you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 4 days ago (42 children)

Quick no one tell them almost every restaurant in existence uses gas...

gas does have some possible toxic effects if not properly vented.

BUT it heats 10 times faster and allows almost instantaneous control of the heat...( the reasons kitchens use it)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 42 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 days ago

    It also has more cooking power overall. A restaurant may have 8 stove burnsers, four ovens, multiple steam tables, etc going. One gas line can serve them all no problem. The amount of electricity you’d need to do the same would be ridiculous. Petro energy density is hard to beat, especially because it cheats: its oxidizing agent is just sitting around for free everywhere.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 3 days ago (8 children)

    BUT [gas] heats 10 times faster

    Everything I have seen has said that induction is the fastest, followed by traditional electric, and then gas is the slowest.

    I'm also dubious about this "instant control of heat". Why wouldn't turning an induction stove off be the same thing? They both stop heating the pan, and then the only heat left is what's in the pan. The big difference being that the gas option has heated up the room as well, because it shoots heat all over the place, while the induction stove only heats the pan directly. Electric I get, it's going to hold some heat in the coil, but I don't see how induction differs from gas in this regard.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 days ago (5 children)

    I have induction at home and it is fast but not faster than gas. They are comparable. What gas has is a better visual cue for how much power you’re putting out. With induction it’s all invisible and you have to get to know your stove dials, and even then the performance is partly determined by the pan itself so there is a little more guesswork.

    We got induction because it’s better for indoor air quality, the stovetop is glass and easy to clean, and it’s electrically powered so in theory our solar panels can offset some of it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 days ago

    Yes, gas burners are dirty and hard to clean. Induction is super fast and has a nice flat glass surface.

    I really loved my gas stove and think ceran tops are inferior, but induction is just perfect. Doesn't get that hot, you didn't have to scrub burned stuff off it...

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 2 days ago (3 children)

    Please record video of bringing two volumes of water in the same pot from the same beginning temperature to boil, then. Because every source I have seen online says induction is the fastest and gas is the slowest. Also give details about the models of stove tops, please.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 days ago (1 child)

    Common sense will tell you heat control is instant, just think about it. If you turn the gas off boom no more heat and nothing but the pan itself to hold heat. Unless you're using car iron is as instant as it gets

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

    The gas being faster than electric thing is not relevant with induction. Induction DESTROYS gas for responsiveness, it's literally digital and nearly direct heat. There's no competition and it isn't even close. The only thing more direct would be if you ran electricity directly through the pan and it started glowing.

    If you want to compare gas vs induction, talk about cooking technique and the ability to lift, tip, and move around the pan, and the needed sweet spot for induction being teeny tiny and safety first so if it detects the cookware leaving the sweet spot, it turns off.

    The two cooktops are extremely different. I hope nobody in here is taking this seriously other than maybe the corruption of the natural gas companies.

    There was a study recently that found breathing in burning oil and food smoke is nearly as bad as smoking cigarettes. Which, if you stop to think about it, isn't surprising at all because you're just breathing in carcinogens (burnt stuff and particulates are bad for you). So cooking at higher heats at all just in general isn't great.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 days ago (1 child)

    True. I can’t stand the fact that my induction stove wants to turn off every time I pick up the pan to flip.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

    Like, yeah, the technology is SUPER efficient and effective, and yeah it's really really cool.... But, until the existing professional/advanced cooking techniques are surpassed, business is business, and chefs are going to use whatever means necessary to competitively put out the best possible product with the least amount of struggle.

    If they can do on on electric, great.

    If they can do that on gas, great.

    If they can do that on induction, that will be a VERY popular technique.

    Selling induction as an end-all is silly. Nothing is perfect, and everything has drawbacks. Unfortunately, induction is still currently limited to not moving the pan and some other stuff. It's so good at that, I'm pretty sure boiling water and delicate thermostat control is still best you can get on nice ranges, but it isn't without drawbacks and hard limits, many of which are culinary. Which is a tragic limitation that's just waiting to be overcome...

    Edit: iirc, somewhere in this post or one like it was somebody wishing for a range with multiple heat types and somebody immediately put that down. I felt it was really silly and so absolutist, as many people around here seem to be, this near election time.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 4 days ago (23 children)

    Induction is faster and more responsive than gas.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 23 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 days ago (21 children)

    Yes, I don't see why they think stopping a magnetic field to stop heating a pan is different than stopping a fire to stop heating a pan, it's not like it's still happening after it's stopped.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 days ago (20 children)

    Don't induction pans have these thick bottoms, which are simply more mass that needs to be heated up? That always took longer than gas with a thin pan for me.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 days ago (18 children)

    If you're using a different pan, that's an unrelated variable that skews the results.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 days ago (11 children)

    Yes but his point has some validity because you really need to use certain pans and pots with induction. When we got induction installed, we had to get rid of about half our pans, and only certain ones perform well.

    The whole “instant responsiveness” with induction is true in theory but less noticeable in practice. If anything, I notice it most when turning a pan OFF. You do get a very fast end to the heat output. And there isn’t even any residual conduction after that moment because the top is glass. On a gas stove the iron gratings you rest the pan on will continue bleeding heat into your food for a while.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (10 children)

    That doesn't even make sense, why would a pan magically somehow not begin to heat up right away when it's in a fluctuating magnetic field? That's the whole reason it gets hot. With traditional electric, the coil takes time to heat up, which in turn takes time to heat up the pan. But with induction and gas, they're both heating the pan right away as soon as they turn on, and stop heating the pan when they turn off.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 days ago (9 children)

    Just read what he said more carefully. He’s got an impression that induction pans have to have thick bottoms and then even though changes to magnetic fields propagate at the speed of light you are always using a heavier pan and therefore you have a lot of pan to heat before the heat can then transfer to your food.

    Honestly I think that impression is very dated at this point. The first induction stoves in the 80s and 90s were wacky prototypes that literally came with their own perfectly matched cookery because that’s what it took to make them work. But those days are behind us.

    However it is still true that when we had to get rid of half our pans because they didn’t work with our new induction stove, generally speaking yes, we did throw out a lot of the cheap, thin pans that are aluminum based, and yes, we do mostly rely on cast iron, sturdy stainless steel sautee pans, and other heavier cookery now. So everybody has a piece of the truth here.

    Anyway. If you don’t cook on induction every day, all you may know is the bit about how changes to magnetic fields propagate at the speed of light and yes yes that’s all true for a pure thought experiment. However in practice there is more than the physics ideal at play.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 days ago* (8 children)

    Any idea that the gas is heating it up faster is just placebo from seeing the fire and feeling the hot air it spews all over the room. None of this changes the fact they said a different pan on two different stove tops, obviously you cannot account for the difference in one variable (type of stove) when you change a different one (the specific pan). It's like saying gas boils water faster because you always use a smaller volume of water when you use a gas stove.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 day ago (7 children)

    Well yes and a lot of this whole thread is pretty absurd because many factors go into perceived speed. For one thing, induction as a technology has an obvious potential for energy to travel faster but that doesn’t mean any given induction stove can put out more heating energy per second than any given gas stove. Some fool here challenged me to post a shootout video of 2 pots of water boiling and I was like, which gas burner do I get to use? The huge 5th one? He was like, show me gas beating induction with the same volume of water, same pot, and I was like sure, I’ll just use an aluminum pot :D Jokes aside, there is no way to set up two “equal” gas and induction burners for a shootout because they are apples and oranges.

    Then there is the difference between “time to first useable heat” and “time to boil the whole pot of water.”

    Then there is the “speed of use,” and there is a whole subthread here about the awful capacitive touch controls that induction stoves use and how much faster it is to just walk up and turn a gas stove’s knob. Similarly, you will sometimes have an induction stove turn off on you if your pot gets misaligned, which is very easy to do. In that case, you don’t reach “my meal is now cooked” faster, or at all.

    Throughout all of this we have people who’ve never been near an induction stove but know some basics about the technology and they are rigidly convinced that they are “right” because physics is on their side. But like I said, the experience of using the damn thing is complex. But people LOVE to be confidently right with the weight of science behind them and machine gun all comers with their certainty. It’s been amusing to watch.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 day ago (6 children)

    Some fool here challenged me to post a shootout video of 2 pots of water boiling and I was like, which gas burner do I get to use? The huge 5th one? He was like, show me gas beating induction with the same volume of water, same pot, and I was like sure, I’ll just use an aluminum pot :D

    That was me, and no, that is not what you said, you just said this:

    No. You’re welcome to think what you please.

    I still want to see it. I honestly don't really care which burners it is. Use the largest one you have that works with induction for both the induction and gas. Use the most powerful one for each test (unless it's something like your pan is more narrow than the power burner so the flame doesn't actually hit it). This is also why I have asked for details about the stove tops being used in such a demonstration, because yes, I'm aware different models have different outputs, because as much as you'd like to believe I am a fool, I'm not one.

    I'd also be interested in seeing an empty pan with an IR thermometer pointing at it (maybe different spots, or the golden footage would be an actual thermal camera, but that's not something I'd assume people would have laying around). Because something many people are saying is that gas is quicker at getting it to some level X of heat, but some other level Y (where Y > X) is faster on induction.

    Based on your tone and closing remarks, it sounds like you believe this is just me trying to win an argument. No, it's something I'm genuinely curious about. There are at least two people here (you're one of them) that are disagreeing with things that I've known to be well understood, so I'm just asking for demonstrations to see why. Maybe y'all have unusually weak induction stoves or unusually strong gas stoves. Maybe it's just placebo. Maybe it's just different gut intuition about what the term "fastest to heat" mean. Maybe the sources I have seen are wrong or over simplifications. Yes, I know it's sort of like comparing apples and oranges, but it honestly feels more like comparing honey crisp and red delicious. These are both tools to apply heat to food. The way they do it is very different, yes, but it's still just applying heat. And applying heat is something we can actually measure. It's not something subjective. And yes, I am aware there are differences in how easy to use and how healthy they are, those are more subjective in a sense, and it's not something I'm trying to figure out. I am only curious about claims about which is faster at heating things. That's it.

    If I had the luxury of having both at my house, I'd record it myself and share if people were interested. But as it is, I can only ask people who have the belief that gas is faster in some way to show evidence of it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 day ago (5 children)

    “I was like” = “my reaction was” not “I said”

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 day ago (4 children)

    Not in the way you describe it as a back and forth.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 day ago (3 children)

    Let me guess. You think I’m wrong again LOL.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

    "I was like, they were like, I was like, they were like" describes the flow of a conversation. That conversation did not happen as you presented it. You're not just wrong, you're lying.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 18 hours ago (1 child)

    You like to put the one association that’s most intuitive to you up on a pedestal and call it fact. You are currently attempting to denote of some of the sloppiest informal slang there is.

    Do you do any more stupid tricks?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 3 days ago (5 children)

    I guess? If you're talking theoretical? But i actually cook, then it doesn't really matter that a pan would theoretically be faster if it was able to be produced thinner?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 days ago (1 child)

    I think 90% of the people swooning about induction here don’t actually have it in their homes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 days ago

    I mean, I don't have it in my home either, that's why I'm curious if my experiences from a decade ago are outdated.

    But I DO have gas and people here saying it's the slowest way with such confidence makes me think they are AI bots.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 days ago* (2 children)

    I'm not talking about a theoretically different pan, you said you're using a different pan for the gas stove than the induction one. If you're changing something between the two, then it's obviously different.

    That always took longer than gas with a thin pan for me

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 days ago (1 child)

    Oh, no, it takes more careful reading than that to understand what I said

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 21 hours ago

    Don't induction pans have these thick bottoms, which are simply more mass that needs to be heated up? That always took longer than gas with a thin pan for me.

    You're talking about two different pans. That's not a theoretical or hypothetical difference. That's an actual difference. Obviously different pans will change things.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 4 days ago (4 children)

    idk i've been inside a few restaurant and other large-scale kitchens (canteens etc) and the stoves were always resistance or induction heating

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 days ago (3 children)

    I worked HVAC/r. Was in hundreds of kitchens on on East Coast of the US. I never saw anything but gas

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments