21–30 of 44 posts
There's a few commercial versions of this idea that combine some sort of insulation with a vacuum container, which increases the efficiency. https://www.cabelas.com/shop/en/thermos-cook-and-carry-syste...
Explaining this just to make sure I get it. 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 so…
There's a few ways to heat food up, the most common of which is to heat the vessel to well above the right temperature and wait for the food to come up to the right temperature. The cooker linked takes advantage of this method since it is fine if the vessel comes down in temperature a little bit, so long as it doesn't get below the food's "done" temperature. You still have to be vigilant about the temperature of the food, to ensure it's not overcooked.
The less common method is to heat the vessel (often water) up to the right temperature, and let the food come to equilibrium. This is basically sous-vide, and would not work with the linked method, since the temperature of water can't go down. You might be able to fudge things a bit by over-heating the water a bit, but then you risk overcooking the food.
When cooking, the rate of heat needed to maintain the same temperature is exactly the rate at which the food is cooling. So heating up a pot and insulating it is roughly equivalent to heating up a pot and continually heating it to maintain the same temperature. If we changed the culture of cooking to recognize this, we could save a lot of energy.
Explaining this just to make sure I get it. 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 so…
You're not wrong - once the food is at the right temperature, it's done. You can hold food at the "right" temperature for a long time, but if you go above it, it'll over-cook. There's a few ways to heat food up, the most common of which is to heat the vessel to well above the right temperature and wait for the food to come up to the right temperature. The cooker linked takes advantage of this method since it is fine…
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).
Yeah, when I think of a cooker, I think of something that heats something up, not just keeps it going. 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...
It is cleaner perhaps and more purpose-built. But I would not call that practical.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
It technically just prolongs the amount of time that the heat is transferred right? 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're not wrong - once the food is at the right temperature, it's done. You can hold food at the "right" temperature for a long time, but if you go above it, it'll over-cook. There's a few ways to heat food up, the most common of which is to heat the vessel to well above the right temperature and wait for the food to come up to the right temperature. The cooker linked takes advantage of this method since it is fine…
Not all food is done once it reaches the desired temperature. A lot of food, e.g. tough meats, need to stay above a certain temperature for a long time until they're done.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're not wrong - once the food is at the right temperature, it's done. You can hold food at the "right" temperature for a long time, but if you go above it, it'll over-cook. There's a few ways to heat food up, the most common of which is to heat the vessel to well above the right temperature and wait for the food to come up to the right temperature. The cooker linked takes advantage of this method since it is fine…
Not all food is done once it reaches the desired temperature. A lot of food, e.g. tough meats, need to stay above a certain temperature for a long time until they're done.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not all food is done once it reaches the desired temperature. A lot of food, e.g. tough meats, need to stay above a certain temperature for a long time until they're done.
And to further that, there's a lot of state change happening at those temps, often why things hold at exact temps for a bit (eg boiling), so they can take plenty of energy to go up a tiny amount. Biscuit for instance has "the rest" at around 165-175. It also sweats a lot and cools itself off unless you wrap it.
But temperature for boiled things is still important - see candy for example. The temperature directly indicates the amount of water left in the mixture.
All that said, resting is a distinct step from heating that is often required for a food to end up as you expect it to. IWO, yeah, food isn't always ready to eat after heating.