
British rocket scientist says he's designed a better saucepan - rk0567
http://www.latimes.com/food/dailydish/la-dd-saucepan-rocket-scientist-heat-efficient-20140710-story.html
======
sirgawain33
This article is a great example of NIH syndrome.

You can get the same improvement with "About $5 of materials and an hour of
time." [1]

That's by Dale Andreatta, a mechanical engineer that's been tinkering with
improved stoves for decades. But he's not the only one, there are plenty of
pot tweaks that achieve comparable or better the the improvements cites in the
article.

Like many commenters below bring up, there are other design constraints to
cooking technology than raw throughput -- performance at low temperature,
manufacturing complexity, ease of cleaning, evenness of heating, performance
under varying ambient conditions (humidity, wind, temp).

I encountered many such rocket scientists (literally) while designing improved
stoves over the last few years. The engineering of stoves only superficially
resembles the engineering of jet engines: the quantities are all different
(low flow rate, low pressures, lower temperatures) and, as a result, the
overall drivers of performance are very different (for example, stove to pot
efficiency is largely governed by excess air control, NOT surface area)

A good example is that I got many recommendations to add "swirlers" [2] to
stoves to improve mixing and reduce output CO. This works great in a jet, but
it's useless in a stove: there's not enough pressure generated by natural
draft to make the device effective.

[1] pg. 14
[http://www.vrac.iastate.edu/ethos/files/ethos2008/Sat%20AM%2...](http://www.vrac.iastate.edu/ethos/files/ethos2008/Sat%20AM%20Classroom%201/Andreatta%20A%20Study%20of%20Heat%20Transfer%20in%20Finned%20Pots.pdf)

[2]
[https://www.google.com/search?q=swirlers+jet+engine&espv=2&t...](https://www.google.com/search?q=swirlers+jet+engine&espv=2&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=DgnDU6v9CozqoATUxYHgAw&ved=0CDcQsAQ&biw=1460&bih=1148)

~~~
ertdfgcb
Personally, I'd much rather buy his version than make my own. The newer design
has the fins going all the way up the pot, which seems like it would make it
more efficient at heating the sides, although it might be inconsequential (I'm
not a rocket scientist). The newer design is also much _much_ nicer looking
that the cobbled together one, and the single piece body seems more durable. I
don't think this is an example of NIH syndrome, I think this an example of a
commercial implementation of a good hack.

~~~
sirgawain33
I could dig up examples of nicer looking finned pots. The name escapes me at
the moment, but I remember seeing one at a conference last year.

The point is that the technique was well known. It's not manufacturing or
aesthetics that's been holding back the technology.

~~~
spyder
Here are a few I just found:

[http://thenextchallenge.org/primus-eta-cooking-pots-
review/](http://thenextchallenge.org/primus-eta-cooking-pots-review/)

[http://www.lasvegasequipment.com/index.php?route=product/pro...](http://www.lasvegasequipment.com/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=1778)

~~~
micro_cam
Eta pots (and similar models from jetboild who popularized the concept) are
awesome but they aren't meant to hold up to kitchen use as they are designed
to be light weight for hikign and climbing.

------
carlob
According to the video in the product pages [1] the creator of this pan came
up with the idea on a mountaineering trip because "it takes forever to boil
water at high altitude".

What?! Isn't it the other way around? Lower atmospheric pressure means that
water boils at significantly lower temperature [2].

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=lK...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=lKvbVJasGXc#t=29)

[2]
[http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=boiling%20temperature%2...](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=boiling%20temperature%20of%20water%20at%202000%20m)

~~~
Avshalom
Not that strapping a heat exchanger to a pot is a new idea among the sort of
people that would be on mountaineering trips

[http://www.esbit.de/en/products/72/2-35l-pot-with-heat-
excha...](http://www.esbit.de/en/products/72/2-35l-pot-with-heat-exchanger-
phe2350wn)

[http://www.cascadedesigns.com/msr/cookware/cookware-
accessor...](http://www.cascadedesigns.com/msr/cookware/cookware-
accessories/heat-exchanger/product)

[http://www.jetboil.com/](http://www.jetboil.com/)

[http://www.cascadedesigns.com/msr/stoves/stove-
systems/categ...](http://www.cascadedesigns.com/msr/stoves/stove-
systems/category)

~~~
micro_cam
Actually owning a jetboil makes me want one of these pots. That thing just
sips fuel.

------
dsirijus
Am I mistaken or, at [1], it can be noticed that a lot of heat goes into
handle?

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=lKvb...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=lKvbVJasGXc#t=95)

~~~
pizza
Great point. I wonder if a hot handle is at all avoidable when using a more
efficient pan.

~~~
jonah
Or a non-thermally-conductive handle.

------
rquantz
The article doesn't mention how the saucepan performs at low heat, which is a
pretty important part of cooking. Especially if you don't have a great stove,
the low end of the heat range will often be too hot, and so you rely on having
a good, heavy, low conductivity pan that will keep its contents from getting
too hot.

Boiling water quickly is nice, but ruining your custard because it boils is
very not nice.

~~~
Retric
If you want steady low heat they make metal plates with holes in them for this
purpose. I think there called diffusers?

~~~
rquantz
I'm pretty happy with the steady low heat I can get with a good conventional
pan. But claims that this is the pan of the future will only hold up if it not
only heats up very efficiently at high temperatures, but also doesn't heat up
_too_ efficiently at low temperatures.

~~~
zo1
It also only works for open-flame gas stoves.

------
marcosscriven
Looking at this immediately made me think of my induction hob back home in
London. I think they're popular in Asia, but not at all in UK.

I think in the UK people get them mixed up with other forms of electric hobs.
I take great delight in placing a piece of paper on one of the rings, placing
a pan of water on top, and turning it on full blast. Visitors are amazed when
the water boils extremely quickly, and the paper is just slightly warmed.

So IMO induction is far more controllable, efficient, and faster than gas, not
to mention so much easier to clean, and even a better pan for gas isn't going
to change that.

~~~
nightcracker
Induction is terrible for the environment though, as you're turning high
efficiency energy (electricity) into low efficiency energy (heat).

~~~
CapitalistCartr
I don't understand what high and low efficiency means in this context and how
it applies to the environment. All electric stoves convert electricity to
heat; do you mean to say that natural gas is the better environmental choice?
Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding you.

~~~
wl
Electricity is usually generated by turning heat into motion, which is then
turned into electricity. You lose energy at each stage, but the heat to motion
stage is limited by Carnot's Theorem, which puts an upper bound on the
efficiency of heat engines. Efficiency varies based on implementation, but it
almost never rises above 50%.

If you need heat, it's much more fuel efficient to just burn fuel and not
bother turning it into electricity in an intermediate step.

~~~
nodata
_Efficiency varies based on implementation, but it almost never rises above
50%._

"According to the U.S. Department of Energy, the efficiency of energy transfer
for an induction cooker is 84%, versus 74% for a smooth-top non-induction
electrical unit, for an approximate 10% saving in energy for the same amount
of heat transfer.[20]" \--
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induction_cooking#Efficiency_an...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induction_cooking#Efficiency_and_environmental_impact)

~~~
beemoe
I advise caution about various percents being thrown around without enough
context. I understood the 50% figure above as describing the conversion of
heat energy into motion, e.g. inside of a natural gas power plant. The figures
you quote are defined as being on the customer side of the energy meter.

Further below that calculation is updated to try and reflect the source fuels
using some US EPA numbers: "The (US averaged) inefficiencies recalculated
relative to source fuels energies are hence 25% for induction cooking surfaces
using grid electricity, 84% for induction cooking surfaces using on-Site
Solar, and 38% for gas burners.

The original point (that burning fuel to heat things to spin things to make
electricity which is moved to your home to heat a pan is less efficient than
moving the fuel to your home and burning it there to heat a pan) is maybe
better illustrated by the EPA source-site ratios given to make that
adjustment: "3.34 for electricity purchased from the grid, 1.0 for on-site
solar, and 1.047 for natural gas. The natural gas figure is slightly greater
than 1 and mainly accounts for distribution losses". So if the "electricity
purchased from the grid" was generated with natural gas in the first place,
you can and see the difference there.

------
geon
...But only for gas stoves. It would be interesting to see a map of the
preferred stove technologies.

~~~
blahedo
And by "preferred" you presumably mean "most used". I live in a town that,
inexplicably, does not have access to natural gas lines. A _lot_ of people
here would "prefer" gas stoves but we're stuck with electric. :(

But yes, I'd love to see a map like that. Before I moved here I assumed that
pretty much everywhere in the developed world had natural gas piping, but
evidently not.

~~~
geon
Here in Sweden, I have never seen gas infrastructure. Possibly some o the
really old, large cities have it in the "old town".

Some enthusiasts have gas stoves, but they would use propane flasks.

------
pbhjpbhj
Is channelling the hot combustion gases up the side more efficient than having
a recessed or concave bottom (e.g. a flange that fits down around the
circumference with insets to fit the grid on which the pan rests)?

------
gjvc
"Already the new design has won the 2014 Hawley Award from the Worshipful
Company of Engineers, a British professional group."

These people don't seem to care that nobody in their right mind buys aluminium
cookware.

~~~
DanBC
The links between aluminium cookware and Alzheimer's are weak at best.

Aluminium cookware has some advantages - especially for very large pans.

And if you're worried about aluminium using different pans is only removing a
small amount from your lifestyle - it's used everywhere.
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/9119528/Is-aluminium-
reall...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/9119528/Is-aluminium-really-a-
silent-killer.html)

~~~
blauwbilgorgel
The links between aluminium cookware and Alzheimer's are inconclusive. From
your article:

 _It can migrate to food from cookware and packaging materials such as foil
and cartons. One study found that around 20 per cent of aluminium in the diet
came from the use of aluminium cookware and foil, according to the Food
Standards Agency. Tomatoes, rhubarb, cabbage and many soft fruits should not
be cooked in aluminium pans, it says._

Older studies into the relation between aluminium and Alzheimer's have shown
that aluminium has neurotoxic effects. A direct link between aluminium
exposure and contracting Alzheimer's was only found recently:

[http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/272573.php](http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/272573.php)

 _Overall, these results suggest very strongly that occupational exposure to
aluminium contributed significantly to the untimely death of this individual
with Alzheimer 's disease._

Now inhaling aluminium dust through a dust mask is a lot different from
cooking in aluminium pans, but I won't say the link is weak at best.

This remains very difficult to study, due to the long-term effects, and
unfortunately also due to little funding and pushbacks from the aluminium
industry itself.

------
awjr
I'd like to see the benefit of each pan type analysed. If the fins are on the
sides of the pan, then I can see there being little benefit on a frying pan.

I'm sort of disappointed this is patented and only available on a saucepan
costing £60+. It's the type of invention that would specifically benefit
poorer house holds.

As an 'evolution' of this, what would the impact of a cpu heat sink 'vortex'
base have on the efficiency of a pan. Go crazy and have a double skinned pan
(attached by many internal fins), then vent the hot air up through the gap
between the pans via the 'vortex'.

Now I know cleaning this could be an issue...but I'm assuming you would
capture quite a high amount of the heat from the burning gas.

------
showthrow
"the super pan was developed by astronauts who quit the space program to
devote their LIVES to developing PANS!"

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQAFv1sI6TU&feature=kp](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQAFv1sI6TU&feature=kp)

------
beloch
This kind of pot should cool down its contents significantly faster than a
normal pot too. Whether that's an advantage or disadvantage probably depends
on the application though.

------
Tloewald
I'm not convinced that even heat up the sides is actually what cooks want from
a pot, certainly not always. I can't say I've ever thought, as I was cooking,
what this pot needs is heat distributed up the sides. It also presimably makes
the pots heavier, harder to clean, and hotter to handle.

~~~
colanderman
When cooking with a wok, you want MOST of the heat on the sides, to maximize
the surface area you can cook with.

I'm not sure about other pots, but even heating around the contents of the pan
is probably always better than the alternative.

------
vanderZwan
I'm a bit disappointed it solves one problem in isolation (heat transfer from
gas to pan) and not much else.

Having said that, I wonder how it would combine with pot skirts and fireless
cookers?

[http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2014/07/cooking-pot-
insulatio...](http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2014/07/cooking-pot-insulation-
key-to-sustainable-cooking.html)

------
WalterBright
Jet engines are not rocket engines, and scientists are not engineers.

Source: JP121 at Caltech

------
venomsnake
Good luck stirring in that.

~~~
prawn
I doubt there are fins inside. It would be almost useless for any application
if there were. Surely not? Can't find any reviews online - just repeats of the
announcements. Surely someone's bought one?

------
personZ
Much greater surface area, so that part makes sense at least for flame-based
cooking. I doubt it offers any benefit for non-flame-based cooking (elements,
ceramic, etc. It might actually be a detriment because it would dissipate more
energy. It goes both ways).

It looks like the inside of the pan has the same fins, which makes sense
otherwise they'd have uneven thicknesses. That would be a serious cleaning
issue.

~~~
Crito
> _" It looks like the inside of the pan has the same fins, which makes sense
> otherwise they'd have uneven thicknesses. That would be a serious cleaning
> issue."_

It would also make it nearly impossible to cook anything that needed to be
stirred to prevent burning. Stirring a regular pot with a rubber spatula is
pretty easy, but getting into all of those nooks? That looks like a royal
pain.

It's probably alright for things that won't burn though, like soups.

~~~
jessaustin
_...things that won 't burn though, like soups._

If you can't burn soup you're not trying hard enough! b^)

