6 ms·

It's still complicating it for no reason. It's trivially easy to buy the proper oil and not use a spray oil with random stuff added to it to keep it spray-able.

It's still complicating it for no reason. It's trivially easy to buy the proper oil and not use a spray oil with random stuff added to it to keep it spray-able. It's like not washing your test tubes out before conducting an experiment. It introduces additional variables and complexity for no good reason. Do you really expect the author to test for every single random additive from every single random spray oil producer and see if it affects the process? It's a waste of time when the proper process is easy... just use real unadulterated oil.

taeric 12y ago
Meh, a simple "we already had a full docket to test with our main goals and didn't want to allocate the time to try any spray oils" is more than adequate. And you are doing a bit of goal post shifting. Nobody is asking to try all ingredients and isolate everything. But it was never even established that a spray oil wouldn't work. Just speculation as to why it wouldn't. I will throw out that, for myself, I think the majority of the effort that most people go through with their cast irons is for cosmetic purposes and failing to realize that we use much milder soaps today than we used to. If you want a decently seasoned cast iron skillet, just commit to using it consistently. Will it be pretty? Probably not. But it will work just fine.
- JohnTHaller 12y ago
  > Meh, a simple "we already had a full docket to test with our main goals and didn't want to allocate the time to try any spray oils" is more than adequate. The thing is, there's not one 'spray oil additive' that everyone uses they could even test. They could just say: "Spray oils use additives that could complicate this process and each spray oil is different. We didn't test them and don't recommend that you use them. Using real, unadulterated oil is simple, proven, and effective." I can't comment on the effectiveness of the overall process of seasoning a skillet, nor was I.
  - taeric 12y ago
    It doesn't matter that there are multiple additives. It hasn't been established that any additives affect things. (Or, again, if it has been established, cite.) That is, you are commenting on the process. Specifically, you are saying that spray oils are bad for it. And then giving a quick (and appealing) argument for it. However, the question is when and how was this established.
    - JohnTHaller 12y ago
      Incorrect. I said specifically that spray oils 'could' complicate the process and that they didn't test for it. That's all. You're reading the rest into it yourself. I never once said that additives affect things. Additives are a random addition that serve no purpose in the process of seasoning a cast iron pan. They didn't test for throwing a handful of salt or baking soda in either. Nor should they. There's no need.
      - taeric 12y ago
        The point of this thread is that they should either a) test for it, b) acknowledge that they didn't test for it, or c) cite some place that has. To dismiss it as a bad idea with no reason is precisely the topic of this thread. You brought up that it would complicate things. Of course it would, but that is basically beside the point. Edit: apologies, I should say with no evidence, not reason.
        deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
        taeric 12y ago
        You do realize you just took this in a full circle, right? It was agreed at the beginning that the argument is compelling. To the point that there really isn't much concern with this one occurrence, but that it happens throughout the article. Does it make for a good read? Sure. Probably is even good advice on a good technique. What it is not, is "science." That is, specifically, this entire thread was because someone was pedantic that this shouldn't be called "science" as it was presented. And it should be noted that many of us agreed. To the point that the thread was renamed on HN.

taeric 12y ago

Meh, a simple "we already had a full docket to test with our main goals and didn't want to allocate the time to try any spray oils" is more than adequate. And you are doing a bit of goal post shifting. Nobody is asking to try all ingredients and isolate everything. But it was never even established that a spray oil wouldn't work. Just speculation as to why it wouldn't. I will throw out that, for myself, I think the majority of the effort that most people go through with their cast irons is for cosmetic purposes and failing to realize that we use much milder soaps today than we used to. If you want a decently seasoned cast iron skillet, just commit to using it consistently. Will it be pretty? Probably not. But it will work just fine.

JohnTHaller 12y ago
> Meh, a simple "we already had a full docket to test with our main goals and didn't want to allocate the time to try any spray oils" is more than adequate. The thing is, there's not one 'spray oil additive' that everyone uses they could even test. They could just say: "Spray oils use additives that could complicate this process and each spray oil is different. We didn't test them and don't recommend that you use them. Using real, unadulterated oil is simple, proven, and effective." I can't comment on the effectiveness of the overall process of seasoning a skillet, nor was I.
- taeric 12y ago
  It doesn't matter that there are multiple additives. It hasn't been established that any additives affect things. (Or, again, if it has been established, cite.) That is, you are commenting on the process. Specifically, you are saying that spray oils are bad for it. And then giving a quick (and appealing) argument for it. However, the question is when and how was this established.
  - JohnTHaller 12y ago
    Incorrect. I said specifically that spray oils 'could' complicate the process and that they didn't test for it. That's all. You're reading the rest into it yourself. I never once said that additives affect things. Additives are a random addition that serve no purpose in the process of seasoning a cast iron pan. They didn't test for throwing a handful of salt or baking soda in either. Nor should they. There's no need.
    - taeric 12y ago
      The point of this thread is that they should either a) test for it, b) acknowledge that they didn't test for it, or c) cite some place that has. To dismiss it as a bad idea with no reason is precisely the topic of this thread. You brought up that it would complicate things. Of course it would, but that is basically beside the point. Edit: apologies, I should say with no evidence, not reason.
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
        taeric 12y ago
        You do realize you just took this in a full circle, right? It was agreed at the beginning that the argument is compelling. To the point that there really isn't much concern with this one occurrence, but that it happens throughout the article. Does it make for a good read? Sure. Probably is even good advice on a good technique. What it is not, is "science." That is, specifically, this entire thread was because someone was pedantic that this shouldn't be called "science" as it was presented. And it should be noted that many of us agreed. To the point that the thread was renamed on HN.