ray goud

You are absolutely, positively, without reservation, 100% correct. And amen.

You are correct that induction is better in response time than some electric resistance units (coils), especially if there is a solid surface cooktop, which I abhor. And at least theoretically induction should be faster than gas in response, if the pan bottom is too small or too large for the gas burner. I have a question, though: you state that you can dial down the power a notch or two; does that mean you have detents at various power settings? I ask because the controls could easily be infinite, with little increase in cost, and much better control capability.

Wrong - Induction is the most efficient way of transferring energy into heat cooking. There are many ways thay induction can be criticised:- - Pan limitations - Control - more a function of how the controls are designed but will never be infinite - Expense - No flame, if you need to char things - Standardisation - each hob is individual and takes time to get used to etc But to criticise induction for efficiency is incorrect. They are around 90% efficient compared with 50% or less for gas and electricity. .As stated before my ideal hob would be 4 induction rings and 1 large gas wok burner. With regard to cooking my chef friend didn't like my induction hob - she'd used it on the odd occasion while at mine and had linked it to electric. Also had had a bad experience with cheap induction hob - when she lived at mine for 3 weeks and got used to it she now raves about induction for it's speed and control. Also in her restaurant the idea of minimal extra heat being pumped into the kitchen in a hot summer has an immense appeal and if rebuilding the kitchen given a choice of one or the other she would go for gas for ultimate flexibility but if the budget allowed her preference would be 4:1 or 3:1 induction:gas burners ← Sorry, but no one has ever quoted independent, unbiased efficiency tests of induction cookers. The ones often cited by the manufacturers of the units are conducted by the makers and are not to be trusted. The reason they are inefficient is because of their very operating principle: a multi-wind (hundreds of turns) electric coil with a high-frequency voltage running through it generates a magnetic field and induces a current in a secondary coil, in this case a pan. This is somewhat like the principle of an electric transformer, but relies on the inefficiency of the secondary to produce heat. Since the pan has many fewer coils (or none!) than the primary coil, it is by definition less efficient. A very large amount of energy must be generated in the primary coil (under the cooktop), to compensate for the inefficient secondary (the pan). And that is not mentioning the distance the secondary is from the primary, which has a profound and geometric reduction in efficiency as the distance increases. I am speaking from experience in designing and building induction heating devices for industrial brazing (heating). Also wrong is the statement that induction can never have an infinite control - that is a primary reason they are used in industry, because they can be controlled very easily and infinitely. Much less important is their lack of efficiency when brazing surgical and aircraft components, which must be precisely made. In those applicatons, one can make the primary coil wrap around the workpiece to provide heat exactly where needed. I'm afraid the mistaken desirability of induction cookers has become something like an urban legend, something which may persist until some unimpeachable group finally tests them side-by-side with gas and electric ones. For the present, they are so expensive and thus so uncommon that few ever seriously consider them, as it should be.

Forget Induction, unless it is a stand-alone unit you can throw out. Induction was designed for industrial heating applications, where control was important, not efficiency. Induction cooktops have no place in a home, though one who has bought one would be difficult to admit to that.

What pans? There's no link or description!

I used to be a stone-purist about this until..... I tried a dry extra-fine diamond hone. Cuts quickly, doesn't load up, swarf wipes off easily on any kind of paper or rag. So far, (five years) hasn't worn out. Look at the woodworking tool catalogs for offerings. Oh, and I do it free-hand. Ray

I agree completely. Plus, if you skewer the food through the exact center it almost doesn't matter how heavy the food is. The Weber aftermarket add-on even has counterweights for unbalanced loads. Ray

I have several seafood cookbooks, but my favorite is "The Seafood Cookbook, Classic to Contemporary", by Pierre Franey and Bryan Miller. Mine says copyright 1986. I wouldn't be surprised if it was out of print. It is a no-nonsense straightforward collection of recipes, organized by style, such as: salads, baking, frying, etc. I have made many dishes from its recipes and every one came out perfectly! Cannot rate it any higher than wonderful. Too bad Pierre has passed away to the great French kitchen above. This is worth looking around for, even at used markets. Ray

You asked: Did anyone bother watching this tripe? I reply: NO Ray

I have seen the insides of a couple of self-cleaning ovens, and they had a bi-metallic strip acting as the interlock device: completely mechanical and not easy to defeat unless one is VERY handy with tools and mechanical devices. And that does not consider whether the particular oven also has an electrical interlock to prevent high heat if the bimetal fails. Ray

I have seen the insides of a couple of older self-cleaning ovens, and they didn't use the easily-defeated solenoid method; they used a bi-metallic strip which bent under the influence of heat and mechanically locked the door closed - thus the reason for the time delay (cool-down time). Perhaps a VERY handy person could defeat this lock. But only if it also did not close another switch in the oven electricals. We need some "major appliance" repair people to chime in. Ray

Crepinettes, which are a sort of flat sausage patty weighing between 1/2 and one pound each. I learned about them from a French charcuterie guy who opened a restaurant in Vermont, and sells his crepinettes and sausages at the farmers' market. The crepinettes are wrapped in the caul fat, which melts away during grilling. Ray

Hey, people, Judging by the lack of interest in this thread, some may conclude that there aren't many people who use or even know about caul fat. However, I just received good news for those who want to try the stuff: Niman Ranch is bringing the product back! Here is the message I received today: "Dear Ray, We have had several requests recently for this item so we will be returning it to the website this week. It will be found in the pork section and in the “freezer-ready” section. Best regards, Niman Ranch Customer Service" Hope this pleases more than just me. Ray

"Slow Cooker Cooking", by Lora Brody has a recipe for "golden tomato sauce". Looking at it, there seems no reason not to use red tomatoes. I have not tried this recipe, but I have tried at least twenty others from the book, and they all worked and are delicious. Crockpots won't work with the lid off. They don't have thermostats (just selector switches which energize different heating elements), and the general rulke is that: "every time you remove the lid, add fifteen minutes to the total cook time". The lid is necessary to retain the heat. (If anyone truly knows of a crockpot with a REAL thermostat, I'd like to know of it.) Ray

I have bought caul fat in the past from Niman Ranch, and it is great stuff. Unfortunately, they no longer sell it. Bummer. Thought some people might like to know. Here is my correspondence with them: Where on your website is the pork caul fat I have ordered in the past? Is it a phone-only item? Ray Dear Ray, Thank you for contacting Niman Ranch. The company discontinued the pork caul fat last Fall due to low sales. Best regards, Niman Ranch Ray

18-10 stainless steel is only a general term. It means that the maker could have used a number of alloys which had a chromium/nickel content in the range of 18 % and 10 %, respectively. What is more important is the AISI type designation, and surgical instruments are mostly made from type 304, type 304L, type 316, and type 316L varieties. That AISI range I just listed increases in corrosion resistance from lower to higher. In general, more chromium and more nickel are better. The types with suffix "L" mean there is less carbon in the mix, leading to more corrosion resistance. SS used for non-surgical cutlery is an entirely different kettle of fish. Sorry, but I forgot the second part of your question: I would ignore the existing pits and live with them. I would not attempt passivation in a home environment. ←

18-10 stainless steel is only a general term. It means that the maker could have used a number of alloys which had a chromium/nickel content in the range of 18 % and 10 %, respectively. What is more important is the AISI type designation, and surgical instruments are mostly made from type 304, type 304L, type 316, and type 316L varieties. That AISI range I just listed increases in corrosion resistance from lower to higher. In general, more chromium and more nickel are better. The types with suffix "L" mean there is less carbon in the mix, leading to more corrosion resistance. SS used for non-surgical cutlery is an entirely different kettle of fish.

Again, "natural" environmental oxidation of a stainless steel surface is unreliable in the extreme. If it wasn't, there would be no need to passivate surgical instruments made of SS. The exact same situation exists for aluminum; natural oxidation causes an aluminum oxide layer to instantly form, but it is very fragile and unreliable. So the manufacturer uses an electically-induced anodic process to form a thick oxide layer. I mention this because more people are familiar with "anodized aluminum" than they are with passivated stainless. I am frequently at a loss as to why the makers never mention the passivation process. I try not to think that some might not use the process, just as I hope that lead is not in childrens' toys.

WRONG

Maybe I'll give this a go this weekend! ← I must caution you to be very careful!!! The acid fumes are extremely dangerous!! Don't even try it unless you have complete ability to evacuate the fumes. Do you have means to protect against acid splashing? Do you have experience in mixing and diluting acids? The base is equally as dangerous as the acids. And why are you going to try it, anyway?

Please note that this is an industrial process and not to be undertaken without proper safeguards for personal safety. First the object must be cleaned of all foreign substances (oil, grease, polishing compounds, slag, stains, etc.) by immersion in a heated industrial cleaner (Oakite 40, etc.), for as long as required to reach a cleaned surface. Rinsing to remove the loosened and converted materials, and the cleaner, must be done next, several times. "Pickling" in a (dangerous) bath of heated acids (a 20% solution of hydrochloric acid and 20% solution of sulphuric acid) is next, for about twenty minutes with agitation at about 140 degrees F. Rinsing is next, then neutralizing the acid residues by immersing the SS object in a potassium hydroxide solution, then rinse again copiously. The "pickling" removes all iron molecules from the SS surface, whether they got there through manufacture or as part of the SS alloy, and cannot be skipped. What are left are chromium and nickel atoms. Next is actual passivation by immersion in a 140 degree 40% solution of nitric acid for another twenty minutes, with agitation. This forms the "oxide" layer. Rinse copiously. Neutralization is again done with the potassium hydroxide, then copious rinsing is the final step. FYI -Wikipedia is correct in that passivation CAN occur naturally. But, it is unreliable and extremely thin and fragile. Only a deliberate passivation done chemically can be expected to be useful. Another reaction which CAN occur naturally is anodizing of aluminum, but it is much too unreliable when done by Mother Nature, and responsible manufacturers do it deliberately to protect their (aluminum) products. An interesting side note is that industrial buffing/polishing of SS objects can give a passivated-like effect because the buffing/polishing compound smears the chromium/nickel atoms over the iron ones and protects the surface, somewhat. But it is not as good as passivation. Ray

Stainless Steel is what the name implies, it doesn't stain because of the alloying elements. Some stainless will rust but this is under the conditions of high humidity like if you put an item away damp and wait a long time. Personally, I don't worry at all about the stainless coatings on all my Falk cookware and have never found a pit. Certainly you can salt your food before putting your pans in the oven. Most of what you read about metalurgy on these Forums is from non-degreed individuals. -Dick ← Non-degreed does not mean inexperienced or unlearned. Stainless steel stains less, that's where the name comes from. If it was stain free, it would be called stainfree or stainproof. I can tell you the exact procedure for making a stainless surface passivated. I have passivated thousands of stainless objects, and have seen hundreds which had their passive surface damaged through neglect or misuse. Any damage in the passive surface, from a nick or even a scratch/smear from an iron-bearing object will defeat the passive nature and potentially cause corrosion. The alloying elements tend to improve the corrosion protection as they increase in their percentage, which is mostly imparted courtesy of the chromium in the mix. The most corrosion resistant alloy is 316L, which is almost exclusively used in surgical devices. Paulraphael was talking about leaving salt crystals intact on his pan. Yes, that spot with the pit will be more vulnerable to more corrosion. I don't know where you might get nitric acid to re-passivate the stainless, but it probably doesn't matter because you must treat it first with other acids, and that's quite dangerous outside of a controlled environment. Salting the water greatly reduces the concentration of the chlorine ions and is of no practical concern. General use in the kitchen is usually not dangerous to stainless pans. To be sure you aren't being destructive, use a SS scrub pad instead of the soap-bearing (and rust-prone) regular steel scrub pads, when you need to.

Yes, it's a good idea not to allow salt crystals to sit, undissolved, in SS. If they do, the chlorine ions released during dissolving will be in a MUCH higher concentration than normal, in one tiny spot. Chlorine is the mortal enemy of stainless. Chlorine ions are one of the few things able to penetrate the passivated surface of the metal. Passivation is a protective oxide layer on the stainless, formed both by normal exposure to the environment (but very slowly and unevenly), and also by conscientious manufacturers who wish the user to get the maximum life of their products. Deliberate passivation is much thicker and more even. Dissolving the salt in water (or whatever) greatly reduces the concentration of the ions, whether chlorine or sodium, at any spot on the metal, to the degree that the passivation is not affected. (I used to make surgical equipment of stainless steel.) Ray

NO. Because of physics: It requires one calorie of heat to be removed from each gram of liquid to lower its temperature by one degree. But, it requires EIGHTY calories of heat to be removed to cause the same one gram of liquid to freeze, when the liquid (water) is at the almost-freezing point. So, by pre-chilling you are doing relatively very little to hasten the freezing. Just let it get to room temp, then freeze. Especially since your machine has a built-in freezer. Ray

Thanks, Joe. Alas, no luck with Mitsuwa; they weren't familiar with instant nuka, though they have the regular, as does that link you included. Ray