The cast iron pot traditionally used for this is one that we already have.
It is though designed for use over a *gas* burner and it does not have a
*flat* bottom. So the surface area in contact with the induction heater
would be much reduced.
The pot looks like a miniature witches cauldron with a curved bottom and
three tiny little stumpy legs to rest on. The fact that the pot surface
area in contact with the induction heater surface is reduced to three little
legs, would that mean that electricity is actually being wasted in heating
such a pot or is it that it just would not heat up very much using an
induction heater ? Thanks for any advice.
> The cast iron pot traditionally used for this is one that we
> already have. It is though designed for use over a *gas*
> burner and it does not have a *flat* bottom. So the surface
> area in contact with the induction heater would be much
> reduced.
I've never used an induction cooker but I can't see that contact is
necessary since the fluctuating magnetic field heats the pot (magnetic).
--
James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland
Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not
What we have been using for years for shabu shabu and sukiyaki is a deep
electric skillet. It has a thermostatic control. My Japanese friends
though it was a great idea because the thermostat eliminates fiddling
with the gas burner.
It's not, but the closest parts will have a greater induced field.
The formula is complex and depends on the radius of the induction coil
and the distance from the coil (wikipedia has it). The question is how
much hotter will the feet get and will that cause undue thermal stress.
I don't know but suspect that there are easier methods to cook this goose.
Jeff
>
> The pot looks like a miniature witches cauldron with a curved bottom and
> three tiny little stumpy legs to rest on. The fact that the pot surface
> area in contact with the induction heater surface is reduced to three little
> legs, would that mean that electricity is actually being wasted in heating
> such a pot or is it that it just would not heat up very much using an
> induction heater ?
To achieve a measurable - in practice - effect, there will have to be
some contact and, with a concave pot bottom, there will be hardly any.
So, an induction heater will have to be concave, too, something on these
lines: <http://www.trendir.com/archives/000363.html>. However, to be at
all efficient, the curvature of the pot will have to match that of the
heater - and that can be a problem with any pot not specifically matched
with the heater. Besides, those little legs will probably make it
impossible anyway.
Victor
You could place a flat pot on the induction heater,
half-full that pot with water or oil, then place the
cauldron in the water or oil.
I own a induction cook top & would venture to guess it won't work. If
your vessel doesn't have enought contact, it will simple not reconize
it! I'm less familar with the stand alone models though. I would
suggest bring it in to the store and ask for it to be check...Good
luck..
You need a closely fitting base, within 1/4" or so (or 1/2" at most),
depending on the layout of the heater coils. Otherwise the field
doesn't couple well into the pot and apparent power will be pitiful.
Legs certainly won't help (unless the heater can sit between them).
Speaking of induction hobs, I see Lidl are doing a small 2 kW countertop one
from next Thursday for £29.99. (I would offer a link but the Lidl site
seems broken at the moment. Asks for a postcode but keeps returning to the
same page. May mean that we're not getting them in our town).
Must admit I'm quite tempted (if available) although I'm not sure what I
would do with it. ;-)
Tim