Since I got my immersion circulator in December I’ve discovered that there are two critical questions that always come up as I hold a piece of meat in my hands, ready to cook it sous vide: At what temperature should I cook this? And for how long? Despite the fact that two books were published on sous vide last fall it is the short yet comprehensive guide “A Practical Guide to Sous Vide Cooking” by Douglas Baldwin that I’ve found most useful to answer these questions. Those who have followed the eGullet thread on sous vide cooking will probably recognize Douglas Baldwin as one of the major contributors alongside Nathan Myhrvold. Out of curiosity and eager to learn more I therefore emailed Douglas and asked if he would be interested in doing an email interview.

ML: From your homepage I see that you are a PhD student in applied mathematics, how did you become interested in sous vide?

DB: I have always loved to cook. Before last January, though, I mainly cooked slow food. That is when I saw sous vide mentioned in one of Harold McGee’s NY Times articles. Wow. Cooking meat at its desired final core temperature is so obvious! As a mathematician, I kicked myself for never asking “if overcooked meat is bad, what temperature should the meat be cooked at?” A question which many mathematician would instantly answer, “just above the temperature you want it to end up at.”

A quick search of the web led me to the massive eGullet thread on sous vide cooking. While the thread contains a treasure-trove of practical information — especially Nathan Myhrvold’s posts — it left me with a lot of unanswered questions. Being an academic, I turned to the scientific literature for answers; as expected, I found many answers and many more questions.

ML: Your excellent sous vide resource, “A Practical Guide to Sous Vide Cooking” has a wealth of information. What drove you to write this article? And have you ever considered publishing it in a peer reviewed journal?

DB: Thank you. I’m very glad to hear you find my guide to be useful.

As a scientist, I am driven by two things: an insatiable curiosity to learn everything I can about a topic and the desire to freely share what I have learned with the world (so others can extend and build on what I have done). After spending hundreds of hours researching sous vide cooking and discovering how much of the information online was incorrect (and potentially dangerous), I felt compelled to write up what I had learned and post it as soon as possible. I am still actively working on my guide, and hope to complete another major revision in February.

I have not submitted my guide to a peer reviewed journal because its intended audience is chefs and foodies. Though I did ask a number of food scientists to review my guide for technical accuracy, and I was recently asked to referee a paper for the Journal of Food Science.

ML: From your viewpoint, what is the biggest advantage of sous vide over conventional cooking?

DB: Control. Precise temperature control gives incredible choice over the doneness and texture of meat, poultry and fish. Tough cuts can be made tender. Tender cuts are the same perfect doneness from edge-to-edge. Fish and light meat are moist and flavorful. Pork and poultry no longer needs to be brined to be juicy (because they can be made safe without being cooked well-done).

ML: Do you think sous vide cooking will ever become so common that the equipment will be available in regular kitchen stores? And if yes – when will that be?

DB: I don’t think sous vide cooking will ever be so common that immersion circulators will be sold next to microwave ovens. But I fully expect them to be as common as smokers in 5–10 years. Like smoking, sous vide cooking requires a little knowledge and planning — an easy request of the average Khymos reader, but a lot to ask of most consumers. This is unfortunate, because I find sous vide cooking to be convenient, energy efficient, and versatile.

ML: What kind of equipment are you using yourself at home for sous vide? And how often do you typically cook sous vide?

DB: I use a Minipack-torre MVS31 chamber vacuum sealer and a PolyScience 7306C immersion circulator for most of my sous vide cooking. I usually attach the immersion circulator to a full-size countertop food warmer with a lexan lid I made — the lid limits evaporative cooling and the food warmer speeds the (initial) heating of the water and limits heat loss from the bottom and sides of the water bath. I also have a couple Iwatani butane blowtorches, a used PolyScience immersion circulator, a couple PID controllers from Auber Instruments, a Ranco ETC temperature controller, a FoodSaver vacuum sealer, and a bunch of thermocouples and meters from ThermoWorks.

I eat food cooked sous vide almost everyday. As a single guy, I batch cook most my meat in single servings pouches, rapidly chill and then freeze them until needed. While this `cook-freeze’ sous vide is very convenient, the freezing and reheating of the meat does causes small, but noticeable, degradation in taste and texture.

ML: Have you compared DIY bagging with zip-lock bags, food saver bags and vacuum chamber packs? I know that liquids are challenging with the food saver, but does the bagging method affect flavor (or even texture)? Does the small amount of oxygen in the DIY version have any effect?

DB: For meat, different bagging methods have little or no effect on flavor and texture. The primary purpose of bagging is to allow the efficient transfer of heat from the water (or steam) to the food (while still keeping the food and water separated). Sealing the food in a bag has the added benefit of preventing evaporative losses of flavor volatiles and moisture. Even when using a chamber vacuum sealer, the majority of bags have high levels of residual oxygen. The main difference between using a zip-lock bag and a chamber vacuum sealer is the extent to which the bags balloon when heated; (when heated over about 65C/150F) both bags will start to balloon because of the vapor pressure of the liquid in the bag, but the zip-lock bag will balloon more because the residual air in the bag will also expand. It is important that the food is kept from floating to the surface of the water to prevent uneven heating.

While meat can easily be cooked in a zip-lock or food saver bag, fruit and vegetable compression requires a chamber vacuum sealer. Moreover, zip-lock and food saver bagged vegetables balloon excessively in the 85C/185F water bath they are (typically) cooked in because it very difficult to remove all the air in the bag.

Liquid in the bag is indeed problematic when using a food saver, but is easily solved by freezing the liquids before bagging. (Although, I might add that freezing often traps air bubbles in the liquid which cause the bag to balloon more than it would have if a chamber vacuum sealer was used.)

ML: What are your favorites cuts of meat for sous vide?

DB: With the faltering global economy in mind, I love showing off sous vide cooking’s ability to transform inexpensive cuts of meat into something amazing. Consider the humble chuck roast, a flavorful cut of beef which is usually relegated to stews and hamburger because of its abundant connective tissue. Vacuum sealing, cooking for 24 hours at 55C/131F, and searing to a beautiful mahogany color transforms this humble cut into something akin to prime-rib! Pork shoulder vacuum sealed with lard and cooked for 24 hours at 68C/155C, torn into bite-sized hunks and fried in a little oil is always a hit at my dinner parties. Even the the lowly chicken breast can be made into something moist and flavorful by pasteurized in a 60C/140F water bath (see my guide for pasteurization times).

ML: Is there any meat that you would prefer not to cook sous vide?

DB: I don’t like some types of fish cooked sous vide. When cooked too slowly, the enzymes in the fish remain active and cause the flesh to become mushy. [This can be mitigated by using a water bath temperature 5--10C/10--20F higher than the desired final core temperature and using a needle temperature probe inserted through closed-cell foam tape to determine when the fish is done heating.] Also, fish which is not extremely fresh will taste too fishy because the flavor volatiles remain sealed in the bag with the fish —this is a particularly irksome problem for me in land-locked Colorado.

ML: Some critics claim that with sous vide, even though you brown the surface, you loose some flavor since temperature is kept so low (I believe this applies especially for pork). Do you share this experience?

DB: It is a very reasonable concern, but can be mitigated by quickly searing the meat before vacuum sealing and cooking. While the initial Maillard reaction occurs noticeably above 150–180C/300–350F, many of the subsequent reactions can occur at the low temperatures used in sous vide cooking. Personally, I feel searing after cooking is sufficient and almost never take the time to pre-sear my meat.

ML: From your experience, what is most difficult to achieve when cooking sous vide?

DB: A great sear without overcooking the meat. While a blowtorch works wonders on beef and (most) pork, it tends to burn poultry. A pan with a little oil over medium heat (so the oil is between 150–180C/300–350F) works fairly well for poultry, but may overcook the meat before the surface is golden brown.

ML: With Keller’s recent book “Under pressure” and your guide (and an extremely long thread at eGullet) being available now: Which areas would you say need further exploration?

DB: Sous vide cooking is still relatively young and there are hundreds of interesting questions yet to be answered! Some of the questions I’m currently interested in are: How long does it take all the soluble collagen to unfold into gelatin at 55–65C/130F–150F? What is the role of enzymes when cooking at low temperatures for long times? Is it better to thaw the meat or cook it from frozen? If cooking from frozen, how long does it take to heat a piece of meat (such as foie gras) stored at -80C/-110F? Which foods can be frozen or refrigerated after cooking (and for how long?) without significantly degrading taste or texture? How and why should fruits and vegetables be cooked sous vide? Why does fish retain so many more of their essential fatty acids when cooked sous vide (compared with conventional cooking methods)? . . .

In addition to the many unanswered questions, there are also many topics which are understood but have yet to be discussed in sufficient detail. For example, many people’s intuition about clamp and chamber vacuum sealers is wrong. The importance of food shape in predicting heating times has not been discussed — spherical and cylindrical foods heat much faster than slab shaped food. The relatively fast onset of warmed-over-flavor after the food is removed from its vacuum pouch is absent. And even how large and powerful the water bath needs to be for a given quantity of food has not been discussed.

Hopefully I, Nathan Myhrvold, or someone else will have the time and resources to answer all these interesting questions.

ML: Thank you very much!

That’s right – it’s an immersion circulator! The water flow around the heating coil due to the circulator pump insures an even temperature throughout the water bath.

I’m ready for some real sous-vide cooking! No more turning-the-plate-on-and-off sous-vide

9. Keep a written record of what you do!

Wouldn’t it be a pity if you couldn’t recreate that perfect concoction you made last week, simply because you forgot how you did it? Last year I made a vegetable soup to which I added garam masala and pepper. I was cooking ad lib, adding a little of this and that without taking notes… Which is annoying, because it turned out very nice! It had a remarkable aftertaste which gave me a somewhat dry feeling on the back of the tongue and it reminded me of mangoes. Even immediately after the meal I wasn’t able to recall all the ingredients.

As an undergraduate student I took an organic chemistry lab course, and I remember we were told not to use post it notes or small pieces of paper for taking notes. Everything should be recorded in a proper journal or – if necessary – small note books. Having finished my Ph.D. a couple of years later, I can only testify to this. Everything you do – be it in the lab or in the kitchen – should be recorded immediately in a journal. It’s amazing how something that was obvious one day, slips your mind a week or month later.

There is a wonderful Donald Duck story by Volker Reiche entitled “The soul of science” (the original appeared in 1981 in the Dutch Donald Duck magazine). At a point “Professor Duck”, who actually works as a janitor in a lab, utters the words “Careful notes are the soul of science” as he is caught experimenting. This is true also for the kitchen and experimental cooking. A German translation of the story was reprinted in the article “Das Leiden des cand. chem. Donald Duck” (open access) in case you want to read the whole story.

Careful notes are also the soul of kitchen science!

When taking notes it’s essential that you are able to re-cook the dish yourself. But if no one else is, the notes are of limited value. The biggest source of uncertainty in the kitchen is the widespread use of volume for measuring powders. This can best be illustrated by the question: How much does a cup of flour weigh?

I bumped into this when I began baking no-knead bread (recipe). I converted the recipe to metric units using an online calculator, but the no-knead bread wasn’t a huge success. The problem was that there is no simple answer to the question “How much does a cup of flour weigh?”. Cooking conversion online states that a cup of all-purpose flour weighs 99 g. King Arthur Mills claim that all their flours weigh 113 g/cup. USDA states 125 g/cup and Gold Medal 130 g/cup. Some cookbooks have settled at 140 g/cup (apparently because this is about half way between a loosely and densly packed cup) and if the flour is hard packed you can reach 160 g/cup. In other words – when following a recipe you would need to know how the volume of flour was measured in order to use exactly the same amount of flour. Some recipes call for “spoon and level” or “scoop and level”, but many do not include any information about this.

My recommendation is to weigh all dry ingredients (and preferably also the wet ingredients). A normal digital kitchen scale typically has a resolution of 1 g with an accuracy of +/- 5 g and they are quite affordable. Weighing liquids is also far more accurate than the average volume measurement in the kitchen. If the scale has a “tara” function it’s also much faster as you can zero the display after each ingredient you add. It shouldn’t come as a surprise that I’m not the only chemist advocating weight measurements in kitchen. And it’s not difficult finding other sites in favor of weight measurements either.

It therefore puzzles me why recipes that call for the following are still so abundant:

1 pack of instant yeast
1 envelope unflavored gelatin
1 gelatin sheet (see comment #4-5)
1 sachet powdered pectin
1 tablespoon liquid pectin
1 stick of butter
… and the list goes on

The only exception to the general advice on weighing ingredients is when very small quantities are used. This could be spices, food coloring or hydrocolloids. With normal kitchen scales, you’ll be better of using volume measurements for amounts less than 5 g (equal to a teaspoon if measuring water). Otherweise it’s worthwhile mentioning that scales with a 0.1 g and 0.01 g readout are getting cheaper and cheaper.

*

There is a summary of the “10 tips for practical molecular gastronomy” posts. The collection of books (favorite, molecular gastronomy, aroma/taste, reference/technique, food chemistry) and links (people/chefs/blogs, webresources, institutions, articles and audio/video) at khymos.org might also be of interest.

For the Pros: The Whipper. Adds a touch of air to every bite.

Within reach of the dedicated amateur chef, indispensible for the professional chef: a whipper which you can charge with either carbon dioxide (for instance to make carbonated fruit) or dinitrogen oxide (too make foams/espumas or simply whipped cream).

For the Pros: The Sealer and Circulator. Cooks in a bag to lock in juiciness.

Sous vide cooking is perhaps one of the most fascinating examples of science inspired cooking. The picture shows a vacuum sealer and a thermostated water bath circulator. If this is too expensive, check out my post on a simple and easy DIY sous vide.

For the Pros: The New Spice Rack. Chemicals the experimental home chef shouldn’t be without.

Last but not least: the different chemicals which become more and more available. I’ve put together a collection of hydrocolloid recipes which will help you get started using these fascinating chemicals. If you have troubles getting hold of these, my list of suppliers might help you.

Of course I’d like to put my hands on a Pacojet, an Antigriddle or a Gastrovac as well, but for a home kitchen, this gets too exotic and far too expensive. But – the most surprising gadget was the vacuum meat tumbler from Reveo. Just like the extremely expensive Gastrovac, this little machine can be used for vacuum impregnation of meat and other foods (or at least this is something I assume from the description). IMHO vacuum impregnation is the most important feature of the Gastrovac – far more important than the heating capabilities. Perhaps someone owning a Reveo could report back?

For the Home: Meat, Your Maker. This vacuum tumbler cuts marinating time by hours, first extracting air to expand the meat’s fibers and then spinning it so that every area is exposed to your sauce of choice. Probably doesn’t beat a good long soak, but perfect for when barbecue inspiration suddenly strikes.—Abby Seiff

But I was very dissapointed that my all-time favorite kitchen gadget didn’t make it into the gallery: a simple thermometer. As I have stated in one of my tips for practical molecular gastronomy, this is probably the single tool that can improve your cooking the most.

The fascinating thing about a filtration like this is that you can also remove color. At the EuroFoodChem XIV conference I was told by Jorge Ruiz of Lamaragaritaseagita that you can make perfectly clear tomato juice by succesive filtrations, starting with a coarse filter and moving to finer filters. All in all, 3-5 filtrations should be sufficient.

The instruction booklet which comes with the iSi Gourmet Whipper only mentions cream chargers (filled with N₂O, dinitrogen oxide), whereas soda chargers (filled with CO₂, carbon dioxide) are not mentioned (I guess the opposite is true for the iSi Siphons?). This is quite amazing actually! Luckily however the cream and soda chargers are exactly the same size and both hold 8 g of gas. So it should be possible to make carbonated fruit with any of the iSi whippers (cream, easy, gourmet, dessert, thermo) or siphons available.

Here’s how you proceed:

1. Fill you iSi whipper (or siphon) with fruit, preferably fruit which has a cut, wet surface to allow the carbon dioxide to dissolve in the water/juice.
2. Screw on top securly
3. Charge with one soda charger (two if you have the 1 L whipper)
4. Leave in fridge over night
5. Release pressure with valve (Important!)
6. Unscrew top and serve immediately!
7. Enjoy!

This is what carbonated grapes look like. As you see, I decided to cut the grapes in to halves.


Notice how they sizzle!

A quick recap of the chemistry: cold water dissolves more CO₂ than tempered water, that’s why we leave it in the fridge. Also, remember that it takes some time for the carbon dioxide to dissolve in water, therefore it’s better not to be in a hurry. A quick calculation of the pressures gives the following: Both gases have molecular weights of 44 g/mol, so 8 g of gas corresponds to 0.1818 moles or 4.1 L at 25 °C and 1 atm pressure. The volume of the chargers is 0.01 L which gives an initial pressure in the chargers of impressive 445 atm! With an approximate volume of 0.7 L this gives a pressure (in an empty whipper) of nearly 6 atm – the same as in a bottle of champagne. However once you add water, the equilibriums will change and the pressure in the head space will drop. Anyone who remembers how to calculate the head space pressure at equilibrium if the container is filled with 0.5 L of water and cooled to 4 °C?

I’ve done some googling and there is also some mention of making carbonated fruit with an iSi whipper over at Ideas in food.

(The word play in the title works better for those with a mother tongue where iSi would be pronounced just like “easy”!)

Materials used:
2.0 g sodium alginate
200 g water (with low calcium content!)
50 g blueberry syrup

2.5 g calcium chloride
500 g water

Procedure:
2 g sodium alginate and 200 g water were mixed vigourously in blender. The mixture was then left to stand for some hours to get rid of the air bubbles. 50 g blueberry syrup was then added to the sodium alginate solution. A calcium chloride bath was prepared by dissolving 2.5 g calcium chloride in 500 g water. The sodium alginate/blueberry mixture was dripped into the calcium chloride bath using a plastic syringe with a steel cannula. After 1-3 min the pearls were removed and rinsed with water.

More detailed procedure with pictures and video:
I had to obtain a scale with a 0.1 g accuracy to weigh out 2.0 g of sodium alginate (my first experiments using a normal kitchen scale failed). The model I got cost about $100 and is inteded for school laboratories. Amazon provides several scales with this accuracy.

I used a blender to dissolve sodium alginate in water. This incorporates a lot of air in the mixture which we don’t want. It could possibly be avoided by using an immersion blender/mixer. However, I just left the alginate solution on the bench and after 3-4 hours the air bubbles had all escaped from the solution.

Plastic syringes and cannulas can be obtained from your local drug store or pharmacist. I found it was easier to produce evenly sized drops with a sharp cannula (CAREFULL!) than with just the plastic tip of the syringe. This of course depends on the viscosity of the solution. By thickening (with xanthan for instance) you can produce larger drops.

After 1-3 min the spheres were removed from the calcium chloride solution and rinsed with clean water. I dried the spheres carefully using a kitchen towel or paper.

Definitely looks like caviar when presented on a spoon like this!

Larger spheres were made by filling a small measuring spoon with the alginate mixture (I used a syringe for this so the outsides of the spoon would not be covered with alginate solution) and carefully emptied it into the calcium chloride bath. It takes some trial and error to achieve good results.

The spheres are suprisingly robust and can be handled without rupturing.

If cut with a knife, the spheres rupture and the liquid contents flows out.

The small spheres didn’t taste much, so I could have added more blueberry syrup. The large spheres however had a nice taste. The surprise element when they rupture in your mouth is very nice!

For the first experiment I filled them each with 2,5 L of water, put the lids on and brought both to the boil and let them boil for a minute so the pot itself would be warm throughout. Then both were placed on cork plates and left to cool. The temperature probe was carefully inserted under the lid in order to reduce the heat loss, and removed once the temperature had stabilized. For the second experiment 5 L of water were used. The measured temperatures are shown in the graph.

Contrary to what I had expected, the stainless steel pot keeps water warmer! After approximately 1,5 hours there is a 10 °C difference between the two. As expected, when using 5 L of water, it stays warm longer. Physical data for the two pots are given in the following table:

The heat capacity of the cast iron pot is more than double that of the stainless steel pot. But this is negligible compared to the heat capacity of water: 10.5 kJ/K (2,5 L) and 20,9 kJ/K (5,0 L). Also, there is only a small difference in their surface area which cannot explain the large difference in temperature loss observed.

This leaves me with two eplanations:

My guess is that the difference in emissivity is more important (but please correct me if I’m wrong). With an infrared thermometer, one should therefore be able to measure a difference between pots of cast iron and polished stainless steel (even though they’re at the same temperature!) due to the difference in emissivity. Any one who can do the experiment and report back?

Conclusion: There are many good reasons to use cast iron, but keeping food warm is not one of them!

A dip probe thermometer with a digital read out is a cheap way to bring science into your kitchen. It should preferably cover the temperatures from -30 to 300 °C (-22 to 570 °F). It’s a good idea to check how accurate it is. This is easily done using a water/ice mixture and boiling water.

Fill a glas with crushed icecubes and top of with cold tap water. Leave if for some minutes for the water to cool and stir every now and then. Make sure the tip of the probe does not come in direct contact with ice. A mixture of water and ice is exactly 0 °C (32 °F). If the reading is off by 2 °C (~4 °F) or more I would take the thermometer back to the shop and claim a refund.

Similarly, you can use boiling water as a high temperature reference point. Water boils at 100 °C (212 °F) at sea level and standard barometric pressure. The exact boiling point at your location can be calculated.

When I bought my first thermometer it turned out that the temperature readings were quite erratic so I had to return it. The one I have now however works fine (1 degree off for the boiling water is OK).

As an addition to a dip probe thermometer, contact-less thermometers with infrared sensors are becomming more affordable. Suppliers include Raytek, Strathwood, Radiant (here, here or here) and Extech Instruments (links to product pages at Amazon).

*

Check out my previous blogpost for an overview of the tips for practical molecular gastronomy. The collection of books (favorite, molecular gastronomy, aroma/taste, reference/technique, food chemistry) and links (webresources, people/chefs/blogs, institutions, articles, audio/video) at khymos.org might also be of interest.

1. Use good and fresh raw materials of the best quality available.

2. Know what temperature you’re cooking at. A dip probe thermometer with a digital read out is a cheap way to bring science into your kitchen.

3. Get a basic understanding of heat transfer, heat capacity and heat conductance. “Heat” in this context des not imply high temperature since it also applies to the understanding of freezing/thawing.

4. Learn how to control the texture of food. Some key points: temperature induced changes (freezing, heating), emulsifiers, thickeners, gelling agents, moisture content, pressure/vacuum, osmosis.

5. Learn how to control taste and flavor. Some key points: flavor pairings, spice synergies/antagonies, influence of temperature (Maillard reaction, caramelization, temperature stability, volatility), taste enhancers, taste suppresants, solubility of flavour compounds in fat/water, extraction.

6. Remember that prolonged exposure to a flavor causes desenzitation, meaning that your brain thinks the food smells less even though it’s still present in the same amount. Therefore, let different flavours enhance each other. Similarly, variation in taste, texture, temperature and color can open up new dimensions in a dish. This is referred to as “increased sensing by contrast amplification”.

7. Be critial to recipes and question authority – they do not necessarily represent “the truth”. Nevertheless, you can certainly learn a lot from the experts.

8. Dare to experiment and try new ingredients and procedures. Do control experiments so you can compare results. When evaluating the outcome, be aware that your own opinions will be biased. Have a friend help you perform a blind test, or even better a triangle test to evaluate the outcome of your experiments.

9. Keep a written record of what you do! It would be a pity if you couldn’t recreate that perfect concoction you made last week, simply because you forgot how you did it.

10. Have fun!

Heat causes many changes in food, but few appreciate how important it is to know at what temperature they are cooking and at what temperature the desired change occurs.

These tips for molecular gastronomy relate to the technical and scientific aspects of food preparation and eating, and I plan to elaborate on each of the points in separate blog posts. However, according to Hervé This’ definition of molecular gastronomy, one should also investigate the social and artistic components of cooking. A good example of this is the “Five Aspects Meal Model” developed at Grythyttan in Sweden (Gustafsson, I.B. et al. Journal of Food Service, 2006, 84.). Although intended for a restaurant setting, the general idea can also be applied for home cooking.

The meal takes place in a room (room), where the consumer meets waiters and other consumers (meeting), and where dishes and drinks (products) are served. Backstage there are several rules, laws and economic and management resources (management control system) that are needed to make the meal possible and make the experience an entirety as a meal (entirety – expressing an atmosphere).

Or to put it differently: average food eaten together with good friends while you’re sitting on a terrace with the sun setting in the ocean will taste superior to excellent food served on plastic plates and eaten alone in a room with mess all over the place.

One last thing: once you’re finished in the kitchen with your culinary alchemy, your gastro physics, your cutting edge science cuisine, your molecular cooking, your hypermodern emotional cooking, your science food or whatever fancy name you attach to it – remember the social and artistic components when you serve the food. Just so people won’t refer to you as a techno chef, a mad scientist or a modern day Willy Wonka. After all, molecular gastronomy is about the science of deliciousness, not technical wizardry.

Questions and topics for future blog posts are welcome at webmaster [a] khymos.org (substitute @ for [a]) or as a comment below.