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

Barilla passive cooker

barilla.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 528 posts

Re: Barilla passive cooker

#371

Post by adql »

armada651 wrote: post #174
sltkr wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is about three times as energy-efficient as a gas hob. I sincerely doubt this figure in cases where electricity is generated from fossil fuels in the first place. For example, I lived in the Netherlands where 80% of electricity is still produced by fossil fuels, mostly in gas-fired power plants. As I understand it, generating electricity from gas has an efficiency of only about 50%. That means you lose a lot o…

> In the winter, the gas stove will be more efficient since all the heat that doesn't go into your food, heats up the room (heating is typically also based on gas in the Netherlands, so this is basically free energy). The efficiency loss of the electric kettle also gets converted into heat that heats up your home, energy doesn't just disappear.

Well the heating with gas is cheaper than with electrics in most places.

So it is "heat your house by X at price of the gas heating" vs "heat your house by X at price of electric heating". And the price of old school resistive heating, not the more efficient heat pump.

Re: Barilla passive cooker

#372

Post by heisenbit »

modriano wrote: post #298
amluto wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your gas stove will likely dramatically outperform an 1800W electric heater if you use a proper pot: https://turbopot.com/ I would still rather use a nice induction range, but it is possible to get decent efficiency out of gas.

What efficiency (in terms of energy transfer to the intended material vs to the environment) is observed with gas? IIRC, gas achieves maybe 35-50% efficiency (depending on the surface area and material of the pan) compared with ~80% for electric resistance heating and >90% for induction. Adam Ragusea did a water boiling comparison and the gas stove was dumping so much energy into the air around the pot that his therm…

Comparing gas with electrical efficiency is not representing realistic end-to-end efficiencies wrt. co2 as long as the vas majority of electricity is generated from primary energy. Power plants tend to have efficiencies lower 50%.

Re: Barilla passive cooker

#373

Post by ephbit »

unpythonic wrote: post #37

The claim: reduces CO₂e emissions by up to 80%* The asterisk: water boiling phase excluded When I boil pasta, I use full heat to get the water boiling, drop in the pasta, then let it come back up to a boil, then drop the temperature as low as possible to keep a slow boil going--about medium-low. Guesstimating that the boil takes about as long as the time to cook the pasta, I'd say that the pasta cooking portion only…

> When I boil pasta, I use full heat to get the water boiling, drop in the pasta, then let it come back up to a boil, then drop the temperature as low as possible to keep a slow boil going--about medium-low.

Do you put a lid on the pot?

If not, you're running a reboiler. If you were to do that in a region of the earth and season of the year where you have to heat your place you'd probably be wasting double. Because the additional moisture from evaporation has to be removed from your place later through ventilation.

It always baffles me how many people don't care/know just how much less energy they could use to achieve the exact same result, just by putting a lid on.

Re: Barilla passive cooker

#374

Post by __fst__ »

The concept is definitely not new. Another keyword to search for is Thermal Cooking. I have a Shuttle Chef Thermal Cooker / Thermo Pot for that. It's basically an insulated pot to retain the heat. You heat up your food for a short time on the stove, then you put the pot into the insulating pot and let it rest there for some time. But you have to get the timing right, otherwise everything just ends up being mushy.

See also * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_cooking * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haybox

Re: Barilla passive cooker

#375

Post by xcambar »

froh wrote: post #368
b3morales wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Harold McGee himself (author of the food geek bible On Food and Cooking) also presented this idea back in 2011: https://www.splendidtable.org/story/2011/01/15/you-can-cook-... > I just did the experiment of cooking a pound of pasta in just enough water for it to absorb. I thought, "While I'm at it, why don't I play with the heating as well? I'll start them in cold water and see what happens." > I found that starting…

just start the timer at 80°C and get the pasta below 80°C once Al dented, either by adding ingredients or by briefly rinsing with fresh water, e.g. to on fry the pasta afterwards.

I was first hurt that you conjugated "al dente", but in fact it's just how languages incorporate new elements and evolve, so that's fine, I guess.

> - how are you cooking your pasta? > - I'm aldenting them, of course :)

I still personally don't like it but since my opinion is not requested, I might as well get used to it in case it sticks.

Re: Barilla passive cooker

#376

Post by puffoflogic »

im-a-baby wrote: post #271
puffoflogic wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The claim seems dubious in Europe, but in North America the stove has access to twice the voltage potential as the kettle, so can heat faster. Then with equal losses the stove wins.

Europeans use 220V for everything.

So in Europe the phenomenon of a stove heating faster than a kettle would not be observed. Isn't that what I said?

Re: Barilla passive cooker

#377

Post by samus »

stephen_g wrote: post #329
bobbylarrybobby wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don’t know about your bones but all tap water has some minerals in it.

Good thing too, because if you drink demineralised water it pulls electrolytes out of your cells (I think by osmosis) and eventually you also end up with decreasing bone density.

Most tap water is far from being demineralised. It's a problem if you have a reverse osmosis filtration system though.

Re: Barilla passive cooker

#378

Post by bch »

nerdponx wrote: post #254
crooked-v wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's still a huge amount of energy that gets dumped out into the kitchen by any non-induction cooktop, no matter what pot you use.

I always wanted some kind of "collar" that I could put around a burner to try to direct that excess heat back into the pan/pot.

There used to be (still is?) a sort of vertical chute/collar available to put around camp pots. Think mountaineering applications. The idea was that they would capture heat energy escaping off the bottom of the pot that would rise/disperse into the environment, and channel it close to the side of the pot where it would heat the vessel as it rose. Think of wrapping a section of corrugated cardboard around the outside wall of a pot. Now a birds-eye view down the cardboard should reveal the energy capturing channels that will allow the sides of your pot to heat the pot contents. Adjust your material and tune the sizing and you’ve got a camping gadget.

Re: Barilla passive cooker

#379

Post by isoprophlex »

xcambar wrote: post #375
froh wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

just start the timer at 80°C and get the pasta below 80°C once Al dented, either by adding ingredients or by briefly rinsing with fresh water, e.g. to on fry the pasta afterwards.

I was first hurt that you conjugated "al dente", but in fact it's just how languages incorporate new elements and evolve, so that's fine, I guess. > - how are you cooking your pasta? > - I'm aldenting them, of course :) I still personally don't like it but since my opinion is not requested, I might as well get used to it in case it sticks.

Not as bad as calling a 'quiche' a 'quickie' ;)
Post reply on HN