Anyone try one of these? Any comments, good or bad?
It seems awfully cheap. I wonder how good the temp
control can be (if any) at this price. $29.95, shipping incl.

If it really works, it looks a lot more convenient than
a double boiler, and avoids having excess steam in
the kitchen during chocolate handling.

In article >,
Mark Thorson > wrote:

> Anyone try one of these? Any comments, good or bad?
> It seems awfully cheap. I wonder how good the temp
> control can be (if any) at this price. $29.95, shipping incl.
>
> If it really works, it looks a lot more convenient than
> a double boiler, and avoids having excess steam in
> the kitchen during chocolate handling.


One what? What brand? What retailer?

--
to respond, change "spamless.invalid" with "optonline.net"
please mail OT responses only

Scott wrote:

> One what? What brand? What retailer?

Oh, fer cryin' out loud. I neglected to post the link:

http://www.chocolatemelter.com/

Just a little while ago, I got to thinking the ideal
chocolate melter would not be a bowl using
conductive heating like this one. It would
be a high-wattage hot air gun (blow dryer).
A normal blow dryer for hair should produce
the required temperature.

To facilitate heat transfer, the chocolate should
be finely divided (for example, shredded with
the finest Microplane), then laid out in a thin
layer on an insulating surface. The hot air gun
would then be used to bring it up to the melting
temperature.

at Wed, 14 Apr 2004 04:58:40 GMT in >,
(Mark Thorson) wrote :

>Scott wrote:
>
>> One what? What brand? What retailer?
>
>Oh, fer cryin' out loud. I neglected to post the link:
>
>http://www.chocolatemelter.com/

I really suspect that for that low of a price you're getting little actual
value. Now, I haven't seen the product first-hand, but from the picture I
see some potential problems:

1) There's no stirrer. Chocolate should be stirred as it's melted,
otherwise it will melt unevenly. In addition, it takes longer to melt.

2) The temperature settings seem very coarse (low and high only). You need
a fine adjustment, particularly over the crucial tempering range (80F -
110F) so that you can temper your chocolate well. I saw no indicator of
temperature, either.

3) If those strawberries are to scale, then it's a *tiny* unit. It might
have a capacity of 200g max. That's virtually useless for a lot of
applications.

>
>Just a little while ago, I got to thinking the ideal
>chocolate melter would not be a bowl using
>conductive heating like this one. It would
>be a high-wattage hot air gun (blow dryer).
>A normal blow dryer for hair should produce
>the required temperature.

Actually, a blow dryer risks scorching the chocolate - the 1500W units can
reach a very high temperature in the airstream. Furthermore, too much air
will accelerate the evaporation of volatiles, potentially diminishing the
flavour. It's also not a very efficient heat transfer mechanism - a lot of
the heat is going to go into heating the surrounding air rather than
melting the chocolate. And you don't have much temperature control. Without
constant monitoring, it'll be difficult to keep the chocolate at the right
level.
>
>To facilitate heat transfer, the chocolate should
>be finely divided (for example, shredded with
>the finest Microplane), then laid out in a thin
>layer on an insulating surface. The hot air gun
>would then be used to bring it up to the melting
>temperature.

That sounds like a recipe for bits of chocolate all over the kitchen. The
dryer will blow them around like confetti.

Professional machines use a sealed water jacket around the melting vessel,
which virtually ensures even melting. It's like enclosing the chocolate in
a water-core Thermos. I suspect a similar design would be easy enough to
create in a home machine - basically like a different type of insert for a
crock-pot. You'd also want to add a temperature sensor and controller for
accurate results. In theory the same device could be suitable to chocolate
melting, custard production, saucemaking - anything requiring controlled
temperatures and lots of stirring.

--
Alex Rast

(remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply)

(Please NOTE: My correct e-mail address is in my Signature) On Wed, 14
Apr 2004 07:55:34 -0000, during the rec.food.chocolate Community News
Flash (Alex Rast) reported:

>Professional machines use a sealed water jacket around the melting vessel,
>which virtually ensures even melting.

Interesting. I've been melting chocolate in a bowl in the microwave
for about 90 seconds at fell heat. This leaves some unmelted chunks
which I just stir about to finish melting. Would you suggest putting
the bowl in another one with water?

--
Davida Chazan (The Chocolate Lady)
<davidac AT jdc DOT org DOT il>
~*~*~*~*~*~
"What you see before you, my friend, is the result of a lifetime of
chocolate."
--Katharine Hepburn (May 12, 1907 - June 29, 2003)
~*~*~*~*~*~
Links to my published poetry - http://davidachazan.homestead.com/
~*~*~*~*~*~

(Davida Chazan - The Chocolate Lady) wrote:
> (Please NOTE: My correct e-mail address is in my Signature) On Wed, 14
> Apr 2004 07:55:34 -0000, during the rec.food.chocolate Community News
> Flash (Alex Rast) reported:
>
> >Professional machines use a sealed water jacket around the melting vessel,
> >which virtually ensures even melting.
>
> Interesting. I've been melting chocolate in a bowl in the microwave
> for about 90 seconds at fell heat.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fell&r=67
fell - adj.
1. Of an inhumanly cruel nature; fierce: fell hordes.
2. Capable of destroying; lethal: a fell blow.
3. Dire; sinister: by some fell chance.

You must have (dramatic chord) The Microwave from Hades! It's surprising
that it couldn't completely melt the chocolate. (And the bowl, and the
house, and the earth...)

--
http://ChocoLocate.com/ - The Chocolate Lovers' Page, established 1994.

at Thu, 15 Apr 2004 12:51:38 GMT in
>, (Davida
Chazan) wrote :

>(Please NOTE: My correct e-mail address is in my Signature) On Wed, 14
>Apr 2004 07:55:34 -0000, during the rec.food.chocolate Community News
>Flash (Alex Rast) reported:
>
>>Professional machines use a sealed water jacket around the melting
>>vessel, which virtually ensures even melting.
>
>Interesting. I've been melting chocolate in a bowl in the microwave
>for about 90 seconds at fell heat. This leaves some unmelted chunks
>which I just stir about to finish melting. Would you suggest putting
>the bowl in another one with water?
>

I'd stay away from the microwave altogether because microwaves are
notorious for hot spots. So some parts of the chocolate are at risk of
scorching where others would be unaffected.

I don't think using a second bowl in the microwave would have much impact
because the heat source in a microwave oven isn't in a specific place.
Rather, the microwave radiation is all through the internal space, so that
the heat is "everywhere" - not like the double-boiler where you're putting
a body of water between the chocolate and the heat source - in this case
the burner of a stovetop.
--
Alex Rast

(remove d., .7, not, and .NOSPAM to reply)

"Mark Thorson" > wrote in message
...
> Anyone try one of these? Any comments, good or bad?
> It seems awfully cheap. I wonder how good the temp
> control can be (if any) at this price. $29.95, shipping incl.
>
> If it really works, it looks a lot more convenient than
> a double boiler, and avoids having excess steam in
> the kitchen during chocolate handling.

Steam? Even in a double boiler, you don't want the water under chocolate to
be actually boiling....

Janet Puistonen wrote:

> Steam? Even in a double boiler, you don't want the water under chocolate to
> be actually boiling....

Not too much, that's true. A little bit won't hurt in the least.

--
Reg email: RegForte (at) (that free MS email service) (dot) com