Slashdot Mirror
Rocket Scientist Designs "Flare" Pot That Cooks Food 40% Faster
An anonymous reader writes Oxford University engineering professor Dr Thomas Povey just invented a new cooking pot that heats food 40% faster. The pot is made from cast aluminum, and it features fins that direct flames across the bottom and up the sides, capturing energy that would otherwise be wasted. The pot is set to hit the market next month in the UK. "Povey specializes in the design of high-efficiency cooling systems for next-generation jet engines. He is also an avid mountaineer and says that this invention was spurred by the long time it takes for water to reach a boil at high altitudes. He and a group of his students worked three years experimenting with different designs before they came up with one being marketed."
JetBoil pots have only been on the market for, what, 15 years now? Congratulations on reinventing that. No doubt you will get patents covering the same technology as JetBoil...
I'm going to try and buy some... sadly live in the US so this might be complicated... and ironically they're apparently made in the US... yet not sold here... Why are so many companies incompetent at just shutting up and taking my money!
I ran into a similar situation with an Italian movie company... I wanted to buy an Italian movie... you cannot buy it... it isn't possible. They're not on any of the streaming sites. They're not on any of the online retailing sites... its literally impossible to buy the movie... what I had to do in the end was buy a used copy from Amazon... because that was the only option.
Its maddening... offer your products on the global market place please.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
A liquid boils when it reaches the temperature at which the partial pressure of its vapor equals the external pressure. Higher altitude means lower external pressure which means water boils at a lower temperature at high altitude which means a pot of water boils faster, but food cooks more slowly.
Damn rocket scientists don't understand freshman chemistry.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Once again, -after- someone else makes something I think, wow that's so obvious.
Samsung took back my unlocked bootloader because Google wants me to rent movies. They're both evil.
I'm curious how much of a challenge it will be to clean this pan. It certainly looks easier to clean than the fins on the heatsink on a billy can
Since I have an electric stove - together with probably more than 95% of all households where I live (in Sweden).
The latest fad is induction heating, and I don't see that such a pot would be any advance there either.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
I didn't view the images because you just get black squares without scripts. Come on, Slashdot, link a site that can write HTML, not where they're too incompetent to display images without javascript. This is 1990s technology. What year is it?
Anyway, on topic, all you actually need is a skirt to channel heat up the sides of the pot. If it's a little lower than the pot itself then the heat will flow up the sides of the pot and you get massively more heat transfer. One little piece of sheet metal, done.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I use a couple of inch (5 cm) high ring of aluminum foil, shiny side in, around the burner. That reflects heat from the burner and the pot itself back onto the pot, and reduces convection losses by partly blocking air coming in around the edges. Obviously if you are using gas burners, you need enough air for the flame. A strip of foil is going to be way way cheaper than an $85 pot.
When choosing pots, pick one that is black, not shiny, or make it black by burning stuff on the outside. Black surfaces absorb heat better.
I'd be interested. My room mate uses high to boil water no matter how large of a pot she's using. I keep trying to explain to her it just wastes energy to have flames that are are going further out than the pot sides, but she swears it boils faster. Even though she walks away and doesn't come back till it's been boiling for at least 10 minutes.
So, what this pan does is actually very simple; the fins on the sides provide more surface area to catch the heat that slides up the side by convection forces when the pan sits on a gas burner. The "gas burner" part is incredibly important, as if you have an electric burner there will be negligible benefit, and maybe even a negative result. That extra surface area can bleed heat as well as it collects it. And since the pans are cast aluminum, if you have an induction cooktop they won't work at all.
So, let's say you have a gas burner, and one of these pans. Here's what I see as a potential issue. The walls of this pan will get hotter than they do when you use another more traditional type of pan. And that's not necessarily a problem, as long as you keep stirring. But that extra heat will tend to cause liquid at the edge/top of the contents of the pan (the meniscus) to heat far more aggressively. Which means that you will likely get a degree of crusting, scorching, etc...depending on what's in the pan, of course. Water? No problem, it's water. But if you're cooking a sauce, or making something like boxed risotto (not the real hardcore risotto, which requires constant stirring and so would not scorch) or some other grain, you may have some issues. They have a stockpot, which at first would seem like the ideal situation...except that if you're doing most things you would do with a classical stockpot (like making a large batch of stock or soup or stew) you may have MAJOR issues with that scorching.
I have to say...I have a gas cooktop, I cook a lot, I cook elaborately, we have a gas dryer, we have gas-fired heat in the winter. It's a decent-sized single family home. And my gas bill doesn't get high at all...average is a bit less than $50/month. I find it hard to imagine that these pots would make much of a difference in my gas consumption at all. Maybe if my cooktop were really wimpy, the speed of cooking would be nice...but isn't the better option just to get a better cooktop in that case? These pans don't help if you're using a skillet, or the oven (which would also probably be weak if the top burners of the stove are weak), and they cost quite a lot. It'd be cheaper to just upgrade the cooktop than replace all of your pans with this, and the results will be more controllable. I'd love a big pot to boil water for pasta that worked like this...but for every other application it seems to me that upgrading the range would be a better way to go.
But hey, that's just my two cents.
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
Welcome, we have arrived in the 21st century, where fast food meets rocket science!
A lot two dollar words to simply say; I added more surface area to the side of the pot.
My karma is not a Chameleon.
When I was in the military and trying to cook frozen food over a camp stove in the Arctic we used pressure cookers. It is fast and heated the food completely without burning the bottom. It is also the most energy-efficient method of cooking Now if they added the flare design to a pressure cooker they might have the best of both designs.
Today's vices may be tomorrow's virtues.
Well, field trials revealed that he was too good and raised the temperature to nearly the melting point of aluminium! The flue gases and soot abraded the bottom of the pots and they started leaking in just a few sessions. The older inefficient method wasted firewood, but the pots lasted longer.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
more surface area == faster boiling
better conducting material == faster boiling
fucked up shape == bitch to clean
so everyone who does not have a gas stove does not care (which is pretty much everyone I know) - much to my dismay because I like gas stoves :(
I'm not much of an aluminum fan for cookware. Since its made via casting, how about an iron one?
Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But then I repeat myself. -- Mark Twain
Or I guess he never heard of or used MSR equipment, eh? Y'know, 'cuz it's only been around, like, thirty-five years or so.
Works only for gas cooking. Can't stir the food to keep it from sticking and burning, so you need be cooking something more liquidity at a slower rate. Thicker sauces will be a disaster waiting to happen. You can only push the cooking envelope so far before it becomes stationary.
A goddamn Sharper Image Catalog?
I thought we can 3D print meals already hot? I don't get it. I thought the game was irrevocably changed because of 3D printing.
http://www.cascadedesigns.com/...
The MSR reactor is the best stove I've used. Fuel efficient and fast, if a bit pricey. Sometimes I consider using it in my kitchen instead of the range.
I had one of those years ago but my equipment got stolen. It was OK but took up a lot of space. I was a bike camper and shoved everything into my backpack.
Reminds me of
http://www.partsconnexion.com/...
Mostly random stuff.
This is a good opportunity to quote this famous faxlore.. Heaven is where the police are British, the lovers French, the mechanics German, the chefs Italian, and it is all organized by the Swiss. Hell is where the police are German, the lovers Swiss, the mechanics French, the chefs British, and it is all organized by the Italians.
I'd hardly call the Flare pot a breakthrough, although it is a very smart design.
Corrugated, punctated, ungulated, and other stressed-surface cooking pots have been around for thousands of years for this exact reason. The Guarani of Brazil basically perfected the technique in their incredibly efficient cooking pots--this was the topic of my Fulbright archaeological research in 2008-2009.
In ceramics, a corrugated finish not only takes better advantage of the fire, but also prevents thermal stress fractures, so long as an appropriate temper has also been added to the clay. Archaeologist James M. Skibo has been studying the profound efficiency of indigenous cookware since the '80s. Where once archaeologists though of cookware as "crudware", it is now generally viewed as a technological feat of immense importance and skill.
It looks like there's more to it than increased surface area - the Coand effect may be at work here, making the plumes of hot gas creep along the "trenches" rather than flare out. There's a video where it kind of shows what I mean at (1'25").
Then again, this may be just a case of increased area for heat transfer. I'm not a rocket engineer.
This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.
Agreed. If we're talking purely about the efficient use of a flame, a "Flare" aluminum pressure cooker would probably be the most best and most cost-effective option.
Maybe they were talking about someting else? Like the fact that it takes longer to boil something untill it done at higher altitude due to the fact that it boils at a lower temperature?
If cooking with gas and need tonget boiling water fast then measure the needed amount of water in not then transfer to microwave safe container and microwave on high for 2 minutes then transfer back to gas cooking pot and put it on gas flame. I think.
The flare pot looks nice and it might improve heat transfer. If the interior is also fluted, it would be very difficult to keep clean.
Interior is non-stick and would be impossible to use if fluted for most applications. Imagine trying to fry an egg in a fluted interior. It's not a bundt pan.
Personally I'd prefer it without the nonstick surface (or non-stick optional) and for it to be machine washable. With a few specialty exceptions all my pans are machine washable which is super convenient. If it is machine washable the cleaning issues self resolve by putting it in the dishwasher.
err.. I meant "would probably be the best and most cost-effective option"
How did you get to the conclusion that pressure cookers are 'the most energy-efficient method'? From the graph it is quite clear that an open pot, one that does not even have a lid, boils faster. That is the comparison that is being made here, what boils the fastest. Further, as been pointed out above, the truly most energy efficient method is to bring to a suitable temperature, then remove from heat and insulate. Is this just another one of those military indoctrination things?
Mr. Rocket scientist designed a pan such that the flames from the bottom also heat the sides of the pan. Also looks like the sides of the pan will heat extremely unevenly for this invention.
Enter the humble Chinese wok. Originally designed with a round bottom, this cookware was intended to direct the flames from the bottom to the side of the pan. Cleaning is a breeze, too, unlike what this saucepan looks like, with lots of nooks and crannies where food can pile up.
Case in point, I wonder how the efficiency of a wok that I can pick up for five pounds compares to the efficiency of this 85 dollar saucepan.
How did you get to the conclusion that pressure cookers are 'the most energy-efficient method'?
As I understand it..and was told this stuff about 30odd years ago, so I'd have to do a bit of digging on this after I write this (hey we're on slashdot, remember...), a pressure cooker allows the water to reach temperatures beyond 100 C before it turns into superheated steam, in theory cooking the food contained within it faster.
I was lead to believe that they were the most fuel efficient way of boiling things at sea level, and the only way of boiling stuff effectively with any degree of efficiency at altitude (the pressure vessel compensating for the decrease in atmospheric pressure).
This is not the kind of pot I'm interested in.
Hear that sound?
That's DYNAMITE baby!
Lunch is ready in:
5... 4... 3 ...2
Pressure cookers cook faster by raising the boiling point/temperature of steam. Less cooking time beats time to boil.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Wait, does it cook the food faster? If pot heats faster by 40% it may not mean food will be ready in 40% less time. That's usually when you use pressurized cooker like Papin pot.
There is no light without darkness.
I only use ceramic non-stick or all steel pots. I hope they have something more than "all aluminum" or it's at least coated with another non-toxic material.
melted so fast when put on the burner. The bump/fins made them heat up too much.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
It may be more efficient, but its not going to help at altitude.
Water boils at lower temperature at high altitude. eg. 85 degree C. This means many foods to not get cooked. So you need a "Pressure cooker".
This will help at low altitudes, and that too for some things. For other stuff, this will cause caking and crusing due to too much heat.
My Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
A pressure cooker cooks faster by boiling slower. If water boils at 90C instead of 100C, (say 190F instead of 212F) it boils faster, but keeps whatever you're trying to cook at a lower temperature, and because of that, the cooking time lengthens. This is an issue at high altitudes where air pressure is low, say 700 mmHg instead of 760 mmHg (or 12 psi instead of 14 psi at sea level) and the boiling bubbling equalizing pressure is reached at 90C instead of 100C at sea level. A pressure cooker is like taking a pot up high on the mountain, and carrying it deeper to sea level, or even below: it increases the boiling temperature by increasing the pressure inside the pot. The end result is 110C (230 F) boiling water, and in the higher temperature everything cooks faster, including eggs, pasta, veggies, etc. That is how a pressure cooker is more efficient in cooking, not by better heat transfer, but by creating a higher temperature, faster cooking environment inside itself. That's a lot of energy savings. However, ever since the Boston marathon bombing manhunt, the authorities don't like people buying pressure cookers.
Jetboil and MSR Reactor are very similar.
Seems like an obvious improvement for tea kettles.
Of course, if you're boiling water and efficiency is most important, then you're probably using an electric kettle anyway...
There's 2 types of people in the backpacking community:
- Those who use Jetboil
- Those who think MSR offers competition
He is going to be a very rich man.
Pretty sure (and the laws of physics would agree with me) that induction cooking methods will heat your pot far faster and more efficiently than gas, no matter what clever designs are achieved.
So what about those of us who don't have gas stove? I have elect, isn't Elect better then gas as far as wasted energy? there isn't a wasted flame the whole pot gets hot its just harder to control IMO
Jack of all trades,master of none
You must have a large family, or you save up a lot of dishes to justify using a dishwasher.
Nope. Just me and my wife. Usually have enough spare room in the dishwasher for a pan or two which often is all we need for a meal though I do end up washing many pans by hand, particular if they get stuck on crusty gunk. I don't mind washing them by hand but what's the point of having a dishwasher if you aren't going to use it? Plus the dishwasher can sterilize pans better than I can by hand which is necessary on occasion. Think of it like a low rent autoclave.
This isn't a new concept. It is well known larger surface area absorbs more heat. This exact design is widely used for backpack stoves so that you can heat up water quickly and waste little fuel, like for example Jetboil: http://www.jetboil.com/Product...
Nope:
http://home.howstuffworks.com/...
The clear winner in the energy efficiency battle between gas and electric is gas. It takes about three times as much energy to produce and deliver electricity to your stove. According to the California Energy Commission, a gas stove will cost you less than half as much to operate (provided that you have an electronic ignition--not a pilot light).
The Turbopot has a finned aluminum base and promises a 59% improvment in efficiency.
http://www.turbopot.com/Soluti...
Clearly he never saw a JetBoil. This is essentially how the JetBoil works...
perhaps two kinds of yuppie backpackers.
The rest of us couldnt give a damn...we use what works.
" the long time it takes for water to reach a boil at high altitudes." Wrong, water boils at a lower temperature the higher the altitude.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-altitude_cooking#Boiling_point_of_pure_water_at_elevated_altitudes
The inside would be shaped conventionally, other than having tapered 'flowerpot' walls, rather than vertical ones.
And since the pans are cast aluminum, if you have an induction cooktop they won't work at all.
Induction works on anything conductive, not just iron.
When I was in the military and trying to cook frozen food over a camp stove in the Arctic we used pressure cookers. It is fast and heated the food completely without burning the bottom. It is also the most energy-efficient method of cooking Now if they added the flare design to a pressure cooker they might have the best of both designs.
Citation Needed. :)
There are a few other things that add to pressure cooking's efficiency. This is from a person who uses a pressure cooker (me), not an expert in heat transfer nor any other discipline of physics.
1. Most pressure cooker applications other than soup are steaming applications, and since the pressure cooker traps the steam in, you don't use nearly as much liquid as you would in traditional cooking. Less liquid = less energy to heat it up.
2. Less loss of heat through the top. After a pressure cooker reaches the desired pressure, you actually turn the burner down to its lowest setting (or whatever the lowest setting is on your stove to maintain pressure--on my stove, it's the lowest).
That's all I can think of for now, but I will say that a pressure cooker is a neat cooking tool. Especially if you live in a hot climate, like I do. Most of my summer cooking is on the grill, naturally, but I use the pressure cooker a bit, too, and it doesn't heat my house up too badly.
However, ever since the Boston marathon bombing manhunt, the authorities don't like people buying pressure cookers.
That's just not true. I bought my pressure cooker after the Boston Marathon bombings, and nobody gave me a second look. Anyway, modern pressure cookers have multiple safety mechanisms so they don't go boom like your grandma's pressure cooker did.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
And less cooking liquid vs. non-pressurized applications since very little steam is lost once the cooker as achieved pressure. Once the desired pressure is reached, you turn the burner onto its lowest setting while the food cooks.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
I purchased one of those induction hot-plates to try induction out before buying a (rather expensive) range top
Induction is a surprising pain in the a$$. Expensive (you knew that though) and full of safety interlocks so the only cookware you might own that works is the cast iron bacon skillet! In order for the interlock to allow operation a magnet must stick to the pan bottom, which is not the case for most stainless steel (yes, some flavors of stainless a magnet sticks to, but not what they typically use to make cookware) Copper or aluminum clad are out too. No glass, ceramic, or aluminum pots and pans either!
Resistance heating is more versatile than induction.
Since I live in an all-electric house, I would rather not have propane installed. The option is not ruled out completely since I like cooking on gas, but my wife prefers the perceived safety of not having gas lines. (She lost a cousin to a propane gas explosion) In the mean time I rebuilt the 1970's range top with new burners since I need a counter top to change the cook top! The counter is a drop in vs slide in headache. I have a slide in, and only drop in cook tops can be purchased currently.
Phil
Laugh, it's good for you!
Correct.
For simply boiling water, however, I do believe even with production/transmission losses of electricity, an electric kettle is still more efficient than using gas.
Only true for non-induction electrical cooktops. Induction cooktops are much more efficient than gas - less wasted heat.
http://home.howstuffworks.com/induction-cooktops5.htm
Prices quotes for the US seem outrageous, in my country the difference between gas vs. induction is around 50% higher (for induction).
This pot is a poor copy of a kettle invented by Lord Kelvin [discoverer of the laws of thermodynamics] more than 100 years ago.
Lord Kelvin's kettle was better because it had a shroud around the sides that confined the hot gasses in close contact with the fins
and a hem-spherical bottom with deep fins that captured almost all of the heat from a flame.
I heat a tea kettle 2-5 times a day. A sauce pan once every 2 days maybe. I want to spend the extra moula on the tea kettle, which would also require no cleaning of tight little curves. Alternative headline "rocket scientist ignores most practical application of new tech"
congratulations.
will i be able to get the burned food out of the pot quicker?
These totally already exist. Not as a single unit per se, but I've put a fin kit on pans while cooking out in the sticks. It makes them cook far faster, which saves fuel and time.