Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Rocket Scientist Designs "Flare" Pot That Cooks Food 40% Faster

samzenpus posted about a month and a half ago | from the but-I-want-it-now dept.

Technology 204

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."

cancel ×

204 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Wow. (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47442863)

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...

Re:Wow. (5, Informative)

cold fjord (826450) | about a month and a half ago | (#47442899)

The pictures show it to be quite different.

Re: Wow. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47443009)

So next ttime rggggggggggggghhhhhh I like coffee I like tea I like boys and boys like me.

Big. Penis. Yes my dear. It tastes just as good boiled. 40% faster and fatter. That will please my wife. She hates sex but likr s big dicks. And Amy you are a fucking golddigger. Wooooooo waste you time with me. Psychic nigga from da east side. Ddddddddddddd$dddddd$dddd$dddd mrxkxkdkdkdkrolwlsldled

Re:Wow. (1)

thePig (964303) | about a month and a half ago | (#47443239)

It is more similar than it is different. Both uses a set of fins (in jetboil, it is underneath the pan) to effectively reroute the energy that otherwise would have dissipated. Actually, with the fins being on the outside for this design, I think it would be less efficient compared to jetboil.

Re:Wow. (1)

Kkloe (2751395) | about a month and a half ago | (#47442901)

did you even click on the link of the article?, I cant even see the resemble between a jetboil(googled it up) and those in the article

go ahead and post the jetboil that has the same design

Re:Wow. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47442933)

Not identical. Rather, it seems the JetBoil is better than this guy's design: http://thehowzone.com/how/jetb... [thehowzone.com]

Re:Wow. (1)

beelsebob (529313) | about a month and a half ago | (#47443017)

What about this link says the design is better?

Re:Wow. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47443067)

Well, I performed an extensive comparison down to minute detail, and it would be too complicated to explain it all here. You just have to trust my professional opinion.

Re:Wow. (1)

Barsteward (969998) | about a month and a half ago | (#47443313)

not sure i'd want to use a Jetboil on my cooker at home as a regular exercise. what's Jetboil like on an electric hob?

Re:Wow. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47443351)

not sure i'd want to use a Jetboil on my cooker at home as a regular exercise. what's Jetboil like on an electric hob?

Then neither the JetBoil nor this flare pot design is for you. Both are intended to capture the heat of combustion gas products. If your electric hob is producing combustion gases then You're Doing It Wrong.

Re:Wow. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47443083)

The JetBoil has superior energy efficiency compared to the claims of this pot designer. The whole point is to capture more of the heat of the stove (faster cooking, saving fuel).

Still wondering why this guy bothered, when JetBoil pots are ubiquitously available and have been refined for over a decade. You'll notice the article doesn't refer to JetBoil even indirectly; rather, he acts like his design was the first concept for a high efficiency lightweight cooking pot. No mention of how his design addresses any perceived shortcomings of commercially available high efficiency pots like JetBoil, because his design certainly isn't superior when it comes to efficiency. For example, his side flare design appears to be incompatible with an insulating wrap like a JetBoil has, which would lead to greater heat loss in his design.

What's his angle? Proving that you can come up with a prototype of a knockoff design if you use three years of slave^H^H^H^H^Hgrad student labor?

Re:Wow. (3, Informative)

jpellino (202698) | about a month and a half ago | (#47443333)

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.

Re: Wow. (4, Insightful)

tysonedwards (969693) | about a month and a half ago | (#47443475)

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.

Re: Wow. (1)

sosume (680416) | about a month and a half ago | (#47443701)

Have you seen the picture in tfa? It will be a nightmare to clean, unless there is an inner layer smoothing the surface. But that would not be very efficient.

Re:Wow. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47443111)

Upon comparing the two, my assumption would also be that JetBoil's design is more efficient simply due to the amount of surface area available to transfer the heat. JetBoil claims to be 80% efficient. What efficiency does this guy's saucepan get?

Re:Wow. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47443343)

113% more. FUCK YOU.

Re:Wow. (5, Insightful)

Rei (128717) | about a month and a half ago | (#47442911)

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.

Re:Wow. (1)

jfengel (409917) | about a month and a half ago | (#47443077)

I am intrigued by your ideas, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

I think that the combo tent/backpack/hammock would be a challenge, since each has different materials for different purposes. But the weight savings (or comfort from not doing without) could be substantial (at least, in an activity where people are said to snap handles off toothbrushes to save weight), and now that you mention it I'm surprised that somebody hasn't tried before. If I actually see the product on shelves some day I'll raise a glass to ya.

Re:Wow. (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about a month and a half ago | (#47443565)

I've owned a 'tent/hammock'. It's useless for backpacking, too heavy and bulky. Hammocks have to be strong.

I suppose you could build an ultralight version, for jungle backpacking. Lose the end bars, make the hammock out of kevlar and make the cover mosquito net.

Re:Wow. (1)

richtopia (924742) | about a month and a half ago | (#47443227)

I admit that when I saw his design the first thought was backpacking only. Imagine washing something burnt off the bottom of that; I would only want to boil water in it.

The issue with this pot in backpacking is that it looks heavier, and people get crazy when it comes to losing a couple grams. I imagine that you will save fuel in the long run but you also will have trouble storing stuff in your pot (my 1L pot is the perfect diameter for butane canisters to slide in).

Props for the invention, and honestly if you want to make something expensive and marginally better than the rest of the products on the market backpackers are a decent choice.

Re:Wow. (1)

Grey Geezer (2699315) | about a month and a half ago | (#47443669)

As a backpacker I try to cut weight because each fraction of an ounce is something I have to lift with every step I take. I do a performance to weight calculation for each contemplated gear upgrade. There are many lightweight stoves for instance that are not such a good idea because slightly heavier stoves require less fuel to bring water to a boil, and so, because of the smaller volume of fuel required, give better performance to weight. How much more does a cast aluminum pot weigh compared to a simple light weight titanium pot? Now, take that weight differential and calculate how much fuel (of that weight) that would equate to. Does that (heavier) cast pot really give you a performance boost? Will your hike/climb really be more efficient with that piece of equipment?

The Humpty Dance is your chance to do the hump (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47442865)

All right! Stop whatcha doin' 'cause I'm about to ruin
the image and the style that ya used to. I look funny
but yo I'm makin' money see so yo world I hope you're ready for me. Now gather round
I'm the new fool in town and my sound's laid down by the Underground. I drink up all the Hennessey ya got on ya shelf
so just let me introduce myself My name is Humpty, pronounced with a Umpty. Yo ladies, oh how I like to hump thee.
And all the rappers in the top ten--please allow me to bump thee.
I'm steppin' tall, y'all, and just like Humpty Dumpty
you're gonna fall when the stereos pump me.
I like to rhyme, I like my beats funky,
I'm spunky. I like my oatmeal lumpy. I'm sick wit dis, straight gangsta mack but sometimes I get ridiculous
I'll eat up all your crackers and your licorice hey yo fat girl, c'mere--are ya ticklish? Yeah, I called ya fat. Look at me, I'm skinny It never stopped me from gettin' busy I'm a freak
I like the girls with the boom I once got busy in a Burger King bathroom I'm crazy. Allow me to amaze thee.
They say I'm ugly but it just don't faze me. I'm still gettin' in the girls' pants and I even got my own dance
{Chorus:}
The Humpty Dance is your chance to do the hump
Do the Humpty Hump, come on and do the Humpty Hump
Do the Humpty Hump, just watch me do the Humpty Hump
Do ya know what I'm doin', doin' the Humpty Hump
Do the Humpty Hump, do the Humpty Hump
Verse Two: People say "Yo, Humpty, you're really funny lookin'"
that's all right 'cause I get things cookin' Ya stare, ya glare, ya constantly try to compare me but ya can't get near me
I give 'em more, see, and on the floor, B, all the girls they adore me Oh yes, ladies, I'm really bein' sincere 'cause in a 69 my humpty nose will tickle ya rear. My nose is big, uh-uh I'm not ashamed Big like a pickle, I'm still gettin' paid
I get laid by the ladies, ya know I'm in charge, both how I'm livin' and my nose is large I get stoopid, I shoot an arrow like Cupid, I use a word that don't mean nothin', like looptid
I sang on Doowhutchalike, and if ya missed it, I'm the one who said just grab 'em in the biscuits Also told ya that I like to bite
Well, yeah, I guess it's obvious, I also like to write. All ya had to do was give Humpty a chance and now I'm gonna do my dance.
{Chorus} Breakdown: Oh, yeah, that's the break, y'all
Let me hear a little bit of that bass groove right here
Oh, yeah! Now that I told ya a little bit about myself
let me tell ya a little bit about this dance It's real easy to do--check it out Verse Three:
First I limp to the side like my leg was broken Shakin' and twitchin' kinda like I was smokin' Crazy wack funky
People say ya look like M.C. Hammer on crack, Humpty That's all right 'cause my body's in motion It's supposed to look like a fit or a convulsion Anyone can play this game This is my dance, y'all, Humpty Hump's my name No two people will do it the same Ya got it down when ya appear to be in pain
Humpin', funkin', jumpin', jig around, shakin' ya rump,
and when the dude a chump pump points a finger like a stump
tell him step off, I'm doin' the Hump. {Chorus}
Black people, do the Humpty Hump, do the Humpty Hump
White people, do the Humpty Hump, do the Humpty Hump
Puerto Ricans, do the Humpty Hump, just keep on doin' the hump Samoans, do the Humpty Hump, do the Humpty Hump
Let's get stoopid! {Chorus}
Oh, yeah, come on and break it down Outro:
Once again, the Underground is in the house I'd like to send a shout out to the whole world, keep on doin' the Humpty Dance,
and to the ladies, peace and humptiness forever
{Music and fade}

very cool (1)

Karmashock (2415832) | about a month and a half ago | (#47442891)

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.

Re: very cool (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about a month and a half ago | (#47443049)

only available in CO and WA.

I'll have to see if my Bundt pan boils water quickly. Or hammer an iron rod on an old pot.

Re: very cool (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47443091)

Always sad when users with low UIDs are still making pot jokes.

Long time to boil? (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47442905)

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.

Re:Long time to boil? (4, Interesting)

sribe (304414) | about a month and a half ago | (#47442939)

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...

Re:Long time to boil? (1)

arielCo (995647) | about a month and a half ago | (#47443231)

Ok, how about: "it boils colder, making cooking slower"? Because that's what mountaineers and other people at high altitude complain; e.g., pasta takes forever to cook properly (whatever they mean by it), resulting in a goopy consistency.

Re:Long time to boil? (1)

sribe (304414) | about a month and a half ago | (#47443489)

Ok, how about: "it boils colder, making cooking slower"? Because that's what mountaineers and other people at high altitude complain; e.g., pasta takes forever to cook properly (whatever they mean by it), resulting in a goopy consistency.

That part is completely true, and not what I was disagreeing with. At 10,000' cooking dried pasta is tricky. But at some altitude, it actually becomes impossible, because it takes 186F to even cook at all... Same with many other foods, cooking by boiling gets slower & slower, and eventually altogether impossible.

Re:Long time to boil? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47442943)

... on the other hand, high altitude means less oxygen which would mean less efficiency for an improperly designed burner.

Re:Long time to boil? (1)

tomhath (637240) | about a month and a half ago | (#47443279)

Have you ever tried to boil a pot of water outside? Especially when it's cold and the wind is blowing? And when the only fuel you have is what you carried in on your back? Even in a tent it's a challenge.

JetBoil (2)

yayoubetcha (893774) | about a month and a half ago | (#47442907)

I guess he didn't use the JetBoil pot whilst backpacking.

Re:JetBoil (4, Informative)

ThaumaTechnician (2701261) | about a month and a half ago | (#47443087)

Or I guess he never heard of or used MSR equipment [cascadedesigns.com] , eh? Y'know, 'cuz it's only been around, like, thirty-five years or so.

Re:JetBoil (1)

50000BTU_barbecue (588132) | about a month and a half ago | (#47443243)

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/... [partsconnexion.com]

use POT (Personal Open Terminal) get full flavor (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47442917)

with everyone logged on at once there's no reason to not share what we've found out so far about eating poop http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=deception+dinner talk about design quirks?

It's sooo obvious (1)

visualight (468005) | about a month and a half ago | (#47442919)

Once again, -after- someone else makes something I think, wow that's so obvious.

Cleaning challenge (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47442923)

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 [wikipedia.org]

Re:Cleaning challenge (2)

hcs_$reboot (1536101) | about a month and a half ago | (#47443303)

The pictures don't show the inside. If the inside bottom is as tortuous as the outside, the cleaning is gonna be a real challenge indeed.

Completely useless for me. (1)

Z00L00K (682162) | about a month and a half ago | (#47442925)

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.

Re:Completely useless for me. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47442987)

Great deduction. You too must be a rocket scientist.

Re:Completely useless for me. (1)

sillybilly (668960) | about a month and a half ago | (#47443389)

I live in the US and open flame cooking is not allowed where I live, in fact some are trying to say that no cooking is allowed to make me go out and blow all my dough on restaurants, but I use electric cooking.

I use a microwave for potatoes, a hotplate for frying then cooking rice, and for eggs either a microwave to make omelets in like 2.5 minutes babysitting it, or I have a Crofton egg-cooker that cooks slowly while I eat and makes a batch of 7 boiled eggs I keep in the fridge for next time. http://www.amazon.com/Kalorik-... [amazon.com] I bought mine for a lot less on sale a few years back. The nice thing is that an alarm goes off when it's done, so you don't have to babysit it like the microwave or hotplate, which, if you go on the internet and leave them running, will fill your place with smoke and set off the smoke alarms. Never ever leave the hotplate, unplug the hotplate when done. The microwave at least has a timer that cuts off even if it turns on by accident, plus it makes a lot of noise and the lights are on, but a hotplate can be very stealthy and sly, so keep it unplugged as soon as you're done.

I was trying to boil some city tap water the other day in this 5 gallon pot, to see if it can be made drinkable - btw George Carlin says that he's amused how everywhere he goes, people don't trust their public utility supply water for drinking. It took forever to get it to boil, and I assume it was mostly due thermal conduction resistance and contact between the hotplate and the pot. The hotplate sounds like it keeps self-regulating the temperature, and it cuts off if the heating elements overheat, then turns back on, then cuts off, etc., you can hear it click as it rubs under the pot as it suddenly thermally expands and gets glowing red hot, then it cools back to black, then goes red again. So against this on/off bullshit I was thinking about doctoring a microwave transformer like it shows on this page, http://www.instructables.com/i... [instructables.com] and just dipping the about to melt red-hot copper wire directly inside the pot - that should get a lot of heat transfer. The transformer is kind of an impedance-matching device between the 2V / 800A heating section and the 110V / 16A wall socket. 2 volts on a #2 AWG gauge copper wire is kind of safe against electric shocks, just be careful what you touch it against, not to melt it or instantly vaporize it. In fact 0.25 volts and really fat copper or silver bars might be even better. Unfortunately boiling coffee and soup might be difficult with this, as the suspended solid stuff might cake and char onto the heating element if dipped directly into the soup, so you'd need some kind of large fin setup that covers the whole volume of the pot with fins for large surface area direct heat transfer, and an incandescent bulb light dimmer variable resistor on the wall socket side of the transformer to regulate power input slowed down to whatever still works. But for clean water going with 2V and 800 Amps through a #2 gauge of #0 or #00 copper wire coil is probably as fast as you can get that 1800 watts of power into the water at full wattage, instead of cutting on and off. By the way 1800 watts is your maximum allowed energy out of the wall socket, the transformer doesn't magically change that, it only makes the heat transfer more efficient by lowering the voltage to 2 volts or less and direct conduit contact with the water. You can't really stick a 110 V heating element into the water, because the pot will shock you, plus the electricity will bypass the high resistance heating element and go directly through the water, causing a short and blowing your fuse on the whole house or more like throwing your circuit breakers that need to be reset.

Re:Completely useless for me. (1)

sillybilly (668960) | about a month and a half ago | (#47443467)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

By the way the above video is not for 2 V modding, but using the microwave transformer as is, in its high voltage state. However it highlights a major issue, that is the transformer itself overheating, and the fan in the microwave cools both the transformer and the microwave generating magnetron. So at the very least you'd have to have a fan blowing on your transformer connected to some metal heatsink, or, better, have a bulkier, more heavy duty transformer that's rated up by, say a safety factor of 5, to 10,000 watts and use that at the low 1800 W.

Re:Completely useless for me. (1)

sillybilly (668960) | about a month and a half ago | (#47443597)

It's me again, the other idea to avoid overheating is just to use two microwave transformers each with their own heating coil going at half rated capacity, or hook them up parallel to the same heating coil, but then one might go unbalanced from the other, sharing, say 40%/60% of the amp load, instead of 50/50.

Re:Completely useless for me. (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about a month and a half ago | (#47443601)

Buy a couple of immersion heaters before you hurt yourself. 1800/heater wattage is the number you want.

Also learn to cook a hot dog/brautwurst etc on a cutoff extension cord. That's classic 'dorm food'. Just get any junk 120 appliance and cut-off the cord, strip 3/4'' off the ends and plug the bare wires into the ends of the sausage. Hot dogs will cook in 30 seconds. Don't electrocute yourself.

Re:Completely useless for me. (1)

itsenrique (846636) | about a month and a half ago | (#47443487)

No, but commercial kitchens in most of the developed world use gas. It's generally sought after in homes by cooking enthusiasts as well. My point is even in Sweden if these things became common in restaurant it could save a lot of gas, and restaurant owners are usually about the bottom line in my experience.

Re:Completely useless for me. (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about a month and a half ago | (#47443619)

Because cooking is all about how fast you can get the BTUs into the food?

Is there any kind of cooking, besides bringing water to a boil, where this will actually help? Any market beyond English/Scottish food?

Re:Completely useless for me. (1)

itsenrique (846636) | about a month and a half ago | (#47443643)

I believe you could use less gas even if you aren't cranked 100% because it's more efficient at heat transfer. Also, rice and pasta are made from boiled water, as well as water boiling being needed for soups. I think these foods go beyond England and Scotland.

Did not view images, but you only need a skirt (1, Offtopic)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a month and a half ago | (#47442935)

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.

Re:Did not view images, but you only need a skirt (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47443001)

You have no idea what the design is and you're trying to up game the designers? Really?
 
Slashdotters really amaze me anymore. I know that you're a bitch and everything but this really takes the cake.
 
Go back to tongue fucking your boyfriend and let the adults talk.

Re:Did not view images, but you only need a skirt (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47443037)

"anymore"? What a bizarre and idiomatic use of that word. Must be American.

Re:Did not view images, but you only need a skirt (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a month and a half ago | (#47443493)

You have no idea what the design is and you're trying to up game the designers? Really?

Not trying, and not me. It's not my invention, and it's already been done. It's what you're normally meant to do when you build a rocket stove, for example.

Re:Did not view images, but you only need a skirt (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47443011)

Here's a youtube video about it that you can't watch without scripts:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKvbVJasGXc#t=40 [youtube.com]

Aluminum foil (2)

DanielRavenNest (107550) | about a month and a half ago | (#47442947)

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.

Better Efficiency (1)

IntrepidDreams (3691017) | about a month and a half ago | (#47442959)

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.

Maybe a good idea...maybe not. (4, Informative)

Shoten (260439) | about a month and a half ago | (#47442969)

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.

Re:Maybe a good idea...maybe not. (1)

Stumbles (602007) | about a month and a half ago | (#47442993)

Well you are not a rocket scientist so would not understand. Trying to use everyday situations to justify your experience is not a factor because you see, you don't carry your gas stove with you on high altitude climbs.

Re:Maybe a good idea...maybe not. (4, Informative)

arielCo (995647) | about a month and a half ago | (#47443271)

It looks like there's more to it than increased surface area - the Coanda effect [wikipedia.org] may be at work here, making the plumes of hot gas creep along the "trenches" rather than flare out. There's a video [youtu.be] where it kind of shows what I mean at (1'25").

We have arrived! (1)

sdack (601542) | about a month and a half ago | (#47442973)

Welcome, we have arrived in the 21st century, where fast food meets rocket science!

Pot and kettle (1)

Stumbles (602007) | about a month and a half ago | (#47442977)

A lot two dollar words to simply say; I added more surface area to the side of the pot.

Re:Pot and kettle (1)

transporter_ii (986545) | about a month and a half ago | (#47443021)

Yes. Much cheaper to shorten sentences by dropping prepositions...

Re:Pot and kettle (1)

arielCo (995647) | about a month and a half ago | (#47443281)

Maybe there's more to it - the Coand effect [wikipedia.org] may be at work here, making the plumes of hot gas creep along the "trenches" rather than flare out. There's a video [youtu.be] where it kind of shows what I mean at (1'25"). Then again, it may be just more surface for transfer.

Pressure Cookers are faster and the most efficient (5, Insightful)

frank249 (100528) | about a month and a half ago | (#47442985)

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 [wikipedia.org] Now if they added the flare design to a pressure cooker they might have the best of both designs.

Re:Pressure Cookers are faster and the most effici (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47443305)

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.

Re:Pressure Cookers are faster and the most effici (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47443365)

err.. I meant "would probably be the best and most cost-effective option"

Re:Pressure Cookers are faster and the most effici (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47443381)

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?

Re:Pressure Cookers are faster and the most effici (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47443513)

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).

Re:Pressure Cookers are faster and the most effici (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about a month and a half ago | (#47443639)

Pressure cookers cook faster by raising the boiling point/temperature of steam. Less cooking time beats time to boil.

Improving cooking is not easy. (4, Interesting)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | about a month and a half ago | (#47442995)

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.

Re:Improving cooking is not easy. (1)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | about a month and a half ago | (#47443025)

oops hit submit too soon.

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. The exterior flukes have nice large radius of curvature so should be easy to clean, but still not as easy to clean as the regular smooth pans. Food in contact with the wall might heat up too quickly and not transfer the heat to rest of the food. Food away from the wall might be undercooked and the food in contact with the wall might char. It is probably suitable for soups and broths. But for cooking rice and such not very liquidy food, heating the wall too rapidly would be a problem.

Re:Improving cooking is not easy. (1)

TeknoHog (164938) | about a month and a half ago | (#47443163)

Food in contact with the wall might heat up too quickly and not transfer the heat to rest of the food. Food away from the wall might be undercooked and the food in contact with the wall might char. It is probably suitable for soups and broths. But for cooking rice and such not very liquidy food, heating the wall too rapidly would be a problem.

You have the same problem with any regular pot with too much heat. The point here is to improve efficiency, so you can actually turn down the flame. In addition, it looks like the heat will be more evenly distributed between the bottom and the walls, which would also help avoid burning the food.

It's not a bundt pan (1)

sjbe (173966) | about a month and a half ago | (#47443355)

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.

why it won't take over.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47443053)

more surface area == faster boiling
better conducting material == faster boiling
fucked up shape == bitch to clean

works only on gas (1)

YoungManKlaus (2773165) | about a month and a half ago | (#47443073)

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 :(

Re:works only on gas (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47443143)

I likes gas stoves, but electric stoves work just as well once you learn to adjust heat without seeing the flames. I assume the newer inductive stoves are the most efficient option since all the heat is in the cookware.

Re:works only on gas (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47443277)

"I likes gas stoves, but electric stoves work just as well once you learn to adjust heat without seeing the flames."

Those of us who do more than boil water would disagree with this statement. The inability to quickly change the applied temperature is an obvious shortcoming of electric when compared to gas.

How about one in cast iron? (2)

Tangential (266113) | about a month and a half ago | (#47443081)

I'm not much of an aluminum fan for cookware. Since its made via casting, how about an iron one?

Re:How about one in cast iron? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47443135)

Just get an induction cooktop and use any old cast iron, plus it's super efficient and responds as fast as gas. It's really the way to go.

Re:How about one in cast iron? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47443221)

"casting"? Isn't that a Luddite, pre-change technique? I thought everything was 3D printed because it's such a game-changing technology and the future of manufacturing?

Re:How about one in cast iron? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47443309)

No.

My assessment (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47443099)

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.

Re:My assessment (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47443379)

Works only for gas cooking.

'..Suitable for gas, electric, ceramic and halogen hobs. Oven safe up to 205C..'.
Or so they claim, though the fins only make sense if you're channelling flames as far as I can tell, but hey, I ain't no Oxbridge rocket scientist...

Can't stir the food to keep it from sticking and burning, so you need be cooking something more liquidity at a slower rate.

As far as I can make out, the fins are external only..ergo stirring shouldn't be an issue, but I do note they're being somewhat coy regarding pictures of the insides of the pots, so you may be right, but to me it looks like it's a truncated cone internally, with cast fins placed every 15 degrees or so externally.

What is this place becoming? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47443121)

A goddamn Sharper Image Catalog?

I don't understand (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47443139)

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.

Re:I don't understand (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about a month and a half ago | (#47443677)

Only with extruded food. So your pallet is 'Cheesy Poof', 'Slim Jim' and 'Noodle'.

Not familiar with MSR, eh? (1)

BarneyGuarder (44042) | about a month and a half ago | (#47443215)

http://www.cascadedesigns.com/... [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.

British cooks? (4, Funny)

syngularyx (1070768) | about a month and a half ago | (#47443265)

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.

Re:British cooks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47443397)

Heaven is where the police are British..

And if you happen to be a Brazilian electrician, they'll help you get there faster...

"Invented" by indigenous people many times over (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47443285)

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.

Coanda effect? (1)

arielCo (995647) | about a month and a half ago | (#47443297)

It looks like there's more to it than increased surface area - the Coand effect [wikipedia.org] may be at work here, making the plumes of hot gas creep along the "trenches" rather than flare out. There's a video [youtu.be] 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.

Re:Coanda effect? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47443447)

Dr. Povey mentioned to me that turbulence had something to do with how it works.
[He's my brother.]

Re:Coanda effect? (1)

the_povinator (936048) | about a month and a half ago | (#47443453)

Re-posting this not as AC...

Dr. Povey mentioned to me that turbulence had something to do with how it works. [He's my brother.]

Re: Coanda effect? (1)

arielCo (995647) | about a month and a half ago | (#47443585)

Nice! Can you lead us to a more technical article? Even the bit from Oxford is light on details.

I swear this is why I read /.

Re: Coanda effect? (2)

the_povinator (936048) | about a month and a half ago | (#47443651)

I don't believe he has published, but you might be able to get something from his patent:

http://patentscope.wipo.int/se... [wipo.int]

the patent seems to talk in terms of surfaces for heat transfer, and does not mention anything about turbulence. When he first mentioned to me that he was working on it, I conjectured that it was vanes or ribs of some kind, and he told me that it was more complicated than that and had to do with the interaction with turbulence (I forget whether to increase it or decrease it). However, nothing like that seems to be reflected in the patent. I'll ask him to respond here on Slashdot if he can.

But water reaches a bio FASTER at high altitudes.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47443315)

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?

41% faster (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47443347)

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.

He designed an oddly shaped wok (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47443511)

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.

Re:He designed an oddly shaped wok (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47443629)

Yes, but the humble Chinese wok has a larger 'footprint'..which my current cooker is barely capable of handling (Dedicated gas burner ahoy!)

Still, I will not be trading my 30 year old Chinese made wok for one of these, at least for kitchen use.

(ISTR My Wok c/w Knife, Cleaver assorted chopsticks etc was a whole 12 quid back in the 80's..and it's outlived many sets of expensive pots and pans..)

Um (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47443555)

This is not the kind of pot I'm interested in.

ssssss.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month and a half ago | (#47443611)

Hear that sound?
That's DYNAMITE baby!

Lunch is ready in:

  5... 4... 3 ...2

Cook or heat faster? (1)

asticia (1623063) | about a month and a half ago | (#47443697)

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.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>