Kenji is going to be furious about this. By "furious" I mean he will probably be happy to receive the information and double check that it holds up to scrutiny when applied to a sphere, then...
Kenji is going to be furious about this.
By "furious" I mean he will probably be happy to receive the information and double check that it holds up to scrutiny when applied to a sphere, then forward the updated information on to anyone that will listen.
Armed with this knowledge, we can apply the optimal dicing strategy to any onion. But how big a difference does being mathematically optimal make when it comes to cooking? We got in touch with Kenji via email to find out.
Us— How much does uniformity matter?
Kenji— “It matters far more for winning internet debates and solving interesting math problems than it does for cooking. For home cooks, having onion dice that are a little off from perfect is not really an issue anyone should seriously worry about.”
I feel this odd bit of secondary pride having studied physics. Assuming a spherical cow, with uniform density, no friction and air resistance and all that.
I feel this odd bit of secondary pride having studied physics.
Assuming a spherical cow, with uniform density, no friction and air resistance and all that.
This is great, thanks for posting! When they mentioned that horizontal cuts don't improve consistency I was surprised. However, in thinking about it I don't usually cut onions with the idea of...
This is great, thanks for posting!
When they mentioned that horizontal cuts don't improve consistency I was surprised. However, in thinking about it I don't usually cut onions with the idea of maximizing consistency, but more to set a ceiling on piece size. I know that consistency helps with uniform cooking, etc, but as a home chef I mostly want to make sure everything is small enough to cook in time, not worrying if the odd bit gets a little crispy.
I think the radial cuts get a bad rap mathematically because of the extremely small size down toward the center. But in real life, you don't end up with 0.1mm pieces of onion, or if you do, they...
I think the radial cuts get a bad rap mathematically because of the extremely small size down toward the center. But in real life, you don't end up with 0.1mm pieces of onion, or if you do, they don't actually matter.
I think a strategy that ignores pieces under a certain size might show the power of raw radial cuts.
I usually end up with the very center of the onion falling out when I do my initial half-cut, so then the radial slices don’t even get all the way to the center & so completely ignore the super...
I usually end up with the very center of the onion falling out when I do my initial half-cut, so then the radial slices don’t even get all the way to the center & so completely ignore the super tiny pieces.
The audacity, they didn't even include my method, let's call the alternate-depth radial, with some cuts down to the centre and some shallow to make the outer rings smaller. Still, with the overall...
The audacity, they didn't even include my method, let's call the alternate-depth radial, with some cuts down to the centre and some shallow to make the outer rings smaller. Still, with the overall abysmal performance of the typical radial, probably not the most efficient method anyway!
Kenji is going to be furious about this.
By "furious" I mean he will probably be happy to receive the information and double check that it holds up to scrutiny when applied to a sphere, then forward the updated information on to anyone that will listen.
His response is at the bottom of the article:
I feel this odd bit of secondary pride having studied physics.
Assuming a spherical cow, with uniform density, no friction and air resistance and all that.
How do you slice an onion (modeled as a torus, of course) optimally while sliding across a frictionless infinite plane.
Can you impart spin on a frictionless sphere sitting on a frictionless plane?
This is great, thanks for posting!
When they mentioned that horizontal cuts don't improve consistency I was surprised. However, in thinking about it I don't usually cut onions with the idea of maximizing consistency, but more to set a ceiling on piece size. I know that consistency helps with uniform cooking, etc, but as a home chef I mostly want to make sure everything is small enough to cook in time, not worrying if the odd bit gets a little crispy.
Great read!
I think the radial cuts get a bad rap mathematically because of the extremely small size down toward the center. But in real life, you don't end up with 0.1mm pieces of onion, or if you do, they don't actually matter.
I think a strategy that ignores pieces under a certain size might show the power of raw radial cuts.
I usually end up with the very center of the onion falling out when I do my initial half-cut, so then the radial slices don’t even get all the way to the center & so completely ignore the super tiny pieces.
and then I just chop the center a few times.
Right, exactly. The most significant impact to the standard deviation in the radial cuts is also the least likely to matter!
I really like visualizations like the site has with sliders to play around with, fun post!
The audacity, they didn't even include my method, let's call the alternate-depth radial, with some cuts down to the centre and some shallow to make the outer rings smaller. Still, with the overall abysmal performance of the typical radial, probably not the most efficient method anyway!
if you really care, these methods are the best.
But not necessarily mathematically optimal! Just more practically so. The brunoise is too fine for most things I want onions for personally.