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."

15 of 204 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Wow. by cold+fjord · · Score: 5, Informative

    The pictures show it to be quite different.

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  2. Re:Wow. by Rei · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Not to mention that as a mountaineer, I'd think he'd care more about cooking efficiency than cook time. And while it's great to utilize the flame energy more efficiently, there's a far more significant optimization one can do - make insulated cozies that fit your pots. Bring to a boil, shut off the heat, put the pot it in the cozy and let it cook. For my pots, I made an underpiece and a lid that fits over each other, both out of aluminized foam; it works very well.

    (Of course, he could be one of those people that doesn't eat any "cooked" meals, only the "just add boiling water" meals. In that case, then I guess it's all about the efficiency of using the energy from the flame

    What I want to see in backpacking is a full integrated system. Where the tent is a hammock is a backpack is a ground cloth is a pack cover is a camp chair and so on down the line, where most components serve multiple uses. When I think about how much "fabric" and "rigid structures" I carry with me that if designed properly could be eliminated, it just seems like a waste.

    --
    Fox: "I think we should call it... your grave!" Cast: "Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!"
  3. Re:Long time to boil? by sribe · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    No, I don't believe it boils faster. Granted, as you correctly explain, it takes less energy to boil water at high altitude, but there's other factors you're leaving out, for instance, the big one I know about: efficiency of combustion. So while it takes less energy to boil that water, guess what you're getting from your stove? A lot less energy...

  4. Maybe a good idea...maybe not. by Shoten · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.
    1. Re:Maybe a good idea...maybe not. by arielCo · · Score: 4, Informative

      It looks like there's more to it than increased surface area - the Coanda 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").

      --
      This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.
  5. Pressure Cookers are faster and the most efficient by frank249 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  6. Improving cooking is not easy. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Back in my undergrad days I worked on a ducted windmill and my friend worked on improving the firewood stoves used by typical rural south Indian womenfolk. A circle of stones with an aluminium pot on top was what he was trying to "improve". Did some clay based sealing of gaps and nice clay ring to set the pot on top with carefully created vents. All using plain stones and clay. Was able to raise the efficiency of heat transfer to the pot. No material to buy at all, just stones and clay.

    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
  7. Re:JetBoil by ThaumaTechnician · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  8. British cooks? by syngularyx · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

  9. Re:Wow. by jpellino · · Score: 3, Informative

    Jetboil is great for camping - not so great for everyday stovetop use - the exchanger is way too delicate and the insulation jacket is impractical for a set of pots and pans. MSR Reactor is similar (I prefer it - no jacket - if my MSR Rocket ever fails it'll be next), and I expect a lot of the benefit from both comes from a much better windscreen - and that includes the Jetboil accordion that helps channel the heat. The biggest issue with any camp stove that perches a pot above a burner is the relatively giant wind-whipped space between them. You learn to practice a delicate dance of non-flammable objects upwind of your stove - chef included - with most others. The trusty old suitcase Coleman stoves are still revered for having this built into the design, but for backpacking they're an albatross. Jetboils are also only for boiling water - cooking in them can cause the aluminum exchanger to fail, as they depend on the constant flow of heat into the water - this has been an issue with Jetboils, though predominantly with the Ti version.

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
  10. Re: Wow. by tysonedwards · · Score: 4, Insightful

    JetBoil has a lot of pieces that can become damaged and compromise the efficiency of the product. This one is a single, solid piece that just functions by having a much larger surface area due to the rippled surface of the pan, thereby allowing it to contact more of the heat source than a conventional, single solid piece pan. This pan would appear easier to clean by far, and more difficult to damage.

    --
    Thirty four characters live here.
  11. Re:Completely useless for me. by sir-gold · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Where do you live that they ban gas-flame cooking?

  12. Re:Wow. by MrNaz · · Score: 4, Funny

    Or very, very right.

    --
    I hate printers.
  13. Re:very cool by rtb61 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Likely because they ain't cooks. The pot works well if the pot is full, if not it burns food up the sides of the pot, especially those bits you leave behind when stirring. The pot has far more surface area to clean. The pot only work with gas. The catch is for those who cook you really only want your heat at the bottom of the pot and not so much at the sides, in fact optimum pot design is insulated sides and a very conductive base. Even the base tends to be better for cooking a thick cast iron in order to balance out the vagaries of thermostats. Yep he is definitely a rocket scientist and not a cook.

    --
    Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  14. Re:So what about those of us who don't have gas st by LordKronos · · Score: 4, Informative

    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).