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

331–340 of 647 posts

Re: The case for induction cooking

#331

Post by pdog »

Zenbit_UX wrote: post #238
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…

Before anyone reads this and decides, "oh ya the NYT is lying to me and gas is fine", it's not. Gas in your home is objectively bad for your health, the environment and is overall worse than induction when it comes to the cooking experience in just about all ways. That being said, It might not be as bad as living with a smoker (as the NYT asserted) but it is bad for you. The YouTuber Climate Town did an excellent vid…

Do you know what isn't bad for your health? Good, clean healthy home-cooked food. Which, in millions of homes, is cooked swiftly and efficiently on gas ranges.

Politicians and their media lackeys in the media need to stop trying to micro-manage peoples' lives.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#332

Post by poink »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #254
amluto wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Citation needed please for the health effects being bogus. NOx emissions from gas stoves seem to be consistently reported as quite high indeed. For example: https://jacksonlab.stanford.edu/publication/methane-and-nox-...

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

Am ex-home inspector. Almost everyone has a recirculating vent IME

Re: The case for induction cooking

#333

Post by esperent »

Zenbit_UX wrote: post #238
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…

Before anyone reads this and decides, "oh ya the NYT is lying to me and gas is fine", it's not. Gas in your home is objectively bad for your health, the environment and is overall worse than induction when it comes to the cooking experience in just about all ways. That being said, It might not be as bad as living with a smoker (as the NYT asserted) but it is bad for you. The YouTuber Climate Town did an excellent vid…

So essentially you should ignore this article and go find real scientifically researched info on this issue elsewhere. Anyone have any good links?

And sorry, I watched the first 30 seconds of that YouTube video and don't see any reason why I'd trust it any more than the times article.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#334

Post by jazzyjackson »

pdog wrote: post #331
Zenbit_UX wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Before anyone reads this and decides, "oh ya the NYT is lying to me and gas is fine", it's not. Gas in your home is objectively bad for your health, the environment and is overall worse than induction when it comes to the cooking experience in just about all ways. That being said, It might not be as bad as living with a smoker (as the NYT asserted) but it is bad for you. The YouTuber Climate Town did an excellent vid…

Do you know what isn't bad for your health? Good, clean healthy home-cooked food. Which, in millions of homes, is cooked swiftly and efficiently on gas ranges. Politicians and their media lackeys in the media need to stop trying to micro-manage peoples' lives.

I am a big fan of electrification but an induction range to replace my glasstop is on the order of $3-4,000 (and not in stock anywhere anyway) so I can't blame anyone for sticking with an old reliable gas range.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#335

Post by beambot »

pdog wrote: post #331
Zenbit_UX wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Before anyone reads this and decides, "oh ya the NYT is lying to me and gas is fine", it's not. Gas in your home is objectively bad for your health, the environment and is overall worse than induction when it comes to the cooking experience in just about all ways. That being said, It might not be as bad as living with a smoker (as the NYT asserted) but it is bad for you. The YouTuber Climate Town did an excellent vid…

Do you know what isn't bad for your health? Good, clean healthy home-cooked food. Which, in millions of homes, is cooked swiftly and efficiently on gas ranges. Politicians and their media lackeys in the media need to stop trying to micro-manage peoples' lives.

Both (A) and (B) can simultaneously be true:

(A) "Healthy, home-cooked Food" >> "whatever stove type"

(B) "induction stoves" > "gas stoves"

The entire world, in general, aspires to rapidly move away from hydrocarbons. To me, that consideration alone would justify the inequality in (B) when you can afford the choice. Other considerations are a nice bonus.

We're already seeing this play out with municipal regulations deemphasizing gas stoves in new construction.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#336

Post by namibj »

rsfern wrote: post #113
ghostpepper wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't the reason why woks need gas also that the gas creates a smooth heat gradient up the sides of the wok? How far away from the surface of the stove can an induction element heat a pan?

It sounds like the induction element cradles the wok. I don’t know about the thermal gradient thing (seems plausible) but in principle you could make a gradient in the field strength right? I would have thought that a bigger drawback would be that you can’t get even heat input while tossing the wok, though I’m not sure how essential that is

The coils are light enough that you could have them under spring-pressure and lubricated against the wok, so medium tossing height won't affect heat transfer. It's just a ~1mm thick planar coil out of "Litz wire", covered by a glass plate in a normal stove top.

See https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Induktionskochfeld_S... for what's under the plate. The center silver thing is likely a thermostat/temperature sensor. The electronics may need to be a bit less ignorant to handle a flexible coil, but tracking the tank's resonance isn't even a difficult task; a Royer/Baxandall oscillator could probably be made to work.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#337

Post by makeitdouble »

pdog wrote: post #331
Zenbit_UX wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Before anyone reads this and decides, "oh ya the NYT is lying to me and gas is fine", it's not. Gas in your home is objectively bad for your health, the environment and is overall worse than induction when it comes to the cooking experience in just about all ways. That being said, It might not be as bad as living with a smoker (as the NYT asserted) but it is bad for you. The YouTuber Climate Town did an excellent vid…

Do you know what isn't bad for your health? Good, clean healthy home-cooked food. Which, in millions of homes, is cooked swiftly and efficiently on gas ranges. Politicians and their media lackeys in the media need to stop trying to micro-manage peoples' lives.

This isn’t constructive on two levels:

- people with gas stoves need to know the risks to mitigate them. Like paying attention to ventilation, or really ventilate as soon as they put on the stove. All the more so if they don’t have the means or the right to replace their stoves: they’re probably also more vulnerable to health related fees.

- there has been so much advertisement of gas as “fine” that it needs a lot if counterbalance. People are still buying gas stove for new homes for bullshit reasons.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#338

Post by stickfigure »

Zenbit_UX wrote: post #238
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…

Before anyone reads this and decides, "oh ya the NYT is lying to me and gas is fine", it's not. Gas in your home is objectively bad for your health, the environment and is overall worse than induction when it comes to the cooking experience in just about all ways. That being said, It might not be as bad as living with a smoker (as the NYT asserted) but it is bad for you. The YouTuber Climate Town did an excellent vid…

"The dose makes the poison."

We should not accept any health claims without quantification. "Objectively bad for your health" is not particularly relevant, even if I accept that at face value. For example, in right-hand-drive countries, making left turns is "objectively worse" for your health than making right turns.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#339

Post by schroeding »

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.

Ah, you're right, thank you! I just reused the words of the parent :D

Re: The case for induction cooking

#340

Post by Qub3d »

oxplot wrote: post #251

The archive.ph / archive.is links never load for me. I just learned that it's blocked in Australia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archive.today#Australia Interestingly, only my landline broadband connection blocks them (Aussie Broadband), not my mobile provider (Telstra, Optus)! EDIT: contacted Aussie since it looks like they've forgotten to unblock it. EDIT: Not related to blocking - turns out archive.today returns…

Out of curiosity, do you use Cloudflare DNS? Cloudflare doesn't support EDNS IP location (ostensibly for privacy), which Archive.today uses for geolocation-based multicast resolution.

Archive.today's maintainer decided they didn't want to deal with it, so they intentionally return incorrect DNS results to Cloudflare IPs. Cloudflare's CEO has stated they could just detect and override it, but that would be essentially MITMing DNS, which felt like an overreach: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19828702

Post reply on HN