Talk:Pressure cooking

Pressure cooking
The whole article seems to take a rather disparaging tone toward classic pressure cookers and favors the newer European style countertop units over the stove top units. The "First Generation" "Second generation" classification seems inherently wrong. The use of derogatory terms like "jiggle-top" instead of "dead-weight pressure regulator" seems biased to me.

Many old pressure cookers had features like selectable pressure settings that are ascribed to newer generations.

Was the basic article layout and outline put into place by a representative of a manufacturer of countertop self-contained units?

I am a physical chemist and am very familiar with the science involved. I have been using pressure cookers since I was a kid helping mother put up the victory garden produce during WWII — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.174.129.54 (talk) 17:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Natural Release - Opinion Reads as Fact
There is a sentence in the section on natural release that reads "The texture and tenderness of meat cooked in a pressure cooker can be improved by using the natural release method." However, the cited source for this statement prefaces this assertion with "some cooks believe". It would be helpful if the language could be clarified to make it clearer that this is an opinion and not a fact.

Hidden ads?
Near the end of the section about third generation "electric pressure cookers" it says:

"Since 2018, with the release of the game-changing Ninja Foodi pressure cooker, which became famous for being the first pressure cooker to possess the ability to air fry"

Worlds like "game-changing" and "famous", really? Never heard about those Ninja guys who apparently improved upon a convection oven and are now heroes. Although air frying might be worth mentioning, I don't think there's any need for blatant advertising like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeHermansen (talk • contribs) 09:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Removal of air
This section is just wrong, it defies the laws of physics. I removed hat part, twice since it was restored and my edit was considered disruptive. I fail to understand why removing something that is wrongm, plain and simple, is deemed disruptive and the original, false, txt is restord. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.197.98.224 (talk) 21:30, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I am no physics expert, but I know you need to remove the air before being able to open a pressure cooker. Just because you say it is wrong doesn't mean others know or believe it to be. If you can provide research, sources, evidence, etc to back it up, then I doubt it will be reverted. Until then, I guarantee you it will continue to be removed as stating "it is against the laws of physics" hasn't been backed up. People like me will interpret it like a "trust me bro" which isn't very trustworthy. If it is "against the laws of physics", then I recommend you re-write the section to apply to the laws of physics rather than blatantly deleting an entire section which becomes suspicious. Even just removing the parts that is not factual and simply stating "to open a pressure cooker you have to release the air" or something would be better than deleting the whole section.
 * Trust me, I know first hand how frustrating it can be to see blatantly wrong information on an article, but unfortunately when we delete things so impulsively it will be assumed to be in 'bad faith' and therefore may be reverted unless a very good explanation/edit can be made. We don't intend to be mean or rude, I apologize if it sets off the wrong tone. Jebbles (talk) 13:59, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's completely unsourced, and has been for five years. It's appropriate to remove material that lacks a WP:RS. This one seems to be WP:OR; if it weren't, it would be easy to find a source; at least one "how does a pressure cooker work" article (and there are a lot out there) would mention the possibility that air needs to be replaced before the pressure cooker can work. As it stands, it is not verifiable -- that you "know" you need to remove the air doesn't mean you need to remove the air, it means you have the same unsourced information as the article does. I will be removing the section if sources don't show up in the next couple of days. Nobody is required to prove something in Wikipedia is wrong; but WP:V does require us to show it's right.  inserted the material in 2016; perhaps they can substantiate this claim. (Also, how does the valve tell the difference between air and steam?) --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 14:27, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

I find this an interesting topic too, and it's unfortunate that there isn't more about this. Old-style pressure cookers remove the air because they regulate the pressure by leaking excess gas (so, as steam is produced and leaks out, the air leaks out gradually along with it). The same goes for volatiles like alcohol, or even volatiles released by the cooking food. However with the new-style electric pressure cookers, they do not leak so much gas (they only leak in the beginning before the float valve pops up). So air/volatiles are trapped inside and thus add to the overall pressure. For a given temperature the pressure might be, say, ~1 atm over that of an old-style cooker. What I wonder about the electric cookers, therefore, is whether they are pressure-controlled or temperature-controlled. If they are pressure-controlled then the amount of trapped air/volatiles could be an uncontrolled error source, leading to unreliable recipes: the more trapped air/volatiles, the less the actual cooking temperature. Conversely if they are temperature-controlled, then they might overpressurize in some situations, perhaps creating a safety issue. I cannot find any good sources that discuss this and yet it seems important. --Nanite (talk) 19:08, 3 April 2022 (UTC)