What are the technical reasons our pots aren't insulated? Think about it: just heat it up once and it keeps (almost)boiling for hours. Why are modern pots still just a thin sheet of metal?
>>91111483making it slow to lose heat will also make it slow to gain heat anon. Insulation works both ways
>>91111506Not if you use induction
thermoses and slow cookers have existed for quite a while
>>91111506It only gets heat from the bottom and could be insulated all around.
>>91111506You could use immersion heaters and remove them when ready
>>91111522>thermoses and slow cookers have existed for quite a whileHence op's question why we still don't have insulated pots.
>>91111522I don't mean cooking slow, but cooking fast and efficient. Taking just a fraction of the energy it would take to keep water at roughly 100c
>>91111532It could even come build into the pot with a digital controller
>>91111543But would it really? most of the heat escapes from the top i guess
>>91111543>>91111541insulation technology isn't as good as you think it is. You're not gonna keep water at 90+ degrees for hours without inputting energy
>>91111483it's cheap, boils and fast and get cold fast too (important in summer), it's cheap and has durability and those factors really important.but you can buy one, I don't know why you want it, do you live in the arctic?
>>91111543most of the heat is lost as steam. you can put a lid on it, but pressure still needs to escape. you can seal the lid and add a valve, and congratulations you've invented the pressure cooker.
>>91111567>but you can buy oneWhich one?
>>91111560Not really if it's not actually boiling, keeping water at 99c would actually be ideal, also lids are recommended
>>91111594you think there isn't steam if the water isn't boiling? Have you ever taken a shower?
>>91111582I'm sure OP knows this and this is not the question. Why is it so difficult to imagine an insulated pot and how it would heat up faster and hold heat longer?
Phase changes require large amounts of energy per unit of volume. Keeping water boiling will require nearly as much energy regardless of the material used.
>>91111483Because cookware (mostly) isn't about keeping something at a certain temperature, it's about adding energy. For instance, when frying something it's all about adding the energy to remove the amount of water that you want to, and when boiling something it's often mostly about perturbing the contents with steam bubbles. The required power input dwarfs the power lost due to lack of insulation anyway, so insulation doesn't matter.If anything, once you're done boiling something you want it to cool down somewhat fast, so the lack of insulation is a feature, not a bug.Additionally, for the cases where you just want to keep something at a certain temperature for a while, that's when you use an oven instead, and the oven has insulation.
>>91111567Saving energy when it costs $1/kWh adds up quickly (thanks EU). Would probably be more environmentally friendly and reduce costs to go completely off-grid when huge energy sinks dissappear
>>91111483>It's another retarded OP with no basic understanding of 6th grade physics>In this episode, the mouthbreather proves he's underage, since he hasn't heard of cast iron
>>91111603Water starts evaporating when it's temperature is higher than the rooms, yes, but it's not actually burning energy for direct conversion
>>91111594>>91111603Yeah, heat goes up
>>91111617Energy transferred to food is trivial and tons of boiling is simply breaking bonds within the food so it's easier to eat. You only need to sustain certain temperature for that.
>>91111634Havikg higher heat capacity doesen't necessarily improve efficiency at all
>>91111612because most of the energy isn't lost through radiation from the sides. a heavy pot would take longer to heat up as well. so you're adding a lot of complexity for little benefit. the machine he wants exists, it's a crockpot slow cooker.
>>91111614You'd generally want to avoid adding unnecessary energy and keep it just about to boil anyway, very rarely does any food actually benefit from the magical number of 100c
>>91111671Wow dude, did you figure all that out by yourself?
>>91111686But instead of cooking slower at a lower temperature, you'd just have a slightly less efficient fast cooker with high temps
>>91111703I doubt I could figure anything out by myself, there's always some other knowledge I'd need first
>>91111543>but cooking fast and efficientWe already have this. It's called pressure cooking.I do think you have a point however. Induction + insulation + pressure cooking would be interesting.
>>91111506Put the heating element on the inside so it isn't 10000% inefficient.
>>91111552Can't wait for digital pot insulation subscriptions
>>91111563Aerogel is as good as they say it is but is too expensive for consumer appliances.
>>91111686>a heavy pot would take longer to heat up as wellBut it would be lighter. Just look at a thermos. Thin metal with vacuum between.
>>91111483What’s the point? Only real benefit would be for stuff that boils a long time, like making broth. And you would still be faced with a lot of problems:>bottom can’t be insulated, otherwise it would take ages to heat up>top insulation would be difficult, I mean there’s a reason you have a screw cap on insulated coffee cups>minute effect on total energy consumption, as the actual boiling part takes up the most energy, as other anons have already pointed out>more expensive to produce for niche usage
>>91111483Why the heck would I want it to keep cooking for hours? That is what slow cookers are for? In cooking, I specifically DON’T want things cooking for hours
>>91111840But you would like to spend less energy
>>911114831. Operational simplicity. There's nothing easier to operate than a traditional pot/skillet, most of the time I don't put a lid on.2. Unit cost. My skillet is $15, can you beat that?3. Energy cost. Electricity is not expensive enough for me to care about it, especially if an insulated pot costs more.4. Wasted heat is not completely wasted. It's winter, you know.
>>91111908>1. Operational simplicity. There's nothing easier to operate than a traditional pot/skillet, most of the time I don't put a lid on.>2. Unit cost. My skillet is $15, can you beat that?>3. Energy cost. Electricity is not expensive enough for me to care about it, especially if an insulated pot costs more.>4. Wasted heat is not completely wasted. It's winter, you know.1. How would it be difficult just because it's slightly thicker?2. Thermoses can be super cheap. You know they have them at dollarstore.3. Congratulations. Over here in EU it's insane.4. I imagine it would be expensive to heat your home with your stove.
>>91111906Let’s say I’m making noodles, I need those noodles to reach 185f and since noodles are thin it reaches that temperature fast. So i put the noodles in water that is way above 185f and then boil the crap out of them until they reach 185f and immediately dump the water. This makes sure that the noodles absorb a little water and cook all the way through. Longer time in the water would make the noodles too hot and start to break down from the heat. Cooking them slower at a lower temperature and the noodles absorb too much water and break down. So I want very hot and then cool. If I am cooking a beef brisket, which is very thick, I want the inside of the beef to be 145f. So I have to slow cook it so that the heat on the inside of the brisket and the outside of the brisket is all evenly 145f. Which is why people slow cook it.
In fact they exist and they were used in the old times.A post about the topic https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2014/07/cooking-pot-insulation-key-to-sustainable-cooking.htmlI guess the easiest way would be to cover a pot with an insulated non flamable material, which is the principle of firelless coockingBut there also are:-pot skirts-pressure cookersand you can use the three of them together. check the blog
>>91111483because between sous-vide and convection grills, cooking in pots itself has become obsolete
>>91112134Boiling water can't ger hotter. It can never pass 100C. Anyway, there is nothing saying you need to cook anything at a lower temperature just because the pan is insulated.
>>91111483if you mix in a safety pot with a danger pot you will get burned. simple consistent messaging is the key with safety, you save some money with insulation but will pay more than $100 in doctors fees if you get burned and an infection.
>>91112240Well the closest was that thermal cooker but they made it in two pieces and seemed bothersome. Just make a pot with thin metal walls with vacuum between. How hard can it be?
>>91111640> but it's not actually burning energy for direct conversionThis is not how it works
>>91111563>You're not gonna keep water at 90+ degrees for hours without inputting energy
>>91112414yeah none of those do that either
>>91111483And how do you intend on transferring heat to what is inside the pot if it’s insulated, you fucking retard?
>>91112414>tell me you've never used a thermos without telling me
>>91112281He’s using a more reasonable temperature scale
You are aware that you are describing a.... oven?It heats its insides, maybe has a fan, but encasement insulates so you only need to add temperature once the food inside absorbs it.>>91112425>>91112435That is the joke, the good ones do just that.The bad ones only exist because paper cups reach room temperature in 10-20 minutes.
This nigga never cooked anything besides instant ramen in his life
>>91111483it's a conspiracy so you have to pay for more gas/electricity
>>91111483Its cheap and easier to keep clean.
>>91111483>why arent pots ridiculously inefficient at conducting heat
>>91111543>heating a vaccum insulated pot with induction>fast and efficient
>>91112487Another chart that shows that you're not keeping liquids at 90 degrees for hours, thank you
>>91112612>chart literally shows it taking 4,5 hours to drop 6ºC on a good thermos >hurr durr hurr
>>91112639>Also chart showing temperatures lower than what I described and unsuitable for cooking which is the whole point of the threadHurr durr
Just lather your pot with insulating foam on the outside, use an induction stove, done.
>>91111483Sometimes you don't to keep it heated.
>>91111483good luck cooking for hours too
>>91113956>cooking for hoursBut imagine boiling pasta. You bring it to boil and then reduce the heat to a minimum and it keeps boiling, instead of maxing for 10 minutes.
>>91114438>water begins to boil>loses heat through evaporation>water no longer boils
>I insulated my house but the windows and front door is wide open, hurrdrrStupid thread
>>91111483wow you discovered a pressure cooker
>>91112661because it starts at 90 degrees. if it started at 103 degrees it would be above 90 degrees for 8 hours
Retarded niggers should stick to arguing over gpu upgrades and jerking themselves off to muh agi.
This thread has been moved to >>>/ck/18855272