Savings Comparison: Induction Hob vs Ceramic Hob - Electricity Bill Reduction Results

MARCIN.SLASK wrote:

In enameled, for example, it takes 310 seconds to boil water, and the same amount of water in a decent pot 220s.

Interesting information. Could you post photos of both pots?
Have you analyzed what the big time difference to bring to the boil is?
If the energy consumption is proportional to time, and it is not so obvious, the gulf would be very deep, and possibly the analysis and purchase of appropriate pots would be profitable.

Borutka wrote:

I don't know about Zepter's pots now, but a portion of soup from the 90's could be warmed up with a candle.

Yes, in the sellers' stories ... and the candle was the size of a candle.

The enamel pot is about 1mm thick and when measuring the power it came out about 1450W. The better pot has a bottom 10-12mm thick made of ferromagnetic steel (not to be confused with fakes where thick aluminum and a thin plate insert or some alloy that the magnet catches poorly) and power consumption about 2000W.

Here there is an (exemplary) list - found on the web, several years ago.

Cytat wrote:

The cost of using an induction, gas and ceramic hob
Based on it, I made the following statement (to simplify it) with the costs of boiling 1 liter of water (heating from 20 ° C to 96 ° C):


Gas cooker:
Pot without lid
Pot diameter: 122 mm
1 kW gas burner.
Water heating time: 14m 43s
Gas consumption: 0.0264 m3.
Efficiency 39%.

3.3 kW gas burner.
Water heating time: 6m 5s
Gas consumption: 0.0431 m3.
Efficiency 24%.

A pot with a lid
Pot diameter: 122mm
1 kW gas burner.
Water heating time: 12m 30s
Gas consumption: 0.0222 m3.
Efficiency 46%.

3.3 kW gas burner.
Water heating time: 4m 50s.
Gas consumption: 0.0326 m3.
Efficiency 32%

The use of the cover shortens the water heating time by 7..21%, and the gas consumption is reduced by 10..24%.


Ceramic plate:
Pot without lid
The diameter of the pot is equal to the diameter of the hotplate.
1.2 kW hotplate, full power.
Water heating time: 11m 31s
Electricity consumption 0.158 kWh.

A pot with a lid
The diameter of the pot is equal to the diameter of the hotplate.
1.2 kW hotplate, full power.
Water heating time: 10m 27s.
Electricity consumption 0.134 kWh.

The efficiency of the ceramic plate averaged 62% .


Induction hob:
Pot without lid.
1.5 kW hotplate, full power.
Water heating time: 5m 2s.
Electricity consumption 0.120 kWh.

2.8 kW hotplate, full power.
Water heating time: 2m 32s.
Electricity consumption 0.108kWh.

A pot with a lid.
1.5 kW hotplate, full power.
Water heating time: 4m 22s.
Electricity consumption 0.098kWh.

A hotplate with a power of 2.8 kW, full power.
Water heating time: 2m 32s.
Electricity consumption 0.108kWh.

The efficiency of the induction hob was on average 95%.


The plate has an in-use noise level of 62 dBA, against a laboratory background level of 54 dBA.

Two types of pots were used in the study. Lower energy consumption (by 20%) was for a pot with a thinner bottom, but such a pot is not intended for an induction hob - in case of irregularities, the bottom of such a pot may melt. It should also be remembered that a special pot may be required to prevent the milk from burning. Much depends on how the power regulation of the induction hob cooking zone is carried out. Better models of hobs continuously and smoothly regulate the power of the cooking zone. Cheaper models can only turn the heating zone on and off (with full power), and the power is regulated by the times of these inclusions and breaks between them.

jack63 wrote:

Yes, in the sellers' stories ... and the candle was the size of a candle.

Buddy jack63, I was a Zepter salesman a long time ago and I had these jars in everyday use. They really were great, and they worked that way .
I don't know anything about current products, but it can be like everything

Borutka wrote:

They really were great, and they worked that way

How can the pot work? It is a passive "device". The stories about the candle are purely marketing fake.
That doesn't mean anything. It only serves to fool the client. You can heat the soup (!!!) with candles in every pot.
It is not known what temperature rise and how much soup ... but it doesn't matter. What matters is the effect of influencing emotions!
This is a typical manipulation similar to the provision of the thermal power of devices without specifying the operating conditions.
With the rest, such and similar methods were used by all hawkers selling vacuum cleaners or household chemicals for prices completely inadequate to the quality, based on people's ignorance and manipulation.

MARCIN.SLASK wrote:

The enamel pot is about 1mm thick and when measuring the power it came out about 1450W. The better pot has a bottom 10-12mm thick made of ferromagnetic steel (not to be confused with fakes where thick aluminum and a thin plate insert or some alloy that the magnet catches poorly) and power consumption about 2000W.

Very interesting information. The question is what the power measurement was done and how true it is. Although there are two truths in this regard. The truth of the physical and real power or energy consumption and the truth of the energy company, that is what the electricity meter will show. It is better not to mention simple power meters with such a device.
So it can be concluded that "thickness matters"
Most stainless steel pots have a rather thick bottom. Unfortunately, what is rolled on this day is unknown.
Only a comparative experiment would tell which pot is better.
Knowing life, not always the more expensive will be better. Unfortunately.

Measurement taken Voltcraft Energy Logger 4000.

MARCIN.SLASK wrote:

Measurement taken Voltcraft Energy Logger 4000.

Don't be offended, but it's a toy for me.
You compared its measurements with yours, I think you have one installed, electronic energy meter?
The waveforms of the currents consumed by the induction hob are highly distorted, so it is difficult to measure the power.

What counts for us users is what our energy meter "shows", because we will pay for it.

But the very fact that on a better pot the water was boiled much faster, it proves something.
Sometimes stupid things go out on these market wattmeters, so I don't use them.

jack63 wrote:

Borutka wrote:

They really were great, and they worked that way

How can the pot work? It is a passive "device". The stories about the candle are purely marketing fake.

Well, unfortunately you are not right. I do not trade these garami, so I have no reason to darken. But I had these pots for several years, and I remember a bit what their possibilities were.
The lighter trick was of course a highlight on every presentation, but it worked in the real world. So much that the stubborn soup could be heated with a small flame or without any problem, e.g. with a hot car engine (which I have done many times).
The acuthermal bottom was so efficient that heated with a lighter from the bottom on the edge, on the inside it had a similar temperature on the entire surface.
But for the World Cup it was a steel frying pan. Even branded pans today are just scrap metal compared to the old Zepter.

MARCIN.SLASK wrote:

But the very fact that on a better pot the water was boiled much faster, it proves something.

The boiling time is understandable. But more power consumed in the case of a worse pot would mean enormous energy losses. Where are they produced and why does the record throw in so much power despite the lack of reception ???

jack63 wrote:

MARCIN.SLASK wrote:

But the very fact that on a better pot the water was boiled much faster, it proves something.

The boiling time is understandable. But more power consumed in the case of a worse pot would mean enormous energy losses. Where are they produced and why does the record throw in so much power despite the lack of reception ???

Read again:

MARCIN.SLASK wrote:

The right pots make a lot of difference. In enameled, for example, it takes 310 seconds to boil water, and the same amount of water in a decent pot 220s. Same power level set and same field. The area is very similar.

The mox power of the plate is 7400W. Max power of the field on which I tested 2300W (both vessels were smaller than the field diameter, so the full power was not reached. I used full power (I do not mean Booster). to heat, but I waited a long time for it to boil - certainly well over 10 minutes.
For this, the induction pots should be made of ferromagnetic material and the bottom of the pot should be of appropriate thickness, so that the desired eddy currents arise here, which are converted into heat.

I have my first album, a whirlpool company, and I will never buy gas or any other type, probably some kind of hyper-nuclear. Everything is cooked very quickly. My and my wife's observations. Gerlach pots.

I have been using induction since 2012. Until this year it was the Mastercook ID 84S, but this year something went wrong and one power module fell ... finally I bought a used one and it continues to work.
However, before I was able to find the right module, I had to buy a new one, I chose the Electrolux EIV835.

Conclusions from the use ... Mastercook had a much better solution of +/- control and icons with pre-programmed powers and a great arrangement of fields. Electrolux has a slider and sometimes it's hard to hit what you intended with a thick finger, but it has 5 fields.



While looking for a new one, I found a flower ...


if, however, someone likes to cook on a wook, he must take into account the expenditure of 14,000.

cuuube wrote:

I have been using induction since 2012. Until this year it was the Mastercook ID 84S, but this year something went wrong and one power module fell ... finally I bought a used one and it continues to work.
However, before I was able to find the right module, I had to buy a new one, I chose the Electrolux EIV835.

So we still managed to find a decent Electrolux. Though instead of giving 3 power modules, they forced the right module to handle 3 fields.

MARCIN.SLASK wrote:

forced the right module to handle 3 fields.

exactly, a bit of a limp.

The old Mastercook that we wrote about was more user-friendly in my opinion. In the new field, the wife praises the number of fields, because we often cook two different dinners for the kids ... one likes rice, the other - pasta ... On the fifth field, there is still room for us, for example for pyrki.

MARCIN.SLASK wrote:

The right pots make a lot of difference. In enameled, for example, it takes 310 seconds for me to boil water, and the same amount of water in a decent pot 220s. Same power level set and same field. The area is very similar.

MARCIN.SLASK wrote:

The enamel pot is about 1mm thick and when measuring the power it came out about 1450W. The better pot has a bottom 10-12mm thick made of ferromagnetic steel (not to be confused with fakes where thick aluminum and a thin plate insert or some alloy that the magnet catches poorly) and power consumption about 2000W.

jack63 wrote:

The boiling time is understandable. But more power consumed in the case of a worse pot would mean gigantic energy losses. Where are they produced and why does the disc throw in so much power despite the lack of reception ???

@ jack63 How did you count it, because it turns out that the enamel one took 0.125kWh and the decent one 0.122kWh, so taking into account the measurement error, the efficiency of both pots on induction was the same, while a decent pot shortens the time of boiling the water by 1m30s.

If it wasn't, it will be:
This is a bit more to explain than to advertise anything.

I know the topic is old, I got here because I am considering buying an induction cooker. But my post will not be about it. There was a thread about Zepter pots, which my mother has been using for over 30 years. And I can't believe what people are writing here.

Zepter pots are great, they are very well made and they make life so much easier for someone who knows how to use them.

But they also have disadvantages, the high price being the main one. Another big disadvantage is their weight.

Let's cut to the chase. The secret of Zepter's success is the layered bottom, in which we have layers of different metals pressed together. As far as I can remember, this is stainless steel alternating with aluminium. Plus a heavy and well-fitting (leak-proof) lid. As we know from physics, aluminium disperses heat very quickly over its entire surface, so there are no hot spots where food heats up faster and can burn locally. The heat is evenly distributed over the entire base and up the sides of the cooker, creating a large surface area which reflects the heat, thus increasing the heating efficiency.

But nowadays it's not just Zepter, practically all thick-bottomed pots from the supermarket nowadays work the same way. Maybe they are not as efficient because they have a thinner bottom, fewer layers. The only drawback with Zepter is the quality of workmanship, which in most cases is very different from the original. Sometimes a pot will delaminate after some time or overheating and be thrown out.

The candle trick... Laughable... That's what they do these tricks for you to remember. And who has tried to repeat this trick at home with another pot?
What is heating food? In order to heat a given amount of food or liquid, a certain amount of energy has to be transferred; we can do this quickly by interacting with a strong energy source like a cooker, or slowly by heating it with a candle. In any cooker it can be done in both ways, but Zepter and other stovetop pots will do it faster and without burning because they will distribute the heat evenly. In an enamelled pot, you will have to stir constantly.

You can't cheat physics, you have to use the right amount of energy to heat food, full stop.

Now back to the advantages of this type of cookware. By cooking according to the instructions for use, we can make considerable savings due to the fact that there is less energy wastage. Because once you have brought a soup to a boil over a high "heat", the remaining time is cooked over the lowest possible setting.
There is no magic here either. The pot transports the heat well from its source to the inside, and heat loss is minimised by the heavy and well-fitting lid. Another opportunity to save money is to cook potatoes and vegetables in a minimum amount of water. Here the principle is simple, little water, little energy required to boil it. And this is made possible by the tight and heavy lid, so that steam does not escape so quickly and the contents cook partly by immersion and partly by steam.
But nowadays all thick-bottomed pots from the market can do this. Because I tested personally and compared.
I had a Zepter at home and we were all very happy with it, we do not regret a single zloty spent on them. We didn't buy a set just 3 pots with the capacities we needed. Buying a set is a waste of money. Despite this, I have other market pots at home that are much cheaper and I am just as happy with them and the usage is no different to the Zepter and I haven't noticed any differences so far, apart from the fact that they are a bit lighter and not that much less out of pocket.. Today my mum wouldn't buy a Zepter, but in those years there were no alternatives.
There was certainly some saving on gas bills. Over more than 30 years, I'm sure a fair amount of money was accumulated. But whether they paid for themselves I doubt it.

I am writing this to break these myths about Zepter's magic powers (and still this old Zepter...). Only physics works here, nothing else. No presentation tricks can change that, and you don't get better and richer just because you buy elite pots.

Best wishes to all those with a firm grounding in facts and science.

SS166 wrote:

I am writing this to break those myths about Zepter's magic powers (and still this old Zepter...).

.
That's how I conclude that you haven't fully learned or used the properties of these pots. I'm curious, have you tried (on a gas burner!) to cook in two pots piled high and not burn the contents of the bottom one? And also to have it cooked at a temperature well below boiling.... It took a lot of effort to get something to burn. In a frying pan which had no coating, you could easily fry a lean pork loin without using any fat and, of course, without burning it. It fried evenly regardless of where it was placed in the pan. In addition, it was sufficiently salty after such processing without adding salt. In those days, Zepter cookware for me was an outstanding product although certainly absurdly priced. At the same time there were other premium brands but they were even more expensive than Zepter. Such were the times. My only regret is that so far I have never been able to buy even an expensive frying pan that could at least be placed next to a Zepter one. But I recently replaced a kettle for use on an induction hob. I had a Starke premium one for 10 years, which is still on sale. Now I have bought a Gerlach unfortunately, well because I think to myself.... a kettle is a kettle is a kettle. But even though it's smaller, the insert wider it still boils 30% longer and the bubbling like it produces is a cause for concern.

SS166 wrote:

No tricks from the presentation will change that, and the user does not become better and richer just because he has bought an elite pot.

The tricks were doable because they were done at the presentations and everyone could test for themselves. Most of them helped to use the product more effectively. In addition, the customer could take a trial and make a decision. Whether he became better and richer through such an elite purchase, I do not know. Certainly he could have eaten a little healthier. Regards.
PS. For the price of a Zepter set you can buy a single kitchen knife. And if there is one, someone is probably buying it. Apparently that's his priorities and it's unlikely that such far-fetched conclusions should be drawn.

Firstly, I am not denying the quality of Zepter. I'm only questioning the claims of its "miraculous" properties when the same effect is obtained on other cheaper pots. It's just that when someone has spent a lot of money, it's hard to convince them.
Sadly, but 90% of Zepter's marketing pap is and earworm. Of course, they don't lie, it's pure marketing, and that other pots can do the same.... They don't have to mention it.

Your conclusions are way off the mark, because my mother cooked for many years, every day with these pots for a family of 10-12 people. What ever, but she used them 1000%. We used capacities that the average user had never heard of.

"It was salty enough" - very funny, you are quoting texts from presentations, when realistically it is taste tastes that determine this. For one it will be enough, for another it will not.... Well, and most often it is precisely not salty enough for someone who is not used to eating less salty. I know this very well, because the Zepter dishes that are perfect for me, family and friends who come to visit, always add salt. And then explain to everyone not to add salt, because at the presentation they said it was salty enough....

As for fat-free frying - I recently bought a Revere Ware brand pan (New Old Stock). Everything fries perfectly in it. I haven't tried fat-free meat yet, as we rarely cook meat this way; it's usually either braised or roasted in the 'fryer'. I'll have to see how that comes out. But the pan heats up very evenly, weighing probably half as much as a Zepter, and in the years it was produced it wasn't too expensive.

As for the tricks, I didn't mean that they were unworkable. Quite the contrary. You don't need a Zepter to do them. You can do 90% of these things with any stainless steel pot with a layered bottom, maybe leaving out the cheapest ones, which are perhaps just cheap.

I repeat, Zepter had very high quality compared to the competition. In those years, when we were buying, it was virtually non-existent. The money spent on it made sense for someone who cooks every day or almost every day.
Nowadays, buying a Zepter rather financially doesn't make sense. But if someone can afford it, I recommend it as much as possible, because it's a great pot.
And if you can't afford it, then buy cheaper ones and cook with them according to the rules of cooking in Zepter pots and the result will be the same. Tried and tested, except for cooking in pots on top of each other, because one, it's time-consuming, and two, not everyone wants to have such a pyramid of heavy pots on the cooker in front of the kids.

SS166 wrote:

I am merely challenging claims about its "miraculous" properties

.
First of all, you are attacking a thesis that you yourself created. Nobody here except you has written about the miraculous properties of these goodies. Nor has anyone here previously put it in the context of being better and richer. This is purely your projection. I wrote earlier that they are great and that's all there is to it.
Also, I mentioned a few features of this product that might make them easier and more enjoyable to use, but you didn't substantively address any of them. My mum cooked for 12 people and saw no difference. Perhaps it wasn't 1000% or even 100%. Or rather, the purchase of a cooker or anything else for thousands is made consciously to meet specific expectations. Rather, such a purchase is made by someone who can see the difference. After all, you can cook for two hundred people in aluminium pots in a canteen, for example, and it will still be cooked.
I don't know... people buy expensive watches that show the time in the same way as cheap ones. And does that bother you?
In summary, it all depends on the requirements of expectations and nuances.
Some people are willing to pay for these nuances and there is no reason to call them better or richer.
And I know (knew) quite a lot about Zepter pots, for the reason I mentioned earlier. So there are differences and some will notice them and for some those differences will be worth the price. That's it from me on this topic.

I'm not sure at what point I offended you? Could it be that stating the fact that cheaper pots can do the same thing is an insult to you?
Perhaps you are not reading with understanding what I have written?

Your posts confirm 100% that the owners of Zepter are convinced of its "miraculous" (as you can see I write it in inverted commas for a reason) properties after the presentation. The same is true for users of Amway and similar products.
BTW, if someone likes to feel that they are in an elite club of owners of expensive watches, Zepter, Amway etc., then they are in for a treat. I have no problem with that.
My aim is just to inform people who can't afford or don't want a Zepter that they probably already have pots at home, and if not, they can relatively inexpensively acquire one in which to cook in the same way. And this is very important, because the food is healthier, tastier and more wholesome. My post is based on the fact that I can see the difference in food cooked in the traditional way versus that promoted by the Zepter brand. Otherwise, I wouldn't waste my time with some posts.
But I'll say it again and again: you don't have to have their pots to get Zepter-like cooking results.
Perhaps you perceive this as an attack on Zepter, and I am only writing about the way I cook and use it.

Nowhere did I write not to buy Zepter. And here you are telling me about some expensive watches and suggesting that my mother couldn't use these pots.... Well I don't know, on what basis?
I wrote that if someone can afford it, they will be very happy. But the fact is that a lot of people just bought these pots like an expensive watch that sits on a shelf and you don't use it because they couldn't use it despite attending shows.
Why do you think we ordered the biggest capacities they have for fat money and waited for them to bring them in especially for us? Could it be because we don't know how to use them and use them for cooking in the traditional way? Absurd.

Zepter's greatest asset is not the pot itself, but the way food is prepared. And it is this way that can be used in any pot of this design. It doesn't matter if it has 3 layers, 5 or 7. It's just that in the cheapest ones some effects will be more difficult to achieve, like the fat-free frying you mentioned.

Finally, don't write that I don't give arguments.... Because what do you think is an argument if you claim I haven't given any? I am writing from the perspective of a long-time user who appreciated these pots precisely for the fact that they cooked very healthily and tasty by following the manufacturer's instructions and recommendations. Carrying over these instructions and recommendations, I cook in other pots in the same way, with the same result. So what argument do I have to add and what argument do you have against? I don't understand your indignation?