Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am a pressure cooker proselytizer. Seriously, they can cook dehydrated beans in 35 minutes-no soaking required. However, rice does poorly with my model. The grains are too small and can become lodged in the safety features.
Your comment just inspired a flurry of research on my end which resulted in purchasing a $200 air-fryer pressure-cooker combo (highly unusual behavior for my scrupulous self). Expecting good things to come and ultra excited for it. Any tips on things to cook, favorites, etc? Thank you for your post. :)
The battle to invent the automatic rice cooker
151–160 of 161 posts
Re: The battle to invent the automatic rice cooker
#152Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Cooking rice is difficult? Hmm .... I didn't downvote your comment but your dismissive snark seems out of place since the _history_ of "tricky/difficult/labored" was explained in the article: >It was painfully tricky. Cooking rice this way, says columnist and food writer Makiko Itoh, takes heat modulation: high heat until the water and rice boils, then low heat, then high heat again. “And that, with a wood-burning s…
Then the article is wrong, wildly, overwhelmingly, brain-dead wrong. For the "hours" story, that must be wrong. Cooking rice is EASY, over any heat source with just a covered pot, iron, stainless steel, aluminum -- just a pot. Your quote shows that the article is wrong. I did NOTHING at all wrong. Instead I just explained how darned easy it is to cook rice. For anyone taken in by the article that there is a challenge…
Re: The battle to invent the automatic rice cooker
#153Earlier quoted context omitted.
Evaporation rate should be proportional to surface area, so the volume of extra water you need to add to make up for that should also be proportional to the surface area too. Adding extra water to a fixed depth accomplishes that. This is assuming a pot with straight sides, at least above the lowest water level during cooking.
> Evaporation rate should be proportional to surface area, so the volume of extra water you need to add to make up for that should also be proportional to the surface area too. This would be accurate at room temperature, but under stovetop conditions wouldn't evaporation rate be determined mostly by the amount of heat energy added to the water?
The evaporation rate from the pot as a whole at any given time will then be that rate per unit area, which depends on that host of factors, times the surface area.
So once you know how deep a layer of extra water you need to add to cover evaporation in one pot, that will be the same depth of water you need to add to a different size pot if you are cooking in that different sized pot at the same temperature, pressure, etc. as the first pot.
Think of it this way: Imagine you have a rectangular pot, with a removable divider in the middle that effectively turns it into two smaller pots side by side.
If you put the divider in and cook some rice in the left side, you need a certain depth of extra water. If instead you cooked that rice in the right side, you'd need the same depth of water there.
Now imagine cooking in both sides simultaneously. You'd still need the same depth in each side as when you were cooking in that side solo.
OK, now imagine cooking in both sides, but without the divider installed. That's not really any different than with the divider installed. Each side is still going to need the same depth of water as before.
(Well, there will be some difference. Not all heat gets into what you are cooking through the bottom of the pan. The sides get hot too, and some heat comes in that way. Remember that the evaporation rate at any given point on the surface depends on conditions at that point. A spot in the center will take longer to reach a given temperature than a spot near a side, and so we'll have a non-uniform evaporation rate across the surface. I don't think this will make much difference as far as rice cooking goes, but figuring out for sure would require knowing a lot more about how heat moves within a batch of cooking rice than I do).
Re: The battle to invent the automatic rice cooker
#154For people that regularly eat rice, buying a decent rice cooker is really a no-brainer. Cooking rice in a pan is possible and you can obtain good results if you're careful and turn the heat down at the right moment before the rice starts to stick to the bottom of the pan and burn, it's easy to miss though. A rice cooker makes this process so much easier though: Put in the rice, the adequate amount of water, press a b…
IMO the Korean brands are the market leaders. Check out Cuckoo
Re: The battle to invent the automatic rice cooker
#155Just a warning about cheap rice cookers... About six months ago I bought a tiny $20 model Dash[1]. I've often heard people say that cheap rice cookers are just as good as expensive ones, and since I'm poor, live alone, and this was my first rice cooker, I thought it would be enough. It turns out this rice cooker had a number of problems. First, the screw that held in the pot lid on this rice cooker wasn't made of sta…
You don't need a rice cooker that has two dozen different functions and some 'Neuro Fuzzy Logic' crap. But you do want a well-built rice cooker that wont break down and rust on you.
Your best bet for a decent cheap rice cooker is your local asian market. The bigger ones will likely have quite a selection, but even your dinky little chinatown grocery store will probably have something quite usable.
Re: The battle to invent the automatic rice cooker
#156Alton Brown taught me: No single taskers in the kitchen, except for the fire extinguisher. I don't see what's so hard: put in rice, wash it, fill cold water to one finger joint above the rice, boil, cook slow 7 mins, turn off leaving covered, wait at least 5 more mins while finishing sauce (but up to 15!), fluff, serve. Pots are for cooking. Machines are for other stuff.
Re: The battle to invent the automatic rice cooker
#157Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you have an electric kettle, you can sidestep this problem -- add boiling water and keep the stovetop flame on low the whole time. Then it's just a matter of turning off the heat at 15 minutes and uncovering at 20. I will admit, despite how trivial it may sound, that it is nice not having to worry about turning off the heat. It means you can walk away and get into some other task more deeply. However, I don't thin…
I am a pressure cooker proselytizer. Seriously, they can cook dehydrated beans in 35 minutes-no soaking required. However, rice does poorly with my model. The grains are too small and can become lodged in the safety features.
Re: The battle to invent the automatic rice cooker
#158Earlier quoted context omitted.
Evaporation rate should be proportional to surface area, so the volume of extra water you need to add to make up for that should also be proportional to the surface area too. Adding extra water to a fixed depth accomplishes that. This is assuming a pot with straight sides, at least above the lowest water level during cooking.
Thanks for the explanation. As an Asian, I've never quite figured out how it seems to work out until now, and was confused when the BBC suggested a 1:2 ratio of rice and water [1]. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUgOz5emQ94
Re: The battle to invent the automatic rice cooker
#159Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you have an electric kettle, you can sidestep this problem -- add boiling water and keep the stovetop flame on low the whole time. Then it's just a matter of turning off the heat at 15 minutes and uncovering at 20. I will admit, despite how trivial it may sound, that it is nice not having to worry about turning off the heat. It means you can walk away and get into some other task more deeply. However, I don't thin…
I am a pressure cooker proselytizer. Seriously, they can cook dehydrated beans in 35 minutes-no soaking required. However, rice does poorly with my model. The grains are too small and can become lodged in the safety features.