Talk:Induction cooking

Image

Note that the image shown does not feature an induction cooker. It shows a class-ceramic cooktop allright, but the burners are electric resistor coils. Lupo 10:02, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are all four? I think the dual-ring ones might be IH, but if they're all resistor coils, then we can remove the link. Neier 10:46, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All four. The dual-ring ones have two heating zones: either you switch on just the center, or you additionally switch on the ring. Lupo 07:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sears has a relatively inexpensive induction cooktop. It has four burners. I have a single burner (available for around 100 dollars). It is super efficient and I think it's better than gas. A cup of water boils in seconds see this web site for image and further information http://www.sears.com/sr/javasr/product.do?BV_SessionID=@@@@1036968486.1140492640@@@@&BV_EngineID=cciiaddhdfhdhmicegecegjdghldfoo.0&vertical=SEARS&sid=I0093600010003900085&pid=02242800000

Also, the image showing an induction coil showing through a fan opening is misleading. True it is an induction coil, but it's a part of the electronic circuitry (probably a mains filter) and not the induction coil used for heating. I'll take some photos next time I open my (broken) hob up for another go at fixing it! Tsh 18:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Radiation

Does anybody have any data on the radiation emitted by these things? A quick google search yielded at least one safety warning for one brand. Rōnin 18:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Try "The Induction Site" - Induction Cooking - Radiation Hazards? Owlcroft 10:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Induction Range

I suggest any content covered by Induction range and not covered in the (larger) Induction cooker article is incorporated in Induction cooker, and the Induction Range article made into a redirect to Induction cooker, with a note in the article to the effect that induction cookers are known as induction ranges in the USA. WLD 16:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"I think the person was talking about using an induction coil in space or on the surface of the moon." Comments about content should be in the discussion page, however, this disagreement needs to be resolved.

Heating

An induction cooker actually generates most of it's heat due to hysterisis losses in the ferromagnetic material, not because of the eddy current's generated within the material. The eddy currents only contribute to a fraction of the heating. So the 3'rd paragraph of the article here mis-directs people by saying: "Since heat is being generated from an electric current induced by an electro-magnet...". Any thogughts on this? --Pavithran 08:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. How would you recast that paragraph? WLD 09:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little confused about this section too. It would be nice if an expert could rewrite the section, or shed some light on the topic? I'm also inclined to believe hysteresis is the main heat source since the bottom of pans and pots made for induction cookers have magnetic cores, but I'm just guessing? Apis O-tang 17:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone have any source for the information in this line: "After boiling a pot of water, the surface of an induction stove is slightly warm to touch but not so warm as to burn or even hurt human flesh. Furthermore, within 1 to 5 seconds it cools to room temperature."? Aron G, Eh? 01:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skin depth

This article gives the skin depth for Aluminum as 12mm (without stating the frequency). The Skin depth article, however, shows how to calculate the skin depth at the relevant frequencies, and those formulas give a value of 0.6mm for 20kHz. If that is true, why can't you use aluminium or copper (which has a similar skin depth) with induction? (Both materials work well with magnetic braking.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Popup (talk • contribs) 10:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is not eddy currents as with magnetic braking that does the heating, but ferromagnetic hysteresis. An outer layer greatly exceeding the skin depth would prevent the magnetic field from entering the cooking vessel. The limitation would be that the ferromagnetic layer should not be covered by a too thick non-ferromagnetic conductive layer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.132.82.198 (talk) 04:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Term: "Hob"

This term is used repeatedly through the article unreferenced. In context it appears to mean "cooktop" or "hot plate", but there is only one limited explanation for the term. There is a reference in the dictionary to hob as a noun meaning "a projection or shelf at the back or side of a fireplace, used for keeping food warm." Is this a correct application for the word? If so, I would suggest replacement with a more commonly used term.

--Bagheera 23:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hob is the usual term in British English - Wiktionary doesn't seem to have it, although there is a perfectly good explanation in Wikipedia at the disambiguation page for Hob - "Hob, the top cooking surface on a cooker (referred to as a 'stove top' in the United States) in the United Kingdom, Singapore, and other parts of the commonwealth. It typically comprises several cooking elements (often four), also known as 'rings'". As the article is written in British English, it should be left that way. WLD^talk|edits 08:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification, but I would suggest a more descriptive (less coloquial) term. While the term "Hob" may be common to describe an electric cooking appliance in the Commonwealth, it doesn't appear to be a commonly recognized term on the Net. If nothing else, since you refer to the disambiguation page, perhaps linking the term to that would be appropriate. (you may already have)

Cheers,

Bagheera 22:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linked. Hob isn't electric cooking appliance, its any 'stove top'/'cooktop' - gas, coal, oil, wood, electric. It also listed here List_of_words_having_different_meanings_in_American_and_British_English#H. I'd be happy to eliminate non-American colloquialisms, if American colloquialisms were also removed. As it is, there's an uneasy truce between writers of American English and writers of non-American English in the English Wikipedia. I tend to view it as an opportunity to expand my vocabulary. Cheers. WLD^talk|edits 23:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no big fan of colloquialims myself, and appreciate the added vocabulary and your link to clarification. I wonder if the term "cooking surface" is appropriately generic?

Cheers

Bagheera 20:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To me, 'cooking surface' would imply the surface that the food is placed directly upon - like a griddle/hot plate/hibachi i.e. a heated flat metal plate on which eggs, bacon, mushrooms, etc. can be fried - often seen in British cafes and American diners. I'm not convinced we should be coining neologisms purely for Wikipedia. WLD^talk|edits 08:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, though I'd still like to find an acceptible, generic, term to describe them in context. In this article, we're talking about generic induction cooking appliances rather than specifically a built-in device (a 'range' in US terminilogy) or a smaller portable plug-in device. I'm sure there's a non-region-specific, technically correct, word to use here.

Bagheera 18:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When looking at them in stores, I've always found them referred to as "cooktops" (the same as resistive electric and gas ones). A google search tends to indicate that this is a relatively common term (see [1], for instance) .--Eyrian 15:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I've found as well, but I understand WLD's point in the way it's written. This is a case where the common terms differ between English speaking countries. Personal preference is to use terms that are most recognizable to the broadest range of readers.

Bagheera 18:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be pedantic hob in this context isn't a colloquialism; dialect perhaps...

In my opinion cooktop is easier to understand than hob, it's more or less self explanatory after all. I'm not from an English speaking country so maybe I can be considered unbiased. It's not particularly hard to understand the meaning of hob from the context though.

Apis O-tang 17:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
"Range" seems to be the generic, commercial term, though I've rarely heard it used in normal speech. Perhaps that could be used as a compromise? I prefer "stove" or "stovetop" myself.

Tea and crumpets ^{(t c)} 20:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No compromise is necessary, or desirable. 'Hob' is a perfectly good English word, used extensively in many parts of the world. There is a policy on Wikipedia to keep the language variant used in the article unchanged from that chosen by the original author, or major substantive contributor, except for articles that are specific to a region where a particular language variant is used. See WP:ENGVAR and WP:SPELLING. This policy is there to prevent edit warring. It does say that "Sensitivity to terms that may be used differently between different varieties of English allows for wider readability; this may include glossing terms and providing alternative terms where confusion may arise. Insisting on a single term or a single usage as the only correct option does not serve well the purposes of an international encyclopedia." - so the article explains what 'hob' means for people who may not be familiar with that particular word. No more is necessary. As I've said previously, reading Wikipedia articles with unfamiliar terms is a way of expanding one's vocabulary WLD^talk|edits 21:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
not good
seems to have a lot mistakes ... --217.31.212.189 16:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly a typo?
"When the electromagnetic field reaches the surface of a conductive linear medium, the electric and magnetic fields lag each other by 45 degrees. "
Can someone confirm that it's not 90 degrees since the magnetic and electric components of a photon's field are orthogonal (as in right angle to each other=90 degrees). Of course they might be right. That's why I ask for someone who knows for sure.
Of course it makes sense that if they were lagging by 45 degrees, there'd also be only 180 degrees in a circle or they'de be ahead by 135 degrees. This is obviously obsurd! I'm also assuming that order doesn't matter. If it does, then of course being 45 degrees behind is the same as being 225 degrees ahead.
24.162.128.27 14:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops, logged in. And of course a typo - I meant 325 degrees, not 225 degrees. JWhiteheadcc 14:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can not cook solid food ?
I have been using this induction cooktop (TCL stand alone unit) for an year now. I found that You can only cook liquid or semi-liquid food but not solid. For instance if you put just potato in the pan without any liquid or water, nothing will happen; I think this is a *major* disadvantage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.226.25.101 (talk) 14:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]