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

511–520 of 528 posts

Re: Barilla passive cooker

#511

Post by marssaxman »

jeffbee wrote: post #161
amluto wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your gas stove will likely dramatically outperform an 1800W electric heater if you use a proper pot: https://turbopot.com/ I would still rather use a nice induction range, but it is possible to get decent efficiency out of gas.

Buying cookware that works better on gas but is specifically incompatible with induction cooking seems a bit like rigging your Ram to roll coal, at this point in time.

How's that? Most people who have serviceable gas ranges are not going to rip them out and replace them with induction any time soon.

Someone who wants to go electric badly enough to spend thousands of dollars installing a high-current power outlet is not likely to balk at the cost of new pans.

Re: Barilla passive cooker

#512

Post by chipsa »

nerdponx wrote: post #510
amluto wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Look into jetboil campstove/pot. It's got a heat exchanger fin stack on the bottom of the pot to improve boil time.

Re: Barilla passive cooker

#513

Post by joezydeco »

vel0city wrote: post #313
joezydeco wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A Keurig machine is just an electric kettle with an electric pump inside of it.

I strongly disagree. With a kettle, the whole volume of water is being heated at once and is a uniform temperature. A Keurig or drip coffee maker is only heating a small volume of water at a time. By the time you process a whole liter of water the first bit will have already cooled off a lot. It's a very different process and potentially a very different outcome.

If you're making a single cup (~250mL) why do you need to heat 1000mL of water?

Re: Barilla passive cooker

#514

Post by Moru »

eru wrote: post #501
Moru wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I come from a soft water area and I prefer the soft water for drinking. Our water cooker never needs vinegar, it's just not getting the residue :-)

Re: Barilla passive cooker

#515

Post by thaumasiotes »

SECProto wrote: post #479
thaumasiotes wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 a…

Presumably you mean you have a gooseneck kettle, which I agree is not well suited to this task (though if it takes 30s to pour out the kettle, it's not really a big deal). Regardless, pouring boiling water out of a kettle is far less dangerous than pouring the cooked pasta + boiling water out of the pot and into a strainer. If I'm looking to boil say 2 litres of water, I'll put 1.5 l in the electric kettle, 0.5l in t…

> Regardless, pouring boiling water out of a kettle is far less dangerous than pouring the cooked pasta + boiling water out of the pot and into a strainer.

I don't think this is true. The mechanics are essentially the same. But the colander receiving the pasta + boiling water is situated inside the sink, which will catch the water that is in that case intended to spill out.

The pot is situated on the stove, which is a raised platform that can't catch water at all. Any spill there will splash all over.

Re: Barilla passive cooker

#516

Post by OJFord »

Exmoor wrote: post #38
ricardobeat wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, how long would you soak rice to make it edible? I’d imagine it’s longer than 24 hours.

I've never done it by timer, but a quick search indicates about 90 minutes should be good. I'm always pressed for time and just let it soak while I set up camp, so its usually a little crunchy still when I'm done.

What are we calling 'edible'? I soak rice a minimum of 30m before cooking, I've definitely ended up leaving it longer than 90m on several occasions, I wouldn't just eat it without cooking as a result.

Re: Barilla passive cooker

#517

Post by joveian »

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…

Can't help with the physics, but in addition to more variable times and potentially different textures that have been mentioned, the other convenience of boiling water first is that it can be covered without causing trouble (potentially saving some energy), while lots of stuff (including pasta) can't unless you watch them.

Pressure cookers always start from cold, although the pressure and the tighter seal change some considerations.

Not related to the question but buckwheat is a good pasta alternative, quick cooking and goes great with pasta sauce; should be much lower total energy use, particularly with untoasted buckwheat.

Re: Barilla passive cooker

#518

Post by SECProto »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #515
SECProto wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Presumably you mean you have a gooseneck kettle, which I agree is not well suited to this task (though if it takes 30s to pour out the kettle, it's not really a big deal). Regardless, pouring boiling water out of a kettle is far less dangerous than pouring the cooked pasta + boiling water out of the pot and into a strainer. If I'm looking to boil say 2 litres of water, I'll put 1.5 l in the electric kettle, 0.5l in t…

> Regardless, pouring boiling water out of a kettle is far less dangerous than pouring the cooked pasta + boiling water out of the pot and into a strainer. I don't think this is true. The mechanics are essentially the same. But the colander receiving the pasta + boiling water is situated inside the sink, which will catch the water that is in that case intended to spill out. The pot is situated on the stove, which is…

Well, with my sample size of one, I've splashed boiling water on the floor when trying to drain pasta or potatoes, but never while pouring out a kettle. Perhaps related, a kettle has a cold base in addition to a cold handle oriented more appropriately for pouring.

Re: Barilla passive cooker

#519

Post by fomine3 »

kenneth wrote: post #397
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.

I'm a European who finds kettles stupid. I own one because someone didn't appreciate my house's lack of kettle and got one despite my protestations. I own (1) a induction stovetop, (2) a microwave… both will perfectly boil water just as fast. Why do I want to waste counter space on a kettle. My kitchen is tiny. I have the same complaint about a ricecooker. It's perfectly easy to cook rice in a pot. Sure it's convenie…

Dedicated appliance worth to have if it used frequently. As a Japanese who uses ricecooker and kettle, it must have.

Re: Barilla passive cooker

#520

Post by namuol »

vineyardmike wrote: post #328
namuol wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a gas stove in my studio apartment. I still use an electric kettle to get water boiling before dumping it into a preheated pan to cook noodles/whatever. Highly recommend this approach if you are stuck with gas.

> Highly recommend this approach if you are stuck with gas. My partner, who cooks more, bemoans that our new apartment has electric. Grew up using gas and claims that it’s better for cooking. I prefer not to intentionally dump gas into our house and welcome the minor benefit of energy efficiency. Funny how different people see the world (and technology).

I cook a lot. I enjoy cooking with gas and I appreciate it’s benefits, but I avoid/minimize it because it is so plainly inefficient and frankly more hazardous than a modern electric or induction burner.
Post reply on HN