though.As I said, I think some careful calculations and experiments would be needed. The amount of heat loss (hence 'efficiency') is dependent on, amongst other things, time - and (unless it were unusually well-insulated) the slow cooker would be 'losing heat' (to the environment) for maybe 12+ hours, whereas the oven would only be doing so for perhaps an hour or two.
i double fold a thick terry towel and lay it over the slow cook
you either need to reduce the cooking time by around 15-25% or turn the slow cook level down all by trial and effort
i have noticed on my fridge and f/freezer when they are running the sides get warm so would it hold the warm in rather than cold in as the internal foam is perhaps 30-40mm thick
just a thought ??
I'm not quite sure what "same effect" you are talking about - the effect 'on the food' or in terms of heat loss(if oven were set to same temp as the slow cooker)?though. ... The hour or two in the oven, does not produce the same effect as 12+ hours of slow cooking.
Makes sense. As I said, 'as they come' slow cookers are probably not as well insulated as ovens, so (if set to same temp) could well lose a lot more heat in 12+ hours than an oven wouldin 1-2 hours.Our slow cookers, we have a large and a small, cook in the utility room. I agree with John they do loose a tremendous amount of heat, so I just wrap multiple towels around them to retain the heat.
It hopefully is thermostatically controlled, so it might not need any intervention from you, but might save some energy when 'lagged' as you describe.I have not noticed any need to reduce the cooking time, or reduce the setting as a result.
But that not truly wasted heat is very expensive compared with gas or oil that is used to heat the house.It's really all down to relative heat losses (which may not be truly wasted, at least in Winter, since they will heat the house), since the Laws of Physics dictate that any given amount of heat production will always require the same amount of electrical energy.
Kind Regards, John
I'm not quite sure what "same effect" you are talking about - the effect 'on the food' or in terms of heat loss(if oven were set to same temp as the slow cooker)?
if its thermostatically,controled you wont as it compensates but iff its a basic model based on a given wattage then it will go to a higher temperature so get there quickerthough.
The hour or two in the oven, does not produce the same effect as 12+ hours of slow cooking.
Our slow cookers, we have a large and a small, cook in the utility room. I agree with John they do loose a tremendous amount of heat, so I just wrap multiple towels around them to retain the heat. I have not noticed any need to reduce the cooking time, or reduce the setting as a result.
Sure - but, as I said, I wasn't sure whether you were talking about that or about thermal 'effects'.Food cooked low, slow long results in much more tender usually. Tougher cuts of meat can be used, if the meat is done slow.
Traditionally that has been true, but it at least means that the lost heat is not 'totally wasted' (which is what I said). However, with what is currently happening to gas and oil prices (but less to electricity ones), we may have to re-think some of these traditional comparisons in the future.But that not truly wasted heat is very expensive compared with gas or oil that is used to heat the house.
Cold is a measurement of heat.i have noticed on my fridge and f/freezer when they are running the sides get warm so would it hold the warm in rather than cold in as the internal foam is perhaps 30-40mm thick
just a thought ??
I think that illustrates one of the main weaknesses in all the hype (which the government seem to believe) about how 'smart' meters will result in vast reductions of electricity usage.I use one of these to monitor every circuit in the house at the db (link) ... Only thing its cut down so far is filling the kettle with less water and running the washing machine on eco mode which is half the price of a normal wash.
Indeed - and that's a type of calculation which so many people don't even think of doing!... By they cost £40 to £65 each, where auto knock off kettle around £14 so £26 extra to get one cup boiler, that would buy a lot of electricity. ..
I think that illustrates one of the main weaknesses in all the hype (which the government seem to believe) about how 'smart' meters will result in vast reductions of electricity usage.
The majority of even half-intelligent people already know, without any technological assistance, which appliances/loads use the most electricity, and that they can reduce their electricity consumption by using them less (or for shorter periods) and/or with lower 'settings'/whatever (like less water in your kettle, or a more 'eco' mode with your WM) ... so, for most people, any sort of electricity monitoring, whether with a smart meter or the sort of system you mention, or whatever, will tell them little (and little about how to reduce their electricity consumption) that they do not already kknoe.
Maybe these things might be of some value to people who are less than "half-intelligent"?
Kind Regards, John
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local