Skip to main content

The kitchen of the future? Probably not

I'm a sucker for hi-tech ideas, so was interested to see what Electrolux are predicting as the way kitchens will be in 2050. Here's what they reckon:

‘Heart of the Home’ is an intelligent, amorphous, interchangeable cooking surface that adapts to user needs. When using the Heart of the Home one simply places one’s ingredients on the surface. The appliance then analyses the ingredients and presents a list of suitable recipes. After deciding on a recipe, the user marks an area with his hand to determine how large the cooking area should be. Then the desired depth of the surface is created by simply pressing the hand against the malleable material. After achieving the required width and depth it’s just a matter of setting temperature and time with a simple touch of a finger.

Hmm. It's always useful when projecting forward 40 years (say), to look back 40 years. That takes us to 1970. Let's see. Back then I was cooking (well, my parents were) on an electric hob. Now I've got a gas hob with real, caveman-style flames coming out of it - I've actually moved backwards technological. Now, admittedly our last hob was a touch-pad controlled halogen thingy. But really it wasn't that different from the 1970s version. So it's entirely possible 40 years will result in very little change.

Equally, though, technology tends to go through sudden spurts, and it's quite possible that something will come along that will make what Electrolux is describing feasible. The two big things to be overcome are the ability to analyze the ingredients, and the malleable surface. That analysis had better be pretty specific, or it might feel the urge to cook your hand - not a good move. As for that surface, I just have no feeling for anything now that's even leading in that direction. Please tell me I'm wrong, but I haven't come across it.

It doesn't stop it being amusing though. Dreams are always worth indulging. So here's Electrolux's idea of how it might look in action:

Labels:

Comments

  1. ylsned24 February 2010 at 09:30

    I also moved backwards from electric to gas, but it's actually SO much better.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp
117 comments
Read more

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor
25 comments
Read more

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense
6 comments
Read more