Chemistry of Food and Cooking “How to make the (scientifically proven) Best Mac and Cheese"
How can we measure the qualities and desirability of a finished recipe both quantitatively and qualitatively in order to determine the success of our recipe experimentation?
We can measure the qualities and desirability of a finished recipe quantitatively in order to determine the success of the recipe because if you used the right amount of ingredients, the final product should look like what you expected. However if you’re making something and you don’t use enough, or you use more than enough of some ingredients, the finished dish could, and more than likely would have something wrong with it. For example, If you’re baking a cake and don’t use enough flour, the cake will fall and won’t be as dry as a normal cake. If you use too much flour, the cake would be dry and hard.
We can measure the success of a recipe qualitatively by also looking at the final result. You should always use the ingredients that are called for unless a substitute ingredient is stated. For example, using a low fat or non fat substitute when the recipe calls for a fatty ingredient can turn your dish into a disaster since a lot of dishes require fat in order to cook properly. A lot of the time you can tell if you’ve made a quantitative or qualitative mistake just by looking at the dish after it’s done, but sometimes you have to taste it to tell where you went wrong. One example of this is when my partner and I added too much flour into our cheese sauce which made the final product very lumpy and the flour taste was overpowering the cheese.
In what way(s) is cooking like doing science and in what way(s) are they different? How are a cook and a food scientist similar or different?
Cooking is a lot like science because you have to follow a specific balanced recipe in the same way that you follow balanced chemical equations when doing chemistry work. You have to use the exact right amount of ingredients in both fields in order to get the expected result. They are also similar because cooking contains a lot of chemistry as we discovered through the food chemistry project. Some ways cooking and chemistry are different are cooking usually has the goal of pleasuring someone with the dish that is created. Chemistry usually has the goal of discovering new things which definitely happens from time to time in cooking but usually in cooking you follow a specific recipe.
A chef and a food scientist are different because Chefs have to have a basic knowledge of all the foods they cook with but chemists sometimes work with unknown substances and have to tailor the experiment to the substance. Another way chefs are different from chemists is chefs usually use a recipe that is written in steps and has ingredients but chemists usually make up their process based on what they are testing. I feel like chemists have more freedom in how they work and what they work with than chefs do.
We can measure the qualities and desirability of a finished recipe quantitatively in order to determine the success of the recipe because if you used the right amount of ingredients, the final product should look like what you expected. However if you’re making something and you don’t use enough, or you use more than enough of some ingredients, the finished dish could, and more than likely would have something wrong with it. For example, If you’re baking a cake and don’t use enough flour, the cake will fall and won’t be as dry as a normal cake. If you use too much flour, the cake would be dry and hard.
We can measure the success of a recipe qualitatively by also looking at the final result. You should always use the ingredients that are called for unless a substitute ingredient is stated. For example, using a low fat or non fat substitute when the recipe calls for a fatty ingredient can turn your dish into a disaster since a lot of dishes require fat in order to cook properly. A lot of the time you can tell if you’ve made a quantitative or qualitative mistake just by looking at the dish after it’s done, but sometimes you have to taste it to tell where you went wrong. One example of this is when my partner and I added too much flour into our cheese sauce which made the final product very lumpy and the flour taste was overpowering the cheese.
In what way(s) is cooking like doing science and in what way(s) are they different? How are a cook and a food scientist similar or different?
Cooking is a lot like science because you have to follow a specific balanced recipe in the same way that you follow balanced chemical equations when doing chemistry work. You have to use the exact right amount of ingredients in both fields in order to get the expected result. They are also similar because cooking contains a lot of chemistry as we discovered through the food chemistry project. Some ways cooking and chemistry are different are cooking usually has the goal of pleasuring someone with the dish that is created. Chemistry usually has the goal of discovering new things which definitely happens from time to time in cooking but usually in cooking you follow a specific recipe.
A chef and a food scientist are different because Chefs have to have a basic knowledge of all the foods they cook with but chemists sometimes work with unknown substances and have to tailor the experiment to the substance. Another way chefs are different from chemists is chefs usually use a recipe that is written in steps and has ingredients but chemists usually make up their process based on what they are testing. I feel like chemists have more freedom in how they work and what they work with than chefs do.
Energy and the Environment
Critical Consumer of Science & Reflection
1.
2.
I believe all of them are secondary sources. The first source is all about residential geothermal energy, geothermal products, warranties/cost, etc. It also has many geothermal energy facts and goes over the benefits and environmental impacts. This source is a company that obviously wants to sell you something so I’m guessing they got a lot of their information from a primary source that actually went into the field and did the research. Maybe they did their own research but this is not the source that they posted it on. I think the second link is a secondary source because it’s all about making your house more efficient and different appliances you can use to make that happen. I feel like they must have taken information from a primary source because the amount of information on the site is so large and varied. They also have a book that is a guide to home energy savings which I’m guessing they had to research for and I’m guessing that research came from primary sources. I think the third link is a secondary source because it is a news website. They are reporting on the information and they are not the first ones to research or come up with the ideas stated.
3.
The author of the abstract is Merrill J. Reynolds and it was published by The American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 1997. The key points of the abstract are where geothermal energy came from and the places that people have explored and tried to implement it in. It also covers the demand for energy and how it will continue to rise. I think the purpose of an abstract is to state all the known information about the subject of the abstract. I expect to be able to completely understand what the subject of the abstract is through the description they give, why it is important, how it has affected the world in the past and currently, and what the author wants to do with this information usually in the form of an experiment.
1.
- http://smarterhouse.org/heating-systems/types-heating-systems
- residential.geocomfort.com/about/geothermal-facts
- https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-01-25/a-quiet-breakthrough-in-geothermal-energy
2.
I believe all of them are secondary sources. The first source is all about residential geothermal energy, geothermal products, warranties/cost, etc. It also has many geothermal energy facts and goes over the benefits and environmental impacts. This source is a company that obviously wants to sell you something so I’m guessing they got a lot of their information from a primary source that actually went into the field and did the research. Maybe they did their own research but this is not the source that they posted it on. I think the second link is a secondary source because it’s all about making your house more efficient and different appliances you can use to make that happen. I feel like they must have taken information from a primary source because the amount of information on the site is so large and varied. They also have a book that is a guide to home energy savings which I’m guessing they had to research for and I’m guessing that research came from primary sources. I think the third link is a secondary source because it is a news website. They are reporting on the information and they are not the first ones to research or come up with the ideas stated.
3.
The author of the abstract is Merrill J. Reynolds and it was published by The American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 1997. The key points of the abstract are where geothermal energy came from and the places that people have explored and tried to implement it in. It also covers the demand for energy and how it will continue to rise. I think the purpose of an abstract is to state all the known information about the subject of the abstract. I expect to be able to completely understand what the subject of the abstract is through the description they give, why it is important, how it has affected the world in the past and currently, and what the author wants to do with this information usually in the form of an experiment.