4 ms·

The claim is weird, though. If they said “just add to boiling water and turn off immediately” then they would claim it’s 100% more efficient*. If you turn off

by ghayes 4y ago

The claim is weird, though. If they said “just add to boiling water and turn off immediately” then they would claim it’s 100% more efficient*. If you turn off your water right before it’s boiling and cook your pasta, then Barilla is an energy generator*.

selcuka 4y ago
Actually reverse cycle air conditioners are said to have a heating efficiency of over 100%, but what they really do is to move the heat from one point to another. It's all about definitions; if you define the system as your room, it will be more than 100% efficient. If your system is the universe, then it's always 100%. By the same logic, yes, your hypothetical statement can be rephrased as "if you already have boiling water, cooking pasta doesn't require any energy".
- hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
  But the whole point is that Barilla's definition is ludicrous. The only definition that really makes sense is how much energy did it take to get the pasta from the box to my plate, and Barilla is excluding the vast majority of that energy in their 80% number for the sole purpose of inflating it to make it look better.
  - selcuka 4y ago
    Barilla's definition is ludicrous, and I'm playing the Devil's advocate. > The only definition that really makes sense is how much energy did it take to get the pasta from the box to my plate Including the energy required (and the carbon footprint) to manufacture the pasta in the first place, yes? Or no?
    - harg 4y ago
      no, because we're only comparing the energy required to cook the pasta; not the whole lifecycle.
- simondotau 4y ago
  If your definition of efficiency encompasses change within the entire universe, you could say that everything has an efficiency of 0% because matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. Back in reality, the purpose of a heat pump is to heat/cool an enclosed space. Its efficiency is rated by comparing it to a direct conversion from electricity to heat. So long as what occurs outside doesn't affect what occurs inside, it isn't relevant to the question of efficiency.
danpalmer 4y ago
Except that would not cook the pasta. I haven’t tried this technique yet, but one of the aims is to still cook the pasta effectively. I know from experience that your hypothetical won’t cook most dried pasta.
- KennyBlanken 4y ago
  You "know" incorrectly. Pasta "cooking" is mostly rehydration, and that happens at temperatures well, well below boiling. https://www.seriouseats.com/tips-for-better-easier-pasta https://www.seriouseats.com/tips-for-better-easier-pasta Getting the water to a boil is probably just a way for Barilla to make the instructions foolproof- after adding the pasta, the water will still be hot enough to rehydrate said pasta.
  - justsomehnguy 4y ago
    > instructions foolproof and allows a leeway for a different pots, stoves, fried off power cables... I use this technique when I don't want to bother running a second stove top and making a sauce or something for the pasta. It takes more time, though.

by ghayes 4y ago

selcuka 4y ago

Actually reverse cycle air conditioners are said to have a heating efficiency of over 100%, but what they really do is to move the heat from one point to another. It's all about definitions; if you define the system as your room, it will be more than 100% efficient. If your system is the universe, then it's always 100%. By the same logic, yes, your hypothetical statement can be rephrased as "if you already have boiling water, cooking pasta doesn't require any energy".

hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
But the whole point is that Barilla's definition is ludicrous. The only definition that really makes sense is how much energy did it take to get the pasta from the box to my plate, and Barilla is excluding the vast majority of that energy in their 80% number for the sole purpose of inflating it to make it look better.
- selcuka 4y ago
  Barilla's definition is ludicrous, and I'm playing the Devil's advocate. > The only definition that really makes sense is how much energy did it take to get the pasta from the box to my plate Including the energy required (and the carbon footprint) to manufacture the pasta in the first place, yes? Or no?
  - harg 4y ago
    no, because we're only comparing the energy required to cook the pasta; not the whole lifecycle.
simondotau 4y ago
If your definition of efficiency encompasses change within the entire universe, you could say that everything has an efficiency of 0% because matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. Back in reality, the purpose of a heat pump is to heat/cool an enclosed space. Its efficiency is rated by comparing it to a direct conversion from electricity to heat. So long as what occurs outside doesn't affect what occurs inside, it isn't relevant to the question of efficiency.

danpalmer 4y ago

Except that would not cook the pasta. I haven’t tried this technique yet, but one of the aims is to still cook the pasta effectively. I know from experience that your hypothetical won’t cook most dried pasta.

KennyBlanken 4y ago
You "know" incorrectly. Pasta "cooking" is mostly rehydration, and that happens at temperatures well, well below boiling. https://www.seriouseats.com/tips-for-better-easier-pasta https://www.seriouseats.com/tips-for-better-easier-pasta Getting the water to a boil is probably just a way for Barilla to make the instructions foolproof- after adding the pasta, the water will still be hot enough to rehydrate said pasta.
- justsomehnguy 4y ago
  > instructions foolproof and allows a leeway for a different pots, stoves, fried off power cables... I use this technique when I don't want to bother running a second stove top and making a sauce or something for the pasta. It takes more time, though.