On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 00:52:51 -0700 (PDT), Rainy
gmail.com>
wrote:
>On Sep 7, 4:24Â pm, Square Peg wrote:
>> On Sun, 7 Sep 2008 11:22:42 -0700 (PDT), Rainy
gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>>Square Peg wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 7 Sep 2008 00:39:36 -0700 (PDT), Rainy
gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:>>
>>>>>I'm looking for an electric kettle with these features:
>>
>>>>>1. Boils quickly (i.e. not like Zojirushi dispensers)
>>>>>2. Metal on the inside, no plastic (specify if it's coated with
>>>>>anything or plain steel)
>>>>>3. Variable temps with wide range of possible values
>>>>>4. Not more than $50.
>>
>>>>>It looks like Upton Tea has a winner for $38. But is it metal on the
>>>>>inside? Is it coated? Any other problems with it? Anyone have it or a
>>>>>similar kettle?
>>
>>>> There are literally dozens of models available. Amazon has quite a few
>>>> and many have owner ratings. Epinions has a long list:
>>
>>
>>>> I just completed a fairly detailed search. I ended up ordering the
>>>> Digital Kettle Pro from Tea Treasures. It's scheduled to arrive
>>>> tomorrow. I'll post my impressions after I have a chance to use it
>>>> some.
>>
>>>> On 8/20, Natarajan posted a nice review, after having just received
>>>> one. It was one of the reasons I bought one myself.
>>
>>>> In my opinion, your $50 limit makes no sense. The difference between
>>>> $50 and $100 is only $10/year if you keep if for just 5 years. If the
>>>> $100 model has features that make your life easier, isn't that worth
>>>> $10/year to you? No-brainer to me.
>>
>>>Yes but if you follow the same logic you can say that
>>>a $1000 kettle used over 20 years is just $4/month. That's
>>>the kind of silly thinking that left me pennyless and
>>>having to settle for a $50 kettle. So you see that the
>>>answer is already part of your question?
>>
>> Questionable logic. Anything can be taken to a silly extreme. If your
>> self-control is so impaired that you bankrupted yourself buying the
>> top-of-the-line everything, then you probably can't even afford the
>> $50 unit. Or, if your time and convenience isn't worth the extra $50,
>> don't buy it. You know what your time is worth.
>
>Well, it's always a sliding scale. 9 times out of 10,
>paying more will yield some advantage in
>ruggedness, looks, features, etc. You have to
>draw the line in the sand somewhere.
>>
>>>> My finalists were:
>>
>>>> 1. Digital Kettle Pro, $90, Tea Treasures.
>>
>>
>>>> Pros:
>>>> * Digital temp control: 104?F - boiling, +/- 3 degrees.
>>>> * Temperature hold: holds water at the temperature setting.
>>>> * Cordless
>>>> * Stainless steel
>>>> * 1.5 liter (50 oz, 6 cup) capacity
>>>> * Auto shutoff if it runs dry
>>>> * Alarm when water reaches temperature
>>
>>>> Cons:
>>>> * 1,000 W (less than most)
>>>> * Expensive
>>>> * External water guage. The website says it has an external water
>>>> guage, but Nataranjan says it does not.
>>
>>>> For me, this was the only real contender. The digital temp setting and
>>>> the temp hold are not available in any other product as fas as I know.
>>>> The ability to fill it up, set the temperature, and not have to be
>>>> right there the instant it's ready was easily worth the extra $30-40.
>>
>>>I already have a Zojirushi and I suspect that hold temp
>>>feature results in less-tasty tea.
>>
>> More questionable logic. But, then, I think we'd had this debate
>> before. However, I'd give you the extra $50 if you could tell the
>> difference between tea brewed from water heated in a glass kettle and
>> used the instant it was warm and tea brewed from water heated in a
>> stainless kettle and left on warm for 10-15 minutes in a double-blind
>> test. I guess if you let it boil for 10-15 minutes, assuming you had
>> any water left, that would probablyt be detectable due to lack of
>> oxygen, but not just keeping it warm well below boiling.
>
>Where are you? I don't want to spend $500 on travel
>to win $50 in a blind test!
>
>>
>>>Digital temp control is no better than
>>>analog, the real issue is how accurate the thermostat
>>>is,
>>
>> That's not true. With the digital, you get an exact setting. With the
>> analog, you cannot be sure you set it to exactly the same place unless
>> it has places where it clicks into place.
>
>It's not exact with digital because it depends on
>thermostat which likely isn't exact. Weakest
>link in the chain and all that. I'd think that
>far more inexactness is introduced by
>thermostat than being 2mm off on the
>analog dial, but that's just my opinion.
You are muddying the waters again. There are 2 factors: (1) the
thermostat and (2) the dial. Assuming that the thermostat is the same,
a digital "dial" will be more accurate and more repeatable than an
analog dial. Of course, if the analog unit has a better thermostat,
then we are not comparing apples to apples. I would susp=ect that the
digital units have a better thermostat because the digital dial can
make use of a better thermostat, whereas it would be wasted with an
analog dial.
I've got to finmd a way to keep you from changing the parameters of
the debate. ;-)
>>>the Zoji I have cost $120 and is often listed at
>>>around $140-150, so I think it would have thermostat
>>>as good as kettles in sub-100 range, and it's not
>>>terribly accurate, it can read 85 and then if you unplug
>>>and plug it in again it will read 90, very often. So,
>>>analog would be just fine for me as long as it's
>>>accurate and consistent, but some people in
>>>adagio UtiliTea reviews say that it's not consistent,
>>>i.e. same setting will sometimes produce different
>>>temp.
>>
>>>I don't want to pay more than $50 because I'm not
>>>sure I will use it at all.
>>
>> So you're willing to "risk" $50, but not $51?
>
>Will the next question be something like
>"you're willing to risk $51 but not $52??".
>I'm hoping actually that the $40 one will
>do. It sound like AK16 is the very similar
>to the adagio kettle. In fact it's $50 and
>then discounted to $38.
Only you can judge the cost/value tradeoffs. For me, $50 is nothing if
it makes my life easier on anything like a daily basis, which I
believe this new kettle will.
>>>I think tea from electrically
>>>heated water won't taste the same/as good.
>>
>> Again, I'd wager you can't tell the difference in a double-blind test.
>
>I could tell a huge difference with electric range
>and Zoji pot. I would have preferred not being
>able to, because it's far more convenient to
>use Zoji pot and I paid $120 for it.
>
>So, how do you explain HUGE difference
>with *both* Zoji pot and electric range
>when molecules are the same?
I'd have to see the Zoji. If the lining was leaching chemicals into
the water, then it's clearly different.
What I am saying is that pure water molecules (H2O) that are heated
over gas, electric, microwave, or campfire are indistinguishable from
each other. If the heating method puts something into the water, then
that's a different matter.
>>>Also
>>>the reviews say that if you use less water, same
>>>setting will produce higher temp.
>>
>>>My main concern is inconsistent heating at same
>>>setting, because then I'd rather buy a $40-50
>>>kettle without variable temp locally and use a timer
>>>with it.
>>
>>>BTW Zojirushis look very nice, and they do temp
>>>hold by heating. They only have one model that
>>>_in addition_ works like a thermos, so that it
>>>spends less energy to keep water at high temp.
>>
>>>The real problem with Zojis is that white and
>>>green teas don't taste very good. I think because
>>>of electric heating and slow heating.. Actually
>>>blacks don't taste quite the same either.
>>
>> Yeah, I know you believe that the molecules somehow know where the
>> heat came from. They don't. Maybe if you heated the water under one of
>> those pyramid thingies from the 60s (or was it the 70s?) or hung some
>> crystals around or played some new age music.
>
>Yet in food preparation it's a well known fact
>that type of stove and material of the pan
>will affect the taste. There's brick ovens,
>pizza stones, copper pans, even though
>"heat is the same".
There you go again. That is a completely different animal. Baking a
cake or a pizza at 300 vs 450 will yield a very different result, but
there are chemical and other processes that change. I'm talking about
water (H2O).
>Here's a quote from 'water encyclopedia' site:
>Although water has the simple formula H2O, it is a complex chemical
>solution. "Pure" water essentially is nonexistent in the natural
>environment. Natural water, whether in the atmosphere, on the ground
>surface, or under the ground, always contains dissolved minerals and
>gases as a result of its interaction with the atmosphere, minerals in
>rocks, organic matter, and living organisms.
True, but we'd be using water from the same source. Let's take three
pyrex pots. Fill each with 1 liter of spring water. Put one on a gfas
range, one on an electric, and one in a microwave. Turn on the juice
and bring them all to a boil. Time how long it takes. As soon as we
have a rolling boil, make a pot of a good tea with each one. No one
will reliably be able to tell which is which.
We can repeat the experiment with water at 180 and a green or white
tea. I contend that this will be even harder to distinguish, because
it might be possible that one method or the other caused the water to
lose a little more or less oxygen when brought all the way to a boil.
>Why don't you try a green or white tea first
>with electric range and then with gas
>range and report on difference? I already
>tried it so I'm arguing from experience and
>you are arguing from theory.
You may have more experience, but I do have some. I will absolutely
try the green and white teas.
>> Have you tried homeopathy techniques on tea? Maybe you could brew one
>> perfect cup using perfect spring water heated in a glass pot, etc.,
>> etc., ... Then, through a process of diluting and succussing, you can
>> have an endless source of perfect tea forever.
>>
>> Just kidding. I tried to give you some information on tea kettles. If
>> it wasn't useful, I'm sorry. Good luck with your $50 kettle. I'll
>> report back on my $90 digital after tomorrow.
>
>No, I appreciate your help but I asked for some
>specific criteria. That's like someone asking
>how to get from NY to Niagara falls by bus
>and someone else replying that you shouldn't
>do that but instead fly to Bangkok and have
>striped mussels in "Golden Lotus" restaurant
>because they're un-be-li-eve-able. :-).
No, Rainy, that is not even remotely analogous. A better analogy would
be if you asked how you could get from NY to Niagara Falls for less
than $50 and I suggested that for $100, you could go by method A,
which would save you 4 hours of travel time, and then asked you if
your time is worth more than $12.50/hour.
Now no more changing the parameters...
