Keeping the process simple

Instead of engaging in a long diatribe about current events or subjects that rattle my brain, today I bring you an observation - a ponderance or, in more common terms, "WTF?"
The onset of the '70s brought in instand foods. "Just add water," and coffee, hot cocoa, soup, oatmeal, and a deluge of other palatable items were available. In many homes, a tea kettle was a staple and a flip of the stove switch provided hot, boiling water in a quick moment.

Within a short time, quick foods were followed by quicker cooking methods via the microwave. A cup of water takes roughly the same amount of time to boil on the stove as it does in the nukerator, but the image of a mug circling the inside of a box, illuminated by a single bulb, and screened by a black web of fibers seems far more Jetson-esque. Cookbooks addressed the new contraption, telling the modern cook how to create multi-course meals. Those that never bought into the idea of baking a cake in the microwave, found the appliance indispensable for baking a potato, popping popcorn, and reheating leftovers.

For some reason, the producers of instant foods feel that there is a need for separate "stove top" and "microwave" instructions when adding hot water to dry substances. Why does one need more hot water on the stove top than in the microwave? Is water from the microwave able to absorb better?

The instructions often have the dry ingredients mixed in with the water before heating in the microwave. Do the ions in powder get jolted in order to accept the nuked water? Perhaps the dry ingredients need to be at one with the water; zapped water is only received by zapped powder, and stove-boiled water is accepted by the regular, unhindered powder.

Though I'd prefer to understand the why of it all, I find that adding hot water - conventionally heated or microwaved -to the package contents achieves the same results. Afterall, isn't the process supposed to be simple?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Prop8 or Prop-hate?

On January 1, 1994 I had been married 11 years and had two small children. My husband and I sat down to talk about the problems we were having. It was a new year and I was creating an opportunity to start fresh. Our arguments and his general mood had progressively worsened. He wasn’t happy and neither was I. The discussion was sane and amicable but the lines were drawn. We both needed to commit 100 percent to mending the relationship or there was no need in going further. He agreed but wanted time to think. As we both took in a deep breath, I felt like I had literally been hit with a lightening bolt. I don’t know where the question came from or why I asked at that moment. I certainly wasn’t prepared for the answer. “You’re gay, aren’t you?” He paused and responded, “Yes.” Tears welled up in his eyes. I crossed the room to where he was sitting and knelt down, hugging him, reassuring him. “It’s okay,” I said. “At least now I know what is wrong and why you’ve been so miserable.” He hadn’t...
Read more

Twitter Litter

Twitter Litter noun 1. Scattered rubbish posted by tweeters on Twitter 2. A condition of disorder on Twitter caused by useless tweets 3. Propaganda spread on Twitter by egocentric tweeters I follow a variety of people on Twitter. Some folks follow me in return, some don't. Some have thousands of followers, some have only a few. Some tweet often, others go days without tweets. I often find great links to much needed information or enjoy a friendly "hello" from someone I've met online. As I perused tweets one evening, I came across a comment by someone ranking high in their number of followers. It seems they had gotten some unkind remarks from another tweeter and were goading more reaction. I followed links to responses and figured out the tiff between egos. Admittedly, I got voyeuristic pleasure from watching the public lobs yet I also realized I was following someone merely because they are a noted guru of social media. This person has not provided any useful informat...
Read more

Scrooged by library rules

Image
We've all had experiences where a simple transaction is blocked because of a rule. Thanks to some idiot that abused a privledge, the rule was established and we now have to jump through hoops. I understand why rules are set and generally try to conform rather than ask for an exception. Once in a blue moon, exceptions can be justified and should be made. Karen "DeafMom" Putz had just such a circumstance in her local Illinois public library. Her daughter, also deaf, was to attend a production of "The Christmas Carol" with her class. A series of events left her without an interpreter and a suitable option was to obtain the captioned video. The Putz ladies headed for the nearest library, though not the one that receives the family's tax dollars. A reciprocal agreement allows for the loan of non-fiction videos. Fictional videos require a $100 annual fee plus $1 per loan. Karen explained the entire situation and the librarian confirmed the captioned video was not...
Read more