Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The case for induction cooking

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 647 posts

Re: The case for induction cooking

#171

Post by bliteben »

twobitshifter wrote: post #129

I’m working on a renovation but will be sticking with gas. EMFs from induction cooking exceed the legal limit and we like to cook on high heat. If you are not fully covering the induction burner, using a silicone handle, and standing at least a foot away you can be getting an unhealthy dose of emf. It’s non ionizing but it’s so intense that I am personally concerned. https://kitcheninduction.net/induction-cooking-saf…

Also the noise, and reliability to look at, the one I have and am now getting rid of had a motherboard larger than an e-atx board inside of it. I have no clue why it needs that much circuitry, it does have wifi, but really seems insane.

For me I was sold on the speed and my wife honestly liked the fact that it never burned on food, she also liked the safety aspect of the stovetop never being hot, but none of those really matter if the replacement motherboard dies after 3 months on a $4000 range.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#172

Post by amluto »

This article is, in one respect, quite misleading. It compares gas ranges to a specific induction hob: the Breville Control Freak. This device is not actually complicated per se, but it is a masterpiece of good (or at least decent) UX and control design in a way that makes it almost incomparable to anything else on the market. Cooking with it is a rather different experience than using any normal stove.

There’s actually a large learning curve. With a normal stove of any sort, you set a power level. Different stoves have different degrees of responsiveness, differing levels of UI annoyance (knobs at one end; phone apps at the other), and different abilities to work well at low power, but they do fundamentally the same thing. The Control Freak knob does not control power; it controls _tempererature_. To boil pasta, you set it to 240 (F) or so. To carmelize onions, something like 330 will do it, and the onions won’t burn. Want to keep your stew warm? Set it to 160 and ignore it. If you put someone who hasn’t used one before in front of one, they get rather confused until they get the hang of it. If you out someone used to it in front of a normal stove, they’re disappointed.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#173

Post by muxator »

angry_octet wrote: post #141
schroeding wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can absolutely recommend the upgrade, these stoves are far superior to PWM style "2000W or off" ones. I can even melt chocolate without a water bath on mine, they can keep temperatures as low as 55°C / 131°F steadily no problem. :D

I just have to be pedantic and say that what you are describing is the very opposite of PWM, which runs at high frequencies (e.g. 30kHz), varying the duty cycle over the tiny slice of time. The only problem with good PWM is audible harmonics, usually only children can hear them.

I disagree. The definition of what is high and what is low frequency depends on what you are comparing.

If you are comparing electric capacitances of electric circuits vs the thermal capacitance of a macroscopic object, 1 Hz might be a high enough frequency for doing pwm.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#174

Post by DeRock »

benoliver999 wrote: post #170
contingencies wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It may be that your cookware is no good. For safety reasons all control systems for induction appliances have a feature to automatically turn off when they detect that the generated field is not being received by a large enough target surface, since otherwise it would be a fire risk. Try changing cookware, you may find the issue goes away.

It's across all my cookware. Pans, cast iron, the coffee maker, the kettle. If I put it on full power, then it's a continuous blast of energy and it never clicks off. That's great for boiling water but not much else. If I put it on 70%, it goes on full power for 7 seconds, then stops for 3, then back on for 7 etc etc.

Are you sure you don’t have a normal electric stove?

Re: The case for induction cooking

#175

Post by dragonwriter »

jandrese wrote: post #29
musikele wrote: post #5

"Although induction technology has been around for decades and is established in Europe, it has yet to catch on extensively here. According to Consumer Reports, induction cooktops and ranges are installed in only under 5 percent of homes in the United States." That's why, for a european like me, an article like this one seems totally extraneous to hacker news front page

They aren't as popular in the US because they're considered commercial appliances and it's assumed you are on a business budget if you want to buy one. This means the store carries like 3 models and they cost literally ten times as much as a traditional glass cooktop. $250 vs. $2500.

> They aren't as popular in the US because they're considered commercial appliances and it's assumed you are on a business budget if you want to buy one.

No, there are plenty of consumer models. But they aren't as popular because the US has significantly more abundant, domestically produced, and (largely, because of that and not taking climate seriously) cheaper natural gas, and has only recently started in some localities having residential electric-only rules for new construction.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#177

Post by Sqwandery »

oblio wrote: post #32
jnmandal wrote: post #2

The importance of this transition can not be understated.

I don't know why you're downvoted. Induction hobs cut out a loss leader for gas: gas stoves. Once you have gas in your home it makes sense to install the main moneymaker: a gas furnace for heating. It's how they upsell. Induction hobs are great in the fight against global warming.

If the energy you use for heat is generated by gas, it's more efficient to burn it directly, and the emissions produced from manufacturing all the new stoves likely out way the emissions produced over the stoves lifetime.

So, I'd say it's only helpful if you are getting a new stove anyway.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#178

Post by benoliver999 »

DeRock wrote: post #174
benoliver999 wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's across all my cookware. Pans, cast iron, the coffee maker, the kettle. If I put it on full power, then it's a continuous blast of energy and it never clicks off. That's great for boiling water but not much else. If I put it on 70%, it goes on full power for 7 seconds, then stops for 3, then back on for 7 etc etc.

Are you sure you don’t have a normal electric stove?

Yes, it won't work without a pan on it. Doesn't work with aluminium. Is relatively cold to the touch despite having just been used to boil a kettle. Says 'Induction Hob' on it.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#179

Post by formerly_proven »

phtrivier wrote: post #97
mytailorisrich wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

France moved to 100% electric in many places decades ago because of their strategic choice of nuclear energy.

As another commenter said, it was electric but "vitro ceramic", so terrible performance and pretty dangerous. This actually gave gas a "better rap". Now I honestly only use gas at the moment because I moved in recently enough that I haven't bother to change - but it's getting higher on n my list every day...

> it was electric but "vitro ceramic", so terrible performance and pretty dangerous

How exactly is that dangerous?

Re: The case for induction cooking

#180

Post by benoliver999 »

muxator wrote: post #173
angry_octet wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just have to be pedantic and say that what you are describing is the very opposite of PWM, which runs at high frequencies (e.g. 30kHz), varying the duty cycle over the tiny slice of time. The only problem with good PWM is audible harmonics, usually only children can hear them.

I disagree. The definition of what is high and what is low frequency depends on what you are comparing. If you are comparing electric capacitances of electric circuits vs the thermal capacitance of a macroscopic object, 1 Hz might be a high enough frequency for doing pwm.

Also, the 'exact opposite' would simply be a gas hob. Yeah you might not call something that clicks on and off every 10 seconds 'PWM' but it's not that far removed
Post reply on HN