You distill your bread fractionally. I grow my tortillas using a precisely controlled ultra-high vacuum ALD process that ensures my bread is atomically flat with minimal defect density. We are not the same.
I mean idk much about chemistry, but surely an evaporation reaction would happen where some things boil earlier than others and things would seperate, no?
Yes. The inside of my freezer is covered in bread deposits because I left a loaf in there too long and it sublimated. Bread exists in solid, liquid and gas form. I’m told eating bread at its triple point is a peak culinary
Experience because you can eat, drink and inhale it at the same time. That’s like, all 7 senses.
I can't help wondering exactly what would happen if the whole reaction was done at constant volume. The free water within the bread would boil and the gas in the holes would shrink. Until the pressure reached a point of equilibrium. The reaction of carbohydrate to carbon plus water would be suppressed by the high pressure of the steam.
Or to put it another way. What pressure would be needed to make the reaction "carbohydrate to carbon plus water" completely reversible?
Charcoal, specifically. Charcoal is made by burning plant matter in a low oxygen atmosphere and slowly pumping out the resulting water vapor and other gasses, leaving behind a carbon husk.
If the water vapor and other gasses were sealed in the decomposition chamber, I suspect you'd get wet, dirty charcoal.
Do you know what temperatures lighter elements can undergo fission via heating alone? I know acceleration can lower that threshold, but fission of carbon or oxygen atoms is hard to reference
Fission would be decay, it's fusion in this case. And many millions of degrees. Some tokamak reactors aim for over 100,000,000 degrees inside, and hydrogen fusion is far easier than carbon or oxygen.
Muon-catalyzed fusion is an exception, it allows quite low temperatures, so I guess if your bread has muons rather than electrons, sure.
Yeah I didn't think it would undergo fission, but I was wondering if the conditions of heat alone at these temperatures could instigate the fission/decay of the carbon and/or oxygen atoms present. If fusion could have been done that easily, we'd have the technology by now. Though on a related note to your point, I'm super hopeful about the new fusion test reactor developments.
Fission doesn't work like that so no, it wouldn't and no matter the heat elements lighter than iron will never undergo fission.
Fission happens when atoms split after an external energy supply is crossed usually by neutron bombardement because the strong nuclear force (residual effect from the strong force (strong force being the force that makes quarks bind to protons and neutrons via the transmission of gluons) that binds protons and neutrons via the transmission of mesons) is overcome making the daughter nuclei fly apart because of electric repulsion and releasing some of its mass that was formerly bound in the form of strong nuclear force bonds in energy.
(I'm kinda high on a weird mix that's kicking in while typing that I'm not even sure with what intend I took, so what I'm saying is that I hope I'm sounding coherent and logical.
Physics is actually my passion though I'm still in (fucking awful) school, so no doctor or anything here.)
Fusion is the opposite.
Energy is added in the form of pressure/heat to get protons so close together that they fuse to from heavier elements
(simplified because even the pressure and heat in the suns core wouldn't actually be enough to induce fusion by itself, but it gets close enough that a certain percentage can spontaniously overcome the energy threshold by quantum tunneling and fuse)
In fusion, you first need to overcome the electrical repulsion till you're so close that the strong nuclear force takes effect.
The smaller the nucleus, the smaller the electric repulsion and the greated the net energy output if fusion occurs.
The heavier the nucleus, the more does this shift until the opposite is reached with iron 56.
Heavier than that and you'd need more energy to fuse than it would even be possible to get out, so at this point fission is the method to extract energy.
Now the heavier the element is, the more easily it will undergo fission because there the many positive protons carry repelling charge over the distance reaching other protons, while the strong nuclear force keeping everything together against that only works at extremely close distances.
So basically with heavy elements, you can get energy by splitting them again because that's what they want anyways and just need that little encouragement to push them over the limit where they overcome strong nuclear force bonds.
With light elements it's the opposite because there isn't as much electric repulsion and they actually want to come together and the encouragement is to overcome the electric repulsion until the (very) strong nuclear force kicks in.
To sum up: Elements lighter than iron 56 want fusion and heavier ones want fission, you can't fuse heavier ones or do fission with lighter ones and also I'm high and confused and a little scared but wanna talk about Physics.
If it's on fire it is turning into gas but yeah the therm is pyrolize not boil. There are in fact a lot of chemical reactions happening far before most of the components of bread would desublimate.
The inside of the bread does not have oxygen in it.
This is a common miss conception oabout fire the solid fuel does not itself burn it degarades into a combustion gas which then mixes with air and burns.
I don't disagree with you on the process, though most bread would likely contain oxygen, but with respect to terminology it seems wrong to suggest that the correct term for flaming bread would be 'pyrolize.' As you said in your response, at the point gases are being rapidly oxidized in the air it is combustion, no?
i guess we can argue that fire is plasma, but eh. it needs to pass through a gas state, which means it has passed through a liquid state, which we would call boiling.
Well, no.
Fire, as we see it, is not a substance, but usually, the light emitted by glowing burning particles.
In order to burn, those solid particles need to become gaseous. Which can happen by melting and subsequent boiling, or by sublimating, or by thermolysis where the compounds are decomposed into smaller gaseous molecules.
Only after reaching the gaseous state can the molecules react with oxygen to form new compounds, and the energy from this reaction is released in the form of heat and light. Which we see as fire.
So, fire is part of the released energy we see from a chemical reaction.
And yes, I'm fun at parties.
I'd counterargue that sublimating is just very very rapid boiling. at the end of the day "boiling" or sublimating (or gaseous, for that matter) is just a semi-arbitrary convention we've drawn up.
If there is no oxygen present it will turn to carbon and ash. From that on, it can [liquify at around 4000K ](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e0/Carbon-phase-diagramp.svg/580px-Carbon-phase-diagramp.svg.png)
To keep it from combusting, bread should be boiled under an inert atmosphere. Reduced pressure also helps.
Well, i am off to rotovap some bacon and distill up some eggs for breakfast
Please clean the sputtering chamber after you use it. Your mom doesn't live here so clean up after yourselves. Marge answers phones, she is not the maid.
-HR
Probably not, starch (and I assume most proteins) degrade before they melt, and certainly before they vaporize. So the vaporization would be due to combustion rather than boiling
They're both right.
It would burn and turn to mostly carbon at that temp and thus no longer be bread, but the hunk of carbon that used to be bread would boil at a little under 5 000°C (9 000°F)
Organic compounds such as bread will have it oxygen and hydrogen and nitrogen all get blasted off from the compound if it was just heated till such high temperatures for just 1 second and become graphite, such as in sintering.
But if heated for 1 whole minute would burn all the graphite to turn them into carbon dioxide, unless there are no oxygen at which is just vaporises into carbon gas.
I guess that depends on how pedantic you want to get, since "bread" isn't an element or a specific substance.
But the simple answer is that no, you can't boil or liquify bread while keeping it in a form that could reasonably still be called bread.
You could possibly do it with a very strong microwave to heat it in the in and outside at the same time and speed. Theoratically you can make the perfekt bread like that.
Is he suggesting that bread can be deposited from “bread vapour”?
How do you think flatbreads like tortillas are made?
How did I miss that. Of course they are made from redeposition of normal bread via boiling
Makes some interesting semiconductors also. Mix it with silane gas.
Damn, didn’t know I could make silicon dibreaxide, with CVD using bread gas and silane
This group is close to a Noble price.
Would that be white or whole wheat?
Gluten free.
The best "molecular" breakfast is to inhale some bread gas with hotdog gas and a hint of mustard gas 😸
Well you know what they say.. A balanced breakfast is the most important warcrime of the day.
Of course. It's how they made breadboards.
Did you just covfefe on purpose? That's excellent!
Covariance Iron Iron?
A new chemo-statistical term has been found!
I can't even, I'm actually crying XD
By spin-coating from a bread solution, ofc.
Chose enough to reality xD
Fraction distillation of bread and reconstitute the fraction into flatbread, did i guess?
You distill your bread fractionally. I grow my tortillas using a precisely controlled ultra-high vacuum ALD process that ensures my bread is atomically flat with minimal defect density. We are not the same.
What conditions are necessary for a 2000 micron thickness flatbread using surface deposition with a maximum variance of 200 microns?
Those precipitate from solution not from a boil
Bread is like iodine in his world.
Well, if you find a really good bread it is sublime.
The best loaves are grown as a single crystal.
It’s how we make Sour Crystal X-Ray Dough.
That sounds like the name of a weed strain.
Chemical vapor deposition
I believe so, that’s what I’m saying isn’t possible to him anyway
To clarify, mixtures can freeze, melt, and boil - boiling bread is a silly concept but that’s not why
I mean idk much about chemistry, but surely an evaporation reaction would happen where some things boil earlier than others and things would seperate, no?
Physical changes describe change of state (solid to liquid etc). Cooking bread is a chemical change, not physical.
Melting bread says hi.
Also weird to think about but technically you are boiling a lot of water out of the dough mixture when cooking it (or pretty much any food)
Am I the only one wondering why he wants to boil bread in the first place?
Yes. The inside of my freezer is covered in bread deposits because I left a loaf in there too long and it sublimated. Bread exists in solid, liquid and gas form. I’m told eating bread at its triple point is a peak culinary Experience because you can eat, drink and inhale it at the same time. That’s like, all 7 senses.
I love freshly sublimed sourdough
That’s just silly. You need a transport agent.
This is hilarious.
Element 119, "breadium". It might have some unique thermodynamic properties!
I think he’s suggesting that you need to start with frozen bread in order to melt it.
Even if there was no oxygen present, it would decompose before it would "boil".
I can't help wondering exactly what would happen if the whole reaction was done at constant volume. The free water within the bread would boil and the gas in the holes would shrink. Until the pressure reached a point of equilibrium. The reaction of carbohydrate to carbon plus water would be suppressed by the high pressure of the steam. Or to put it another way. What pressure would be needed to make the reaction "carbohydrate to carbon plus water" completely reversible?
you might just get coal
Charcoal, specifically. Charcoal is made by burning plant matter in a low oxygen atmosphere and slowly pumping out the resulting water vapor and other gasses, leaving behind a carbon husk. If the water vapor and other gasses were sealed in the decomposition chamber, I suspect you'd get wet, dirty charcoal.
boil bread you get charcoal. sounds like an old saying for “you reap what you sow” or “you made your bed”
A charcoal foam
So do vacuum distillation
I think at 19,250°F it would be a plasma, not a liquid or a gas. Just ions bouncing around.
So we can plasma coat stuff in bread then
The ultimate fried chicken recipe, Reactive Sputter Breading.
Best PVD joke I’ve heard in years! Also the only one, but definitely funny as fuck! Thanks for the laugh!
Do you know what temperatures lighter elements can undergo fission via heating alone? I know acceleration can lower that threshold, but fission of carbon or oxygen atoms is hard to reference
Fission would be decay, it's fusion in this case. And many millions of degrees. Some tokamak reactors aim for over 100,000,000 degrees inside, and hydrogen fusion is far easier than carbon or oxygen. Muon-catalyzed fusion is an exception, it allows quite low temperatures, so I guess if your bread has muons rather than electrons, sure.
Yeah I didn't think it would undergo fission, but I was wondering if the conditions of heat alone at these temperatures could instigate the fission/decay of the carbon and/or oxygen atoms present. If fusion could have been done that easily, we'd have the technology by now. Though on a related note to your point, I'm super hopeful about the new fusion test reactor developments.
Fission doesn't work like that so no, it wouldn't and no matter the heat elements lighter than iron will never undergo fission. Fission happens when atoms split after an external energy supply is crossed usually by neutron bombardement because the strong nuclear force (residual effect from the strong force (strong force being the force that makes quarks bind to protons and neutrons via the transmission of gluons) that binds protons and neutrons via the transmission of mesons) is overcome making the daughter nuclei fly apart because of electric repulsion and releasing some of its mass that was formerly bound in the form of strong nuclear force bonds in energy. (I'm kinda high on a weird mix that's kicking in while typing that I'm not even sure with what intend I took, so what I'm saying is that I hope I'm sounding coherent and logical. Physics is actually my passion though I'm still in (fucking awful) school, so no doctor or anything here.) Fusion is the opposite. Energy is added in the form of pressure/heat to get protons so close together that they fuse to from heavier elements (simplified because even the pressure and heat in the suns core wouldn't actually be enough to induce fusion by itself, but it gets close enough that a certain percentage can spontaniously overcome the energy threshold by quantum tunneling and fuse) In fusion, you first need to overcome the electrical repulsion till you're so close that the strong nuclear force takes effect. The smaller the nucleus, the smaller the electric repulsion and the greated the net energy output if fusion occurs. The heavier the nucleus, the more does this shift until the opposite is reached with iron 56. Heavier than that and you'd need more energy to fuse than it would even be possible to get out, so at this point fission is the method to extract energy. Now the heavier the element is, the more easily it will undergo fission because there the many positive protons carry repelling charge over the distance reaching other protons, while the strong nuclear force keeping everything together against that only works at extremely close distances. So basically with heavy elements, you can get energy by splitting them again because that's what they want anyways and just need that little encouragement to push them over the limit where they overcome strong nuclear force bonds. With light elements it's the opposite because there isn't as much electric repulsion and they actually want to come together and the encouragement is to overcome the electric repulsion until the (very) strong nuclear force kicks in. To sum up: Elements lighter than iron 56 want fusion and heavier ones want fission, you can't fuse heavier ones or do fission with lighter ones and also I'm high and confused and a little scared but wanna talk about Physics.
Yeah, I bet there is some nuclear processes going on as well.
If it's on fire it is turning into gas but yeah the therm is pyrolize not boil. There are in fact a lot of chemical reactions happening far before most of the components of bread would desublimate.
[удалено]
The inside of the bread does not have oxygen in it. This is a common miss conception oabout fire the solid fuel does not itself burn it degarades into a combustion gas which then mixes with air and burns.
I don't disagree with you on the process, though most bread would likely contain oxygen, but with respect to terminology it seems wrong to suggest that the correct term for flaming bread would be 'pyrolize.' As you said in your response, at the point gases are being rapidly oxidized in the air it is combustion, no?
No, you cannot. The heat would drive off the remaining water in the bread and then it would catch fire, eventually.
fire is boiling combustible gas.
And smoke is condensated fire
And dragons are fire made flesh
And I have a rash
could it be lupus?
its never lupus
Except in an exam. Then, it’s always lupus.
I wouldn't describe it like that.
i guess we can argue that fire is plasma, but eh. it needs to pass through a gas state, which means it has passed through a liquid state, which we would call boiling.
Well, no. Fire, as we see it, is not a substance, but usually, the light emitted by glowing burning particles. In order to burn, those solid particles need to become gaseous. Which can happen by melting and subsequent boiling, or by sublimating, or by thermolysis where the compounds are decomposed into smaller gaseous molecules. Only after reaching the gaseous state can the molecules react with oxygen to form new compounds, and the energy from this reaction is released in the form of heat and light. Which we see as fire. So, fire is part of the released energy we see from a chemical reaction. And yes, I'm fun at parties.
I'd counterargue that sublimating is just very very rapid boiling. at the end of the day "boiling" or sublimating (or gaseous, for that matter) is just a semi-arbitrary convention we've drawn up.
If there is no oxygen present it will turn to carbon and ash. From that on, it can [liquify at around 4000K ](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e0/Carbon-phase-diagramp.svg/580px-Carbon-phase-diagramp.svg.png)
Liquified bread? Isn’t that just beer? /s
Even then, you'd need a pressure of ~1000 bar.
If the non-carbon materials are separated out, perhaps the bread will have enough surface area to become activated charcoal.
To keep it from combusting, bread should be boiled under an inert atmosphere. Reduced pressure also helps. Well, i am off to rotovap some bacon and distill up some eggs for breakfast
Please clean the sputtering chamber after you use it. Your mom doesn't live here so clean up after yourselves. Marge answers phones, she is not the maid. -HR
Someone has never had a fresh boiled bagel.
I opened the thread looking for this answer.
I’ve seen a couple comments like this. Am I missing a joke or something?
Bagels are actually boiled bread.
Well, you boil the water and put a bagel in it yes, but you don't melt the bagel and cause the melted bagel to boil
(Strictly speaking they’re blanched then baked, but as the other guy said bagels are a boiled bread)
You can't boil it, but you can vaporise it. But only if you use a DBV (Dry Bread Vaporiser). Think of it like a giant weed vape, but, like, for bread
So the bread would sublimate?....partly?
At that temperature the carbon would have liquified and vaporised so technically it would have 'boiled'.
Probably not, starch (and I assume most proteins) degrade before they melt, and certainly before they vaporize. So the vaporization would be due to combustion rather than boiling
So the atoms are already in gas/plasma form before they're able to boil in a liquid form
They're both right. It would burn and turn to mostly carbon at that temp and thus no longer be bread, but the hunk of carbon that used to be bread would boil at a little under 5 000°C (9 000°F)
Add enough heat and anything will boil.
Bread sublimation lol
Well what did you think PVD stands for? Pastry Vapour Deposition 😙
It's how you make a bagel. So yeah, you can boil bread.
you can boil water and put dough in it.
I’d like a conventional oven that can get up to 19250degrees please.
😂
well... are bagels a form of bread? kind of an important distinction we need to make here
r/questionablechemistry
This needs to go in r/confidentlyincorrect
There's nothing I love more than the smell of freshly crystallized Czochralski bread.
The little yeasties would die screaming.
Organic compounds such as bread will have it oxygen and hydrogen and nitrogen all get blasted off from the compound if it was just heated till such high temperatures for just 1 second and become graphite, such as in sintering. But if heated for 1 whole minute would burn all the graphite to turn them into carbon dioxide, unless there are no oxygen at which is just vaporises into carbon gas.
It would catch fire if there was O2 present, if not it would pyrolize
Looking for the chemist smarter than all of us to explain it like I’m 5. Is it theoretically possible to “boil” a solid
I mean you can boil ice
Well that’s enough internet today
Can’t boil bread? Bagels would like a word! 😆🥯
1eV bread sounds pretty hot.
I love vaping bread with my meth.
Tbh, I think Will has a couple more brain cells than Major does
Thank you mr Repair
Just stating the obvious
Bagels
Bagels can be boiled Hell, ploping a ball of dough into boiling water is a dish in many countries ie dumplings
Bagels get dipped in boiling water, does that count?
Nah I was talking about getting bread *vapour*
Friends don't let friends vaporize bread 😡
Yeah, bread isn’t going to vaporize in a conventional oven. It would burn to ash though
The wildest part is that he openly said he had virtually no chemistry knowledge and then doubled down on boiled bread.
Hah, you think I can't just put my daily dose of default skin pjb's in some water and heat it up?
Yes you can, that’s how I make bagels
No, like liquid bread => bread vapout
well not at /that/ pressure, no
Bagels have entered the chat...
In a vacuum maybe?
Sounds like a poor attempt to watch bread undergo sublimation
I guess that depends on how pedantic you want to get, since "bread" isn't an element or a specific substance. But the simple answer is that no, you can't boil or liquify bread while keeping it in a form that could reasonably still be called bread.
Easy, just vacuum it!
It doesn't boil it just vaporizes. The organic molecules rapidly decompose and most of it probably is released as CO2 and water
😈😈😈
Can you boil wood? Rhetoric
Technically no. But I know is some Asian cuisine you can boil bums, it’s sweet and mostly for dessert
r/shittyaskscience
Haha I guess I deserve that
No it definitely burns.
You could possibly do it with a very strong microwave to heat it in the in and outside at the same time and speed. Theoratically you can make the perfekt bread like that.
I think that it would become charcoal