildly bad for mammals but terrifically toxic to many avian
species, especially parrots.

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
oups.com

> The point is not that zip cord is a preferred product but
that
> cables of standard products by firms such as Belden,
packard
> Wire, and other such companies are as good as can be had.

> Allow no PTFE insulated anything in environments with
valued
> birds, such as macaws, etc. A short will give off
insulation
> fumes that are only mildly bad for mammals but
terrifically
> toxic to many avian species, especially parrots.

http://www.teflon.com/Teflon/downloads/pdf/avian_health_safety.pdf?GXHC_gx_session_id_=GXLite SessionID--5408391805031092052

"Over the last 15 years, I have seen thousands of pet birds
for a variety
of illnesses. In that time, only a few of the cases were of
pet birds
affected by non-stick cookware fumes, all of which were
attributable to
the negligent use of cookware. If it were common for birds
to be
affected by the proper use of non-stick cookware, avian
veterinarians
would hear about it and see the cases on a daily basis."

[Peter Scott]

> > Allow no PTFE insulated anything in environments with
> valued
> > birds, such as macaws, etc. A short will give off
> insulation
> > fumes that are only mildly bad for mammals but
> terrifically
> > toxic to many avian species, especially parrots.


What about polly-thene and polly-propylene?

Peter Scott

[[email protected]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com
>
> > The point is not that zip cord is a preferred product but
> that
> > cables of standard products by firms such as Belden,
> packard
> > Wire, and other such companies are as good as can be had.
>
> > Allow no PTFE insulated anything in environments with
> valued
> > birds, such as macaws, etc. A short will give off
> insulation
> > fumes that are only mildly bad for mammals but
> terrifically
> > toxic to many avian species, especially parrots.
>
> http://www.teflon.com/Teflon/downloads/pdf/avian_health_safety.pdf?GXHC_gx_session_id_=GXLite SessionID--5408391805031092052
>
> "Over the last 15 years, I have seen thousands of pet birds
> for a variety
> of illnesses. In that time, only a few of the cases were of
> pet birds
> affected by non-stick cookware fumes, all of which were
> attributable to
> the negligent use of cookware.

I have conducted a number of studies on this topic. I can
definitely say that when you combine the use of teflon
cookware and birds, there is a very definite change in the
bird. In fact, I can easily detect a palatable difference
depending upon whether I use olive oil or butter, onions,
green onions or shallots, and whether the little buggers
are quick-fried, sauteed or slow poached.

In no case did I perform the tests with feathers in place, though.

Yum!

[dave weil]

On 22 Jul 2005 06:57:27 -0700, wrote:

>I have conducted a number of studies on this topic. I can
>definitely say that when you combine the use of teflon
>cookware and birds, there is a very definite change in the
>bird. In fact, I can easily detect a palatable difference
>depending upon whether I use olive oil or butter, onions,
>green onions or shallots, and whether the little buggers
>are quick-fried, sauteed or slow poached.
>
>In no case did I perform the tests with feathers in place, though.
>
>Yum!

People who use teflon for anything other than omelets are just not
very talented in the kitchen. Teflon is never needed for cooking
birds, or any other sort of meat. No wonder you find teflon
detremental to the flavor of the bird (that WAS what you were saying,
right)? <chuckle>

Seriously, I think that teflon has contributed a tiny bit to the
decline of modern civilization. Heck, how do you deglaze a pan that
doesn't allow anything to stick to the pan?

[George Middius]

dave weil said:

>Seriously, I think that teflon has contributed a tiny bit to the
>decline of modern civilization. Heck, how do you deglaze a pan that
>doesn't allow anything to stick to the pan?

At the risk of belaboring the obvious, with a strainer.

[dave weil]

On 22 Jul 2005 08:46:26 -0700, George Middius
> wrote:

>
>
>dave weil said:
>
>>Seriously, I think that teflon has contributed a tiny bit to the
>>decline of modern civilization. Heck, how do you deglaze a pan that
>>doesn't allow anything to stick to the pan?
>
>At the risk of belaboring the obvious, with a strainer.

I don't understand the obvious, obviously.

The whole idea of deglazing is to add a liquid to a pan that has
caramelized stuck bits on the bottom of the pan and create the start
of a sauce or gravy. You don't get those stuck bits with teflon, and
they are key to finishing many "flesh" dishes.

[George Middius]

dave weil said:

>>At the risk of belaboring the obvious, with a strainer.
>
>I don't understand the obvious, obviously.
>
>The whole idea of deglazing is to add a liquid to a pan that has
>caramelized stuck bits on the bottom of the pan and create the start
>of a sauce or gravy. You don't get those stuck bits with teflon, and
>they are key to finishing many "flesh" dishes.

The bits don't have to be stuck to the pan. They can be suspended in the
rendered fat. You pour the fat through a strainer and then add the brown bits
back to the pan to make the gravy.

Admittedly, the yield of caramelized bits is less than with a plain pan.

[MINe 109]

In article >,
dave weil > wrote:

> On 22 Jul 2005 08:46:26 -0700, George Middius
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >dave weil said:
> >
> >>Seriously, I think that teflon has contributed a tiny bit to the
> >>decline of modern civilization. Heck, how do you deglaze a pan that
> >>doesn't allow anything to stick to the pan?
> >
> >At the risk of belaboring the obvious, with a strainer.
>
> I don't understand the obvious, obviously.
>
> The whole idea of deglazing is to add a liquid to a pan that has
> caramelized stuck bits on the bottom of the pan and create the start
> of a sauce or gravy.

Teflon cleans up easier. :-)

>You don't get those stuck bits...

"Fond."

> ...with teflon, and
> they are key to finishing many "flesh" dishes.

Stephen

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 14:31:52 +0100, "Peter Scott"
> wrote:

>> > Allow no PTFE insulated anything in environments with
>> valued
>> > birds, such as macaws, etc. A short will give off
>> insulation
>> > fumes that are only mildly bad for mammals but
>> terrifically
>> > toxic to many avian species, especially parrots.
>
>
>What about polly-thene and polly-propylene?

Or for parrots not on a diet, Polly-carb?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[dave weil]

On 22 Jul 2005 10:05:16 -0700, George Middius
> wrote:

>
>
>dave weil said:
>
>>>At the risk of belaboring the obvious, with a strainer.
>>
>>I don't understand the obvious, obviously.
>>
>>The whole idea of deglazing is to add a liquid to a pan that has
>>caramelized stuck bits on the bottom of the pan and create the start
>>of a sauce or gravy. You don't get those stuck bits with teflon, and
>>they are key to finishing many "flesh" dishes.
>
>The bits don't have to be stuck to the pan. They can be suspended in the
>rendered fat.

I personally don't think it's the same thing. All you have then is the
random bit of flesh that hasn't been "fried" but basically poached in
fat.

>You pour the fat through a strainer and then add the brown bits
>back to the pan to make the gravy.

Well, to me, the end result wouldn't have the same character. I think
that some of us suffer from the idea that "stuck to the pan" is bad.
While it's bad for things like omelets, it's almost essential for
meats, *if* you are going to create a classic sauce accompaniment.

>Admittedly, the yield of caramelized bits is less than with a plain pan.

There's a reason that professional chefs rarely use teflon, even for
making delicate sauces. Also, there's a reason why most roasting pans
aren't teflon-coated.

Instead of teflon, when I'm cooking something that isn't well-served
by sticking, I tend to use a well-seasoned cast iron skillet anyway
(this would be for things like chili and the like). I DO have an 8
inch teflon-coated pan that I use for omelets, but I rarely use it for
anything else. Even my crepe pan is uncoated.

[dave weil]

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 17:20:48 GMT, MINe 109 >
wrote:

>In article >,
> dave weil > wrote:
>
>> On 22 Jul 2005 08:46:26 -0700, George Middius
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >dave weil said:
>> >
>> >>Seriously, I think that teflon has contributed a tiny bit to the
>> >>decline of modern civilization. Heck, how do you deglaze a pan that
>> >>doesn't allow anything to stick to the pan?
>> >
>> >At the risk of belaboring the obvious, with a strainer.
>>
>> I don't understand the obvious, obviously.
>>
>> The whole idea of deglazing is to add a liquid to a pan that has
>> caramelized stuck bits on the bottom of the pan and create the start
>> of a sauce or gravy.
>
>Teflon cleans up easier. :-)

>>You don't get those stuck bits...
>
>"Fond."

Do...tell.

[MINe 109]

In article >,
dave weil > wrote:

> On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 17:20:48 GMT, MINe 109 >
> wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > dave weil > wrote:
> >
> >> On 22 Jul 2005 08:46:26 -0700, George Middius
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >dave weil said:
> >> >
> >> >>Seriously, I think that teflon has contributed a tiny bit to the
> >> >>decline of modern civilization. Heck, how do you deglaze a pan that
> >> >>doesn't allow anything to stick to the pan?
> >> >
> >> >At the risk of belaboring the obvious, with a strainer.
> >>
> >> I don't understand the obvious, obviously.
> >>
> >> The whole idea of deglazing is to add a liquid to a pan that has
> >> caramelized stuck bits on the bottom of the pan and create the start
> >> of a sauce or gravy.
> >
> >Teflon cleans up easier. :-)
>
> >>You don't get those stuck bits...
> >
> >"Fond."
>
> Do...tell.

From www.cooksillustrated.com:

"The caramelized browned bits that remain on the bottom of the pan after
meat has been sauteed or pan-seared are called fond . Fond plays a key
role in making pan sauces so delicious.

Pan sauces are made by adding liquid (stock, wine, or juice) to the pan
once the cooked meat has been transferred to a plate to rest. The liquid
dissolves the fond (in a process known as deglazing) and incorporates it
into the sauce."

Stephen

[dave weil]

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 20:08:34 GMT, MINe 109 >
wrote:

>In article >,
> dave weil > wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 17:20:48 GMT, MINe 109 >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article >,
>> > dave weil > wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 22 Jul 2005 08:46:26 -0700, George Middius
>> >> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >dave weil said:
>> >> >
>> >> >>Seriously, I think that teflon has contributed a tiny bit to the
>> >> >>decline of modern civilization. Heck, how do you deglaze a pan that
>> >> >>doesn't allow anything to stick to the pan?
>> >> >
>> >> >At the risk of belaboring the obvious, with a strainer.
>> >>
>> >> I don't understand the obvious, obviously.
>> >>
>> >> The whole idea of deglazing is to add a liquid to a pan that has
>> >> caramelized stuck bits on the bottom of the pan and create the start
>> >> of a sauce or gravy.
>> >
>> >Teflon cleans up easier. :-)
>>
>> >>You don't get those stuck bits...
>> >
>> >"Fond."
>>
>> Do...tell.
>
>From www.cooksillustrated.com:
>
>"The caramelized browned bits that remain on the bottom of the pan after
>meat has been sauteed or pan-seared are called fond . Fond plays a key
>role in making pan sauces so delicious.
>
>Pan sauces are made by adding liquid (stock, wine, or juice) to the pan
>once the cooked meat has been transferred to a plate to rest. The liquid
>dissolves the fond (in a process known as deglazing) and incorporates it
>into the sauce."
>
>Stephen

Sorry...I was riffing on fondue.

[MINe 109]

In article >,
dave weil > wrote:

> On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 20:08:34 GMT, MINe 109 >
> wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > dave weil > wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 17:20:48 GMT, MINe 109 >
> >> wrote:

> >> >"Fond."
> >>
> >> Do...tell.
> >
> >From www.cooksillustrated.com:
> >
> >"The caramelized browned bits that remain on the bottom of the pan after
> >meat has been sauteed or pan-seared are called fond . Fond plays a key
> >role in making pan sauces so delicious.
> >
> >Pan sauces are made by adding liquid (stock, wine, or juice) to the pan
> >once the cooked meat has been transferred to a plate to rest. The liquid
> >dissolves the fond (in a process known as deglazing) and incorporates it
> >into the sauce."
> >
>
> Sorry...I was riffing on fondue.

It works when I picture Peter Sellers saying it...

Stephen

[George M. Middius]

dave weil said:

> >The bits don't have to be stuck to the pan. They can be suspended in the
> >rendered fat.
>
> I personally don't think it's the same thing. All you have then is the
> random bit of flesh that hasn't been "fried" but basically poached in
> fat.

No, it's not the same thing. It's a workaround, a compromise because I don't
want to have two sets of cookware.

> >You pour the fat through a strainer and then add the brown bits
> >back to the pan to make the gravy.
>
> Well, to me, the end result wouldn't have the same character. I think
> that some of us suffer from the idea that "stuck to the pan" is bad.
> While it's bad for things like omelets, it's almost essential for
> meats, *if* you are going to create a classic sauce accompaniment.

You'd be surprised at how small the difference in flavor is.

Here's something you'll hate: When I use my rotisserie, I catch the
drippings and then filter them the same way.

> >Admittedly, the yield of caramelized bits is less than with a plain pan.
>
> There's a reason that professional chefs rarely use teflon, even for
> making delicate sauces. Also, there's a reason why most roasting pans
> aren't teflon-coated.

The reasons you are implying are of course valid, and for professionals they
are paramount. But I'm not a professional and other concerns enter in.

[Ruud Broens]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
:
:
: I have conducted a number of studies on this topic. I can
: definitely say that when you combine the use of teflon
: cookware and birds, there is a very definite change in the
: bird. In fact, I can easily detect a palatable difference
: depending upon whether I use olive oil or butter, onions,
: green onions or shallots, and whether the little buggers
: are quick-fried, sauteed or slow poached.
:
: In no case did I perform the tests with feathers in place, though.
:
: Yum!

The palatable differences were established with eyes closed, we presume ? :-)
Rudy

In article om>,
> wrote:
>
>I have conducted a number of studies on this topic. I can
>definitely say that when you combine the use of teflon
>cookware and birds, there is a very definite change in the
>bird. In fact, I can easily detect a palatable difference
>depending upon whether I use olive oil or butter, onions,
>green onions or shallots, and whether the little buggers
>are quick-fried, sauteed or slow poached.

I find olive oil, while wonderful in salads, doesn't take well to pans.
Grapeseed oil, on the other hand, is perfectly happy at temperatures which
would have olive oil smoking like Etna with a hangover. Works particularly
well for blackened fish.

Frankie-Bob says two singed thumbs up!

ObAudio: That lovely sound a chopped onion makes when it hits a hot pan.


Francois.

[dave weil]

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 17:08:49 -0400, George M. Middius <cmndr
[underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net> wrote:

>
>
>dave weil said:
>
>> >The bits don't have to be stuck to the pan. They can be suspended in the
>> >rendered fat.
>>
>> I personally don't think it's the same thing. All you have then is the
>> random bit of flesh that hasn't been "fried" but basically poached in
>> fat.
>
>No, it's not the same thing. It's a workaround, a compromise because I don't
>want to have two sets of cookware.

Ahhh, OK. All you really need though is one really good straightsided
big French-styled handled saute pan (not saute pans like *we* call
them). I've got one that's copper clad and it's great for stuff like
cooking birds and roasts and the like.

Here's my inventory:

1 $60 straight-sided heavy copper clad French saute pan.
1 large wok (think it cost me about $20)
1 $6 cast iron 10 in skillet
1 $4 cast iron 6 in skillet
1 $30 copper mixing bowl (for making whipped cream and meringues)
1 Cheap but thick gauged aluminum 8 in. Teflon sloped-sided "saute"
pan (think it cost around $10). I use this mostly for omelets and
fried eggs
1 thick bottomed 8 in. aluminum slope-sided "saute" pan. I rarely use
this because stuff sticks too much, but it *looks* really pro.

I can ditch everything but the top 4 items and still get by nicely.

Of course, I got a couple of large stock pots as well, and a decent
roasting pan, and all sorts of strainers and the like. I WISH I had a
chinois, but I've never gotten around to spending the money for one.
I'd also like one of those nice small French-styled sauce pots.

As far as I'm concerned, I can do without those lidded pots that
people seem to like to keep four of around. Most of the time, they're
just dead weight.

>> >You pour the fat through a strainer and then add the brown bits
>> >back to the pan to make the gravy.
>>
>> Well, to me, the end result wouldn't have the same character. I think
>> that some of us suffer from the idea that "stuck to the pan" is bad.
>> While it's bad for things like omelets, it's almost essential for
>> meats, *if* you are going to create a classic sauce accompaniment.
>
>You'd be surprised at how small the difference in flavor is.

To me, part of it is about the process - the scraping and the like.

>Here's something you'll hate: When I use my rotisserie, I catch the
>drippings and then filter them the same way.

If it works for you, I say go for it!

>> >Admittedly, the yield of caramelized bits is less than with a plain pan.
>>
>> There's a reason that professional chefs rarely use teflon, even for
>> making delicate sauces. Also, there's a reason why most roasting pans
>> aren't teflon-coated.
>
>The reasons you are implying are of course valid, and for professionals they
>are paramount. But I'm not a professional and other concerns enter in.

Got ya. Didn't know that there was a practical consideration. Still,
spend about a bill ad get a nice heavy clad French saute pan. I think
I got mine for about $60 on sale as a display model at some cookware
shop. Those things are sooo multi-purpose.

[Robert Morein]

"Peter Scott" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> > > Allow no PTFE insulated anything in environments with
> > valued
> > > birds, such as macaws, etc. A short will give off
> > insulation
> > > fumes that are only mildly bad for mammals but
> > terrifically
> > > toxic to many avian species, especially parrots.
>
>
> What about polly-thene and polly-propylene?
>
> Peter Scott
>
Nontoxic, because they don't contain fluorine. The toxicity of teflon comes
from the substitution of fluorine for some of the hydrogen atoms in a
hydrocarbon. The result looks somewhat like a hydrocarbon, but doesn't
metabolize like one.