We are thinking of buying one of those table 'induction' heaters to cook a
Japanese type of vegetable meal actually on the dining table.

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.

On Dec 3, 12:32�pm, "john zeiss" > wrote:
> We are thinking of buying one of those table 'induction' heaters to cook a
> Japanese type of vegetable meal actually on the dining table.
>
> 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.

Um, cut off the legs. :-)

http://www.magicwicca.com/files/cauldron.htm

john wrote on Wed, 3 Dec 2008 17:32:48 -0000:

> 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

john zeiss wrote:
> We are thinking of buying one of those table 'induction' heaters to cook a
> Japanese type of vegetable meal actually on the dining table.
>
> 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.
>
>
I am guessing shabu-shabu? Its not so much that you are wasting
electricity its that it won't work as well or maybe not at all because
the energy is coupled magnetically.

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.

IIRC the magnetic field strength follows the inverse square rule.
That is, doubling the distance between the induction flux source
and the skillet bottom produces only 1/4 of the original flux density.
Your little pot should heat more slowly and inefficiently because of
the distance from the flux source.

I use an iron skillet for shabu-shabu, over a butane tabletop burner
of the type you can find in most oriental markets. Works fine. Cast
iron skillets are not too expensive and a good investment. If you are
not doing shabu-shabu and need something deeper (like for gulyas or
other stew-like dish), you can use a small dutch oven (legless
variety). They come in various sizes and some have glass lids rather
than iron.

I would guess that Le Creuset-style cocottes would work, too.


HTH,

Alex
On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 17:32:48 -0000, "john zeiss"
> wrote:

>We are thinking of buying one of those table 'induction' heaters to cook a
>Japanese type of vegetable meal actually on the dining table.
>
>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.
>

john zeiss > wrote:

> 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

James Silverton wrote:
> john wrote on Wed, 3 Dec 2008 17:32:48 -0000:
>
>> 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).

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
>

john zeiss wrote:
>
> 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.

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.

On Dec 3, 12:32*pm, "john zeiss" > wrote:
> We are thinking of buying one of those table 'induction' heaters to cook a
> Japanese type of vegetable meal actually on the dining table.
>
> 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.

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..

On 3 Dec, 17:32, "john zeiss" > wrote:
> We are thinking of buying one of those table 'induction' heaters to cook a
> Japanese type of vegetable meal actually on the dining table.

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).

Andy Dingley wrote:
> On 3 Dec, 17:32, "john zeiss" > wrote:
>> We are thinking of buying one of those table 'induction' heaters to
>> cook a Japanese type of vegetable meal actually on the dining table.
>
> 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