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

471–480 of 647 posts

Re: The case for induction cooking

#471

Post by levital »

Scandiravian wrote: post #451
levital wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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-betw…

Mine does it in bursts I think (it's fairly obvious when cooking rice, as the water bubbles up periodically), but I've never had a problem with that. I can say that I don't have smoke problems with olive oil, which I believe is one that shouldn't be used with high temperatures.

That said, I'm probably an ok cook at best and I don't eat meat so I can't really say how it would work with that. However, I found that at least the gas range I used when I lived in the UK, wasn't really great for low temperatures either, as the flame tended to not self-sustain properly on low settings.

The killer feature for me personally was actually the steambake thing, as I bake bread weekly. It's not quite as good as directly spraying water into the oven, but still works really well. Obviously independent of the induction top though.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#472

Post by m45t3r »

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...

I did a quick read in the article and while it gets in conclusion that induction has only 15% efficiency compared to a typical open fire, it is considering also the conversion of heat in energy by a thermoelectric (that is the actual inefficient process). While I understand the point of the article this is not a valid general conclusion of the efficiency of induction cookers, since you can have much more efficient ways of producing energy.

Induction cooks by themselves are very efficient in converting energy to heat (90% efficiency, according another claim in the article).

Re: The case for induction cooking

#473

Post by daneel_w »

I prefer a ceramic stove top as they're not finicky about the metal of the cookware. The one in my kitchen gets glowing hot in an instant and transfers heat so fast that it's almost like an induction stove.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#474

Post by Slartie »

com2kid wrote: post #151
ouid wrote: post #135

I don't buy it, sorry. Electric ovens are garbage, and there's no such thing as an induction oven. Most of the health concerns are probably solved by requiring the installation of range hoods. I don't believe the claims about burning natural gas being the causal factor here either. I rather think that culprit is aerosolized oil, and houses with gas ranges are simply more likely to cook with oil at temperatures hot en…

> Electric ovens are garbage, and there's no such thing as an induction oven. I am afraid of losing my gas broiler if I go to an induction system. That is very nice to have. However, I don't get why everyone says gas is harder to clean. Last time I owned a glass cooktop I spent forever cleaning it, and it never looked perfect. Gas cooktops are easy peasy, remove grate, wipe up. Glass cooktop: Get special scrubber, no…

> Spray on magic glass cooktop spray

There's your error. That spray-on stuff sucks. It does not work as advertised.

What you need is the stuff that is largely solid and dry, comes in a jar and which has a sand-like feel to it. Sorry, I don't know the name or brands of that stuff in the US, but it probably exists there as well (the German name of the stuff I use translates to English into something like "cleaning stone"). You take a sponge, put some water on it, rub some of the sand-like substance out of the jar and scrub the junk from the cooktop with that water-sand-solution. The cleaning agent works like sandpaper and is thus much more effective against dried and/or burned-on residue than chemical-only solutions. You only need the razor tool for the really hard cases.

I usually clean my glass cooktop in about 60 seconds this way, and it is actually clean afterwards (ok, maybe add 30 seconds for an additional wipe with glass cleaner to get that pristine "just-installed" look). With the gas ones, even though I love cooking on them when I sometimes find one in a holiday home (because it surely does satisfy that primal urge to tame and use fire), I hate the cleaning, it takes forever because removing the grates and cleaning those takes a few minutes already, and forget about them ever looking like new again. And the cooktop itself also never actually feels "clean" except after a one-hour cleaning marathon because there are so many little edges especially around the burners in which the dirt will inevitably hide during casual cleaning, while the glass one is just a big slab of plain glass, with no place for dirt to hide and accumulate.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#475

Post by kmbfjr »

coryrc wrote: post #388
katbyte wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Try stir-frying with a wok, lift the pan to shake it without losing all heat or not having to be gentle when setting it back down because it's metal-on-metal not metal-on-glass. Or how about my 11" cast iron; the induction only heats the middle 7". Half the pan is useless.

They have zoneless induction cooktops.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#476

Post by th3iedkid »

ekianjo wrote: post #448
cperciva wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

not a scientist. Note the lack of PhD. The lack of a PhD doesn't make someone "not a scientist". Science is what one does, not what one is. I have a doctorate from Oxford, but I'm less of a scientist now than I was as an undergraduate student.

> Science is what one does, not what one is. yes but someone who has a MBA is definitely NOT a scientist but a salesman.

Wouldn’t it make sense to ask them for citations than use their last/latest educational qualifications?

Isn’t it possible, a sales person is aware of something better than someone having an educational degree over it, esp when selling?

Re: The case for induction cooking

#477

Post by goodpoint »

ummonk wrote: post #257
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…

As someone who cooks with gas, I have a hard time believing that any dormant emissions from the stove when not in use are more significant than emissions from searing food itself… especially since natural gas has odors added to it to ensure we smell it.

https://www.logicalfallacies.org/personal-incredulity.html

Re: The case for induction cooking

#478

Post by Scandiravian »

levital wrote: post #471
Scandiravian wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-betw…

Mine does it in bursts I think (it's fairly obvious when cooking rice, as the water bubbles up periodically), but I've never had a problem with that. I can say that I don't have smoke problems with olive oil, which I believe is one that shouldn't be used with high temperatures. That said, I'm probably an ok cook at best and I don't eat meat so I can't really say how it would work with that. However, I found that at l…

Thank you for the comprehensive answer!

Olive oil has indeed been one of the problematic ones for me - to be fair, it might simply come down to my inexperience cooking with induction

I think I will get some additional cast iron cookware when I make the switch. Hopefully it'll be able to retain the heat better between bursts and make the average temperature more stable :-)

I appreciate that you took the time to answer my question. Hope you have a pleasant day

Re: The case for induction cooking

#479

Post by goodpoint »

eyeball wrote: post #22
noveltyaccount wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I got a flat bottom wok that I am happy stir frying on my induction cooktop. The flat bottom gets rippin hot and the sides only warm. Have to work within that smaller hot zone but I prefer the wok to skillet for containing the mess.

wok cooking is the main place I find induction lacking sides stay far too cool. luckily I don't do it that often so just bought one of those butane table top burners for those cases.

Induction is excellent for wok.

Blame your induction heater or induction wok.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#480

Post by goodpoint »

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...

Not at all. Induction is extremely efficient and that comparison is incorrect.
Post reply on HN