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

441–450 of 528 posts

Re: Barilla passive cooker

#441

Post by benj111 »

vel0city wrote: post #113
askvictor wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Americans don't really do electric kettles, largely on account of using 110V mains, which limits power to around 1100W, making it a lot slower than ~2000W electric kettles in the 200+V world.

Americans largely don't use electric kettles because Americans largely don't drink tea at home and thus don't use kettles as often as the rest of the world. Most households I know don't even own a kettle. Not a stovetop one, not an electric one. If you were to ask most Americans why they don't have an electric kettle at home they won't say "because I only have 120V outlets in the kitchen." They'll say it is because t…

European here that doesn't drink tea yet still has a kettle.

> they won't say "because I only have 120V outlets in the kitchen." They'll say it is because they don't need a kettle.

Well no they wouldn't say that, unless they have experience of 240v perhaps.

They might reasonably say that it's too slow. Or maybe they're aware that kettles are 'just slow' and so arrange their lives so that they don't need a kettle, in which case they would say "I don't need a kettle".

Re: Barilla passive cooker

#442

Post by OJFord »

keepquestioning wrote: post #90
OJFord wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a bizarre objection to 3D printing in the home. I don't do it for such reasons, but I assure you everything I've ever printed would have had a far worse environmental impact if I'd bought/had it made elsewhere. If I'd even been able to.

How? For all intents and purposes PLA is not biodegradable

1. I haven't thrown any away anyway;

2. Fixing things that might otherwise be destined for landfill;

3. Alternative solution (where it even exists) would be a similarly plastic part manufactured overseas.

Re: Barilla passive cooker

#443

Post by audunw »

the-smug-one wrote: post #142
mrfumier wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it's not. The most efficient (and fastest) way is an induction hob with copper disc pan. Something that Technology Connections didn't include in his video. See some test here: https://youtu.be/EBlyuahlplI

Where's the energy loss from the kettle that's not present in your proposed method? Legit asking, I don't see it. Just heat radiating from the body of the kettle for longer cuz of longer time to make it boil?

> Where's the energy loss from the kettle that's not present in your proposed method?

You're not heating the water directly, you're heating it through a piece of metal. The wasted energy is heating that piece of metal up to more than 100 deg C. A surprising amount of energy lost there.

If you use the induction hob you're only heating the metal that you actually need to heat to do the cooking.

For us in northern climates, none of this energy is really wasted during winter. But many of us now have heat pumps, which are more efficient than resistive heating.

Re: Barilla passive cooker

#444

Post by xkbarkar »

housingisaright wrote: post #241

How you like to cook pasta aside. This is so dumb. No one is going to solve the climate crisis with not boiling the pasta while certain companies is reaponaible for basically all emissions. What is the word for this? When you try socialise problems like this to try shift blame? I’m still surprised how many people don’t know thar “climate footprint “ is invented by one of the bigger oil companies in a similar campaign…

Agreed. Saw similar tacticts during the bank crash in 2018 Blame was shifted to all the peasants byuing flat screen tvs.

Please dont participate in this co-dependent blame shift. Cook your pasta as you like and force media tp hold the real culprits accountable. Yesterday there was a thread on coal used to generate energy in various parts of the world. We could start by focusing attention to finance greener sources there.

Yeah I know, I sound like a hopeful hippie.

Re: Barilla passive cooker

#445

Post by benj111 »

mprovost wrote: post #386
dragonwriter wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its possible to superheat water in a microwave so that it will explosively boil when disturbed, but it is fairly easy to safeguard against, as well.

My microwave has a picture of a cup with a spoon in it, this stops superheating.

How?

Re: Barilla passive cooker

#446

Post by Ekaros »

at_a_remove wrote: post #314
kortex wrote: post #232

How much of cooking protocol is to smooth over differences in heat flux? Recipes almost always seem to call for pre-heating an oven or bringing a pot to a boil before adding pasta/noodles. But temperature is temperature (when it comes to slow cooked foods, ignoring searing / maillard reactions). Are there any reasons not to just start cooking immediately while the oven/water is still coming up to temp, if I control f…

I am not a cook. I do have a physics degree. One time I pondered, "What's with the boiling water? And even caring about corrections for altitude?" Water boils at a particular temperature. While boiling, at STP, it is at that temperature and stays there. Thus, when you immerse something in boiling water for a specific amount of time, you know this food item is experiencing a particular temperature for a given time. Bo…

And to remember measuring and controlling temperatures is pretty recent development. When cooking with wood there really wasn't a good way to get consistent temperatures. Neither on it, on stove or in oven. Thus water boiling always at nearly same temperature in same location was very handy.

Re: Barilla passive cooker

#447

Post by benj111 »

chillwaves wrote: post #264
sltkr wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know it's heresy to the British, but you can heat water for tea in the microwave just fine. And at least in my European imagination, every American has a microwave in their home.

You can end up superheating the water that way and scalding yourself. I also prefer to control the temperature of my water which you cannot do in a microwave. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/boil-on-troubled-waters/

You can burn yourself with an oven or a hob. In fact a kitchen is full of ways to maim yourself. So why single out the microwave? A microwave is a tool, tools can be unsafe if used improperly.

Re: Barilla passive cooker

#448

Post by carlmr »

notatoad wrote: post #282
housingisaright wrote: post #241

How you like to cook pasta aside. This is so dumb. No one is going to solve the climate crisis with not boiling the pasta while certain companies is reaponaible for basically all emissions. What is the word for this? When you try socialise problems like this to try shift blame? I’m still surprised how many people don’t know thar “climate footprint “ is invented by one of the bigger oil companies in a similar campaign…

> while certain companies is reaponaible for basically all emissions. those "certain companies" are exclusively energy companies. the energy they provide can be used for things like boiling water. it's good to hold companies responsible, but don't delude yourself into thinking individuals can't have an impact. the energy we use is a collection of a whole bunch of small things, added up (and a couple really big things…

Apart from that is Barilla one of those certain companies? I'm guessing no, so it's not like they gain much from helping their customers save energy. Except maybe if people want to save energy by not cooking noodles, and Barilla doesn't want to lose those customers.

Although honestly I wouldn't know what else to cook that uses less energy. Rice cooks for even longer, although less water is heated here.

Re: Barilla passive cooker

#449

Post by thaumasiotes »

AaronFriel wrote: post #96
jiggawatts wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A better way to save energy is to use an electric kettle to get the water up to boiling. This is about three times as energy-efficient as a gas hob. Combined with passive cooking it could save real money… Technology Connections on YouTube has a good video about how electric kettles are the superior way to boil water: https://youtu.be/_yMMTVVJI4c

Alec, of the Technology Connections YouTube channel, shows it's not just energy saving, but faster and cleaner. Even with US outlet power limits a kettle will boil a volume of water much more quickly than a gas stovetop, and my indoor CO2 sensor won't spike by hundreds to a thousand PPM of CO2. While the time savings is modest, if you have an electric kettle it's a no brainer to prefer that over gas. Though induction…

> While the time savings is modest, if you have an electric kettle it's a no brainer to prefer that over gas.

Not quite. Water is heavy and boiling water is dangerous; if you're boiling your water in a teakettle you then have to transfer it to a pot on the stove without scalding yourself.

(This isn't the exact problem I'd experience if I adopted your advice. I have an electric teakettle, but it is low volume and is also sharply limited in the rate at which you can pour out water from it. That's fine if you want to prepare individual servings of tea. It's unworkable if you want to prepare a bunch of boiling water to boil stuff in. But fixing that problem will immediately cause the "boiling water is dangerous" problem.)

Post reply on HN