Talk:Microwave oven
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Microwave oven article. | |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
||
| Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4 | |||
| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Archives |
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Contents |
[edit] removed paragraph requires rework
The following paragraph was removed as being poorly integrated into the text.
- Please Note: This information is not up to date, see 'Even-Heating Microwave Technology' article by author Gordon T. Andrews of GAMA Microwave Technology Ltd., published in the US Appliance magazine Engineering section dated March 2007 .. Quote: A new microwave technology was designed to produce even verticle and lateral heating distribution, regardless of shelf position, and is reportedly unaffected by the use of metal baking utensils without sparking. This new microwave technology has since been introduced in multiple (10) metal shelf catering foodservice combination-steamers and convection bake-off oven, as well as consumer cookers.
Some note of this presumably should be added to the article, but this is not acceptable form, as articles are not supposed to be collections of isolated references, but a seamless account of the topic. ww (talk) 13:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Cannot be recycled
Should it be mentioned in the article? Imagine Reason (talk) 20:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- Cathode ray tube does mention recycling, toxicity, and other material dangers. (A very well-done article, btw.) The battery article also mentions disposal. That would seem to suggest there would be a place for a short section on disposal, here. Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 20:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
[edit] harmful to food?
I would like to know whether it has been proven that microwaves are harmful to food and destroy nutrients. Are they harmful for you to eat food that has been cooked with microwaves? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.244.247.158 (talk) 00:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
- The energy in microwave photons is not high enough to break most chemical bonds in such materials as food. Radiation which has that much energy is typically termed 'ionizing energy". So, at quite low frequencies (with little energy per photon), infrared radiation can only heat, not break chemical bonds. Some bonds can be broken by ultraviolet energy which is a much higher frequency. The microwave radiation in a microwave oven has much less energy than even infrared radiation, which has rather higher frequency. On the other hand, enough energy as heat can be delivered to things exposed to high intensities of either infrared or microwave radiation that the temperature can be high enough to destroy the material. Charring and all that.
- So it is certainly true that microwave radiation can damage food, but it does so only with the same mechanism as a regular oven which uses infrared radiation to heat food and other things. For some foods, this will be disastrous (milk, for instance), but for others (eg, meats, some vegetables, etc) the heat is beneficial and deliberate. Heat from any source can destroy trace nutrients, but also by stopping enzymatic action within cells, preserve them. Things are not quite as simple as they might be. ww (talk) 01:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I will. There are plenty of studies. WSNRFN (talk) 19:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
- Cool, but beware they need to be Reliable Sources - the "study" of watering a plant with microwaved water, that you added elsewhere, doesn't cut it. Verbal chat 20:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
[edit] microwave ovens and the ISM band
Which came first -- the ISM band allocation, or the microwave oven? Please help us find out at Talk:Electromagnetic compatibility#ISM bands. --68.0.124.33 (talk) 04:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
[edit] English dialect
For the purposes of WP:ENGVAR, which variety of English is the "original variety" of English for the microwave oven article[1]? --68.0.124.33 (talk) 04:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- It's been in US English up until now AFAIK. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
-
- Well, I do prefer British/Commonwealth/International English - but the problem here was I had my usual GB-en spellchecker on rather than switching to US-en. Apologies. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 09:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Mechanism
Explain how microwaves convert electric power to microwave radiation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.174.37.51 (talk) 21:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- This is more likely to be a good fit to the magnetron or microwave articles, not in this one, about a cooking tool. Or perhaps the reference desk. ww (talk) 15:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Heating Water
I removed the blip about water heating the best in a microwave because it needs clarification (and was already marked as needing citation, and since I pretty much know it is incorrect). While water may be the "heat source" for most foods cooking in a microwave, it is certainly not the "most efficient" heater, especially when you are talking about say, a cup of pure water. For example, a cup of water and a cup of milk at the same temperature, the milk will boil first. My theory (with no references to back it up) is this is because all the water molecules are experiencing the dielectric effect at almost the exact same moment, so not as much heat occurs as when they are intermixed with other molecules which do not exhibit the effect to the same degree.Jasonkeirstead (talk) 11:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
- What heats "best" is not a very clear thing. Water absorbs energy better, but it may not heat as fast, simply because it doesn't have as large heat capacity, so it absorbs more energy but doesn't go up as much in temperature.
As an example, I had to try your milk experiment, so I took two 80 mL samples of water and milk in identical beakers and and stuck them here into the lab kitchen GE microwave, both thermocouple measured at exactly 24.5 C before they went in. After 10 seconds on "high" (both of them together, placed at exactly equal spots on either side of the rotating table, equidistant from center to edge) the water had gone up 7.3 C and the milk 7.8 C after taking them out and mixing and letting them equilibrate for a couple of minutes. Ha, the milk was heating 6.8% faster. And my microwave was putting out about a bit more than 500 watts, which is about right. After another shot of 15 seconds (I made sure the milk and water traded places on the rotating glass bottom for this one) the milk heated by 12 C to a total of 44.3 C, and the water heated by 11.4 C to a total of 43.2 C. So again, the milk is heating 5.2% faster. (And both samples heated about 50% more, in keeping with the 50% increase in time, so the experiment is going well).
But hold on, there! First, I have a total of 19.8 C heating for the milk, and 18.7 C heating for the water, so on average, the milk beat the water in heating by only 19.8/18.7 = 1.059 = 5.9%. Not much! I can't reliably measure volumes in beakers that well! (I should have used a graduated cylinder, but I'm ruling out first order effects). Second, there's a bigger problem, which is that milk isn't pure water. I used skim milk, which has 13 grams of sugar and 9 grams of protein in 240 mL (according to the label) so it's only about 91% water. So it's not surprising if it only has 1/1.059 = 94.4% of the heat capacity of pure water. All that is required is that the milk solids, the sugar and protein, have 3.3/9 = 37% of the specific heat capacity of the water they replace in the milk. Which isn't hard to believe at all, since water has so high a specific heat capacity. So, all in all, we're both doing original research, but the effect you report is very small, and is easily explained by the fact that water has a higher specific heat capacity than the stuff you're replacing it with, in a food-mix, or even in milk. But the water is doing most of the microwave absorption, just as advertised by the texts. SBHarris 04:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
-
- While I;m shocked, Shocked, JUST SHOCKED, I say!! to see original research appearing on WP, I must congratulate Sbharris on his demonstration. Well reasoned, well planned, well analyzed. And probably didn't take all that long either. Good job. Too bad WP can't use it. Although, now having been published.... ww (talk) 13:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Superheating liquids and the MythBusters
I reverted a change that claimed that only distiled water could superheat in a microwave oven based on a MythBusters episode. Not only does the reference in the article handle that myth, not even the MythBusters claim that, they only compare distiled water (that will always superheat) to tap water (that will always boil). At the end of the segment, Adam Savage specifically says that "[exploding beverages] could happen a few times a year around the world." The moral of the story: If you quote MythBusters, understand what exactly they busted/proved. Lars T. (talk) 13:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
- PS: YouTube Video
The hazards portion of the text indicates the need for citations regarding superheating. I have located two sources of verification. One is the Argonne National Laboratory:Ask A Scientist Chemistry Archive
The other on The University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia’s website: Superheating and Microwave Ovens
Both sites are in agreement that tap will superheat. So the Mythbusters claim that tap water will not superheat is erroneous.
Muion April 1, 2009
We recently had a cup of coffee superheat in the microwave. It didn't boil until the sugar was added. Very polluted tapwater... Rob MacDonald Terrace, B.C. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.81.154.105 (talk) 20:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- I've read that you should never reheat cold coffee in a microwave. Anyone know why this is or how it affects the coffee? Or is it simply a quality issue? --Tuzapicabit (talk) 14:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
-
- My understanding is that the first time water is heated, dissolved gases come out of solution, forming bubbles that nucleate boiling and prevent superheating. However, when reheating water (same goes for coffee, I assume) there's not much dissolved gas the second time around, so there might not be any bubbles to get the boiling started. Spiel496 (talk) 05:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Social and cultural changes
The "Social and cultural changes" section is low-quality, if it's not revised soon it should be deleted. The tone is all wrong and the section is out of place compared to the rest of the entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.204.10.207 (talk) 16:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
This section's information is also wrong in the assumption that the concept of the TV dinner was created by the availability of the microwave oven. Stoic Squirrel (talk) 02:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Not to mention the pathetic misquote from McLuhan ("The Medium is the Message") which, as any McLuhan scholar well knows, was actually "The Medium is the Massage". Of course, McLuhan always meant this to be ironic, and the error has occurred thousands, if not millions of times. But in wikipedia one would hope for more accuracy. I changed the reference, though I fear some ignorant person may change it back. [roricka 3/28/09]
This section seems to have been written as a personal essay. It contains far to many euphemisms and idioms. I deleted most of the paragraph containing the worst ones. [trumpeter675 5/25/09] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trumpeter675 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I concur that this section is of low quality and of the wrong tone. It treats anecdotes as fact. I'm going to go ahead and delete the whole section. If someone can change the tone and content to say something intelligent and provide some meaningful references, then we could add it back. It's always interesting to learn about how machines change our lives, but as written, this section needs go go. Pdcook (talk) 03:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Nukes?
Under "Social and cultural changes", shouldn't there be a sentence or two on how the term "nuke/nukes/nuking/nuked", in reference to using a microwave, came into the vernacular? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skaizun (talk • contribs) 19:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] safety issue
"Microwaving food raises several safety issues, largely connected with leakage of microwave radiation outside the oven, as well as reducing risks, such as that of fire from high temperature heat sources."
I removed the bit about "largely connected with leakage of microwave radiation outside the oven" because we say later in the article "Tests have shown confinement of the microwaves in commercially available ovens to be so nearly universal as to make routine testing unnecessary.". It seems to me that concerns about leakage of microwave radiation are not the actual safety issues (whatever those may be) around microwaving food. That is to say, if you are worried about the safety of microwaving food, leakage of waves does not seem to me (according to what we say later in the article) to be the important thing to worry about.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Exposure to microwave radiation in the frequency range used in microwaves causes some biological damage, most notably to the lens of the eye. Leaking microwaves are not safe, so it's fortunate that the seals and precautions used in modern microwave ovens are generally adequate. All methods of cooking generate hot food, and all electrical appliances present dangers of fire and electrocution; microwaves are no different than other devices in these contexts.
- The idea that a microwave changes the chemistry (or resonance or essence or something) of the food cooked in it has no actual ground for belief, save poorly informed fear and urban legend.
- These points are probably worth making in some way here as there are fears / problems / concerns about each of them, and WP ought not to leave them unaddressed. I'm sure some source can be found for each, but I've not the time to chase one (or all) down just now. ww (talk) 16:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
. I wonder if we should delete the whole section on benefits and safety features. In addition to citing no sources, the section is also anecdotal and not universally true. I've gotten nasty steam burns from cooking rice in the microwave! Can anyone find and decent source material and rewrite this section? Pdcook (talk) 15:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- We don't have "safety issues" sections in stove or oven either, despite the serious hazards of conventionally-heated cooking systems, especially those that use an open flame. I'd guess that far fewer people are harmed by microwave ovens than by gas-burner stoves, for example. Will Beback talk 17:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that hot food is dangerous whatever the source. The only difference with these is that there is not a large thing all of which is alarmingly hot. The cognitive dissonance between cool exterior and door and hot dangerous food is the new and possibly startling and so dangerous issue in that respect. I think worth a mention, if only that the usual warning on which we rely (automatically, more or less reflexively) is missing.
- On the other hand, the assorted urban legends and myths about microwaves changing the nature of foods ("nukes it, you know") certainly do deserve mention if only in serving an encyclopedic purpose of dispelling paranoia without even the slightest grounds. This sort of unthinking, free-floating, mindless, emoting is a "reasoning" mode which seems to be gaining ground. Government death panels is another aspect of it, I think... Something in the water, maybe, ... But, in any case, WP certainly has a duty to note the lack of grounding for a belief that food is altered (other than by being heated) by microwaving. Keep weeding out the fantasy thinking, keep weeding. ww (talk)
18:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Bad History
The citation for the candy bar story is awful at best, as it seems to come from some grandfather who learned to how to use the internet (literally, http://www.gallawa.com/.) I intend to rewrite this history section based off this article http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/it/2005/4/2005_4_48.shtml which seems far more credible and is from a history magazine of good repute.