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

181–190 of 647 posts

Re: The case for induction cooking

#181

Post by gruez »

ouid wrote: post #168
ink_13 wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Electric ovens are garbage It's curious to me that you would say that, since electric ovens are generally preferred for their more even and consistent heating. For a gas stove to maintain a certain heat, it has to be continuously cycling a gas element that necessarily only burns at one temperature. Also, electric ovens don't impart extra moisture to the cooking cavity.

Electric ovens are essentially incapable of broiling, which is one of the most important things that an oven does. All other functions are close to parity, but why would I buy an oven that is functionally without a broiler?

>Electric ovens are essentially incapable of broiling

The "high" setting on my broiler gets meat burnt in 1-2 minutes. What more do you need?

Re: The case for induction cooking

#182

Post by saxonww »

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.

It's not like they are drop-in replacements for whatever you've got, either.

I was interested in these about 15 years ago when I bought a house. They want a dedicated circuit with a 240V outlet and 40 or 50 amp breaker. My house has a gas range, so I don't already have a 240V outlet there, and I've only got 100 amp service at the panel - which claims 100 amps is the max it's rated for. I decided it was not worth the hassle.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#183

Post by kasey_junk »

nemo1618 wrote: post #46

Warning to anyone thinking about buying one of those portable induction cooktop ("just to see what all the fuss is about"): if it plugs into a standard 120V socket, it's probably not going to boil water any faster than your existing stove! In fact, mine boils even slower than my electric stove. Apparently, the portable ones only go up to around 1800W. If you want to experience the true boil-the-oceans power of induct…

I have 2 of the duxtop’s linked in the article as my only range. Before going to this setup I tested them against my gas range and they were 2 to 3 minutes faster at boiling water.

The issue with the portable ones is the quality differential. You’ve got extremely cheap ones that are more plate warmers than cooking appliances and you e got the control freak that is a piece of future tech. But if you get ones that a caterer would use they tend to do the job.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#184

Post by the_mitsuhiko »

naravara wrote: post #137
londons_explore wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The heating technology and the type of control need not be linked...

They need not, but manufacturers and home builders are obnoxiously fad focused.

You can still buy induction stoves without touch surfaces and ceramic stoves with touch surfaces.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#185

Post by Sqwandery »

sofixa wrote: post #157
legohead wrote: post #51

Natural gas is far cheaper, so I'll stick with that. Even though I love the idea of an easy to clean stovetop. My electric bill is already out of control (California).

But it's much worse for the planet, and it's a decent bet that those externalities will be priced in eventually.

If it's being burned at the energy plant, electric is worse.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#186

Post by legulere »

ascar wrote: post #92
hades32 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

German here. So few people here have induction because people still think that most pans couldn't be used. But I love it! But also few here use gas. It's mostly ceramic hobs

As a fellow German I didn't go induction on purpose, because I prefer the ceramic hob cooking experience. "Pans cannot be used" wasn't part of the decision. Having "control nobs" on the front rather than a touch area on the cooking surface was a hard requirement for me though and seems to be getting rarer every year. I'm actually amazed how much people love induction here, but I guess that's also because it's mostly…

I have induction with the control nobs to the front in the oven. That does exist, I guess you have to buy it together with the oven.

Induction is greatly superior to electric heating plates, ceramic or even metal, as it is much faster and more energy efficient. Whenever you use it you never want to go back.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#187

Post by elil17 »

Aaargh20318 wrote: post #159
noveltyaccount wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lol this is an unusual hill to die on

Not sure what you’re trying to say. A wok is a very specific type of cookware for specific uses cases. The round bottom is the entire point of a wok. A flat bottom wok is like a square wheel.

Cannot imagine why op wrote “flat bottomed wok” instead of “A pan similar in shape to a wok, but with a flat bottom, so that it can be used on induction cooktops but still allows for the tossing motion that cooks use to mix ingredients in a wok”

Re: The case for induction cooking

#188

Post by ouid »

onli wrote: post #146
ouid wrote: post #135

I don't buy it, sorry. Electric ovens are garbage, and there's no such thing as an induction oven. Most of the health concerns are probably solved by requiring the installation of range hoods. I don't believe the claims about burning natural gas being the causal factor here either. I rather think that culprit is aerosolized oil, and houses with gas ranges are simply more likely to cook with oil at temperatures hot en…

The article explains pretty well the advantages of induction. I had induction in my last appartment, gas before and currently a glass-ceramic cooktop (without induction). Induction was clearly the best. Very fast to make water boil, no issues with the gas sometimes not starting to burn or other maintenance work the gas needed. And I see no reason to doubt the negative health effects of gas, burning stuff is always ba…

I have never had any luck broiling anything inside an electric oven. The heating elements just don't cut it.

As to the non-universality of induction. Many cooking techniques require you to be pretty active with your pan. Perhaps to toss the contents to stir, perhaps to collect hot oil that you are spooning over your fish to brown the top. Many techniques depend on the pan having different temperature at different spots. In particular they require you to use a pan whose geometry is fundamentally incompatible with your induction surface. Induction cooktops do some things better than gas ranges, no question, but they do not do everything better, and there are some things that they don't do at all.

Burning things is not always bad. Smoke is basically always bad, aerosolized oils are usually bad, but the product of combusting natural gas is almost entirely carbon dioxide and water vapor. Vent hoods are for oil particulate, and oil particulate contains all sorts of nasty shit for your lungs.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#189

Post by elil17 »

kleton wrote: post #153
Aaargh20318 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I got a flat bottom wok There is no such thing. A round bottom is a defining feature of a wok. If it doesn’t have a round bottom it isn’t a wok by definition . A round bottom is essential to how a wok is used.

锅 is the generic word for cookpot in Chinese, coming in all sizes and configurations.

锅 does not mean wok (it’s pronounced guo).

鑊 (pronounced wok in Cantonese) or 炒锅 or 炒勺 means wok.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#190

Post by sofixa »

Sqwandery wrote: post #185
sofixa wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it's much worse for the planet, and it's a decent bet that those externalities will be priced in eventually.

If it's being burned at the energy plant, electric is worse.

Energy plants are only going to get greener from now on, and are pretty green depending on the location ( GP mentioned California).
Post reply on HN