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

321–330 of 647 posts

Re: The case for induction cooking

#321

Post by danans »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #234
saxonww wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I bought a newer home (2016) with a gas range and it doesn’t have the wiring either. We desperately want induction plus a outdoor vented range hood, so we are considering a partial remodel to do it. The idea is to bring in an electrician, replace our 150A panel with a 200A one, bring up wiring for induction into the kitchen, and wrap wiring around the house for a level 2 EV charger (another want, might as well knock…

> replace our 150A panel with a 200A one,

A 150A panel should accommodate both your induction stove and EV charger. The stove's 50A rating assumes you are running all burners are running simultaneously, which is rare. You need 200A if you going fully electric (for hot water, HVAC, oven and clothes dryer).

Re: The case for induction cooking

#322

Post by Module_compile »

js2 wrote: post #142

Top reader comment seems apt w/r/t the pollution aspect anyway: As a scientist (an immunologist) who leads a research lab on lung inflammation including asthma, the cavalier attitude Times columnists have toward scientific references in their articles is appalling. RMI is a thinktank with an agenda. Not a research institution. And Brady Seals is not a scientist. Note the lack of PhD. She has an MBA and has never work…

Just curious, if we are discussing cooking, safety, health and the environment, why did the author not discuss Teflon™ pans and how "unsafe" and damaging this is not only to health but also the environment?

If you want to make certain forms of energy "illegal" because of some "lung-irritating pollutants", I mean why not start with the unsustainability and cancer risks of these poly type chemicals, no? Especially ones coming in direct contact with your food, and your water supply (a.k.a Dish Washing?)? Never mind the actual environmental damage of manufacturing chemicals like these?

Re: The case for induction cooking

#323

Post by gariti »

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.

Woks can have flat bottoms with a round surface for cooking

Re: The case for induction cooking

#324

Post by jws »

jeffbee wrote: post #316
alliao wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

interesting... i wonder if it's because of the height constrained by aesthetic inputs.. i'm pretty sure if you stuck the vent like 50cm above the stove it surely can be a bit more than useless...

I think it's really just because there are no objective and enforced standards for it. I used to have a kitchen with a pretty high ceiling and a fume extractor mounted way up high, so high it was controlled by an IR remote, and it worked great while making little sound. Currently I have one of those integrated with a microwave oven that makes a lot of noise, blocks my view of half the range, and doesn't work at all.…

My vent is about 5 feet above the stove. We had to build a little soffit to get it just within code regulations. It has a huge blower that is located in a small attic space about 20 feet away. 100% recommend! You can’t hear it at all and you can watch all the vapor and smoke from the stove waft right up and away into the unit.

The remote eats a pair of CR2450 cells every three months, so that could have been done better.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#325

Post by pengaru »

ummonk wrote: post #257
js2 wrote: post #142

Top reader comment seems apt w/r/t the pollution aspect anyway: As a scientist (an immunologist) who leads a research lab on lung inflammation including asthma, the cavalier attitude Times columnists have toward scientific references in their articles is appalling. RMI is a thinktank with an agenda. Not a research institution. And Brady Seals is not a scientist. Note the lack of PhD. She has an MBA and has never work…

As someone who cooks with gas, I have a hard time believing that any dormant emissions from the stove when not in use are more significant than emissions from searing food itself… especially since natural gas has odors added to it to ensure we smell it.

The problem with this thinking is you're referring to a constant factor; you'd be cooking the same foods either way, searing all the same.

These effects are cumulative, it's not some threshold you cross where the other negatives are no longer relevant because you do something far worse.

It's like people who rationalize eating a pint of ice cream before bed because they had mcdonalds and a beer for lunch already. The appropriate action would be to skip dinner and dessert altogether, but they're doing the opposite due to such wrongheaded thinking.

You should really be thinking "hey, my cooking produces a lot of particulates, I wonder if I can clean up the process elsewhere at least"

Re: The case for induction cooking

#326

Post by SECProto »

Aaargh20318 wrote: post #140
noveltyaccount wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I got a flat bottom wok that I am happy stir frying on my induction cooktop. The flat bottom gets rippin hot and the sides only warm. Have to work within that smaller hot zone but I prefer the wok to skillet for containing the mess.

> 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.

> > I got a flat bottom wok

> There is no such thing.

Here's[1] Kenji talking about a "flat-bottomed wok". My Chinese friends cook on a flat bottomed wok and call it a wok. So I'm sorry, but your linguistic rigidity is misplaced.

[1] https://youtu.be/u2MJzEuI0vI?t=301

Re: The case for induction cooking

#327

Post by AussieWog93 »

ghostpepper wrote: post #300
comex wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> people like cooking with gas because it's primal and sensual? Really? Yes, really. I personally love the aesthetics of flames on the stove, and this might lead me to choose a gas stove over the alternatives despite minor downsides like being slower to bring water to a boil. On the other hand, the air quality issue seems like a much more significant downside, though I haven’t researched it much. (I haven’t personall…

Gas is also universally considered better to cook with than electric (not induction) which is presumably why every restaurant kitchen uses it. My guess is ‘sensuality’ is not even in the top five considerations when equipping a kitchen.

When my wife and I were choosing rentals, the only thing I refused to compromise was a gas stove. At least in my case, it's entirely a sensual thing. There's a real joy in lighting the fire, feeling its warmth, making the flame larger and smaller with the knob, and the way it heats up the pan.

I know a lot of older Greeks/Italians are the same way with their gas ovens. There's just something magical about it that turns your time in the kitchen from a chore into something you look forward to.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#328

Post by exitb »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #295
SamBam wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've never understood why we need 4 or 5 burner ranges, possibly with a slight size variations. I really only ever want one high power burner and one simmer burner. I don't mean this to sound rude, though I know it will, but this is the literal definition of "argument from ignorance." You don't use more than two burners, so you don't know why a stove needs more than two. I personally frequently cook with three or a…

IMO, this would be a major advantage of countertop units. Buy two or four or six or eight, store them away in the cabinet when they’re not in use and enjoy the extra counterspace, bring them out when you need them.

It’s not THAT much of an advantage, since the area of unused burners can be already used as extra counter space, since it flat and resilient. Actually that seems like a major advantage over a gas stove, that’s rarely mentioned.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#329

Post by Ambroos »

itcrowd wrote: post #35

Induction cooking is good. UI is terrible: touch screen that only allows control over one heat source at a time. Please, please please give me knobs like the ones in gas tops

The better European induction cooktops have an individual touch slider control per "ring". I have some family members with those and that control model makes the touch thing a non-issue. No need to wait while pressing +/- either, you just plonk your finger down roughly where you want to be and slide to fine-tune.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#330

Post by pengaru »

modeless wrote: post #262
kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty easily mitigated with a vent hood which all these tests don't have running.

All the vents in places I've rented have seemed hilariously ineffective even on the highest and super loud setting. Maybe good ones make a difference but how many people actually have good ones? And how many people actually use them every time the stove is on?

FWIW every single rental I've occupied had never had the screen on the hood cleaned/replaced. They get clogged with grease and stop working, it's an oft neglected maintenance item.
Post reply on HN