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

501–510 of 528 posts

Re: Barilla passive cooker

#501

Post by eru »

Moru wrote: post #409
nephanth wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not even hard, just boil a solution of 1/2 white vinegar + 1/2 water, and the CaCO3 (+ 2H(+) from the vinegar) changes back to Ca(2+) + CO2 + H2O You can even see the bubbles from the CO2

It's pretty inconvenient when you are in an unknown location on a hotel. But yes, some areas of Europe has very hard water.

For making coffee or tea, soft water is preferable.

For drinking straight up, hard water tastes better. At least to me. Perhaps because that's what I grew up with in central Europe.

Btw, the Romans also built their towns preferably in places with hard water.

Re: Barilla passive cooker

#502

Post by nanomonkey »

jiggawatts wrote: post #63
unpythonic wrote: post #37

The claim: reduces CO₂e emissions by up to 80%* The asterisk: water boiling phase excluded When I boil pasta, I use full heat to get the water boiling, drop in the pasta, then let it come back up to a boil, then drop the temperature as low as possible to keep a slow boil going--about medium-low. Guesstimating that the boil takes about as long as the time to cook the pasta, I'd say that the pasta cooking portion only…

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

My housemate makes pasta nearly every night, so we decided to optimize the process. We found that bringing the water to boil in a borosilicate flask in the microwave, adding the pasta and then returning it to the microwave with a pyrex bowl of the sauce and meatballs was the fastest and most economical method. I think from start to finish it takes 9 minutes total, 7 to bring the water to a boil and another 2 to reheat the sauce and cook the pasta. Something like 150 watts of power usage in a 1kW microwave.

Re: Barilla passive cooker

#503

Post by bch »

thebiss wrote: post #477
bch wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There used to be (still is?) a sort of vertical chute/collar available to put around camp pots. Think mountaineering applications. The idea was that they would capture heat energy escaping off the bottom of the pot that would rise/disperse into the environment, and channel it close to the side of the pot where it would heat the vessel as it rose. Think of wrapping a section of corrugated cardboard around the outside…

Typically, those collars are used as a wind screen. https://www.rei.com/product/139472/toaks-titanium-windscreen

No - found a reference:

https://www.msrgear.com/stoves/stove-accessories/heat-exchan...

Re: Barilla passive cooker

#504

Post by jgalt212 »

jiggawatts wrote: post #63
unpythonic wrote: post #37

The claim: reduces CO₂e emissions by up to 80%* The asterisk: water boiling phase excluded When I boil pasta, I use full heat to get the water boiling, drop in the pasta, then let it come back up to a boil, then drop the temperature as low as possible to keep a slow boil going--about medium-low. Guesstimating that the boil takes about as long as the time to cook the pasta, I'd say that the pasta cooking portion only…

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

Doesn't this seem crazy counter-intuitive. Turn gas into heat, water to steam energy to electricity, then transmit the electricity, then turn the electricity back into heat. Versus turn gas into heat, water to steam?

Re: Barilla passive cooker

#505

Post by sitkack »

leoedin wrote: post #463
diordiderot wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Watch this video about how the idea that gas was better for cooking was a marketing ploy with no basis in reality and how they used lobbyist to force has connections into building codes https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hX2aZUav-54

"no basis in reality". Do you cook? Gas is functionally superior than traditional electric resistance cooking. That's not some evil lobby, that's practical experience. You can instantly control the temperature without juggling multiple burners at different heats. That makes it better. I'd take gas over electric (resistive or halogen) all the time - and I've lived with both. Induction is on par with gas in controllabi…

Gas burners put out 3x-4x the power of an electric burner and have much lower thermal mass, so the acceleration in thermal power is much higher and the absolute thermal power is higher.

A large electric burner is 2400-3600 watts, a large gas burner can be 8-16 kw. I think induction could get better power delivery than gas with time.

You can get skillful with electric, you just have to see 30 seconds into the future and anticipate the thermal lag and overshoot when adjusting burner power.

Re: Barilla passive cooker

#506

Post by comte7092 »

leoedin wrote: post #463
diordiderot wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Watch this video about how the idea that gas was better for cooking was a marketing ploy with no basis in reality and how they used lobbyist to force has connections into building codes https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hX2aZUav-54

"no basis in reality". Do you cook? Gas is functionally superior than traditional electric resistance cooking. That's not some evil lobby, that's practical experience. You can instantly control the temperature without juggling multiple burners at different heats. That makes it better. I'd take gas over electric (resistive or halogen) all the time - and I've lived with both. Induction is on par with gas in controllabi…

I cook, and while I acknowledge there are benefits to gas, I can escape the feeling that what a lot of people end up comparing are crappy electric stoves from when they lived in cheap apartments vs higher end gas stoves that they/another homeowner bought for themselves.

Re: Barilla passive cooker

#507

Post by sfusato »

I wasn't expecting this from an Italian pasta brand. It just feels wrong. Barilla has poor appeal among Italians for what it's worth. I prefer "La Molisana" pasta instead and I make sure I cook it the right way.

Re: Barilla passive cooker

#508

Post by moogly »

mrfumier wrote: post #128
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

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

I have a modern induction stove. I think it's great. But not for bringing water to boil. It's about as fast as a kettle for 500-750 ml. But over a liter and it'll be much slower than a kettle (yes, boost function). I do not use it for bringing pasta water to boil.

Re: Barilla passive cooker

#509

Post by mprovost »

benj111 wrote: post #497
dragonwriter wrote: post #495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“My microwave has a picture on it” is what was said; graphic instructions are common.

Ah ok I see now!

Sorry if I was unclear. It's basically this: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/234042/should-i-...

Re: Barilla passive cooker

#510

Post by nerdponx »

amluto wrote: post #487
bch wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There used to be (still is?) a sort of vertical chute/collar available to put around camp pots. Think mountaineering applications. The idea was that they would capture heat energy escaping off the bottom of the pot that would rise/disperse into the environment, and channel it close to the side of the pot where it would heat the vessel as it rose. Think of wrapping a section of corrugated cardboard around the outside…

This is maybe useful for boiling water but not so great for cooking. You want your pot to have a relatively uniform temperature, and gas burns very hot. This means that, especially if the walls of the pan are thin, any part of the wall that has good thermal contact with combustion products and poor contact with food will get extremely hot, with various unfortunate consequences. Also the handles will get hot.

Well it takes absolutely forever to boil water on a camp stove, so I"ll take it.
Post reply on HN