"isw" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Moe DeLoughan > wrote:
>
>> On 1/22/2015 11:16 PM, isw wrote:
>>
>> > Cooking is chemistry. Chemical reactions proceed at a speed determined
>> > by temperature. The conversion of tough catch-in-your-teeth cartilage
>> > and gristle into unctious gelatin doesn't really get started until the
>> > temperature reaches about 165-170 F, and the meat needs to spend
>> > considerable time above that temperature for the process to do its
>> > magic
>> > (to a point, higher = faster). Waiting two or three hours for a slow
>> > cooker to get to a temperature where things can even get started is
>> > just
>> > wasteful.
>>
>> So in other words, you want a low cooker, not a slow cooker.
>
> What I want is a cooker that can be set to whatever temperature I want,
> gets to that temperature fairly quickly, and then maintains that
> temperature with half-degree precision.
>
>

Alto Shaam

isw wrote:
>
> What I want is a cooker that can be set to whatever temperature I want,
> gets to that temperature fairly quickly, and then maintains that
> temperature with half-degree precision.

That would be any ordinary stove cooktop and any beat to heck pot
w/lid and a candy/deep fry thermometer.
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_no...ry+thermometer
For half degree precision you'd need to spend big bucks for laboratory
quality equipment... however there is nothing anyone needs to cook
that needs better than +/- 3ºF... for stews/soups eyeballing bubble
activity is plenty accurate enough... I've never seen a Pro cook use
any thermometer to cook stews/soups. In your case I recommend an anal
fevor thermometer, for your brain, not the pot! LOL

In article >,
"Pico Rico" > wrote:

> "isw" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > Moe DeLoughan > wrote:
> >
> >> On 1/22/2015 11:16 PM, isw wrote:
> >>
> >> > Cooking is chemistry. Chemical reactions proceed at a speed determined
> >> > by temperature. The conversion of tough catch-in-your-teeth cartilage
> >> > and gristle into unctious gelatin doesn't really get started until the
> >> > temperature reaches about 165-170 F, and the meat needs to spend
> >> > considerable time above that temperature for the process to do its
> >> > magic
> >> > (to a point, higher = faster). Waiting two or three hours for a slow
> >> > cooker to get to a temperature where things can even get started is
> >> > just
> >> > wasteful.
> >>
> >> So in other words, you want a low cooker, not a slow cooker.
> >
> > What I want is a cooker that can be set to whatever temperature I want,
> > gets to that temperature fairly quickly, and then maintains that
> > temperature with half-degree precision.
> >
> >
>
> Alto Shaam

They cost $2,000 and up. Mine came in for $15, tops.

Isaac

In article >,
Brooklyn1 > wrote:

> isw wrote:
> >
> > What I want is a cooker that can be set to whatever temperature I want,
> > gets to that temperature fairly quickly, and then maintains that
> > temperature with half-degree precision.
>
> That would be any ordinary stove cooktop and any beat to heck pot
> w/lid and a candy/deep fry thermometer.

No, that would give you something that you *could* maintain at a
selected temperature provided you were willing to devote a lot of time
to twiddling the knob.

> For half degree precision you'd need to spend big bucks for laboratory
> quality equipment

Solid-state temperature measuring devices are only a few bucks, but you
have to know how to use them.

> however there is nothing anyone needs to cook
> that needs better than +/- 3ºF

A range of six degrees is too large if you're trying to turn out meat
that's cooked just the way you want, and +/- half a degree is what you
need to do eggs with good control.

> for stews/soups eyeballing bubble
> activity is plenty accurate enough

quite correct; those are certainly "non-critical" so far as temperature
is concerned.

> I've never seen a Pro cook use
> any thermometer to cook stews/soups.

Yup. And I don't use one either. But if I want the soup to simmer at 195
F, then that is the temperature I want it to *stay*, for as long as I
want to cook it.

> In your case I recommend an anal
> fevor thermometer, for your brain, not the pot! LOL

Tweaking someone really comes off a lot better if all the words are
spelled correctly.

Isaac

In article >,
wrote:

> On Wednesday, January 28, 2015 at 10:29:01 PM UTC-8, isw wrote:
> > In article >,
> > Moe DeLoughan > wrote:
> >
> > > On 1/22/2015 11:16 PM, isw wrote:
> > >
> > > > Cooking is chemistry. Chemical reactions proceed at a speed determined
> > > > by temperature. The conversion of tough catch-in-your-teeth cartilage
> > > > and gristle into unctious gelatin doesn't really get started until the
> > > > temperature reaches about 165-170 F, and the meat needs to spend
> > > > considerable time above that temperature for the process to do its magic
> > > > (to a point, higher = faster). Waiting two or three hours for a slow
> > > > cooker to get to a temperature where things can even get started is just
> > > > wasteful.
> > >
> > > So in other words, you want a low cooker, not a slow cooker.
> >
> > What I want is a cooker that can be set to whatever temperature I want,
> > gets to that temperature fairly quickly, and then maintains that
> > temperature with half-degree precision.
> >
> > And with the controller I added to the broken All Clad unit, I have two
> > out of three. the slow cooker that I started with just doesn't have a
> > powerful enough heater to get to a higher temperature very fast. And of
> > the three "wants", not having that one is at least possible to live with.
>
> Get rid of the crock -- the temp controller does everything
> the crock does, and more. The crock is a thermal mass that
> stabilizes the temperature. But in your application that
> means it simply slows down the heating process.

It's almost entirely the mass of water that determines how quickly the
temperature will rise. If you compare the specific heat of the liquid
(mostly water) to the specific heat of the crock, and figure how much
larger the mass of the water is than that of the crock, you'll see why
your statement is not correct.

Isaac

On Thursday, January 29, 2015 at 10:07:40 PM UTC-8, isw wrote:
> In article >,
> wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, January 28, 2015 at 10:29:01 PM UTC-8, isw wrote:
> > > In article >,
> > > Moe DeLoughan > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 1/22/2015 11:16 PM, isw wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Cooking is chemistry. Chemical reactions proceed at a speed determined
> > > > > by temperature. The conversion of tough catch-in-your-teeth cartilage
> > > > > and gristle into unctious gelatin doesn't really get started until the
> > > > > temperature reaches about 165-170 F, and the meat needs to spend
> > > > > considerable time above that temperature for the process to do its magic
> > > > > (to a point, higher = faster). Waiting two or three hours for a slow
> > > > > cooker to get to a temperature where things can even get started is just
> > > > > wasteful.
> > > >
> > > > So in other words, you want a low cooker, not a slow cooker.
> > >
> > > What I want is a cooker that can be set to whatever temperature I want,
> > > gets to that temperature fairly quickly, and then maintains that
> > > temperature with half-degree precision.
> > >
> > > And with the controller I added to the broken All Clad unit, I have two
> > > out of three. the slow cooker that I started with just doesn't have a
> > > powerful enough heater to get to a higher temperature very fast. And of
> > > the three "wants", not having that one is at least possible to live with.
> >
> > Get rid of the crock -- the temp controller does everything
> > the crock does, and more. The crock is a thermal mass that
> > stabilizes the temperature. But in your application that
> > means it simply slows down the heating process.
>
> It's almost entirely the mass of water that determines how quickly the
> temperature will rise. If you compare the specific heat of the liquid
> (mostly water) to the specific heat of the crock, and figure how much
> larger the mass of the water is than that of the crock, you'll see why
> your statement is not correct.
>

If the time to heat the contents does not depend on the crock,
then preheating the crock would have no effect, and thus Isaac's
original question was pointless.

QED

isw wrote:
> Brooklyn1 wrote:
>> isw wrote:
>> >
>> > What I want is a cooker that can be set to whatever temperature I want,
>> > gets to that temperature fairly quickly, and then maintains that
>> > temperature with half-degree precision.
>>
>> That would be any ordinary stove cooktop and any beat to heck pot
>> w/lid and a candy/deep fry thermometer.
>
>No, that would give you something that you *could* maintain at a
>selected temperature provided you were willing to devote a lot of time
>to twiddling the knob.

Twiddling knobs is something of which you are quite accomplished.

>> For half degree precision you'd need to spend big bucks for laboratory
>> quality equipment
>
>Solid-state temperature measuring devices are only a few bucks, but you
>have to know how to use them.

Measuring after the fact devices are quite different from temperature
generation/maintaining capability.

>> however there is nothing anyone needs to cook
>> that needs better than +/- 3ºF
>
>A range of six degrees is too large if you're trying to turn out meat
>that's cooked just the way you want.

Cooktop temperature accuracy is quite different from food's internal
temperature, especially since this thread is about slow cookers... To
maintain cooktop temperature accuracy of +/-1/2º one would need a very
controlled laboratory environment, where ambient temperature and
barametric pressure is highly controlled, as well as electric line
voltage. You are severely confused.

>> for stews/soups eyeballing bubble
>> activity is plenty accurate enough

>quite correct; those are certainly "non-critical" so far as temperature
>is concerned.

Pan temperature is no more critical for frying. Grill temperature can
be +/- 50ºF and will have no effect on the internal temperature
attained of a steak, none whatsoever except timewise. Baking
temperature is more critical than for stews/soups but there is nothing
one bakes that oven temperature accuracy greater than +/-10ºF matters
one iota. You are severely confused regarding cooking and
precision... I doubt you are capable of tying your shoes.

In article >,
wrote:

> On Thursday, January 29, 2015 at 10:07:40 PM UTC-8, isw wrote:
> > In article >,
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Wednesday, January 28, 2015 at 10:29:01 PM UTC-8, isw wrote:
> > > > In article >,
> > > > Moe DeLoughan > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On 1/22/2015 11:16 PM, isw wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Cooking is chemistry. Chemical reactions proceed at a speed
> > > > > > determined
> > > > > > by temperature. The conversion of tough catch-in-your-teeth
> > > > > > cartilage
> > > > > > and gristle into unctious gelatin doesn't really get started until
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > temperature reaches about 165-170 F, and the meat needs to spend
> > > > > > considerable time above that temperature for the process to do its
> > > > > > magic
> > > > > > (to a point, higher = faster). Waiting two or three hours for a
> > > > > > slow
> > > > > > cooker to get to a temperature where things can even get started is
> > > > > > just
> > > > > > wasteful.
> > > > >
> > > > > So in other words, you want a low cooker, not a slow cooker.
> > > >
> > > > What I want is a cooker that can be set to whatever temperature I want,
> > > > gets to that temperature fairly quickly, and then maintains that
> > > > temperature with half-degree precision.
> > > >
> > > > And with the controller I added to the broken All Clad unit, I have two
> > > > out of three. the slow cooker that I started with just doesn't have a
> > > > powerful enough heater to get to a higher temperature very fast. And of
> > > > the three "wants", not having that one is at least possible to live
> > > > with.
> > >
> > > Get rid of the crock -- the temp controller does everything
> > > the crock does, and more. The crock is a thermal mass that
> > > stabilizes the temperature. But in your application that
> > > means it simply slows down the heating process.
> >
> > It's almost entirely the mass of water that determines how quickly the
> > temperature will rise. If you compare the specific heat of the liquid
> > (mostly water) to the specific heat of the crock, and figure how much
> > larger the mass of the water is than that of the crock, you'll see why
> > your statement is not correct.
> >
>
> If the time to heat the contents does not depend on the crock,
> then preheating the crock would have no effect, and thus Isaac's
> original question was pointless.
>
> QED

Go back into the thread and read that part about putting a crock *full
of liquid* in the microwave, to heat up the *contents*.

Isaac

In article >,
Brooklyn1 > wrote:

> isw wrote:
> > Brooklyn1 wrote:
> >> isw wrote:
> >> >
> >> > What I want is a cooker that can be set to whatever temperature I want,
> >> > gets to that temperature fairly quickly, and then maintains that
> >> > temperature with half-degree precision.
> >>
> >> That would be any ordinary stove cooktop and any beat to heck pot
> >> w/lid and a candy/deep fry thermometer.
> >
> >No, that would give you something that you *could* maintain at a
> >selected temperature provided you were willing to devote a lot of time
> >to twiddling the knob.
>
> Twiddling knobs is something of which you are quite accomplished.

Damn right. I earned a good wage from doing it.

> >> For half degree precision you'd need to spend big bucks for laboratory
> >> quality equipment
> >
> >Solid-state temperature measuring devices are only a few bucks, but you
> >have to know how to use them.
>
> Measuring after the fact devices are quite different from temperature
> generation/maintaining capability.

Just so you know: a "temperature maintaining" device must have some
means to *measure* the temperature it's trying to control.

> >> however there is nothing anyone needs to cook
> >> that needs better than +/- 3ºF
> >
> >A range of six degrees is too large if you're trying to turn out meat
> >that's cooked just the way you want.
>
> Cooktop temperature accuracy is quite different from food's internal
> temperature, especially since this thread is about slow cookers... To
> maintain cooktop temperature accuracy of +/-1/2º one would need a very
> controlled laboratory environment, where ambient temperature and
> barametric pressure is highly controlled, as well as electric line
> voltage. You are severely confused.

That is just completely wrong. $100 to $200 sous vide controllers do it
every day.

> >> for stews/soups eyeballing bubble
> >> activity is plenty accurate enough
>
> >quite correct; those are certainly "non-critical" so far as temperature
> >is concerned.
>
> Pan temperature is no more critical for frying. Grill temperature can
> be +/- 50ºF and will have no effect on the internal temperature
> attained of a steak, none whatsoever except timewise. Baking
> temperature is more critical than for stews/soups but there is nothing
> one bakes that oven temperature accuracy greater than +/-10ºF matters
> one iota. You are severely confused regarding cooking and
> precision... I doubt you are capable of tying your shoes.

I'm better at shoes than you are at technical matters ...

Isaac

On Friday, January 30, 2015 at 8:33:00 PM UTC-8, isw wrote:
> In article >,
> wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, January 29, 2015 at 10:07:40 PM UTC-8, isw wrote:
> > > In article >,
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wednesday, January 28, 2015 at 10:29:01 PM UTC-8, isw wrote:
> > > > > In article >,
> > > > > Moe DeLoughan > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On 1/22/2015 11:16 PM, isw wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Cooking is chemistry. Chemical reactions proceed at a speed
> > > > > > > determined
> > > > > > > by temperature. The conversion of tough catch-in-your-teeth
> > > > > > > cartilage
> > > > > > > and gristle into unctious gelatin doesn't really get started until
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > temperature reaches about 165-170 F, and the meat needs to spend
> > > > > > > considerable time above that temperature for the process to do its
> > > > > > > magic
> > > > > > > (to a point, higher = faster). Waiting two or three hours for a
> > > > > > > slow
> > > > > > > cooker to get to a temperature where things can even get started is
> > > > > > > just
> > > > > > > wasteful.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So in other words, you want a low cooker, not a slow cooker.
> > > > >
> > > > > What I want is a cooker that can be set to whatever temperature I want,
> > > > > gets to that temperature fairly quickly, and then maintains that
> > > > > temperature with half-degree precision.
> > > > >
> > > > > And with the controller I added to the broken All Clad unit, I have two
> > > > > out of three. the slow cooker that I started with just doesn't have a
> > > > > powerful enough heater to get to a higher temperature very fast. And of
> > > > > the three "wants", not having that one is at least possible to live
> > > > > with.
> > > >
> > > > Get rid of the crock -- the temp controller does everything
> > > > the crock does, and more. The crock is a thermal mass that
> > > > stabilizes the temperature. But in your application that
> > > > means it simply slows down the heating process.
> > >
> > > It's almost entirely the mass of water that determines how quickly the
> > > temperature will rise. If you compare the specific heat of the liquid
> > > (mostly water) to the specific heat of the crock, and figure how much
> > > larger the mass of the water is than that of the crock, you'll see why
> > > your statement is not correct.
> > >
> >
> > If the time to heat the contents does not depend on the crock,
> > then preheating the crock would have no effect, and thus Isaac's
> > original question was pointless.
> >
> > QED
>
> Go back into the thread and read that part about putting a crock *full
> of liquid* in the microwave, to heat up the *contents*.
>
> Isaac

Nice back-pedaling.

On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 20:37:46 -0800, isw > wrote:

>In article >,
> Brooklyn1 > wrote:
>

>Just so you know: a "temperature maintaining" device must have some
>means to *measure* the temperature it's trying to control.

Not usually... not many stove cooktops incorporate a thermostat, and
those that do are not very accurate, likewise slow cookers. Slow
cooker temperature inaccuracy is primarilly a result of inconsistant
line voltage. Better results could be achieved were slow cookers
fitted with low voltage transformers as are heating/cooling
thermostats. If one fits their electronics with a line voltage
regulator the electronics operate more precisely and have a far longer
lifespan... my APC battery back-up incorporates a line voltage
regulator... it also records and displays incoming line voltage, which
varies considerably. I have an APC for each PC and for each TV.

In article >,
Brooklyn1 > wrote:

> On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 20:37:46 -0800, isw > wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > Brooklyn1 > wrote:
> >
>
> >Just so you know: a "temperature maintaining" device must have some
> >means to *measure* the temperature it's trying to control.
>
> Not usually... not many stove cooktops incorporate a thermostat, and
> those that do are not very accurate, likewise slow cookers. Slow
> cooker temperature inaccuracy is primarilly a result of inconsistant
> line voltage. Better results could be achieved were slow cookers
> fitted with low voltage transformers as are heating/cooling
> thermostats.

Which, as it turns out, is precisely what I added to that All Clad slow
cooker.

Isaac

In article >,
wrote:

-- snippage --

> > >
> > > If the time to heat the contents does not depend on the crock,
> > > then preheating the crock would have no effect, and thus Isaac's
> > > original question was pointless.
> > >
> > > QED
> >
> > Go back into the thread and read that part about putting a crock *full
> > of liquid* in the microwave, to heat up the *contents*.
> >
> > Isaac
>
> Nice back-pedaling.

From my original post on the subject:

--

From: isw >
Newsgroups: rec.food.cooking
Subject: Slow cooker rant and question
Organization: witzend
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.3b3 (Intel Mac OS X)
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 14:29:56 -0800
Message-ID: >

I have an older slow cooker by All Clad. It takes a very long time to
reach a stable temperature (hours), especially when it contains a large
amount of liquid. Since some cooking processes don't begin until the
temperature is above 160 or 170 F, there are times you might want to get
there as quickly as possible.

Looking for ways to speed up the heating process, I sent an email to All
Clad asking if I could stick the crock (with liquid) in the microwave,
to heat things up faster.

--

Backpedal away.

Isaac

On Sat, 31 Jan 2015 20:26:06 -0800, isw > wrote:

>In article >,
> wrote:
>
>-- snippage --
>
>> > >
>> > > If the time to heat the contents does not depend on the crock,
>> > > then preheating the crock would have no effect, and thus Isaac's
>> > > original question was pointless.
>> > >
>> > > QED
>> >
>> > Go back into the thread and read that part about putting a crock *full
>> > of liquid* in the microwave, to heat up the *contents*.
>> >
>> > Isaac
>>
>> Nice back-pedaling.
>
>From my original post on the subject:
>
>--
>
>From: isw >
>Newsgroups: rec.food.cooking
>Subject: Slow cooker rant and question
>Organization: witzend
>User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.3b3 (Intel Mac OS X)
>Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 14:29:56 -0800
>Message-ID: >
>
>I have an older slow cooker by All Clad. It takes a very long time to
>reach a stable temperature (hours), especially when it contains a large
>amount of liquid. Since some cooking processes don't begin until the
>temperature is above 160 or 170 F, there are times you might want to get
>there as quickly as possible.
>
>Looking for ways to speed up the heating process, I sent an email to All
>Clad asking if I could stick the crock (with liquid) in the microwave,
>to heat things up faster.

All-Crap must have gone into a hysterical fit of laughter at how low
IQ you are for not being able to think to add heated water to a slow
cooker rather than cold water... even the lowest IQ pinheads would be
able to figure out that it's a lot easier to heat water in a teakettle
than to stick a slow cooker into a microwave oven... what a doofuss...
you must have reached adulthood before you figured out to put your
socks on before your shoes. I knew immediately that you're a stupid
ass, anyone who wants to cook fast does NOT use a SLOW cooker. DOH

On 1/29/2015 11:44 PM, isw wrote:
> In article >,
> "Pico Rico" > wrote:
>
>> "isw" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> In article >,
>>> Moe DeLoughan > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/22/2015 11:16 PM, isw wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Cooking is chemistry. Chemical reactions proceed at a speed determined
>>>>> by temperature. The conversion of tough catch-in-your-teeth cartilage
>>>>> and gristle into unctious gelatin doesn't really get started until the
>>>>> temperature reaches about 165-170 F, and the meat needs to spend
>>>>> considerable time above that temperature for the process to do its
>>>>> magic
>>>>> (to a point, higher = faster). Waiting two or three hours for a slow
>>>>> cooker to get to a temperature where things can even get started is
>>>>> just
>>>>> wasteful.
>>>>
>>>> So in other words, you want a low cooker, not a slow cooker.
>>>
>>> What I want is a cooker that can be set to whatever temperature I want,
>>> gets to that temperature fairly quickly, and then maintains that
>>> temperature with half-degree precision.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Alto Shaam
>
> They cost $2,000 and up. Mine came in for $15, tops.
>

Yeah, and that's a good deal. Still, if I won the lottery, an Alto
Shaam would be one of the first things I'd buy.

"Moe DeLoughan" > wrote in message
...

> Yeah, and that's a good deal. Still, if I won the lottery, an Alto Shaam
> would be one of the first things I'd buy.

For me, it's a Lacanche stove and a walk in refrigerator and freezer. That's
just for starters. :-)

Cheri