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

451–460 of 647 posts

Re: The case for induction cooking

#451

Post by Scandiravian »

levital wrote: post #444
DyslexicAtheist wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> environment and is overall worse than induction would love to see an induction stove with a usable UI. everything I have used is designed by a person that never had to cook for more than 1. the automatic off during the slightest spill, and the impossibility to operate buttons with wet/greasy hands, has to be one of the biggest design mistakes in the history of engineering. my idea of a great time is to invite this…

> would love to see an induction stove with a usable UI. I bought an AEG stove last year (similar to [1], but an older model I think). Physical knobs for temperature control, no auto off on spills. Touch interface only for a few convenience features and the extra power mode, which is fine by me. I'm very happy with this stove and like cooking with it just as much as I liked gas when I had it a few years ago. [1] http…

That looks really nice - I might consider that one if I'm switching away from gas later this year

How is it for keeping a constant, low-mid temperature? One of the issues I have with induction is that the heat is applied in bursts rather than as a constant with gas

This means that when frying with some oils, induction will either heat them past their smoke point in the burst or the temperature will be too low in-between bursts

Re: The case for induction cooking

#452

Post by danuker »

mattmaroon wrote: post #298
cespare wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's true that most induction cooktops/ranges aren't great for woks, but in principle the induction surface doesn't have to be flat -- it can be a concave shape to match the wok. In fact these exist -- if you search for "induction wok burners" you can see some pictures. (I only recently became aware of this after watching this video of a chef who uses induction cooking in a small kitchen: https://www.youtube.com/watc…

You’ll never really get wok hei with induction. It’s a mistake to think of a wok as just a differently shaped pan. Proper wok cooking is cooking is actually mechanically different. It’s mostly done with the hot air that rises up the side of the wok. Modernist cuisine has a great cutaway illustration on this. The food is constantly flipped into the air above the wok where it is heated by the extremely hot air. Of cour…

> It’s mostly done with the hot air that rises up the side of the wok.

I am not a cook, but I find it difficult to believe that the heat going by the sides of the pan is cooking the food, rather than the heat going through the pan and heating the air above the pan.

This is because where I've seen someone cooking on a wok, the food barely goes past the edge of the pan.

A sufficiently wok-shaped induction stove will induce the same heat as that going through the pan.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#453

Post by gxs »

Groxx wrote: post #442
worik wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>All the vents in places I've rented have seemed hilariously ineffective even on the highest and super loud setting A consumer organisation here studied "rangehoods" and (if memory serves) they found them all to close to useless. consumer.org.nz - the reports are paywalled and I no longer subscribe, so mēh!

Boil some water and watch where the steam goes. Because it's pulling air from around the pot along with it, including the hot waste gasses that heated the pot in the first place. Even on the highest settings, I've never seen one that even makes a dent, or moves the column at all. They're snake oil and fashion, nothing more. And that's before talking about the ones that don't have any ductwork, and just blow it back o…

If you put a paper towel right under the fan you’ll see the paper towel get sucked into the fan.

Right under the fan. Yes, they are useless.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#455

Post by CorrectHorseBat »

ksec wrote: post #265
chimeracoder wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Pretty easily mitigated with a vent hood which all these tests don't have running. Almost nobody in New York City (where the NYT is based and focuses its coverage) has a vent hood that vents outside the apartment. Older buildings don't have a hood at all, and new buildings have hoods which circulate air within the apartment, which doesn't really address concerns about accumulation of environmental pollutants.

>Almost nobody in New York City (where the NYT is based and focuses its coverage) has a vent hood that vents outside the apartment. Thanks. If this bit of context was clear from the get go it would have been a lot easier for those from EUR where we would expect vents outside the apartment to be the norm. ( Not speaking for all EUR, so there may be places this is not the norm ) As a matter of fact this is the first ti…

Sadly recirculating vents are the new norm because of energy conservation rules.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#456

Post by ekianjo »

katbyte wrote: post #377
ghostpepper wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

By what measure? Induction wins hands down for control, responsiveness, efficiency, and heat output: https://youtu.be/hX2aZUav-54 Doing a super low temp simmer on gas is hard. Double boilers are only something you need with gas. Induction imho and experience is just better all around. What the video for someone putting it far more eloquently then I ever could.

You do realise heat transfer works completely differently in each case ? Therefore you cannot possibly replicate what they do. They are not equivalent and yes there are things you can do better in induction but the opposite is also true.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#457

Post by happymellon »

levital wrote: post #444
DyslexicAtheist wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> environment and is overall worse than induction would love to see an induction stove with a usable UI. everything I have used is designed by a person that never had to cook for more than 1. the automatic off during the slightest spill, and the impossibility to operate buttons with wet/greasy hands, has to be one of the biggest design mistakes in the history of engineering. my idea of a great time is to invite this…

> would love to see an induction stove with a usable UI. I bought an AEG stove last year (similar to [1], but an older model I think). Physical knobs for temperature control, no auto off on spills. Touch interface only for a few convenience features and the extra power mode, which is fine by me. I'm very happy with this stove and like cooking with it just as much as I liked gas when I had it a few years ago. [1] http…

My Zanussi induction has physical knobs.

I haven't actually seen a stove in the stores that are touch only.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#458

Post by ulnarkressty »

joshuajill wrote: post #454

The major con of induction though is the very poor energy efficiency: 15% That's on par with a typical open fire. https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2014/06/thermal-efficiency-c...

It's not that they are inefficient per se, rather they are taking the power generation losses into account, which will always be >0 when compared to directly burning fuel.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#459

Post by joshuajill »

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…

Gas is the worst for air quality, in particular with certain types of cooking and the self cleaning cycle some have.

But people with electric cooking devices can still have high pollutant levels without proper ventilation.

https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/residential-cooki...

Re: The case for induction cooking

#460

Post by joshuajill »

jonas21 wrote: post #350
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…

The article is just as bad on the climate aspect. It asserts that cooking with gas "has been shown to be catastrophic for the environment." What's the basis for this assertion? They link to another NYT article that cites a study that says, "annual methane emissions from all gas stoves in U.S. homes have a climate impact comparable to the annual carbon dioxide emissions of 500,000 cars." [1] That might sound like a lo…

Yes, induction cooking is in par with a typical open fire in terms of electric efficiency.

https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2014/06/thermal-efficiency-c...

Post reply on HN