h a l f b a k e r y
Huh?

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta:

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

 user: pass:
register,

 Before you can vote, you need to register. Please log in or create an account.

# Anti Weak-Form Double-Dip Array.

Keeping it pure.
 (+4) [vote for, against]

Mayonnaise mixed with salsa, thousand island mixed with that garlicy, yoghurty one. Some people insist on mixing their dips on a single dip visit.

This is the weak-form double-dip and let's just agree that it's not nice. The strong form, where the dipper bites half and dips again with the remainder, is beyond the pale, and I won't mention it again.

To mitigate the problem, I propose a 2 dimensional array of dips. Each row and column represents a combination of the available dips. At the start of the event, the array is initialized with all the columns containing the same dip.

So for the 4 dips above, abbreviated to MSTG, the columns of the array would be labelled MSTG and we would adopt the convention that the first row would be M, the second S and so on. The array of dips would be initialised like this...

MSTG

MSTG

MSTG

MSTG

For guests who really have to weak-form double-dip, they are instructed to start their dipping on a diagonal and then move to the left or right for one additional dip only. So for example, Mayonnaise followed by Salsa would start at the top left M and move one to the right to get S. Salsa followed by Mayonnaise would start at the second position of the second row for the S and move one to the left to get the M.

Triple dipping could be accommodated with a double-dip cube and quadruple dipping with a 4 dimensional double- dip hyper-cube, although building this in our normal 3 dimensions might pose some engineering challenges to say nothing of the training course guests would need.

 — DenholmRicshaw, Apr 07 2019

 [Denholm]! Long time no see - welcome back.

 I too am outraged by strong-form double dipping. The only exception to this rule is when eating Chinese food with a bunch of Chinese people, where the philosophy is "We've survived for 5,000 years and haven't died out of infectious disease, so just eat."

 As for weak-form double-dipping, one of the main problems is that its aftermath (salsa in the mayonnaise, or guacamole in the raspberry coulis) is indistinguishable from that of strong-form double-dipping. The same problem exists with bread-sticks: when someone dips a half breadstick, you can't be sure whether it's the end they've just bitten off, or if they've been meticulous and used the one-end, one-dip method.

So, I am very pleased to see someone addressing this problem seriously. [+]
 — MaxwellBuchanan, Apr 07 2019

It would be easier to have MS, MT, MG, ST, SG , TG dual dishes that can be dipped through the centre and, of course, M, S, T, G separate dishes. Ten spots compared to sixteen spot plate.
 — wjt, Apr 08 2019

You could indeed include dishes above the diagonal of the matrix to remove 6 in the MSTG worked example. The trouble is some people want M first then S, whilst others want S first then M. Don't ask me why.
 — DenholmRicshaw, Apr 08 2019

 // Don't ask me why.

Perhaps the consistency of a particular dip makes it more suitable as the basal rather than the apical layer. For example, I imagine you would want the runny salsa atop the comparatively firm guac, rather than the other way around.
 — Cuit_au_Four, Apr 08 2019

Surely your two-dimensional grid of dips should be pre-mixed double-dip combinations, rather than allowing people to double-dip? Thus, the columns would be labelled MSTG and the rows also would be labelled MSTG. Each cell would contain the dip made from a 50:50 combination of the dips represented by the column and row labels. So, if a person wanted a double-dip of Mayonnaise and Salsa they would dip *once* in either the M/S dip or the S/M dip. Pure uncombined dips would be on the diagonal.
 — hippo, Apr 08 2019

 // Surely your two-dimensional grid of dips should be pre-mixed double-dip combinations,

 I don't know; would you puree a hamburger? Maybe it wouldn't matter if some dip combinations were pre-mixed, but mixing others might be revolting.

Another option would be stratified dipping mixtures in shallow cups everywhere except the diagonal so you can dip once and get two layers.
 — Cuit_au_Four, Apr 08 2019

 I'm thinking there may be a mechanised solution here. I think we have to first define the desired outcome in process terms - suppose we want any possible combination of sequential dips to be possible, but further suppose that we also want there to be pristine dishes of each dip. So for any given first dip there should be four dishes, {m,s,t,g}. For a second dip there could be a further four dishes {m,s,t,g}. A budget system could specify that the second rank may be used in any order and get thoroughly mixed up, but I don't think that is very nice.

 A superior system might have 16 second-order dips; that is ({m,s,t,g}{m,s,t,g}), or to expand, {mm, ms, mt, mg, sm, ss, st, sg, tm, ts, tt, tg, gm, gs, gt, gg}.

 Each dip in the second order is reserved for use only by items that have been previously dipped into the specified primary dip. So for example the 2nd order dip {ms} is a dish of M which can only be used by items that have been previously dipped into the first order dip S. Savings could be made by omitting the "redundant" second-order dips viz. {mm} but that would reduce the options for people who wished to double-dip in the same dip to double the amount of dip they get on their dipper; and so I deprecate that option.

 Having sufficiently and satisfactorially defined the desired system, it can be constructed by one's resident engineering workshop. I propose a dial-operated system. There are (in this case) two dials, each labelled with the four possibilities M, S, T and G. There are also two holes in the upper surface of the enclosure which conceals the apparatus and acts as a table top (and can also support the dishes containing dippers).

 The user selects their preferred first dip using the first dial; and their preferred second dip using the second dial. The first dial rotates the appropriate dip from the four dips in the first rank, to position it beneath the first hole. The second dial rotates the appropriate second-rank dip to be beneath the second hole.

 I suppose the easiest solution is to have a disc, with the four first rank dips arranged at cardinal points on the disk; the sixteen second-rank dips would be on four subsidiary discs mounted in line with the fixed first-rank discs, so that when the first rank disc has been rotated into position, only the appropriate second-rank discs are available to be rotated into position.

 So a person selecting S for their first-rank dip can then turn the second dial marked M, S, T, and G, which will rotate one of the four appropriate dips {sm,ss,st,sg} into position. Suppose the user chooses T for their second dip; then {st} will be rotated into position in the second hole. They can then dip first into the first hole, to get a helping of S, and then they can dip their S-covered dipper into the second hole, and get a serving of T. The dish of T will already have a little S mixed in, but that doesn't matter, since they are dipping an S-laden dipper into it.

The apparatus could be expanded to allow treble-dipping by adding a further 16 discs, four onto each of the four second-order discs. But this might be excessive.
 — pocmloc, Apr 08 2019

I like pocmloc's suggestion but surely a simpler solution is to ban dip.
 — calum, Apr 08 2019

 // dial-operated system //

 Is it dishwasher safe?

 // stratified dipping mixtures //

Some bright spark will invent "double-dip in a tube". A bit like stripey toothpaste with the difference being a slightly more edible result.
 — DenholmRicshaw, Apr 08 2019

Hey, how about "double-dip in a tube". A bit like stripey toothpaste with the difference being a slightly more edible result.
 — MaxwellBuchanan, Apr 08 2019

Great idea!
 — DenholmRicshaw, Apr 08 2019

 Cheers. Actually, I may have found a third way.

 In paint stores, they have these colour-mixing machines. The machine has N canisters, each containing a different pigment. The customer selects the colour they want (from some insanely vast set of colour-cards), and then the machine dispenses the appropriate dollops of pigment into a tin of white base. Another machine then shakes the tin to mix its contents.

Clearly, this can be adaptised for dips, with each of the N canisters containing a different dip. Diners can then specify their preferred mix, and have it prepared in a single-serving tublet. No cross-contamination of the individual dips, and of course double-dipping _sensu stricto_ would be impossible.
 — MaxwellBuchanan, Apr 08 2019

 // yüütüübe //

 — notexactly, Apr 09 2019

 // Diners can then specify their preferred mix, and have it prepared in a single-serving tublet //

 But that would mean everyone would get their own set of tublets to carry round and an end to dipping in the communal sense. If we assume a party of 100 guests with a selection of 4 dips. This means at least 400 tublets with a possible worst case of 1000.

I can't see any problems with that.
 — DenholmRicshaw, Apr 09 2019

 I don't really like the idea of full homogeneous mix tublets, a double ended toothpaste tube seems viable but lacks infinite variation.

For me it is down to taste and the only way is a two set Venn diagram in one dish. Stroke direction and path through the two dips completely delivers (if one of the first few people) the desired result.
 — wjt, Apr 10 2019

I just never want to apply two or more dips to the same dippee in the first place.
 — notexactly, Apr 10 2019

How about replacing the dip tubs with some sort of dip applicator, either in the form of a mastic gun, or some kind of sputtering tool? Either of these would allow you to choose the precise mix and layering of dips that you want with no risk of cross-contamination.
 — hippo, Apr 10 2019

Here people usually go for the B and D before the S and M.
 — RayfordSteele, Apr 10 2019

 [annotate]

back: main index