I've been inspired by the recent exchanges on Kuhn-Rikon
and Lorna Sass to go get myself a pressure cooker.

I'll normally be cooking small quantities, but sometimes I'll
cook large batches. Is there any disadvantage to getting
a large (7 or 8 L) PC, other than the fact it's slightly
more expensive than a smaller one and takes up more space?

In essence, is it more difficult or liable to produce inferior results
if I use a large PC to cook small quantities?

Thanks

In article >, Pete Fraser
> wrote:

> I've been inspired by the recent exchanges on Kuhn-Rikon
> and Lorna Sass to go get myself a pressure cooker.
>
> I'll normally be cooking small quantities, but sometimes I'll
> cook large batches. Is there any disadvantage to getting
> a large (7 or 8 L) PC, other than the fact it's slightly
> more expensive than a smaller one and takes up more space?
>
> In essence, is it more difficult or liable to produce inferior results
> if I use a large PC to cook small quantities?
>
> Thanks

No, it is not significantly more difficult to cook small lots in large
cookers. There may be very slight increases in time/energy consumed, as
slightly more steel needs to be heated, slightly more air volume needs
to be heated. But even a very large PC can cook small items just fine:
the pressure reaches the same point and that's that.

I have the 2.5 Q (a quart is roughly a liter) and 5 Q "combo" deal,
and also the 4.5 Q which I got because the price was very good and its
lid is the same size as of my other two, giving me two complete lids.
(The "combo" comes with one pressure lid and one normal, glass lid.)

I do small things (like a few pieces of chicken or a couple of pork
chops) in the 2.5 Q model. But the 5 Q pot works just as well. And an
even larger 7 Q model would be only slighly wider and taller. And
slightly heavier, but this is not a significant problem.

A lot of cooks did everything in their very large 8 Q aluminum pots,
from Presto and the like, and the Kuhn-Rikons are only slightly
heavier.

So buying just a single 7Q or 8Q model is reasonable. Be advised that
the "hotel quality" units are substantially more expensive (~ $300),
and often don't have long handles (being set up to sit several at a
time on hotel burners). I find the "starter" units in the 4-5 Q range
to be the best deal.

BTW, reaching down into a deep pot is not quite as easy, but not an
important issue, given that most PC cooking happens with the lid
sealed. (Some browning is often done in the first few minutes.)


Were I buying my first PC, I would look closely at what I think was
being called "the anniversary model," about a 4 Q starter unit with a
plastic pressure ring (instead of stainless), but the pressure ring has
some basic times listed for common dishes. It seems to be a good
"starter" unit. Last I checked, it was about $90, mail order.

(I got the 4.5 Q model for diameter reasons, as noted.)

--Tim May

"Pete Fraser" > wrote in message
...
> I've been inspired by the recent exchanges on Kuhn-Rikon
> and Lorna Sass to go get myself a pressure cooker.
>
> I'll normally be cooking small quantities, but sometimes I'll
> cook large batches. Is there any disadvantage to getting
> a large (7 or 8 L) PC, other than the fact it's slightly
> more expensive than a smaller one and takes up more space?
>
> In essence, is it more difficult or liable to produce inferior results
> if I use a large PC to cook small quantities?

To be hinest, I don't know why you'd want to cook using your computer. But
if you did, make sure to use a Pentium PC and Windows XP. Be sure to
register your dinner first though.

>
> Thanks
>

In article >,
"Pete Fraser" > wrote:

> I've been inspired by the recent exchanges on Kuhn-Rikon
> and Lorna Sass to go get myself a pressure cooker.
>
> I'll normally be cooking small quantities, but sometimes I'll
> cook large batches. Is there any disadvantage to getting
> a large (7 or 8 L) PC, other than the fact it's slightly
> more expensive than a smaller one and takes up more space?
>
> In essence, is it more difficult or liable to produce inferior results
> if I use a large PC to cook small quantities?
>
> Thanks
>
>

It'll work no matter what you do.
Get the best you can afford!

I still use my mom's pressure cooker and it's well over 30 years old. :-)

Love it.
--
K.

Sprout the MungBean to reply

"I don't like to commit myself about heaven and hell‹you
see, I have friends in both places." --Mark Twain

Pete Fraser > wrote:
> I've been inspired by the recent exchanges on Kuhn-Rikon
> and Lorna Sass to go get myself a pressure cooker.

> I'll normally be cooking small quantities, but sometimes I'll
> cook large batches. Is there any disadvantage to getting
> a large (7 or 8 L) PC, other than the fact it's slightly
> more expensive than a smaller one and takes up more space?

> In essence, is it more difficult or liable to produce inferior results
> if I use a large PC to cook small quantities?

i've got the 2QT fry pan. i use it for sauces, soups and stews for 1, 2 and
sometimes 4-5 persons, though 5 is really pushing it. my favorite is chicken
soup where i can brown the chicken, saute the vegetables, deglaze and
pressure cook w/ a single pan/pot!

it doesn't come w/ a trivet but the guy at the store threw one in anyhow. have
never used it, though.

if i had to do it all over again i'd still get the fry pan. i sometimes
fancy getting a 5QT, but what would i use it for? feeding an army, or
possibly speeding up making my own chicken stock. but, the truth is i'll
never do either of those two (especially w/ the awesome frozen stocks at
whole foods).

the things are expensive as it is, and the fry pan is a damn good skillet in
it's own right. it has an extremely heavy bottom with aluminum core, and the
cooking surface is dimpled so you can brown meat well w/o it sticking like
crazy.

Pete Fraser wrote:
> I've been inspired by the recent exchanges on Kuhn-Rikon
> and Lorna Sass to go get myself a pressure cooker.
>
> I'll normally be cooking small quantities, but sometimes I'll
> cook large batches. Is there any disadvantage to getting
> a large (7 or 8 L) PC, other than the fact it's slightly
> more expensive than a smaller one and takes up more space?
>
> In essence, is it more difficult or liable to produce inferior results
> if I use a large PC to cook small quantities?
>
> Thanks
>
>
Not really. You'll be more reserved about bringing it out though. It's
like using your stock pot to poach eggs or something similar.

If you get a larger pressure cooker, make sure you have all the stuff to
do 15psi. If you're like me, the larger pressure cooker will do next to
nothing in the kitchen until you discover pressure canning...

Pete Fraser wrote:
> I've been inspired by the recent exchanges on Kuhn-Rikon
> and Lorna Sass to go get myself a pressure cooker.
>
> I'll normally be cooking small quantities, but sometimes I'll
> cook large batches. Is there any disadvantage to getting
> a large (7 or 8 L) PC, other than the fact it's slightly
> more expensive than a smaller one and takes up more space?
>
> In essence, is it more difficult or liable to produce inferior results
> if I use a large PC to cook small quantities?

We use a large pressure cooker, and the results are fine.

Just be sure to get a stainless steel, not an aluminum model. We bought
the 21 quart model shown he

"http://store.yahoo.com/jsgfinishingtouches/precheat21st.html"

but IIRC, we paid around $160, not $220. There used to be a bunch of
on-line stores that carried it. The actual name on it is Boppolo, or
something like that. I think that I saw them at the Asian shopping
center in Cupertino (the Ranch 99 shopping center) in the store that
also sells range hoods.

7-8L is quite small for a pressure cooker.