| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
OT; Perfect boiled eggs
I do like a nice soft boiled egg with soldiers. Known as a 'dippy' egg
around here. Someone bought me a Lakeland egg boiler as a biffday pressie http://www.lakeland.co.uk/lakeland-e.../product/12922 The video demo explains how it works, but. Interesting idea. Consists of a water tray with heater at the bottom, a rack to hold up to 7 eggs and a cover with a small (6mm?) hole in the top. Idea is that a 'specified' amount of water is placed in the water tray, the egg(s) placed in the rack, the lid put on & the heater switched on. When all the water in the tray has boiled away a signal sounds and the egg(s) are ready. Heater output is fixed, the variable is the amount of water that goes into the tray. So far, so good. A small measuring beaker is supplied with 3 scales etched into the sides for hard, medium & soft boiled eggs. Each of these scales is subdivided 1-7 for the number of eggs to be boiled. The 'hard' scale is higher up the side of the beaker than the 'medium' scale, which is higher up than the 'soft' scale. Makes sense. The more water used, the longer it takes to boil away, the more the egg is cooked. Logical Captain. What I can't work out is the 1-7 scales. In each case the 1 egg mark is higher up than the 7 egg scale, so it indicates that 1 egg requires more water to cook than 7 eggs would? I'm confused by this, its counter intuitive. Surely 7 eggs take more heat to cook than 1 egg? E-mailed Lakeland and they confirm the scales are running the right way. Can anyone explain the science behind this? -- Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk |
OT; Perfect boiled eggs
The Medway Handyman wrote:
What I can't work out is the 1-7 scales. In each case the 1 egg mark is higher up than the 7 egg scale, so it indicates that 1 egg requires more water to cook than 7 eggs would? Do the eggs actually sit *in* the water rather than above it? If so, it seems clear to me that having only one egg in the pan is going to need more water to cover it than if there were six others taking up space in the same-sized pan. Pete |
OT; Perfect boiled eggs
Pete Verdon wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote: What I can't work out is the 1-7 scales. In each case the 1 egg mark is higher up than the 7 egg scale, so it indicates that 1 egg requires more water to cook than 7 eggs would? Do the eggs actually sit *in* the water rather than above it? If so, it seems clear to me that having only one egg in the pan is going to need more water to cover it than if there were six others taking up space in the same-sized pan. No, the eggs sit a little above the water line, they don't touch or sit in the water at all. Seems like the cooking is achieved by the steam. -- Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk |
OT; Perfect boiled eggs
On Sun, 05 Jul 2009 12:14:35 GMT, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote: No, the eggs sit a little above the water line, they don't touch or sit in the water at all. Seems like the cooking is achieved by the steam. You need less volume of steam if the top part is full of eggs ?? |
OT; Perfect boiled eggs
The Medway Handyman wrote:
Pete Verdon wrote: The Medway Handyman wrote: What I can't work out is the 1-7 scales. In each case the 1 egg mark is higher up than the 7 egg scale, so it indicates that 1 egg requires more water to cook than 7 eggs would? Do the eggs actually sit *in* the water rather than above it? If so, it seems clear to me that having only one egg in the pan is going to need more water to cover it than if there were six others taking up space in the same-sized pan. No, the eggs sit a little above the water line, they don't touch or sit in the water at all. Seems like the cooking is achieved by the steam. But does it actually _work_? It seems like a lot of faffing around to me. Best thing I've ever used is one of these http://www.lakeland.co.uk/egg-perfec...g/product/3158 Absolutely perfect every time :o) |
OT; Perfect boiled eggs
Andy Cap wrote:
On Sun, 05 Jul 2009 12:14:35 GMT, "The Medway Handyman" wrote: No, the eggs sit a little above the water line, they don't touch or sit in the water at all. Seems like the cooking is achieved by the steam. You need less volume of steam if the top part is full of eggs ?? Yerbut, the egs have greater mass? -- Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk |
OT; Perfect boiled eggs
The Medway Handyman wrote:
I do like a nice soft boiled egg with soldiers. Known as a 'dippy' egg around here. Known as a three minute egg round here. |
OT; Perfect boiled eggs
The Medway Handyman wrote:
I do like a nice soft boiled egg with soldiers. Known as a 'dippy' egg around here. Someone bought me a Lakeland egg boiler as a biffday pressie http://www.lakeland.co.uk/lakeland-e.../product/12922 The video demo explains how it works, but. Interesting idea. Consists of a water tray with heater at the bottom, a rack to hold up to 7 eggs and a cover with a small (6mm?) hole in the top. Idea is that a 'specified' amount of water is placed in the water tray, the egg(s) placed in the rack, the lid put on & the heater switched on. When all the water in the tray has boiled away a signal sounds and the egg(s) are ready. Heater output is fixed, the variable is the amount of water that goes into the tray. So far, so good. A small measuring beaker is supplied with 3 scales etched into the sides for hard, medium & soft boiled eggs. Each of these scales is subdivided 1-7 for the number of eggs to be boiled. The 'hard' scale is higher up the side of the beaker than the 'medium' scale, which is higher up than the 'soft' scale. Makes sense. The more water used, the longer it takes to boil away, the more the egg is cooked. Logical Captain. What I can't work out is the 1-7 scales. In each case the 1 egg mark is higher up than the 7 egg scale, so it indicates that 1 egg requires more water to cook than 7 eggs would? I'm confused by this, its counter intuitive. Surely 7 eggs take more heat to cook than 1 egg? E-mailed Lakeland and they confirm the scales are running the right way. Can anyone explain the science behind this? I see the reviews aren't good, and one indicates that you may be right about the upside down scale |
OT; Perfect boiled eggs
Stuart Noble wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote: I do like a nice soft boiled egg with soldiers. Known as a 'dippy' egg around here. Known as a three minute egg round here. Is that egg in cold water, brought to boil & then boiled for three mins? Or egg into already boiling water & boiled for three mins? I assume the former, unless you like raw egg? I put them into boiling water for 5 mins for a large egg. -- Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk |
OT; Perfect boiled eggs
Stuart Noble wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote: I do like a nice soft boiled egg with soldiers. Known as a 'dippy' egg around here. Someone bought me a Lakeland egg boiler as a biffday pressie http://www.lakeland.co.uk/lakeland-e.../product/12922 The video demo explains how it works, but. Interesting idea. Consists of a water tray with heater at the bottom, a rack to hold up to 7 eggs and a cover with a small (6mm?) hole in the top. Idea is that a 'specified' amount of water is placed in the water tray, the egg(s) placed in the rack, the lid put on & the heater switched on. When all the water in the tray has boiled away a signal sounds and the egg(s) are ready. Heater output is fixed, the variable is the amount of water that goes into the tray. So far, so good. A small measuring beaker is supplied with 3 scales etched into the sides for hard, medium & soft boiled eggs. Each of these scales is subdivided 1-7 for the number of eggs to be boiled. The 'hard' scale is higher up the side of the beaker than the 'medium' scale, which is higher up than the 'soft' scale. Makes sense. The more water used, the longer it takes to boil away, the more the egg is cooked. Logical Captain. What I can't work out is the 1-7 scales. In each case the 1 egg mark is higher up than the 7 egg scale, so it indicates that 1 egg requires more water to cook than 7 eggs would? I'm confused by this, its counter intuitive. Surely 7 eggs take more heat to cook than 1 egg? E-mailed Lakeland and they confirm the scales are running the right way. Can anyone explain the science behind this? I see the reviews aren't good, and one indicates that you may be right about the upside down scale The first few reviews are bad, but the majority are good if you click through. Lakeland have confirmed the scales are correct; "Whilst the the graduations on the egg boiler do appear to be upside down, I can assure you that they are not. I have one of the egg boilers at home and thought exactly the same! I have tried it out and please be assured that they are correct." -- Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk |
OT; Perfect boiled eggs
Pete Zahut wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote: Pete Verdon wrote: The Medway Handyman wrote: What I can't work out is the 1-7 scales. In each case the 1 egg mark is higher up than the 7 egg scale, so it indicates that 1 egg requires more water to cook than 7 eggs would? Do the eggs actually sit *in* the water rather than above it? If so, it seems clear to me that having only one egg in the pan is going to need more water to cover it than if there were six others taking up space in the same-sized pan. No, the eggs sit a little above the water line, they don't touch or sit in the water at all. Seems like the cooking is achieved by the steam. But does it actually _work_? It seems like a lot of faffing around to me. Best thing I've ever used is one of these http://www.lakeland.co.uk/egg-perfec...g/product/3158 Absolutely perfect every time :o) Only tried it once & yes it did work a treat. -- Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk |
OT; Perfect boiled eggs
-- Graham. %Profound_observation% "The Medway Handyman" wrote in message om... I do like a nice soft boiled egg with soldiers. Known as a 'dippy' egg around here. Someone bought me a Lakeland egg boiler as a biffday pressie http://www.lakeland.co.uk/lakeland-e.../product/12922 The video demo explains how it works, but. Interesting idea. Consists of a water tray with heater at the bottom, a rack to hold up to 7 eggs and a cover with a small (6mm?) hole in the top. Idea is that a 'specified' amount of water is placed in the water tray, the egg(s) placed in the rack, the lid put on & the heater switched on. When all the water in the tray has boiled away a signal sounds and the egg(s) are ready. Heater output is fixed, the variable is the amount of water that goes into the tray. So far, so good. A small measuring beaker is supplied with 3 scales etched into the sides for hard, medium & soft boiled eggs. Each of these scales is subdivided 1-7 for the number of eggs to be boiled. The 'hard' scale is higher up the side of the beaker than the 'medium' scale, which is higher up than the 'soft' scale. Makes sense. The more water used, the longer it takes to boil away, the more the egg is cooked. Logical Captain. What I can't work out is the 1-7 scales. In each case the 1 egg mark is higher up than the 7 egg scale, so it indicates that 1 egg requires more water to cook than 7 eggs would? I'm confused by this, its counter intuitive. Surely 7 eggs take more heat to cook than 1 egg? E-mailed Lakeland and they confirm the scales are running the right way. Can anyone explain the science behind this? Did you read "Emma's" review? I wonder if she meant the measure had been printed literally upside-down, or off-set incorrectly? |
OT; Perfect boiled eggs
The Medway Handyman wrote:
What I can't work out is the 1-7 scales. In each case the 1 egg mark is higher up than the 7 egg scale, so it indicates that 1 egg requires more water to cook than 7 eggs would? The more eggs you're cooking, the more volume within the cooker is taken up by eggs, so the less volume of steam you require to fill the remainder? |
OT; Perfect boiled eggs
On Sun, 05 Jul 2009 12:41:37 GMT
"The Medway Handyman" wrote: Stuart Noble wrote: The Medway Handyman wrote: I do like a nice soft boiled egg with soldiers. Known as a 'dippy' egg around here. Known as a three minute egg round here. Is that egg in cold water, brought to boil & then boiled for three mins? Or egg into already boiling water & boiled for three mins? I assume the former, unless you like raw egg? I put them into boiling water for 5 mins for a large egg. Me too. The problem with the 'from cold' method, is that you don't know how cold. The variable that is left is the egg size. If you get your eggs from a farmer (laid in the last few days) then they are of very variable size. If you get them from Tesco, you don't eat eggs, you eat fossils (usually a few months old) - even sized fossils, but fossils. Until you try fresh farm eggs you will never understand. R. |
OT; Perfect boiled eggs
Andy Burns wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote: What I can't work out is the 1-7 scales. In each case the 1 egg mark is higher up than the 7 egg scale, so it indicates that 1 egg requires more water to cook than 7 eggs would? The more eggs you're cooking, the more volume within the cooker is taken up by eggs, so the less volume of steam you require to fill the remainder? What is wrong with the old fashioned egg timer, just sand in a glass container, fail proof, as long as you don't drop it. However does this device prevent eggs from cracking during cooking, now that is a PITA! -- Please reply to group,emails to designated address are never read. |
OT; Perfect boiled eggs
Broadback wrote:
Andy Burns wrote: The Medway Handyman wrote: What I can't work out is the 1-7 scales. In each case the 1 egg mark is higher up than the 7 egg scale, so it indicates that 1 egg requires more water to cook than 7 eggs would? The more eggs you're cooking, the more volume within the cooker is taken up by eggs, so the less volume of steam you require to fill the remainder? What is wrong with the old fashioned egg timer, just sand in a glass container, fail proof, as long as you don't drop it. However does this device prevent eggs from cracking during cooking, now that is a PITA! It comes with a 'piercer' to make a hole in the pointed end of the egg. We had a similar gadget anyway - piercing the end of the egg shell does prevent it. -- Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk |
OT; Perfect boiled eggs
In article ,
TheOldFellow wrote: If you get your eggs from a farmer (laid in the last few days) then they are of very variable size. If you get them from Tesco, you don't eat eggs, you eat fossils (usually a few months old) - even sized fossils, but fossils. Until you try fresh farm eggs you will never understand. Although I'm a supporter of free-range eggs and keep my own chickens, and generally hate supermarkets, you're a bit out about the supermarket eggs... Eggs have a "shelf life" (sell by) of 21 days from lay, and a "best before" time of 28 days from lay. It is illegal to sell eggs that are older than 21 days. So producers have to get their eggs to the supermarkets and shops as soon as practically possible. Remember that most production hens will lay one egg a day during their laying life, so a farm with a few 1000 hens will not want to stockpile eggs for any length of time at all, or they'll simply run out of space. There will be a very frequent stream of eggs from the production units to the packing units to the shops and to the consumer. So next time you're in a shop, take the best before date and remove 4 weeks and that's the laying date. Also note that eggs really don't have to be refridgerated - you can stick them in the fridge, but it doesn't affect their shelt life by much. Just keep them cool and out of direct sunlight. You also won't find eggs for sale out of a fridge either - at least not in this country. Take an egg out of the fridge into a warm place, and condensation will form on the shell - and as egg shells are porous, any bacteria, etc. on the outside may well get to the nurtient rich interior... Interstingly enough you can't make a good merangue out of new eggs - they need to to be about 10 days old, and really fresh eggs (less than a week or so) stick to the shells when you try to peel them after hard boiling, so there is some advantage to eggs that are over a week old. Can't beat home grown eggs for taste though (not to mention yolk density and colour) - that's one place where there is no comparision! Gordon |
OT; Perfect boiled eggs
Stuart Noble wrote: The Medway Handyman wrote: I do like a nice soft boiled egg with soldiers. Known as a 'dippy' egg around here. Known as a three minute egg round here. Is that egg in cold water, brought to boil & then boiled for three mins? Or egg into already boiling water & boiled for three mins? I assume the former, unless you like raw egg? I put them into boiling water for 5 mins for a large egg. Me too. The problem with the 'from cold' method, is that you don't know how cold. The variable that is left is the egg size. If you get your eggs from a farmer (laid in the last few days) then they are of very variable size. If you get them from Tesco, you don't eat eggs, you eat fossils (usually a few months old) - even sized fossils, but fossils. Until you try fresh farm eggs you will never understand. I'm a bit obsessive/compulsive when it comes to boiling eggs, but I must confess I don't make an allowance for egg size, but as they are laid in Tescos, they are pretty much standard. My technique is boil the kettle, pour into pan, put pan on stove. use remaining water in kettle to make tea. put bread into toaster, carefully lower 2 eggs into boiling water using the big spoon thing with the holes in, look at kitchen clock and calculate where the minute and second hands will be in 3min 15sec time (4min 0sec if egg came from fridge) Pour tea, retrieve toast wait for the appointed time and remove eggs. -- Graham. %Profound_observation% |
OT; Perfect boiled eggs
The Medway Handyman wrote:
Broadback wrote: Andy Burns wrote: The Medway Handyman wrote: What I can't work out is the 1-7 scales. In each case the 1 egg mark is higher up than the 7 egg scale, so it indicates that 1 egg requires more water to cook than 7 eggs would? The more eggs you're cooking, the more volume within the cooker is taken up by eggs, so the less volume of steam you require to fill the remainder? What is wrong with the old fashioned egg timer, just sand in a glass container, fail proof, as long as you don't drop it. However does this device prevent eggs from cracking during cooking, now that is a PITA! It comes with a 'piercer' to make a hole in the pointed end of the egg. We had a similar gadget anyway - piercing the end of the egg shell does prevent it. We have one of these a Bosch one (the DIY link) and it is superb, the eggs are cooked just right, obviously you need to fine tune it to your requirements, but once you have the knack, you get perfect results everytime. Prick eggs, add water, turn on, turn off when timer goes. Remove lid and then carry eggs in holder to the table, allow everyone to help themselves. Repeat as required. For those that already have one....... I told a friend at work about ours, he bought one and also thought it was fantastic, but couldn't prick the eggs as they didn't fit inside the beaker! I told him to look underneath..... |
OT; Perfect boiled eggs
"Andy Burns" wrote in message o.uk... The Medway Handyman wrote: What I can't work out is the 1-7 scales. In each case the 1 egg mark is higher up than the 7 egg scale, so it indicates that 1 egg requires more water to cook than 7 eggs would? The more eggs you're cooking, the more volume within the cooker is taken up by eggs, so the less volume of steam you require to fill the remainder? Good theory, but probably wrong. If no one gets a better answer I will comment on why it should be that way. As a clue I think you should look at how the heat is transferred to the egg and what happens to the steam when that transfer happens. |
OT; Perfect boiled eggs
On Sun, 5 Jul 2009 15:37:42 +0000 (UTC)
Gordon Henderson wrote: In article , TheOldFellow wrote: If you get your eggs from a farmer (laid in the last few days) then they are of very variable size. If you get them from Tesco, you don't eat eggs, you eat fossils (usually a few months old) - even sized fossils, but fossils. Until you try fresh farm eggs you will never understand. Although I'm a supporter of free-range eggs and keep my own chickens, and generally hate supermarkets, you're a bit out about the supermarket eggs... Eggs have a "shelf life" (sell by) of 21 days from lay, and a "best before" time of 28 days from lay. It is illegal to sell eggs that are older than 21 days. So producers have to get their eggs to the supermarkets and shops as soon as practically possible. Remember that most production hens will lay one egg a day during their laying life, so a farm with a few 1000 hens will not want to stockpile eggs for any length of time at all, or they'll simply run out of space. There will be a very frequent stream of eggs from the production units to the packing units to the shops and to the consumer. So next time you're in a shop, take the best before date and remove 4 weeks and that's the laying date. Also note that eggs really don't have to be refridgerated - you can stick them in the fridge, but it doesn't affect their shelt life by much. Just keep them cool and out of direct sunlight. You also won't find eggs for sale out of a fridge either - at least not in this country. Take an egg out of the fridge into a warm place, and condensation will form on the shell - and as egg shells are porous, any bacteria, etc. on the outside may well get to the nurtient rich interior... Interstingly enough you can't make a good merangue out of new eggs - they need to to be about 10 days old, and really fresh eggs (less than a week or so) stick to the shells when you try to peel them after hard boiling, so there is some advantage to eggs that are over a week old. Can't beat home grown eggs for taste though (not to mention yolk density and colour) - that's one place where there is no comparision! Gordon OK, I was exaggerating for effect. Wot he said! Perhaps the comparison should be between hens fed on food, and hens fed on whatever makes them taste so bland from Supermarkets. Or maybe 20 days makes a big effect, dunno. All I can say is that I get eggs from the farm next door, the chickens wander round for a chat occasionally. And the eggs are amazing. R. |
OT; Perfect boiled eggs
Broadback wrote:
Andy Burns wrote: The Medway Handyman wrote: What I can't work out is the 1-7 scales. In each case the 1 egg mark is higher up than the 7 egg scale, so it indicates that 1 egg requires more water to cook than 7 eggs would? The more eggs you're cooking, the more volume within the cooker is taken up by eggs, so the less volume of steam you require to fill the remainder? What is wrong with the old fashioned egg timer, just sand in a glass container, fail proof, Certainly not fail proof by any means. Eggs vary quite a lot in size (and to confound it even more, we like the extra-large eggs) so cooking times differ as well. That's why the gadget I linked to in my earlier posting is brilliant - because it works on temperature rather than time. |
OT; Perfect boiled eggs
Gordon Henderson wrote:
Eggs have a "shelf life" (sell by) of 21 days from lay, and a "best before" time of 28 days from lay. It is illegal to sell eggs that are older than 21 days. So producers have to get their eggs to the supermarkets and shops as soon as practically possible. [...] So next time you're in a shop, take the best before date and remove 4 weeks and that's the laying date. Yep - in the supermarket I always look at all the dates on the different varieties and then pick the freshest ones. Interestingly, in my local Tesco at least, these tend not to be the organic, free-range, hand-woven, extra-expensive eggs - those are in fact usually the older ones. Pete |
OT; Perfect boiled eggs
The Medway Handyman wrote:
Andy Cap wrote: On Sun, 05 Jul 2009 12:14:35 GMT, "The Medway Handyman" wrote: No, the eggs sit a little above the water line, they don't touch or sit in the water at all. Seems like the cooking is achieved by the steam. You need less volume of steam if the top part is full of eggs ?? Yerbut, the egs have greater mass? Does the steam escape, or is it (more or less) contained? |
OT; Perfect boiled eggs
Andy Burns wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote: Andy Cap wrote: On Sun, 05 Jul 2009 12:14:35 GMT, "The Medway Handyman" wrote: No, the eggs sit a little above the water line, they don't touch or sit in the water at all. Seems like the cooking is achieved by the steam. You need less volume of steam if the top part is full of eggs ?? Yerbut, the egs have greater mass? Does the steam escape, or is it (more or less) contained? It can only escape at the top via a 6mm hole in the cover. -- Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk |
OT; Perfect boiled eggs
In message , Broadback
writes Andy Burns wrote: The Medway Handyman wrote: What I can't work out is the 1-7 scales. In each case the 1 egg mark is higher up than the 7 egg scale, so it indicates that 1 egg requires more water to cook than 7 eggs would? The more eggs you're cooking, the more volume within the cooker is taken up by eggs, so the less volume of steam you require to fill the remainder? What is wrong with the old fashioned egg timer, just sand in a glass container, fail proof, as long as you don't drop it. Not foolproof if you forget to watch it properly.... A friend has one of these type of automatic egg boilers, she says it works very well -- Chris French |
OT; Perfect boiled eggs
In message , The Medway
Handyman writes Stuart Noble wrote: The Medway Handyman wrote: I do like a nice soft boiled egg with soldiers. Known as a 'dippy' egg around here. Known as a three minute egg round here. Is that egg in cold water, brought to boil & then boiled for three mins? Or egg into already boiling water & boiled for three mins? I assume the former, unless you like raw egg? I put them into boiling water for 5 mins for a large egg. I use the a method given by Delia in one of her books. Bring water to boil, put in eggs, simmer for 1 minute. Turn off, cover and leave for 5-7 minutes depending on how you like your eggs -- Chris French |
OT; Perfect boiled eggs
wrote in message ... On 5 Jul, "The Medway Handyman" wrote: Andy Cap wrote: On Sun, 05 Jul 2009 12:14:35 GMT, "The Medway Handyman" wrote: No, the eggs sit a little above the water line, they don't touch or sit in the water at all. Seems like the cooking is achieved by the steam. You need less volume of steam if the top part is full of eggs ?? Yerbut, the egs have greater mass? The water condenses on th cold eggs and runs down to be re-used. The more eggs, the less escapes as steam -- simple! I agree (mostly) so we are probably wrong. (It all escapes eventually as it boils dry. It takes longer for the same amount of water to boil off due to it condensing on more cold eggs. Infant school level science that one.) |
OT; Perfect boiled eggs
On 5 July, 23:50, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote: Andy Burns wrote: The Medway Handyman wrote: Andy Cap wrote: On Sun, 05 Jul 2009 12:14:35 GMT, "The Medway Handyman" wrote: No, the eggs sit a little above the water line, they don't touch or sit in the water at all. *Seems like the cooking is achieved by the steam. You need less volume of steam if the top part is full of eggs ?? Yerbut, the egs have greater mass? Does the steam escape, or is it (more or less) contained? It can only escape at the top via a 6mm hole in the cover. You'll be fascinated to learn that I have one of these, but it's shaped like a chicken (the head comes off and is a salt/pepper shaker)...kind of a twisted idea and strays in to the realms of cannibalism, but what the heck. The measuring thingy also has the marks for number of eggs soft, then hard, then medium and I thought it to be a mistake at first...but no! The timer buzzer's very strident, but that's another story. |
OT; Perfect boiled eggs
In message , The Medway
Handyman writes Andy Burns wrote: The Medway Handyman wrote: Andy Cap wrote: On Sun, 05 Jul 2009 12:14:35 GMT, "The Medway Handyman" wrote: No, the eggs sit a little above the water line, they don't touch or sit in the water at all. Seems like the cooking is achieved by the steam. You need less volume of steam if the top part is full of eggs ?? Yerbut, the egs have greater mass? Does the steam escape, or is it (more or less) contained? It can only escape at the top via a 6mm hole in the cover. At the end of the day, a scientific approach, given the available variables, is prolly not how the water level was estimated. An iterative "suck it and see" method would work just as well, if not better -- geoff |
OT; Perfect boiled eggs
"geoff" wrote in message ... In message , The Medway Handyman writes Andy Burns wrote: The Medway Handyman wrote: Andy Cap wrote: On Sun, 05 Jul 2009 12:14:35 GMT, "The Medway Handyman" wrote: No, the eggs sit a little above the water line, they don't touch or sit in the water at all. Seems like the cooking is achieved by the steam. You need less volume of steam if the top part is full of eggs ?? Yerbut, the egs have greater mass? Does the steam escape, or is it (more or less) contained? It can only escape at the top via a 6mm hole in the cover. At the end of the day, a scientific approach, given the available variables, is prolly not how the water level was estimated. An iterative "suck it and see" method would work just as well, if not better You mean, do it (wait for it) empireggally? -- Graham. %Profound_observation% |
OT; Perfect boiled eggs
"Graham." wrote in message ... "geoff" wrote in message ... In message , The Medway Handyman writes Andy Burns wrote: The Medway Handyman wrote: Andy Cap wrote: On Sun, 05 Jul 2009 12:14:35 GMT, "The Medway Handyman" wrote: No, the eggs sit a little above the water line, they don't touch or sit in the water at all. Seems like the cooking is achieved by the steam. You need less volume of steam if the top part is full of eggs ?? Yerbut, the egs have greater mass? Does the steam escape, or is it (more or less) contained? It can only escape at the top via a 6mm hole in the cover. At the end of the day, a scientific approach, given the available variables, is prolly not how the water level was estimated. An iterative "suck it and see" method would work just as well, if not better You mean, do it (wait for it) empireggally? eggsactly. Sorry. |
OT; Perfect boiled eggs
In message , "dennis@home"
writes "Graham." wrote in message ... "geoff" wrote in message ... In message , The Medway Handyman writes Andy Burns wrote: The Medway Handyman wrote: Andy Cap wrote: On Sun, 05 Jul 2009 12:14:35 GMT, "The Medway Handyman" wrote: No, the eggs sit a little above the water line, they don't touch or sit in the water at all. Seems like the cooking is achieved by the steam. You need less volume of steam if the top part is full of eggs ?? Yerbut, the egs have greater mass? Does the steam escape, or is it (more or less) contained? It can only escape at the top via a 6mm hole in the cover. At the end of the day, a scientific approach, given the available variables, is prolly not how the water level was estimated. An iterative "suck it and see" method would work just as well, if not better You mean, do it (wait for it) empireggally? eggsactly. Sorry. **** off dennis, that's my line -- geoff |
OT; Perfect boiled eggs
In message , Graham.
writes "geoff" wrote in message ... In message , The Medway Handyman writes Andy Burns wrote: The Medway Handyman wrote: Andy Cap wrote: On Sun, 05 Jul 2009 12:14:35 GMT, "The Medway Handyman" wrote: No, the eggs sit a little above the water line, they don't touch or sit in the water at all. Seems like the cooking is achieved by the steam. You need less volume of steam if the top part is full of eggs ?? Yerbut, the egs have greater mass? Does the steam escape, or is it (more or less) contained? It can only escape at the top via a 6mm hole in the cover. At the end of the day, a scientific approach, given the available variables, is prolly not how the water level was estimated. An iterative "suck it and see" method would work just as well, if not better You mean, do it (wait for it) empireggally? Err ... you asked for it ... Eggzactly but then it's only a yolk -- geoff |
OT; Perfect boiled eggs
geoff wrote:
In message , "dennis@home" writes "Graham." wrote in message ... "geoff" wrote in message ... In message , The Medway Handyman writes Andy Burns wrote: The Medway Handyman wrote: Andy Cap wrote: On Sun, 05 Jul 2009 12:14:35 GMT, "The Medway Handyman" wrote: No, the eggs sit a little above the water line, they don't touch or sit in the water at all. Seems like the cooking is achieved by the steam. You need less volume of steam if the top part is full of eggs ?? Yerbut, the egs have greater mass? Does the steam escape, or is it (more or less) contained? It can only escape at the top via a 6mm hole in the cover. At the end of the day, a scientific approach, given the available variables, is prolly not how the water level was estimated. An iterative "suck it and see" method would work just as well, if not better You mean, do it (wait for it) empireggally? eggsactly. Sorry. **** off dennis, that's my line Typical - he poached your joke. Or should that be ..... -- Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk |
OT; Perfect boiled eggs
Owain wrote:
On 6 July, 22:11, "dennis@home" wrote: You mean, do it (wait for it) empireggally? eggsactly. Are you suggesting it's not worth shelling out on one of these gadgets? Is a traditional egg timer more hentertaining? That was horrhendous. |
OT; Perfect boiled eggs
Lino expert wrote:
On 5 July, 23:50, "The Medway Handyman" wrote: Andy Burns wrote: The Medway Handyman wrote: Andy Cap wrote: On Sun, 05 Jul 2009 12:14:35 GMT, "The Medway Handyman" wrote: No, the eggs sit a little above the water line, they don't touch or sit in the water at all. Seems like the cooking is achieved by the steam. You need less volume of steam if the top part is full of eggs ?? Yerbut, the egs have greater mass? Does the steam escape, or is it (more or less) contained? It can only escape at the top via a 6mm hole in the cover. You'll be fascinated to learn that I have one of these, I am, I am... but it's shaped like a chicken (the head comes off and is a salt/pepper shaker)...kind of a twisted idea and strays in to the realms of cannibalism, but what the heck. OMG! A satanist egg boiler! The measuring thingy also has the marks for number of eggs soft, then hard, then medium and I thought it to be a mistake at first...but no! Aha! I may yet enjoy the ultimate pleasure of the perfect dippy egg! The timer buzzer's very strident, but that's another story. We won't go there... -- Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk |
OT; Perfect boiled eggs
"dennis@home" wrote in message ... "Andy Burns" wrote in message o.uk... The Medway Handyman wrote: What I can't work out is the 1-7 scales. In each case the 1 egg mark is higher up than the 7 egg scale, so it indicates that 1 egg requires more water to cook than 7 eggs would? The more eggs you're cooking, the more volume within the cooker is taken up by eggs, so the less volume of steam you require to fill the remainder? Good theory, but probably wrong. If no one gets a better answer I will comment on why it should be that way. As a clue I think you should look at how the heat is transferred to the egg and what happens to the steam when that transfer happens. I'd be very interested in learning about how to do the perfect scrambled eggs ! |
OT; Perfect boiled eggs
john royce wrote:
I'd be very interested in learning about how to do the perfect scrambled eggs ! For me, perfect = soft and creamy. To achieve this, use a good thick-bottomed pan, apply gently heat, and keep stirring with a wooden paddle. For quite a while it seems nothing happens, then it starts to thicken and solidify quite fast. Take it off the heat whilst it is still just a little more fluid than you want it, as the internal heat keeps it cooking whilst you are serving. Enjoy. Chris -- Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK Have dancing shoes, will ceilidh. |
OT; Perfect boiled eggs
john royce wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message ... "Andy Burns" wrote in message o.uk... The Medway Handyman wrote: What I can't work out is the 1-7 scales. In each case the 1 egg mark is higher up than the 7 egg scale, so it indicates that 1 egg requires more water to cook than 7 eggs would? The more eggs you're cooking, the more volume within the cooker is taken up by eggs, so the less volume of steam you require to fill the remainder? Good theory, but probably wrong. If no one gets a better answer I will comment on why it should be that way. As a clue I think you should look at how the heat is transferred to the egg and what happens to the steam when that transfer happens. I'd be very interested in learning about how to do the perfect scrambled eggs ! Microwave. Whisk with milk, full power for about 5-8 minutes. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:10 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter