Has anyone had anything but rejections so far? Any friends-of-friends who've got in? Unlike in years past, it seems that absolutely no one (here, on egullet, or anywhere else online, as far as I can tell) has had a positive reply, and it's been 1 1/2 months since the application period ended (by which point most people have usually heard).

A friend and I have unanswered requests, so I emailed Luis to see when acceptances were due to go out and, amazingly, he actually replied (message below).

Short version: it seems that they are now booked up for the year.

So is that it? No online foodies managed to get in at all this year?! The announcement of the temporary closure came after the deadline, and usually elbulli are great at replying to every single request.

Any thoughts?

We are living a big problem since there are not enough options for all the people who try to visit us for the first time as well as the customers who wish to return. We try to look for the most possible of solutions and taking the problem with a lot of care and respect, but our capacity for one season is very limited and we are surpassed by the demand that we received even at the first moment.

Now we do not have any more options but we must confirm all the reservations ten days in advance. We will take care full time to see if there are changes that permit us to find some solutions more. A waiting-list is not possible because it would be endless but, if you wish, we will be at your disposal to check the situation.

also, willpowder.net sells sodium alginate and calcium chloride, for a lot cheaper. I did an edible demo of this ( http://willpowder.net/caviar.html ) mango caviar last weekend for a kids' national chemistry week event, and they were really blown away by how cool and tasty spherification can be.

The Alinea cookbook that just came out has recipes for large-scale spheres, rather than caviar: For exampe, ginger spheres made by filling hemispherical molds with ginger juice and calcium lactate mixture, then placing the frozen hemispheres in a warm sodium alginate bath, gelling the outside as it thaws.

Totally. What I was referring to above were, basically, what you just said: possible perceived differences based on a few different things: total ration of fat, protein, etc, versus microscale structures of fat and protein, or the presence of various organic compounds which could give, say, a grassy or oniony note. It sounds like you have a lot more practical experience in this area than me, who is waiting for the day when I can do this rather than read about it.

anyways, science is awesome. but not as awesome as eating!

I haven't done double-blind or anything, but I have noticed your initial assertion before, too. If I may ask, where was your milk from (I see you we are both east coast, but likely have quite different milk supplies)? It would be interesting to see if someone could identify what causes this phenomenon- my hunch is either concrete differences in protein/fat content, or differences is the colloidal microstructure of the milk, or perhaps, as Maria Lorraine pointed out, an actual flavor difference.

Anyways, thank you for sticking up for your assertion and also edifying us!

Perhaps a quibble, but:
If there is a non-"placebo effect" taste/texture difference between two similar products, this arises from a difference in physical or chemical composition and thus is, in fact, a scientific difference. The two burgers, for example, may have different levels of denaturation of muscle proteins, and the stored carrot will certainly have undergone changes in sugar and water levels in three weeks. Our tongue, our taste buds, and our olfactory receptors are all, essentially, highly sensitive instruments to differences of these types. Flavor and texture all arise from physical makeup and chemistry, and differences in them are in fact measurable if you know what to look for and have the right equipment.

Regarding Organic vs. Conventional milk, it could easily be the case that two samples may appear "identical" via rough analysis of protein, water, and fat content, but a rough analysis doesn't take into account specifics of individual groups of molecules, or of microstructure (this is how the melamine-tainted milk scandal happened in China: basic tests for, say, protein content look for Nitrogen, which melamine also contains, but don't go much more specific than that because it gets expensive). So, one or the other may have a different microstructure of fat bubble size, or may contain very small amounts of organic compounds which would be expensive to identify but are nonetheless perceptible in small amounts to the human palate.

Perhaps I am just pedantic, but ALL food is chemical food, given that "chemical" describes a specific arrangement of particular molecules and ALL matter is made of molecules. Everything you eat is a chemical: water is a chemical, sugar is a chemical, proteins are chemicals. By simplifying for children the complexities of choosing a food that is wholesome and/or nutritious into the false dichotomy of "chemical" and "Nonchemical", Hanrahan and other educators - including writers, nutritionists, etc, who adhere to this sort of breakdown- do a disservice to their audience's understanding of their food and of science. A chemical in the general sense is absolutely nothing to be afraid of, but calling some of what we eat "chemical food" because certain compounds it contains are undesirable reduces a complex problem to a falsely simple one and encourages a fearful attitude towards the sciences. Not a great idea if your motive is to really educate!

Hydrocolloids are a family of substances made up of polymers, long-chain molecules which form a network in water and give it thickened or gel-like properties. Some more popular ones are gelatin, tapioca, cornstarch, and agar-agar, which many of you probably have in your kitchens, especially if you cook cold desserts or certain Asian cuisines. Some more "exotic" ones are xanthan gum, carrageenan, methylcellulose, guar gum, etc. The majority of these are derived from natural sources - agar-agar and carrageenan are from seaweed, guar gum from beans, gelatin from rendered animal bones. A number of these have been in use for centuries: agar-agar and konjac flour in Japan, for example.

On the topic of thickeners in ice creams, one of the oldest frozen desserts still being consumed is the Turkish/Mediterranean ice cream Maras Dondurma, which traditionally uses the long-chain carbohydrates found in certain orchid roots as a thickener instead of eggs. It's difficult to find the ingredients outside of Turkey, but I've made it and it works quite well. And the concentration of thickener is very small - around the scale of a teaspoon for a quart of ice cream. I don't have any resources for other types of thickeners but I believe there are a number of websites dealing with them online - this one http://www.cybercolloids.net/recipes/... seems like more of an industrial-type formulation of ice cream, but you can see that the concentrations of hydrocolloids needed is very low.

One website which is a good resource for unusual specialty products is http://www.willpowder.net/ which sells things like xanthan gum, methylcellulose, and agar-agar, as well as other interesting chemicals like sodium alginate for spherifying liquids.

I don't often buy commercial ice cream because frequently, additives are overused so that an inferior product can be passed off as a richer, creamier, better-made one. However, these products have interesting specific properties which, when used responsibly and for a specific purpose along with other high-quality ingredients, can achieve delicious foods. For example, an excellent, thick ice cream which does not taste like egg, if that is what you are looking for, or a gelatin which does not melt at high temperatures. The important thing is to keep an open mind, keep exploring, and recognize that irresponsible overuse of products is not the same as a bad product.