Stainless Steel Tea Kettle

[Livia]

Originally Posted by nhschneider

We use an English-made tea kettle called Simplex. Terribly expensive but boils a cup of water in less than a minute, thanks to a unique set of heat-absorbing coils built into the base. What we have saved in propane has more than justified the cost. Our model is heavily chromed and still looks like new after almost 20 years.

Fair winds and calm seas.

Ditto. It is embarrassingly expensive but the rapid boilreally works and we have been living aboard and/or cruising with our for 7 years.


Amazon.com: Simplex Heritage 2 Quart Chrome Finish Copper Tea Kettle for Gas Stovetops: Quick Boil Kettle: Kitchen & Dining

[pupuce]

Have a look here: a kettle and a teapot in the same item

Kettle/teapot - Cha NF01 | Alessi

[Siberianhusky]

OMELETT Kettle - IKEA
What I have, mine is about 20 years old now, handle is a bit different now.
Best 10$ I think I've spent on boat stuff.
Most of my galley stuff is Ikea.

[hellosailor]

Considering that fresh water is supposed to take, what, four minutes? to boil at sea level, it is a very clever trick for a kettle to do that in only one minute. At any price. I'd call that elegant engineering.

[travellerw]

Originally Posted by Sandero

this one:

http://www.amazon.com/Tk-250-Quickon...s+steel+kettle

is perfect

Thanks.. I ordered this one! We will see how it holds up. Its very similar to the one its replacing. I got 5 years before it started to rust inside..

[JPA Cate]

I have to chuckle, this thread is still steaming along. One can, after all, boil water in a saucepan, too. Just needs a steady hand for pouring.

So this is all about aesthetics and convenience. How about that!?*

An

[Seaworthy Lass]

Originally Posted by Ann T. Cate

So this is all about aesthetics and convenience. How about that!?*

An

And safety , but I must admit aesthetics and sentimentality are the overriding factors in my choice of kettle (a beautiful Alessi with a blue handle and burgundy bird shaped whistle).

It was our first boat kettle 28 years ago. I brought it to the Med with me in my hand luggage nine years ago and it has been used several times a day since. Its wide base makes it extremely stable and with a gimballed stove extra fiddles are never needed.

We don't have anything purely decorative on board, so it is a huge bonus if everyday items are beautiful. Given the pleasure this kettle has given and its still "as new" appearance after decades of use, I would consider the purchase an absolute bargain.

SWL

[hellosailor]

Well, there is also the rather blunt implication that all my physics teachers lied.


I was always taught that water took at least 4 minutes to boil, no matter how may calories you threw at it. Heck, in the 70's the folks at Mountain Safety Research did quite a lot of work making the first winter camping stoves that could melt snow in order to provide water in the shortest possible time (fuel is heavy) and they couldn't beat 4 minutes either.

[PortClydeMe]

Originally Posted by pupuce

Have a look here: a kettle and a teapot in the same item

Kettle/teapot - Cha NF01 | Alessi

Living in Japan for 10 years, with many a pot of o-cha made, I'll say this. A kettle and tea pot need to be two different items. First you boil the water, then you pour it into a nice Japanese tea pot. The "Cha NF01" presents quite a conundrum, wouldn't you say?

The "Simplex" looks like an interesting kettle. Pricey, yet might some day check it out.

For 50 years I used a Revere. Never a problem. The whistle works, the "fill lid" doesn't flop off/out when you pour, and the handle never gets hot. The three requirements for a good kettle. Rust? What the heck is that? That's a new one! Fifty years of boiling water, and never saw rust. I wonder who makes "that" kettle.

[hellosailor]

A $200-$365 kettle (check the mfrs web site) that can be knocked off for $25 presents many opportunities for counterfeit goods. Amazon's policy of "binning" goods from different vendors and shipping them without any confirmation of which vendor supplied them, makes counterfeiting highly effective.

[Mickey_]

Originally Posted by hellosailor

Well, there is also the rather blunt implication that all my physics teachers lied.


I was always taught that water took at least 4 minutes to boil, no matter how may calories you threw at it. Heck, in the 70's the folks at Mountain Safety Research did quite a lot of work making the first winter camping stoves that could melt snow in order to provide water in the shortest possible time (fuel is heavy) and they couldn't beat 4 minutes either.

Where did you go to school?

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

[hellosailor]

Here and there. Of course, we didn't have megawatt lasers to flash water into steam them, either. Heck, we were even taught nuclear particle orbits and electron flow incorrectly.

[Mickey_]

Originally Posted by hellosailor

Here and there. Of course, we didn't have megawatt lasers to flash water into steam them, either. Heck, we were even taught nuclear particle orbits and electron flow incorrectly.

About the same for me... though not much has changed with thermal dynamics since I went to school... my pet peeve is when people try and tell me that hot water freezes faster than cold water... drives me crazy!!

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

[fryewe]

Originally Posted by hellosailor

Well, there is also the rather blunt implication that all my physics teachers lied.


I was always taught that water took at least 4 minutes to boil, no matter how may calories you threw at it. Heck, in the 70's the folks at Mountain Safety Research did quite a lot of work making the first winter camping stoves that could melt snow in order to provide water in the shortest possible time (fuel is heavy) and they couldn't beat 4 minutes either.

Intriguing. Had to check out this kettle...a nickel under 200 bucks at Williams Sonoma for the two quart model.

Two quarts. Four pounds of water.

Takes a BTU to raise the temp of a pound of water by a degree F. So four BTUs from the flame to raise the temp of the water in that kettle a degree if the flame-water interface is a hundred percent efficient.

Drinking water on my boat is about 82F in the summer, so the water I put in the kettle has to be raised 130F to 212F to make the kettle whistle blow. That takes 130 BTU for every pound, or 520 BTU for the four pounds of water in the kettle.

My burner puts out an advertised 7000 BTU/hr. That's a bit less than 120 BTU/min.

So it takes, at a minimum, 4.3 minutes to transfer that 520 BTU from my burner to my water and make the whistle blow.

I think your physics teachers didn't lie to you.

Even a high powered propane burner at 9K BTU/hr would require almost three and half minutes, minimum, to boil that kettle full of water.

Reduce the water in the kettle to a quart, and the time to boil is reduced by half, and if you're only boiling a pint for a single mug of coffee, the boiling time could theoretically be reduced to less than a minute.

A Butterfly kerosene burner (7K BTU/hr) boils a quart of water in my kettle in about eight minutes.

That snow to water problem is a bit harder...got to transfer the latent heat of fusion from the energy source to the snow...a lot more than 1 BTU/lbm...

(Of course, the actual heat transfer is a more complex problem than this, requiring knowledge of things such as heat transfer coefficients of materials, surface areas, flame temperature, flame distribution across the heat transfer surface, ambient temperature, initial temperature of the water.)

[hellosailor]

Well, hot water does freeze faster than cold water. With a couple of contextual assumptions.


First, you have to let the hot water cool down to the same temperature as the cold water. From that point on, it WILL freeze faster, because the hot water was heated, and the heating process drove out dissolved air, leaving a different dissolved gas content (a lower one, often nearer to zero) which is what lets the "formerly hot" water freeze faster than plain cold tape water does.


Did that one in physics lab. Once you account for the assumptions, it is true.


On face value, as stated though, if you magically had 200F water and 50F water, the 50F water would normally freeze faster--even with the usual dissolved air.


A perfect case of "assumption" ruining perfectly good science.