Rocket Scientist Designs "Flare" Pot That Cooks Food 40% Faster 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."
very cool (Score:2)
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 movi
Re: very cool (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Why are so many companies incompetent at just shutting up and taking my money!
What I think is funny is that this is a classic example of a good patent: a "Why didn't I think of that?" kind of thing. Because despite the implications in the article, this ain't "rocket science" all all. They just took the well-known concepts behind any decent heatsink and reversed them.
Re: (Score:2)
The basic concept isn't rocket science. Optimizing the shape to maximize heat transfer is.
Re: (Score:2)
The basic concept has also been done. For example, there are the MSR stove systems [cascadedesigns.com].
Re:very cool (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, looks like quite thick walls on the pan; so the heat should conduct down to the liquid really quite well; having thick walls avoids that exact problem; and aluminium is a very, very good conductor of heat.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:JetBoil (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
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]
Re: JetBoil (Score:2)
perhaps two kinds of yuppie backpackers.
The rest of us couldnt give a damn...we use what works.
It's sooo obvious (Score:2)
Once again, -after- someone else makes something I think, wow that's so obvious.
Completely useless for me. (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't want BTUs in my food, I use metric, so it has to be Joules.
Re: (Score:2)
Colonized by wankers. Couldn't find a decent culture to be colonized by.
Re: (Score:3)
Chefs prefer gas over electric stoves because it heats the cookwares fast, directly - not indirectly through a cooking plate that has to get warm first and stays warm afterwards.
Induction stoves are just as fast as gas burners, and has better thermal efficiency, plus being safer.
The drawback is that the cookware has to be of iron and have a flat bottom. Cast-iron pots and pans used to be very heavy, but there is cookware today where the iron layer is sandwiched with ceramic or aluminium which are much light
Re: (Score:2)
This would be news to induction wok manufactures. Doesn't have to be iron either.
Re: (Score:2)
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. (Score:4, Interesting)
Where do you live that they ban gas-flame cooking?
Re: (Score:2)
Most households here have 400V 3-phase for the heavy stuff like stove/oven, washer and dryer, Older households may only have 230V 1-phase, but that's usually only small apartments.
Also realize that a lower voltage with a certain current is more sensitive to voltage loss due to current if the current is the same, so your 110V 1760W plate may if you have a loss of 1V/A only put out 1500W. A 230V 1760W plate may at the same loss figures still provide 1700W (only 7.65A current for the same power)
And a 400V plat
Re: (Score:2)
in fact some are trying to say that no cooking is allowed to make me go out and blow all my dough on restaurants
Are you sure this isn't total bullshit?
Did not view images, but you only need a skirt (Score:2, Offtopic)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Aluminum foil (Score:3)
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.
Maybe a good idea...maybe not. (Score:5, 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.
Re:Maybe a good idea...maybe not. (Score:5, Informative)
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").
Pressure Cookers are faster and the most efficient (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 [wikipedia.org] Now if they added the flare design to a pressure cooker they might have the best of both designs.
Re: (Score:2)
Pressure cookers cook faster by raising the boiling point/temperature of steam. Less cooking time beats time to boil.
Re: (Score:2)
And less cooking liquid vs. non-pressurized applications since very little steam is lost once the cooker as achieved pressure. Once the desired pressure is reached, you turn the burner onto its lowest setting while the food cooks.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are a few other things that add to pressure cooking's efficiency. This is from a person who uses a pressure cooker (me), not an expert in heat transfer nor any other discipline of physics.
1. Most pressure cooker applications other than soup are steaming applications, and since the pressure cooker traps the steam in, you don't use nearly as much liquid as you would in traditional cooking. Less liquid = less energy to heat it up.
2. Less loss of heat through the top. After a pressure cooker reaches the d
Improving cooking is not easy. (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
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 pro
Re: (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
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.
Pans in the dishwasher (Score:2)
You must have a large family, or you save up a lot of dishes to justify using a dishwasher.
Nope. Just me and my wife. Usually have enough spare room in the dishwasher for a pan or two which often is all we need for a meal though I do end up washing many pans by hand, particular if they get stuck on crusty gunk. I don't mind washing them by hand but what's the point of having a dishwasher if you aren't going to use it? Plus the dishwasher can sterilize pans better than I can by hand which is necessary on occasion. Think of it like a low rent autoclave.
Re: (Score:2)
A modern A+ (European energy label) or better dishwasher uses less energy and less water than manual washing. Aside of the convenience, a dishwasher is also better for the environment.
Re: (Score:2)
What about Titanium, is it safe for kitchenware?
Re: (Score:2)
Most titanium pans are really really thin. That hampers heat distribution and increases burning of food.
My best frying pan is a sandwich of aluminum with stainless steel layers on the outside. The aluminum distributes the heat, the stainless steel protects the aluminum (as aluminum is prone to fast wear and I'm not certain it is not unhealthy).
The pan was expensive, but since I use it about twice a week it is worth it.
Re: (Score:2)
So, if a fire's too hot then what's stopping you from making the fire smaller and distributing the heat a bit?
Re: (Score:2)
I thought I wanted induction... (Score:2)
I purchased one of those induction hot-plates to try induction out before buying a (rather expensive) range top
Induction is a surprising pain in the a$$. Expensive (you knew that though) and full of safety interlocks so the only cookware you might own that works is the cast iron bacon skillet! In order for the interlock to allow operation a magnet must stick to the pan bottom, which is not the case for most stainless steel (yes, some flavors of stainless a magnet sticks to, but not what they typically use
How about one in cast iron? (Score:3)
British cooks? (Score:5, Funny)
"Invented" by indigenous people many times over (Score:2, Interesting)
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,
Coanda effect? (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Dr. Povey mentioned to me that turbulence had something to do with how it works. [He's my brother.]
Re: Coanda effect? (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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). Howev
Re: (Score:2)
Two were direct replies and the top-level post got me a nice reply from the developer's brother. Screw karma, I've got enough for whatever it's worth.
Toxic (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I only use ceramic non-stick or all steel pots. I hope they have something more than "all aluminum" or it's at least coated with another non-toxic material.
Let me guess, you don't get vaccinated, either...
Now I know why my 2L pop bottles (Score:2)
melted so fast when put on the burner. The bump/fins made them heat up too much.
The mountain part is bullshit (Score:2)
It may be more efficient, but its not going to help at altitude.
Water boils at lower temperature at high altitude. eg. 85 degree C. This means many foods to not get cooked. So you need a "Pressure cooker".
This will help at low altitudes, and that too for some things. For other stuff, this will cause caking and crusing due to too much heat.
Induction beats it (Score:2)
Pretty sure (and the laws of physics would agree with me) that induction cooking methods will heat your pot far faster and more efficiently than gas, no matter what clever designs are achieved.
This isn't new (Score:2)
This isn't a new concept. It is well known larger surface area absorbs more heat. This exact design is widely used for backpack stoves so that you can heat up water quickly and waste little fuel, like for example Jetboil: http://www.jetboil.com/Product... [jetboil.com]
Been Done before (Score:2)
The Turbopot has a finned aluminum base and promises a 59% improvment in efficiency.
http://www.turbopot.com/Soluti... [turbopot.com]
Re:Wow. (Score:5, Informative)
The pictures show it to be quite different.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Actually, with the fins being on the outside for this design, I think it would be less efficient compared to jetboil."
Nah. The fins up the side provide more surface area to capture waste rising heat. This also allows for better and more even dispersion of heat throughout the surface area of that which you are cooking, since instead of only heating the bottom you're getting the sides as well.
Jetboil still suffers from having the fins being confined to the bottom.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.backcountry.com/jetboil-1.5-liter-cooking-pot/ [backcountry.com]
Re: (Score:2)
That's just nonsense. Everyone knows coconut antimatter retrograde marshmallows only flute cats between hairdresser Barbie doll lawnmower Ricky Martin.
Re:Wow. (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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Are you talking about a Hennessy? I love mine. And I live in Iceland, where it's harder to use. I have no clue where you're getting that they're heavy. Unless you're comparing the regular nylon version to a silnylon tent, rather than nylon to nylon, silnylon to silnylon. The one-man silnylon versions are in the ballpark of 800 grams, including the fly. You kind of have to adapt them to use them as tents on the ground, though, they're not designed for that (but it is possible). Another criticism of them I ha
Re: (Score:2)
Mine's a cheapy, bought at an army surplus. 2 or 3 kilos and doesn't pack tight at all.
What do you sling a hammock between in Iceland? Two rocks?
Re: (Score:2)
That I actually have done ;) On a 60-degree slope down into a deep canyon nonetheless! Also there's manmade objects and yes, *gasp* trees in some places ;) The country isn't totally treeless!
But yes, it's not exactly a very practical solution for Iceland. I'd really prefer something more designed for both roles, hanging and on the ground.
Re: (Score:2)
The hammock is probably unnecessary, and in backpacking, you really need to be prepared to do without.
But I wonder if combining the tent and the pack could work, such that the tent poles form the backpack frame and the tent the body. It would be tricky to get the form factor right on both (and if you're humping it for hours, form factor is crucial) but the tent already has an interior and a waterproof exterior. It could shave a kilo or so off your load, and that would be huge.
Folding it every morning would
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: Wow. (Score:2)
not sure why this was labelled troll material.
There is patent art going back to the 50s that looks a lot like this design. A design firm I worked for dropped the idea in the 90's because the marketing firm was convinced there was not IP to develop and sell to a large distribution company.
Re: (Score:2)
What about this link says the design is better?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wow. (Score:4, Funny)
Or very, very right.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL +Insightful +Funny if I had the mod points
Re:Wow. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: Wow. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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. (Score:3)
Re:Long time to boil? (Score:5, 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...
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Wouldn't a standard pressure cooker set to sea level pressure solve this problem?
Re: (Score:2)
Not a good idea to haul one on a hike, I presume.
Re: (Score:2)
That's so dark, I can't make out its shape.
Re: (Score:3)
Wouldn't a standard pressure cooker set to sea level pressure solve this problem?
Pressure cookers help, a lot. But they're not "set to sea level pressure", they are set to a differential pressure of whatever the current pressure is + some fixed PSI. (Or, in the case of the one I use at home, your choice of 2 pressure offsets.) So you need either experience or some mental juggling to estimate cooking times with one.
So, yes, depending on your altitude, they can help a lot, or make it just like cooking at sea level, or make it faster. And they do make lightweight portable ones for camping.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Much cheaper to shorten sentences by dropping prepositions...
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Only with extruded food. So your pallet is 'Cheesy Poof', 'Slim Jim' and 'Noodle'.
Re: (Score:2)
Only runs on LPG. Right out.
My old Primus stove is great and light. Will burn anything short of diesel fuel. White gas is much more energy dense vs. LPG.
Windscreen/heat exchanger are part of the pot set. Was pricy, but doesn't wear out.
Re:So what about those of us who don't have gas st (Score:5, Informative)
Nope:
http://home.howstuffworks.com/... [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).
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, you need 40% less fuel.
If the food needs 20 minutes of boiling (at 1 atm) then it will still need 20 minutes. Only with 60% of the fuel when compared to a regular pot.