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

501–510 of 647 posts

Re: The case for induction cooking

#501

Post by chillacy »

danuker wrote: post #452
mattmaroon wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 in…

Afaik there is a motion of tossing food in a wok where you throw the food past the rim and catch it again. The moment the food passes the rim, a small flame ignites from the high heat and food oils, creating complex flavors. If you go to Asian restaurants with a wok station or to Southeast Asia/south China you can see this in action.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#502

Post by Throckmorton24 »

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.

After years of lurking I created an account just to reply to this. While in the context of this article I agree with you - this author clearly has an agenda - the general MBA hate on HN amuses me so I thought I would share my anecdote. Also, Melissa Clark, the author, has a BA and an MFA. Maybe we need to hate on artists doing science?

People’s lives take them down many paths. I am a “scientist” insofar as I have done science - and am an author on two publications in a respected journal (Annals of Botany). The research from my MS in Biology continues to get cited in evolutionary biology and population genetics studies years later. I also have an MBA and am a senior sales leader in a cybersecurity scale up (at some point years ago I decided I wanted to make more money than academia could provide and I made a major pivot). I’m still equally comfortable discussing herkogamy and phenotypic integration as I am GTM strategy and compensation models.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#503

Post by pwr-electronics »

happymellon wrote: post #457
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…

My Zanussi induction has physical knobs. I haven't actually seen a stove in the stores that are touch only.

The portable ones are often touch-only.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#504

Post by 2Gkashmiri »

jazzyjackson wrote: post #334
pdog wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you know what isn't bad for your health? Good, clean healthy home-cooked food. Which, in millions of homes, is cooked swiftly and efficiently on gas ranges. Politicians and their media lackeys in the media need to stop trying to micro-manage peoples' lives.

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.

https://www.amazon.in/Pigeon-Stovekraft-Cruise-1800-Watt-Ind...

dunno about the US but in india we use these. converted to US$, its like $18. they last about 2-5 years with good usage and if you are really unlucky with your spillovers and frayed cables, maybe less but other than that these things are reliable as fuck..

why do you have to buy thousands of dollars worth of equipment?

Re: The case for induction cooking

#505

Post by ekianjo »

Throckmorton24 wrote: post #502
ekianjo wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

After years of lurking I created an account just to reply to this. While in the context of this article I agree with you - this author clearly has an agenda - the general MBA hate on HN amuses me so I thought I would share my anecdote. Also, Melissa Clark, the author, has a BA and an MFA. Maybe we need to hate on artists doing science? People’s lives take them down many paths. I am a “scientist” insofar as I have don…

> the general MBA hate on HN amuses me

MBA graduates are by far used in companies in the Marketing and Sales departments, so interpreting my comment about them being salesmen as "hate on MBAs" is quite funny, because that's precisely how the hiring market sees them.

Sure, there are scientists who happen to also have MBAs. That's a huge exception, so you won't win points by finding someone who happens to have that profile. MBAs should typically not be trusted to talk about Science because:

- unless they happen to have a multiple education background, they have NEVER been exposed to serious science and the scientific method. Blame it on the fact that Science outside of higher studies is badly taught if you'd like.

- their education is mostly about how to understand the market and optimize how to exploit it through market research, targeting, and marketing.

The second point makes them suspicious from the get go on any topic they touch publicly. Are they acting as naive actors trying to debate or advance one's understand of the subject, or acting as MBAs trying to push a specific agenda for other reasons?

Re: The case for induction cooking

#506

Post by ZeroGravitas »

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…

So, just to be clear, you've copied in a comment from a random anonymous source, highly voted by other random anonymous people. You're not actually an immunologist that posts on HN (which would probably raise people's likelihood of trusting the comment), the message is actually from a random newspaper commenter, who thinks that bad air in NY when you go outside is a good argument for not increasing air quality inside? And that the NY Times has an agenda to promote induction stoves?

It's weird that they use their immunologist credentials to specifically attack it being worse than second hand smoke (which doesn't seem particularly controversial) as it seems very commonly accepted that it's bad, which you'd think an immunologist would know. Like if you look up any asthma charity for advice on your child's asthma, they're going to have this in the list of avoidable triggers. Why such venom because a reporter has (though probably hasn't) mildly exaggerated a real threat?

https://www.thoracic.org/patients/patient-resources/resource...

> Anything that burns inside the house will create smoke that can damage your lungs. There are many things you can do to help protect you and your family’s health from air pollution inside your home:

> Use the cleanest burning fuel you can find and afford. Electricity is the cleanest and does not create any household air pollution

Re: The case for induction cooking

#507

Post by emteycz »

Kliment wrote: post #469
Ntrails wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They're expensive as fuck, and eat lots of counter space. I am comfortable with the latter at least, as my default would be a 5 ring gas hob! I cannot imagine cooking with fewer than 3 rings. (Say, duck breast, mash, veg is a pretty basic meal) > Get a standalone induction plate. They're cheap and portable and they let you try it out without a huge expense. That is actually a good shout, and not something I had con…

> I cannot imagine cooking with fewer than 3 rings. You're allowed to own more than one standalone induction plate. And you're also allowed to position them freely over your work area :)

You're not always allowed to put them into electric sockets and turn them on all at once, though. There's usually special electric wiring done to handle the load of electric stoves.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#508

Post by jon-wood »

dzhiurgis wrote: post #380
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.

I use $30 single pot induction stove everyday. I cook for 3 people. It’s placed on top of old school electric one with spiral elements since we live in a rental. Sometimes I use both, but it’s my go to.

I spent a year and a bit raging at the electric hob in my rented flat every time I cooked something. Replaced it with dual ring plug in induction hob and it’s better in every way, I’m actually able to cook food in a controlled manner again rather than endlessly pulling pans on and off the hob to compensate for a lack of power control.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#509

Post by [deleted] »

Aaargh20318 wrote: post #140
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.

> 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.

[deleted]

Re: The case for induction cooking

#510

Post by Throckmorton24 »

ekianjo wrote: post #505
Throckmorton24 wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After years of lurking I created an account just to reply to this. While in the context of this article I agree with you - this author clearly has an agenda - the general MBA hate on HN amuses me so I thought I would share my anecdote. Also, Melissa Clark, the author, has a BA and an MFA. Maybe we need to hate on artists doing science? People’s lives take them down many paths. I am a “scientist” insofar as I have don…

> the general MBA hate on HN amuses me MBA graduates are by far used in companies in the Marketing and Sales departments, so interpreting my comment about them being salesmen as "hate on MBAs" is quite funny, because that's precisely how the hiring market sees them. Sure, there are scientists who happen to also have MBAs. That's a huge exception, so you won't win points by finding someone who happens to have that pro…

Lots of assumptions here. I’m not prepared with data on where MBAs end up but far more of my classmates went into finance than went into sales or marketing. Second place is consulting. Sales (not marketing) is a profession where your base income is typically a fraction of your total comp and additional income only comes from results. Many can’t stand that instability / unpredictability. Contrast that with finance which is perceived as “guaranteed money” if you have the quantitative skills, and does not require one to possess a range of non-technical skills / attributes like charisma, public speaking, empathy, relationship building, etc. My MBA program - and most I’m aware of - do not have a class or curricula on sales, specifically. Baylor is fairly renown for being one of few dedicated sales programs. MBA is a broad, not deep degree. Marketing and strategy are significant parts of the curriculum, but no more so than finance, accounting, economics, and HR. The MBA did not teach me how to negotiate contracts with F500 corporate counsel, or how to navigate the complex, varying procurement models across the enterprise space, or how to get a meeting with a CIO who has never heard of me or my company. I see MBAs among sales leadership but it’s definitely the minority among individual reps (even the ones earning seven figures). I would venture to say your view on MBAs is a bit misinformed. I have much criticism and ire to levy against the MBAs of the world, but I would focus it toward those who are financializing every sector of the economy to the point that Verizon doesn’t want to sell me a $500 phone without a credit check and payment plan.
Post reply on HN