Talk:Microwave oven/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Edit request on 20 July 2013

Please change the word "aluminum" to "aluminium", as they are both in this article. Wikipedia redirects "aluminum" to "aluminium". 89.101.1.152 (talk) 21:09, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

 Partly done The naming of the aluminium page does not indicate that all of Wikipedia should use that naming; the specific guideline for spelling differences in articles is MOS:ENGVAR. Since "aluminium" is used only once in the article, whereas "aluminum" is used five times, I've changed "aluminium" to "aluminum". Reatlas (talk) 08:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Exposed to direct microwave exposure

The final sentence could use fixing. Would do it myself but it's edit protected.

"There are, however, a few cases where people have been exposed to direct microwave exposure" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.239.203.78 (talk) 23:55, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Good spot, thanks. — Reatlas (talk) 05:45, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Kitchen Energy Use Comparison... could use a reference

These sentences are well worded, but need a good solid reference to back it up.

"The amount of energy used to heat food is generally small compared to total energy usage in typical residences in the US. Refrigeration consumes more energy than the other appliances."

I'm suggesting the addition of a "citation request" to the end of these two sentences.

Crcwiki (talk) 14:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done. — Reatlas (talk) 08:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh! The Evil Microwave Oven!?

While looking for information on the alleged unhealthiness of artificial sweeteners, I accidentally came across web pages asserting that the use of microwave ovens to prepare food is bad. Among other allegations, it is said that microwave cooking destroys the nutrients (leaving it 'dead,') and may cause cancer, leukemia, cataracts and heart trouble and so on. Search 'microwave ovens are unhealthy' to find articles and essays which mention or detail what 'studies have shown,' etc.

Of course, none of those warnings are reflected in this article. Nor am I suggesting that they should be. I am wondering, however, if no verifiable sources confirm any anti-microwave oven allegations--or if it's one of those situations where Wikipedia is not required to account for every controversial assertion about food, food preparation, or food consumption. (I am not going to look it up, but I wouldn't be surprised to find a web article 'Why eating hay is good for humans' and learning that Wikipedia's article on 'hay' doesn't specify that people shouldn't eat it.)

JWMcCalvin (talk) 02:40, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

While on Amazon about an unrelated book I came upon a mention of the Center for Science in the Public Interest. There I found an article about microwave ovens which debunked (or took issue with) a number of the claims made by so-called 'experts.' Among these was one Joseph Mercola, who is a source of some of the assertions I referred to above. The article about him in Wikipeda specifies that Mercola (1) does allege that microwaves are unhealthy and (2) has expressed other questionable or controversial opinions. Having made these discoveries, I'm willing to concede that merely linking to the Mercola article will allow people to draw their own conclusions about the validity of anti-microwave oven theories. In short, it isn't necessary to deal with them in the main article. (Note: As I suspected, Wikipedia does not bother to cite ill-effects on humans who eat hay. I'm still not going to search for claims that they should.)

JWMcCalvin (talk) 04:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy means that if there was a significant view published by reliable sources in support of anti-microwave beliefs, we would be obliged to add, at the very least, a mention of it. However, in line with WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, we should not give minority views (such as Mercola's) as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views. Also, apparently some people do eat hay. — Reatlas (talk) 08:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

On the topic of undue weight, shouldn't this sentence be rewritten or removed altogether? "A single study indicated that microwaving broccoli loses 74% or more of phenolic compounds (97% of flavonoids), while boiling loses 66% of flavonoids, and high-pressure boiling loses 47%, though the study has been contradicted by other studies." Why should one study be given more weight than all the other studies that contradict it? Empresschild (talk) 18:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Safety section

I think this article would benefit from a safety section which briefly sums up potential hazards and safety concerns such as superheating, fire, leakage, non-microwave safe containers, metal such as foil, etc. My son burned his face the other day when some superheated chowder "exploded" and I have had popcorn paper packaging catch fire for some reason. Jim Derby (talk) 15:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

History

I try to find references to the history of microwaves. I was brought up knowing that a microwave oven is not an invention but a discovery. That the effect of microwaves was a result of experimenting with microwaves after the world war in english radar stations. I fail so far to find references to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.250.219.91 (talk) 09:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I too have heard from a former US naval officer (who was also an electronics expert) that radar operators on board Naval vessels during WWII were well aware that they could heat or cook food by placing it in the ships radar waveguides. If anyone can verify this it would be worth including in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.129.69 (talk) 16:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Water resonance?

The article claims resonance lines of water only occur above 1 THz; I don't think this is correct. What about the well-known 22GHz line? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scummos (talk • contribs) 13:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Having just started looking into it, it's safe to say the answer is, 'it's complicated'. Water molecules have some dozen different combinations of resonances, vibrations, and librations which all come with fundamentals and overtones. The statement in the article is probably something of an over-simplification. 1Thz is about when the hydrogen bonds in liquid water start to wiggle/resonate. If it helps though, the 22 GHz line is for water vapor, rather than liquid water. Darryl from Mars (talk) 01:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Rules of aquisition

Sorry, new to discussion, but have done a few edits before. I would change this myself if I could, but the line reading "The countertop microwave oven was first introduced in 1967 by the Amana Corporation, which was acquired in 1965 by Raytheon." doesn't seem to make chronological sense. Were they acquired after they introduced the microwave? if so, then the acquisition year must be wrong. If they were acquired before introducing it, then wouldn't it be better to say it was introduced by Raytheon?

Hope someone smarter than me knows and can clear it up. (Jonathan Caldwell, Columbus, OH 03:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caldwelljt (talk • contribs)

A company need not change their name after being acquired. In fact just 10 large corporations in the US own a large fraction of all the rest, and now run them as "brand labels." Gillette can buy Duracell, and then itself be eaten by Proctor and Gamble, but even so, Gillette and Duracell still sell as namebrands, not as Proctor and Gamble items. When a brandname in a conglomerate brings out a new product, it does so under its old name. So in 2014, if Skippy comes out with a new peanut butter and jelly spread, it still comes out under the Skippy label, even though for a year, Skippy has been owned by Hormel.SBHarris 02:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

How many watts in average microwave today?

Seems like a pretty basic point of information, for our average readers. Perhaps a graph showing the distribution, among best-selling models? Or some factoid, like "XٍْْX% of microwaves sold in 2012 used 1,000 watts of power. X% used more, X% used less." I'd think some industry association, consumer group, or manufacturer would have numbers like that? Tks! 24.19.171.173 (talk) 21:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality in health benefits

The citation for negative health benefits seems to be a 'scare site' that uses fear, rather than evidence, to convince people to act. The studies themselves seem flawed, involving measurements that just don't make sense. Dr. Karl Kruszelnicki, in Dr. Karl's Great Moments in Science, dismisses some studies as being very flawed, and I don't see why they would be better. I'm for mentioning it as being healthier, but perceived as being less healthy. 180.200.144.213 (talk) 09:52, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2014

The line that reads "Several studies have shown that microwaves negatively impact food's nutritional value." should be removed (no replacement line is necessary). The source it cites is a heavily-biased website that does not list any sources that credibly show microwave cooking to negatively impact a food's nutritional value in a way particular to the process itself. The two sentences that follow in the same paragraph fully summarize the current research without lending false support to an unproven hypothesis. RoninChurchill (talk) 23:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Done. Agree that the only meaningful studies compare cooking methods, not microwave cooking to raw. It's assumed cooking will be done, and we're interested here in the specific effects of microwaves, not the general effects of cooking or temperature. SBHarris 23:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

colloquially shortened??

The term microwave is fully understood to refer to a device for cooking with microwaves. "Microwave oven" is a redundant terminology in the 21st century. Search (for example) for "Microwave cooking" you will find more than 10X the hits you will get with "microwave oven cooking." I suggest the wording "colloquially shortened to" in the article be changed to "commonly referred to as a". Bubsir (talk) 04:24, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me, I would go with WP:BRD here, do it and see if anyone objects. CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

What model is the microwave with the rack shown

What model is it? (Preceding unsigned comment added by User:108.66.232.67).

It's a Whirlpool something or other. Image was uploaded by User:Nerd65536 but he doesn't seem to have been around since February. Still, if you leave a message on his talk page he still might see it. Also, please sign your posts, using four tildes. Moriori (talk) 21:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

What whirlpool model? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.66.233.60 (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Whirlpool Model MH7140XFQ-0 Manufactured March 1999. Nerd65536 (talk) 15:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Microwaves can be used for *cooking* many foods, not just for reheating.

I'd suggest adding the bolded words (see below) that I've added to the 3rd paragraph of this Microwave Oven article, since microwave ovens can certainly cook foods besides vegetables. Unfortunately, many people think of microwave ovens as only for reheating since that's all they've usually heard or seen in their own personal lives. It's definitely not true however.
https://www.google.com/images?q=what+to+cook+in+microwave+oven
https://www.google.com/search?q=what+to+cook+in+microwave+oven
The comments about what "professional cooks" tend to do by choice is okay although even they are beginning to use microwave ovens more and more (obviously not including the expert in molecular gastronomy cited as [1] with those sentences). It's still important to talk about what home cooks do, and can do, in a fact-based article (whether those home cooks are highly experienced and exploratory or just regular home cooks).
Microwave ovens are popular for reheating previously cooked foods and cooking vegetables. , but they are also used to cook foods and especially those like vegetables, fruits, fish, chicken, cakes/muffins, etc. They are also useful for rapid heating of otherwise slowly prepared cooking items, such as hot butter, fats, and chocolate. Unlike conventional ovens, microwave ovens usually do not directly brown or caramelize food, since they rarely attain the necessary temperatures to produce Maillard reactions. Exceptions occur in rare cases where the oven is used to heat frying-oil and other very oily items (such as bacon), which attain far higher temperatures than that of boiling water.
The boiling-range temperatures produced in high-water-content foods give microwave ovens a limited role in professional cooking,[1] since it usually makes them unsuitable for achievement of culinary effects where the flavors produced by the higher temperatures of frying, browning, or baking are needed. However, additional heat sources can be added to microwave ovens, or into combination microwave ovens, to produce these other heating effects, and microwave heating may cut the overall time needed to prepare such dishes.
--Dianeglassattic (talk) 23:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Burned fingers

Guess I should by now know better than to interfere in contentious editing, but I did so thinking I was helping Wikipedia. Mistake. I made this edit but was reverted with this edit with the edit summary saying diminish means "to reduce in quantity". You could have fooled a lot of dictionaries.
But that's not the major rub. The version reverted to atrocious grammar. It has plural "boiling-range temperatures" which progress to "it impedes flavors", and for some obscure reason tacked on the end of the sentence is "or baking are needed" which doesn't appear relevant to anything. Maybe the article should be unlocked to let some fresh editors in. Moriori (talk) 00:54, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh good. I see someone has fixed the problem. Tks. Moriori (talk) 08:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Microwave oven. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.pcrm.org/health/reports/worst_grill.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110108064919/http://www.fsis.usda.gov/PDF/Microwave_Ovens_and_Food_Safety.pdf to http://www.fsis.usda.gov/PDF/Microwave_Ovens_and_Food_Safety.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

A common misconception is that microwave ovens cook food "from the inside out"

The article currently goes into long winding explanations on why a microwave cannot be said to "cook from the inside out". Now I'm not discussing the validity of these arguments, but isn't it an important point to state that all methods other than slow simmering actually do cook from the outside in? I think that is a much simpler explanation for the commonly observed differences. --BjKa (talk) 12:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

From a physics perspective it is cooked from the inside out, as without the motion of the molecules caused by the wave of the magnetron there would be nothing going on (but the surface heat "friction" does cook the inside) Markthemac (talk) 13:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Microwave oven. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120425091608/http://emlab.uiuc.edu/ece350/suppnotes/moven.pdf to http://emlab.uiuc.edu/ece350/suppnotes/moven.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Section: Microwave-safe plastics

While this section is technically flawless, all it does say that indeed there are plastic containers that are allegedly microwave safe according to their marking saying so.

I propose to add some details, like what is the difference between a safe/non safe plastic, and which commonly encountered plastic types belong to which order and what reaction (physics/or chemical) is causing the unsafeness. (The current "specifically desingned so, therefore safe" explanation is not encyclopedic/elaborated enough.) 176.63.176.112 (talk) 10:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC).

Hazards section - High temperatures subsection does actually contain relevant information that was missing from the Microwave-safe plastics section. I propose to move the Microwave-safe plastics section under the Hazards section as a subsection, and perhaps merge it with the High temperatures subsection.

I might be able to do it, though i am not very experienced in this kind of editing. Any discussion/counterarguments?

176.63.176.112 (talk) 10:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC).

I laughed

Raisins, when overcooked in a microwave, produce considerable smoke.

~Kvng (talk) 19:40, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I removed. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 19:56, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Microwave oven. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717050842/http://www.health.harvard.edu/fhg/updates/Microwave-cooking-and-nutrition.shtml to http://www.health.harvard.edu/fhg/updates/Microwave-cooking-and-nutrition.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:20, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Alright, what the hell ! Why is there a source from 1965 !?

Cite 19 "Litton — For Heat, Tune to 915 or 2450 Megacycles". Litton Industries, 1965

The article sources info about common frequencies from it, but jeez maybe there's a better source about something in present tense than, oh I don't know.... not from HALF A CENTURY AGO!

Jeez!

dmitry 20:44, 14 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mendeley (talk • contribs)

Could be because, for example, Boyle's Law (from Robert Boyle, who died in 1691) still holds true!Jabberwock359 (talk) 04:50, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Popty ping listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Popty ping. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Widefox; talk 14:18, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Chemical exposure & beryllium oxide -- myth?

As far as i can tell, beryllium oxide appears to only be used in higher-powered microwave emitters than the ones found in household microwave ovens. I don't feel like i have enough sources to propose an edit, but here are some starters if someone else felt so inclined: https://www.ecotechservices.co.nz/resources/knowledge-base/microwaves/ and https://www.repairfaq.org/sam/micfaq.htm (Edit: US EPA does say it "it has...been used for microwave ovens" -- https://www.energy.gov/ehss/about-beryllium -- though i wonder if that's true/current.) There is also another minor exposure concern that isn't mentioned here, but is mentioned on https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Cavity_magnetron#Health_hazards -- that is, the radioactive thoriated tungsten filament/cathode can be hazardous if pulverized. Rob* (talk) 23:16, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

This article has much discussion on high power microwave windows, up to about 25MW peak, 25kW average power, where they decide on alumina. I have known about BeO used on insulators for SCRs, where it isn't high frequency, but high thermal conductivity that is important. But I believe that they try to avoid it, for disposal reasons. It might be used other places in the magnetron, where thermal conducting insulators are needed. Gah4 (talk) 00:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Level-4 vital article...

How can such a vital article be so devoid of facts, science and citations? This article would get laughed out of any public school junior high science textbook and class in the U.S. that isn't being taught by a "scientist" who is nothing but a college-educated idiot with a teaching certificate and a degree in "elementary education". It starts with a totally bogus "explanation" for the mechanism of heating/cooking "food" that pretty obviously ignores the fact that "tap water" is not a "food" and yet can be boiled in a microwave oven in seconds without the container its in coming anywhere near "the boiling point of water". Whoever decided to "protect" this article from edits that could only harm it if they didn't completely delete it and start over with real "science" and basic common sense had better stick to whatever their day job is and never try to be a "scientist" in the real world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.234.100.169 (talk) 07:43, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I just read the article and I guess its changes since you last read it because it definitely does not read like that. It clearly explains the facts and has scientific citations. The explanation is more then satisfactory. Nithin^talk 19:17, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Mica Waveguide Covers

If anybody has the chops, please add a section on the mica waveguide covers to the components, with references. There isn't much on the web about them and the information out there is contradictory. The issues of why mica is used and how it came to be used would be good to cover. This is a common wear item on microwave ovens that people could know more about. BillMcGonigle (talk) 17:36, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I presume mica because it is cheap, and it works. I believe that many plastics could also be used. Everything else is more expensive. Gah4 (talk) 00:44, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Alot of microwaves don't have waveguides, like mine doesn't and a lot of newer ones don't. ElectroBOOM briefly talks about them and how they are rare on newer microwaves in one of his videos. Nithin^talk 19:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Not so sure what you mean by no waveguide, but yes, the magnetron is as close as it can be. Older ones used a mode stirrer, more commonly called a stirrer, and which looks more like a slow moving fan. In that case, there was a plastic cover over the stirrer. Turntables reduce the need for that. As well as I know, plastic or mica work fine. Gah4 (talk) 20:11, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

phrasing of "Uneven heating" subsection.

I rephrased that section earlier on this day because in original version it was illogical. It stated precisely that microwave ovens destroy bacteria as good as any other cooking methods, while they pose risk of cooking food unevenly, when the obvious intention was to state that they actually:

• use the same means of killing bacteria - heat exposure over time
• but heat distribution is significantly less even than in other methods
• therefore in practice, people may unwittingly undercook parts of food and be under false impression that food is free of bacteria

While being extremely precise may be counter-productive, the original phrasing can only be considered clear and explanatory to people who actually can easily deduce the intention. And that means it needs to be rephrased. It's bad style and illogical.

I rephrased that part of article so that the three above points are expressed. I read, write, listen and talk in English as a second language for about twenty years of my life, but I may occasionally fail to do it properly. Another editor reverted my edit citing "not an improvement" as reason. I reverted the revert, because this is an entirely subjective notion, I put some thought into this edit and would not have made it if I did not believe it's an improvement in the first place. That editor however is insistent and reverted yet again. Therefore I would like to ask for the matter to be discussed here. Sure, it may seem like a petty issue, but of the two of us I am the one who obviously put more effort so I don't like my effort, even smallest, to be just thrown into the trash without justification that would prove there was consideration involved and not just a whim. Vealoshawa (talk) 15:34, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

It says that Microwave ovens 'can' destroy bacteria as well - that is an important word which you have left out of your summary above. Still, I suppose we can be a bit more clear. How about this (my addition bolded): "While microwaves can destroy bacteria as well as conventional ovens when used properly, they do not cook as evenly, leading to an increased risk that parts of the food will not reach recommended temperatures." - MrOllie (talk) 15:39, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, this would certainly be better. I carefully considered if it's good enough, but in my opinion not yet. I however had a reason to scrap entire phrasing. For instance, in this context what is it that we are risking when using microwave to kill bacteria? The uneven cooking of food, or that bacteria will remain? That someone will bite on a raw piece of meat, or that they will get food poisoning? What does it mean to "destroy bacteria as well" in this context? It is clear to you and me because we assume, of plethora of meanings, the one that makes sense... but not because of the context of article. Because of the context of our knowledge. This sentence seems clear to you right now, but try imagining all you have is this text and your reading comprehension. Mind, I am not saying here that this original phrasing relies too heavily on ability of reader to induce parts of meaning that were left-out for brevity. I am saying that it was phrased in such manner, that those parts cannot be properly induced. Articles are written by people who have knowledge, but read by those who seek knowledge.

Of course I did not want my phrasing to imply it is beyond capability of a microwave oven to destroy bacteria. And after reading again with that in mind, I am sure I did not. I clearly stated every method of cooking is capable of killing bacteria and I even made it clear why - because the way we kill them is by heating them, no matter what process is used to generate heat. I also stated that it is more likely during microwaving to fail to do so, and I am not particularly content with the way I put it, but for such a trivial bit of information, it seems hard to express it both precise and concise. Still, "more likely" implies that the opposite is also within the realm of possible outcomes and "fail" implies (further reiterating what was already clearly implied before) that microwaving can be used to destroy bacteria. As you can see I put a lot of thought into phrasing things. This wasn't my best, sure, but I am pretty sure it was not below wikipedia's average... unlike the original phrasing. Again, feel free to propose phrasing that would express the entire concept properly in both merit and style and I will be more than happy to see it used. Vealoshawa (talk) 15:57, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't really understand your objections. Our readers do have context, provided by the previous sentence ("bacterial contamination may not be repressed if the safe temperature is not reached"), which addresses what you're talking about. - MrOllie (talk) 16:02, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I will get back to this with fresh mind later and rephrase it in a different manner. I cannot explain the problems with original version more clearly than I already did, so I guess we can't resolve our differences with discussion though. Vealoshawa (talk) 16:10, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I reverted again - there were more grammar errors and again it was full of redundant sentences. We should write clearly and correctly, and not repeat the same information over and over. - MrOllie (talk) 12:53, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I rephrased entire subsection and I believe it is now coherent, logical, clear, linguistically correct, as concise as possible without losing precision. I however noticed that wiki link to "recommended temperatures" is obsolete (subsection no longer exists) and said information is not really a part of that or other cooking/food safety articles I checked. Basically it is mentioned that food needs to be cooked properly, reaching safe temperature, but in most places this is a brief mention with no additional information. Perhaps a subject of preparing foods safe to eat is large and in demand enough to warrant a dedicated article which could then include a summary on thermal treatment in context of bacterial contamination and could be linked from here and everywhere where this subject is mentioned but not described right now. Vealoshawa (talk) 12:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

You had the time to read my changes AND write this reply faster than I managed to write the paragraph above, creating an edit conflict in talk page? I say you have malicious intent and will now escalate. Vealoshawa (talk) 12:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

5 minutes was plenty of time. Please Assume good faith, but if you really can't I suppose you should look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. - MrOllie (talk) 13:06, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Listen, it does not make sense for me to spend hours rephrasing this and then for you to spend five minutes and give an off-hand remark about alleged grammar errors, if we already had a disagreement regarding grammar errors yesterday. Go ahead and explain the grammar errors. I spent quite a lot of time to polish this piece of text and even sent it to multiple people to ask for general critique. I am off-put by the way you are handling this. Take a step down from up above and explain this to me like a peer or I will have to reach out to third parties for help. Because I see absolutely no reason why I should just accept your opinion the way you presented it or your decision. Let me take this opportunity to mention that THIS is exactly why I don't contribute to this project regularly. Vealoshawa (talk) 13:16, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Given the way you are personalizing the dispute at this point, please do reach out to third parties, I think that you will be more willing to listen to them than to me. - MrOllie (talk) 13:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Grammar errors. You keep mentioning those but never actually pointing them out. Since neither I nor any person I sent this piece of text to have noticed any grammar errors, what do you expect of me? Should I just say "oh, okay, I don't see it but you're probably right"? Well, I will seek additional opinions within wikipedia community and if they align with mine and my edit is considered an improvement, I will repeat it and I hope you will cease to obstruct my work. Constructive critique is always appreciated, if you decide to share. Vealoshawa (talk) 13:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

By the way as I mentioned in both the change summary and I believe here above, there is a problem with link to recommended temperatures. You disregarded that. My bet is - you did not even notice, because you're not paying attention. Vealoshawa (talk) 13:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't really want to correct all your errors, because I think the redundancies are a structural problem that makes such an exercise pointless. But I'll provide an example since you are implying these errors do not exist. You wrote: "parts of food may fail reaching recommended temperatures". That has incorrect subject-verb agreement. It should either be "parts of the food may fail to reach recommended temperatures" or "parts of the food may fail in reaching the recommended temperature". Feel free to take the last word if you require it for now. I am inclined to wait for these third parties to show up so we can build a wider consensus at this point. - MrOllie (talk) 13:40, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Add types of microwave oven

Types of microwave oven should be added to the article. It will improve the article. Or create a new article about the each of the different types of microwave oven Space chinedu (talk) 13:04, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I fully agree. Missing information related to: [1]

• Solo and combination (grill and/or convection oven).
• Turntable (thi is, with a microwave glass plate) or flatbed (whithout it). Turntable ovens include a glass plate or tray. Flatbed ones do not include a plate, so they have a flat and wide cavity with 31% increased cooking space compared to conventional turntable models and are more easy to clean.
• By position and type, they can be situated countertop, over the range and built-in (wall oven for a cabinet or a drawer model).
• Traditional microwaves rely on power from a magnetic coil, but many newer models are powered by an inverterStainless steel interior or cavity.

--BoldLuis (talk) 21:28, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

BoldLuis, Adding missing information is great, but it must be done without relying on unreliable sources such as blogs, and without gratuitous links to web stores such as the www.appliancesonline.com.au URL you're adding. MrOllie (talk) 21:37, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

-MrOllie Can you give me a minute to put these links?. https://escholarship.org/content/qt3s29h7wd/qt3s29h7wd.pdf .- For sure, the article now is very bad and incomplete, as felt by more users. Reverting only drives to a very bad article without the types of microwaves, that is basic: turntalbe, flatbed, countertop, built-in (wall or drawer) and inverter. --BoldLuis (talk) 21:38, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

BoldLuis, I can wait a bit, if you are planning to remove all the blog cites and web stores you've just added. MrOllie (talk) 21:47, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

MrOllie : this is new, because you have been a lot impatient, although I was sending messages in the edit sumary and appeared a message from other users about the big fault of the article about the lack of microwave types' information (really, types were included in a very old US DOE information scientific article). Now there have been added more scholar sources. Work finished. If something more to improve, can be copyedited or added to the talk page.--BoldLuis (talk) 22:46, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I cleaned out the remaining unreliable sources. MrOllie (talk) 22:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Built-in mwo (microwave oven) sizes

Widths align with standard cabinet widths, usually 60 cm (24 inches), 68 (27) or 76 (30). Height typically ranges from 47 cm (17) to 55 cm (22 inches). Depths range from roughly 50 (20) to 63 (25 inches) with the door closed and 76 (30) to 88 cm (35 inches) with the door open. Built-in microwaves can be installed in a cabinet or under a counter. --BoldLuis (talk) 15:52, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

220V

The article mentions an early 220V Tappan home microwave oven. That would be unusual, as usual home voltage is 120/240, so most likely it should be 240V. Commercial power is often 120/208 three phase, so commercial ones would be designed for that. Gah4 (talk) 01:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

220v is common in Africa I believe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.99.136.141 (talk) 18:28, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

antennae

The article mentions metal objects as antennae, which is true. But the biggest problem is loops, which makes a shorted loop antenna and can put a large amount of power into the metal. Also foil, which has a high enough sheet resistance to absorb much power and not so much reflect it, such as the foil in some sticky labels. Finally, Melamine absorbs microwaves and is used in much kitchenware. Gah4 (talk) 02:03, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Alternate discovery?

I have read that the absortion of microwaves by water was discovered in the course of WWII radar development (at MIT, I think; I don't remember). Shorter wavelengths were the holy grail (better resolution, and a step ahead of countermeasures), and MIT had a set that worked well through the winter (exactly which year I also don't remember, but late in the war). But come spring, its performance gradually deteriorated. After a lot of troubleshooting (of course), it was determined that the higher seasonal humidities were to blame, something that didn't affect previous longer wavelengths. BMJ-pdx (talk) 01:40, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I suppose so, but that doesn't mean that it would be useful for an oven. UHF, and I suspect VHF, are also affected by air moisture, but isn't so useful for cooking. Especially, one needs to know how fast it is absorbed. Gah4 (talk) 01:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

power

Most now, at least regular sized, are 1100W power output. Many recipes assume 1100W for their instructions. Most for a NEMA 5 plug is 15A or 1800W, input power. Some smaller (in physical size) are only 400W or so output power. Industrial models might use a different plug and run higher power. Gah4 (talk) 03:57, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with what you're saying, but this was under the "Residential" section, and they'd be plugged into a 15A circuit in the US. MainePatriot (talk) 05:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes. It seems that you can get 1100W from a 15A circuit. Gah4 (talk) 08:01, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

This seems to contradict the later "Energy consumption" section pertaining to their efficiency. 1100W @ 50% efficiency would draw 2200W, which is far too much for a 15A circuit. That said, I haven't read all the sources yet, and you've argued that "There used to be a rule that RF sources were at most 50% efficient, but they seem to be better now." If so we could add that to the article's "Energy consumption" section to explain the apparent contradiction. I don't have time to find sources right now though. Maybe someone else will add it in, or I can get to it later. MainePatriot (talk) 16:07, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

There seems to be plenty of discussion for 70% or 80%, and maybe 90% efficient magnetrons. I haven't looked hard enough to find an actual WP:RS though. The 50% is a rule-of-thumb, close enough many times, but not quite enough here. It is also the efficiency of a class-B amplifier just before clipping. Gah4 (talk) 07:52, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

@MainePatriot Sample size of 2 here, but my 1100W residential microwave oven has a faceplate rating of 13amps, or about 1560W @ 120V, so that would imply an efficiency of 70%. I checked another 1200W microwave that I have access to and it had an actual IEC60705 rated output of 1150W and a rated power consumption of 1,550W, so about 75% efficient. EDIT: I just tested my microwave by heating a fixed volume of water (as the IEC60705 test does) and confirmed it puts out 1100W, but despite the faceplate saying 13amps and the manual specifying an input of 1500W, a Kill-A-Watt meter clocked it at 16A and 1900W (good thing it doesn't blow the circuit breaker!), which would place it at under 60% efficiency. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Addition of the Solo Microwave or the Standard microwave para...

in the variation part we can add this as solo microwaves are the most common in normal households, etc

A solo microwave is the most basic type of microwave oven. It reheats, cooks and defrosts food evenly but cannot grill or bake. If you only need a microwave for your most basic needs, then a solo model will work just fine. However, keep in mind that it doesn't come with any special features and you can only use microwave-safe glass or plastic dishes with it . Dyrokg (talk) 17:57, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for product promotion. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 18:26, 5 November 2022 (UTC)