http://www.cookingforgeeks.com/blog/...diy-sous-vide/

For those of you who are 'tinker' inclined.

On Nov 5, 5:36*pm, ImStillMags > wrote:
> http://www.cookingforgeeks.com/blog/...diy-sous-vide/
>
> For those of you who are 'tinker' inclined.

Someone should make a unit that drops into a standard cooler (Igloo,
Coleman, etc.). One could do wonderful things with those inexpensive
cryovaced USDA Select beef tenderloins, and other even cheaper cuts.
We have a local store that sells those Select subprimals. I should
suggest to them that they consider investing in a commercial sous vide
cooker.

--Bryan

In article
>,
Bryan > wrote:

> On Nov 5, 5:36*pm, ImStillMags > wrote:
> > http://www.cookingforgeeks.com/blog/...diy-sous-vide/
> >
> > For those of you who are 'tinker' inclined.
>
> Someone should make a unit that drops into a standard cooler (Igloo,
> Coleman, etc.). One could do wonderful things with those inexpensive
> cryovaced USDA Select beef tenderloins, and other even cheaper cuts.
> We have a local store that sells those Select subprimals. I should
> suggest to them that they consider investing in a commercial sous vide
> cooker.

Obviously I'm missing something here. If you take a cheap, tough piece
of meat, and cook it to rare all the way through, won't you end up with
a rare, cheap, tough piece of meat?

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On 11/6/2010 12:42 PM, Dan Abel wrote:
> In article
> >,
> > wrote:
>
>> On Nov 5, 5:36 pm, > wrote:
>>> http://www.cookingforgeeks.com/blog/...diy-sous-vide/
>>>
>>> For those of you who are 'tinker' inclined.
>>
>> Someone should make a unit that drops into a standard cooler (Igloo,
>> Coleman, etc.). One could do wonderful things with those inexpensive
>> cryovaced USDA Select beef tenderloins, and other even cheaper cuts.
>> We have a local store that sells those Select subprimals. I should
>> suggest to them that they consider investing in a commercial sous vide
>> cooker.
>
> Obviously I'm missing something here. If you take a cheap, tough piece
> of meat, and cook it to rare all the way through, won't you end up with
> a rare, cheap, tough piece of meat?
>
You just process the tougher cuts at a lower temp for a longer time (>
24 hours). That breaks down the connective tissue and turns the collagen
into gelatin similar to braising only much better. So you could get the
great beefy taste of say chuck and have it tender but not almost
flavorless like a filet.

George wrote:

>>>> http://www.cookingforgeeks.com/blog/...diy-sous-vide/
>>>>
>>>> For those of you who are 'tinker' inclined.
>>>
>>> Someone should make a unit that drops into a standard cooler (Igloo,
>>> Coleman, etc.). One could do wonderful things with those inexpensive
>>> cryovaced USDA Select beef tenderloins, and other even cheaper cuts.
>>> We have a local store that sells those Select subprimals. I should
>>> suggest to them that they consider investing in a commercial sous vide
>>> cooker.
>>
>> Obviously I'm missing something here. If you take a cheap, tough piece
>> of meat, and cook it to rare all the way through, won't you end up with
>> a rare, cheap, tough piece of meat?
>>
> You just process the tougher cuts at a lower temp for a longer time (> 24
> hours). That breaks down the connective tissue and turns the collagen into
> gelatin similar to braising only much better. So you could get the great
> beefy taste of say chuck and have it tender but not almost flavorless like
> a filet.

There are plenty of tough cuts which don't *have* the connective tissue you
mention. Cooking them for a long period of time just makes them dry, since
the proteins contract and drive the water out. Round is an example of that
kind of cut, and many cuts from the chuck have that same issue. If you want
connective tissue, you need something like brisket, shank, oxtail, or ribs.
Any large muscle with little connective tissue will not become more tender
with prolonged cooking; the best thing to do is cook them quickly to rare,
or (for maximum tenderness) eat them raw.

Bob

In article >,
George > wrote:

> On 11/6/2010 12:42 PM, Dan Abel wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> On Nov 5, 5:36 pm, > wrote:
> >>> http://www.cookingforgeeks.com/blog/...diy-sous-vide/
> >>>
> >>> For those of you who are 'tinker' inclined.
> >>
> >> Someone should make a unit that drops into a standard cooler (Igloo,
> >> Coleman, etc.). One could do wonderful things with those inexpensive
> >> cryovaced USDA Select beef tenderloins, and other even cheaper cuts.
> >> We have a local store that sells those Select subprimals. I should
> >> suggest to them that they consider investing in a commercial sous vide
> >> cooker.
> >
> > Obviously I'm missing something here. If you take a cheap, tough piece
> > of meat, and cook it to rare all the way through, won't you end up with
> > a rare, cheap, tough piece of meat?
> >
> You just process the tougher cuts at a lower temp for a longer time (>
> 24 hours). That breaks down the connective tissue and turns the collagen
> into gelatin similar to braising only much better. So you could get the
> great beefy taste of say chuck and have it tender but not almost
> flavorless like a filet.

Thanks! Makes sense now.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

In article om>,
"Bob Terwilliger" > wrote:

> George wrote:
>
> >>>> http://www.cookingforgeeks.com/blog/...diy-sous-vide/
> >>>>
> >>>> For those of you who are 'tinker' inclined.
> >>>
> >>> Someone should make a unit that drops into a standard cooler (Igloo,
> >>> Coleman, etc.). One could do wonderful things with those inexpensive
> >>> cryovaced USDA Select beef tenderloins, and other even cheaper cuts.
> >>> We have a local store that sells those Select subprimals. I should
> >>> suggest to them that they consider investing in a commercial sous vide
> >>> cooker.
> >>
> >> Obviously I'm missing something here. If you take a cheap, tough piece
> >> of meat, and cook it to rare all the way through, won't you end up with
> >> a rare, cheap, tough piece of meat?
> >>
> > You just process the tougher cuts at a lower temp for a longer time (> 24
> > hours). That breaks down the connective tissue and turns the collagen into
> > gelatin similar to braising only much better. So you could get the great
> > beefy taste of say chuck and have it tender but not almost flavorless like
> > a filet.
>
> There are plenty of tough cuts which don't *have* the connective tissue you
> mention. Cooking them for a long period of time just makes them dry, since
> the proteins contract and drive the water out.

Not if you keep the temperature low enough (and sous-vide does). If
proteins don't contract at 131 F in one minute (as, say, when you pull
that rare steak from the pan), then they won't contract after 24 hours
at that same temperature -- the denaturing of proteins is temperature
dependent, but not time dependent. But the collagen (or some of it)
*will* break down. Give it a try.

Isaac

"isw" > wrote in message
]...
> In article om>,
> "Bob Terwilliger" > wrote:
>
>> George wrote:
>>
>> >>>> http://www.cookingforgeeks.com/blog/...diy-sous-vide/
>> >>>>
>> >>>> For those of you who are 'tinker' inclined.
>> >>>
>> >>> Someone should make a unit that drops into a standard cooler (Igloo,
>> >>> Coleman, etc.). One could do wonderful things with those inexpensive
>> >>> cryovaced USDA Select beef tenderloins, and other even cheaper cuts.
>> >>> We have a local store that sells those Select subprimals. I should
>> >>> suggest to them that they consider investing in a commercial sous
>> >>> vide
>> >>> cooker.
>> >>
>> >> Obviously I'm missing something here. If you take a cheap, tough
>> >> piece
>> >> of meat, and cook it to rare all the way through, won't you end up
>> >> with
>> >> a rare, cheap, tough piece of meat?
>> >>
>> > You just process the tougher cuts at a lower temp for a longer time (>
>> > 24
>> > hours). That breaks down the connective tissue and turns the collagen
>> > into
>> > gelatin similar to braising only much better. So you could get the
>> > great
>> > beefy taste of say chuck and have it tender but not almost flavorless
>> > like
>> > a filet.
>>
>> There are plenty of tough cuts which don't *have* the connective tissue
>> you
>> mention. Cooking them for a long period of time just makes them dry,
>> since
>> the proteins contract and drive the water out.
>
> Not if you keep the temperature low enough (and sous-vide does). If
> proteins don't contract at 131 F in one minute (as, say, when you pull
> that rare steak from the pan), then they won't contract after 24 hours
> at that same temperature -- the denaturing of proteins is temperature
> dependent, but not time dependent. But the collagen (or some of it)
> *will* break down. Give it a try.
>
> Isaac
>
>
We did something like this with eye of round. There was an article in Cooks
Illustrated some time ago about this. It isn't sous vide, since the meat is
not under vacuum and submerged. The eye of round goes into a very low temp
oven. You put the eye of round in a 225F oven, and roast very slowly to
115F. Then you turn off the oven and let it sit for about an hour, or until
the internal temp. reaches 132F. It was excellent, pink
end to end and very tasty. Sliced thin it wasn't dry at all. You sear the
meat on very high heat, either before or after the roasting. I don't think
a meat like chuck would work.

Kent

Kent wrote:

> We did something like this with eye of round. There was an article in
> Cooks Illustrated some time ago about this. It isn't sous vide, since the
> meat is not under vacuum and submerged. The eye of round goes into a very
> low temp oven. You put the eye of round in a 225F oven, and roast very
> slowly to 115F. Then you turn off the oven and let it sit for about an
> hour, or until the internal temp. reaches 132F. It was excellent, pink
> end to end and very tasty. Sliced thin it wasn't dry at all. You sear the
> meat on very high heat, either before or after the roasting. I don't
> think a meat like chuck would work.

Interesting! Thanks, Kent.

Bob

On Nov 7, 8:45*pm, "Bob Terwilliger" >
wrote:
> Kent wrote:
> > We did something like this with eye of round. *There was an article in
> > Cooks Illustrated some time ago about this. It isn't sous vide, since the
> > meat is not under vacuum and submerged. The eye of round goes into a very
> > low temp oven. *You put the eye of round in a 225F oven, and roast very
> > slowly to 115F. Then you turn off the oven and let it sit for about an
> > hour, or until the internal temp. reaches 132F. *It was excellent, pink
> > end to end and very tasty. Sliced thin it wasn't dry at all. You sear the
> > meat on very high heat, either before or after the roasting. I *don't
> > think a meat like chuck would work.

See, I've done it with chuck, but never round. After searing, I put
the chuck roast into water, uncovered and kept the heat as low as my
oven would go, turning the oven off a few times in the process. It
worked well, though certainly not great.
>
> Interesting! Thanks, Kent.
>
> Bob

--Bryan

On Sun, 7 Nov 2010 18:45:19 -0800, Bob Terwilliger wrote:

> Kent wrote:
>
>> We did something like this with eye of round. There was an article in
>> Cooks Illustrated some time ago about this. It isn't sous vide, since the
>> meat is not under vacuum and submerged. The eye of round goes into a very
>> low temp oven. You put the eye of round in a 225F oven, and roast very
>> slowly to 115F. Then you turn off the oven and let it sit for about an
>> hour, or until the internal temp. reaches 132F. It was excellent, pink
>> end to end and very tasty. Sliced thin it wasn't dry at all. You sear the
>> meat on very high heat, either before or after the roasting. I don't
>> think a meat like chuck would work.
>
> Interesting! Thanks, Kent.

A piece of meat roasted at 225F will not rise from 115F to 132F
once the oven is turned off unless you have some sort of super,
space age insulated oven.

Kent often doesn't know WTF he's talking about.

-sw

In article >,
"Kent" > wrote:

> "isw" > wrote in message
> ]...
> > In article om>,
> > "Bob Terwilliger" > wrote:
> >
> >> George wrote:
> >>
> >> >>>> http://www.cookingforgeeks.com/blog/...diy-sous-vide/
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> For those of you who are 'tinker' inclined.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Someone should make a unit that drops into a standard cooler (Igloo,
> >> >>> Coleman, etc.). One could do wonderful things with those inexpensive
> >> >>> cryovaced USDA Select beef tenderloins, and other even cheaper cuts.
> >> >>> We have a local store that sells those Select subprimals. I should
> >> >>> suggest to them that they consider investing in a commercial sous
> >> >>> vide
> >> >>> cooker.
> >> >>
> >> >> Obviously I'm missing something here. If you take a cheap, tough
> >> >> piece
> >> >> of meat, and cook it to rare all the way through, won't you end up
> >> >> with
> >> >> a rare, cheap, tough piece of meat?
> >> >>
> >> > You just process the tougher cuts at a lower temp for a longer time (>
> >> > 24
> >> > hours). That breaks down the connective tissue and turns the collagen
> >> > into
> >> > gelatin similar to braising only much better. So you could get the
> >> > great
> >> > beefy taste of say chuck and have it tender but not almost flavorless
> >> > like
> >> > a filet.
> >>
> >> There are plenty of tough cuts which don't *have* the connective tissue
> >> you
> >> mention. Cooking them for a long period of time just makes them dry,
> >> since
> >> the proteins contract and drive the water out.
> >
> > Not if you keep the temperature low enough (and sous-vide does). If
> > proteins don't contract at 131 F in one minute (as, say, when you pull
> > that rare steak from the pan), then they won't contract after 24 hours
> > at that same temperature -- the denaturing of proteins is temperature
> > dependent, but not time dependent. But the collagen (or some of it)
> > *will* break down. Give it a try.
> >
> > Isaac
> >
> >
> We did something like this with eye of round. There was an article in Cooks
> Illustrated some time ago about this. It isn't sous vide, since the meat is
> not under vacuum and submerged.

Insofar as home-cooking sous vide is concerned, I don't think the
"vacuum" part is very important. The main points are to cook in a
liquid, which conducts heat far better than air, and to isolate the
product from the cooking liquid so the flavor doesn't get diluted.

Restaurant sous vide cooking (cook, flash chill, rewarm when an order
comes in) is a very different thing.

Isaac

In article >,
Sqwertz > wrote:

> On Sun, 7 Nov 2010 18:45:19 -0800, Bob Terwilliger wrote:
>
> > Kent wrote:
> >
> >> We did something like this with eye of round. There was an article in
> >> Cooks Illustrated some time ago about this. It isn't sous vide, since the
> >> meat is not under vacuum and submerged. The eye of round goes into a very
> >> low temp oven. You put the eye of round in a 225F oven, and roast very
> >> slowly to 115F. Then you turn off the oven and let it sit for about an
> >> hour, or until the internal temp. reaches 132F. It was excellent, pink
> >> end to end and very tasty. Sliced thin it wasn't dry at all. You sear the
> >> meat on very high heat, either before or after the roasting. I don't
> >> think a meat like chuck would work.
> >
> > Interesting! Thanks, Kent.
>
> A piece of meat roasted at 225F will not rise from 115F to 132F
> once the oven is turned off unless you have some sort of super,
> space age insulated oven.

Why not? The rise in temperature of the inside of a large piece of meat
after removing it from the oven is well-known. Going from 115 to 123 is
perhaps a bit more than would be the case with the roast sitting on the
counter, but left in the oven, I can see it happening.

The problem I have with all recipes of that sort is that they depend
rather heavily on the specific characteristics of a given oven/room
temperature/etc. and may not produce the same results in a different
environment.

Isaac

On Sun, 07 Nov 2010 21:37:09 -0800, isw wrote:

> In article >,
> Sqwertz > wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 7 Nov 2010 18:45:19 -0800, Bob Terwilliger wrote:
>>
>>> Kent wrote:
>>>
>>>> We did something like this with eye of round. There was an article in
>>>> Cooks Illustrated some time ago about this. It isn't sous vide, since the
>>>> meat is not under vacuum and submerged. The eye of round goes into a very
>>>> low temp oven. You put the eye of round in a 225F oven, and roast very
>>>> slowly to 115F. Then you turn off the oven and let it sit for about an
>>>> hour, or until the internal temp. reaches 132F. It was excellent, pink
>>>> end to end and very tasty. Sliced thin it wasn't dry at all. You sear the
>>>> meat on very high heat, either before or after the roasting. I don't
>>>> think a meat like chuck would work.
>>>
>>> Interesting! Thanks, Kent.
>>
>> A piece of meat roasted at 225F will not rise from 115F to 132F
>> once the oven is turned off unless you have some sort of super,
>> space age insulated oven.
>
> Why not? The rise in temperature of the inside of a large piece of meat
> after removing it from the oven is well-known.

Yes, when you cook it at a high heat (over 300F). Having roasted
dozens of rib roasts, round tips, whole top sirloins, etc at
250-265F I can tell you that they will rise not more than another
2, maybe 3 degrees tops. Not 17 degrees. Not by far.

-sw

On 11/6/2010 6:31 AM, Bryan wrote:
> On Nov 5, 5:36 pm, > wrote:
>> http://www.cookingforgeeks.com/blog/...diy-sous-vide/
>>
>> For those of you who are 'tinker' inclined.
>
> Someone should make a unit that drops into a standard cooler (Igloo,
> Coleman, etc.). One could do wonderful things with those inexpensive
> cryovaced USDA Select beef tenderloins, and other even cheaper cuts.
> We have a local store that sells those Select subprimals. I should
> suggest to them that they consider investing in a commercial sous vide
> cooker.


Hey Bryan,

Someone does make a drop in unit that works with a standard cooler.
Fresh Meals Solutions just released a heater/bubbler unit that works
with their PID controller. They claim you can even drop the unit into
your sink and cook items there if you want.

http://freshmealssolutions.com/index...hk=1&Itemid=31

or

http://tinyurl.com/27xx8jh


I have their 1500D controller that I use with a rice cooker for smaller
meals and with an electric turkey roaster for larger items. The unit is
extremely accurate and very flexible. They also include two temperature
probes in case one dies during an important meal.

As it is right now, I've got less than $200 invested in my whole setup.

Sous vide certainly isn't for everyone, but I enjoy it and it has
completely transformed my cooking.

Hasta,
Curt Nelson

In article >,
Curt Nelson > wrote:

--snip--

> Sous vide certainly isn't for everyone, but I enjoy it and it has
> completely transformed my cooking.

I've just recently started with it, and so far, am pretty impressed.
Care to share some of you big "successes"? Hints and suggestions? Things
*not* to try?

Isaac

On 11/8/2010 11:46 PM, isw wrote:
> In >,
> Curt > wrote:
>
> --snip--
>
>> Sous vide certainly isn't for everyone, but I enjoy it and it has
>> completely transformed my cooking.
>
> I've just recently started with it, and so far, am pretty impressed.
> Care to share some of you big "successes"? Hints and suggestions? Things
> *not* to try?
>
> Isaac

Hi Issac,

I bumped my reply up to a new thread. Good luck with sous vide!

As you discover more, don't get too caught up with the food evangelists.
Sous vide is nothing more than an interesting way of cooking that
produces very certain and predictable results.

The fun ensues when you use your imagination to make incredible
creations. A great (and cheap) learning experience for me was cooking
eggs at various temperatures and failing miserably... and then
succeeding spectacularly.

Now I can cook an egg breakfast that will bring tears to your eyes. ;-)

Hasta,
Curt Nelson

Anyone out there ever try this with a meat with little connective stuff that could fill us in? I can picture what both of you are saying but would rather hear from someone who has tried to do it with a bottom round or something similar. Even a pork loin with much fat removed.

On Tue, 09 Nov 2010 03:58:41 -0800, Curt Nelson
> wrote:

> Now I can cook an egg breakfast that will bring tears to your eyes. ;-)

Eggs would be my big forage into sou vide, can that be done on a
regular stovetop or would I need to invest in special equipment? If I
do, I'm not interested enough to go that route. TIA.

--

Never trust a dog to watch your food.

In article >,
Curt Nelson > wrote:

> On 11/8/2010 11:46 PM, isw wrote:
> > In >,
> > Curt > wrote:
> >
> > --snip--
> >
> >> Sous vide certainly isn't for everyone, but I enjoy it and it has
> >> completely transformed my cooking.
> >
> > I've just recently started with it, and so far, am pretty impressed.
> > Care to share some of you big "successes"? Hints and suggestions? Things
> > *not* to try?
> >
> > Isaac
>
> Hi Issac,
>
> I bumped my reply up to a new thread. Good luck with sous vide!
>
> As you discover more, don't get too caught up with the food evangelists.
> Sous vide is nothing more than an interesting way of cooking that
> produces very certain and predictable results.
>
> The fun ensues when you use your imagination to make incredible
> creations. A great (and cheap) learning experience for me was cooking
> eggs at various temperatures and failing miserably... and then
> succeeding spectacularly.
>
> Now I can cook an egg breakfast that will bring tears to your eyes. ;-)

I've not yet tried eggs sous vide, but my reading tells me that cooking
them that way is at least tricky (because of the range of temperatures
over which egg proteins denature).

What did you do that turned out so well?

Isaac

In article >,
sf > wrote:

> On Tue, 09 Nov 2010 03:58:41 -0800, Curt Nelson
> > wrote:
>
> > Now I can cook an egg breakfast that will bring tears to your eyes. ;-)
>
> Eggs would be my big forage into sou vide, can that be done on a
> regular stovetop or would I need to invest in special equipment? If I
> do, I'm not interested enough to go that route. TIA.

You have to be able to maintain a *precise* temperature (+/- 1 F) for
quite a while. For meat, a large amount of water in a beer cooler works
pretty well; for eggs, not so much.

Google on "kenji sous vide" for a lot of really good info.

Isaac

In article >,
Gorio > wrote:

> isw;1545862 Wrote:
> > In article m,
> > "Bob Terwilliger" wrote:
> > -
> > George wrote:
> > --
> > 'Cooking For Geeks Hacking Your Slow Cooker: D.I.Y. Sous Vide Setup'
> > (http://www.cookingforgeeks.com/blog/...diy-sous-vide/)
> >
> > For those of you who are 'tinker' inclined.
> >
> > Someone should make a unit that drops into a standard cooler (Igloo,
> > Coleman, etc.). One could do wonderful things with those inexpensive
> > cryovaced USDA Select beef tenderloins, and other even cheaper cuts.
> > We have a local store that sells those Select subprimals. I should
> > suggest to them that they consider investing in a commercial sous
> > vide
> > cooker.
> >
> > Obviously I'm missing something here. If you take a cheap, tough
> > piece
> > of meat, and cook it to rare all the way through, won't you end up
> > with
> > a rare, cheap, tough piece of meat?
> > -
> > You just process the tougher cuts at a lower temp for a longer time (
> > 24
> > hours). That breaks down the connective tissue and turns the collagen
> > into
> > gelatin similar to braising only much better. So you could get the
> > great
> > beefy taste of say chuck and have it tender but not almost flavorless
> > like
> > a filet.-
> >
> > There are plenty of tough cuts which don't *have* the connective tissue
> > you
> > mention. Cooking them for a long period of time just makes them dry,
> > since
> > the proteins contract and drive the water out.-
> >
> > Not if you keep the temperature low enough (and sous-vide does). If
> > proteins don't contract at 131 F in one minute (as, say, when you pull
> > that rare steak from the pan), then they won't contract after 24 hours
> > at that same temperature -- the denaturing of proteins is temperature
> > dependent, but not time dependent. But the collagen (or some of it)
> > *will* break down. Give it a try.
> >
> > Isaac
>
> Anyone out there ever try this with a meat with little connective stuff
> that could fill us in? I can picture what both of you are saying but
> would rather hear from someone who has tried to do it with a bottom
> round or something similar. Even a pork loin with much fat removed.

I've tried both beef and pork. For beef, 24 hours at 131 F did a good
job of tenderizing. I bought two identical cuts of beef known for flavor
but not for tenderness (don't recall the name), and did one sous vide
followed by a quick sear and the other the "standard" way, in a very hot
iron skillet. I arranged the timing on the "sear" so that both pieces
were ready at the same time. The difference was not subtle; the
"standard" one was clearly tougher.

Pork is a bit different because mostly it doesn't have any connective
tissue in the first place. The point of cooking pork sous vide is that
you can be absolutely certain of not overcooking it. Contemporary pork
is so lean that any recipe you run across that's more than, say, 20
years old is likely not to work so well because pork used to be a lot
more fatty than it is these days.

So for pork (chops, say), 143 F for an hour guarantees that they're
cooked *but NOT overcooked* (and safe, though that's just not much of an
issue any more), and then a quick sear makes them look good too.

Isaac

Thanks for the comeback. Very interesting. I've read about this before but have never tried it. If it works with a round of beef, though, I might try it with some pork roast. I get most of my pork from a farm kid I teach and it is much more "tissuey" than the stuff from the store. Still, it's pork and doesn't have anywhere near as much as beef. I think a pork shoulder, somewhere, is begging for this technique.

I'll start with the chops and work up.

Thanks again.

"Sqwertz" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 7 Nov 2010 18:45:19 -0800, Bob Terwilliger wrote:
>
>> Kent wrote:
>>
>>> We did something like this with eye of round. There was an article in
>>> Cooks Illustrated some time ago about this. It isn't sous vide, since
>>> the
>>> meat is not under vacuum and submerged. The eye of round goes into a
>>> very
>>> low temp oven. You put the eye of round in a 225F oven, and roast very
>>> slowly to 115F. Then you turn off the oven and let it sit for about an
>>> hour, or until the internal temp. reaches 132F. It was excellent, pink
>>> end to end and very tasty. Sliced thin it wasn't dry at all. You sear
>>> the
>>> meat on very high heat, either before or after the roasting. I don't
>>> think a meat like chuck would work.
>>
>> Interesting! Thanks, Kent.
>
> A piece of meat roasted at 225F will not rise from 115F to 132F
> once the oven is turned off unless you have some sort of super,
> space age insulated oven.
>
> Kent often doesn't know WTF he's talking about.
>
> -sw
>
>
The above is from a recipe followed exactly from Cooks Illustrated. It does
work. It works great.

Little boy squirt, I thought you'd killfiled me.

Kent

"isw" > wrote in message
]...
> In article >,
> "Kent" > wrote:
>
>> "isw" > wrote in message
>> ]...
>> > In article om>,
>> > "Bob Terwilliger" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> George wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >>>> http://www.cookingforgeeks.com/blog/...diy-sous-vide/
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> For those of you who are 'tinker' inclined.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Someone should make a unit that drops into a standard cooler
>> >> >>> (Igloo,
>> >> >>> Coleman, etc.). One could do wonderful things with those
>> >> >>> inexpensive
>> >> >>> cryovaced USDA Select beef tenderloins, and other even cheaper
>> >> >>> cuts.
>> >> >>> We have a local store that sells those Select subprimals. I
>> >> >>> should
>> >> >>> suggest to them that they consider investing in a commercial sous
>> >> >>> vide
>> >> >>> cooker.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Obviously I'm missing something here. If you take a cheap, tough
>> >> >> piece
>> >> >> of meat, and cook it to rare all the way through, won't you end up
>> >> >> with
>> >> >> a rare, cheap, tough piece of meat?
>> >> >>
>> >> > You just process the tougher cuts at a lower temp for a longer time
>> >> > (>
>> >> > 24
>> >> > hours). That breaks down the connective tissue and turns the
>> >> > collagen
>> >> > into
>> >> > gelatin similar to braising only much better. So you could get the
>> >> > great
>> >> > beefy taste of say chuck and have it tender but not almost
>> >> > flavorless
>> >> > like
>> >> > a filet.
>> >>
>> >> There are plenty of tough cuts which don't *have* the connective
>> >> tissue
>> >> you
>> >> mention. Cooking them for a long period of time just makes them dry,
>> >> since
>> >> the proteins contract and drive the water out.
>> >
>> > Not if you keep the temperature low enough (and sous-vide does). If
>> > proteins don't contract at 131 F in one minute (as, say, when you pull
>> > that rare steak from the pan), then they won't contract after 24 hours
>> > at that same temperature -- the denaturing of proteins is temperature
>> > dependent, but not time dependent. But the collagen (or some of it)
>> > *will* break down. Give it a try.
>> >
>> > Isaac
>> >
>> >
>> We did something like this with eye of round. There was an article in
>> Cooks
>> Illustrated some time ago about this. It isn't sous vide, since the meat
>> is
>> not under vacuum and submerged.
>
> Insofar as home-cooking sous vide is concerned, I don't think the
> "vacuum" part is very important. The main points are to cook in a
> liquid, which conducts heat far better than air, and to isolate the
> product from the cooking liquid so the flavor doesn't get diluted.
>
> Restaurant sous vide cooking (cook, flash chill, rewarm when an order
> comes in) is a very different thing.
>
> Isaac
>
>
I thought as you that the vacuum part isn't important. I put a piece of
sirloin into a ziplock bag, and sucked out the air. I warmed it very very
slowly to 130F in water. It didn't work. The air spaces between the plastic
and the meat kept the meat from cooking. If you're going to cook in liquid
slowly the meat has to be in a vacuum to allow heat transfer from liquid
through the plastic to the meat. The same principle, however, does work in
a very low temp oven as above. It's just not sous vide or "under vacuum".
I've done it with eye of round. I haven't tried to cook a thick sirloin in
this way.

Kent

In article >,
"Kent" > wrote:

> "isw" > wrote in message
> ]...
> > In article >,
> > "Kent" > wrote:
> >
> >> "isw" > wrote in message
> >> ]...
> >> > In article om>,
> >> > "Bob Terwilliger" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> George wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >>>> http://www.cookingforgeeks.com/blog/...diy-sous-vide/
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> For those of you who are 'tinker' inclined.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> Someone should make a unit that drops into a standard cooler
> >> >> >>> (Igloo,
> >> >> >>> Coleman, etc.). One could do wonderful things with those
> >> >> >>> inexpensive
> >> >> >>> cryovaced USDA Select beef tenderloins, and other even cheaper
> >> >> >>> cuts.
> >> >> >>> We have a local store that sells those Select subprimals. I
> >> >> >>> should
> >> >> >>> suggest to them that they consider investing in a commercial sous
> >> >> >>> vide
> >> >> >>> cooker.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Obviously I'm missing something here. If you take a cheap, tough
> >> >> >> piece
> >> >> >> of meat, and cook it to rare all the way through, won't you end up
> >> >> >> with
> >> >> >> a rare, cheap, tough piece of meat?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> > You just process the tougher cuts at a lower temp for a longer time
> >> >> > (>
> >> >> > 24
> >> >> > hours). That breaks down the connective tissue and turns the
> >> >> > collagen
> >> >> > into
> >> >> > gelatin similar to braising only much better. So you could get the
> >> >> > great
> >> >> > beefy taste of say chuck and have it tender but not almost
> >> >> > flavorless
> >> >> > like
> >> >> > a filet.
> >> >>
> >> >> There are plenty of tough cuts which don't *have* the connective
> >> >> tissue
> >> >> you
> >> >> mention. Cooking them for a long period of time just makes them dry,
> >> >> since
> >> >> the proteins contract and drive the water out.
> >> >
> >> > Not if you keep the temperature low enough (and sous-vide does). If
> >> > proteins don't contract at 131 F in one minute (as, say, when you pull
> >> > that rare steak from the pan), then they won't contract after 24 hours
> >> > at that same temperature -- the denaturing of proteins is temperature
> >> > dependent, but not time dependent. But the collagen (or some of it)
> >> > *will* break down. Give it a try.
> >> >
> >> > Isaac
> >> >
> >> >
> >> We did something like this with eye of round. There was an article in
> >> Cooks
> >> Illustrated some time ago about this. It isn't sous vide, since the meat
> >> is
> >> not under vacuum and submerged.
> >
> > Insofar as home-cooking sous vide is concerned, I don't think the
> > "vacuum" part is very important. The main points are to cook in a
> > liquid, which conducts heat far better than air, and to isolate the
> > product from the cooking liquid so the flavor doesn't get diluted.
> >
> > Restaurant sous vide cooking (cook, flash chill, rewarm when an order
> > comes in) is a very different thing.
> >
> > Isaac
> >
> >
> I thought as you that the vacuum part isn't important. I put a piece of
> sirloin into a ziplock bag, and sucked out the air. I warmed it very very
> slowly to 130F in water. It didn't work. The air spaces between the plastic
> and the meat kept the meat from cooking.

Well, that's odd, because that's exactly what I did -- using "ZipLok"
freezer bags and the little pump they provide for them. Worked fine.

And I've read that *as long as you get rid of air bubbles*, you don't
even need the vacuum. I've seen descriptions of that method on line.
Basically, you submerge the bag slowly, and let the water push the air
up and out.

But if your description describes what you actually did: "warmed it very
very slowly to 130F in water", that's not sous vide. You need to put the
meat in water that's already at 130 F (or whatever), and keep it at that
temperature for quite a while -- say an hour or more. Lots more (24-48
hours) if you're wanting to tenderize a tough cut.

Isaac

On Nov 11, 11:19*pm, isw > wrote:
> In article >,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *"Kent" > wrote:
> > "isw" > wrote in message
> > ]...
> > > In article >,
> > > "Kent" > wrote:
>
> > >> "isw" > wrote in message
> > >> ]...
> > >> > In article om>,
> > >> > "Bob Terwilliger" > wrote:
>
> > >> >> George wrote:
>
> > >> >> >>>>http://www.cookingforgeeks.com/blog/...diy-sous-vide/
>
> > >> >> >>>> For those of you who are 'tinker' inclined.
>
> > >> >> >>> Someone should make a unit that drops into a standard cooler
> > >> >> >>> (Igloo,
> > >> >> >>> Coleman, etc.). *One could do wonderful things with those
> > >> >> >>> inexpensive
> > >> >> >>> cryovaced USDA Select beef tenderloins, and other even cheaper
> > >> >> >>> cuts.
> > >> >> >>> We have a local store that sells those Select subprimals. *I
> > >> >> >>> should
> > >> >> >>> suggest to them that they consider investing in a commercial sous
> > >> >> >>> vide
> > >> >> >>> cooker.
>
> > >> >> >> Obviously I'm missing something here. *If you take a cheap, tough
> > >> >> >> piece
> > >> >> >> of meat, and cook it to rare all the way through, won't you end up
> > >> >> >> with
> > >> >> >> a rare, cheap, tough piece of meat?
>
> > >> >> > You just process the tougher cuts at a lower temp for a longer time
> > >> >> > (>
> > >> >> > 24
> > >> >> > hours). That breaks down the connective tissue and turns the
> > >> >> > collagen
> > >> >> > into
> > >> >> > gelatin similar to braising only much better. So you could get the
> > >> >> > great
> > >> >> > beefy taste of say chuck and have it tender but not almost
> > >> >> > flavorless
> > >> >> > like
> > >> >> > a filet.
>
> > >> >> There are plenty of tough cuts which don't *have* the connective
> > >> >> tissue
> > >> >> you
> > >> >> mention. Cooking them for a long period of time just makes them dry,
> > >> >> since
> > >> >> the proteins contract and drive the water out.
>
> > >> > Not if you keep the temperature low enough (and sous-vide does). If
> > >> > proteins don't contract at 131 F in one minute (as, say, when you pull
> > >> > that rare steak from the pan), then they won't contract after 24 hours
> > >> > at that same temperature -- the denaturing of proteins is temperature
> > >> > dependent, but not time dependent. But the collagen (or some of it)
> > >> > *will* break down. Give it a try.
>
> > >> > Isaac
>
> > >> We did something like this with eye of round. *There was an article in
> > >> Cooks
> > >> Illustrated some time ago about this. It isn't sous vide, since the meat
> > >> is
> > >> not under vacuum and submerged.
>
> > > Insofar as home-cooking sous vide is concerned, I don't think the
> > > "vacuum" part is very important. The main points are to cook in a
> > > liquid, which conducts heat far better than air, and to isolate the
> > > product from the cooking liquid so the flavor doesn't get diluted.
>
> > > Restaurant sous vide cooking (cook, flash chill, rewarm when an order
> > > comes in) is a very different thing.
>
> > > Isaac
>
> > I thought as you that the vacuum part isn't important. I put a piece of
> > sirloin into a ziplock bag, and sucked out the air. I warmed it very very
> > slowly to 130F in water. It didn't work. The air spaces between the plastic
> > and the meat kept the meat from cooking.
>
> Well, that's odd, because that's exactly what I did -- using "ZipLok"
> freezer bags and the little pump they provide for them. Worked fine.
>
> And I've read that *as long as you get rid of air bubbles*, you don't
> even need the vacuum. I've seen descriptions of that method on line.
> Basically, you submerge the bag slowly, and let the water push the air
> up and out.
>
> But if your description describes what you actually did: "warmed it very
> very slowly to 130F in water", that's not sous vide. You need to put the
> meat in water that's already at 130 F (or whatever), and keep it at that
> temperature for quite a while -- say an hour or more. Lots more (24-48
> hours) if you're wanting to tenderize a tough cut.

True, and the reason to keep the water circulating is so you can bring
the meat up to that temperature as quickly as possible without
bringing the surface of the meat to a higher temperature. It's kind
of like a convection oven. Would you send me a supplies/sources list
and plans? John K. and I want to build one.

Thanks.
>
> Isaac

--Bryan

On Nov 9, 10:47*pm, isw > wrote:
> In article >,
> *Curt Nelson > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 11/8/2010 11:46 PM, isw wrote:
> > > In >,
> > > * Curt > *wrote:
>
> > > --snip--
>
> > >> Sous vide certainly isn't for everyone, but I enjoy it and it has
> > >> completely transformed my cooking.
>
> > > I've just recently started with it, and so far, am pretty impressed.
> > > Care to share some of you big "successes"? Hints and suggestions? Things
> > > *not* to try?
>
> > > Isaac
>
> > Hi Issac,
>
> > I bumped my reply up to a new thread. Good luck with sous vide!
>
> > As you discover more, don't get too caught up with the food evangelists..
> > Sous vide is nothing more than an interesting way of cooking that
> > produces very certain and predictable results.
>
> > The fun ensues when you use your imagination to make incredible
> > creations. A great (and cheap) learning experience for me was cooking
> > eggs at various temperatures and failing miserably... and then
> > succeeding spectacularly.
>
> > Now I can cook an egg breakfast that will bring tears to your eyes. ;-)
>
> I've not yet tried eggs sous vide, but my reading tells me that cooking
> them that way is at least tricky (because of the range of temperatures
> over which egg proteins denature).
>
> What did you do that turned out so well?

Does yours have this sort of pump?
http://www.amazon.com/Sunterra-10900.../dp/B000E5T70K
>
> Isaac

--Bryan

In article
>,
Bryan > wrote:

> On Nov 9, 10:47*pm, isw > wrote:
> > In article >,
> > *Curt Nelson > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On 11/8/2010 11:46 PM, isw wrote:
> > > > In >,
> > > > * Curt > *wrote:
> >
> > > > --snip--
> >
> > > >> Sous vide certainly isn't for everyone, but I enjoy it and it has
> > > >> completely transformed my cooking.
> >
> > > > I've just recently started with it, and so far, am pretty impressed.
> > > > Care to share some of you big "successes"? Hints and suggestions? Things
> > > > *not* to try?
> >
> > > > Isaac
> >
> > > Hi Issac,
> >
> > > I bumped my reply up to a new thread. Good luck with sous vide!
> >
> > > As you discover more, don't get too caught up with the food evangelists.
> > > Sous vide is nothing more than an interesting way of cooking that
> > > produces very certain and predictable results.
> >
> > > The fun ensues when you use your imagination to make incredible
> > > creations. A great (and cheap) learning experience for me was cooking
> > > eggs at various temperatures and failing miserably... and then
> > > succeeding spectacularly.
> >
> > > Now I can cook an egg breakfast that will bring tears to your eyes. ;-)
> >
> > I've not yet tried eggs sous vide, but my reading tells me that cooking
> > them that way is at least tricky (because of the range of temperatures
> > over which egg proteins denature).
> >
> > What did you do that turned out so well?
>
> Does yours have this sort of pump?
> http://www.amazon.com/Sunterra-10900.../dp/B000E5T70K

I did not use a pump. I thought I'd see how it worked out without one
and go from there -- so far, I haven't felt I needed one.

Note: My home-made controller just "bangs" the slow cooker's (fairly
weak) heater on and off. I felt that the temperature differential that
causes would be likely to produce enough convection (and so far it seems
to). If I had decided to actually "servo" the heater to be constantly
running at precisely the power necessary to maintain the setpoint, then
the temperature gradients would be smaller, and I believe that some sort
of forced circulation *might* be necessary.

Also, in a commercial kitchen, where the water bath might be loaded with
a lot of stuff, a powerful heater plus forced circulation would most
likely give a more uniform environment throughout the bath.

If I did add a pump, it would most likely be something like the
propeller from a model boat, driven through a "flexible shaft in a tube"
like a speedometer cable, but made of plastic (I'm a real cheapskate
whenever I can hack instead of buy).

Isaac

In article
>,
Bryan > wrote:

> On Nov 11, 11:19*pm, isw > wrote:
> > In article >,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *"Kent" > wrote:
> > > "isw" > wrote in message
> > > ]...
> > > > In article >,
> > > > "Kent" > wrote:
> >
> > > >> "isw" > wrote in message
> > > >> ]...
> > > >> > In article om>,
> > > >> > "Bob Terwilliger" > wrote:
> >
> > > >> >> George wrote:
> >
> > > >> >> >>>>http://www.cookingforgeeks.com/blog/...diy-sous-vide/
> >
> > > >> >> >>>> For those of you who are 'tinker' inclined.
> >
> > > >> >> >>> Someone should make a unit that drops into a standard cooler
> > > >> >> >>> (Igloo,
> > > >> >> >>> Coleman, etc.). *One could do wonderful things with those
> > > >> >> >>> inexpensive
> > > >> >> >>> cryovaced USDA Select beef tenderloins, and other even cheaper
> > > >> >> >>> cuts.
> > > >> >> >>> We have a local store that sells those Select subprimals. *I
> > > >> >> >>> should
> > > >> >> >>> suggest to them that they consider investing in a commercial
> > > >> >> >>> sous
> > > >> >> >>> vide
> > > >> >> >>> cooker.
> >
> > > >> >> >> Obviously I'm missing something here. *If you take a cheap,
> > > >> >> >> tough
> > > >> >> >> piece
> > > >> >> >> of meat, and cook it to rare all the way through, won't you end
> > > >> >> >> up
> > > >> >> >> with
> > > >> >> >> a rare, cheap, tough piece of meat?
> >
> > > >> >> > You just process the tougher cuts at a lower temp for a longer
> > > >> >> > time
> > > >> >> > (>
> > > >> >> > 24
> > > >> >> > hours). That breaks down the connective tissue and turns the
> > > >> >> > collagen
> > > >> >> > into
> > > >> >> > gelatin similar to braising only much better. So you could get
> > > >> >> > the
> > > >> >> > great
> > > >> >> > beefy taste of say chuck and have it tender but not almost
> > > >> >> > flavorless
> > > >> >> > like
> > > >> >> > a filet.
> >
> > > >> >> There are plenty of tough cuts which don't *have* the connective
> > > >> >> tissue
> > > >> >> you
> > > >> >> mention. Cooking them for a long period of time just makes them
> > > >> >> dry,
> > > >> >> since
> > > >> >> the proteins contract and drive the water out.
> >
> > > >> > Not if you keep the temperature low enough (and sous-vide does). If
> > > >> > proteins don't contract at 131 F in one minute (as, say, when you
> > > >> > pull
> > > >> > that rare steak from the pan), then they won't contract after 24
> > > >> > hours
> > > >> > at that same temperature -- the denaturing of proteins is
> > > >> > temperature
> > > >> > dependent, but not time dependent. But the collagen (or some of it)
> > > >> > *will* break down. Give it a try.
> >
> > > >> > Isaac
> >
> > > >> We did something like this with eye of round. *There was an article in
> > > >> Cooks
> > > >> Illustrated some time ago about this. It isn't sous vide, since the
> > > >> meat
> > > >> is
> > > >> not under vacuum and submerged.
> >
> > > > Insofar as home-cooking sous vide is concerned, I don't think the
> > > > "vacuum" part is very important. The main points are to cook in a
> > > > liquid, which conducts heat far better than air, and to isolate the
> > > > product from the cooking liquid so the flavor doesn't get diluted.
> >
> > > > Restaurant sous vide cooking (cook, flash chill, rewarm when an order
> > > > comes in) is a very different thing.
> >
> > > > Isaac
> >
> > > I thought as you that the vacuum part isn't important. I put a piece of
> > > sirloin into a ziplock bag, and sucked out the air. I warmed it very very
> > > slowly to 130F in water. It didn't work. The air spaces between the
> > > plastic
> > > and the meat kept the meat from cooking.
> >
> > Well, that's odd, because that's exactly what I did -- using "ZipLok"
> > freezer bags and the little pump they provide for them. Worked fine.
> >
> > And I've read that *as long as you get rid of air bubbles*, you don't
> > even need the vacuum. I've seen descriptions of that method on line.
> > Basically, you submerge the bag slowly, and let the water push the air
> > up and out.
> >
> > But if your description describes what you actually did: "warmed it very
> > very slowly to 130F in water", that's not sous vide. You need to put the
> > meat in water that's already at 130 F (or whatever), and keep it at that
> > temperature for quite a while -- say an hour or more. Lots more (24-48
> > hours) if you're wanting to tenderize a tough cut.
>
> True, and the reason to keep the water circulating is so you can bring
> the meat up to that temperature as quickly as possible without
> bringing the surface of the meat to a higher temperature. It's kind
> of like a convection oven. Would you send me a supplies/sources list
> and plans? John K. and I want to build one.

I will gladly send you what I have, but I should warn you, it's more of
an "idea starting point" than a finished item. I'm a retired
physicist/engineer, and I know how to do the full-tilt-boogie of product
documentation, but I rarely do that for personal hacks.

Isaac

I have one of those Quasar microwaves with a temperature control probe
which I use for sous vide. If you have one, or a similar one, perhaps
you can try your hand at an easy sous vide without an expensive water
bath piece of equipment -- at least as an experiment.

-Take a boneless chicken breast (season if you want)

-Place it in a vacuum bag and remove all the air (I use the FoodSaver
system)

-Place a two quart Pyrex bowl or measuring container with sufficient
water to cover your chicken package in the microwave and heat it to
130 degrees using the temperature probe (do not have the chicken in
the water at this time - you want the water to temperature - first)

-When temperature is reached, THEN place the chicken package in the
water container. Make sure it is submerged (you may have to put a non-
metalic weight on top of the package to keep it under the water)

-Continue to microwave at Medium with a temperature setting of 130
degrees. Cycles will be mostly off as all it is doing is keeping the
water at 130 degrees. There will be some microwaving of the chicken so
that is why I select 130 degrees rather than the published 140
degrees. [If you like your chicken 'more done' then use higher
temperatures]

-You can wrap the container with the water and chicken package with a
towel to keep heat in and to cut down the microwaving

-Leave the chicken in the hot water bath in the microwave for at least
40 minutes

-Result: great evenly cooked tender juicy chicken. You'de be surprised
how good.

PS: I also use my temperature probe microwave to make large batches of
yogurt. Very easy to do. I've written about it before.

Gary Hayman
Greenbelt, Maryland

On Nov 13, 1:42*am, isw > wrote:
> In article
> >,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Bryan > wrote:
> > On Nov 9, 10:47 pm, isw > wrote:
> > > In article >,
> > > Curt Nelson > wrote:
>
> > > > On 11/8/2010 11:46 PM, isw wrote:
> > > > > In >,
> > > > > Curt > wrote:
>
> > > > > --snip--
>
> > > > >> Sous vide certainly isn't for everyone, but I enjoy it and it has
> > > > >> completely transformed my cooking.
>
> > > > > I've just recently started with it, and so far, am pretty impressed.
> > > > > Care to share some of you big "successes"? Hints and suggestions? Things
> > > > > *not* to try?
>
> > > > > Isaac
>
> > > > Hi Issac,
>
> > > > I bumped my reply up to a new thread. Good luck with sous vide!
>
> > > > As you discover more, don't get too caught up with the food evangelists.
> > > > Sous vide is nothing more than an interesting way of cooking that
> > > > produces very certain and predictable results.
>
> > > > The fun ensues when you use your imagination to make incredible
> > > > creations. A great (and cheap) learning experience for me was cooking
> > > > eggs at various temperatures and failing miserably... and then
> > > > succeeding spectacularly.
>
> > > > Now I can cook an egg breakfast that will bring tears to your eyes. ;-)
>
> > > I've not yet tried eggs sous vide, but my reading tells me that cooking
> > > them that way is at least tricky (because of the range of temperatures
> > > over which egg proteins denature).
>
> > > What did you do that turned out so well?
>
> > Does yours have this sort of pump?
> >http://www.amazon.com/Sunterra-10900.../dp/B000E5T70K
>
> I did not use a pump. I thought I'd see how it worked out without one
> and go from there -- so far, I haven't felt I needed one.
>
> Note: My home-made controller just "bangs" the slow cooker's (fairly
> weak) heater on and off. I felt that the temperature differential that
> causes would be likely to produce enough convection (and so far it seems
> to). If I had decided to actually "servo" the heater to be constantly
> running at precisely the power necessary to maintain the setpoint, then
> the temperature gradients would be smaller, and I believe that some sort
> of forced circulation *might* be necessary.
>
> Also, in a commercial kitchen, where the water bath might be loaded with
> a lot of stuff, a powerful heater plus forced circulation would most
> likely give a more uniform environment throughout the bath.
>
> If I did add a pump, it would most likely be something like the
> propeller from a model boat, driven through a "flexible shaft in a tube"
> like a speedometer cable, but made of plastic (I'm a real cheapskate
> whenever I can hack instead of buy).

I didn't buy a pump. Here's what I ordered:

Temperature Switch
Model: TCS-4010
SKU: 466562
$48.20

Low Temperature Thermocouple
Model: TTW00065
SKU: 44760
$20.52

Ordered from https://www.drillspot.com

They only charged $6.51 shipping for a total of only $75.23.


I went with the longer probe hoping for more representative
temperature since I'm following your suggestion of placing the
thermocouple inside a pipe, though I think I'll be using PVC. John
Kuthe is doing most of the assembly, and it will be used in both a
large roaster and a smaller (6qt?) slow cooker. Thanks for your
guidance.
>
> Isaac

--Bryan

On Nov 13, 5:13*pm, Bryan > wrote:
> On Nov 13, 1:42*am, isw > wrote:
>
>
>
> > In article
> > >,
>
> > *Bryan > wrote:
> > > On Nov 9, 10:47 pm, isw > wrote:
> > > > In article >,
> > > > Curt Nelson > wrote:
>
> > > > > On 11/8/2010 11:46 PM, isw wrote:
> > > > > > In >,
> > > > > > Curt > wrote:
>
> > > > > > --snip--
>
> > > > > >> Sous vide certainly isn't for everyone, but I enjoy it and it has
> > > > > >> completely transformed my cooking.
>
> > > > > > I've just recently started with it, and so far, am pretty impressed.
> > > > > > Care to share some of you big "successes"? Hints and suggestions? Things
> > > > > > *not* to try?
>
> > > > > > Isaac
>
> > > > > Hi Issac,
>
> > > > > I bumped my reply up to a new thread. Good luck with sous vide!
>
> > > > > As you discover more, don't get too caught up with the food evangelists.
> > > > > Sous vide is nothing more than an interesting way of cooking that
> > > > > produces very certain and predictable results.
>
> > > > > The fun ensues when you use your imagination to make incredible
> > > > > creations. A great (and cheap) learning experience for me was cooking
> > > > > eggs at various temperatures and failing miserably... and then
> > > > > succeeding spectacularly.
>
> > > > > Now I can cook an egg breakfast that will bring tears to your eyes. ;-)
>
> > > > I've not yet tried eggs sous vide, but my reading tells me that cooking
> > > > them that way is at least tricky (because of the range of temperatures
> > > > over which egg proteins denature).
>
> > > > What did you do that turned out so well?
>
> > > Does yours have this sort of pump?
> > >http://www.amazon.com/Sunterra-10900.../dp/B000E5T70K
>
> > I did not use a pump. I thought I'd see how it worked out without one
> > and go from there -- so far, I haven't felt I needed one.
>
> > Note: My home-made controller just "bangs" the slow cooker's (fairly
> > weak) heater on and off. I felt that the temperature differential that
> > causes would be likely to produce enough convection (and so far it seems
> > to). If I had decided to actually "servo" the heater to be constantly
> > running at precisely the power necessary to maintain the setpoint, then
> > the temperature gradients would be smaller, and I believe that some sort
> > of forced circulation *might* be necessary.
>
> > Also, in a commercial kitchen, where the water bath might be loaded with
> > a lot of stuff, a powerful heater plus forced circulation would most
> > likely give a more uniform environment throughout the bath.
>
> > If I did add a pump, it would most likely be something like the
> > propeller from a model boat, driven through a "flexible shaft in a tube"
> > like a speedometer cable, but made of plastic (I'm a real cheapskate
> > whenever I can hack instead of buy).
>
> I didn't buy a pump. *Here's what I ordered:
>
> Temperature Switch
> Model: TCS-4010
> SKU: 466562
> $48.20
>
> Low Temperature Thermocouple
> Model: TTW00065
> SKU: 44760
> $20.52
>
> Ordered fromhttps://www.drillspot.com
>
> They only charged $6.51 shipping for a total of only $75.23.
>
> I went with the longer probe hoping for more representative
> temperature since I'm following your suggestion of placing the
> thermocouple inside a pipe, though I think I'll be using PVC. *John
> Kuthe is doing most of the assembly, and it will be used in both a
> large roaster and a smaller (6qt?) * * *slow cooker. *Thanks for your
> guidance.
>
>
>
> > Isaac
>
> --Bryan

I am? I figure I'd come over and we'd drink a little and sacrifice a
slow cooker! ;-) You have a power drill and bits, correct?

Or you could bring it all over here and same scenario. I know I have
all the tools necessary.

John Kuthe...

On Nov 13, 6:31*pm, John Kuthe > wrote:
> On Nov 13, 5:13*pm, Bryan > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 13, 1:42*am, isw > wrote:
>
> > > In article
> > > >,
>
> > > *Bryan > wrote:
> > > > On Nov 9, 10:47 pm, isw > wrote:
> > > > > In article >,
> > > > > Curt Nelson > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On 11/8/2010 11:46 PM, isw wrote:
> > > > > > > In >,
> > > > > > > Curt > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > --snip--
>
> > > > > > >> Sous vide certainly isn't for everyone, but I enjoy it and it has
> > > > > > >> completely transformed my cooking.
>
> > > > > > > I've just recently started with it, and so far, am pretty impressed.
> > > > > > > Care to share some of you big "successes"? Hints and suggestions? Things
> > > > > > > *not* to try?
>
> > > > > > > Isaac
>
> > > > > > Hi Issac,
>
> > > > > > I bumped my reply up to a new thread. Good luck with sous vide!
>
> > > > > > As you discover more, don't get too caught up with the food evangelists.
> > > > > > Sous vide is nothing more than an interesting way of cooking that
> > > > > > produces very certain and predictable results.
>
> > > > > > The fun ensues when you use your imagination to make incredible
> > > > > > creations. A great (and cheap) learning experience for me was cooking
> > > > > > eggs at various temperatures and failing miserably... and then
> > > > > > succeeding spectacularly.
>
> > > > > > Now I can cook an egg breakfast that will bring tears to your eyes. ;-)
>
> > > > > I've not yet tried eggs sous vide, but my reading tells me that cooking
> > > > > them that way is at least tricky (because of the range of temperatures
> > > > > over which egg proteins denature).
>
> > > > > What did you do that turned out so well?
>
> > > > Does yours have this sort of pump?
> > > >http://www.amazon.com/Sunterra-10900.../dp/B000E5T70K
>
> > > I did not use a pump. I thought I'd see how it worked out without one
> > > and go from there -- so far, I haven't felt I needed one.
>
> > > Note: My home-made controller just "bangs" the slow cooker's (fairly
> > > weak) heater on and off. I felt that the temperature differential that
> > > causes would be likely to produce enough convection (and so far it seems
> > > to). If I had decided to actually "servo" the heater to be constantly
> > > running at precisely the power necessary to maintain the setpoint, then
> > > the temperature gradients would be smaller, and I believe that some sort
> > > of forced circulation *might* be necessary.
>
> > > Also, in a commercial kitchen, where the water bath might be loaded with
> > > a lot of stuff, a powerful heater plus forced circulation would most
> > > likely give a more uniform environment throughout the bath.
>
> > > If I did add a pump, it would most likely be something like the
> > > propeller from a model boat, driven through a "flexible shaft in a tube"
> > > like a speedometer cable, but made of plastic (I'm a real cheapskate
> > > whenever I can hack instead of buy).
>
> > I didn't buy a pump. *Here's what I ordered:
>
> > Temperature Switch
> > Model: TCS-4010
> > SKU: 466562
> > $48.20
>
> > Low Temperature Thermocouple
> > Model: TTW00065
> > SKU: 44760
> > $20.52
>
> > Ordered fromhttps://www.drillspot.com
>
> > They only charged $6.51 shipping for a total of only $75.23.
>
> > I went with the longer probe hoping for more representative
> > temperature since I'm following your suggestion of placing the
> > thermocouple inside a pipe, though I think I'll be using PVC. *John
> > Kuthe is doing most of the assembly, and it will be used in both a
> > large roaster and a smaller (6qt?) * * *slow cooker. *Thanks for your
> > guidance.
>
> > > Isaac
>
> > --Bryan
>
> I am? I figure I'd come over and we'd drink a little and sacrifice a
> slow cooker! ;-) You have a power drill and bits, correct?
>
> Or you could bring it all over here and same scenario. I know I have
> all the tools necessary.
>
> John Kuthe...

And I'd place the thermocouple directly in the waterbath. It's
stainless steel after all. And you don't want anything coming between
it and the water to delay the temperature transmission from the water
to the thermocouple. Just my thoughts on the subject.

John Kuthe...

On Nov 13, 6:39*pm, John Kuthe > wrote:
> On Nov 13, 6:31*pm, John Kuthe > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 13, 5:13*pm, Bryan > wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 13, 1:42*am, isw > wrote:
>
> > > > In article
> > > > >,
>
> > > > *Bryan > wrote:
> > > > > On Nov 9, 10:47 pm, isw > wrote:
> > > > > > In article >,
> > > > > > Curt Nelson > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On 11/8/2010 11:46 PM, isw wrote:
> > > > > > > > In >,
> > > > > > > > Curt > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > --snip--
>
> > > > > > > >> Sous vide certainly isn't for everyone, but I enjoy it and it has
> > > > > > > >> completely transformed my cooking.
>
> > > > > > > > I've just recently started with it, and so far, am pretty impressed.
> > > > > > > > Care to share some of you big "successes"? Hints and suggestions? Things
> > > > > > > > *not* to try?
>
> > > > > > > > Isaac
>
> > > > > > > Hi Issac,
>
> > > > > > > I bumped my reply up to a new thread. Good luck with sous vide!
>
> > > > > > > As you discover more, don't get too caught up with the food evangelists.
> > > > > > > Sous vide is nothing more than an interesting way of cooking that
> > > > > > > produces very certain and predictable results.
>
> > > > > > > The fun ensues when you use your imagination to make incredible
> > > > > > > creations. A great (and cheap) learning experience for me was cooking
> > > > > > > eggs at various temperatures and failing miserably... and then
> > > > > > > succeeding spectacularly.
>
> > > > > > > Now I can cook an egg breakfast that will bring tears to your eyes. ;-)
>
> > > > > > I've not yet tried eggs sous vide, but my reading tells me that cooking
> > > > > > them that way is at least tricky (because of the range of temperatures
> > > > > > over which egg proteins denature).
>
> > > > > > What did you do that turned out so well?
>
> > > > > Does yours have this sort of pump?
> > > > >http://www.amazon.com/Sunterra-10900.../dp/B000E5T70K
>
> > > > I did not use a pump. I thought I'd see how it worked out without one
> > > > and go from there -- so far, I haven't felt I needed one.
>
> > > > Note: My home-made controller just "bangs" the slow cooker's (fairly
> > > > weak) heater on and off. I felt that the temperature differential that
> > > > causes would be likely to produce enough convection (and so far it seems
> > > > to). If I had decided to actually "servo" the heater to be constantly
> > > > running at precisely the power necessary to maintain the setpoint, then
> > > > the temperature gradients would be smaller, and I believe that some sort
> > > > of forced circulation *might* be necessary.
>
> > > > Also, in a commercial kitchen, where the water bath might be loaded with
> > > > a lot of stuff, a powerful heater plus forced circulation would most
> > > > likely give a more uniform environment throughout the bath.
>
> > > > If I did add a pump, it would most likely be something like the
> > > > propeller from a model boat, driven through a "flexible shaft in a tube"
> > > > like a speedometer cable, but made of plastic (I'm a real cheapskate
> > > > whenever I can hack instead of buy).
>
> > > I didn't buy a pump. *Here's what I ordered:
>
> > > Temperature Switch
> > > Model: TCS-4010
> > > SKU: 466562
> > > $48.20
>
> > > Low Temperature Thermocouple
> > > Model: TTW00065
> > > SKU: 44760
> > > $20.52
>
> > > Ordered fromhttps://www.drillspot.com
>
> > > They only charged $6.51 shipping for a total of only $75.23.
>
> > > I went with the longer probe hoping for more representative
> > > temperature since I'm following your suggestion of placing the
> > > thermocouple inside a pipe, though I think I'll be using PVC. *John
> > > Kuthe is doing most of the assembly, and it will be used in both a
> > > large roaster and a smaller (6qt?) * * *slow cooker. *Thanks for your
> > > guidance.
>
> > > > Isaac
>
> > > --Bryan
>
> > I am? I figure I'd come over and we'd drink a little and sacrifice a
> > slow cooker! ;-) You have a power drill and bits, correct?

Over here, and I'm buying the beer, Schlafly Dry Hopped APA (surprise,
eh?).
>
> > Or you could bring it all over here and same scenario. I know I have
> > all the tools necessary.

Got a sodderin iron too.
>
> > John Kuthe...
>
> And I'd place the thermocouple directly in the waterbath. It's
> stainless steel after all. And you don't want anything coming between
> it and the water to delay the temperature transmission from the water
> to the thermocouple. Just my thoughts on the subject.

You also don't want it contacting the sides or the bag.
>
> John Kuthe...

--Bryan

"Bryan" > wrote in message
...

>
> Over here, and I'm buying the beer, Schlafly Dry Hopped APA (surprise,
> eh?).
>>
>> > Or you could bring it all over here and same scenario. I know I have
>> > all the tools necessary.
>
> Got a sodderin iron too.
>>
>
> --Bryan

Soldering iron.

Is this going to be one of those "Hey y'all, watch this shit!" scenarios?
What newspapers electronically publish Fire and Rescue reports in St. Louis?

In article
>,
zydecogary > wrote:

> I have one of those Quasar microwaves with a temperature control probe
> which I use for sous vide. If you have one, or a similar one, perhaps
> you can try your hand at an easy sous vide without an expensive water
> bath piece of equipment -- at least as an experiment.
>
> -Take a boneless chicken breast (season if you want)
>
> -Place it in a vacuum bag and remove all the air (I use the FoodSaver
> system)
>
> -Place a two quart Pyrex bowl or measuring container with sufficient
> water to cover your chicken package in the microwave and heat it to
> 130 degrees using the temperature probe (do not have the chicken in
> the water at this time - you want the water to temperature - first)
>
> -When temperature is reached, THEN place the chicken package in the
> water container. Make sure it is submerged (you may have to put a non-
> metalic weight on top of the package to keep it under the water)
>
> -Continue to microwave at Medium with a temperature setting of 130
> degrees. Cycles will be mostly off as all it is doing is keeping the
> water at 130 degrees. There will be some microwaving of the chicken so
> that is why I select 130 degrees rather than the published 140
> degrees. [If you like your chicken 'more done' then use higher
> temperatures]
>
> -You can wrap the container with the water and chicken package with a
> towel to keep heat in and to cut down the microwaving
>
> -Leave the chicken in the hot water bath in the microwave for at least
> 40 minutes
>
> -Result: great evenly cooked tender juicy chicken. You'de be surprised
> how good.

Very clever. But since chicken is mostly water, there's no reason to
believe, as you suggest, that the chicken could be anything like 10 F
warmer than the water it's floating in.

And note that 130 F may not be sufficient to kill salmonella, *no matter
how long* you cook the chicken. How accurate is your temperature probe?
(My guess: probably not better than +/- 2 F and likely somewhat worse.)
If it errs on the high side, salmonella is even more likely not to be
eliminated.

I'd suggest you check around for recommended time-temperature profiles
for killing salmonella.

Isaac

In article
>,
Bryan > wrote:

> On Nov 13, 1:42*am, isw > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *Bryan > wrote:
> > > On Nov 9, 10:47 pm, isw > wrote:
> > > > In article >,
> > > > Curt Nelson > wrote:
> >
> > > > > On 11/8/2010 11:46 PM, isw wrote:
> > > > > > In >,
> > > > > > Curt > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > --snip--
> >
> > > > > >> Sous vide certainly isn't for everyone, but I enjoy it and it has
> > > > > >> completely transformed my cooking.
> >
> > > > > > I've just recently started with it, and so far, am pretty
> > > > > > impressed.
> > > > > > Care to share some of you big "successes"? Hints and suggestions?
> > > > > > Things
> > > > > > *not* to try?
> >
> > > > > > Isaac
> >
> > > > > Hi Issac,
> >
> > > > > I bumped my reply up to a new thread. Good luck with sous vide!
> >
> > > > > As you discover more, don't get too caught up with the food
> > > > > evangelists.
> > > > > Sous vide is nothing more than an interesting way of cooking that
> > > > > produces very certain and predictable results.
> >
> > > > > The fun ensues when you use your imagination to make incredible
> > > > > creations. A great (and cheap) learning experience for me was cooking
> > > > > eggs at various temperatures and failing miserably... and then
> > > > > succeeding spectacularly.
> >
> > > > > Now I can cook an egg breakfast that will bring tears to your eyes.
> > > > > ;-)
> >
> > > > I've not yet tried eggs sous vide, but my reading tells me that cooking
> > > > them that way is at least tricky (because of the range of temperatures
> > > > over which egg proteins denature).
> >
> > > > What did you do that turned out so well?
> >
> > > Does yours have this sort of pump?
> > >http://www.amazon.com/Sunterra-10900.../dp/B000E5T70K
> >
> > I did not use a pump. I thought I'd see how it worked out without one
> > and go from there -- so far, I haven't felt I needed one.
> >
> > Note: My home-made controller just "bangs" the slow cooker's (fairly
> > weak) heater on and off. I felt that the temperature differential that
> > causes would be likely to produce enough convection (and so far it seems
> > to). If I had decided to actually "servo" the heater to be constantly
> > running at precisely the power necessary to maintain the setpoint, then
> > the temperature gradients would be smaller, and I believe that some sort
> > of forced circulation *might* be necessary.
> >
> > Also, in a commercial kitchen, where the water bath might be loaded with
> > a lot of stuff, a powerful heater plus forced circulation would most
> > likely give a more uniform environment throughout the bath.
> >
> > If I did add a pump, it would most likely be something like the
> > propeller from a model boat, driven through a "flexible shaft in a tube"
> > like a speedometer cable, but made of plastic (I'm a real cheapskate
> > whenever I can hack instead of buy).
>
> I didn't buy a pump. Here's what I ordered:
>
> Temperature Switch
> Model: TCS-4010
> SKU: 466562
> $48.20
>
> Low Temperature Thermocouple
> Model: TTW00065
> SKU: 44760
> $20.52
>
> Ordered from https://www.drillspot.com
>
> They only charged $6.51 shipping for a total of only $75.23.
>
>
> I went with the longer probe hoping for more representative
> temperature

Be sure to calibrate the sensor/switch yourself; it might not be as
accurate as you'd like.

> since I'm following your suggestion of placing the
> thermocouple inside a pipe, though I think I'll be using PVC.

It looks like that sensor is already encased, and any sort of plastic is
a pretty poor conductor of heat.

But whatever you use, if there's an air gap between the sheath and the
sensor, it will be very slow to respond.

Isaac

In article
>,
John Kuthe > wrote:

> On Nov 13, 5:13*pm, Bryan > wrote:
> > On Nov 13, 1:42*am, isw > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > In article
> > > >,
> >
> > > *Bryan > wrote:
> > > > On Nov 9, 10:47 pm, isw > wrote:
> > > > > In article >,
> > > > > Curt Nelson > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > On 11/8/2010 11:46 PM, isw wrote:
> > > > > > > In >,
> > > > > > > Curt > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > --snip--
> >
> > > > > > >> Sous vide certainly isn't for everyone, but I enjoy it and it
> > > > > > >> has
> > > > > > >> completely transformed my cooking.
> >
> > > > > > > I've just recently started with it, and so far, am pretty
> > > > > > > impressed.
> > > > > > > Care to share some of you big "successes"? Hints and suggestions?
> > > > > > > Things
> > > > > > > *not* to try?
> >
> > > > > > > Isaac
> >
> > > > > > Hi Issac,
> >
> > > > > > I bumped my reply up to a new thread. Good luck with sous vide!
> >
> > > > > > As you discover more, don't get too caught up with the food
> > > > > > evangelists.
> > > > > > Sous vide is nothing more than an interesting way of cooking that
> > > > > > produces very certain and predictable results.
> >
> > > > > > The fun ensues when you use your imagination to make incredible
> > > > > > creations. A great (and cheap) learning experience for me was
> > > > > > cooking
> > > > > > eggs at various temperatures and failing miserably... and then
> > > > > > succeeding spectacularly.
> >
> > > > > > Now I can cook an egg breakfast that will bring tears to your eyes.
> > > > > > ;-)
> >
> > > > > I've not yet tried eggs sous vide, but my reading tells me that
> > > > > cooking
> > > > > them that way is at least tricky (because of the range of
> > > > > temperatures
> > > > > over which egg proteins denature).
> >
> > > > > What did you do that turned out so well?
> >
> > > > Does yours have this sort of pump?
> > > >http://www.amazon.com/Sunterra-10900.../dp/B000E5T70K
> >
> > > I did not use a pump. I thought I'd see how it worked out without one
> > > and go from there -- so far, I haven't felt I needed one.
> >
> > > Note: My home-made controller just "bangs" the slow cooker's (fairly
> > > weak) heater on and off. I felt that the temperature differential that
> > > causes would be likely to produce enough convection (and so far it seems
> > > to). If I had decided to actually "servo" the heater to be constantly
> > > running at precisely the power necessary to maintain the setpoint, then
> > > the temperature gradients would be smaller, and I believe that some sort
> > > of forced circulation *might* be necessary.
> >
> > > Also, in a commercial kitchen, where the water bath might be loaded with
> > > a lot of stuff, a powerful heater plus forced circulation would most
> > > likely give a more uniform environment throughout the bath.
> >
> > > If I did add a pump, it would most likely be something like the
> > > propeller from a model boat, driven through a "flexible shaft in a tube"
> > > like a speedometer cable, but made of plastic (I'm a real cheapskate
> > > whenever I can hack instead of buy).
> >
> > I didn't buy a pump. *Here's what I ordered:
> >
> > Temperature Switch
> > Model: TCS-4010
> > SKU: 466562
> > $48.20
> >
> > Low Temperature Thermocouple
> > Model: TTW00065
> > SKU: 44760
> > $20.52
> >
> > Ordered fromhttps://www.drillspot.com
> >
> > They only charged $6.51 shipping for a total of only $75.23.
> >
> > I went with the longer probe hoping for more representative
> > temperature since I'm following your suggestion of placing the
> > thermocouple inside a pipe, though I think I'll be using PVC. *John
> > Kuthe is doing most of the assembly, and it will be used in both a
> > large roaster and a smaller (6qt?) * * *slow cooker. *Thanks for your
> > guidance.
> >
> >
> >
> > > Isaac
> >
> > --Bryan
>
> I am? I figure I'd come over and we'd drink a little and sacrifice a
> slow cooker! ;-) You have a power drill and bits, correct?
>
> Or you could bring it all over here and same scenario. I know I have
> all the tools necessary.

I just plug the slow cooker into my relay box and hang the sensor over
the edge -- no mods to the cooker at all.

Isaac

On Nov 14, 12:18*am, isw > wrote:
> In article
> >,
>
>
>
-- snip --
>
> Very clever. But since chicken is mostly water, there's no reason to
> believe, as you suggest, that the chicken could be anything like 10 F
> warmer than the water it's floating in.-
-snip --
>
> Isaac- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Very true about the temperature. But the chicken, itself will become a
little more excited with the microwaves than the water accounting for
it's (slight) difference in temperature.

If one is worried, since you really can't take an easy temperature
through the vacummed bag immersed in the water, I would then increase
the microwave's probe setting to 140 (or more) to be on the safe side
as you suggested.

The whole idea for using this technique is for those new to the idea,
to test Sous Vide at home before they spend $400 for a professional
machine or $300 for parts to build their own.

Since one never knows, in a restaurant, if Sous Vide is being used
(I've never seen it printed on a menu -- but maybe asking the waiter
to check with the chef might produce honest (or not) results, it is
kind of important for one to try it out first and learn how good it
can be in many instances, prompting them to become more involved with
the technique at home.

The same goes for a Induction Hob. Most Americans, but not Europeans,
do not know much or anything about Induction cooking. It's a shame,
for once they do, perhaps like me, would switch over.

Gary Hayman
http://bit.ly/GarysInfo