dougal

Thanks for that!

THAT is serious foraging. Could you give us even a rough idea of when and where ... ?

The test would of course have to measure the extra energy consumption while chilling down that load ... There are two different things that have been confused at this point. 1 - Filling up the airspace with low thermal mass material - for example styrofoam - in order to reduce the airchange on door opening. The concept being that the air is 'hard to refrigerate'. 2 - Filling up the freezer with high thermal mass material - for example water - in order to minimise the temperature change produced by whatever amount of heat energy gets in when the door is opened. The rationale being that as well as reducing the airchange, the high thermal mass makes the compressor run longer, but less frequent cycles - which ought to be more efficient. Now, while I could believe that with a high-powered commercial system, designed to chill down large quantities of material quickly, it might well run short and inefficient compressor cycles if it was given much less than its designed cooling load, I really don't see this as being of any significance with typically low powered domestic equipment (with a freezing capacity of only 13 lb/24 hours (6kg/day) not being atypical. http://www.comet.co.uk/shopcomet/product/465232/INDESIT-BAN12NF/tab/specification#spec ) ADDED - we can also see that the experiment of filling it with 60 litres of water would therefore give it about 10 days of flat-out work to freeze it all ... which is a pretty considerable energy cost to recover from supposed extra efficiency. Note that short-cycling would be caused by the air in the freezer being chilled too quickly, too easily, by the cooling power of the compressor. The thermostat shuts off (too quickly for 'compressor efficiency') because it sees that the air is down to temperature. Its not because its too hard to do - its too easy! Filling the space with styrofoam (as reportedly advocated by "refrigeration guys" in post number 2) is NOT going to address the problem of a compressor that is too powerful for the job it has been given to do! ADDED -- I'm not convinced that giving a powerful compressor extra work to do (like chilling bottles of water) is going to reduce its total energy consumption. It may be working "more efficiently", but its doing LOTS of extra work! (that is unless you actually want all that water chilled ...) One of the aspects that has not been touched on is the humidity of the air change. This could be more important than the air's thermal capacity. This humidity gives rise to frost on the cooling tubes, in turn either reducing efficiency or needing frost-removal. I'm not saying that door-opening has NO energy cost, I'm saying that I don't think that the energy cost of door-opening for a domestic freezer (particularly a chest freezer) is going to be very different depending on how much food is stored in there. As long as door opening is infrequent, then its a matter of a small change to a small proportion of the total energy consumption. There are many factors that are more important. IMHO the principal factors are right-sizing and buying a high-efficiency unit. Get those wrong and it doesn't matter how you use it, you are going to be on a loser. Even well-run (defrosted regularly, etc) an inefficient appliance (as many old ones typically are) would be expected to use about double the electricity of a new one. The payback time for a replacement might only be about five years. And remembering that domestic energy is paid for out of after-tax income, that makes buying a new, efficient (and right-size) appliance a pretty good financial investment for the future, if your present one is not very efficient. In general, the experts at getting any particular fridge or freezer to run at maximum efficiency are the manufacturers. In the UK, the product labelling has to include the annual energy usage under standard test conditions. But just how standard? One dodge has been to 'recommend' in the instructions that the unit be placed well away from the wall - even though its stops allow it to be positioned quite close to the wall! The greater airspace permits the heat to be better dumped from the radiator. So one valid energy saving tip seems to be "pull your fridge or freezer further away from the wall". The UK test spec is being changed to 'back-stops against the wall' rather than using 'recommended clearances mentioned in the small print". The test conditions discussion paper makes quite interesting reading.

Indeed, but its worth adding the comment that handling liquids/sauces in the bag is MUCH simpler and easier if your 'foodsaver-type' machine has (at least) some manual control capability. If its full-auto-only, then things get quite tricky and you'll find you have to resort to freezing before bagging. Ziploc bags, part-immersed to evacuate the air (see this thread), are a better bet than a full-auto-only machine.

Paul, I ask again, what do you believe to be the basis of any benefit to keeping a CHEST freezer "at least three quarters full" - and specifically HOW do you believe that filling it up with cardboard boxes and/or newspapers could reduce the chest freezer's energy consumption? Would you agree that that much is nonsense? I'd like to get that dealt with before progressing to anything more complex and confusing.

But Paul, I've already pointed out that that air change represents comparatively little heat energy. My domestic freezer is about 100 litres capacity. If I lost 100 litres of cold air (a whole freezerful) and replaced it all with room temp air, (and modern freezers have drawer fronts to minimise the air change anyway) the heat content of the warm air going in would be the same as putting in 100/3000 litres of room temperature water. See the discussion of specific heats and the data reference above. Now 1/30 of a litre (or 33 ml) is just over 2 tablespoonfuls of water. So why did you open the fridge door? How significant is that compared to to giving it an extra couple of tablespoonfuls of water to chill? It seems I must repeat - the heat (or cold) content of air is TINY compared to water. (And food is largely water.) Yes, I haven't even included the Latent Heat of Freezing (it'll compensate for the Specific Heat of ice being less than that of liquid water.) Basically - air is something like 3000 times easier (it takes 3000x less energy) to heat or cool than water. If you leave the freezer door open long enough to lose cold from (or rather gain heat into) your precious food (rather than just the air), because you have MUCH more energy 'invested' in the cooling of your precious food than is invested in the mere air in the freezer -- you actually have more to lose when the freezer is full and you leave the door open longer than needed. And, as was pointed out previously, the fuller the freezer the longer it is going to take to locate and extract whatever you are wanting, so the longer the door will be open and therefore the greater the energy wastage! I'm afraid its just an 'internet myth' that filling your freezer will reduce your energy consumption. >> Paul - since you state that your point does not apply to Chest Freezers then how would this make any sense at all? http://www.thegreenparent.co.uk/articles/read/energy-saving/ Just the first example I happened to find of the myth. Surely you must agree that is nonsense? Well-intentioned nonsense certainly - but its still nonsense!

I think one pro 'cheat' is to cook one at a time (to fractionally undercooked) and then immediately chill it in cold water, before going on to the next. The cold eggs can then be trimmed to neaten them, and, when the time comes, reheated (several at a time) by popping them into hot water for 30 seconds or so ...

Can you explain more about this? I can try. My attempt was to deal with the fallacy that "It is much harder to refrigerate empty space than it is to refrigerate solid objects." That statement shows an unfamiliarity with the significance of the terms Specific Heat, and Heat (or Thermal) Capacity, which I deal with below. Note that in your quote, I was explaining about cooling - changing the temperature - rather than either the steady-state condition or the transient effects of opening the door (which is what you refer to). We can best deal with each of those three situations individually, rather than muddling them together. The first thing to be clear about is the difference between 'temperature' and 'heat'. They are different in the sort of way that speed and momentum (or perhaps more accurately, kinetic energy) are different. 'Heat' refers to a quantity of energy. Such as the quantity of (heat) energy you would transfer to a pan of water by turning on a particular electric heater element for exactly one minute. That is a set amount of heat - regardless of what is in the pan. But a different power heater or different duration, or both, changes the quantity of heat. Now lets apply an identical amount of heat (energy) to both a pint and to a gallon of water, when we will see that the temperature of the pint will change by eight times more than the gallon. Same heat energy input, different mass, thus different temperature change. Turning it round, to change the temperature of both by the same amount, the gallon requires 8x the heat energy that the pint needs. And that's the same if the 'heat' in question is negative. (Like with a fridge) It needs 8x more energy ("more heat") to be taken out to chill a gallon than to chill a pint (by the same temperature change). OK, now what about different materials? The same volume of different materials require different amounts of heat energy to change their temperature by the same amount. Physics fact - not up for discussion. This is the property of the material called its "Specific Heat" (sometimes Heat/Thermal Capacity.) The volumetric Specific Heat of air is only about 1/3000 th of that of water. So, compared to a pint of water, it only takes 1/3000th of the Heat (Energy) to make the same change in the temperature of a pint of air. So, the amount of energy transfer required to cool (to drop the temperature of) the air in a fridge is TINY, compared to the energy transfer required to cool anything "solid" - like meat, which is actually about 70% water - or to change the temperature of the actual structure of the fridge itself. Which is what I was saying in the section quoted above. Its not "harder" -- its about 3000 times easier! The energy transfer of a fridge is achieved with a heat pump (usually a compressor system), which (as a first approximation) uses energy roughly in proportion to the amount of energy it as asked to shift. The more heat energy it has to shift, the longer it has to run and the more it costs. The more heat energy getting into the fridge, the more the electricity bill. Pretty much in direct proportion. Now lets consider the steady state. The fridge and contents are fully down to temperature, the door is kept closed. In this situation, it will make no real difference whether the fridge is empty or well filled. The only energy that the heat pump needs to shift is the heat energy that leaks in through the insulation (including the door seals). In the steady state, it makes no difference what is in the fridge - the heat energy leakage does not vary with the content. OK, now the door opening. For a first approximation, when you have the door open for a set time, you would let in (roughly) the same amount of heat energy (or 'let cold out' - same thing), whether the fridge is full or empty. (Though if its full, it may take you longer to find what you want, so the door will be open longer, allowing MORE heat in!) Now, yes indeed, with a smaller thermal mass inside the fridge, that amount of heat WILL produce a greater temperature change. Likely even enough of a change to trip the (temperature sensitive) thermostat and start the compressor promptly. However, because it was the same amount of heat getting in (regardless of the contents), it is the same amount of heat energy that has to be removed by the compressor - and THAT means that the compressor will run for the same number of total extra minutes because of the door opening. It just may not happen instantly (because we have only a small temperature change when 'full', and it is temperature that the thermostat sees, but that would be a small temperature change applied to a large mass), however that same amount of heat energy that got in, still HAS to be removed eventually, and that means the compressor doing it. If the same amount of heat gets in, then the compressor has the same amount of heat energy to remove. Regardless of whether that energy has gone into a large or a small thermal mass, and consequently regardless of whether the fridge air temperature swing (after the door has been closed for a minute or so) is large or small -- its the same amount of energy - and it will take the same amount of work by the compressor to remove it! However, it IS indeed an approximation to say that the 'cold loss' (heat entry) on opening the door is independent of the content. Its quite a good approximation though, because air doesn't carry much heat (or cold) - see the heat capacity discussion above, AND modern high-efficiency freezers have drawer fronts (walk-ins have plastic strip curtains), to minimise the air-change on door opening. Nevertheless, as Andiesenji said above, it is always very good practice to minimise the time that the door is open ... (and thus the heat entering, or cold escaping, the freezer.) Its also worth noting that the thermostat controlling the compressor, is triggered by air temperature. Because the air cools faster (because it cools more easily) than the food, the thermostat will usually switch off the compressor LONG before the food is properly chilled down to temperature. The food then slightly warms the air, which turns on the thermostat again. It normally takes MANY MANY such cycles to chill down fresh food. And its the total extra running-time (beyond normal "steady state" running) that represents the extra cost of chilling extra food. Its very hard to subjectively add-up that extra time. Chris Hennes explained very well that its nothing to with the soon-ness with which the compressor might turn on, the energy cost of opening the door or adding extra (relatively warm) food is seen in the total extra compressor running time - which might be made up as extra seconds on each compressor cycle over the following hours. Despite 'real world' concerns (like the compressor having a minimum 'off time' between runs, and being less efficient in very short bursts -- both of which should be addressed by the controller design) the total running costs of a fridge or freezer doesn't really depend on how much material is stored (long term) in it. The running cost does depend on the heat pump efficiency (which will be affected by how much insulation (ice, dust) you have blanketing the coils (inside and maybe outside)), the inside/outside temperature difference, the quality of the fridge insulation, the size of the unit (with the same insulation, a bigger wall area allows more heat to leak in), the state of the seals, how long you have the door open, and how much stuff you are asking the fridge to bring down in temperature (how much new stuff goes in). But it depends barely at all on the amount of stuff kept in there. Its also important to remember that it is only air circulation inside the fridge that allows the temperature sensor of the thermostat to promptly experience a temperature 'typical' of the whole space. If the fridge is so full that air circulation is poor, that is going to 'fool' the thermostat - with the result that the compressor could either run too long (expensive) or too little (bad for the food). Which means that its a bad idea to block air circulation by filling up your freezer with styrofoam - as some 'internet wisdom' would have us do. In each of the three different conditions involved, there is no real energy-saving advantage in keeping the freezer full. Which means that its only when expressed as cost per pound of stuff stored in a specific fridge or freezer, that its less costly if its kept well filled. And it makes no sense to add pounds of junk, because that doesn't change the cost per pound of food refrigerated. Much more sensible would be to get a smaller freezer that is sized appropriately to your actual needs. And with similar insulation quality, etc, that WILL cost less to run.

No idea what US availability might be, but Kenwood bowls can be found in Stainless, Plastic and a pyrex-like milky Glass. The current, twin-handle stainless bowls are expensive (roughly £65/$100 retail in the UK), but good-condition older ones (without handles) go for about 1/3 of that on eBay UK. All same size (ie Chef-size or Major-size) bowls from over the years should be interchangeable for mixing purposes (but do check the height adjustment on each of your beaters), but that certainly doesn't extend to bowl lids, and might not extend to bowl accessories like the "Colander & Sieve".

I thought that 'Customer service' (in the USA) was supposed to be one important reason for their popularity. Would it be an idea to contact Kitchenaid and get them to provide details of service agents local to you? /This from the owner of an old Kenwood Major (practical) and an even older Electrolux DLX (seemingly unburstable)/

They are unveiling a plaque at The Sportsman on Sunday 26th Sept. Good story behind it.

Pedro, I think its probably as much to do with the printer as the computer. FWIW my vintage Mac (10.4.11 & using Preview) prints v1 at 71.7 mm to the 70mm line -- printing to an HP2300 laser. Changing the scaling (in 'Page Setup') from 100 to 98% takes it VERY close to 70 mm. Honestly, I don't think there's any need for special versions - just a suggestion to check the measurements, and if necessary re-print with a slightly adjusted printing scale - which is very easily done, at least on a Mac!

Maybe €168 rather than 1680 ... "Other models are available" I think the 2400's have two pumping speeds, for example. But I think the clearance 2860 is a decent price for a decent machine. However €580 plus only shipping within Europe would be cheap indeed for a chamber machine. Occasionally I have looked on eBay UK for used ones, and they seem to sell (even well used) for much more than €600.

Is it possible that what you are seeing arises from an inappropriate replacement probe? I'm aware, for example, that the temperature probes for the various models of SousVideMagic are NOT interchangeable. Perhaps someone else can offer suggestions for (re)calibratable continuous-read thermometers. I know that, among instant-read types, the Superfast Thermapen (as well as coming with a proper certificate of traceable-standards calibration - two point I believe) CAN be single-point recalibrated by the user (though IMHO it would be rare for that to be sensible) and the suppliers do offer a certificated recalibration service for used models as a standard service.

$600 + shipping at $270 minimum = $870 US Still not expensive for a chamber machine, but ... That is already about six times what my V2860 cost me. And then you have to factor in import taxes, import clearance agent fees, etc ... And I have a local warranty instead of dealing with Hong Kong. The V2860 can still be found in the UK for about £100 (delivery to Sweden would be more, maybe £20 ?) I'm a great advocate of buying electronics modules direct from China. That's where I got my PID & SSR to build my Sous Vide controller. (eBay + PayPal does seem to make the global marketplace viable) Such things are cheap (cheap enough to be below the minimum customs concern for imports) and rugged enough to be confident of them withstanding postage half way round the world in a padded bag. I wouldn't be anywhere near as confident about a 35 kg (say 85 lb) item, with lots of intricate mechanical parts, arriving in perfect condition.

Really, I think almost any cookbook can contribute something that can be twisted to sv -- particularly if it references cooking to a specified internal temperature, rather than by time or by qualitative or visual description. There are actually internal temperatures mentioned in Mastering the Art of French Cooking - kudos for being SO far ahead of the rest at that time! I'm going to make a prediction: - this is the next battle to be fought with cookbook editors after the weight measures struggle is won. "You are trying to cook, and you tell me that you don't even have a thermometer? Well, really!"

Its an interesting book, and doubtless significant in the historical context of Californian Cuisine and the Chez Panisse incubator, rather than in the context of charcuterie. And yes, Wise's bibliography DOES credit Jane Grigson's prior works. Not just the charcuterie one, but also the Fruit and the Vegetable books.

Have you calibrated your "instant read" thermometer? Or established how long it takes to get to a steady reading? "Instant read" is a misleading name. What it means is "don't leave it in while cooking". Generally they are SLOW. Very slow. S L O W to get to where they will end up. 30 seconds? A minute? Take a look at http://www.cookingforengineers.com/article/95/Kitchen-Thermometers The other side of this is that the alloy used for your digital probe is actually chosen NOT to conduct too well along the probe. Test it for yourself, by holding one end while you stick the other (pointed) end in some very hot water. Now try the same experiment with a metal skewer ... Just about the fastest of any instant (ie non permanent) kitchen thermometer is still the "Fast Response" Thermapen. (Yes they do slower, more rugged ones that aren't Fast Response.) And there is a new (even faster) model since that CookingForEngineers posting. ADDED: The new model seems to be called the "Superfast Thermapen" One of the ways it and the Fast Response models were made Faster is indeed to thin down the tip of the probe. Which makes it less rugged than the slower 'ordinary' Thermapens. But for now, I believe your Maverick much more than you do!

... Those numbers, if true, are pretty shocking. A 30 percent efficiency boost from keeping the coils clean? I have never in my life cleaned a refrigerator's coils. I guess I'll be starting. ... I think something may have got lost in translation. You aren't going to lose any significant efficiency because of normal household dust on the EXTERNAL radiator (most of whose surface area is in any case vertical or downward-facing, and so not going to get covered with dust). But it is usually forgotten that the radiator on the back of your fridge or freezer is there to dump heat into the room air. (So on top of the back of the fridge is usually not a cool, but actually a warm place, for things like bread proofing or beer brewing.) However, permitting good airflow over that radiator DOES matter to efficiency - so don't box it in - ventilate it! The thing is that you will lose a LOT of efficiency if the INTERNAL (cooling) coils are covered with thick ice. The ice acts as an insulator ... And it's even worse when the thermostat disappears inside a lump of 'frost' This is one reason for the popularity with modern officialdom of 'frost-free' freezers (even if they do make your ice cream go icy). A useful energy-efficiency cleaning tip is to make sure that the door seals can ... seal! Air leakage there wastes energy, wastes money. Sorry, but I don't think this is true either. I think it comes from a misunderstanding of comments about the cost or energy cost of keeping the stuff frozen. It probably started as something along the lines of "per pound of content, it costs more to have a freezer only half full." Which is perfectly true. As long as you include the "per pound" bit. "Think about it". The freezer motor and compressor have to run to remove the heat that leaks IN, through the insulation, or when the door is open. (We aren't dealing with 'warm' stuff being added to the freezer and needing cooling - just steady-state running.) Heat leakage through the insulation (and door) has (almost) nothing whatsoever to do with what is in the freezer. And it is actually easier to cool air ("empty space") than solid objects, because the air has less thermal capacity. It has less heat to remove. Almost nothing to do with it? Well, if you have an upright freezer, with no 'shelf-doors' (or solid drawer fronts), you will probably lose more cold air when you open the door of a pretty empty freezer than you'll lose from a 'full' one. The answer is to get a more modern, more energy-efficient freezer - with drawer-fronts or per-shelf doors. Or even a chest freezer, which "loses less cold" on opening the door than any upright. As to being harder to refrigerate "empty space", bear in mind that the thermostat (which controls the motor) is measuring the AIR temperature inside the freezer. Again, having 'plenty stuff' in the freezer makes little difference. Except this - you NEED to allow air circulation, so that the thermostat is exposed to a temperature typical of the whole freezer, not just its own corner. You NEED air circulation (its not "empty space" really) to spread and 'even out' the cold - otherwise the motor will be running too much or too little. So DON'T cram it so full as to impede the air circulation. Sure, the more thermal mass there is in the freezer (not styrofoam), the less the temperature will be affected by each opening of the door. However here we have to understand that temperature and heat are different things. The amount of heat getting into the freezer on opening the door will be pretty similar, whatever is in there. (Yes very slightly more will get in for an 'empty' freezer.) The point here is that even though a larger thermal mass in the freezer will show a smaller temperature change - its essentially the same amount of heat getting in, and thus the same amount of heat for the compressor to remove. In Europe (the EU), by law all new fridges and freezers must display their energy efficiency results, with a standardised easy-to-understand grading. http://www.energychoices.co.uk/energy-efficiency-ratings.html Good insulation, good door seals, an effective thermostat and an efficient compressor and refrigerant make for low energy use. Placing the unit in a cool location (so less temperature difference between inside and out, plus cooler air flowing over the external radiator) will reduce energy consumption. Conversely putting it in a hotspot (like next to the oven) will increase the energy demand. A word of warning however - many (but not all) modern ozone-friendly refrigerants are NOT suited to being used in a COLD environment. If you plan to put the thing in the cool of the garage (or a shed or outhouse) -- check the technical detail on this specific point before you buy. The risk is that you can destroy the compressor - an expensive repair.

OK, so my (paperback) copy arrived today - naturally, I haven't used any recipes yet. But some first impressions. It seems worthwhile. Happy to give it shelf space. There are technique discussions. Even a reasonable sequence of drawings to illustrate 'linking' fresh sausages. Perhaps outmoded by *video* but illustrative (!) of the helpful coverage. Seems not to expect much prior knowledge without being patronising -- however some recipe quantities are for quite large batches (though some are quite small). There's a preponderance of volume measures (other than for meat). Significant that there seem to be NO 'air-cured' (dried meat) recipes at all. And nothing being smoked either. I think the book was maybe mis-titled. Was the "Pig by the Tail" shop really a 'charcutier' or was it a 'traiteur'? There's a lot of stuff that definitely IS NOT charcuterie! Pasta salads? Pickled herring? Moroccan carrots? Mushrooms stuffed with snails or with spinach and ricotta? Roast Lamb? And (I kid you not) Shortbread and even beyond that, Chocolate Truffles. Apart from the fresh sausage, it strikes me as being more the stock-in-trade of a French traiteur - a deli selling prepared foods. Almost the first half of the book covers patés, fresh sausages and salted/brined meats & fish. Then we get into the sort of recipes that, while interesting enough (even if some do foreshadow 'fusion' cuisine), really cannot possibly be described as charcuterie. Best charcuterie book? Don't think so. But interesting nevertheless.

Yes. However, there is a "but". Its wrong thinking to take 'pasteurisation' as being absolute. Its an acceptable (massive) reduction of the nasties. Not their elimination. Hence i think its important to chill fast (ice and a minimum of water to contact the bags). Then you could hold (at properly-cold-fridge-temp) for at least a couple of weeks ... Reheating to your serving temperature ought also to be as quick as you can. So, from fridge straight into a preheated bath. And then you should have plenty latitude in service-holding time, once you are back up to temperature. The initial wide 'business' interest in SV seems to have been exactly this simplification of service/assembly with reheating chilled pre-prepared portions -- hence the pejorative "boil-in-the-bag" associations. Yes, I know the very beginning was with Foie Gras, but here I'm referring to the wider (trade rather than profession, if you will) take-up of the technique.

Induction generally uses LESS power than an equivalent thermal electric burner. For whatever (set) amount of electricity that goes down the wire, with induction more heat will go into the pan (and less into the room) than with old-school electric burners. Also, some induction designs limit their combined power. A deDietrich I used to live with would limit the combined power of front + rear rings, left and right. So you couldn't have both rings on one side full on simultaneously - if you wanted two rings flat out they had to be left and right. (This was never a problem, because you control induction rather than pull the pan part-way off the heat ...) It did have the effect of reducing the total supply requirement to less than the sum total of the theoretical maximum power of all the burners, though. If you are dealing with a 'range' (with one or more ovens), you'll probably find that the ovens can demand more power than the (induction) hob/cooktop. But in summary, induction is no different than any other electric cooker as far as supply goes. Its requirements are clearly stated. The unknown (from a distance) is your residential wiring. If you are planning to replace-with-a-bigger-cooker, you may have to upgrade your supply. Replacing with similar effective power, the induction should actually have a lower supply need than an equivalent (number of rings, oven size...) old electric cooker. That's guidance - as much or as good as you are likely to get online. For an answer to your specific installation considerations, you need to get your wiring looked at by a qualified electrician familiar with your local regulatory requirements.

My N2006P PID has an undocumented feature. Thinking that it looked VERY like the Auber SYL-2362A2, I downloaded its manual and compared. The Auber has a 'manual' mode whereby you can 'dial in' a chosen output duty cycle. (Press 'SET' for 5 seconds.) I tried this on my N2006P, and it did something slightly different. (I think the two units have different firmware, the passwords are different, even if the hardware, and much else does seem awfully similar.) The Auber is generally more feature-rich and thus versatile, potentially justifying its higher price. What mine gave me on pressing and holding 'Set' was nevertheless very interesting. And not in its own manual. Instead of showing measured and target temps, it then displays measured temp and the continually varying (auto-controlled) output duty cycle as %. It shows the PID output! One facet of this is that it shows how steady (or not) the bath is. You can see how the controller is working -- and that was a massive help to me when trying to improve on the autotuned settings. Anyway, at an indicated (Pt100) steady 56C (ambient about 22C) the PID tells me that it is on for 8% of the time (±0.2%). This was controlling a nominally 1800 watt heating element. So I was running about 144 watts. Add a very few for the controller itself and some inevitable losses in the SSR, and I'd confidently say that I was using about 150 watts for cooking. This was a "27 litre" (think 27 US quarts) water bath (filled to the 'max' line), uninsulated except for a brilliantly well-fitting lid. Incidentally its a Lidl "Jam Maker - Fruit Preserver" -- basically a 'canning' waterbath or tea urn - an enamelled steel vertical cylinder with a 'concealed element' under the waterbath floor, and with a convenient drain tap and even a nice grid to keep bags and things off the heated floor. Massively lower cost than a big rice cooker ... The Lidl 'Jam Maker' may not be much use for making jam, but its a bargain sv heated waterbath! Incidentally, my home digital Energy Monitor is comprehensively fooled by the 2 second cycle of the PID (the monitor gives a reading every 6 seconds and is clearly not expecting a rapidly varying demand!) So don't expect to get a 'direct measurement' from such devices ... I'm going to have a go sometime with some insulation. I was thinking of repurposing a foam (camping) 'sleeping mat'. However, since I'm relying on pure convection to stir the bath, I shall only insulate the lower 2/3 of the water depth. That way, I should expect to still get cooling at the sides of the surface, giving a downdraught. Certainly, if the insulation is effective, I'd expect to have to retune the PID. One reason for my procrastination!

I'm still delighted with my V2860 (see upthread), which, a year ago, in the expensive over-taxed UK, cost me £100 (around US$150), brand new inc delivery. Close-outs on premium models can be good bargains. I note that eBay (US) has some vendors offering inspected-customer-return (or ex-demo, etc) V2490 models for around $75 + shipping. That model seems to have the wide seal, pulse pumping (push-to-pump) and push-to-just-seal, two-speed pump, and a moist-seal setting. Which certainly sounds like it ought to do the job. (It sounds like a 2-speed version of my 3-speed V2860.) ADDED: V2490 instruction manual http://www.foodsaver.com/Manuals/MANUALS/FSV2490QuickStart_3_44.pdf (PDF download)

As I said initially, for grinder plate & blade sharpening, you really do need a FLAT abrasive. You aren't so much 'sharpening' as 'flattening'. And if your abrasive isn't VERY VERY FLAT, its very easy to make things worse. Its good to have flat stones for knife sharpening, but for working on a grinder there's a much greater need for a much greater degree of flatness. Hence the preference for some nice smooth glass, either well supported or itself quite stiff, to get your abrasive flat.