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

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

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

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 ??

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 )

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

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.

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

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

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

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 )

Only tried it once & yes it did work a treat.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

--
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?

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?

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.

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.

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

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

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%

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.....

"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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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

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

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

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.)

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.

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

"geoff" wrote in message
news
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%

"Graham." wrote in message
...


"geoff" wrote in message
news
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.

In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"Graham." wrote in message
...


"geoff" wrote in message
news
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

In message , Graham.
writes


"geoff" wrote in message
news
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

geoff wrote:
In message , "dennis@home"
writes


"Graham." wrote in message
...


"geoff" wrote in message
news 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

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.

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

"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 !

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.

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.