This article is a great example of NIH syndrome.<p>You can get the same improvement with "About $5 of materials and an hour of time." [1]<p>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.<p>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).<p>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)<p>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.<p>[1] pg. 14
<a href="http://www.vrac.iastate.edu/ethos/files/ethos2008/Sat%20AM%20Classroom%201/Andreatta%20A%20Study%20of%20Heat%20Transfer%20in%20Finned%20Pots.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.vrac.iastate.edu/ethos/files/ethos2008/Sat%20AM%2...</a><p>[2]
<a href="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" rel="nofollow">https://www.google.com/search?q=swirlers+jet+engine&espv=2&t...</a>
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".<p>What?! Isn't it the other way around? Lower atmospheric pressure means that water boils at significantly lower temperature [2].<p>[1] <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=lKvbVJasGXc#t=29" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=lK...</a><p>[2] <a href="http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=boiling%20temperature%20of%20water%20at%202000%20m" rel="nofollow">http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=boiling%20temperature%2...</a>
Am I mistaken or, at [1], it can be noticed that a lot of heat goes into handle?<p>[1] <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=lKvbVJasGXc#t=95" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=lKvb...</a>
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.<p>Boiling water quickly is nice, but ruining your custard because it boils is very not nice.
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.<p>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.<p>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.
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)?
"Already the new design has won the 2014 Hawley Award from the Worshipful Company of Engineers, a British professional group."<p>These people don't seem to care that nobody in their right mind buys aluminium cookware.
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.<p>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.<p>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'.<p>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.
"the super pan was developed by astronauts who quit the space program to devote their LIVES to developing PANS!"<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQAFv1sI6TU&feature=kp" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQAFv1sI6TU&feature=kp</a>
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.
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.
I'm a bit disappointed it solves one problem in isolation (heat transfer from gas to pan) and not much else.<p>Having said that, I wonder how it would combine with pot skirts and fireless cookers?<p><a href="http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2014/07/cooking-pot-insulation-key-to-sustainable-cooking.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2014/07/cooking-pot-insulatio...</a>
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).<p>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.