1) Keeping track of surface and/or pan temperature is useful but it isn't nearly as useful as keeping track of internal temperature[1]. I'm not sure what the technical challenges are, but having one or more small wireless temperature probes would be far more useful to me than one limited use pan, which leads to ...

2) I cook a lot, but I have very few uses for a non-stick frypan, and very few uses for any pan that isn't oven safe[2]. That and the short useful lifetime of any non-stick pan (at any price range) make me wonder about this.

[1] Otherwise you're just hoping your inputs are roughly equivalent to the last time you did this, or what the recipe assumes.

[2] i'm making an assumption here, but couldn't find any info

Pantelligent is not oven safe -- today's electronics would not operate at oven temperatures. Having temperature regulation avoids overcooking the nonstick coatings, which prolongs their life.

(We just launched the Kickstarter campaign, and are in the middle of posting some FAQs right now!)

One of the first things you need to learn to improve as a cook (professional or just out of interest) is to control temperature. And that temperature isn't what it says on a dial, it's what's happening at the interface of your food and the heat. But pan temperature is only one variable, and others are at least as important.

At the end of the day, you are never cooking "a salmon steak", you are cooking this salmon steak, with all it's characteristics, on this equipment. Part of getting better as a cook is to be aware of this and always adjust what you are doing, not to your expectations of what should happen (e.g. any recipe, or what happened last time, or ...) but to what is actually happening. To that degree having a live readout of a particular pan could be useful, but not earth shattering.

Anyway, I don't think it's a terrible idea and may well help people who are afraid to diverge from a recipe. Heck, it may be very useful to some people who are very experienced, I don't know.

My initial reaction though is the form factor is too constraining, and the benefit too marginal, for me to get excited about it.

For salmon in particular: yes there's an input selection of thickness. For steak, there's doneness and thickness.

Re: "other [variables] are at least as important" being an incorrect assumption...

I can see this being possible for some foods (your salmon steak being a good example, given you include thickness, but you'd need different models for many different types of fish), but really unlikely for others. How onion behaves, for example, is pretty regional and highly dependent on type. For many vegetables water content is highly variable and very important to how it cooks, but I feel like i've got better proxys for what is going on than cooking surface temperature would be....

It's unfortunate that the generational tradition of teaching cooking really fell apart in the last 40-50 years. My generation was the first who had to completely teach themselves.

It's true that if you start with a really dry/old salmon, this won't magically make it not dry.

I would highly recommend that you experiment with modulating the temperature. You can get a measure of the thickness and total thermal mass based on spectral response. A simple heat diffusion model should also let you estimate internal temperature, if you assume the slice is thin relative to diameter. Note that the convection and radiant heat flows from the pan won't change as the food cooks (only from the top of the food)... At the beginning (assuming a heated pan) heat flow into the food will dominate and near the end I expect evaporation will change.

You should also be able to do a better job with onions and things you want to cook slowly,because you will see a rapid drop in thermal flow as moisture levels drop... Note, also that boiling evaporation doesn't depend strongly on temperature. Cooking a proper roux could likely also be made more simple,if you knew when to pay close attention.

It's a bit like a rice cooker. Those can actually be VERY smart.

Why would I choose this over a $180 Anova Precision cooker, or any other sous vide cooker?

With sous vide methods, you don't need to worry so much about the internal temperature of the meat when starting, because you can guarantee a homogenous temperature with enough time. With this, you will need to worry and check - just as you do now. Heterogeneously defrosted chicken, like the kind that happens when you try to defrost in a microwave, may be undercooked in some areas, overcooked in other areas. So there's no such thing as "set it and forget it" for the average consumer without fresh, because, let's face it, the average consumer doesn't always use fresh chicken.

There's no mention of support of induction burners.

Meat (aka pork and beef) will suck, plain and simple. It's going to be too hot to cook meat to a perfect doneness (maybe not with an electric burner)... but definitely not hot enough (nor with enough thermal mass) to generate a nice crust or a steak or a chop without (what I would consider) overcooking the inside.

For fresh fish, risotto, curries, etc- sure, I know it can excel there- but I don't want a $200 "set it and forget it" fish cooker, especially when there are guaranteed sous vide methods which can produce high quality food, and the saucy stuff is pretty easy anyway.

If you would want to try to change my mind, you could send one to Dave Arnold to evaluate.

  * cooks a steak in 20 minutes, not 2 hours
  * don't cook all your food in plastic bags
  * not limited to foods you can stick in a waterbath (omelettes? pancakes? etc)
  * most sous vide recipes have you finish with a pan sear anyway!

I'm far from a great cook, but I've been cooking 4-5 times a week the last 5 years, and what I do know is this won't do fast and furious nor low and slow well.

Furthermore, induction burners with temperature control (and even temperature probes!) are widely available, cheap, and relatively precise as well, and you can (mostly) use any pan, so long as you learn the quirks of whatever pan you are using.

As a home cooking enthusiast, this feels a lot like "not invented here" to me.

IMO, a better solution would be to pair an induction burner and temperature probes with bluetooth.

This is the kind of idea only Silicon Valley could cook up – if you've eaten nothing but catered meals your young adult life, you have no idea how to cook eggs without burning them. The solution is obviously a bluetooth enabled pan.

Of course it does have the problem of costing a shit ton of money, but on the other hand it solves a far bigger problem than pantelligent (i.e. long cooking procedurs, such has slow cooking+stir frequently for 8 hours and such).

I thought it would be "cook-by-number" and for many people that's exactly what they need and exactly what they want.

For me, "cook-by-number" would drive me crazy, since I like being in the driver's seat, so to speak. Over time, learning the temperatures of my pan and being able to have instant access to it in 'Freestyle' mode blew me away. No more infrared thermometers == mind blown.

Also, the record feature is stupendous - I finally get that dish /just right/, and I never have to worry about it again. I have recorded the temperatures, the times, and everything so I can repeat it the same way every time.

Seriously though, try the salmon. It will blow you away. You've never had salmon this good.

Before I had no idea how wildly the temperature on my stove would vary, and would basically burn or undercook everything. I'd had luck using temperature probes for things like chicken, but that doesn't work for eggs, fish, etc.

Now I just pull out my phone, pick what I'm cooking, and get a predictably delicious result.

Why not use a temperature sensor and an app; why do I need to buy a whole pan? Is it that hard to for a sensor to read the heat of the pan's surface without being integrated?

EDIT: More information was requested so here goes: I've always been interested in food science and trying to make food more predictable. I think that's why I like baking so much. Pantelligent has given me the tools and visualizations to figure out what is actually happening on my stove. I've learned how to gauge the temperature of the pan, and how my electric stove has a really huge carryover heat capacity. I can pretty much turn the stove off halfway through the cooking process and coast the rest of the way with residual heat and still cook all the way through, without overcooking.

Conveniently, it's also easier than frying, requires less hands-on time, and is tremendously repeatable. And you can now buy all the gear you need for about the price of one of these pans!

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qi-tyQvRgJw

I can pick up a durable frying pan for $15 at most, and it does the job with my skill level.

What would the real draw for me be? Exact temperature readings are great, and interactive recipes are cool, but I'm not sure it's worth 10x more than I can get a regular frying pan. (Hope I didn't come off as snarky, I'm genuinely curious.)

Just in passing, if you cook a lot, you should spend more than that on a frying pan, like $50. A heavy pan distributes heat more evenly and an anodized or ceramic finish is an awful lot less work to clean (which will easily pay off the cost of the pan in terms of time and meals saved).

My next pan will be in the $40-50 range (started scoping them out) but that's still 4-5x less than a Pantelligent pan.

When I was in college, I'd boil some water, make some pasta, and sear some chicken for every meal. Estimated pan cost: $10 (maybe free, actually, as I got it from a departing senior).

Nowadays, I like to eat out a lot, with food costs at least $25/meal (SF Bay is ridiculous). I get healthier meals if I cook at home but I also want my food to be delicious. Approximating subjectively: I think I get 90-200% of restaurant deliciousness depending on recipe and restaurant, 25-50% of restaurant sodium intake, and 50% cost with this device, which is a fixed cost. Given this, it'll pay for itself in less than two weeks.

From the viewpoint that this pan makes cooking a little more accessible to new cooks, I think it's fantastic. I was just trying to find value for someone like myself, who might be a little more experienced and have a few dishes, we can make without recipes, under our belts. :)

After a while you'll get used to your individual pans and how they transfer heat, to the point that you don't need to think about how to adjust the heat any more. Likewise watching the food itself will eventually tell you most of what you need to know about when it's done.

[1] http://microformats.org/wiki/h-recipe

The obvious next step is to connect the sensor to the heat control, eliminating the human from the loop, and to add sensors for humidity level, pressure, weight (e.g., to determine how much water has boiled off), smoke (either for that mesquite/caramelized touch, or perhaps it's a good place to display a sponsored link to a food delivery service) and more.

EDIT: Come to think of it, microwaves use sensor AFAIK. I had one that defrosted surprisingly well by simply pressing the 'Defrost' button. My impression was that it used a moisture sensor.

I'm not sure what you mean, could you expand? Do you mean Sysco?

Also, I don't think this is really the same as canned food... I'm thinking more of the case where there's a relatively large restaurant with lots of cooks in the kitchen (or even multiple kitchens)

It probably saves money and could be more sanitary. On the other hand, it kinda diminishes the appeal of restaurant dining for me.

And yes, what you're saying is probably true... in that case this wouldn't do very much good, I think. Maybe the idea of a restaurant that still makes it's food completely from scratch at every order is farfetched nowadays

Having the pan report its surface temp is neat of course, but wouldn't a tiny BT pinboard pin-style probe instead of a pan surface temp probe remove a lot of the variables involved, and report the thing I'm actually interested in (inner temp), rather than the pan.

Edit: the temperature I'm looking for in a frying pan when cooking fish or meat is usually "as hot as it goes". Pan just to sear, and let the temperature be sorted out in Sous Vide or low temp oven.

edit: To clarify, trying to cook meat by sight as a colorblind person (at least for me) typically results in either raw meat or dried out overcooked meat.

With this, people won't learn to cook, they'll learn to do x when y happens. That's not learning to cook, that's being a robot.

If you want total convenience, you use a microwave, but it's not the do-all kitchen appliance that people originally thought it would be (see: microwave recipe books). If you want total experience and the joy of making something for your family with your own hands, you use traditional tools. Perhaps this pan meets some middle need, or provides a gateway for people who wouldn't cook otherwise, or perhaps it's an expensive novelty. But it's interesting to think about what we're losing when we replace old ways of doing things, and whether any of it's worth keeping around even if it isn't the most efficient way of doing things. The Betty Crocker add-egg trick tells us that there's a big emotional component wrapped up in this that isn't present in most product categories.

(I make http://supermechanical.com/range and enjoy Soylent, so the balance of new cooking interactions vs integration into an existing kitchen flow is something I think about.)

One thing however, I'm somewhat surprised to see no apparent mention of PFOA and PTFE being used? [1][2]

The price point of $199, puts this product squarely in the high-end of cookware, where Teflon based non-stick has fallen out of favor these days.

A smart pan that competes with Le Creuset's increasingly popular enamel pans, would be amazing. [3]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfluorooctanoic_acid#Health_c...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytetrafluoroethylene#Safety

[3]http://www.lecreuset.com/cookware/skillets---saute-pans

If you use the pan, a more insightful, informative report of the technology, its use, etc. would be helpful to your fellow readers.

That's it.

But the technology, in this case, isn't the point. It is a very simple idea, but one that works exceedingly well in doing its job.

Not every solution to a problem has to be incredibly new technology - applications of simple technology to problems that lots of people have is just as much a definition of "make something people want" as building the Oculus Rift. Whether this is a problem that lots of people have is, I suppose, what this kickstarter will help elucidate.

I didn't think I had this problem, and then I used the pan. My mind was changed solely because of the record feature and instant, always-on, access to the temperature of my pan.

That's all.

I did not mean to imply that it had to be cutting edge or complex tech.

It does run only in iOS. Construction quality is quite good - it's not a Calphalon pan, but it isn't the $10 Target pan either. It's somewhere in between. The construction of the handle (where the electronics are stored) is top-notch.

Customer service I can't vouch for, as they're friends and live nearby, but I suspect they would make things right very quickly.

I'm currently in two minds about backing this. On the one hand, it frees me from using multiple devices. On the other hand, I already have a solution, and this solution is exactly the same as the one I have (I probably have more accurate readings). And this solution is a lot more expensive (199 for shipping to Australia) than my current solution

An innovation I'd like to see is something like sous vide for a frypan, where the pan temperature automatically changes (this is hard because well, I like a flame stove too)

Separate so that you can flip that pancake/burger.

I uaven't watched the video yet. Does it work on induction hobs? Is there an option to use Celsius?

EDIT: is it aluminum? That won't work on induction hobs. Also, if anyone knows of good quality tiny non-stick pans that work on induction hobs, on sale in US, I'd be interested.

Yes, batteries are great! Adding a thermoelectric generator is a possibility -- the power requirement is certainly met -- but it adds significant complexity.