jeudi 3 mars 2016

Other Q&A

This morning, some questions. Here are my answers, with comments :

In an answer to a question on your website about DSFs, you mention that dimension "does not mean size, but the number of parameters that you need to describe a system." You give mayonnaise as an example: D0(O)/D3(W). Why does the oil occupy 0 dimensions as opposed to the liquid water phase that occupies 3? What are the parameters pertaining to a given phase?

Here, I have to explain, in order to avoid my friends going first on other pages, looking for explanations on DSF.
DSF stands for "disperse systems formalism", i.e. a kind of algebra that  can be used in order to describe the physical organization of colloids, that is systems such as foams, gels, emulsions, suspensions...
In this formalism, one describes objects by their "physical dimension", and the nature of the "phases" (gaz, liquid, solid...), including the relationship between the constituants.
The  dimension is indeed the traditional mathematical object. A dot has dimension zero, a line  dimension one, a surface dimension two, a volume a dimension 3, and there  can be non integer dimensions, such as for fractals.
In a mayonnaise : the sauce itself is certainly 3 dimensional. The continuous phase is water (W), which  means that the  sauce formula begins with D3(W°. Now, if you look at it, you see that there are oil droplets are dispersed in the water phase. But the oil droplets are "physically" of dimension 0, because they are more than one order of magnitude smaller than the reference size, i.e. the  radius of the  sauce. And these droplets D0(O) are randomly dispersed in the water  sauce, hence the formula.

Given a random dispersion system formula, how would you go about interpreting that into a physical manifestation (a dish)? How do you interpret each operation––specifically inclusion, superstition, and intermixing?

I don't understand the question. Can you explain what  you mean ?

As a study of the science regarding cuisine, what distinguishes the molecular gastronomy from the scientific field of food science?

This is very clear, and there are obviously historical reasons. If you look to any Food Science textbook, such as the Food Chemistry (Springer), you will never see "real food", such as coq of vin, poisson braisé, etc. The only topics being discussed are food ingredients, or food processes of the industry. See this explained in more details in my article of the Accounts of chemical research.

Did the Futurist Ideology regarding future food consumption (as Marinetti predicted in the Cucina Futurista) inspire your concept of Note-by-Note cooking in anyway? How did your work in the fields of food science and molecular gastronomy influence this idea?

No. I don't have time for this. The idea of note by note cooking is explained in my book on the topic.
By the way, in  some posts of my blogs you will see that  there could be more, such as injecting sensations into the brain, without eating physically. This is very exciting, but I shall not work on it.
And I don't understand clearly the second question here.

In many of your lecture demonstrations, you use flavor compounds in powder form. What are the processes of extracting flavor or odor molecules from ingredients––like basil, or olive oil for example? Are there any methods that can be used at home with basic supplies?

Compounds responsible for  taste or odor, or trigeminal can be solid or liquid (for gases, the amount of material is too small).
The process of extracting? It depends on the particular compounds. Some can be recovered by distillation, other by membrane filtration, etc.
At home ? Who would you mind extracting at home, as you don't do  it for sugar or salt ? Of course, you can if you have the equipment, but supercritical CO2 is expansive. Rotary evaporators are now in some kitchens.

Seeing that you have greatly impacted the development of molecular gastronomy/cuisine/Note-by-Note cooking, why don’t you consider yourself a chef?

Why  I don't consider myself a  chef ? Because a chef cooks professionnally. If I would open a restaurant, I am quite sure that I would do well, but I also know that I am a dwarf, artistically, compared to my friend Pierre Gagnaire. I am no artist, even if my technique is probably  better than the technique of all chefs (remember one invention per  month for more than 15 years, and I can make 40 liters of whipped egg white from one egg). I cook daily for my family since I am  6 BUT I am not interested in all this.
My life is physical chemistry, equations, science, enlarging the realm of knowledge, of scientific knowledge. For me, technique  and technology (even my own inventions) are nil ! My only proudness are some scientific results that I was able to get. My job, for which I am paid, is  physical chemistry... and now that I answered, I am coming back VERY FAST to my equations and calculations.