"isw" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Bryan-TGWWW > wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 4:30:00 PM UTC-6, isw wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > Has anybody tried sticking a slow cooker crock in the microwave?
>> >
>> I have done it many times with the little (1.5qt?) one. I fill it about
>> halfway with water, even if I'm going to empty most/all of the water out
>> after I get it hot.
>
> Finally -- a useful reply.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Isaac

I have seen web sites saying don't do this with the All Clad slow cooker
they are selling. That is probably why All Clad asked your model number.

I thought the quick and easy way to determine if any type of dish is
microwavable is to put it in empty for a short time (perhaps a longer time
with a large item) and see if it gets hot. It should not.

On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 7:16:57 PM UTC-10, isw wrote:
> In article >,
> sf > wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 21 Jan 2015 22:27:19 -0800 (PST),
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 4:18:29 PM UTC-8, Julie Bove wrote:
> > > > "isw" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > So the question:
> > > > >
> > > > > Has anybody tried sticking a slow cooker crock in the microwave?
> > > > >
> > > > > Isaac
> > > >
> > > > Slow cookers are cheap these days. If it is old, then just get a new
> > > > one.
> > > > It obviously is no longer working properly.
> > >
> > > The food safety police have meddled with slow cookers, and they now
> > > must run hotter. I would cherish the old ones.
> >
> > I'm new to this slow cooker thing, but I think mine works just fine.
> > Can't imagine them being any slower. Wouldn't want that anyway.
>
> 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.
>
> Isaac

Your expectations are way too high. Things just go smoother if you just lower your expectations. If a slow cooker can cook something in less than 5 hours, it shouldn't be called a slow cooker. I just got a slow cooker. I expect to leave food in there for no less than 8 hours. I want to set it and forget it!

On Thu, 22 Jan 2015 21:46:47 -0800, The Other Guy
> wrote:

>On Thu, 22 Jan 2015 21:05:43 -0800, isw > wrote:
>
>>Please explain how knowing my phone number will help them to understand
>>whether I can stick their crock in a microwave.
>
>MANY companies use phone numbers for their database entries
>to track customers, and whether they have called before.

Typically a company will have several employees on their customer
service staff who just answer calls and then direct the information to
the few techies who will phone back with the technical assistance...
just had that occur with my La Crosse weather station, my problem was
directed to the appropriate techie who phoned me an hour later and we
we were on the phone for over an hour as he directed me how to
recalibrate the unit. The person who first answered my call was not
at all technical, just took basic information. It's very common for
the appropriate techie having to call back, been through the procedure
countless times with all sorts of items, once had several techies
calling to help with a Cannon printer until who they said was their
one "Super Tech" was able to resolve the issue, I spent three days on
the phone constantly moving up their techie grades. Not long ago had
the same with a Logitech wireless keyboard, after all day on the phone
they sent me a new one... all that time wasted over a $49 keyboard,
and countless emails before they'd actually send it... they required a
photo of the bottom of the keyboard showing the serial number, they
lost the photo twice, then they lost my mailing address a few times.
It was a nightmare... and the reason for my original call was because
the little plastic legs that tilt the keyboard both broke, cheap thin
plastic. They did a lot of research but were unable to replace them.
Before I ever got the new keyboard I had used a couple of self
sticking felt chair leg buttons, actually worked better than their
plastic legs... I'm still using that keyboard, the new one is in its
box stored away unused... even came with a new wireless mouse. These
days many companys don't provide a customer service phone number, only
an email form at their web site for you to fill out and wait for them
to contact you.

On 2015-01-23 12:14 PM, sf wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Jan 2015 10:18:00 -0500, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
>> On 2015-01-23 12:29 AM, sf wrote:
>>
>>>>>> I have done it many times with the little (1.5qt?) one. I fill it about
>>>>>> halfway with water, even if I'm going to empty most/all of the water out
>>>>>> after I get it hot.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a certain cognitive dissonance associated with the OP using a
>>>>> slow cooker, speeding up the process and then complaining about how
>>>>> fast they cook.
>>>>
>>>> That is more like irony than cognitive dissonance.
>>>>
>>> I don't think you're in love with the word irony and have no idea what
>>> cognitive dissonance is.
>>>
>>
>> That's curious, because when I read you comment I thought you were the
>> one who had no idea what cognitive dissonance. Maybe it should be
>> defined as a word that some people thing they thrown around and sound
>> impressive and no one else will know that you are using it incorrectly.
>> But.... nice try.
>>
> Digging deeper?

Not me. You can't take four years of university psychology courses and
not know something about. It is more about attitudes and behaviours than
looking for ways to speed up the process of getting the contents up to
the cooking temperature quickly. All he wants to do is to heat up some
ingredients to the cooking zone and he is concerned about whether or not
he can put the crock in the microwave. It's not like he is losing a lot
of sleep over doing something that he thinks he knows is not safe. He
wants to know if it is.

The Other Guy wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Jan 2015 21:05:43 -0800, isw > wrote:
>
>>Please explain how knowing my phone number will help them to understand
>>whether I can stick their crock in a microwave.
>
> MANY companies use phone numbers for their database entries
> to track customers, and whether they have called before.

Whirlpool customer service was doing this in 1990 when I temped for them

On 1/23/15 10:18 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2015-01-23 12:29 AM, sf wrote:
>
>> I don't think you're in love with the word irony and have no idea what
>> cognitive dissonance is.
>
> ... I thought you were the one who had no idea what cognitive dissonance.

Right now I'm assuming that neither of you is a native English-speaker. 8

-- Larry

On Fri, 23 Jan 2015 15:36:58 -0500, Dave Smith
> wrote:

> On 2015-01-23 12:14 PM, sf wrote:
> > On Fri, 23 Jan 2015 10:18:00 -0500, Dave Smith
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> On 2015-01-23 12:29 AM, sf wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>> I have done it many times with the little (1.5qt?) one. I fill it about
> >>>>>> halfway with water, even if I'm going to empty most/all of the water out
> >>>>>> after I get it hot.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> There is a certain cognitive dissonance associated with the OP using a
> >>>>> slow cooker, speeding up the process and then complaining about how
> >>>>> fast they cook.
> >>>>
> >>>> That is more like irony than cognitive dissonance.
> >>>>
> >>> I don't think you're in love with the word irony and have no idea what
> >>> cognitive dissonance is.
> >>>
> >>
> >> That's curious, because when I read you comment I thought you were the
> >> one who had no idea what cognitive dissonance. Maybe it should be
> >> defined as a word that some people thing they thrown around and sound
> >> impressive and no one else will know that you are using it incorrectly.
> >> But.... nice try.
> >>
> > Digging deeper?
>
> Not me. You can't take four years of university psychology courses and
> not know something about. It is more about attitudes and behaviours than
> looking for ways to speed up the process of getting the contents up to
> the cooking temperature quickly. All he wants to do is to heat up some
> ingredients to the cooking zone and he is concerned about whether or not
> he can put the crock in the microwave. It's not like he is losing a lot
> of sleep over doing something that he thinks he knows is not safe. He
> wants to know if it is.
>
He's making a mountain out of a molehill.

--
A kitchen without a cook is just a room

On Fri, 23 Jan 2015 21:33:47 -0500, pltrgyst > wrote:

> On 1/23/15 10:18 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
> > On 2015-01-23 12:29 AM, sf wrote:
> >
> >> I don't think you're in love with the word irony and have no idea what
> >> cognitive dissonance is.
> >
> > ... I thought you were the one who had no idea what cognitive dissonance.
>
> Right now I'm assuming that neither of you is a native English-speaker. 8
>
LOL

--
A kitchen without a cook is just a room

In article >,
"Julie Bove" > wrote:

> "isw" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 2:30:00 PM UTC-8, isw wrote:
> >> > 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.
> >> >
> >> > Here is their response, in full:
> >> >
> >> > "Please respond with the entire REF number (typically 10-15 characters
> >> > in length) from the underside of your All Clad appliance, your complete
> >> > physical address (no PO box please) and telephone number. Once we have
> >> > that information we will be able to better assist you with your
> >> > request."
> >> >
> >> > Which is as content-free as the Republican's response to last night's
> >> > SOTU.
> >>
> >> They are trying to understand the problem.
> >
> > Please explain how knowing my phone number will help them to understand
> > whether I can stick their crock in a microwave.
> >
> >> You say this is an older model. Has its behavior changed since you first
> >> received it?
> >
> > Dunno; I got it as a "gift", used.
> >
> >> Perhaps something is broken.They would like to know which one
> >> you have in order to properly advise you.
> >
> > Please explain how knowing whether it is broken or not would affect
> > whether I can stick the crock in a nuker.
> >
> >> But what I would want to do first, is compare your experience to the
> >> time-temperature plots for that model.
> >
> > I'd love to have that; where do I get it? The All Clad web site doesn't
> > even have a downloadable version of the user manual (for any of their
> > products, as far as I can tell).
> >
> > Isaac
>
> My former roommate got one as a gift, used. It didn't work right. Just
> toss it and get a new one.

From what I hear, nearly all new ones "don't work right" because they
get too hot (because of government meddling).

Isaac

In article >,
wrote:

--snippage--

> But your real question is not "how can I stick my crock in the microwave,"
> but "how can I speed up cooking in my slow cooker"?

No, it wasn't. It was "can I stick the crock in the nuker?". I know
exactly why the slow cooker takes so long to heat up -- it only draws
320 watts from the power line. Do the numbers.


> This real question suggests that your slow cooker is TOOOO SLOWWW.
> So maybe it's broken.

No, it's not. The electrical consumption is in line with the name plate
rating. I measured it.

> > > But what I would want to do first, is compare your experience to the
> > > time-temperature plots for that model.
> >
> > I'd love to have that; where do I get it? The All Clad web site doesn't
> > even have a downloadable version of the user manual (for any of their
> > products, as far as I can tell).
> >
>
> They might have to create such plots. But maybe Consumer Distorts or
> some such did one.

In another call to All Clad, I mentioned that there was no temperature
stated in the user manual for either "High" or "Low". I asked how hot it
should get.

The answer was "240 degrees F". Which is, of course, nonsense, unless
they filled the test unit with oil instead of water.

Isaac

In article >,
The Other Guy > wrote:

> On Thu, 22 Jan 2015 21:05:43 -0800, isw > wrote:
>
> >I'd love to have that; where do I get it? The All Clad web site doesn't
> >even have a downloadable version of the user manual (for any of their
> >products, as far as I can tell).
>
> There IS a PDF download for the care of all their stainless products.

Yes, but not for their electrical appliances -- or it's not where the
site map says it should be ...

Isaac

In article >,
The Other Guy > wrote:

> On Thu, 22 Jan 2015 21:05:43 -0800, isw > wrote:
>
> >Please explain how knowing my phone number will help them to understand
> >whether I can stick their crock in a microwave.
>
> MANY companies use phone numbers for their database entries
> to track customers, and whether they have called before

Yup. And many companies don't take care of their collections of personal
data, and it gets stolen. Home Depot, Target, Bank of America, and Sony
have shown how that works. I'm not interested in playing that game.

Isaac

In article >,
"Pico Rico" > wrote:

> "isw" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > Bryan-TGWWW > wrote:
> >
> >> On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 4:30:00 PM UTC-6, isw wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Has anybody tried sticking a slow cooker crock in the microwave?
> >> >
> >> I have done it many times with the little (1.5qt?) one. I fill it about
> >> halfway with water, even if I'm going to empty most/all of the water out
> >> after I get it hot.
> >
> > Finally -- a useful reply.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Isaac
>
> I have seen web sites saying don't do this with the All Clad slow cooker
> they are selling. That is probably why All Clad asked your model number.
>
> I thought the quick and easy way to determine if any type of dish is
> microwavable is to put it in empty for a short time (perhaps a longer time
> with a large item) and see if it gets hot. It should not.

Correct. And I probably will do that when I have time.

Isaac

In article >,
"Julie Bove" > wrote:

> "isw" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >,
> > sf > wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 21 Jan 2015 22:21:53 -0800, isw > wrote:
> >>
> >> > In article >,
> >> > " > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > > Then add the hot liquid to your crockpot that
> >> > > is on and it should start cooking much sooner.
> >> >
> >> > Which would cause a thermal shock to the crock.
> >>
> >> Why? Is your crock coming directly from the freezer?
> >>
> >> > Whether that would matter or not, I'm not interested in finding out.
> >> >
> >> Why don't you set it on high for one hour and then turn it down?
> >
> > Because even keeping it on high (which is how I had it set), it still
> > took nearly three hours to get up to about 195 F (its stable "high"
> > temperature).
> >
> > Isaac
>
> Then I would say that it's time to get a new one!

As I said in another post, that heat-up time is perfectly consistent
with the fact that it only has a 320 watt heating element.

Isaac

In article >,
sf > wrote:

> On Thu, 22 Jan 2015 23:46:49 -0800, "Julie Bove"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> > "isw" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In article >,
> > > sf > wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Wed, 21 Jan 2015 22:21:53 -0800, isw > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > In article >,
> > >> > " > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > > Then add the hot liquid to your crockpot that
> > >> > > is on and it should start cooking much sooner.
> > >> >
> > >> > Which would cause a thermal shock to the crock.
> > >>
> > >> Why? Is your crock coming directly from the freezer?
> > >>
> > >> > Whether that would matter or not, I'm not interested in finding out.
> > >> >
> > >> Why don't you set it on high for one hour and then turn it down?
> > >
> > > Because even keeping it on high (which is how I had it set), it still
> > > took nearly three hours to get up to about 195 F (its stable "high"
> > > temperature).
> > >
> > > Isaac
> >
> > Then I would say that it's time to get a new one!
>
> That answers my "when do you know it's time for a new one" question I
> had about mine. I take the temperature of liquid when it's has been
> on low with the lid on for hours and it's just a couple of degrees
> below boiling. I like that. I see little champagne bubbles sometime,
> but it's definitely not boiling and I think it's a great temperature
> for making a nice clear stock.

That's not a bad temperature for "High", but not so good for "Low",
according to things I see on various cooking sites.

> Frankly, I'd be willing to bet money that a big part of isw's time
> problem is that he takes the lid off too much to test the temperature.

I'll take that bey. You'd lose.

> It takes 20 minutes for the contents to get back up to temp

The recovery time depends on a whole lot of other variables; that "20
minute" number is way too simplistic.

Isaac

In article >,
sf > wrote:

> On Thu, 22 Jan 2015 20:56:08 -0800, isw > wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > sf > wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 21 Jan 2015 22:21:53 -0800, isw > wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article >,
> > > > " > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Then add the hot liquid to your crockpot that
> > > > > is on and it should start cooking much sooner.
> > > >
> > > > Which would cause a thermal shock to the crock.
> > >
> > > Why? Is your crock coming directly from the freezer?
> > >
> > > > Whether that would matter or not, I'm not interested in finding out.
> > > >
> > > Why don't you set it on high for one hour and then turn it down?
> >
> > Because even keeping it on high (which is how I had it set), it still
> > took nearly three hours to get up to about 195 F (its stable "high"
> > temperature).
> >
> 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".

Isaac

In article >,
sf > wrote:

> On Thu, 22 Jan 2015 18:49:47 -0500, jmcquown >
> wrote:
>
> > On 1/22/2015 10:32 AM, sf wrote:
> > > On Thu, 22 Jan 2015 03:46:26 -0800 (PST), Bryan-TGWWW
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 4:30:00 PM UTC-6, isw wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Has anybody tried sticking a slow cooker crock in the microwave?
> > >>>
> > >> I have done it many times with the little (1.5qt?) one. I fill it about
> > >> halfway with water, even if I'm going to empty most/all of the water out
> > >> after I get it hot.
> > >>>
> > >
> > > There is a certain cognitive dissonance associated with the OP using a
> > > slow cooker, speeding up the process and then complaining about how
> > > fast they cook.
> > >
> > The OP said it took too long to get up to temp when making soups, not
> > that the slow cooker cooked too fast.
> >
> He started off complaining about how slow cookers are too hot.

I suggest you go back and re-read the thread, more carefully this time.
Take notes if you need to.

Isaac

In article >,
Dave Smith > wrote:

> On 2015-01-23 12:14 PM, sf wrote:
> > On Fri, 23 Jan 2015 10:18:00 -0500, Dave Smith
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> On 2015-01-23 12:29 AM, sf wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>> I have done it many times with the little (1.5qt?) one. I fill it
> >>>>>> about
> >>>>>> halfway with water, even if I'm going to empty most/all of the water
> >>>>>> out
> >>>>>> after I get it hot.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> There is a certain cognitive dissonance associated with the OP using a
> >>>>> slow cooker, speeding up the process and then complaining about how
> >>>>> fast they cook.
> >>>>
> >>>> That is more like irony than cognitive dissonance.
> >>>>
> >>> I don't think you're in love with the word irony and have no idea what
> >>> cognitive dissonance is.
> >>>
> >>
> >> That's curious, because when I read you comment I thought you were the
> >> one who had no idea what cognitive dissonance. Maybe it should be
> >> defined as a word that some people thing they thrown around and sound
> >> impressive and no one else will know that you are using it incorrectly.
> >> But.... nice try.
> >>
> > Digging deeper?
>
> Not me. You can't take four years of university psychology courses and
> not know something about. It is more about attitudes and behaviours than
> looking for ways to speed up the process of getting the contents up to
> the cooking temperature quickly. All he wants to do is to heat up some
> ingredients to the cooking zone and he is concerned about whether or not
> he can put the crock in the microwave. It's not like he is losing a lot
> of sleep over doing something that he thinks he knows is not safe. He
> wants to know if it is.

A very good assessment. Thank you.

Isaac

On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 6:56:13 PM UTC-10, isw wrote:
> In article >,
> sf > wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 21 Jan 2015 22:21:53 -0800, isw > wrote:
> >
> > > In article >,
> > > " > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > Then add the hot liquid to your crockpot that
> > > > is on and it should start cooking much sooner.
> > >
> > > Which would cause a thermal shock to the crock.
> >
> > Why? Is your crock coming directly from the freezer?
> >
> > > Whether that would matter or not, I'm not interested in finding out.
> > >
> > Why don't you set it on high for one hour and then turn it down?
>
> Because even keeping it on high (which is how I had it set), it still
> took nearly three hours to get up to about 195 F (its stable "high"
> temperature).
>
> Isaac

Slow cooking is not for those in a hurry. I braised a chuck roast on the stove today. It was set at the 1.5 setting on my induction. Then I went to work. It was done by the time I cam home. It was a 9 hour braise. Not letting the cooking temperature go above boiling is probably the best way to do this. Well that's my awesome opinion anyway.

On Fri, 23 Jan 2015 21:56:48 -0800, isw > wrote:

> In article >,
> sf > wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 22 Jan 2015 23:46:49 -0800, "Julie Bove"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > "isw" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > In article >,
> > > > sf > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> On Wed, 21 Jan 2015 22:21:53 -0800, isw > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > In article >,
> > > >> > " > wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > Then add the hot liquid to your crockpot that
> > > >> > > is on and it should start cooking much sooner.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Which would cause a thermal shock to the crock.
> > > >>
> > > >> Why? Is your crock coming directly from the freezer?
> > > >>
> > > >> > Whether that would matter or not, I'm not interested in finding out.
> > > >> >
> > > >> Why don't you set it on high for one hour and then turn it down?
> > > >
> > > > Because even keeping it on high (which is how I had it set), it still
> > > > took nearly three hours to get up to about 195 F (its stable "high"
> > > > temperature).
> > > >
> > > > Isaac
> > >
> > > Then I would say that it's time to get a new one!
> >
> > That answers my "when do you know it's time for a new one" question I
> > had about mine. I take the temperature of liquid when it's has been
> > on low with the lid on for hours and it's just a couple of degrees
> > below boiling. I like that. I see little champagne bubbles sometime,
> > but it's definitely not boiling and I think it's a great temperature
> > for making a nice clear stock.
>
> That's not a bad temperature for "High", but not so good for "Low",
> according to things I see on various cooking sites.
>
> > Frankly, I'd be willing to bet money that a big part of isw's time
> > problem is that he takes the lid off too much to test the temperature.
>
> I'll take that bey. You'd lose.
>
> > It takes 20 minutes for the contents to get back up to temp
>
> The recovery time depends on a whole lot of other variables; that "20
> minute" number is way too simplistic.
>
Time to move on. The mechanics of using a slow cooker is obviously too
complicated for you.

--
A kitchen without a cook is just a room

On Fri, 23 Jan 2015 21:44:30 -0800, isw > wrote:

> The electrical consumption is in line with the name plate
> rating. I measured it.

So, why are you complaining?

--
A kitchen without a cook is just a room

On Fri, 23 Jan 2015 21:33:07 -0800, isw > wrote:

> From what I hear, nearly all new ones "don't work right" because they
> get too hot (because of government meddling).

Mine works just fine. You're the one with a problem.

--
A kitchen without a cook is just a room

On Fri, 23 Jan 2015 22:02:41 -0800, isw > wrote:

> In article >,
> Dave Smith > wrote:
>
> >
> > Not me. You can't take four years of university psychology courses and
> > not know something about. It is more about attitudes and behaviours than
> > looking for ways to speed up the process of getting the contents up to
> > the cooking temperature quickly. All he wants to do is to heat up some
> > ingredients to the cooking zone and he is concerned about whether or not
> > he can put the crock in the microwave. It's not like he is losing a lot
> > of sleep over doing something that he thinks he knows is not safe. He
> > wants to know if it is.
>
> A very good assessment. Thank you.
>
Use a different cooking method. You're welcome.


--
A kitchen without a cook is just a room

On Fri, 23 Jan 2015 22:00:59 -0800, isw > wrote:

> In article >,
> sf > wrote:
>
>
> I suggest you go back and re-read the thread, more carefully this time.
> Take notes if you need to.
>
I suggest you go back to using pots & pans.

--
A kitchen without a cook is just a room

On 2015-01-23 10:46 PM, sf wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Jan 2015 15:36:58 -0500, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
>> On 2015-01-23 12:14 PM, sf wrote:
>>> On Fri, 23 Jan 2015 10:18:00 -0500, Dave Smith
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2015-01-23 12:29 AM, sf wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have done it many times with the little (1.5qt?) one. I fill it about
>>>>>>>> halfway with water, even if I'm going to empty most/all of the water out
>>>>>>>> after I get it hot.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is a certain cognitive dissonance associated with the OP using a
>>>>>>> slow cooker, speeding up the process and then complaining about how
>>>>>>> fast they cook.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is more like irony than cognitive dissonance.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think you're in love with the word irony and have no idea what
>>>>> cognitive dissonance is.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's curious, because when I read you comment I thought you were the
>>>> one who had no idea what cognitive dissonance. Maybe it should be
>>>> defined as a word that some people thing they thrown around and sound
>>>> impressive and no one else will know that you are using it incorrectly.
>>>> But.... nice try.
>>>>
>>> Digging deeper?
>>
>> Not me. You can't take four years of university psychology courses and
>> not know something about. It is more about attitudes and behaviours than
>> looking for ways to speed up the process of getting the contents up to
>> the cooking temperature quickly. All he wants to do is to heat up some
>> ingredients to the cooking zone and he is concerned about whether or not
>> he can put the crock in the microwave. It's not like he is losing a lot
>> of sleep over doing something that he thinks he knows is not safe. He
>> wants to know if it is.
>>
> He's making a mountain out of a molehill.
>


Oh? I am not the one who used a fancy term incorrectly. You could have
acknowledged that instead of suggesting that I was the one who didn't
know what it meant.

On Sat, 24 Jan 2015 08:56:28 -0500, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>
>
> Oh? I am not the one who used a fancy term incorrectly. You could have
> acknowledged that instead of suggesting that I was the one who didn't
> know what it meant.

You can define a term but can't recognize when it's used correctly.

--
A kitchen without a cook is just a room

Brooklyn1 wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> gregz wrote:
> > isw wrote:
> >> 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.
> >>
> >> Here is their response, in full:
> >>
> >> "Please respond with the entire REF number (typically 10-15
> characters >> in length) from the underside of your All Clad
> appliance, your complete >> physical address (no PO box please) and
> telephone number. Once we have >> that information we will be able
> to better assist you with your request." >>
> >> So the question:
> >>
> >> Has anybody tried sticking a slow cooker crock in the microwave?
> >>
> >> Isaac
>
> You do that each time you stick your empty head up your ass.
>
> > Transfer from cooktop pot to crock pot after heating. Crock watts,
> > 250 microwave 900 cooktop, over 2000 .
>
> Wouldn't it make more sense and be a lot easier after reaching
> temperature to simply lower the temperature of the cooktop?
>
> Um, stovetops don't need to run at full power, therefore use less
> energy than a crockpot, but it's nice to be able to bring a pot up to
> heat in a hurry and be able to bring it back to heat quickly when an
> ingredient is added... I see no use for a crockpot, run your stovetop
> on its lowest setting... with a larger pot (6+ quarts) you'll even
> need to crank it up to maintain heat. Crockpots are really for people
> who can't (don't know how to) cook... crockpots are cooking as paint
> by numbers is art. I've put up an 8 qt pot of stew on a stovetop in
> the morning and it was perfectly cooked for dinner... I do many slow
> cooked dishes on the stovetop... in fact last year I gave away my
> crackpot... I think they're a PIA and don't cook well. Before I'd
> ever buy another slowcooker I'd buy a microwave oven with a probe, had
> one years ago, it worked wonderfully well, probably even more features
> now... if you add something they automatically switch to a higher
> power to come back to temperature quickly and then switch back to
> maintain the set temperature. The probe costs less than a crockpot
> and then you can use any covered microwave safe caserole, it's nice to
> be able to stir, taste, reseason, and not need to wait hours longer to
> finish the dish. Plus with a microwave oven with a probe you don't
> need a place to store the fercocktah crockpot.
> http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1...ent/8503050474
> _1_microwave-oven-microwave-cooking-probe

Sheldon, crockpots work well but you have to learn how to use them wth
the right recipes, something you evidently have not done.

A microwave probe makes no difference at all in the cost of cooking but
it does mean a speedy 'fast food' and that means it will not develop
the same as a real dish will.

--

On Saturday, January 24, 2015 at 4:34:59 AM UTC-8, sf wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Jan 2015 21:56:48 -0800, isw > wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > sf > wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, 22 Jan 2015 23:46:49 -0800, "Julie Bove"
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > "isw" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > In article >,
> > > > > sf > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> On Wed, 21 Jan 2015 22:21:53 -0800, isw > wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > In article >,
> > > > >> > " > wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > Then add the hot liquid to your crockpot that
> > > > >> > > is on and it should start cooking much sooner.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Which would cause a thermal shock to the crock.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Why? Is your crock coming directly from the freezer?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > Whether that would matter or not, I'm not interested in finding out.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> Why don't you set it on high for one hour and then turn it down?
> > > > >
> > > > > Because even keeping it on high (which is how I had it set), it still
> > > > > took nearly three hours to get up to about 195 F (its stable "high"
> > > > > temperature).
> > > > >
> > > > > Isaac
> > > >
> > > > Then I would say that it's time to get a new one!
> > >
> > > That answers my "when do you know it's time for a new one" question I
> > > had about mine. I take the temperature of liquid when it's has been
> > > on low with the lid on for hours and it's just a couple of degrees
> > > below boiling. I like that. I see little champagne bubbles sometime,
> > > but it's definitely not boiling and I think it's a great temperature
> > > for making a nice clear stock.
> >
> > That's not a bad temperature for "High", but not so good for "Low",
> > according to things I see on various cooking sites.
> >
> > > Frankly, I'd be willing to bet money that a big part of isw's time
> > > problem is that he takes the lid off too much to test the temperature.
> >
> > I'll take that bey. You'd lose.
> >
> > > It takes 20 minutes for the contents to get back up to temp
> >
> > The recovery time depends on a whole lot of other variables; that "20
> > minute" number is way too simplistic.
> >
> Time to move on. The mechanics of using a slow cooker is obviously too
> complicated for you.
>

+1

On Friday, January 23, 2015 at 9:59:39 PM UTC-8, isw wrote:
> In article >,
> sf > wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 22 Jan 2015 20:56:08 -0800, isw > wrote:
> >
> > > In article >,
> > > sf > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, 21 Jan 2015 22:21:53 -0800, isw > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > In article >,
> > > > > " > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Then add the hot liquid to your crockpot that
> > > > > > is on and it should start cooking much sooner.
> > > > >
> > > > > Which would cause a thermal shock to the crock.
> > > >
> > > > Why? Is your crock coming directly from the freezer?
> > > >
> > > > > Whether that would matter or not, I'm not interested in finding out.
> > > > >
> > > > Why don't you set it on high for one hour and then turn it down?
> > >
> > > Because even keeping it on high (which is how I had it set), it still
> > > took nearly three hours to get up to about 195 F (its stable "high"
> > > temperature).
> > >
> > 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.

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.

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

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

On 2015-01-28, jmcquown > wrote:

> You take a slow cooker far too seriously. Truly. It's a set it and
> forget it appliance, not a science experiment.

No! He's not.

I'm also looking for a temp settable cooker. The HamBeach digital
does not maintain any set temp, it merely shuts off when it reaches
the temp setting. Not good enough. Even the expensive Braville
digital slow/pressure cooker does not allow one to set a temp to be
maintained. Looks like I'm gonna hafta hack together a temp
controller to do the job, jes like isw did.

nb

In article >,
notbob > wrote:

> On 2015-01-28, jmcquown > wrote:
>
> > You take a slow cooker far too seriously. Truly. It's a set it and
> > forget it appliance, not a science experiment.
>
> No! He's not.
>
> I'm also looking for a temp settable cooker. The HamBeach digital
> does not maintain any set temp, it merely shuts off when it reaches
> the temp setting. Not good enough. Even the expensive Braville
> digital slow/pressure cooker does not allow one to set a temp to be
> maintained. Looks like I'm gonna hafta hack together a temp
> controller to do the job, jes like isw did.

Arduino is your friend...

Isaac

On Tue, 27 Jan 2015 19:07:04 -0500, jmcquown >
wrote:

> > Isaac
> >
> You take a slow cooker far too seriously. Truly. It's a set it and
> forget it appliance, not a science experiment.

+1

--
A kitchen without a cook is just a room

On 28 Jan 2015 00:25:38 GMT, notbob > wrote:

> On 2015-01-28, jmcquown > wrote:
>
> > You take a slow cooker far too seriously. Truly. It's a set it and
> > forget it appliance, not a science experiment.
>
> No! He's not.
>
> I'm also looking for a temp settable cooker. The HamBeach digital
> does not maintain any set temp, it merely shuts off when it reaches
> the temp setting. Not good enough. Even the expensive Braville
> digital slow/pressure cooker does not allow one to set a temp to be
> maintained. Looks like I'm gonna hafta hack together a temp
> controller to do the job, jes like isw did.
>
> nb

Get a sous vide.

--
A kitchen without a cook is just a room

On 2015-01-28, isw > wrote:

> Arduino is your friend...

Yep. Gotta an Uno and a RaspPi. One of 'em is bound to work.

nb

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.

In article >,
notbob > wrote:

> On 2015-01-28, isw > wrote:
>
> > Arduino is your friend...
>
> Yep. Gotta an Uno and a RaspPi. One of 'em is bound to work.

I like the Arduino pro mini; a RasPi would be overkill -- who wants
Linux on a crockpot?

Isaac

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.

Isaac

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.