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

611–620 of 647 posts

Re: The case for induction cooking

#611

Post by phphphphp »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #548
phphphphp wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

they don’t glow from heat but they can glow by design: for safety reasons, some have lights that simulate glowing from heat. I guess the choice of image is a little curious, given the primary distinction between induction vs. traditional is, typically, the absence of external heat.

At risk of sounding dangerously stupid, what exactly is the safety concern? Given that induction is cool to the touch, it's not obvious to me how you'd hurt yourself (which is doubtless another major advantage of gas).

They're not cold to the touch once they've been used: the induction process heats the pan, but heat from the pan will transfer back to the glass. If you use an induction cooker for 20 minutes, and then immediately place your hand on the glass, your hand will be burned.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#612

Post by ekianjo »

wolverine876 wrote: post #586
ekianjo wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to think electricity is not produced by fossil fuels. In most countries the majority is made with gas and coal.

Reducing climate impact from energy production requires both reducing it at the point of production and at the point of consumption. By switching to electric energy at the point of consumption, you reduce demand for gas, etc. The production can then be switched to something zero-impact.

> The production can then be switched to something zero-impact.

There's no such thing as zero-impact. Wind farms have an environmental impact. Building solar-sensitive cells require dirty processes that also create pollution and waste as they don't last forever.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#613

Post by ekianjo »

adgjlsfhk1 wrote: post #492
ekianjo wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to think electricity is not produced by fossil fuels. In most countries the majority is made with gas and coal.

doesn't matter. gas pipes leak, and shall appliances aren't efficient, so even if the grid was 100% fossil fuel (which it's not), it still would be more efficient to use electric in the home.

> it still would be more efficient to use electric in the home.

Efficiency wise you may be wrong. Carrying electricity is not efficient (you lose energy with distance) while gas (as long as leaks are limited) is a more efficient store of energy from start to end.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#614

Post by yohannparis »

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?

Damn, I didn't knew that at 36 years old I was still a teenagers!? I knew North-American loved to class people by age group, but this is becoming silly.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#615

Post by mbg721 »

yohannparis wrote: post #614
esperent wrote: post #595

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Damn, I didn't knew that at 36 years old I was still a teenagers!? I knew North-American loved to class people by age group, but this is becoming silly.

36? How was Elvis on American Bandstand, Boomer?

Re: The case for induction cooking

#616

Post by danuker »

mattmaroon wrote: post #577
danuker wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

No offense but you’ve just not seen people doing it properly then. If you live in the western world that’s not surprising. I can’t find a high enough resolution pic on the internet of the modernist cuisine cutaway to actually read the text but here’s the image: https://images.app.goo.gl/cZWmqecLWTSdxSeX6 Wok Hei translates to “breath of the wok” for a reason. The food is constantly in the air, which allows it to dry…

> The food is constantly in the air, which allows it to dry out

Thank you for treating my ignorance!

Since in order to keep it in the air you have to constantly raise the pot from the cooker, and since induction can't work too far, it is clear why it doesn't work.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#617

Post by rrobukef »

Symbiote wrote: post #441
qurm wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using 110V instead of 220V means 4x the current , so a high power appliance must be much heavier duty, needs to be installed by an electrician, etc …

The USA uses 220V for appliances like stoves.

Europe often uses 3 phase 220V or 1 phase 380V for heavy loads like stoves.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#618

Post by angry_octet »

AmericanChopper wrote: post #575
angry_octet wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think Alibaba (click the link!) has a thousand induction cookers, including ones with a spherical wok shape? You're saying the Chinese don't know how to stir fry?!

Somebody sells it on Alibaba, so therefore it must be a high quality thing that works properly?... I can see where you might have gone wrong here.

Okay okay, Americans know all about the whole world, I give up: You're right, it's impossible, stick to gas. Enjoy your self confident bubble.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#619

Post by Symbiote »

ip26 wrote: post #528
fy20 wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Europe you can get 4 burner stoves for under €250. IKEA sell a portable single burner for €40. Why are they so expensive in the US?

In the US, most people are buying a range (freestanding stove+oven), while I understand in Europe people are buying cooktops (stove only)

I haven't been in houses in all European countries, but I've seen both. I think a range is cheaper (one appliance, one electrical connection), so you find it in cheaper apartments, cheap rentals etc. It might also be the only reasonable option if the kitchen is small.

A separate oven and hob usually means the oven isn't at knee height, which is much nicer. Decent apartments and houses in Europe have this, but so does my relative's million dollar house in the US.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#620

Post by katbyte »

coryrc wrote: post #592
katbyte wrote: post #562

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the majority of tasks for the majority of people in NA induction is better. Wok cooking is the only one that it makes tricky (not impossible) and your not doing proper wok cooking on basically any NA home gas cooktops anyway. for that you should be using a proper commercial propane burner. If your not doing that the correct pan (one that will hold and spread the heat) and cooktop will be pretty close to gas, unle…

My cheap gas stove heats my cast iron just fine. Induction seems to have standardized on ~7" and anything more is thousands of dollars.

IKEA sells one with a 10” for 850 Canadian.
Post reply on HN