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

631–640 of 647 posts

Re: The case for induction cooking

#631

Post by noveltyaccount »

silisili wrote: post #378
noveltyaccount wrote: post #13

I switched from gas to induction during a kitchen remodel about 18 months ago. Took a couple of days to get used to, but it is considerably better than gas. Zero regrets. Faster, more precise, holds temperature better. E.g., I fry an egg on 6. Every time, I can reproduce my ideal fried egg (unless I break the yolk). When I was shopping for appliances about half of the salespeople tried to talk me into gas, but a few…

Commenting here as I don't think it's really worth a top level. I feel it really depends on the person. For most Americans, induction is great. It's dead simple, repeatable, etc. But, I hate it! I cook on cast iron. My wife cooks with a stir fry pan or wok. We went from gas to induction and both of us absolutely hated it. It's so hard to cook if you learned in a natural fire environment. I hate having gas at all, I j…

I cook a lot on carbon steel and love it on induction. Seems to heat more evenly than on gas and heats up faster. Maybe you'd like it - seasons and performs the same as cast iron, but less material. Matfer Bourgeat is the brand I have.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#632

Post by dpierce9 »

dimitrios1 wrote: post #598
dpierce9 wrote: post #591

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In early 2014 numerous pipes were shut down in the eastern US because supply was not enough to meet demand due to a polar vortex. Compressor stations break down, suppliers fail to deliver gas, mercaptan might not be available, control systems are subject to cyber attack. My point is simply that any energy delivery system has weaknesses.

It's a great point, and plays into my larger point. We shouldn't put all our eggs in one basket. Having multiple power delivery options is great. Diversification is great. Electrifying everything is going to lead to some unforeseen consequences. When the power goes out, and it's below freezing, people die. But we aren't spending as much securing and solidifying our electrical grid and power delivery as we are onboard…

As long as gas is used to produce electricity the energy delivery systems are not independent.

In a home the two systems generally serve different purposes so I am not sure the value of having both is as high as you suggest. My gas furnace/hot water heater won’t turn on, for good reason, without electricity. The only thing that works when the power is out is my stove top (not the oven) if I manually ignite it. They would work if I used a generator but that is third supply and it shouldn’t be lost that the output of the generator is electricity. That generator could itself be powered by natural gas but that is not common.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#634

Post by BrandoElFollito »

rtpg wrote: post #382
finiteseries wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve always wondered how Italians will handle the transition when it inevitably happens, that tilting & just a ton more movement in general over the flame seems super common there

I get what you're talking about but you can actually pick up an induction pan for a bit and shuffle things around and then put it back on the pan. It's not 100% exactly the same heat distribution but when you pick your pan off of the fire it's also not getting mots of that heat either. Somebody can correct me if I'm wrong about this (apparently wok cooking "needs the fire"), but like... I dunno, I've done a lot of st…

The only drawback I see with the shuffling is that I do not want to drag my pan on the induction table itself, something I would do on a gas appliance (because the thing you put the pan on (surrounding the flame) is not fragile).

I do not know actually if this is a real concern but would prefer others to chek instead of me :)

As for the "flame" - I feel that the heating with induction is much faster and consistent than gas.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#635

Post by BrandoElFollito »

worik wrote: post #287
BrandoElFollito wrote: post #61

I did not know that induction cooking is a novelty (or at least worthy of an article) in the US. When you go to an appliance shop in France they would be 90% of the offer (and 9% gas, 1% vitro-electric). BTW the big photo on the top of the article is not induction but vitro-ceramic (the first version of something that would look at glass and not have flames, but this is not induction, just heating of a tingie under t…

Cannot use copper bottomed pots. I got a nice collection of copper bottomed pots when my mother bought her induction cooker....

You could try to use an intermediate steel plate, I saw them on sale one day - they are intended to help use non-induction-friendly ustensiles.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#636

Post by carterschonwald »

namibj wrote: post #369
carterschonwald wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those whines drive me crazy and I’m 34! Do any induction cooktops not have that terrible whine? At least with the duxtop portable induction I had to return it because the whine was so bad. Which leads to the question : which ones do not have a whine? Does the breville? Or which? It’s not something any reviews I’ve seen talk about

They can work at frequencies and with electronic designs that are far out into the ultrasonic range. You may want to check out those that apparently can handle non-magnetic cookware; those apparently run on higher frequencies to make up for the weaker magnetic effect.

Cool! What are examples of this? It’s really hard to find the data sheets for these. Or at least I couldn’t

Re: The case for induction cooking

#637

Post by yencabulator »

Groxx wrote: post #442
worik wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>All the vents in places I've rented have seemed hilariously ineffective even on the highest and super loud setting A consumer organisation here studied "rangehoods" and (if memory serves) they found them all to close to useless. consumer.org.nz - the reports are paywalled and I no longer subscribe, so mēh!

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…

Regardless of where the steam goes -- if the hood is not vented, it'll just spill the air back out in to the kitchen. The cabinets above our non-vented kitchen hood are always covered in grease from the cooking. I doubt a simple filter will make that air much healthier to breathe in.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#638

Post by joshuajill »

ThePhysicist wrote: post #470
joshuajill wrote: post #454

The major con of induction though is the very poor energy efficiency: 15% That's on par with a typical open fire. https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2014/06/thermal-efficiency-c...

That figures includes all losses from the entire power generation chain, it's hard to take seriously. The heat transfer energy efficiency of an induction stove is about 80-90 %, which is much better than for let's say an electric oven or even a gas stove. Also, electricity for induction can be generated from renewable sources, unlike for gas or open fire cooking.

The large majority of people use the grid, so it's very relevant IMO. But yes, if you somehow have your own source of energy to power a 2kW it's excellent.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#639

Post by joshuajill »

goodpoint wrote: post #480
joshuajill wrote: post #454

The major con of induction though is the very poor energy efficiency: 15% That's on par with a typical open fire. https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2014/06/thermal-efficiency-c...

Not at all. Induction is extremely efficient and that comparison is incorrect.

The comparison is not incorrect, it takes into account externalities, which if you are environmentally minded is the right thing to do.

Re: The case for induction cooking

#640

Post by joshuajill »

m45t3r wrote: post #472
joshuajill wrote: post #454

The major con of induction though is the very poor energy efficiency: 15% That's on par with a typical open fire. https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2014/06/thermal-efficiency-c...

I did a quick read in the article and while it gets in conclusion that induction has only 15% efficiency compared to a typical open fire, it is considering also the conversion of heat in energy by a thermoelectric (that is the actual inefficient process). While I understand the point of the article this is not a valid general conclusion of the efficiency of induction cookers, since you can have much more efficient wa…

The problem is "induction cooks by themselves" is a fictional entity. How do you get 2kW power autonomously in a cities where the majority of the world population lives nowadays?
Post reply on HN