Ex-Microsoft CTO Writes $625 Cookbook

carusoj writes "Nathan Myhrvold, Microsoft's first CTO, made his mark in the tech world. Now he's cemented his place in the world of cooking and food science with the publication of a groundbreaking six-volume, 2,438-page cookbook. Some of the techniques in Myhrvold's Modernist Cuisine are intimidating, to put it mildly, calling for such daunting ingredients as liquid nitrogen and equipment such as centrifuges and rotor-stator homogenizers. But Myhrvold and his co-authors insist that the majority of recipes can be made in a conventional home kitchen — with a few recommended, inexpensive extras such as a digital gram scale and water bath for sous vide cooking." Dear Bosses: When you see the centrifuge on my March expense report, please note that this is a legitmate business expense. If you're still curious, we ran a story a couple years ago on Nathan's Kitchen Lab.

Comments

digital gram scale as an extra?

[acidfast7]

Every European kitchen I've cooked in had a gram scale (they're less the 10€ for an inexpensive model and 30€ for a decent one.) I don't understand how I got by living in the US without one ... I'm never giving it up now. Especially with baking, it's really not optional.

Re:digital gram scale as an extra?

[networkBoy]

And doesn't everyone have LN2?
Though I'm partial to the CO2 ice cream I saw a while back (still trying to replicate that one at home).
-nB

Re:digital gram scale as an extra?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

For whatever reason, American cooking and recipes tend to use imperial volumetric measures(cups, half cups, teaspoons, etc.) rather than weights for most ingredients.

The imperial vs. metric thing is unsurprising enough; but I don't know why volume rather than weight is the typical criterion. Scales are certainly available, but you can traverse entire shelves of US recipes without be called to use one. Sometimes, ingredients that are commonly packaged by weight will be called for by weight; but generally in amounts that you can trivially infer from the packaging, without any measurement.

Re:digital gram scale as an extra?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, they don't use imperial measurements, they use their own version of English measurements from before the Imperial version was standardised. This is most noticeable in their wimpy definition of a pint.

Re:digital gram scale as an extra?

[DaGoatSpanka]

For general cooking, measurements don't need to be so exact you have to measure it to the gram.

Re:digital gram scale as an extra?

[sed quid in infernos]

They're becoming much more popular in America, too. More recipes are being published with weights rather than volume measurements, too, although not nearly enough.

I think many of the recipes in the book actually need a scale with more precision than one gram. Some of the ingredients used, such as xantham gum, can have radically different effects on a sauce at 1% concentration than at .5%. For 100g of sauce, you need a tenth of a gram precision.

Re:digital gram scale as an extra?

[FooAtWFU]

Also, through the wonders of technology, most digital scales have a button that switch between ounces and grams.

What will they think of next?

Re:digital gram scale as an extra?

[dkf]

This is most noticeable in their wimpy definition of a pint.

Except their definition of fluid ounce is also different. Stick with liters to stay sane!

Re:digital gram scale as an extra?

[0100010001010011]

Most things have a rather uniform density, so the volume:weight correlation should hold. The only thing I can think of that doesn't is flour, in which most recipes call for "sifted" flour.

Just speculating, but I'm guessing that most American recipes were originally taught with being written down. My grandma, (and I imagine every one that cooked in the family before her) would "cook by touch". A 'cup' was a cupped hand, a tablespoon was a table spoon, a teaspoon was a tea spoon. Hell I've seen actual measurement spoons for a pinch and a dash. I mean seriously? Eventually those recipes were written down standardized using volume.

Also, do you add liquids by weight too?

Re:digital gram scale as an extra?

[Samantha Wright]

There's no mystery here. That's just how it's always been done, and for very good reason: To measure a volume, all you need is a cup with a line drawn on it. Meaduring weight or mass with the same precision requires a scale. Since humans generally prepare food at SATP, these are pretty reliable metrics.

Re:digital gram scale as an extra?

[ProppaT]

Traditional cooking is more of an art than a science. It's a lot easier to eyeball volume than it is weight. I rarely cook from recipes, but when I do I rarely ever use measuring devices. I know what a cup of liquid or a teaspoon or tablespoon of this or that looks like. A pinch or a dash is a perfectly fine measurement for cooking. In other words, it just makes sense.

This new style of chemical cooking is exactly that, chemistry, and things need to be very precise to get the wanted result. You need a scale to properly measure the ingredients to make gels, bubbles, etc. correctly.

As a side note, baking is less cooking and more of a science. Sometimes you will see bakers using scales and you need the right proportions of leavening, salt, etc. to gain the desired effect. It's very easy to make flat bread if things aren't done correctly.

Re:digital gram scale as an extra?

[xaxa]

This is not an Imperial/English/metric thing.

My English grandmother used to use an analogue scale (since replaced with a digital one) with Imperial measurements for baking. Assuming she knows how, I expect the digital scale is set to lb/oz.

I much prefer a digital scale: I put the mixing bowl on the scale and hit "tare". Not needing a weighing boat means one less thing to wash up.

Re:digital gram scale as an extra?

[rgmoore]

Also, do you add liquids by weight too?

I can't speak for the parent, but when I'm baking I certainly do. Home volume measures just aren't precise enough to get really controllable, reproducible results. Besides, if you're already weighing out your flour, it's easier to hit the tare button and weigh in some water than it is to get a measuring cup.

Re:digital gram scale as an extra?

[xaxa]

For general cooking, measurements don't need to be so exact you have to measure it to the gram.

For some ingredients, like flour, the density can vary significantly. If you're measuring using a normal spoon the heaping varies a lot too.

I don't really know what difference it makes, I don't bake very often (once a month, maybe) and my earliest memory of "helping mummy" to cook was weighing the ingredients.

Re:digital gram scale as an extra?

[xaxa]

Also, do you add liquids by weight too?

1ml of water weighs 1g, very easy. I'll usually weigh water rather than measure volume, it usually means less washing up is produced.

Old kitchens in England (e.g. in a preserved old house or castle) seem to include a balance, though it could be there for buying things rather than cooking things for all I know. Or it could be that in large quantities it becomes easier to weigh things than measure their volume.

Re:digital gram scale as an extra?

[DrgnDancer]

Vegetables are the worst offenders in my opinion. Terms like "chop finely" or "chop roughly" are somewhat subjective, and changing the grain of your chop can have a *huge* impact on the volume of vegetables in a recipe. Especially stuff like broccoli or cauliflower, where florets occupy a large volume, but have a low density. I much, much prefer recipes that use weight rather than volume for measurement. I'm not too chuffed whether the weight is metric or imperial, my digital scale switches between them trivially.

Re:digital gram scale as an extra?

[Artraze]

Agreed. If you can't do a least one tenth of a gram, you'll be back to volumetric measures for salt, spices, additives, etc. And while volumetric measure for them is generally more reliable than, say, flour, accuracy for them can be more important (as you mention). I think that hundredth of a gram is ideal, particularly if you're experimenting with smaller batches. Incidentally, just last night I needed to weigh spices in the range of 0.5 - 4 g. (I personally use an old digital lab balance precise to 1mg, but that's only because it was free; measurements better than 10mg aren't really feasible or worthwhile in the kitchen.)

I think the gram precision thing is more an issue of dynamic range... Most people are using their scales for weighing out flour, confectioners sugar, etc. These things are usually needed in the 500g range, and coupled with the weight of a measuring bowl, you need a scale that can handle 1kg or so. That means a gram scale needs a range of 0.1% and a hundredth gram scale would need 0.001%. That's expensive, and so most cooks would rather just buy something cheap for flour that does ~5g and stick with volumetric measure for spices. Of course, they could always get two scales, but that would be crazy ;).

Re:digital gram scale as an extra?

[aliquis]

Here in Sweden / Europe regular recipes use volume measurements to.

But the professionals don't agree with the response you got from someone else. Volume isn't good enough, with weight you get a better measurement and therefor increase the likelihood of a good result.

Re:digital gram scale as an extra?

[Sax Maniac]

Digital scales are quite handy for cooking. I use them more and more often, the more I cook. First, it's really great for things like flour or other loose/granular things where the volume varies wildly, and you want a consistent result. All you have to do is weigh out a few cups of flour, and compare it against the box weight, to see how inaccurate volume can be at times. Cakes and breads dramatically improve with a scale.

Once you figure out the weight of something, you can reuse it, since we tend to the same make recipes a lot. I annotate my most-used recipes with weight. Using a scale also saves dirty measuring cups and spoons, since you can tare the scale, add the new ingredient, and repeat indefinitely.

Re:digital gram scale as an extra?

[_0xd0ad]

For some ingredients, like flour, the density can vary significantly.

That's why when the amount is particularly important you are usually supposed to sift the flour. Even so, most of the time it doesn't matter that much.

Re:digital gram scale as an extra?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

That is why I find the difference so curious. I'd be totally unsurprised to find that Europeans were measuring their volumes in milliliters and Americans in cups. The fact that kitchen scales(metric or imperial) are comparatively rare in the US and comparatively common in Europe is what is less obvious...

Re:digital gram scale as an extra?

[mcneely.mike]

This is most noticeable in their wimpy definition of a pint.

This is to go with their wimpy definition of beer.

Re:digital gram scale as an extra?

[dougisfunny]

And sifting is a pain, if you could just weigh it, it would be a lot easier.

Re:digital gram scale as an extra?

[Vidar Leathershod]

I honestly think you are trying way too hard. My wife is an excellent baker. We have no scale. Well, we have the scale for seeing how many pounds the food has added to my own weight, but anyways...

She uses cups, tablespoons and teaspoons, fractions of a teaspoon, as well as U.S. Standard pints and quarts. We have some British recipes that use "gills", which we convert, along with the required imperial conversions. I'd have to ask when I see her, but I am most positive that things get adjusted based on other environmental factors. All I know is that the product is consistently excellent, and I know what the taste and texture will be unless the thermostat in the oven breaks (again), in which case everything suffers from the burning wrath of GE.

*Product may include: Cakes, Pies. Pastries both Savory and Sweet, Cookies, and Breads, including Popovers/Yorkshire Pudding, muffins, Cheesecake, Meringue, and myriad other delights.

Re:digital gram scale as an extra?

[slim]

... but it's better to have more sensitivity than you need.

If you're measuring 200g of flour, say, you'd be happy with anywhere from 190 to 210 -- it's not a worry that the scale gives you more precision than you need.

The nicest thing about digital scales is that they usually have a "tare" button, so you can plonk your mixing bowl on top, tare, add an ingredient, tare, add the next ingredient, and so on.

Re:digital gram scale as an extra?

[Archangel Michael]

Imperial measurements are way more efficient at converting portion sizes, than say metric measuring.

Try this next time you see a 100% metric recipe for 6 people (say 1gram). Convert it, in your head, for 8 people. Or one for 6 and covert it to 14. Most imperial measurements are divisible by 2,3,4, 6 or 8 quite easily. Which makes for measuring without the need for a calculator in the kitchen. Look, I'm a big fan of Metric in a lot of cases, but in the kitchen is a rare exception.

Re:digital gram scale as an extra?

[Threni]

Well duh - they're not called "Imperialist infidel scum" for no reason...

Re:digital gram scale as an extra?

[Threni]

If you generally cook stir fries, roast, pizzas etc then no, you don't. It's very important if you're baking, though. Too much/little flour/egg/water/salt/yeast/sugar etc, and at too high/low a temperature for too short/long a time can ruin whatever you're attempting!

Re:digital gram scale as an extra?

[Threni]

I find that very hard to believe. Parsley is, like Basil, one of those herbs it's pointless to buy dried as it has no flavour - it escaped with all the water when it was dried.

Re:digital gram scale as an extra?

[_0xd0ad]

I think many of the recipes in the book actually need a scale with more precision than one gram. Some of the ingredients used, such as xantham gum, can have radically different effects on a sauce at 1% concentration than at .5%. For 100g of sauce, you need a tenth of a gram precision.

The obvious answer to that (if you can't just make an industrial-sized batch) is to make a supply of stock diluted to a low enough concentration that the ingredient can be accurately measured. Then reduce the amount of water or oil or whatever it is you diluted the stock with.

Re:digital gram scale as an extra?

[fbjon]

Yep, hence the baker's percentage: all the ingredients of the recipe specified as a percentage of the flour weight, including water.

Re:digital gram scale as an extra?

[crunchygranola]

Most things have a rather uniform density, so the volume:weight correlation should hold...

For pure chemical foods this should hold (sucrose and other sugars, sodium bicarbonate, sodium chloride, etc.) pretty well, but organic materials (spices, flours, etc.) do have significant variation.

In brewing, by the way, accurate measurements of many ingredients is very important. Accuracy seems to make a bigger difference when making beer and wine than most types of recipes. (But then brewing is microbiology, not cooking.)

Re:digital gram scale as an extra?

[PCM2]

Terms like "chop finely" or "chop roughly" are somewhat subjective, and changing the grain of your chop can have a *huge* impact on the volume of vegetables in a recipe. Especially stuff like broccoli or cauliflower, where florets occupy a large volume, but have a low density. I much, much prefer recipes that use weight rather than volume for measurement. I'm not too chuffed whether the weight is metric or imperial, my digital scale switches between them trivially.

OK, but does your scale suggest that you chop finely or chop roughly? And how does it help you find the right grain for either chop?

Re:digital gram scale as an extra?

[blair1q]

Actually, not that many people are working at SATP all the time. But that's nothing to do with measurements (there are few gaseous ingredients in food) and more to do with outcomes (there are often gaseous components and pressure-temperature dependent reactions in cooked items).

Re:digital gram scale as an extra?

[DrgnDancer]

8 ounces of broccoli is always exactly the same amount of broccoli no matter how finely or roughly it's chopped. A cup of broccoli is a significantly different amount depending on on how finely or roughly it's chopped. It's rarely a problem in recipes if your "finely chopped" is slightly coarser than the recipe author's "finely chopped"; but it's a pretty significant problem if you're using half as much broccoli as the author intended. Hence if you use weights rather than volume you are less likely to screw up the recipe.

Re:digital gram scale as an extra?

[sydneyfong]

but it's a pretty significant problem if you're using half as much broccoli as the author intended

From my experience, it's not.

Re:digital gram scale as an extra?

[_0xd0ad]

The rare instances in which you'd really need to sift the flour are vastly outweighed by the hassle of having to weigh ingredients that you've already scooped out into a measuring cup of a known size.

Re:digital gram scale as an extra?

[Johnny Mnemonic]

more of a science
I would say it's actually more of a bioscience in many cases.

Re:digital gram scale as an extra?

[zzatz]

Compared to the hassle of finding the right size measuring cup? It's easier to have one universal scoop and a scale.

Re:digital gram scale as an extra?

[vijayiyer]

She probably doesn't bake by volume, but instead by feel (a.k.a. experience). Baking by volume just doesn't really work well, especially for things like bread. You're better off just adding flour till it feels right if you don't use a scale.

Re:digital gram scale as an extra?

[nabsltd]

Using a scale also saves dirty measuring cups and spoons, since you can tare the scale, add the new ingredient, and repeat indefinitely.

Although there are many reasons to use a scale when cooking (and I use one often), saving dirty dishes isn't one of them.

I find that most of the recipes I use that require precision measurement also require that you add the ingredients in such a way that you can't just "dump" into a bowl. And, when I'm baking, most of the time I'm adding ingredients to the bowl of the stand mixer while it is running, which is inconvenient to weigh.

Re:digital gram scale as an extra?

[rgmoore]

I used to bake breads using conventional (for America) volume measurement. When I started to do sourdough baking, I started using a scale because the recipes used weights. Now I do all my breads by weight even though I'm not following formal recipes anymore, in part because it gives me better control. I have a very good idea of how my dough will change if I use one ounce of water more or less, which lets me get exactly the style of dough I want right now.

It's certainly possible to bake bread by feel, adjusting the amount of flour to get a dough that's just the consistency you want. That method starts to have serious problems when you're making breads with dough that's too sticky to knead easily by hand, or when you're trying to minimize kneading to achieve a deliberately coarse texture. In those cases, it's much easier to weigh out just the right amount of everything at the beginning. Once you have a good scale for recipes that really require it, it turns out to be just as easy to do all your bread recipes by weight as by volume. I don't use the scale much for other cooking, but that's because I do those recipes without much in the way of measuring of any kind.

Re:digital gram scale as an extra?

[Joe Snipe]

Use of SATP in casual setting:
science nerd achievement unlocked!

Re:digital gram scale as an extra?

[Samantha Wright]

I believe you—I'm just saying that the reasons for using the alternatives are painfully obvious.

Re:digital gram scale as an extra?

[Samantha Wright]

Cleverness notwithstanding, most people don't measure ingredients inside of ovens.

Re:digital gram scale as an extra?

[Samantha Wright]

Darn; I thought I already had that one.

Re:digital gram scale as an extra?

[jfengel]

Which is why one of my treasured possessions is a set of cups with 2/3 and 3/4 measures. These are surprisingly common amounts in recipes, and not only can I measure them in one operation, it keeps my 1/4, 1/3, and 1/2 cups clean.

Not that I'm averse to measuring sugar and flour with the same cup, for convenience, but other things do make them genuinely dirty.

For years, only Tupperware made such cups. Now, Oxo does as well, and I've also seen some very expensive metal ones.

Re:digital gram scale as an extra?

[blair1q]

Hmm. I mangled it a bit there. It's more like SATP doesn't affect measurements; it affects outcomes. So whether you're using volume or mass doesn't matter when measuring, since the volume or mass of the ingredients will change by the same percentage if you're not at SATP.

Re:digital gram scale as an extra?

[jfengel]

Especially since the relative measures of the small amounts are mostly subjective. A little more cinnamon, a little less nutmeg than called for... nobody really cares.

The key exception to this is the baking powder, where you'll add grams of leavener to kilos of flour. For most home kitchens it still doesn't make too much difference, as the oven itself is sufficiently variable to overwhelm it.

I definitely feel the fact that my cheap scale has 5g precision. I'd be happier with 1g, but it's more expensive. So as you say, I tend to switch to volume for small amounts like baking powder (though I've also been known to interpolate: "18g is 15g plus a bit more").

Re:digital gram scale as an extra?

[_0xd0ad]

You can't measure half-cups or quarter-cups in a cup that holds a full cup?

Re:digital gram scale as an extra?

[Anonymous Coward]

Correction - This is how it has always been done by the home cook. As someone who worked in a Bakery in the USA I can guarantee that a scale was used even for small scale (1-2 loaves) special orders. The reason why is because flour can and does often compact, so what looks like a cup of flour is actually 1.25 or 1.5 cups of sifted flour. For anyone who is a true baker a scale is a necessity, any good bread cookbook or cake cookbook will say as much.

Re:digital gram scale as an extra?

[hrieke]

And doesn't everyone have LN2?
Though I'm partial to the CO2 ice cream I saw a while back (still trying to replicate that one at home).
-nB

Hell yes. Don't you?

Re:digital gram scale as an extra?

[joeme1]

There's also the problem of ounces (weight) and ounces (volume) . That concept isn't reinforced in enough classrooms. Then you have to have dry measuring cups, liquid measuring cups, and spoons and it gets to be a confusing mess. My wife likes to use a scale, until I met her, I never knew anyone with a scale in the kitchen. Now I don't understand why it isn't more commonplace.

Re:digital gram scale as an extra?

[_0xd0ad]

Agreed. If you're selling it, every loaf or batch needs to be identical to the last one, so you weigh everything. But if you're just cooking for your family, as long as it's edible they'll either eat it or go hungry.

Re:digital gram scale as an extra?

[DerekLyons]

For general cooking, measurements don't need to be so exact you have to measure it to the gram.

For some ingredients, like flour, the density can vary significantly. If you're measuring using a normal spoon the heaping varies a lot too.

And when measuring small amounts, like would typically be measured with a spoon, that difference in density isn't enough to make a significant difference in the final product.
 

I don't really know what difference it makes, I don't bake very often (once a month, maybe) and my earliest memory of "helping mummy" to cook was weighing the ingredients.

In baking, it makes a huge difference - if you don't know what you're doing. Typically an experienced baker adds almost all (but not all) flour by the specified measurement (weight or volume) and then adds as needed to reached the desired quality.

Re:digital gram scale as an extra?

[Samantha Wright]

You're a little off there. Mass doesn't change, no matter what gravity you measure under: although weight does, if you change the altitude you're at. The gram scales described here are dependent on the earth's gravitational field, since they aren't calibrated against a reference weight. As long as we're at or near SATP (which humans need to be, in order to breathe and mix ingredients), volume is a very reliable count of the amount of substance in question.

Anyway, this all started out as a joke about microgravity omelettes, one you're both missing and mangling. :P The real important point is that it's easy to keep and clean calibrated measuring instruments for volume, and introducing electronics into a kitchen like a precision scale, while great for geek cred, really just introduces another point of failure.

Why Slashdot posters continue to be staunchly oblivious to this, and to similar simple facts, eludes me.

Re:digital gram scale as an extra?

[DerekLyons]

First, it's really great for things like flour or other loose/granular things where the volume varies wildly, and you want a consistent result.

The problem is, except for flour, the weight/volume doesn't vary wildly for virtually all loose/granular things. (Not unless you're particularly inept at scoop-and-sweep.) For those few things other than flour (like brown sugar for example) the weight/volume not only doesn't vary wildly, it doesn't really make that big a difference for virtually all recipies they're used in.
 

Cakes and breads dramatically improve with a scale.

And their primary ingredient is flour - pretty much the only ingredient used in bulk whose weight/volume varies wildly and whose precise volume/weight matters greatly. If you're making beef stew whether you use 900 grams of carrots or 910 grams is virtually irrelevant. If you're making spaghetti sauce the difference between .5 and .7 grams (or between 1 level teaspoon and 1 heaping teaspoon) is virtually unnoticaeble.
 
Experienced cooks cook by their senses anyway, all 'precise' measurements do is give inexperienced or unskilled cooks a false sense of confidence.

Re:digital gram scale as an extra?

[xaxa]

Why Slashdot posters continue to be staunchly oblivious to this, and to similar simple facts, eludes me.

Us Europeans are oblivious to it since we've probably never been in a kitchen without a scale (whether analogue or digital). If there isn't a scale there certainly won't be measuring cups (i.e. lack of a scale suggests the owner doesn't really cook). Owning a scale is far from being geeky, not owning one (or only owning measuring cups) would be seen as weird.

They're on every list of essential equipment (that guide's for people who claimed to only eat take-away food on the TV program).

Re:digital gram scale as an extra?

[xaxa]

The funny thing is that when I was living in Europe, you could buy measuring cups that might have eight or ten sets of markings on them, each one for measuring one type of ingredient. So a cup might have one set of markings for flour (listed in grams), another for sugar, rice, etc.

I don't know why they print that on the cup -- I've never seen anyone use those for anything except the mL scale, but I've often seen people turning it round and round looking for where the damn mL scale has gone!

Re:digital gram scale as an extra?

[Dogtanian]

There's also the problem of ounces (weight) and ounces (volume)

Here in Britain, I can't recall the volume ever being simply referred to as an "ounce"- it would always be a "fluid ounce". I'd automatically assume that the plain, unqualified "ounce" meant weight.

'Course, the UK and US fluid ounces are different anyway... :-/

Re:digital gram scale as an extra?

[PCM2]

A cup of broccoli is a significantly different amount depending on on how finely or roughly it's chopped.

I seldom follow recipes so slavishly. If it calls for a cup of broccoli, I don't get out the measuring cup. I just eyeball it. The point is not to nail the directions just right, the point is to have the meal look and taste good, so I'll throw in as much broccoli and chop it as finely as suits my taste, based on the recommended amount. After all, maybe I just like broccoli more than the author does? And too little broccoli is seldom going to impact the flavor of a whole dish very much, unless you're pureeing it into a soup or something (in which case the recipe might call for a certain volume of puree).

With certain spices, of course, a small change can impact the flavor of the recipe a lot. But even then, measuring out a quarter of a gram of turmeric is far too cumbersome for me; I use measuring spoons, and sometimes I've been known to use "heaping" spoons, if I understand the particular spice.

Re:digital gram scale as an extra?

[biovoid]

but it's a pretty significant problem if you're using half as much broccoli as the author intended

From my experience, it's not.

If you're doing a stirfry, then it won't be. If you're using it as a stuffing in, say cannelloni, you're going to run out of stuffing.

Re:digital gram scale as an extra?

[Yaur]

most of the serious foodies I know are Gen Xers... its the boomers that don't know how to brine, confit, or retard dough.

Re:digital gram scale as an extra?

[zzatz]

Let's make oatmeal cookies:

Scenario One: Use a scoop to move flour from bulk storage to a measuring cup, dump into mixing bowl. Do the same for sugar, oatmeal, and butter or shortening. Wash the greasy measuring cup and spoon or spatula.

Scenario Two: Place the mixing bowl on the scale and press the tare button to subtract the weight of the bowl. Use the scoop to add flour until the desired quantity is in the bowl. Press tare again, and add sugar. Repeat for oatmeal and shortening. Wash the spoon or spatula.

One less object to wash. Greater accuracy measuring the flour and oatmeal. I'll take the simpler, more accurate method.

Re:digital gram scale as an extra?

[Samantha Wright]

An acceptable argument—but still, it's not tricky logic!

Re:digital gram scale as an extra?

[mysidia]

But Myhrvold and his co-authors insist that the majority of recipes can be made in a conventional home kitchen — with a few recommended, inexpensive extras such as a digital gram scale and water bath for sous vide cooking."

Why the heck is he talking about 'inexpensive extras' after having spent the price of a small car to buy this cookbook?

I guess the idea is after you buy the book, you have no money left.

I don't think this cookbook is exactly the sort of thing you'll be able to check out of the local library, at least not without deposit or first born as collataral.

Re:digital gram scale as an extra?

[DMUTPeregrine]

LN2 is pretty easy to get. Try a welding supply shop (my local one is an AirGas, they're a pretty big chain.) It's pretty cheap, IIRC about $90 for a 180 Liter Dewar.

Re:digital gram scale as an extra?

[drsquare]

What baffles me about American measurements is the use of 'cup'. I mean I know that a teaspoon is 5ml, and a tablespoon is 15ml, but what the hell is a cup? Google gives 237ml, but that's a volume. When a recipe tells me to use a cup of flour, which is weighed out in the bowl, what the fuck are you supposed to do? Look up the density of flour?

Re:digital gram scale as an extra?

[drsquare]

Probably because Europeans cook more.

Re:digital gram scale as an extra?

[_0xd0ad]

Most dry ingredients can be scooped with the same container they are measured in. Flour is the exception, but it's entirely possible to guesstimate the amount of packing and erring on the side of too little flour will generally get you good enough results. Of course it's easier to sprinkle a little more flour in than it is to take some out.

Also, you don't measure butter. You cut the correct number of tablespoons off the stick (1/2 c., or 8 T.) based on the graduated markings printed on the wrapper.

Cooking is almost never an exact science, nor need it be.

Re:digital gram scale as an extra?

[_0xd0ad]

That's because the recipes are given with measurements in weight, and measuring cups for measuring weighed ingredients have to have a different set of marking for every common ingredient. You literally can't cook without a scale in any sort of precise way.

What's more, since most cups have their volume stamped or printed somewhere, you could get by pretty decently without a set of actual measuring cups, if you had to, if your recipe listed its ingredients by their volumes.

Of course, I rarely follow a recipe. More often I just make something up.

Re:digital gram scale as an extra?

[_0xd0ad]

What baffles me about American measurements is the use of 'cup'. I mean I know that a teaspoon is 5ml, and a tablespoon is 15ml, but what the hell is a cup? Google gives 237ml, but that's a volume.

2 tablespoons = 1 fl. oz.
8 fl. oz. = 1 cup

When a recipe tells me to use a cup of flour, which is weighed out in the bowl, what the fuck are you supposed to do? Look up the density of flour?

No, you're supposed to measure it by volume.

Re:digital gram scale as an extra?

[Lord Kestrel]

The funniest thing about the shit we export, is that you guys drink it. Then again, crap like Heineken is popular here, so I guess everyone exports the shit for others to drink.

Re:digital gram scale as an extra?

[drsmithy]

Try this next time you see a 100% metric recipe for 6 people (say 1gram). Convert it, in your head, for 8 people.

Most recipes I've seen (and I will admit to not cooking to a recipe often) are specced for either two or four people, with two becoming more common. Taking either of them to other common numbers (3, 6, 8, etc) is pretty simple maths (with the possible exception of 4 -> 3).

Piracy

[ewg]

Destined to be pirated around the globe, just like his former employer's software.

Re:Piracy

[Locutus]

first he has to sucker the world+dog into believing it's something they must have and no other cookbook is useful because the recipes are incompatible. Using exotic equipment is a good start at making it incompatible. It'll cost a few billion in marketing to get the drones to believe they must have it and nothing else will work.

LoB

Re:Piracy

[PriyanPhoenix]

And even then it'll only be the second most-pirated Cookbook in the world...

Re:Piracy

[guyminuslife]

The NYT review mentions that most of the recipes require exotic and expensive equipment.

I think most of the people pirating this thing aren't going to get much use out of it, you can't pirate hardware.

Re:Piracy

[gstoddart]

first he has to sucker the world+dog into believing it's something they must have and no other cookbook is useful because the recipes are incompatible. Using exotic equipment is a good start at making it incompatible.

Not really. First off, he even says that most of the recipes can be done with standard kitchen equipment.

A lot of the value of what's in that book is that it's a fairly exhaustive coverage of the actual science of cooking -- what's actually happening at the molecular level, why putting vegetables into cold water doesn't stop the cooking process, information on brining ... all sorts of things.

While he definitely does a lot of high-end science-based cooking, it would appear that he's also covered the theory of pretty much the rest of cooking as well. For example, the PDF of the index lists no less than 24 places where he discusses the Maillard Reaction, which is basically how we brown food with heat.

As someone who actually owns On Food and Cooking and the books used at the Culinary Institute of America and the Cordon Bleu schools ... these books look really interesting. Food porn meets lab science.

Fascinating stuff if you're into that kind of thing.

normal part of hte process

[l2718]

It always takes time for technological advances to make their way from the workshop to the home. The first servo motors were expensive devices; today we take it for granted that a DVD player will automatically retract the platter. Same here: applying the scientific method to cooking starts as a high-end expensive hobby, but eventually the lessons learned and some of the technology will become household items.

Harold McGee for the basic science...

[thomasdz]

Harold McGee for the basic science and this book for advanced stuff. Although, $625 is a bit steep.
(and of course, watch Alton Brown on FoodTV)

Re:Harold McGee for the basic science...

[gstoddart]

Harold McGee for the basic science

This, exactly this.

For anybody who doesn't know what this is, it's pretty much an awesome text on the science and chemistry of food. Pretty much covers the gamut of the actual processes and reactions that happen when you cook.

Brilliant book, and definitely something for every food geek. I also recommend Herve This or looking into molecular gastronomy.

I can't see a lot of people actually using liquid nitrogen for cooking, but it's definitely on the cutting edge of some really cool science-based cooking techniques.

Some interesting cooking with centrifuges.

[surzirra]

I read an article in a magazine about using centrifuges to "[concentrate] the flavor molecules in a powerfully aromatic liquid layer that is ideal for cooking." I also love Sub Zero ice cream.

Despite the coolness and interesting factor, I doubt I will be going out and buying a centrifuge or a bottle of liquid nitrogen for my next meal.

the real process

[cashman73]

What the article didn't tell us is that after the first rejection of the manuscript by the publisher, Myhrvold was overheard in his office screaming, "F*****g Wolfgang Puck is a f*****g pussy. I'm going to f*****g bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I'm going to f*****g kill Food Network!" A few chairs were seen outside in the parking lot later that afternoon as well,. . .

Absolutely fantastic web page!

[G3ckoG33k]

Forget my knee-jerk skepticism. http://modernistcuisine.com/ is the best!!! Nathan rulez!

Groundbreaking?

[teeloo]

I don't see how this breaks any new ground. Ferran Adria has had all his work documented in his El Bulli volumes since the 80's and he is widely recognized as being the most influencial chef of the last decade, if not of all time. Even Heston Blumenthal is a prior advocate of using science in cooking, with his "Kitchen Kemistry" TV series. I'm sorry but Nathan Myhrvold is a barbecue champion, and is a nobody in the gastronomic world. This project smells of something an American would do -- that is, "bigger". I don't see how anyone can just make a recipe book without having the recipes stand the test of a public trial (that is, served in a real restaurant at the mercy of real critics).

Re:Groundbreaking?

[MrHanky]

For someone actually capable of relevant name-dropping, you certainly take ignorance to another level.

Re:Groundbreaking?

[sed quid in infernos]

Funny you should mention Ferran Adria. He seems to like the book, as does David Chang:

Ferran Adrià of El Bulli has said, “This book will change the way we understand the kitchen.” David Chang, the chef and owner of Momofuku, called “Modernist Cuisine” “the cookbook to end all cookbooks.” As Mr. Chang explained, “Only someone like Nathan could do something this comprehensive and rigorous, and we will probably never see another cookbook like it again.”

Blumenthal likes it too (and Wylie Dusfresne, too):

"A fascinating overview of the techniques of modern gastronomy." --Heston Blumenthal

Myhrvold has always acknowledged the contributions of people like Blumenthal, Dufresne, and Adria to modernist cuisine and to the techniques he describes in his book. That's probably why he co-authored the book with one of Blumenthal's protoges.

Re:Groundbreaking?

[ElectricTurtle]

As an American I'm inclined to agree. I think it's just because he was a big deal at MS that people even care, which is entirely the wrong reason. Unfortunately most Americans who aren't chefs or food critics don't know Ferran Adria is. They probably think molecular gastronomy begins and ends with Alton Brown, if they know what that is either. It doesn't help that all the food-related TV here has devolved into petty "reality TV" BS about who can do simple things the fastest. Most Americans are content to eat almost exclusively from chain restaurants and their freezers, and they will never even know what they're missing.

Re:Groundbreaking?

[ElectricTurtle]

If talented director X lauds director Y, do that mean that director Y's films are intrinsically valuable? I'm inclined to believe half of it is quid pro quo back scratching, friendly overture, or pure puffery more than it is sincere endorsement. I rather expect that regardless of how many pages he's filled, Myhrvold has more to learn from Adria than Adria has to learn from Myrhvold.

Re:Groundbreaking?

[gstoddart]

Except, every person you cite here (and pretty much everyone else of importance in this kind of cooking) are saying nice things about this collection.

This guy didn't just walk in off the street and say "me too", he's got some credibility on this one. He's really done actual research and documented things, and it sounds like this goes deep into the science. And, yes, it sounds like his recipes have been put in front of some world class palettes and passed muster.

Ignore the fact that he's former Microsoft ... reading about this, I get the impression he's done everything right and deserves respect on this one.

Re:Groundbreaking?

[c]

> I don't see how anyone can just make a recipe book without
> having the recipes stand the test of a public trial (that is, served
> in a real restaurant at the mercy of real critics).

Bullshit. It's a cookbook.

Critics get food just as wrong as they get music, movies, or just about any other subjective issue, and food critics are looking for entirely different things from what a cook following a recipe might care about. Poor table service, for example, is not a factor in a cookbook. Hard-to-follow recipes, on the other hand, are mostly irrelevant to the dining experience.

The only test that really matters is whether the people who buy the book like the food they make through following it and/or the techniques they learn from it.

Re:Groundbreaking?

[eulernet]

In France, we have a researcher who is experimenting and promoting this since 20 years: Hervé This (pronounced Tiss, not This).
It's called "cuisine moléculaire"

Here are some examples of recipes (in french), with the well know chef Pierre Gagnaire:
http://www.pierre-gagnaire.com/francais/cdthis.htm

Re:Groundbreaking?

[sed quid in infernos]

I rather expect that regardless of how many pages he's filled, Myhrvold has more to learn from Adria than Adria has to learn from Myrhvold.

I expect so, too. I expect that Myhrvold would agree. Nonetheless, Myhrvold is documenting new techniques that Adria will use - and likely expand on. More importantly, Myhrvold is making those techniques more accessible to newcomers to the field than Adria has. The fact that Adria could have written a better book on the subject doesn't mean Myhrvold's book lacks value.

Re:Groundbreaking?

[gstoddart]

I rather expect that regardless of how many pages he's filled, Myhrvold has more to learn from Adria than Adria has to learn from Myrhvold.

So? Learning from the pioneers and exhaustively documenting everything is part of science -- and, make no mistake, this is about the science of cooking.

Hell, look at the index which he's made available in PDF. It's 60 pages, and as someone who cook a fair bit, I'm reading through it and see all sorts of interesting teasers and how-to's that extend beyond just molecular gastronomy. It seems to cover the entirety of cooking -- hell, it's got an index entry for Mathematica. :-P

I don't think any of the reviews of this book are just "quid pro quo back scratching, friendly overture, or pure puffery" -- looking at the information on this book, I really do think it's exactly what those quotes say. This is like Knuth's Art of Computer Programming, but for food. Yes, that sounds like hyperbole, but I've never seen any books which have all of the stuff he's got in there, and I've got some cookbooks that are used in culinary schools.

Re:Groundbreaking?

[ElectricTurtle]

I can't help but feel that such a thing must necessarily be, at best, an embarrassment of riches. While I understand that I am making criticisms sight unseen, the utility of focus is one of the first things a non-fiction writer is taught. Very few people are Edward Gibbon or Sima Qian. Myrhvold may very well be in that class, but its unlikely. I can't be any more definitive in good conscience without actually studying the work itself.

Re:Groundbreaking?

[isaac]

Herve This is indeed the pioneer of this style - he actually coined the term Molecular Gastronomy.

He's an engaging speaker, even in English, and clearly talented.

Unfortunately, his books (or at least the English translations of them) are pretty poor. Clunky translation, marginal editing, downright lousy typesetting. Mostly anecdotes about food science, precious little of use in the kitchen.

Harold McGee's On Food and Cooking: The Science and Lore of the Kitchen is a far better book than any of This' three volumes that have made it into English translation.

-Isaac

I hate that guy

[Anonymous Coward]

There's something about him that drives me crazy. Maybe it's the patent hoarding. Or the smug "smartest man in the room" press that covers him. Everyone seems to hate Gates (I don't), but at least he's using his fortune to make the world a better place. Myhrvold is making solutions for billionaires and pricing them accordingly.

His Credentials

[crackspackle]

Aside from being Microsoft CTO, from the article:

Myhrvold's academic tech credentials are supreme. He's earned degrees in mathematics, geophysics, and space physics from UCLA, and PhDs in mathematical economics and theoretical physics from Princeton University. In his post-doctoral work at Cambridge University, Myhrvold worked on quantum theories of gravity with cosmologist Stephen Hawking.

Myhrvold worked for two years as a stagier at Rover's, a top French restaurant in Seattle, and he trained at the Ecole De La Varenne. Myhrvold's culinary adventures also include a stint as Chief Gastronomic Officer for Zagat Survey, which publishes the Zagat restaurant guides.

After leaving Microsoft in 1999, Myhrvold went on to become CEO of Intellectual Ventures, a patent company he founded (along with three others) to shepherd inventions and commercialize intellectual property.

First off, how the hell does one do all this ? Second, with all his knowledge, why become a patent troll ?

Re:His Credentials

[Anonymous Coward]

Having worked with and for Nathan and seen his interactions with Bill and the rest of the organization, he has always been 'afraid to lose' -- at least on paper and particularly against Bill. See a pattern? 'worked with Stephen Hawking', 'for Microsoft under Bill'? Near the best, almost the best, measured against the best, and then documented as the best by sheer weight of paper. I'm not saying he isn't prolific, driven, or intelligent. I'm saying, it doesn't come to much beyond inflating his sense of himself.

New fields

[Chemisor]

He has conquered the technical world, he has conquered the cooking world, now he needs to buy a ring and conquer the physical world by becoming the ULTIMATE FIGHTING CHAMPION!!!

Iran should buy a few copies

[PolygamousRanchKid]

Iran: "We are not using these centrifuges to enrich uranium. We are just trying out some recipes in this cookbook."

International Atomic Energy Agency Inspector: "Well, I do have to admit that the concentrated flavor molecules in this powerfully aromatic liquid layer is ideal for cooking."

$625 for a book, eh?

[lavagolemking]

So, he's writing college textbooks? Glad I'm not in food science...

What a genius

[stretch0611]

1) He writes an (admittedly large) expensive $625 cookbook.
2) He gets free advertising on slahsdot.
3) Profit ($$$)

No need to question any steps here...

Re:What a genius

[gstoddart]

1) He writes an (admittedly large) expensive $625 cookbook.
2) He gets free advertising on slahsdot.
3) Profit ($$$)

No need to question any steps here...

Well, those who wouldn't ever ponder buying this book won't be swayed by the 'advertising' on Slashdot. And, I doubt it's likely to be a significant number of people.

Those who might buy it are actively drooling over it. And, if you read his account of supply shortages it sounds like a large number of people are already trying to get hold of it. And this was mid February, so long before Slashdot posted anything about it.

The market for this kind of book is pretty much high-end cooks and food geeks. And, it covers more than just the people on Slashdot, though there's likely a few here who are pondering it.

Freakanomics Radio

[RockGrumbler]

There was just recently a very interesting podcast about Nathan Myhrvold , his company, and his approach to cooking compared to the slow foods movement.

http://freakonomicsradio.com/food-and-the-new-physics.html

Re:Copy-pasted recipes from Bing (i.e. Google)

[gstoddart]

Seriously, I really hope he actually wrote and did not copy-paste texts from Bing (i.e. Google). Cook book authors tend to reuse others' recipes.

I see you've already visited the web page by your comment below, but for anybody thinking you could just grab these kinds of recipes from a web search -- this stuff is more like a lab experiment than your standard recipe.

This is the research-science branch of preparing food. When you read just who is praising this book you quickly realize these are the guys who are doing this in high-end restaurants.

I'd love to flip through this set, but, alas, I fear the pricetag is a little more than I'm willing to spend for something I likely will never be able to employ most of the techniques.

Kudos to the authors for putting this together.

Heston Blumenthal does it for a living

[Kupfernigk]

Heston Blumenthal has been doing this for years. His restaurant (The Fat Duck) at Bray (West of London - hint, not cheap and a long, long wait) is world famous. Not so well known is that he also has a first class gastro-pub at Bray, and that the Little Chef first on the left on the Westbound A303 has a Blumenthal menu available - it fills up very early at weekends.

Re:Heston Blumenthal does it for a living

[slim]

... and his Big Fat Duck Cookbook is £150 RRP.

But it's a fabulous object to have around your home; like a family bible or something.

Re:Heston Blumenthal does it for a living

[gstoddart]

Heston Blumenthal has been doing this for years.

And, if you read the article, he's got two people who worked with Blumenthal onstaff:

As the scope of his writing project expanded, so did Myhrvold's team and his digs. His first hire was Chris Young, who holds degrees in biochemistry and math and opened the experimental kitchen at Chef Blumenthal's legendary Fat Duck restaurant in England. Young then recruited fellow Fat Duck alum Maxime Bilet.

And, the guy himself has some pretty respectable credentials in the world of food:

Myhrvold worked for two years as a stagier at Rover's, a top French restaurant in Seattle, and he trained at the Ecole De La Varenne. Myhrvold's culinary adventures also include a stint as Chief Gastronomic Officer for Zagat Survey, which publishes the Zagat restaurant guides.

So, it's not like he's some putz off the street who doesn't know his way around a kitchen, or that he doesn't have some exceedingly talented people with him.

The more I read about this series of books, the more I wish I could afford it. And, at 50lbs of heft, this is an enormous set of books. But, it seems to be chock full of the science covering absolutely all aspects of how food cooks and what happens under what circumstances.

Re:Heston Blumenthal does it for a living

[SydShamino]

If you'll read the about page, you'll note that Heston Blumenthal provided praise for the book.

Sous Vide

[slim]

It seems like sous vide cooking is quite the fashionable thing. I recently bought the cheapest slow-cooker in the shop, and was disappointed to discover that it just outputs a constant low heat, rather than containing a thermostat. Investigating the possibility of hacking a thermostat into it, I found a few references to people building a home-made sous vide bath using a slow-cooker, a temperature probe, and a temperature controlled switch.

Isn't it high time a consumer kitchen goods company made an affordable sous-vide bath? They hardly seem like the most complicated things to design or manufacture.

Re:Sous Vide

[sed quid in infernos]

There are a couple of solutions available. Sous Vide Supreme offers an all-in-one waterbath with a PID temperature controller, but no active circulation (relies on convection), for $400 or $300 depending on size. The Fresh Meals Magic is an immersible PID-controlled heater and air bubbler (to provide circulation) for $300 (up to 18 L capacity), or you can get a PID controller for $160 to use with an analog rice cooker or a slow cooker. The PID controller basically acts like a smart dimmer switch to control the amount of heat the cooker puts out. For $800 you can get a Polyscience immersion circulator.

Re:Sous Vide

[ddd0004]

Sous Vide, huh? Maybe that's what I need to invest in. My mac and cheese with hot dogs cut up into it just hasn't had the kick it once did. I'll have to check if it will do ramen noodles too.

Re:Sous Vide

[slim]

Hmm, I was speculating that you could make a mass-market unit of, say, 3 litres, for under $100. Essentially it would be a crockpot with an accurate thermostat in it -- not difficult or expensive to make.

Maybe the obstacle to this is the risk of litigation if someone gets food poisoning due to misuse.

Re:Sous Vide

[SEWilco]

I recently bought the cheapest slow-cooker...

Thermostat costs more. Did any of the others in the store have thermostats?

Re:Sous Vide

[sed quid in infernos]

A simple thermostat wouldn't hold temperature constant enough for a lot of sous vide. One degree can radically alter some dishes, and some cooking is done at the lower end of safety ranges (like pasteurizing burgers at a 131F or braising short ribs at 135F for 24 hours). A simple thermostat would suffice for long-term braises at higher temperatures, but I'd want some additional temperature monitoring for safety's sake.

Re:Sous Vide

[slim]

Hard to tell without opening them up. I just assumed that a simple bimetallic strip thermostat, non-adjustable and set in the factory, would keep the slow cooker at temperature. But I found that if I wrapped it in a towel (because I was offended at how much heat was being leaked out of the sides) my food would come to a fairly vigourous simmer, which is when I got my screwdriver out.

Re:Sous Vide

[ErikZ]

Sous-vide (pronounced /suËËviËd/), French for "under vacuum",[1] is a method of cooking food sealed in airtight plastic bags in a water bath[2] for a long timeâ"72 hours is not unusualâ"at an accurately determined temperature much lower than normally used for cooking, typically around 60 ÂC or 140 ÂF. The intention is to maintain the integrity of ingredients.

Perhaps there's no demand for the ability to cook food for THREE DAYS.

Re:Copy-pasted recipes from Bing (i.e. Google)

[sconeu]

Don't you know? Myrhvold has patents on every recipe there, and plans to sue anyone who uses them without a license.

Yes, but ...

[amw]

... does he use open sauce?

one trick-pony

[peter303]

he hasnt done much interesting and creative since daparting MSFT. Makes a noisy splash with all his companies.

Re:one trick-pony

[SEWilco]

So you want him to get out of the kitchen and get into the kitchen?

intellectual bullshit

[alien9]

is it time to fill some patents on it?

digital and analogue scales

[KingAlanI]

I figure a digital scale would be more precise than trying to read the exact position of the dial on an analogue scale (for me, it's small packages rather than cooking ingredients; it's particularly important there since postal pricing increments at each weight level rather than being simply proportional.)

Re:Copy-pasted recipes from Bing (i.e. Google)

[Sulphur]

Seriously, I really hope he actually wrote and did not copy-paste texts from Bing (i.e. Google). Cook book authors tend to reuse others' recipes.

Oh no, recycled recipes.

100 years from now

[istartedi]

100 years from now, this will be on the top shelf at some rare book store. I can just picture it. You know how when you go into those stores, there is usually a several volume set of *something*. I've never asked about it, because I'm not much of a collector and I figure they're expensive.

Of course, now that I've jinxed it, way too many people will buy them and sock them away, figuring wrongly that nobody else would pay that much for this. So, 100 years from now your great grandchildren will walk into the store with it in a cardboard box, and say "we have this, we heard it was connected to the old computer days", and the guy behind the counter will say, "we've got 3 sets already"

Tagged "Idiocracy?" WTF?

[GameboyRMH]

Why is this article tagged "idiocracy?" What he's doing isn't stupid. It's just different. You might say better. And $625 for a 6-volume set of books isn't terribly ridiculous, I wish some of my university textbooks were that cheap per book.

Cookbooks & imaginary property

[Compaqt]

Isn't he the same guy who's underwriting a massive patent troll operation?

Would seem a little hypocritical to now be writing a cookbook. After all, almost all recipes have some element from older recipes.

Or was that Paul Allen?

Myhrvold

[multi io]

Nathan Myhrvold, Microsoft's first CTO, made his mark in the tech world.

Really? I must've missed that.

Re:Myhrvold

[sharkey]

You've never bought a computer that had a shit-stain preinstalled instead of an operating system?

Now he's trying to skidmark the kitchen.

Re:Myhrvold

[larry bagina]

He didn't make his mark as MSFT's CTO, he made his mark as a patent troll.

WARNING: Keep a defibrillator in the kitchen...

[AchilleTalon]

Keep a defibrillator in your kitchen, just in case you get the Blue Screen of Death.

Oh boy.

[rs79]

More fucking foam.

Not one of the good guys

[Hortensia Patel]

This all sounds like good wholesome geeky fun, but the guy is co-founder of Intellectual Ventures, probably the most egregious and destructive patent troll in the world. Shun him! Shun him!

BSod question answered

[oliverthered]

a class action is now under way as the 'less savey' cooks attempted sous vide cooking,
but due to incorrect equipment and vacume packing ended up with Botulism... seal of death.