Hi

Can anyone recommend a really good slow cooker?


I want something that:
- allows for extremely slow cooking (e.g. 12 or even 24 hours?)
- gets the food up to temperature fast, (so not much time wasted time
if you put cold water in instead of hot water - important for a
4
hour cooking time)
- has a proper, adjustable thermostat
- has several different levels of cooking speed (at least low,
medium
& high)
- has a delayed start possible
(e.g. start cooking after 5 hours, then cook for say 4 hours)
or dont start cooking for 12 hours then cook for 8)
- has a large capacity (say 6 litre - for up to 10 people)
- distributes heat well (no patches where cooked faster)
- easy to clean (i.e. removable, dishwasher-safe crock pot)


Any suggestions?


I have tried several websites including www.which.co.uk (that I have
subscribed to), but find them all to be remarkably amateur, gushing
and useless. Most models seem to cook slowly simply by having a low
heat source rather than by activily measuring and controlling the
temperature. Also most models seem to be unable to do really slow
cooking (12+ hours). And may are incapable of a delayed start. I am
not sure of the benefits of a digital timer. Some models (e.g.
Cuisinart - c.GBP70.00) cost about twice what others cost (e.g.
Morphy Richards c.GBP35.00) but it isnt clear what the advantages of
the more expensive models are - surely *something*... !


With thanks


Ship
Shiperton Henethe

P.S. Can you suggest any review sites that have any thing sensible to
say?

ship wrote:
> Hi
>
> Can anyone recommend a really good slow cooker?
>
>
> I want something that:
> - allows for extremely slow cooking (e.g. 12 or even 24 hours?)
> - gets the food up to temperature fast, (so not much time wasted time
> if you put cold water in instead of hot water - important for a
> 4
> hour cooking time)
> - has a proper, adjustable thermostat
> - has several different levels of cooking speed (at least low,
> medium
> & high)
> - has a delayed start possible
> (e.g. start cooking after 5 hours, then cook for say 4 hours)
> or dont start cooking for 12 hours then cook for 8)
> - has a large capacity (say 6 litre - for up to 10 people)
> - distributes heat well (no patches where cooked faster)
> - easy to clean (i.e. removable, dishwasher-safe crock pot)
>
>
> Any suggestions?
>
>
> I have tried several websites including www.which.co.uk (that I have
> subscribed to), but find them all to be remarkably amateur, gushing
> and useless. Most models seem to cook slowly simply by having a low
> heat source rather than by activily measuring and controlling the
> temperature. Also most models seem to be unable to do really slow
> cooking (12+ hours). And may are incapable of a delayed start. I am
> not sure of the benefits of a digital timer. Some models (e.g.
> Cuisinart - c.GBP70.00) cost about twice what others cost (e.g.
> Morphy Richards c.GBP35.00) but it isnt clear what the advantages of
> the more expensive models are - surely *something*... !

You're asking for a lot; I'm pessimistic that you'll find it. Most slow
cookers I know heat from the sides and not from the bottom, so they work
reasonably well only when they're nearly full. (My electric kettle heats
from the bottom and its sides aren't insulated. Still, occasional
stirring lets me use it nearly full to make pasta sauce.)

Most solid food is as thermally insulating as as the stuff in the walls
of a house. Heat diffuses through it relatively slowly. Circulating
liquid speeds the heat transfer, and well as periodic physical
rearrangement (i.e., occasional stirring). I can't imagine a mechanism
to avoid warm and cold spots during a long initial period in an
unattended slow cooker. If I had to design one, I would consider
microwave heating for its penetrating properties.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

On Feb 9, 4:30*pm, Jerry Avins > wrote:
> ship wrote:
> > Hi
>
> > Can anyone recommend a really good slow cooker?
>
> > I want something that:
> > - allows for extremely slow cooking (e.g. 12 or even 24 hours?)
> > - gets the food up to temperature fast, (so not much time wasted time
> > * * *if you put cold water in instead of hot water - important for a
> > 4
> > hour cooking time)
> > - has a proper, adjustable thermostat
> > - has several different levels of cooking speed *(at least low,
> > medium
> > & high)
> > - has a delayed start possible
> > (e.g. start cooking after 5 hours, then cook for say 4 hours)
> > or *dont start cooking for 12 hours then cook for 8)
> > - has a large capacity (say 6 litre - for up to 10 people)
> > - distributes heat well (no patches where cooked faster)
> > - easy to clean (i.e. removable, dishwasher-safe crock pot)
>
> > Any suggestions?
>
> > I have tried several websites includingwww.which.co.uk(that I have
> > subscribed to), but find them all to be remarkably amateur, gushing
> > and useless. Most models seem to cook slowly simply by having a low
> > heat source rather than by activily measuring and controlling the
> > temperature. Also most models seem to be unable to do really slow
> > cooking (12+ hours). And may are incapable of a delayed start. I am
> > not sure of the benefits of a digital timer. Some models (e.g.
> > Cuisinart - c.GBP70.00) *cost about twice what others cost (e.g.
> > Morphy Richards c.GBP35.00) but it isnt clear what the advantages of
> > the more expensive models are - surely *something*... !
>
> You're asking for a lot; I'm pessimistic that you'll find it. Most slow
> cookers I know heat from the sides and not from the bottom, so they work
> reasonably well only when they're nearly full. (My electric kettle heats
> from the bottom and its sides aren't insulated. Still, occasional
> stirring lets me use it nearly full to make pasta sauce.)
>
> Most solid food is as thermally insulating as as the stuff in the walls
> of a house. Heat diffuses through it relatively slowly. Circulating
> liquid speeds the heat transfer, and well as periodic physical
> rearrangement (i.e., occasional stirring). I can't imagine a mechanism
> to avoid warm and cold spots during a long initial period in an
> unattended slow cooker. If I had to design one, I would consider
> microwave heating for its penetrating properties.
>
> Jerry

Microwave has a very different cooking effect - including some say
ruining
the bio-energy field. It certainly tastes different from slow cooked
food.

Your point about heat coming from the sides is a good one. I guess for
cooking just for me I'd better not get a larger pot.

Ship

ship wrote:
> On Feb 9, 4:30 pm, Jerry Avins > wrote:

>> ... I can't imagine a mechanism
>> to avoid warm and cold spots during a long initial period in an
>> unattended slow cooker. If I had to design one, I would consider
>> microwave heating for its penetrating properties.

> Microwave has a very different cooking effect - including some say
> ruining the bio-energy field. It certainly tastes different from slow
> cooked food.

Microwave ovens are designed to heat quickly and use high power.
Intermittent operation ("duty cycling") is used when low power is
needed. Given the thermal lag of most foods, that works fairly well,
like turning a house heater on and off. But only fairly well. Some food
overheats for a while, then cools. Although the average temperature may
be right, it's not the same as slow and steady. A microwave slow cooker
would use low power -- the magnetron would be cheaper -- and maybe
variable power as well. If the temperature profile is the same, I think
that taste will be the same. I don't know about bio-energy. I don't
think I can taste it.

> Your point about heat coming from the sides is a good one. I guess for
> cooking just for me I'd better not get a larger pot.

One way I avoid the top part of a partly full slow cooker getting
crusted up is by putting the food one of those plastic bags and
surrounding the bag with water. It saves clean-up too, but what in the
plastic gets into the food?

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

ship wrote:
> Hi
>
> Can anyone recommend a really good slow cooker?
>

For UK sources, you might want to ask over at <uk.food+drink.misc>

> > Can anyone recommend a really good slow cooker?
>
> For UK sources, you might want to ask over at <uk.food+drink.misc>

Thanks. Done.


Ship

ship wrote:
> Hi
>
> Can anyone recommend a really good slow cooker?
>
>
> I want something that:
> - allows for extremely slow cooking (e.g. 12 or even 24 hours?)
> - gets the food up to temperature fast, (so not much time wasted time
> if you put cold water in instead of hot water - important for a
> 4
> hour cooking time)
> - has a proper, adjustable thermostat
> - has several different levels of cooking speed (at least low,
> medium
> & high)
> - has a delayed start possible
> (e.g. start cooking after 5 hours, then cook for say 4 hours)
> or dont start cooking for 12 hours then cook for 8)


What kind of food are you planning to leave sitting on the counter for 12
hours before cooking? At worst that is pretty unsafe. At any temp that is
going to allow your pipes not to freeze in your house, the temp is unsafe
for food to be at for the duration. Even barring that, it seems a way to
make sure the food tastes nasty.


> - has a large capacity (say 6 litre - for up to 10 people)



We have more than one crockpot, depending on the size of the meal. It is key
to have the pot quite full for decent cooking without burned edges.

> - distributes heat well (no patches where cooked faster)
> - easy to clean (i.e. removable, dishwasher-safe crock pot)
>
>
> Any suggestions?
>
>
> I have tried several websites including www.which.co.uk (that I have
> subscribed to), but find them all to be remarkably amateur, gushing
> and useless. Most models seem to cook slowly simply by having a low
> heat source rather than by activily measuring and controlling the
> temperature. Also most models seem to be unable to do really slow
> cooking (12+ hours). And may are incapable of a delayed start. I am
> not sure of the benefits of a digital timer. Some models (e.g.
> Cuisinart - c.GBP70.00) cost about twice what others cost (e.g.
> Morphy Richards c.GBP35.00) but it isnt clear what the advantages of
> the more expensive models are - surely *something*... !
>
>
> With thanks
>
>
> Ship
> Shiperton Henethe
>
> P.S. Can you suggest any review sites that have any thing sensible to
> say?

> What kind of food are you planning to leave sitting on the counter for 12
> hours before cooking? At worst that is pretty unsafe. At any temp that is
> going to allow your pipes not to freeze in your house, the temp is unsafe
> for food to be at for the duration. Even barring that, it seems a way to
> make sure the food tastes nasty.

I think in a cool-ish larder, certainly in the winter 12 hours is not
an unreasonable
length of time to leave food uncooked. Plus after cooking any actual
bacteria
will of course be killed.

> > - has a large capacity (say 6 litre - for up to 10 people)
>
> We have more than one crockpot, depending on the size of the meal. It is key
> to have the pot quite full for decent cooking without burned edges.

Damn yes I feared that would be the case!
So if it's just me cooking for one or two (or three) meals then I
suppose
I'd better buy a small cooker - otherwise it sounds like the sides
will get
burnt. If the pot was heated from below I imagine that this would be
much
less of a problem, yes?

Ship

ship wrote:


> ... If the pot was heated from below I imagine that this would be
> much less of a problem, yes?

That depends on how deep (and wet) the food is.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

On Feb 11, 4:50*pm, Jerry Avins > wrote:
> ship wrote:
> > *... If the pot was heated from below I imagine that this would be
> > much less of a problem, yes?
>
> That depends on how deep (and wet) the food is.

What happens if the food is (or becomes) NOT that wet. Does that mean
it's likely
to burn... or just cook unevenly?


Ship

ship wrote:
> On Feb 11, 4:50 pm, Jerry Avins > wrote:
>> ship wrote:
>>> ... If the pot was heated from below I imagine that this would be
>>> much less of a problem, yes?
>> That depends on how deep (and wet) the food is.
>
> What happens if the food is (or becomes) NOT that wet. Does that mean
> it's likely
> to burn... or just cook unevenly?

If the temperature at the surface doesn't rise above 225F or so,
scorching is unlikely. With constant-power (rather than thermostatically
controlled) heaters, an insulating blanket of food too dry to allow
circulation may well raise the temperature to scorching levels. One
solution, if you will cook in plastic, is sealing the food into a
plastic bag made for the purpose and surrounding the bag with water. A
spoon or two laid in the bottom of the pot ensures room for the water to
circulate.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

ship wrote:
>> What kind of food are you planning to leave sitting on the counter
>> for 12 hours before cooking? At worst that is pretty unsafe. At any
>> temp that is going to allow your pipes not to freeze in your house,
>> the temp is unsafe for food to be at for the duration. Even barring
>> that, it seems a way to make sure the food tastes nasty.
>
> I think in a cool-ish larder, certainly in the winter 12 hours is not
> an unreasonable
> length of time to leave food uncooked. Plus after cooking any actual
> bacteria
> will of course be killed.
>

It depends what you are going to put in it, I suppose. I sure wouldn't leave
stew beef for 12 hours. But a can of beans and some tomatoes. Well, Ok I
still wouldn't. In my case, I would not need to leave 17 plus hours anyway,
so the point is moot.


>>> - has a large capacity (say 6 litre - for up to 10 people)
>>
>> We have more than one crockpot, depending on the size of the meal.
>> It is key to have the pot quite full for decent cooking without
>> burned edges.
>
> Damn yes I feared that would be the case!
> So if it's just me cooking for one or two (or three) meals then I
> suppose
> I'd better buy a small cooker - otherwise it sounds like the sides
> will get
> burnt. If the pot was heated from below I imagine that this would be
> much
> less of a problem, yes?
>
> Ship

On Feb 11, 9:10*pm, "Stephanie" > wrote:
> ship wrote:
> >> What kind of food are you planning to leave sitting on the counter
> >> for 12 hours before cooking? At worst that is pretty unsafe. At any
> >> temp that is going to allow your pipes not to freeze in your house,
> >> the temp is unsafe for food to be at for the duration. Even barring
> >> that, it seems a way to make sure the food tastes nasty.
>
> > I think in a cool-ish larder, certainly in the winter 12 hours is not
> > an unreasonable
> > length of time to leave food uncooked. Plus after cooking any actual
> > bacteria
> > will of course be killed.
>
> It depends what you are going to put in it, I suppose. I sure wouldn't leave
> stew beef for 12 hours. But a can of beans and some tomatoes. Well, Ok I
> still wouldn't. In my case, I would not need to leave 17 plus hours anyway,
> so the point is moot.
>
>
>
> >>> - has a large capacity (say 6 litre - for up to 10 people)
>
> >> We have more than one crockpot, depending on the size of the meal.
> >> It is key to have the pot quite full for decent cooking without
> >> burned edges.
>
> > Damn yes I feared that would be the case!
> > So if it's just me cooking for one or two (or three) meals then I
> > suppose
> > I'd better buy a small cooker - otherwise it sounds like the sides
> > will get
> > burnt. If the pot was heated from below I imagine that this would be
> > much
> > less of a problem, yes?
>
> > Ship- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

One of the best stews I ever had was cooked by my uncle in the plate
warmer section of
an old Aga. I dont know what the temperature was but he brought it to
the boil on the top
and then left it there for about 2-3 DAYS.

I think you'd need to make sure you had an EVEN COOLER slow cooker for
such
long cooking periods.

That reminds me - what range of temperatures are these slow cookers
supposed to
be running at in any case? Anyone know?


Ship

ship wrote:

...

> One of the best stews I ever had was cooked by my uncle in the plate
> warmer section of
> an old Aga. I dont know what the temperature was but he brought it to
> the boil on the top
> and then left it there for about 2-3 DAYS.
>
> I think you'd need to make sure you had an EVEN COOLER slow cooker for
> such
> long cooking periods.
>
> That reminds me - what range of temperatures are these slow cookers
> supposed to
> be running at in any case? Anyone know?

I have left stew overnight on the stovetop BUT I knew what I was doing.
The pot, a Wagner Drip-Drop roaster, has a smoothly machined cover-pot
interface, making for a nearly hermetic seal. Before putting the stew to
bed for the night, I brought it to a vigorous boil with the cover in
place, sterilizing it, Then I let it sit without opening the cover. In
effect, the stew was canned. When it came time to serve it for lunch, I
again brought it to a boil just in case. Stew and soup are almost always
better the day after they're made. This didn't depart from that perception.

Your uncle's wonderful stew didn't sit raw for half a day before heating
began. I don't think it addresses Stephanie's point.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Hi

I've just had a (potentially) brilliant idea!
I am toying with buying this slow cooker from Morphy Richards which
comes with "digital control".
> "Morphy Richards 48730 Stainless Steel Slow Cooker with digital timer"
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Morphy-Richa...2897943&sr=8-1

The slight problem is that it is rather large capacity. Now from time
to time this will be INVALUABLE
but most days I will just be cooking for myself.
But it occurs to me that if I am just cooking for MYSELF - (e.g. I
want to cook something ready for my
lunch when I leave in the morning - maybe something that could do 2 or
3 meals...), that I could
put my food inside a smaller container (e.g. glass/clay/metal??), and
fill the gap with water.

ie. I would put the container inside the cooker (possibly raised on a
fork or something to allow water to circulate).
I could then simply boil the kettle before I go and then sling the
water into the big pot and leave for work.

[Yes if my house burns down then fine - that's a risk I'm prepared to
take]

But would it work technically? i.e. is 4 hours enough time to slow
cook a lunch?

Personally I wouldnt want to cook inside plastic because of taste and
health issues,
but I figure a solid inert container might work. I suppose one problem
could be that not enough
heat would transfer fast enough into my food - particularly if my
container was made from
clay or glass (metal would presumably conduct better - but it would
need to be coated with
something inert - e.g. teflon or enamel or something)

- Any thoughts?


Ship

P.S. And what about if cooking my EVENING MEAL - i.e. I wouldnt want
it for about 10 hours

"ship" > wrote in message
...
> Hi
>
> I've just had a (potentially) brilliant idea!
> I am toying with buying this slow cooker from Morphy Richards which
> comes with "digital control".
>> "Morphy Richards 48730 Stainless Steel Slow Cooker with digital timer"
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Morphy-Richa...2897943&sr=8-1
>
> The slight problem is that it is rather large capacity. Now from time
> to time this will be INVALUABLE
> but most days I will just be cooking for myself.
> But it occurs to me that if I am just cooking for MYSELF - (e.g. I
> want to cook something ready for my
> lunch when I leave in the morning - maybe something that could do 2 or
> 3 meals...), that I could
> put my food inside a smaller container (e.g. glass/clay/metal??), and
> fill the gap with water.
>
> ie. I would put the container inside the cooker (possibly raised on a
> fork or something to allow water to circulate).
> I could then simply boil the kettle before I go and then sling the
> water into the big pot and leave for work.
>
> [Yes if my house burns down then fine - that's a risk I'm prepared to
> take]
>
> But would it work technically? i.e. is 4 hours enough time to slow
> cook a lunch?


Depends on your lunch. Many chicken dishes cook in that time. For myself, I
would cook a batch of something, then freeze individual portions of the
leftovers. I would not bother with the smaller containers INSIDE the crock.
What does that buy you? You are going to have to put that food away anyway.


>
> Personally I wouldnt want to cook inside plastic because of taste and
> health issues,
> but I figure a solid inert container might work. I suppose one problem
> could be that not enough
> heat would transfer fast enough into my food - particularly if my
> container was made from
> clay or glass (metal would presumably conduct better - but it would
> need to be coated with
> something inert - e.g. teflon or enamel or something)
>
> - Any thoughts?
>
>
> Ship
>
> P.S. And what about if cooking my EVENING MEAL - i.e. I wouldnt want
> it for about 10 hours
>


I would not, personally, plan a crockpot meal for lunch and dinner unless I
wanted to use 2 separate crockpots. There are many, many recipes for meals
that are 10-12 hours to cook. Many beef and lamb recipes, for instance.
Lentil soup. Bean soups...

>
>
>
>
>
>
>