betsy@dartvax.UUCP (Betsy Hanes Perry) (11/09/84)
From the November *Gourmet* magazine, p. 110 :
"The outside of a pot, any pot, radiates heat into your kitchen,
a sheer waste of energy and often a source of discomfort to the cook.
A *black* pot wastes significantly more energy in this way than
a bright stainless steel pot. (Ever get into a black car on a sunny day?)
(from a Cuisinart cookware ad, signed by Cuisinarts's president, no less.)
It ends with "Next time, I'll try to clear up some misconceptions about the heat
conductivity of cookware."
Gosh, I can hardly wait.
Betsy Perry
--
Elizabeth Hanes Perry
UUCP: {decvax|linus|cornell}!dartvax!betsy
CSNET: betsy@dartmouth
ARPA: betsy%dartmouth@csnet-relayhaapanen@watdcsu.UUCP (Tom Haapanen [DCS]) (11/11/84)
< Namin nami nami nami ... > I still can't believe the ignorance prevailing in journalism today! For someone to draw the conclusion that since black cars get hot in the sun, then black pots must radiate lots of waste heat is incredulous! This person should have at least consulted a basic physics text. Obviously, black absorbs the most heat, as it does not *reflect* light rays of any wavelength. On the other hand, a silver car will reflect most light rays (waves? particles?). On the other hand, an object of colour x can only radiate light (read: heat) of colour x (i.e. that wavelength). Therefore, a 100% black pot will radiate *no heat* at all. It will be warm to the touch, though. However, it is impossible to make a 100% black pot (if it was 100% black, it would absorb all the light and you wouldn't be able to see it!), but an almost-black pot is still the best way to go. :-( :-( :-( Journalism today :-( :-( :-( Tom Haapanen University of Waterloo (519) 744-2468 allegra \ clyde \ \ decvax ---- watmath --- watdcsu --- haapanen ihnp4 / / linus / The opinions herein are not those of my employers, of the University of Waterloo, and probably not of anybody else either.
marcus@pyuxt.UUCP (M. G. Hand) (11/13/84)
>I still can't believe the ignorance prevailing in journalism today! >For someone to draw the conclusion that since black cars get hot in >the sun, then black pots must radiate lots of waste heat is >incredulous! This person should have at least consulted a basic >physics text. >On the other hand, an object of colour x can only radiate light (read: >heat) of colour x (i.e. that wavelength). Therefore, a 100% black pot >will radiate *no heat* at all. It will be warm to the touch, though. Is this why my physics book used to talk of "black body radiation" with the same reverence that it used for "perfectly elastic spheres." I think black is the *best* radiator. Marcus Hand (pyuxt!marcus)
nemo@rochester.UUCP (Wolfe) (11/13/84)
> From the November *Gourmet* magazine, p. 110 : > > "The outside of a pot, any pot, radiates heat into your kitchen, > a sheer waste of energy and often a source of discomfort to the cook. > A *black* pot wastes significantly more energy in this way than > a bright stainless steel pot. (Ever get into a black car on a sunny day?) > > (from a Cuisinart cookware ad, signed by Cuisinarts's president, no less.) > > It ends with "Next time, I'll try to clear up some misconceptions about the heat > conductivity of cookware." > > Gosh, I can hardly wait. > > Betsy Perry > -- > Elizabeth Hanes Perry > UUCP: {decvax|linus|cornell}!dartvax!betsy > CSNET: betsy@dartmouth > ARPA: betsy%dartmouth@csnet-relay You know. Black body radiation. Never hear of shiny steel body radiation do you? I thought not. Nemo :@>
crm@duke.UUCP (Charlie Martin) (11/13/84)
And that's why they call a perfect radiator a "black body", right. grumpf. -- Charlie Martin (...mcnc!duke!crm)
bobr@zeus.UUCP (Robert Reed) (11/14/84)
regarding black bodies
"There are some substances, such as lampblack, whose absorptivity is very
nearly unity. For theoretical purposes it is useful to conceive of an
ideal substance capable of absorbing all the thermal radiation falling
on it. Such a substance is called a blackbody.
"...the irradiance within a cavity whose walls are at the temperature
*theta* is equal to the radiant emittance of a blackbody at the same
temperature. For this reason, the radiation within a cavity is called
blackbody radiation. ... Since [irradiance] is independent of the
materials of which the interior walls are composed, it follows that the
radiant emittance of a blackbody is a function of the temperature only."
[from "Heat and Thermodynamics" by Mark W. Zemansky]
Thus blackbody refers to the absorptive qualities of a material. I hope
this ends the speculation I've seen here recently, and we can get on to
topics more germaine to this newsgroup.
--
Robert Reed, Logic Design Systems Division, tektronix!teklds!bobrnemo@rochester.UUCP (Wolfe) (11/15/84)
> >I still can't believe the ignorance prevailing in journalism today! > >For someone to draw the conclusion that since black cars get hot in > >the sun, then black pots must radiate lots of waste heat is > >incredulous! This person should have at least consulted a basic > >physics text. > > >On the other hand, an object of colour x can only radiate light (read: > >heat) of colour x (i.e. that wavelength). Therefore, a 100% black pot > >will radiate *no heat* at all. It will be warm to the touch, though. > > Is this why my physics book used to talk of "black body radiation" > with the same reverence that it used for "perfectly elastic spheres." > I think black is the *best* radiator. > > Marcus Hand (pyuxt!marcus) I hope that all this is also making it to net.jokes! The energy given off by "black body" radiation is proportional to T^4 (where T is the absolute temperature of the object). The wavelength of the emitted energy is inversely proportional to the frequency, which is in turn proportional to the energy (remember "h nu"?). That's why a black piece of steel will glow red when sufficiently heated, etc. The point is that the frequency of the emitted radiation has NOTHING to do with the color of the object. The color of an object, among other things, does have an effect on (and is caused by) the frequencies of light that it absorbs. As I recall, the best color for absorbing the frequencies of normal sunlight was found to be green, not black, by researchers working on solar collectors. Nemo
john@x.UUCP (John Woods) (11/15/84)
> < Namin nami nami nami ... > > I still can't believe the ignorance prevailing in journalism today! > For someone to draw the conclusion that since black cars get hot in > the sun, then black pots must radiate lots of waste heat is > incredulous! This person should have at least consulted a basic > physics text. > Obviously, black absorbs the most heat, as it does not *reflect* light > rays of any wavelength. On the other hand, a silver car will reflect > most light rays (waves? particles?). > On the other hand, an object of colour x can only radiate light (read: > heat) of colour x (i.e. that wavelength). Therefore, a 100% black pot > will radiate *no heat* at all. It will be warm to the touch, though. > However, it is impossible to make a 100% black pot (if it was 100% > black, it would absorb all the light and you wouldn't be able to see > it!), but an almost-black pot is still the best way to go. WRONGO, CONS BREATH! My basic physics text: "Quantum Physics of Atoms, Molecules, Solids, Nuclei, and Particles" by Robert Eisberg and Robert Resnick, (c) 1974 John Wiley and Sons, New York. @begin(quote) Example 1-2, page 7 (boy, this has to be basic): Assume we have two small opaque bodies a large distance from one another supported by fine threads in a large evacuated enclosure whose walls are opaque and kept at a constant temperature. IN SUCH A CASE THE BODIES AND WALLS CAN EXCHANGE ENERGY ONLY BY MEANS OF RADIATION. Let (e) represent the rate of emission of radiant energy by a body and let (a) represent the rate of absorption of radiant energy by a body. Show that at equilibrium e1 e2 ---- = ---- = 1 (1-5) a1 a2 This relation, (1-5), is known as "Kirchoff's law for radiation." Proof: The equilibrium state is one of constant temperature throughout the enclosed system, and in that state the emission rate necessarily equals the absorption rate for each body. Hence e1 = a1 and e2 = a2 Therefore: e1 e2 ---- = 1 = ---- a1 a2 If one body, say body 2, is a blackbody, then a2 > a1 because a blackbody is a better absorber than a non-blackbody. HENCE, IT FOLLOWS FROM (1-5) THAT e2 > e1. THE OBSERVED FACT THAT GOOD ABSORBERS ARE ALSO GOOD EMITTERS IS THUS PREDICTED BY KIRCHOFF'S LAW. @end(quote) Emphasis mine. Good absorbers of radiant energy are good emitters of radiant energy. The only radiation that comes from a blackbody is featureless thermal radiation, which is why it is a "blackbody". Try the following experiment: Build a "cavity blackbody" as follows: Take a cubic hunk of something that won't melt and hollow it out, leaving a small hole in one side (just barely large enough to see in), viz: -------- The hole represents your blackbody. Look into it. | | It should be quite dark (if not, you made it too | large). It helps to paint the inside black, but it | | is not necessary if the hole is small enough. -------- Place it in a high temperature oven and heat it till it glows red (I didn't say it would be easy, did I). Look at the hole. It ought to be glowing red. However, you won't see the inside of the box, you'll only see a featureless red glow. If you can't perform this experiment, don't worry, it was done on a NOVA program a couple of years back. I suggest that you sit down and watch every NOVA program ever made, continuously, until you come across this show. Maybe you'll learn something... "This person" who did that commercial wins a cookie from me for being correct. John Woods B.S. Physics, MIT 1982 B.S. Electrical Engineering/Computer Science, MIT 1982 [ Whether or not the above opinions reflect those of my employer has no bearing upon the radiation of black bodies or the motion of the Earth.] -- John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (617) 626-1114 ...!decvax!frog!john, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw%mit-ccc@MIT-XX.ARPA If your puppy goes off in the next room, is it because of the explosive charge? [y][n]
plh@ukma.UUCP (Paul L. Hightower) (11/15/84)
> From: haapanen@watdcsu.UUCP (Tom Haapanen [DCS]) >Message-ID: <642@watdcsu.UUCP> >Date: Sun, 11-Nov-84 15:39:41 EST >References: <2559@dartvax.UUCP> >I still can't believe the ignorance prevailing in journalism today! >For someone to draw the conclusion that since black cars get hot in >the sun, then black pots must radiate lots of waste heat is >incredulous! This person should have at least consulted a basic >physics text. >... >On the other hand, an object of colour x can only radiate light (read: >heat) of colour x (i.e. that wavelength). Therefore, a 100% black pot >will radiate *no heat* at all. It will be warm to the touch, though. >:-( :-( :-( Journalism today :-( :-( :-( >Tom Haapanen University of Waterloo (519) 744-2468 Tom, did you consult a basic physics text? Have you ever observed the fact that *black* rooftops melt snow faster than *white* ones ? <<Flame on!>> The color black both absorbs and *radiates* heat better than other colors. <<Flame off.>> I have no idea what this means in regards to cooking pots. Paul Hightower University of Kentucky Black objects b
paf@cornell.UUCP (Peter Fenyes) (11/15/84)
In response to the following: >>I still can't believe the ignorance prevailing in journalism today! >>For someone to draw the conclusion that since black cars get hot in >>the sun, then black pots must radiate lots of waste heat is >>incredulous! This person should have at least consulted a basic >>physics text. > >>On the other hand, an object of colour x can only radiate light (read: >>heat) of colour x (i.e. that wavelength). Therefore, a 100% black pot >>will radiate *no heat* at all. It will be warm to the touch, though. Marcus Hand replies ..... > >Is this why my physics book used to talk of "black body radiation" >with the same reverence that it used for "perfectly elastic spheres." >I think black is the *best* radiator. > > Marcus Hand (pyuxt!marcus) I would agree that black is the best radiator, but.... Although I haven't done any calculations, I find it hard to imagine that at stove-top temperatures radiation is significant. My guess would be that the heat losses by convection are much greater....so the ad would still appear to be quite misleading since the color has no effect on the convection. Now maybe they should do some wind tunnel testing ..... :-) Peter Fenyes
ems@amdahl.UUCP (E. Michael Smith) (11/15/84)
> >I still can't believe the ignorance prevailing in journalism today! > >For someone to draw the conclusion that since black cars get hot in > >the sun, then black pots must radiate lots of waste heat is > >incredulous! This person should have at least consulted a basic > >physics text. > > >On the other hand, an object of colour x can only radiate light (read: > >heat) of colour x (i.e. that wavelength). Therefore, a 100% black pot > >will radiate *no heat* at all. It will be warm to the touch, though. > > Is this why my physics book used to talk of "black body radiation" > with the same reverence that it used for "perfectly elastic spheres." > I think black is the *best* radiator. > > Marcus Hand (pyuxt!marcus) Marcus is right. The mistake in the first argument is this: the conclusion that a body of color x radiates only x therefore black, having no color doesn't radiate. The fact is that black is *all* colors and thus radiates *all* colors. Absorption and radiation form a pair. Reflection and radiation do not. The color *reflected* is not radiated well. (Think of the color you see as the color the object *is not*. That is, the one it reflected away because it could not absorb it. Silvery surfaces reflect all colors well and do not radiate well at all. Of large importance, though, is the reflectivity/absorptivity in the infrared range which cannot be judged by eye. Your silvery pot may be 'black' in the IR while the black pot may be 'shiney' in the IR. An interesting example of this is the green garden hose phenomenon. One green hose gets *quite* hot in the sun, another does not. Why? Both are absorbing large quantities of radiation. One is radiating it away in the IR, the other (a different plastic with different IR radiation abilities) cannot radiate as well and so becomes quite hot. -- E. Michael Smith ...!{hplabs,ihnp4,amd,nsc}!amdahl!ems The opinions expressed by me are not necessarily those of anyone. (How can a company have an opinion, anyway...)
tron@fluke.UUCP (Peter Barbee) (11/16/84)
Peter Fenyes states: I believe at stovetop temperatures radiation is insignificant. Without doing the calculations I tend to agree, although convection is not the driving factor in how "good" a pot is either. The purpose of a pot is to conduct the heat from the source (the burner) to the food. Conduction depends on the thermal conductivity of the pot (a material property) and on the thickness. It can easily be modeled like electrical resistance: R(conduction) = L / kA where R is the thermal resistance L is the distance the heat must be transferred k is thermal conductivity (expressed as watts/(meters*degrees)) A is area (normal to the heat path) Actually radiation and convection can be similarly modeled. The problem on the stovetop is to distribute the heat from the burner to all parts of the pot. Often the pot is larger than the burner and so the heat must be conducted out to the edges. Thus the thickness becomes the area in the above equation. Values for k for typical pot materials; stainless steel - 14.4 aluminum - 164 (if pure - 236) cast iron - 52 pure copper - 399 These values were taken out of "Basic Heat Transfer" by Frabk Kreith & William Black and are only approximate for actual pot materials. It is easily seen that stainless steel must be many times thicker than aluminum to conduct as much heat (read "distribute it as evenly"). Many people care about how long the pot takes to heat up also, mass is now the driving force so thickness becomes a liability. (Simplified argument) Many people also want the pot to store heat, suffice it to say this is an inverse function to that os heating up, although radiation is now more of a factor. I'll quit now before I bore too many of you, Peter Barbee decvax-+-uw-beaver-+ ihnp4--+ allegra-+ ucbvax----lbl-csam-+--fluke!tron sun-+ ssc-vax-+
ron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (11/16/84)
> However, it is impossible to make a 100% black pot (if it was 100% > black, it would absorb all the light and you wouldn't be able to see > it!), but an almost-black pot is still the best way to go. Give me a break. The fact that it doesn't reflect any light doesn't make it transparent, it makes it black. You can see it because it is black, while everything else in your kitchen isn't. -Ron
thomas@utah-gr.UUCP (Spencer W. Thomas) (11/16/84)
In article <642@watdcsu.UUCP> haapanen@watdcsu.UUCP (Tom Haapanen [DCS]) writes: >Obviously, black absorbs the most heat, as it does not *reflect* light >rays of any wavelength. On the other hand, a silver car will reflect >most light rays (waves? particles?). > >On the other hand, an object of colour x can only radiate light (read: >heat) of colour x (i.e. that wavelength). Therefore, a 100% black pot >will radiate *no heat* at all. It will be warm to the touch, though. >However, it is impossible to make a 100% black pot (if it was 100% >black, it would absorb all the light and you wouldn't be able to see >it!), but an almost-black pot is still the best way to go. I can't believe that I'm reading this on the netnews! As any first year physics student knows, an absolutely black object radiates the MOST heat of all objects at the same temperature. The absorption/radiation curves are, and must be, the same (an object will not radiate at a wavelength which it does not absorb). Back to school for you. =Spencer
jmm@ski.UUCP (Joel M. Miller) (11/19/84)
> >I still can't believe the ignorance prevailing in journalism today! > >For someone to draw the conclusion that since black cars get hot in > >the sun, then black pots must radiate lots of waste heat is > >incredulous! This person should have at least consulted a basic > >physics text. > > >On the other hand, an object of colour x can only radiate light (read: > >heat) of colour x (i.e. that wavelength). Therefore, a 100% black pot > >will radiate *no heat* at all. It will be warm to the touch, though. As I recall from high school physics, good absorbers of heat are good radiators (& vice versa). Imagine a universe containing a box. Eventually this system will reach thermal equilibrium and the box & its surroundings will be the same temperature (2nd law of thermodynamics). But what if the surface of the box made it a good radiator and, at the same time, a poor absorber? Then more heat would leave the box than would enter, and you could make a killing in the frozen food business with this no-cost (no energy cost, specifically) refrigerator. Similarly, if the surface of the box were a better absorber than a radiator, it would spontaneously heat up, I suppose, until the rest of the universe was at absolute zero. No thanks!
faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (11/22/84)
What I've always wondered is why the closer to the equator people live, the darker their skin tends to be. It seems that in the interests of maintainting a reasonable body temperature, it should be just the opposite. Wayne
donn@utah-gr.UUCP (Donn Seeley) (11/26/84)
(None of this discussion has really been a good topic for net.cooks -- let's move it to net.misc or net.flame. Actually, net.flame has a nice ring to it when discussing properties of heat absorption and radiation...) From faustus@ucbcad.UUCP: What I've always wondered is why the closer to the equator people live, the darker their skin tends to be. It seems that in the interests of maintainting a reasonable body temperature, it should be just the opposite. Wayne Actually it's the skin shading of Caucasians that's more interesting. (My apologies to speakers of Kartvelian languages -- 'Caucasians' here refers to pale Europeans in general.) The skins of Caucasians darken upon exposure to sunlight, but this seems to mean that more radiation is absorbed, not less. This is often referred to as 'tanning', although for me 'tanning' your skin means peeling it off, immersing it in smelly and corrosive liquids, then nailing it to a wall. Isn't this darkening exactly the wrong way to go about maintaining body temperature? The 'body temperature' question is a 'red herring'; dark skin absorbs radiation in order to prevent it from penetrating into layers beneath the epidermis and causing damage (sunburn). 'White' skin is really transparent skin. People in sunnier climes are in more danger from radiation, so they tend to have darker skin. Of course skin shading also has a lot to do with where your ancestors came from, since populations don't change skin shade overnight... (Unless they're Caucasian chameleons!) It's always been amazing to me that the body's defense against radiation can be used to rationalize seating arrangements on a bus, or even more foolish things. Donn Seeley University of Utah CS Dept donn@utah-cs.arpa 40 46' 6"N 111 50' 34"W (801) 581-5668 decvax!utah-cs!donn
eac@druor.UUCP (CveticEA) (11/26/84)
It is my understanding that the darker the skin, the better it deals with harmful radiaion, not heat. Skin, will therefore darken (tan) in an attempt to protect itself from the sun's (ultraviolet?) radiation. We sweat to take care of the heat problem. Betsy Cvetic P.S.--Haven't we strayed a bit far from net.cooks?
crm@duke.UUCP (Charlie Martin) (11/26/84)
People in sunnier climates tend to get more ultraviolet exposure. They therefore have developed darker skins since melanin (which makes the skin darker or tanner) is the major defense against UV that the skin has. This sounds Lysenko-ist, but you can make a straight evolutionary argument by noting that people with darker skin are less likely to get skin cancer. -- What is the sound of one hand, clapping? Toop, toop, toop. Charlie Martin (...mcnc!duke!crm)
nessus@nsc.UUCP (Kchula-Rrit) (11/26/84)
> What I've always wondered is why the closer to the equator people live, the > darker their skin tends to be. It seems that in the interests of maintainting > a reasonable body temperature, it should be just the opposite. > > Wayne I had heard that this has to do with the intensity of the sunlight in the area being discussed. Dark(er)-skinned people have more UV-absorbing compounds in their skins which helps guard against skin damage/sunburn. This would seem to tally with the above observation.
scw@cepu.UUCP (Stephen C. Woods) (11/26/84)
In article <2804@ucbcad.UUCP> faustus@ucbcad.UUCP writes: >What I've always wondered is why the closer to the equator people live, the >darker their skin tends to be. It seems that in the interests of maintainting >a reasonable body temperature, it should be just the opposite. Actually it's to help regulate the amount of vitamin D produced (the human body produces vitamin D with the help of sunlight). Peoples whose diet includes large amounts of vitamin D (Eskimos, Lapps, and some Northern Canadian Indian tribes) also have relativly large amounts of menalin in their skins in spite of living at high latitudes. -- Stephen C. Woods (VA Wadsworth Med Ctr./UCLA Dept. of Neurology) uucp: { {ihnp4, uiucdcs}!bradley, hao, trwrb}!cepu!scw ARPA: cepu!scw@ucla-cs location: N 34 3' 9.1" W 118 27' 4.3"
agz@pucc-k (Andrew Banta) (11/27/84)
> What I've always wondered is why the closer to the equator people live, the > darker their skin tends to be. It seems that in the interests of maintainting > a reasonable body temperature, it should be just the opposite. > Wayne In the interests of protecting the skin from burning, this is correct ... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Banta {decvax!allegra!ihnp4}!pur-ee!pucc-k!agz Dept. of Mental Instability, Purdue University --- "I'm OK, You're a CS Major" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg J Kuperberg) (11/28/84)
> People in sunnier climates tend to get more ultraviolet exposure. > They therefore have developed darker skins since melanin (which > makes the skin darker or tanner) is the major defense against > UV that the skin has. > > This sounds Lysenko-ist, but you can make a straight evolutionary > argument by noting that people with darker skin are less likely > to get skin cancer. > > -- > What is the sound of one hand, clapping? > Toop, toop, toop. > > > Charlie Martin > (...mcnc!duke!crm) It is beyond me that this person, along with the eight or nine others that posted replies, did not notice the sarcasm in Wayne's article. I myself have had this info about melanin drilled into my head since fourth grade. Ok, who's going to give an explanation for this one: Where do babies come from? ----- Greg Kuperberg harvard!talcott!gjk " " -Charlie Chaplin, for IBM
crm@duke.UUCP (Charlie Martin) (11/28/84)
I haven't made an extensive survey on this, but I remember the first time a black friend of mine came back from the ocean after vacation with a) a sunburn and b) tan lines and wonder if there is all that much difference other than starting state... -- What is the sound of one hand, clapping? Toop, toop, toop. Charlie Martin (...mcnc!duke!crm)
jfw@mit-eddie.UUCP (John Woods) (11/29/84)
>> What I've always wondered is why the closer to the equator people live, the >> darker their skin tends to be. It seems that in the interests of maintainting >> a reasonable body temperature, it should be just the opposite. >> >> Wayne > >I had heard that this has to do with the intensity of the sunlight in the >area being discussed. Dark(er)-skinned people have more UV-absorbing compounds >in their skins which helps guard against skin damage/sunburn. This would seem >to tally with the above observation. It's true. Relatively few people achieve thermodynamic equilibrium with the sun. Good thing, too. -- John Woods, Charles River Data Systems decvax!frog!john, mit-eddie!jfw, JFW%mit-ccc@MIT-XX When your puppy goes off in another room, is it because of the explosive charge?
eac@druor.UUCP (CveticEA) (11/30/84)
I thing its high time we move this discussion out of net.cooks. Thank you. Betsy Cvetic
john@dicomed.UUCP (John S. Salmi) (12/03/84)
In article <> eac@druor.UUCP (CveticEA) writes: >I thing its high time we move this discussion out of net.cooks. > >Thank you. > >Betsy Cvetic It's about time someone brings this up! -- John Salmi - "the software guy" DICOMED Corporation Minneapolis {ihnp4,mgnetp,uwvax}!dicomed!jss
edelson@mhuxi.UUCP (edelson) (12/03/84)
The other side of the question is why peoples in northern climes should tend to fair skin and light hair. If the radiation argument were true, one would expect that a dark skin would help one to keep warm in cold climate. The reason for the fair skin is to allow the maximum production of vitamin D with tha available sunlight. Vitamin D insufficiency leads to ricketts, a bone disorder which affects, among other things, the ability of a woman to bear children. So evolution triumphs again.
stern@inmet.UUCP (12/07/84)
I have a question for the black-pot crowd: What does any of this have to do with cooking? --Hal Stern, hungry for food, not physics lectures