So whats the best way to reheat something (eg spaghetti or pizza)

>>7706773
>without having it taste like shit afterwards
There is none.

>>7706773

You appear to be having severe psychosomatic reactions to the microwave, there is no cure aside from suicide

>>7706773
The reason people tell you to put water in the microwave is because macrowaves heat up water molecules.

Putting water in the microwave means some of the energy is used to heat the water up rather than the pizza. The same effect can be acheived by simply lowing the power of the micorwave.

Most people don't know shit about microwaves and just put stuff in on the highest setting for whatever time is needed to heat their food up (usually unevenly).

I love the the taste / texture of reheated spaghetti.

>>7706789
that does nothing and is a myth.

>>7706792
Proof?

>>7706801
common sense and an understanding of how microwaves function?

>>7706802
That microwaves excite water molecules?

I'm failing to see your logic here, you're blocking part of the rays from heating up the pizza slice.

>>7706803
barely, they operate more like layers so it will block only for where the food reaches height of the water.

How does that do anything anyway is my question to you?

>>7706789
I'm afraid the one who doesn't know how microwaves work is you, friendo.

Microwaves don't actually have a variable power level. When you put it on a power lower than max, it still uses full power, but turns off at regular intervals (e.g., it'll be on full power for 10 seconds, then off for 10 seconds, and repeat).

Now how is this relevant? When you put a glass of water in the microwave with your food at max power, you're actually reducing the amount of heat that goes into the food itself, but the heating is constant. So it's effectively a consant lower power, rather than the microwave's "low power" setting.

Now tell me, what sounds better: a constant medium heat being applied for the whole duration, or high heat then no heat applied at regular intervals for the whole duration?

>>7706804
The table spins inside the microwave remember.

>>7706805
>Energy over time
>more material inside the microwave doesn't increase the cooking/defrosting time

Its about giving yourself more time to control the heating process.

>Now tell me, what sounds better: a constant medium heat being applied for the whole duration, or high heat then no heat applied at regular intervals for the whole duration?

Neither, this is irrelevant from a taste and safety standpoint. The only thing that matters is the end result of the food, puttng more material increases the heating time and allows greater control.

>>7706805
The second thing.
Why the fuck would you waste half the energy heating water instead of your food?

>>7706811
yes, but thats irrelivant and if anything would make the pizza absorb more of the microwaves

>>7706812
>Why the fuck would you waste half the energy heating water instead of your food?

Why bother wasting energy growing peppercorns and chillies? We waste energy at every stage of the cooking process to acheive a better result in terms of taste and texture.

Why dismiss this and not others.

>>7706811
the waves pass thru the food, its not like an oven

>>7706813
Think of the table spinning with just the pizza in, it absorbs some amount of microwaves.

Now think of the table spinning with the pizza and a glass of water inside, at some point the water gets between the pizza and the emitter and absorbs energy which means it is taking away energy over time from the pizza.

>>7706815
Because wasting half the energy heating water does not achieve a better result in terms of taste and texture

The interval is only as high as 10 seconds in cheap ancient machines. Most microwaves operate on a much faster duty cycle, producing results that are in all practical purposes IDENTICAL to simply running at a lower power due to the slow and transitive nature of thermal systems.

>>7706816
but some waves are absorbed by the glass of water, reducing the energy over time that the pizza slice receives.

This increases the cooking time and gives you greater control.

>>7706817
lol, assuming theyre placed the same distance from the center the water will absorb approx 5% of what the pizza would have and additional waves at a higher height. Which would then heat the water and emmit more heat, ergo heating the pizza and creating a steamy environment

>>7706821
>putting your pizza in a hotbox with extreme humidity
Hope you didn't want any crispness to that crust

>>7706818
>Because wasting half the energy heating water does not achieve a better result in terms of taste and texture
I disagree, and that is a subjective term so i'm not going to bother arguing it.

>>7706821
>Water boils in 30 seconds in the microwave
No.

Do you fuckers put a small amount in the microwave and nuke it for 5 minutes?

>>7706825
What are you talking about? read the thread, im arguing that water makes the pizza moist, not crispy

>>7706829
Placebo. I guarantee you would not notice the difference between the two methods using a modern microwave.

In theory the "constant" heat actually results in a less uniform temperature across the pizza, due to fixed interference points - but the rotating plate strongly limits this effect. The time spent 'off' in the duty cycle allows heat a chance to move for a more even result.

All you're doing is injecting heat into the food. As long as it's uniform, which is practically true in both cases, variances in rate transfer of thermal energy do not actually have detectable physical impact.

t. doctorate engineer

>>7706829
a slice takes 1.20 @ 1000W to acheive a point where its cripsy and at a temperature thats similar to an oven. Additionally water steams 30 seconds in, reaching a temp of 50 centigrade and at the 1.20 mark is definately boiling. (for 150mls @ glass height 10cm)

>>7706838
If that is true explain why I can heat up a tablespoon of mashed potato in 30 seconds, but a fist sized amount takes 3 minutes.

>increasing the volume of material increases the cooking time.

>>7706843
You've pulled those figures out of your ass, because my 900w oven turns pizza soggy after about 40 seconds.

>>7706849
no, i measured them just then and based my pizza heating off of results from yesterday.

>>7706846
Huh? Because a fist sized amount has a fair bit more thermal mass than a tablespoon. What's the query?

There's no particular advantage to raising the cooking time on its own -- raising it in conjunction with lower (via pwm) power does result in a more uniform heat distribution, which is desirable to avoid the dreaded microwave 'hot spots'

>>7706858
>There's no particular advantage to raising the cooking time on its own
Greater control?

If your pizza goes from crispy to soggy over a period of 5 seconds is it not better to have it go soggy over a period of 15? you're more likely to stop it when it is less soggy.

>>7706773

the easiest way is to use a nuwave oven instead

>>7706860
Pizza goes soggy because the water that's locked in the structure of the food becomes steam, evaporates, then condenses as moisture outside of the structure

Personally I don't bother reheating pizza in the microwave, but yeah, avoiding sogginess is about limiting the rate of energy transfer so that your pizza is uniformly heated before much water starts to vapourize.

Adding junk to the microwave at the same time will acommplish that, I suppose - but if it's water, you're then making extra humidity, resulting in increased sogginess. Or you could just run the microwave at a lower power like a sensible person.

>>7706872
I don't re-heat pizza, its best cold

>>7706873
Yeah me neither

I've got a Breville Convection oven which I use to reheat 90% of my food