11–20 of 44 posts
What problem is this trying to solve exactly
Cooking when/where energy is scarce. Very useful to save on fuel while camping, for example. Also, I suppose, next time the electric grid is down and you want to cook on battery.
A longer article that was cited, https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2014/07/cooking-pot-insulati...
Who cares if the perfect turbine could only ever convert 59% of the wind power through it!
It's a very large teapot cosy, in other words. Seems reasonable, though obviously you still need some way to bring the pot up to temp (for that cast iron, induction would be efficient if not low-tech).
The stove with one burner dropped down [1] seems more practical, not requiring a separate device/extra step.
[1] https://krisdedecker.typepad.com/.a/6a00e0099229e8883301a3fd...
What problem is this trying to solve exactly
And this is why the instant pot is such a good value. It's very insulated and incredibly efficient
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cooking when/where energy is scarce. Very useful to save on fuel while camping, for example. Also, I suppose, next time the electric grid is down and you want to cook on battery.
Another benefit is that it reduces the heat transferred to the living environment during cooking. Might be useful in a small living space like an RV or tiny house.
That would still be useful if you're in a small space and the heat loss of the space is greater than the heat loss of the insulated pot.
It's a very large teapot cosy, in other words. Seems reasonable, though obviously you still need some way to bring the pot up to temp (for that cast iron, induction would be efficient if not low-tech).
Little nitpick: the title is "The Fireless Cooker that Feeds Low-tech Magazine", as in "this is the fireless cooker we use".
When we cook we're bringing up food to a certain temp, then maintaining it at that temp till it's done cooking. If we could perfectly insulate it, then it could hold that temp as long as we want without being on the fire. So the only energy input is getting it hot -- after that it's cooking on its own.
So this is trying to approximate that by insulating the pot.
I always sort of assumed that there's a lot of heat 'loss' from food itself heating up -- as in most the cook time is getting the food up to the temp (i.e. when cooking a steak), not waiting for it to cook at the temp. But I suppose that for certain grains and stews and things that thinking is wrong.