Slow cookers

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 05 Dec 2013, 17:45

kenneal - lagger wrote: I've now got to get it used more often.

Mmmm.......that's the tricky bit.

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 05 Dec 2013, 17:47

It's washable, Ken, unlike cloth/stuffing or cardboard/hay, and that's what counts. Anything that isn't washable, frankly, does not last long in a k...you-know-where!

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 05 Dec 2013, 17:54

Cloth is washable. The bags are made of denim. You just have to remove the stuffing

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 05 Dec 2013, 17:57

kenneal - lagger wrote:
PS_RalphW wrote:I'm guessing you heat the food to boiling point on a regular stove, then transfer it to the super-insulated pot where it stews in its own heat until it is cooked.
10/10 and a Gold star.

It might look high tech and expensive compared to a hay box but there was a chance of getting this into the wearedodgy whereas a messy box of hay or polystyrene stood no chance. I've now got to get it used more often.

During cold weather anything we cook in the same way as that device would sit in a pan on the wood stove (in other words, no real advantage with the 'thermal cooker' [is there another type of cooker?] unless you expect the fire to go out) but I can see it being great for during the summer in conjunction with a rocket stove (hat-tip to Biff).

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 05 Dec 2013, 18:04

woodburner wrote:Cloth is washable. The bags are made of denim. You just have to remove the stuffing

meh.

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 05 Dec 2013, 18:13

woodburner wrote:
kenneal - lagger wrote: I've now got to get it used more often.
Mmmm.......that's the tricky bit.

Very true!!

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 05 Dec 2013, 18:28

emordnilap wrote:
kenneal - lagger wrote:
PS_RalphW wrote:I'm guessing you heat the food to boiling point on a regular stove, then transfer it to the super-insulated pot where it stews in its own heat until it is cooked.
10/10 and a Gold star.

It might look high tech and expensive compared to a hay box but there was a chance of getting this into the wearedodgy whereas a messy box of hay or polystyrene stood no chance. I've now got to get it used more often.
During cold weather anything we cook in the same way as that device would sit in a pan on the wood stove (in other words, no real advantage with the 'thermal cooker' [is there another type of cooker?] unless you expect the fire to go out) but I can see it being great for during the summer in conjunction with a rocket stove (hat-tip to Biff).

That rocket stove might not be so easy in the UK. I've not seen an "H" block, that means some cutting is needed. The stove needs a grate to raise the fuel sticks off the floor to give cleaner combustion. Light weight blocks would be better as they have a greater insulation value. It may be possible to make the cut outs in big blocks with hole saws. Effectively that would mean a 1 block stove.

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 05 Dec 2013, 20:02

Those blocks are 225 hollow dense aggregate blocks and are readily available through builders merchants. Buying half a dozen might be a problem unless they have some in stock otherwise a pallet full might be a minimum requirement!!

I agree that a light weight block would be better so a minimum of three 225 x 225 x 450 blocks stacked on top of each other would be necessary to give the 450 riser for efficient combustion. A 100 diameter hole saw used to cut an L shaped tube would work although there would be a bit of fiddling at the junction of the two legs to get a smooth joint.

Some sort of pot skirt would have an even greater affect on the efficiency than the use of the rocket stove over an open fire.

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 05 Dec 2013, 23:37

Even a three-stone fire can be efficient. http://www.aprovecho.org/lab/index.php? ... format=raw

Fires can be clean burning when expert cooks push the sticks of wood into the fire as they burn, metering the fuel. The open fire can be a hot fire useful when food or drink needs to be prepared quickly. The energy goes into the pot, not into the cold body of a stove. The open fire can burn wood without making a lot of smoke; hot fires burn smoke as it is released from the wood. Unfortunately however, many fires used for cooking are built emphasizing simplicity of use and are wasteful and polluting.

Another rocket stove.

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 06 Dec 2013, 10:36

Those blocks are common in Ireland. The Irish adore cement, they are totally in love with it.

Accepting that the CO2 footprint of ordinary Portland cement is extremely high, you could make your own blocks if you wanted.

Tarrel · Post by **Tarrel** » 06 Dec 2013, 15:04

We got a slow cooker as a wedding pressy and it's still going strong (30 years later!) They're not that cheap to run when you look at the power consumption multiplied up over the cooking time, but their advantage is that low consumption, meaning they can be used with a relatively small inverter in an off-grid situation. Newer ones may have become more efficient. Ours has a stated consumption of 135W, and is quite a big one.

I suppose they're basically a poorly insulated hay-box, with the heating element compensating for the lack of insulation. The recipe book that came with ours does suggest a "one-step" method for some recipes, in which you chuck all the ingredients in and switch it on, but we mostly use ours "haybox" style, in which we bring the food to heat in a pan on the hob, then transfer it to the slow cooker to simmer away for the day. (Although since we had the Rayburn fitted, we've used it much less - the Rayburn on "idle" does much the same job.

They really are great for preparing cheaper, tougher cuts of meat, and lovely thick stews with root vegetables! Mrs T does the Christmas Puds in ours, which are awesome.

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 06 Dec 2013, 16:40

The low-power thing is nice because our roof produces low power all day in the winter (which is when we're most likely to be cooking that kind of dish). 135W would be just about right actually.

BritDownUnder · Post by **BritDownUnder** » 06 Dec 2013, 18:26

RenewableCandy wrote:The low-power thing is nice because our roof produces low power all day in the winter (which is when we're most likely to be cooking that kind of dish). 135W would be just about right actually.

Another low wattage device I sometimes used is a rice cooker. Mine uses about 300 watts and is about the same consumption as the rooftop PV array on a rainy day. Not only good for rice but you can also boil things with a steady boil after 10 mins.

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 06 Dec 2013, 22:27

We had a rice cooker but, unbelievably, I left it behind when we moved from the previous Chateau Renewable. I've been looking for a non-Teflon-lined one ever since.

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 09 Dec 2013, 13:15

RenewableCandy wrote:The low-power thing is nice because our roof produces low power all day in the winter (which is when we're most likely to be cooking that kind of dish). 135W would be just about right actually.

Our batteries were showing 98% full today until I turned on my computer. This computer is now running on about 32A of 100% solar power! Hooray!!