So has anyone who's actually cooked a chicken before done the math? Because my guy just slapped this poor bird into pure carbon. Did he mean to do 205°F? It's still too high, but it would at least be edible.
As your friendly neighborhood person with knowledge about food and cooking, 2 pounds is an absurd weight for an uncooked rotisserie chicken, that is a very small and cooked weight, 4-6 pounds is going to be typical. Also, more importantly, you cannot cook something faster by increasing the temperature past a pretty quick point, meat is an excellent insulator. No slap can cook the inside of a frozen chicken unless the entire chicken disintegrates.
Tbf though, a slap at 3700 mph would absolutely disintegrate the chicken.
Also, if you cooked it to 400 degrees it would be disgusting. You just need to cook it to 165. This guy might know about physics but he has never cooked anything before.
I mean, false equivalency, don't you think? I have yet to meet an enjoyer of medium-rare chicken, probably because the Salmonella or Listeria already took them out
A guy on YT actually tried it experimentally a few years ago (how many slaps, not how fast one slap); and it works to some degree! The main problem becomes to make a slapping machine that can survive long enough:
Typical physicist, ignoring enthalpy of phase changes. Starting from 1C defrosted makes a huge difference from 0C as the melting takes up a ton more energy/slaps. Their underslapped chicken would give you salmonella
You need the chicken to be 165F or 74C to be food safe. It takes a long time to cook at 100-200C because the heat is being transferred much slower. If we're using this instant slap-based cooking method, it only needs to get to the food safe temperature.
Using the OP's calculations and a cooked temperature of 74C:
It would take 8315 average slaps
or
A slap at around 813m/s or 1819mph.
*Edit for a correction to the second calculation (it still might be wrong), also, I rounded the numbers to whole integers.
That 205C would just be the surface temperature of the chicken, not the average. Note that the calculation doesn't take into account the volume or radius
EDIT: No, I'm wrong. The calculation is for boiling the whole chicken. Who was this written by, a Brit?
When cooking, people in general like to use round numbers, like "200°C", since a difference of 5°C in oven temperature is not a big deal.
And yet they went with some oddly specific 205°C. That only makes sense if they're used to Fahrenheit, eyeballed a round value (like 400°F), converted it into Celsius (204.4°C), and then rounded it up to discard the decimal.
I'm also going to say they're completely clueless when it comes to cooking - 200°C is the oven temperature. The chicken itself reaches a far lower temperature, in the 70~80°C range. By the time the chicken reached 200°C, it's already dry and close to catching fire. (The self-ignition temperature for biological stuff is typically between 200°C and 250°C.)
Are you sure? The numbers in the tweet reddit post talk about total mass and heat capacity. So I think that means the entire bulk has that average temperature.
Single slap assumes all kinetic into heat, which isn't. Alot is lost to the slap sound, alot more is lost into the flying bits of pulverised chicken bits.
What if I wanted to cook the chicke through friction, by say inserting an object 3 fingers or so thick in and out of its cavity as fast as athletically possible? ... so um... how long can I keep fucking my chicken?