• jballs@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      Damn that was impressive! Also, I’ll have to let my little brother know that if he keeps beating his meat so much he might accidentally cook it.

  • JakenVeina@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    92
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Let’s assume the chicken has to reach a temperature of 205C (400F) for us to consider it cooked.

    Remind me never to let this guy cook for me.

  • bebabalula@feddit.dk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    71
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    What I learned from this is never let a physics major cook you dinner, unless you want charcoal for chicken (200C !?!)

    • Hugin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Yeah 60c is done for chicken. That’s where meat goes from pink to white. It takes 18 min to kill dangerous food bacteria at that temp.

      • Fermion@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        0 C wouldn’t quite be frozen solid for chicken since it’s not pure water. According to a quick search, chicken (unbrined) freezes at -3 C. So technically it is defrosted, but it should start out closer to 10 C for good results.

    • HoustonHenry@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      2 months ago

      I was gonna say to start laying off when it gets to 165F, I don’t think residual heat will help in this case 😁

    • deo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      Luckily, it’s a linear relationship and they gave us the temp change per slap. So, if we assume the chicken has thawed in the fridge (40°F) and we want to reach 165°F for food safety, we only need

      (165 - 40)°F * (5°C / 9°F) / (0.0089 °C / slap)
      = 7803 slaps
      

      Although, to be honest I think this would only work for a spherical chicken in a vacuum, as otherwise you’d be losing too much heat between slaps. And even in a vacuum, you’d lose some heat via radiation… So really, you should stick a temperature probe in there and just keep slapping until it reaches 165°F. Don’t even bother counting.

      Sorry for the silly units, I only know food safety temperatures off the top of my head in °F.

  • davidgro@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    57
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    But it only needs to reach 165°F, about 74°C.
    Basically every food package says so.

  • MyTurtleSwimsUpsideDown@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    49
    ·
    2 months ago

    Don’t forget, the chicken is frozen, so you also have to take into account the latent heat of fusion to melt the chicken before you can raise the temperature

    This calculation also assumes that this is an inelastic collision where all the energy is absorbed into the chicken and not into your hand or into the air as sound or other kinetic energy.

    Further the chicken is frozen solid, and, presumably, your hand is not. Of the two objects in this collision that could deform inelasticity and absorb the larger fraction of the energy, my money would be on the 0.4 kg slab of raw meat rather than the 1kg frozen billiard ball.

    • notabot@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      2 months ago

      One must also consider the thermal conduction of the chicken. Slapping it, either once or multiple times, on a single area will impart energy to that area, raising the temperature there, but it will take time for that to disperse throughout the fowl. Thus will inevitably lead to the slapped area/areas being overcooked and the rest being dangerously undercooked. Losses to the environment must additionally be taken into account unless sufficient insulation is employed to mitigate this.

      • Mambele@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 months ago

        So would you say that a rotisserie slapping technique would optimal in this scenario?

        • notabot@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          2 months ago

          Yes, I think the chicken would need to be rotating, you should use both hands to spread the warmed area, and be prepared to administer more slaps than were calculated.

    • Fermion@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      Since we’re being pedantic, the feeezing point of unbrined chicken is -3 C. Most meats are not frozen at exactly 0 C since the water contained in the cells is far from pure.

      But yeah, slapping will be a super lossy process and this analysis will be off by quite a bit.

    • bss03@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Isn’t 1600 m/s greater than the speed of sound? That sonic boom is gonna mess up the kitchen, if not the hand.

  • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    2 months ago

    To be clear, the slapping would have to be done in one single second to account for heat loss to environment.

      • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        It’s expected there will be some heat loss over time in any scenario, I’m just explaining that the exact numbers to reach 200C chicken (way overcooked) in this very specific example only work if it happens near instantly.

        You can still cook it over time, easily, just with different numbers than this example.

        • lemming@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          I didn’t check the calculation, but I guess it assumes perfect conversion of motion to heat. But it’s good to know that if you can get a perfectly static chicken, you can hypersonic-slap it cooked.

  • Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    2 months ago

    One thing to note, actually cooking something requires an application of heat over time. Instantaneous heat transfer will not cook, it will usually just burn.

    Some people say you can use a nuke to cook a pizza if you put it in the right spot, but the same problem would apply.

    Related, some guy did actually slap a chicken into being cooked. It was predictably disgusting:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHFhnnTWMgI

    • peteypete420@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      It is about 1:06 when I first heard him call it a meat beater.

      He needed a faster meat better. Bruva, we are right here!

    • Stitch0815
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Came here to post that video It’s such a great watch

    • southsamurai@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      2 months ago

      Because we are men, and men feel no pain when we slap things.

      This is why we slap each other on the back after losses in sports, and why pimpin ain’t easy.

  • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    2 months ago

    That’s assuming an isentropic chicken though. You need even more slaps to make up for the heat loss to the environment.

    • Asafum@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      2 months ago

      He confused internal temp with oven temp lol (I still probably wouldn’t cook a chicken at 400° though.)

      • Dagrothus@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        I cook it at 450, 10 min each side. Works pretty well & you can get some browning with no oil.

  • i_dont_want_to@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    2 months ago

    When Martha from accounting last asked me what my plans were for that night, I told her I was going to slap my chicken.

    She won’t look me in the eye any more.

  • huquad@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    2 months ago

    Fun fact, 165F is often parroted for cooking chicken, but I urge everyone to go lower. 155-160F results in much juicier chicken. 165F corresponds to instantaneously killing all bacteria. 155F is about 60s, and 160F is 15s.

  • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    2 months ago

    This isn’t going to be accurate, it’s ignoring a key aspect of the heat that will be generated, friction. When designing materials for prosthetics we have to be aware of how much friction occurs between the material and skin. If the amount of friction is too great, the material can create enough heat to damage tissue.

    The formula for the skin friction coefficient is cf=τw12ρeue2, where ρe and ue are the density and longitudinal velocity at the boundary layer’s edge.

    • Sneezycat@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      It’s also ignoring your hand would also heat up, ignoring the energy converted to sound, ignoring the heat loss to the environment, ignoring both your hand and the chicken would disintegrate if you hit it that hard, therefore transferring most kinetic energy without converting it, ignoring the enthalpy of fusion (they said it’s frozen)…

      TLDR: it’s silly, just for funsies