# blender and mixer



## yakor

Hi! What is the difference between the mixer and the blender?


----------



## Myridon

Let me Google that for you:
Blender:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blender
Mixer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixer_%28cooking%29
Do you have a more specific question?


----------



## yakor

I got it. The mixer only mixes all products, making the mix of them.  But the blender first makes the products small enough to then mix them in one whole mass. Yes?


----------



## WyomingSue

You usually use a blender for things that are more liquid (or are going to be more liquid) like a banana in yogurt, or strawberries and vodka.  It has a cover on it to keep the stuff from flying out.  The metal whirling part is at the bottom of the container.
A mixer is used for stiffer things like cake mixes and pancake batter.  It doesn't have a cover on it, and the beaters are at the top (often held in your hand).
The pictures in Myridon's links show the usual blender and mixers.


----------



## yakor

WyomingSue said:


> The pictures in Myridon's links show the usual blender and mixers.


I have them both in the kitchen at home, so I know how they look and how to use them
   I use a mixer for preparing whipped cream.
If to use the blender for it you don't get whipped cream. I wouldn't tell that material for mixer is stiffer. Stiff material (banana) would break your mixer.
But you could use a blender for a banana,  boiled potatoes or or even for soft chicken meat (with or without water). These ingredients are stiffer than batter.
So, I disagree, that a mixer is used for stiffer things. A mixer could be used only for flowing mass.
======
But  my question is not about it. I would like to know the difference in the  meaning of these words. I know what "to mix" means.(when ones become  among others) So the meanings of the nouns "mix" and "mixer" are clear.  But what is the real difference between them all and "to blend" and "a  blender"?
​


----------



## Myridon

I think you may have some sort of food processor instead of a blender.  Your mixer is not very strong if it would be broken by a banana (or your bananas are very green ).  You should be able to make bread dough in a mixer or a food processor but not in a blender.
Blender is the name of the appliance. You shouldn't assume anything about blenders or mixers from the meaning of "to blend" or "to mix".  My vacuum cleaner refuses to clean vacuums.


----------



## velisarius

While agreeing with Myridon, I'd hazard a guess that when the blender was invented the term "mixer" was already taken, so someone had to come up with a different name for it. Another name for "blender" is "liquidizer", which is a little more logical perhaps.


----------



## natkretep

The verb _blend_ isn't really used a lot in my experience. I first learnt the name of the equipment as _liquidiser_ although I think _blender _is now very common. We talk about _blitzing _items or _chopping_ or _puréeing_ them - never _blending_​. This can be done in the liquidiser or the food processor - both of which have blades, unlike the mixer.


----------



## Edinburgher

Myridon said:
			
		

> You shouldn't assume anything about blenders or mixers from the meaning of "to blend" or "to mix".


 Quite so.  Of course it doesn't help if (see WR dictionary) the definition of "to blend" is "to mix" and _vice versa_. 


			
				natkretep said:
			
		

> The verb _blend_ isn't really used a lot in my experience.


 Perhaps not in a culinary context, but certainly a lot of blending goes on with teas and whiskies.


----------



## yakor

I know what I have. The mixer is not for making banana liquid. Every mixer works with material that is already liquid in some degree. Let's it be  dough Or milk.
But using the blender you could get banana to be liquid. It cuts banana up to it.


----------



## JulianStuart

yakor said:


> I know what I have. The mixer is not for making banana liquid. Every mixer works with material that is already liquid in some degree. Let's it be  dough Or milk.
> But using the blender you could get banana to be liquid. It cuts banana up to it.


Those comments are not on the language topic and are more suited for a cooking forum.

Are you clear on the words used for these machines (we will not discuss here what they actually do) - the three linked pictures show a "blender or liquidizer" , a "mixer" and an example of a "food processor".  These words are now quite a common naming *convention* for the machines in the English speaking world.


----------



## yakor

Edinburgher said:


> Quite so.  Of course it doesn't help if (see WR dictionary) the definition of "to blend" is "to mix" and _vice versa_.
> Perhaps not in a culinary context, but certainly a lot of blending goes on with teas and whiskies.


What is the difference between two actions, when you blend something and mix something?
I think when you blend something you get the pasty and liquid product from what you blend. If you blend tomato with potato by blender you get the pasty mix from these products. But if you want to blend them by mixer you risk to break your mixer and get nothing. 
"To mix" implies to use two or more products to get the mix of them. You can't mix only one banana. It should be two or more banana. But you could blend one banana. What do you do with product when you blend it? You cut it and take a juce from it, or you beat it and take a juce by beating. How to explain the process of blending?


----------



## yakor

JulianStuart said:


> (we will not discuss here what they actually do)


We? You tell for others? They are by you or you are they?
I really have a problem in understanding the meaning of these words. Not how they look and what they do. It is the question of Grammar. To blend something...What does it mean? What is the difference between to blend something and to mix something? Could we blend one apple? Could we mix one apple?


----------



## JulianStuart

As has already been pointed out , the "names" of these machines are no longer an accurate definition of the actions they perform.  When you put an apple in a blender and turn it on it processes it, often into a liquid.  My machine has different buttons for blend, chop, puree, whip etc etc .  The machine is still called a blender.  It can do lots of things.  Its name is not restricted by the definition in the dictionary.  The mixer does different things.

Are you asking for justification as to why the machines have the names that they do?  Or perhaps asking what verbs should we actually use for the operations these machines can perform, rather than simply blend and mix?

If you are not using a machine, the definitions/operations of blending and mixing are very similar.


----------



## lucas-sp

natkretep said:


> We talk about *blitzing *items or _chopping_ or _puréeing_ them - never _blending_​.


The verb "to blitz" meaning "to process using a blender" is not used in American English, unfortunately. Poking around some smoothie recipes online, I found that the majority of them in fact just use "to blend." There are AE/BE/etc differences about these verbs. (I always thought it was odd that the English used "to blitz" as an everyday verb when you think they'd be a little more touchy about that!)

I also want to point yakor towards more specific pages detailing standing electric mixers and food processors.

The solid/liquid distinction doesn't really hold, at least in American cooking. I can use my (standing electric) mixer for some very thick, dry things. And my (standing electric) mixer can not only _mix_​ things, but can also whip, beat, cream, stir, and knead things.


----------



## yakor

JulianStuart said:


> If you are not using a machine, the definitions/operations of blending and mixing are very similar.


I  ask about the difference in  meaning of words to blend and to mix.Of  course the blender could do many things..But the main function is "to  blend". The name is given according to the main function. Which is it? Why  "blender" not "mixer" if "to blend" is the same thing as "to mix"?


----------



## JulianStuart

yakor said:


> I  ask about the difference in  meaning of words to blend and to mix.Of  course the blender could do many things..But the main function is "to  blend". The name is given according to the main function. Which is it? Why  "blender" not "mixer" if "to blend" is the same thing as "to mix"?



So it would indeed seem that you are asking why the machines have the names they do.  Simply put, they just do.

Both can do things that fall under the dictionary definitions of either blending or mixing, so the naming , as already noted in #11, is now only a convention used to distinguish two differently designed machines each of which can both blend and mix.   How they came to be named that way was suggested in #7.


----------



## lucas-sp

yakor said:


> Of  course the blender could do many things..*But the main function is "to  blend".* The name is given according to the main function.


That's not necessarily true. Many people would say that the main function of a blender is to puree, to liquify, or to crush ice. (In BE the main function of a blender is to blitz.) Many people would also say that the main function of a mixer is to beat, to stir, or to whip. "Blend" and "mix" are almost synonymous in English, although "blend" does refer to a more thorough and vigorous process. The names given to the appliances are not as dynamic and descriptive as the names we give to the things we can _do_​ with the appliances.


----------



## yakor

lucas-sp said:


> The solid/liquid distinction doesn't really hold, at least in American cooking.
> I can use my (standing electric) mixer for some very thick, dry  things. And my


How does  your mixer look that it could beat thick products like potato and mix beans ?like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixer_(cooking)??


----------



## yakor

JulianStuart said:


> each of which can both blend and mix.


But what is the difference between "to blend" and "to mix" while cooking?


----------



## JulianStuart

So tired you missed some answers, it seems 



> If you are not using a machine, the definitions/operations of blending and mixing are very similar.



The key here is not to confuse the use of the word "blend" in its dictionary sense, with the phrase "operate the blender", (similarly the dictionary definition of "mix" with "operate the mixer").  The pairs are no longer equivalent.


----------



## yakor

JulianStuart said:


> The pairs are no longer equivalent.


Let's not use them in the sense of operating the kitchen machines.
Just tell me the main difference between them.
Could one blend one apple? (I think yes, not only by a blender but if you use knife or spoon) Could one mix one single apple? (I think without a mixer it is impossible. To mix one apple has no sense unless you use a mixer) If not why?


----------



## JulianStuart

Blend and mix, in the absence of the machines, both mean something like: take several (at least 2) different components and process them so that each is now uniformly dispersed in the others.  When done, a sample of the resulting substance contains each component in the same proportion as they were before they were processed.


----------



## lucas-sp

yakor said:


> Could one blend one apple? (I think yes, not only by a blender but if you use knife or spoon) Could one mix one single apple? (I think without a mixer it is impossible. To mix one apple has no sense unless you use a mixer) If not why?


How could you mix or blend one thing all by itself? You may be able to "dice" or "puree" an apple all by itself; you could also use a food processor or a blender to do those things, which is why we would use the descriptive verb "dice" or "puree" rather than "process" or "blend."

I would say that, in a general cooking context, "mix" is more commonly used than "blend," but it will always refer to making a homogenized mixture of different components.

At this point, it would probably help you to read different recipes to see how these words are normally used in English. Google has a specialized portal for searching for recipes: http://www.google.com/insidesearch/features/recipes/ If you find some examples there, we could probably have a more productive discussion.


----------



## yakor

It has no sense to say,"Blend this apple"?
I thought "to blend this apple" could mean "turn this apple into puree by using the blender" Why not?
If it doesn't mean this than it could mean "destroy this apple somehow to turn it into puree".
I don't mention the verb "mix", because it's clear that you need to have two componets to mix them (if they are soft enough). If it's stones, you need to have three at least)
I'm not sure that I get what "to blend" mean. What is the main difference "to blend" from "to mix" while cooking or in the other case?


----------



## JulianStuart

yakor said:


> It has no sense to say,"Blend this apple"?
> I thought "to blend this apple" could mean "turn this apple into puree by using the blender" Why not?
> If it doesn't mean this than it could mean "destroy this apple somehow to turn it into puree".
> I don't mention the verb "mix", because it's clear that you need to have two componets to mix them (if they are soft enough). If it's stones, you need to have three at least)
> I'm not sure that I get what "to blend" mean. What is the main difference "to blend" from "to mix" while cooking or in the other case?


You are now using the verb blend to mean "operate the blender" and not in its original sense of mixing *multiple* components together. We have already established that this is not the original meaning of the word. Since you have now started to ask about the use of these verbs _specifically in the language used in cooking_, the basic _sense_ difference between the two is: one means "operate the mixer on X (or X,Y and Z)" and the other means "operate the blender on X (or X,Y and Z)".  The original question you asked was about the difference between these two machines and you know what they do.  However, the language would often be used to specify the type of processing  and not actually use "blend" as a verb : for example "Puree the apples and bananas together in the blender",  "Coarsely chop the apples and nuts together in the blender" or in your specific question "Puree the apple in the blender (liquidizer) etc.


----------



## yakor

After all answers I'm not sure in the main 
1) Could one say,"Blend this one apple", meaning "Puree one apple in the blender"?
2) Could one say,"Mix one apple", meaning "Puree one apple in the mixer?
3) Could one say, "Mix/blend an apple with a banana somehow" If yes, what is the difference between,"Mix something with something" and "Blend something with something" by hand with a fork, for example?
4) Am I right if I think that one couldn't blend or mix one apple unless only he uses the blender OR mixer?
5) Am I right if I think that one couldn't mix two stones, but coud three and more by hand.
6) One couldn't blend stones by hand, no matter how many stones you try to blend. It's impossible physically to do by hand.
7) One could blend one apple, because it's easy to do with a knives.


----------



## Myridon

1) Maybe. Not really.
2) No.
3) Sounds like you want to cross-pollinate them.
4) See 1) and 2) 
5) 
6) Does not compute. Shutting down.
7) NO! You can chop an apple with a kni*fe*.  You can't blend it.  You might manage to create an apple puree if you had an hour or two to work at it, but it would probably still be pretty lumpy.

If I put one apple in my blender with no liquid, it will chop it for a few moments and then it's likely that all the bits will stick to the side and nothing else will happen.  If I put an apple in my mixer, I will have a bruised whole apple.


----------



## lucas-sp

yakor said:


> After all answers I'm not sure in the main
> 1) Could one say,"Blend this one apple", meaning "Puree one apple in the blender"?
> 2) Could one say,"Mix one apple", meaning "Puree one apple in the mixer?


I think we said above that we would never say these things. "Blend" and "mix" are very generic verbs. If I wanted to give someone actual instruction about what to do in the kitchen, I would naturally use more descriptive and specific verbs - "puree the apple," "mash the apple." 

Honestly, what are we making here? As an English speaker, I don't understand what recipe would involve "pureeing an apple."


----------



## yakor

Myridon said:


> 6) Does not compute. Shutting down.


What do you mean?


Myridon said:


> 7) NO! You can chop an apple with a kni*fe*.   You can't blend it.  You might manage to create an apple puree if you  had an hour or two to work at it, but it would probably still be pretty  lumpy..


Maybe I get what you mean. Maybe not. But I agree  that it is hard to make a puree from an apple by hand with a knife. I  really try to get the difference between to mix something and to blend  something without a blender and a mixer. I don't understand why one  can't take many little stones and mix them?
I understand the act of mixing as a process when things become located in free order among each other.  



Myridon said:


> If I put one apple in my blender with no liquid,  it will chop it for a few moments and then it's likely that all the  bits will stick to the side and nothing else will happen.  If I put an  apple in my mixer, I will have a bruised whole apple.


I agree  with the case of the blender. You need to add some water to get puree.  But I disagree about the mixer. I wouldn't use my mixer for the whole  apple. The mixer would break with the tough, solid apple.
I  understand the process of blending as the act of turning the whole thing  into the puree. Of course all the particles of the whole thing are  mixing with each other, but you really could blend only one apple, or,  only one banana, only one thing that contsists of water and solid staff.  How to do it is a technical question.
But you can't mix one thing. It has no sense to me.


----------



## yakor

lucas-sp said:


> Honestly, what are we making here? As an English speaker, I don't understand what recipe would involve "pureeing an apple."


See the answer of Julian. He said,"Puree the apples and bananas together in the blender". If you have allergy from bananas you would take only an apple and "puree the apple in the blender".


----------



## lucas-sp

yakor said:


> See the answer of Julian. He said,"Puree the apples and bananas together in the blender". If you have allergy from bananas you would take only an apple and "puree the apple in the blender".


To make what?

If you're pureeing an apple, it's probably already cooked.

I'm just pointing out that the entire phrase "mash the apple" is not colloquial, so we can't appropriately judge the potential phrases that are formed from it.


----------



## JulianStuart

yakor said:


> But you can't mix one thing. It has no sense to me.


Ha!  We are making progress 

You can't _blend_ one thing either.  You can "X one thing" in a blender, but the X verb is not "blend", ithe operation requires a more specific verb (chop, mince, liquidize, puree etc). (One might be able to contrive a scenario/context where it might be used, but it would be extremely rare).


----------



## Myridon

yakor said:


> 2) Could one say,"Mix one apple", meaning "Puree one apple in the mixer?





> I wouldn't use my mixer for the whole  apple.


Then why do you keep asking about it?


----------



## JulianStuart

yakor said:


> See the answer of Julian. He said,"Puree the apples and bananas together in the blender". If you have allergy from bananas you would take only an apple and "puree the apple in the blender".


The *key* message in that example was that I did *not* use the verb "blend" while describing an operation with the blender on a *single* item.  See also post#33 for the more general statement of "Don't use blend for operations on one thing"


----------



## yakor

Your answer has no sense to me. 





lucas-sp said:


> I'm just pointing out that the entire phrase "mash the apple" is not colloquial, so we can't appropriately judge the potential phrases that are formed from it.


  What do you talk about?
If you can "Puree the apple and bananas together in the blender to get "mash"" why you can't "puree one apple in the blender"


----------



## yakor

JulianStuart said:


> You can't _blend_ one thing either.  (One might be able to contrive a scenario/context where it might be used, but it would be extremely rare).


But what does "to blend" something" mean? I though it means "to turn something into puree", you destroy something at that. But when you mix something it doesn't mean "to destroy". In order to mix something, something should be liqiud or fluid.You could mix little different stones. No need to say "mix these stones and that stones in the box" Just say,"mix all these stones".
​


----------



## dadane

yakor said:


> If you can "Puree the apple and bananas together in the blender to get "mash"" why you can't "puree one apple in the blender"


You can, but you are mixing 'mash' the verb with 'mash' the noun and the usage is slightly different. It is very hard to 'mash' a raw apple, it is easy with a cooked apple to create a 'mash' but you achieve this by 'pulping' it, the resultant liquid is 'pulp'. I would never say "mash the apple". I make a lot of mint jelly. Adding chopped chilli to it works really well, trust me.


----------



## yakor

Myridon said:


> Then why do you keep asking about it?


I would like to see the difference between to "mix" something in English and Russian language. 
To  me, one could mix many things; "to mix many stones, buttons, to mix two  or more different solutions", to mix the water with the sugar.."
But I'm not sure about "to blend"?  It means "to destroy up to the  liqiud state"? Could one blend wood,  plastic material? Or we could blend almost everything if only we have  water at that?


----------



## yakor

dadane said:


> You can, but you are mixing 'mash' the verb with 'mash' the noun and the usage is slightly different. .


I can't confuse a verd with a noun. What do you mean?


----------



## dadane

yakor said:


> It means "to destroy up to the  liqiud state"? Could one blend wood,  plastic material? Or we could blend almost everything if only we have  water at that?



'Blend' does mean 'mix' but it suggests a deliberate mixing of things to achieve a intended outcome, 'mix' is more general. One can blend wood and plastic to, for example, make a sculpture. Liquidation is not prerequisite.


----------



## Edinburgher

yakor said:


> But I'm not sure about "to blend"?  It means "to destroy up to the  liqiud state"?


 No, that is not what "to blend" normally means.  Normally, "to blend" means "to mix".  You can blend solids, like tea leaves or coffee beans, or you can blend liquids, like whiskies, in order to produce a mixture (also known as a blend) which has better qualities than any of the individual ingredients.

The trouble is that there is also the kitchen device known as a blender, and we do not normally use the verb "to blend" to mean "to use the blender".  Instead, when using the blender, we use a different verb to describe what exactly we want to do with the blender.  We can use it for chopping (nuts, coffee beans), pureeing or liquidizing (soft fruit, cooked fruit or vegetables), and other things.  Of course if you puree different things together, you are also blending them.


----------



## JulianStuart

yakor said:


> Let's not use them in the sense of operating the kitchen machines.
> Just tell me the main difference between them.
> Could one blend one apple? (I think yes, not only by a blender but if you use knife or spoon) Could one mix one single apple? (I think without a mixer it is impossible. To mix one apple has no sense unless you use a mixer) If not why?


This thread already contains several posts that answer this question as a "No".  You cannot mix (or blend) *only one thing at a time*. Period. Ever.  You can put *one item* in a blender and operate the machine but we do *NOT* call that blending.  Making puree (for example) with other kitchen implements from one item is also *NOT* called blending.  You are still being misled by trying to interpret the meaning of the verb blend by thinking of what can be done in a "blender".  If it helps your comprehension, you may consider that the machine should not be called a "blender"


----------

