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

401–410 of 647 posts

Re: The case for induction cooking

#401

Post by kergonath »

bluGill wrote: post #226
sjburt wrote: post #208

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. A dedicated wok burner sounds like a great addition. Another option would be to abandon the dedicated range entirely, and have a variety of countertop induction units that can be stored away when not in use. I don't think you could sell a home with a kitc…

I normally only need one or two burners. But a couple times per year I need all 4 and am wishing for more. I try to cook a variety of meals

I almost always use 3: one for pasta/rice/vegetables, one for some meat, and one for some kind of sauce.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#402

Post by AmericanChopper »

angry_octet wrote: post #127
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?

About 1mm. You're correct, but times change, and the carbon steel wok over a giant burner isn't very suitable for apartment cooking anyway. There are now works designed for use on induction (with aluminium conduction to achieve a heat gradient), and they work pretty well. Also much healthier for the occupants, not as hot in the kitchen and cheaper to operate. In countries with 240v/10A sockets a plug in electric wok…

> There are now works designed for use on induction (with aluminium conduction to achieve a heat gradient), and they work pretty well.

This perspective drives me crazy. OK, so induction cooktops are good for the environment. But flat bottom woks are not woks, and you can’t do wok cooking on an induction cooktop. The only people who think that you can, are people who completely lack an understanding of wok cooking techniques.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#403

Post by Tabular-Iceberg »

noveltyaccount wrote: post #147
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.

Lol this is an unusual hill to die on

That idiom isn’t really applicable to online discussion forums, at least not unless the user in question has actually been shadowbanned.

The idiom comes for fighting battles with absolutely devastating casualties to capture positions of very low strategic importance. Establishing consensus that woks may only have round bottoms may fulfil the last part, but having people write a few counter-arguments is by no means a devastating loss, it’s just the discussion forum serving its intended purpose.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#404

Post by qurm »

fy20 wrote: post #385
jazzyjackson wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In Europe you can get 4 burner stoves for under €250. IKEA sell a portable single burner for €40. Why are they so expensive in the US?

Using 110V instead of 220V means 4x the current , so a high power appliance must be much heavier duty, needs to be installed by an electrician, etc …

Re: The case for induction cooking

#405

Post by AmericanChopper »

wutbrodo wrote: post #278
samarthr1 wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps because you will want to cook 4-5 things at the same time? Aor of Indian households when preparing a traditional lunch will have 5-6 items (in the south, particularly in a Brahmin household, you will have one sambhar, one rasam, three vegetable currys, rice, and a fried item usually appalam). This entire meal takes three hours or so to prepare from scratch on my stove (a three burner lpg stove). Two more usab…

I am pretty amateur at cooking, and I use three burners most of the time that I'm making a proper meal. I'm pretty surprised to hear that this wouldn't be very common for the average cook.

What type of average cook? The average south Asian cook? The average Mexican cook? The average Chinese cook?…

Re: The case for induction cooking

#406

Post by AmericanChopper »

unmole wrote: post #304
worik wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> south, particularly in a Brahmin household, you will have one sambhar, one rasam, three vegetable currys > This is not even remotely typical. Digress! What is typical? It is always good to learn about people's lifestyles....

South India consists of fives states and one Union Territory, all with different languages, culture and culinary styles. A meal in a Brahmin household in Hyderabad will be very different to one in Chennai with probably only rice being the common feature. Curry is too generic to be a useful descriptor. It's hard to make broad generalizations. But having been to all six divisions and having lived in three of them, I fe…

I helped prepare lunch in a Punjabi household this afternoon, and on the stove there was rice, two subjis, chai and a roti tawa all at the same time. I would consider this a typical (if not modest) lunch routine amongst the many Punjabi households in which I have had lunch.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#407

Post by DeathArrow »

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…

I would rather want to see what reputable scientists have to say than some random youtubers and activists.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#408

Post by benoliver999 »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #237
benoliver999 wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it won't work without a pan on it. Doesn't work with aluminium. Is relatively cold to the touch despite having just been used to boil a kettle. Says 'Induction Hob' on it.

An induction cooktop with bang-bang control? I guess that is definitely something to look out for and avoid: https://www.avforums.com/threads/are-there-different-types-o...

It's a smeg if anyone reads this and cares. Probably quite cheap; the previous owner put it in to help sell the house

Re: The case for induction cooking

#409

Post by adlpz »

tristor wrote: post #293

I switched from induction to gas after a kitchen renovation. My experience is that induction is more efficient and powerful than gas, but is also much more uneven, more picky about cookware, and does not work well with “professional” cooking techniques which were created around gas and wood stoves. I gave induction a solid trial run and in the end, it didn’t cut it. The stupid controls design made it even worse. Also…

I share this experience and I'm also moving from induction back to gas after around 6 years of use.

I've experienced the uneven heat (liquid boiling right over the coil, cold next to it), shitty duty-cycle pulsing (no way of getting a proper low flame) and actually insuficient power when e.g. deep frying (it would throttle back when too hot and temperature actually dropped).

And terrible capacitive controls.

I've moved places and my kitchen now vents straight outside, so the choice is clear for me: gas.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#410

Post by golem14 »

wutbrodo wrote: post #273
ksec wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So they are lying, again ? ( Edit: Apparently not, refers to the context here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30658022 ) What are normal people suppose to do without expertise on any subject. Not against induction cooking but It is very common for these type of reporting that for induction cooking to succeed they must get rid of every single gas stove. And make gas stove cooking as evil. Start a movement, conjur…

> So they are lying, again? What are normal people suppose to do without expertise on any subject. This is unfortunately just how the world is. Epistemology is hard, and there are a ton of people out there who make it harder (Three guesses as to whether the author of this article, or any other crappy prestige-publication journalist, thinks they're lying). It's a scary and confusing world! At some level you just have…

Off-topic, but another area where it seems hard to get good answers is what cooking oil is actually best. E.g., palm oil / coconut oil gets hyped lately, but is it really healthy (in a meaningful way)? Is it gentle on the environment (very likely not).

The industries (merchants of doubt) are so active, it's absolutely nontrivial for a well meaning layman not wanting to invest oddles of time to get to good conclusions.

Post reply on HN