Hacker News Reader

Comment by mrfumier | Hacker News Reader

No it's not.

The most efficient (and fastest) way is an induction hob with copper disc pan. Something that Technology Connections didn't include in his video.

See some test here: https://youtu.be/EBlyuahlplI

View on HN

Where's the energy loss from the kettle that's not present in your proposed method? Legit asking, I don't see it. Just heat radiating from the body of the kettle for longer cuz of longer time to make it boil?

The claim seems dubious in Europe, but in North America the stove has access to twice the voltage potential as the kettle, so can heat faster. Then with equal losses the stove wins.

Europeans use 220V for everything.

Well, Germans like to use three-phase power for their electric ovens.

(Still nominally at 230 Volt, but it's not quite the same as two-phase power.)

So in Europe the phenomenon of a stove heating faster than a kettle would not be observed. Isn't that what I said?

230V/3kW induction stove boils a cup of water faster than you can get the cup from the cupboard.

> Where's the energy loss from the kettle that's not present in your proposed method?

You're not heating the water directly, you're heating it through a piece of metal. The wasted energy is heating that piece of metal up to more than 100 deg C. A surprising amount of energy lost there.

If you use the induction hob you're only heating the metal that you actually need to heat to do the cooking.

For us in northern climates, none of this energy is really wasted during winter. But many of us now have heat pumps, which are more efficient than resistive heating.

I have a modern induction stove. I think it's great. But not for bringing water to boil. It's about as fast as a kettle for 500-750 ml. But over a liter and it'll be much slower than a kettle (yes, boost function). I do not use it for bringing pasta water to boil.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com