FoodBanter.com - View Single Post

jmcquown[_2_]

On 1/26/2015 12:05 AM, isw wrote:
> In article >,
> wrote:
>
> -- snip --
>
>>>> Bringing it up to 195° makes absolutely no sense when you'll be
>>>> cooking it for hours on low. What temperature do you expect the
>>>> liquid to be at when you finishing cooking?
>>>
>>> 195 F. I expect a decent slow cooker to get to whatever temperature it's
>>> supposed to get to, and then *stay there*. And I expect the "Low'
>>> temperature to be 20-30 degrees lower then "High".
>>>
>>
>> I still have my copy of "Crockery Cookery" from the first wave of
>> crockpots of the mid-70s. They all took between two and three hours
>> to reach 195 on the slow cook setting. If you want the liquid to heat
>> faster, use a high heat setting.
>
> Yeah, it *was* running on "high". 320 watts just can't produce a fast
> rise in the temperature of several quarts of water.
>
>> I suggest garage saling this item, and buying a regular cooker, such as
>> a Rival "Chef's Pot," instead. Crocks do not meet your need.
>
> Actually, the All Clad slow cooker *perfectly* fit my needs. It came
> from a garage sale for $6 because the controller (such as it was) was
> broken and could only be set to "high", and not to "low" or "hold". But
> the heating element and crock were fine.
>
> After a bit of hacking around it now sports a precision temperature
> controller that holds whatever temperature it's set to within about one
> degree F, and is repurposed as a sous vide water bath *and* slow cooker.
>
> Isaac
>
You take a slow cooker far too seriously. Truly. It's a set it and
forget it appliance, not a science experiment.

Jill