dougal

What you refer to as "Baking Soda" is called "Bicarbonate of Soda" in English English. Colloquially, it might be referred to as "bicarb". Chemically, it is Sodium Bicarbonate. It can usually be found on the baking shelves, but sometimes (also) among toothpastes and the like. Occasionally you might find some on the cleaning shelves! Baking Powder is, well, "baking powder"... (but there is a gluten-free variant) and like "Cream of Tartar" can be found on the baking shelves. http://www.supercook.co.uk/ingredients and scroll down to "Raising Agents".

I'm not quite sure from these contradictory posts as to whether or not you do want saving from yourself. As explained upthread, nothing more than a socket adapter is required to use the safe solution of the pre-packaged unit, which you can then locate safely in your workspace - probably safely above your work surface. No significant electrical skill is required. That sounds a whole lot safer than your wish to install non-waterproof mains electrical stuff in a position where it could well get wet - with dangerous results. Note that because the switching is limited by the maximum *current*, its use on UK mains will allow the unit to switch over twice the *power* it can on US 110v mains. And hence the $20 cheaper, lower spec unit might meet your needs. What power is your waterbath heater? And I presume that you've already studied the "Stove Mod" thread... And lastly, to ensure your preservation, do use an RCD protection switch on your wall socket: example http://www.homeandgarden.co.uk/smj-----rcd...50060-562-p.asp

Of course you could just add a second identical heater...

Umm, pardon me, but wouldn't cooling at the sides and heating in the middle make for rather excellent convection circulation?

Lovely concept! (And neat execution too.) I particularly like the way in which (as far as possible) this way of doing things is keeping mains electricity out of the way of the user. I haven't seen the particular PID and its enclosure, but I think I'd have removed them a little further away from the steam and grease of everyday cooking... I'd have been tempted to include a PID&SSR bypass - a simple switch (but rated for the current) to 'heal the cut' in the stove wiring... putting that switch in parallel with the SSR would give the option to make the stove work exactly as usual. With that switch in place, one could consider a plug/socket connection for the low voltage control connection between the PID and SSR - so that the PID could be completely removed for its own protection when not needed! I've not seen any mention of what the output of these PIDs looks like... how short a cycle time do they go to - 1/2 a mains cycle? Typical mechanical (rather than 'electronic') "simmerstats" have switching cycles lasting many seconds, which is why many prefer the 'steadiness' of a gas flame - or at least the rapid electronic, fractional second, cycling of induction. Hence, I'd be curious enough to consider putting a small lamp (ordinary fridge bulb?), in parallel with the (cooker ring) load, so that I could observe the controller output switching, cycling (or apparently dimming/brightening). That sort of thing might be useful to those struggling to setup their PIDs - having a visualisation of the result of different tuning of the parameters. Does the SSR get hot? (Or rather, would its longevity be improved by giving it extra cooling?) EDIT: heat sink for SSR: http://auberins.com/index.php?main_page=pr...&products_id=45 Once again, congratulations on a wonderful project!

Regarding scales, you might be interested to see this older thread: - http://forums.egullet.org/index.php?showtopic=107829 Regarding refractometers, I've wondered about getting one for home winemaking. BUT, I'm not sure they actually offer any advantage over conventional density measurement, since their measurement (as with density) is influenced by the concentration of *both* alcohol and sugar.

dougal, when I first read this, I saw "N2O" (as in nitrous oxide), not "No. 2", as in Prague Powder No. 2! For a minute there, I was really confused... ← Apologies for my inexact typing! Yes, I meant Number Two (Prague Powder or "Cure") which mkayahara correctly abbreviates to "No. 2". And which has some nitrate, for longer-term curing protection, as recommended for air curing of items to be eaten without cooking. That Nitrate degrades to Nitrite and thence to Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) during curing has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with this... Nitrous (N2O) is for cream whippers, Adria-followers and petrol-heads (and some Dead-heads too), but not AFAIK for curers... (An appropriate smiley for laughing gas...) And to clarify what Ruhlman writes in Chapter 5 -- Number Two contains, rather than "is", Sodium Nitrate...

It is exactly what Ruhlman, for simplicity, calls "pink salt" (whether its pink or not). It should be 1/16th (ie 6.25%) nitrite. Since you mention a stuffer, be sure to also get some No2 if you intend trying Salami-type things... However, it might be worth mentioning that the book is sensibly structured, building technique as it progresses. Well worth reading sequentially (even if you don't intend to do things in that sequence!)

That is precisely what I had in mind when I wrote (above) about the *deliberate* introduction of imprecision and uncertainty. Its not so much about metric vs imperial -- its weights rather than volumes of loose (compactable) solids. It seems to patronise the US reader (poor thing, not able to buy and use a $15 digital scale) and it really must hurt export sales.

I'm an enthusiast for metric cooking (not least because its so easy to scale recipe quantities). BUT the real divide is between those authors that use *volume* measures and those that use *weight* measures, IMHO. Using volume measures for solids that may have variable 'packing densities' (notably flour and salt) immediately introduces imprecision and uncertainty. My personal opinion is that neither imprecision nor uncertainty is a positive characteristic that should be deliberately introduced into the communication process that is recipe writing.

Are you sure its *cheesecloth* that you are after? In English English, that stuff has a pretty open weave... ... and for a bouquet garni, I'd be using plain white "muslin" - a cheap, closer-woven, thin, low-lint cloth available from most textile/sewing/drapery/etc shops -- note: nothing to do with food, and you don't have to tell them what you want it for! Best to wash it before use, though.

I don't generally use gloves. BUT I wished I had recently, when I was half way through making a jar of preserved lemons. Salt and lemon juice seek out any hint of cracked/chapped skin... Marinating one's hands is painful!

I'm not so sure about that. I use my Canon PowerShot S3 IS in aperture priority mode pretty much exclusively, and I can tell you that I can only achieve that kind of depth of field by zooming in all the way; I'd be surprised if the A570 IS could do it. I love my camera, and did suggest it upthread, but if someone is looking to get that small depth of field, it's not going to come with the S3 IS. It's one of the reasons that, when I have the money, I'm going to get a DSLR. I'd keep the S3 IS because it's a great camera with the added convenience of not having to change lenses for zoom and macro and such. But it does have some limitations. Now, if a shallow depth of field isn't desired, there's no reason to buy a DSLR - I agree with that. If the pictures are straight on, for example... well, DOF isn't going to matter much, now is it? Now, if you're interested, here's the boyfriend's "technical" response: "Such is unfortunately not quite the case. Digital SLRs have sensors that are slightly smaller than 35mm, whereas non-slr digitals ("digicams") have sensors that tend to be around 10% of the size of 35mm. What this means is that the focal length needed to achieve the standard range of zoom for digicams is a very low number -- usually 6mm corresponds to 35mm. As depth of field (area of subject in focus) scales inversely with focal length, digicams have difficulty reducing it as shown above in any but the highest levels of zoom on the ultra-zoom models. In fact, the highest focal length of the S3 IS -- which has a ton of zoom -- is physically only 72mm. It corresponds to 432mm in the 35mm world, which is enough to take pictures of birds 40 feet away. FWIW, the example shots given above are from a roughly 72mm equivalent. Thus, to get the (lack of) DOF above with the S3, you would need to be zoomed in so much that you'd need to stand 50 feet away just to get the whole cake in the frame. Not very practical. It should also be noted that very, very few digicams get even down to f2.8 at full zoom, let alone f1.4. The lower the number, the less DOF/more blurring you have." ← Yes, focal length influences depth of field. BUT it gets much more complicated when considering different image sizes (such as 35mm film full frame vs different image chips in different cameras). The effect of out of focus blurring is actually measured in terms of the size of the "Circle of Confusion" (COC), which is usually thought of as being a simply measurable size. However, when dealing with different *image* sizes, one has to think of the size of the COC as a proportion of the image size! Simply put, I believe that putting a 35mm camera and a digital camera (whatever chip size) side by side on tripods, focused identically and then zooming their lenses so that their frames were filled identically (same focal length to image size ratio giving the exact same field of view) and set both to the same aperture (in f-stop terms, which is used specifically to relate it to focal length) - and - I think that you'd get identical out-of-focus blurring (as a proportion of the whole picture) with both. In short: -- I agree absolutely that the wider ("faster") the lens is set (in f-stop terms, thus the lower the f-stop number), the shallower will be the depth of field, and the better that detail can be made to stand apart from its background. Naturally the wider the lens' maximum aperture, the more potential there is for this. And so an f1.8 lens (as attached to a dSLR) will be able to better isolate stuff in this way than a 'compact' with only an f3.5 lens. -- I also agree that changing the lens focal length (on the same camera) makes a difference. In this way, zooming the compact towards telephoto (longer focal length) will narrow the depth of field - but, to retain the same field of view, the camera will need to be moved away. This may make slightly less difference than hoped because most modern zoom lenses have smaller effective apertures at longer focal lengths, which is why they are quoted as, for example "f/2.7 - f/3.5" for the Powershot S3. -- But I must disagree, utterly, that the small image chip size of a compact camera comes into play at all. Rather, its the other factors discussed above that are limiting. One should not rule out a camera on the basis of the physical size of its image chip. Pixel resolution perhaps, but physical size is simply irrelevant. And I must echo Sanrensho's comment that you don't need a dSLR to control depth of field! For a "still life" subject, like food, one will benefit from having control, and then understanding and using the control. But the typical dSLR advantages of changeable lenses and much better (ie less) shutter release 'latency' barely come into play. Control is the important attribute. And extending control to artificial lighting is where a flash attachment (rather than built-in) starts to matter. BUT as to just what excellent results can be obtained with a "compact" digital camera and daylight illumination, (with a little software assist maybe), have a look at the really splendid photos posted on eGullet by 'Chufi'. Skill matters more than equipment! One recent example - and if you check the EXIF metadata, you'll see that it was taken on a humble Canon A620 compact... And returning to Fibilou's original £250-ish budget, the 50mm f1.4 Canon EF lens (for the 350d), as mentioned in the quote above, would blow the entire budget on the lens, leaving nothing for the camera! The f1.8 is however generally considered excellent value at 1/4 of the price of the f1.4 ...

I'm intrigued by this. As I understand it, the knives you were using had previously been sharpened (repeatedly?) freehand on the waterstones. So what angle did you set? Did you use a Magic Marker?

Well, for the "light" pud, you might use frozen gooseberries (Iceland? Sainsbury Savacentre?) to make a gooseberry fool or similar creation... I'll take this opportunity to wish you well both for the feast, and the birthday!

I note that Edge Pro make mention on their site about using Diamond abrasives with their sharpening systems to sharpen ceramic knives -- specifically in the context of using diamond *only* on ceramic... http://edgeproinc.com/images/apex_or_the_pro.htm However since the diamond abrasives aren't currently listed in the ordering section of the site, I think it sounds like a specific request would be needed. Prasantrin: Having seen Chad's warnings in the eGullet sharpening tutorial about motorised grinders (at just the sort of price point you indicate), I'd be very reluctant to use such a thing on any "special" knife.

Indeed. Having lived through several such conversions in my lifetime, I am very firmly of the opinion that the way to "think" in a different unit is quite simply, to use it. If one converts everything back into "natural" (ie previously used) units -- then that is the way the thinking stays - in the "old" units. If your oven doesn't have a Centigrade scale, then post a conversion table as close to the oven knob as possible. Not on the fridge. Make it like your oven had a Centigrade scale. The approach that is likely to work is to think "I want 200C, so if I dial in, let me see, 390/395F that'll give me the 200C I'm aiming for". The wrong approach is to think "200C, therefore the recipe wants 392F really" The latter mindset does nothing to change your thinking. Use the units. Don't convert. If the recipe uses grams, set the scale to grams, and measure in grams. You'll start thinking in grams. But convert everything to ounces, measure in ounces, and your thinking will stay in ounces. I've met older French folks, who given a money amount in €uros, didn't merely mentally convert it into Francs ("New Francs"), they actually converted it into the Old Francs ("balles"), which were abolished by de Gaulle about 1960. Converting into old units clings onto the old measure. Just use the new units, and they will become natural. Its not difficult to use both. All you need are instruments marked with both units. In the UK, petrol is now sold exclusively in Litres. (Roughly $8 for a US gallon, since you ask.) 106p/l is high. But 102 would be worth filling up with. The idea of converting £1 and 6p and £1 and 2p into shillings (20 to the pound) and pence (12 to the shilling) doesn't occur. Neither does the conversion from litres to gallons. Its just 102 vs 106. But when thinking mpg (distances are 99% in miles) a conversion is needed. But its not hard to simultaneously think 102p/l and 40 mpg (proper big gallons too). My 'been there, done that" wisdom, is *not* to convert. Wherever possible. Just *use* the unit specified. And gradually, your thinking will adapt. Effortlessly. The whole can of worms about specifying volume or weight measurements is a completely different matter. IMHO its not wise to confuse the issues by introducing a different, and more contentious question.

I wonder if someone could explain what constitutes "butterfat"? Is it total fat content? Or just the saturated fats? Or saturated + mono-unsaturated? Or... what? My (Waitrose - UK Supermarket) tub of "Double Cream" has (per 100ml) 47.5g total fats including 29.7g saturated fats... How does that compare with 36% or 40% "butterfat"? And the "Extra Thick Double Cream" was 50.5g total fat (31.4g saturates, 13.0 mono- and 1.8g poly-unsaturates) -- but that is labelled "not suitable for whipping"...

The colours merely refer to the colour of the bottle cap - standardised nationwide. Blue was for skimmed milk - which was actually fairly rare in my childhood memory. Red top was the regular, and being pre-homogenisation, still had a distinct cream layer at the top of the bottle. Silver and Gold tops were "expensive", with lots of cream. When homogenisation was eventually introduced, it was signified by the colour being printed in stripes over the silver aluminium foil background. Certainly fresh (non-uht) "Cream" as a product in itself was much rarer (and more expensive - in proportion) than today. And in the 60's when my father bought a Kenwood Chef, he got the cream-maker attachment - but preferred the (by-then) readily available 'proper' cream! BTW, unpasteurised milk was sold with green tops. And the colours for today's plastic bottles with plastic tops are all different ...

First thing is whether it is a raw/dried (like Parma) ham, or whether it is a cooked (boiled/roasted/hot-smoked) ham. If its a cooked ham, then dividing into sensible sized portions, and then freezing makes sense. Don't make the joints *too* small, otherwise they'll risk drying out in the freezer. Smaller bits have more surface in proportion to their volume/bulk/weight and so dry out faster. The faster you freeze anything, the smaller the water crystals and the less damage to the food's texture. Larger joints will freeze slower. So this is an argument for smaller pieces. Hence my suggestion for "sensible sized" portions - whatever makes sense for you and your life! BTW, the longer you keep it frozen, the more the ice crystals will tend to grow together, to the detriment of the ham. The colder the freezer stays (frost-free means it doesn't) the less ice crystal growth. The best way of minimising freezer drying is vacuum packing. However, if its a raw ham, you could think of hanging it somewhere reliably cool, airy and neither dry nor excessively damp. Protect from animals and insects, (ADDED: and sunlight,) grease the exposed flesh surface, and you should be able to cut off pieces, whenever you choose, for some months...

Not boiling, more extended poaching. Three hours in "a gentle oven". Why? To produce an "unctuous, giving gastronomic tool" - an überstock.

Jaeggi is surely a must-see. And just along the road is Pages... http://www.allinlondon.co.uk/directory/1103/9626.php

So I am not quite sure from your post if you made this "gear" or purchased the ready-made product. Can you clarify this for me please. ← I don't believe they have opened up exports to Canada just yet! But it shouldn't be too hard for you to have a go. Blanch the pigs' trotters first, then cook long and slow in light chicken stock (rather than Cricklewood's veal) fortified with Madeira and some aromatic stock veg and herbs. After straining, tear whatever meat, fat and skin from the trotters and add to the gelling broth. Seal and store in the fridge. Henderson expects this to be used (and reused, for example after braising rabbits prior to their deep frying, thereby picking up "more potential") in about a quarter of the "suggestions" in the book. For those that haven't seen it, its not a book for veggies! The author believes that a half pigs head (cooked entire) is the perfect romantic supper dish for two. Perhaps, but not for every couple! Its a very "slim volume", with some maddening aspects, and could easily be repackaged into a volume physically even slimmer - but it does show his unusual and no mistake interesting thinking. Personally, I find the stylistic combination of precision and vagueness to be a bit irritating. Which is why I referred above to "suggestions" rather than recipes. For example the pot roasted bacon with prunes. This "serves 6". And requires 22 Agen prunes, stone in. OK, but why 22 prunes between 6 people? When the prunes are supposed *not* to break down (merely to "swell and retain their dignity" - thanks to their stones), wouldn't 24 have been more equitable for 6? (Or is there a social experiment subtext?) And although the cooking time is specified (yes, braised in "trotter gear"), it might be thought surprising that the quantity of bacon is not specified at all, although the breed of pig is. (Remember BTW that when he specifies "smoked" bacon here, he's talking about cold-smoked and unsweetened, English-style.) Similarly, when making "trotter gear", the quantity of Madeira is listed, while the chicken stock is vaguely 'to cover" - making the proportion a personal matter, rather than the author's own preference. A laudable liberal intent, but distinctly vague for anyone hoping to follow closely in a master's footsteps.

Thanks for that. As previously indicated, while I'm happy with my technique for little bits, I've not personally, yet, had occasion to have to dare to play with seriously large bits, and am keen to pick up on real experiences. Hope you enjoy the eating of it!

If you really are lacking a suitable pan, I think the oven makes more sense. Can you set your oven so that it gives you a true 70C? (or 72C or whatever you want to go with) If it'll do that, my suggestion is to - soak the thing to lose some salt - put it on a rack in the oven, just above a roasting tin of hot water. Cover the whole lot with a "tent" of aluminium foil. This arrangement should allow it to cook long and slow without drying out excessively. Though a disposable pastry coat could indeed be an alternative. - cook it until your new meat thermometer tells you the inside has got hot enough! Unless you have the temperature of the oven pretty tightly controlled, I think that ultra-long, ultra-slow is a counsel of perfection, rather than an essential... BTW 10lb at 25 minutes per pound would be over 4 hours in a 350F/175C oven... After you remove the skin - I must stress, don't dump it! It may not quite be Fergus Henderson's "Trotter Gear", but its on the way... Jackal10 - how did your sous-vide ham turn out? And what treatment did it eventually get?