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

601–610 of 647 posts

Re: The case for induction cooking

#601

Post by mikeyouse »

UncleMeat wrote: post #523
mikeyouse wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As one anecdote, since there’s no flame (vs gas stove) and the surface is happy to heat whatever is on it (vs induction which needs a magnetic metal) — my cousin burned down their family home by setting her book bag on the stove after school one day. It’s unclear how it got turned on but the end result was pretty terrible for them and likely wouldn’t have happened with a different stove.

A gas burner will happily light a book bag on fire.

Right, but you'd notice if there was a flame burning when you set your bag on it, unlike the electric element. This was 20+ years ago though, and I believe they all have the illuminated cooking positions when the burners are active now.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#602

Post by coward123 »

Look I'm as environmentally conscious as the next guy, but here's the thing I don't quite get about induction - how am I supposed to use a wok, a tagine, or basically anything that is either a non-metallic pan or where you need a flame for the cooking technique? Every time I've talked to induction owners, their answer has been that there are many cuisines they simply don't cook and types of cooking vessels that they don't use.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#603

Post by david38 »

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…

Eh. Gas is not “objectively bad” unless you want to also say cars are “objectively bad”. How many people die every year from from short or long term effects of gas stoves? Compare that to cars.

Every kitchen I’ve ever been in with a gas stove has some sort of ventilation. Open window, fan, hood, etc.

Same for the environment. Let’s look at older style electric coil resistant heat elements. Largely inefficient and the power generated how?

This is mostly propaganda. The

Re: The case for induction cooking

#604

Post by wolverine876 »

ekianjo wrote: post #600
wolverine876 wrote: post #583

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't trust anyone completely , not even one's Mom. But you can trust some people a lot more than others. If I have cancer, I trust my doctor a lot more than random people on Youtube.

You should be well aware then that doctors are educated by sales reps from companies who have been caught time and time again in spreading false information to doctors. Good luck. Oh. And more than half of published studies that are used to approve drugs cant be replicated. Oops ?

I know those things! And it doesn't disagree with my GP statement:

> doctors are educated by sales reps ...

That statement goes to the heart of it: "doctors" aren't educated by sales reps, different doctors are and to different degrees. You can trust different doctors to different degrees, and there is a very wide range - some are highly trustworthy, some the opposite. And you never know for sure and all you can do is observe and apply your best judgment. That's true for everyone, including Moms.

One thing I can observe is that doctors obtain MDs, and I've rarely encountered doctors who didn't have deep expertise in medicine, and I know some about how much study is done at medical schools. I can't be absolutely sure, but that's a strong signal that they know far more than I do.

Saying 'you can't trust anyone' is as serious and reasonable as saying 'you can trust everyone'. The world just isn't that simple, but finding who to trust is almost the most important skill.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#605

Post by Module_compile »

kergonath wrote: post #397
Module_compile wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just curious, if we are discussing cooking, safety, health and the environment, why did the author not discuss Teflon™ pans and how "unsafe" and damaging this is not only to health but also the environment? If you want to make certain forms of energy "illegal" because of some "lung-irritating pollutants", I mean why not start with the unsustainability and cancer risks of these poly type chemicals, no? Especially ones…

> If you want to make certain forms of energy "illegal" because of some "lung-irritating pollutants", I mean why not start with the unsustainability and cancer risks of these poly type chemicals, no? This is a fallacy. Regulations can be improved even without being perfect and your pet peeve not being addressed in a specific discussion does not make the discussion useless. Gas is harmful, as well as some antiadhesive…

This is a fallacy. All materials and compounds are harmful, in certain degrees. Along with gas, anti-adhesive coatings and potentially maybe even some of those glass ceramic compounds those induction cookers use (especially at high heat)? It's a slippery slope.

I didn't say we shouldn't do anything about either, but banning natural gases that are found in nature because of "lung-irritating pollutants" is not particularly smart. I'm not in any lobby groups. I care about freedom and energy independence. Some NYT article pushing an agenda of "all electric" and climate change is contorted logic.

Put all of your trust in some on-grid electric power utility company where in some cases are not stable(cough cough PG&E), all the while power grids are huge targets for foreign "attacks", and even a solar EMP (Nuclear bomb? Solar flare?) could render all electronics useless. All the while, you make cooking with natural gas illegal? I suppose at that point, we could rub sticks together and cook by a wood fire (since the dawn of Man)? Or that is illegal now too?

Uh...Yea, no thanks.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#606

Post by Centigonal »

Lio wrote: post #529
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…

Also got an AEG induction hob last year. Mine has all touch controls but I love it. I think it might be my favourite appliance in the new kitchen. A big slab of black glass with nothing to trap dirt on. We had to replace a few old aluminium pans with nice Samuel Groves carbon steel ones but I think it was well worth it. I haven’t had many boil overs or any switch offs. It has more than enough power when needed. 230v…

I use a plug-in 13A unit. It's great for most kinds of cooking - the only time I prefer the performance of my actual stove (a coils-under-glass electric unit) is when I'm boiling water or want a gradual warm-up to low temp. For everything else (searing, stir-fry, deep-fry, steaming), the plug-in induction hob provides better control IMO

The fan and high-pitched pan noise is not my favorite though.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#607

Post by HstryrsrBttn »

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.

No post body was provided.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#608

Post by amluto »

gassius wrote: post #488
Groxx wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every rental I've lived in has not had ventilation. It has had a range hood with a fan... and zero ductwork. The fan pulls up from under the hood, and blows it straight into my face, out the top of the hood.

There are extractors that work without a vent, they filter and release on the same space. I am not saying that was your case, or even if it was, the filters were properly maintained, just saying that those hoods exists. Searching for Recirculating Range Hoods would give more info about those

I find it utterly implausible that these filters have any substantial effect on NOx. There are specialized filters consisting of large beds of modified carbon that will remove NO2. Regular activated carbon AFAICT does not, and these recirculating stove filters do not have massive filters.

I would believe they remove particulates and odors, and that’s about it.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#609

Post by leoedin »

angry_octet wrote: post #141
schroeding wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can absolutely recommend the upgrade, these stoves are far superior to PWM style "2000W or off" ones. I can even melt chocolate without a water bath on mine, they can keep temperatures as low as 55°C / 131°F steadily no problem. :D

I just have to be pedantic and say that what you are describing is the very opposite of PWM, which runs at high frequencies (e.g. 30kHz), varying the duty cycle over the tiny slice of time. The only problem with good PWM is audible harmonics, usually only children can hear them.

To be even more pedantic, the grandparent could absolutely be describing PWM - PWM is pulse width modulation - it means that there's a fundamental frequency, and within each cycle the stove is "on" for a period and "off" for the rest. The "on" period length is varied (modulated) based on the power requirement.

What "PWM" doesn't define is the fundamental frequency. It could be 0.1 Hz or 10 MHz. Just because the fundamental frequency is slow doesn't make it not PWM.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#610

Post by creatonez »

esperent wrote: post #595
Timpy wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The host Rollie Williams has a graduate degree in climate change, maybe his style isn't for everyone but he's clearly knowledge and passionate about the subject.

Well, clearly passionate anyway. Joking aside, I'm glad he is making these videos in that case. However, I'd say the target audience is teenagers so maybe it's not the best suited for this forum?

> However, I'd say the target audience is teenagers

There's this weird generational gap on HN where HNers seem to think the generation born in 2000 are teenagers. They're not. They're 22 year olds.

Post reply on HN