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

621–630 of 647 posts

Re: The case for induction cooking

#621

Post by Groxx »

archi42 wrote: post #511
Groxx wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Boil some water and watch where the steam goes. Because it's pulling air from around the pot along with it, including the hot waste gasses that heated the pot in the first place. Even on the highest settings, I've never seen one that even makes a dent, or moves the column at all. They're snake oil and fashion, nothing more. And that's before talking about the ones that don't have any ductwork, and just blow it back o…

Hm, that's not my experience: I used all three options (no hood [student dorm], circulation hood [currently in our house], outside duct hood [parents; last flat]). There is a huge difference between each. Having no hood is obviously not nice, since water vapor and fat end up everywhere. The circulation hood at least reduces the amount of fat. Not sure if by 20 or 80%, but there is a significant difference between tur…

I've heard the grease thing quite a few times, especially with hamburgers, but... tbh it hasn't ever happened to me. And my past two apartments haven't had a range hood at all (just a microwave with a fan we never use).

Is it saturated fats or something? Burgers are definitely a rarity for me, but I cook plenty. It's just generally lean meat and veg/oil/etc.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#622

Post by adgjlsfhk1 »

ekianjo wrote: post #613
adgjlsfhk1 wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

the entire grid has loses of roughly 7%. it also takes energy to pump gas around, and leaks aren't all that limited.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#623

Post by sn9 »

mattmaroon wrote: post #298
cespare wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's true that most induction cooktops/ranges aren't great for woks, but in principle the induction surface doesn't have to be flat -- it can be a concave shape to match the wok. In fact these exist -- if you search for "induction wok burners" you can see some pictures. (I only recently became aware of this after watching this video of a chef who uses induction cooking in a small kitchen: https://www.youtube.com/watc…

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…

Very few homes in the eastern world have gas burners powerful enough for wok hei either.

It's mostly a restaurant thing to have burners that powerful.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#624

Post by mattmaroon »

danuker wrote: post #616
mattmaroon wrote: post #577

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Correct! Watch someone who is doing it right and you’ll see the wok and food are in near constant motion. It just can’t be done with anything other than fire.

And there’s no way most of us in the west would know this. Not many people outside of the kitchen a Chinese restaurant would ever see someone do it right here. Most of us just treat a wok like a funny shaped pan.

I’ve been trying to learn the technique for a few years and I’m not great at it.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#625

Post by AmericanChopper »

angry_octet wrote: post #618
AmericanChopper wrote: post #575

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I have lived in various places around Asia for about 30 years, including almost my entire childhood. I have spent a tremendous amount of time and effort learning traditional cooking methods from the places I have lived, and I have never ever seen an induction wok cooker in the wild. Alibaba is filled with all sorts of completely useless inventions that never accomplish anything other than a small amount of buyers regret.

I know for a fact that you are arguing from a position of ignorance here, because it is physically impossible for an induction cooktop to replicate what gas provides a wok, which is hot air, something induction surfaces don’t produce. So I’d recommend that you do at least a small amount of research on the topic before you resort to such low effort (and hilariously inaccurate) ad-homs.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#626

Post by coryrc »

katbyte wrote: post #620
coryrc wrote: post #592

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Compared to $50-150 for a single-burner unit, that's quite a bit. Plus I like the portability, though I'm probably only using the cast iron under the vent hood.

Ikea has the 36" in stock in the US for 950USD, but the 30" would be tolerable at 800 or 700USD if they were available.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#627

Post by neuralRiot »

pengaru wrote: post #325
ummonk wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who cooks with gas, I have a hard time believing that any dormant emissions from the stove when not in use are more significant than emissions from searing food itself… especially since natural gas has odors added to it to ensure we smell it.

The problem with this thinking is you're referring to a constant factor; you'd be cooking the same foods either way, searing all the same. These effects are cumulative, it's not some threshold you cross where the other negatives are no longer relevant because you do something far worse. It's like people who rationalize eating a pint of ice cream before bed because they had mcdonalds and a beer for lunch already. The…

> "hey, my cooking produces a lot of particulates, I wonder if I can clean up the process elsewhere at least"

How about not cooking animal products, i save more emmissions that way than spending $2k on an appliance that will be obsolete or irreparable in 5~6 years.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#628

Post by neuralRiot »

netsharc wrote: post #207
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…

The article gets weird a few paragraphs in: people like cooking with gas because it's primal and sensual? Really? Is that the best you can come up with, in an NYT article?

I like gas ranges because i hate having to “fix the tool”. A gas appliance is almost ethernal because is simple, just a valve. No circuit boards, no microcontrollers, no sensors, no firmware updates. Turn the knob->cook.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#629

Post by eyeball »

goodpoint wrote: post #479
eyeball wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

wok cooking is the main place I find induction lacking sides stay far too cool. luckily I don't do it that often so just bought one of those butane table top burners for those cases.

Induction is excellent for wok. Blame your induction heater or induction wok.

I suppose if you have one of those round made-for-wok induction hobs. the flat ones just don't heat the sides of a wok and you can't even use a round bottom work. far from "excellent".

Re: The case for induction cooking

#630

Post by ghostpepper »

katbyte wrote: post #377
ghostpepper wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gas is also universally considered better to cook with than electric (not induction) which is presumably why every restaurant kitchen uses it. My guess is ‘sensuality’ is not even in the top five considerations when equipping a kitchen.

By what measure? Induction wins hands down for control, responsiveness, efficiency, and heat output: https://youtu.be/hX2aZUav-54 Doing a super low temp simmer on gas is hard. Double boilers are only something you need with gas. Induction imho and experience is just better all around. What the video for someone putting it far more eloquently then I ever could.

Note that I explicitly said gas is universally superior to electric, not induction. I understand that induction has some advantages over gas. That being said it looks like induction is still much more expensive than gas for a comparable quality range.
Post reply on HN