Maker Pro
Maker Pro

microwave oven power cooking levels?

N

NSM

Jan 1, 1970
0
| No steenkin' "rubber" seal on my 20 year old Monkey Ward microwave.
|
| Jonesy

Have we beaten this subject to death yet or would the other 100 million
microwave owners like to chip in?

N
 
N

Nicolaas Hawkins

Jan 1, 1970
0
|> perhaps you have noticed that you microwave oven door contains shock
|> horror glass through which microwaves can pass

| Please explain to us the difference between ordinary glass and shock
| horror glass?

Like the difference between John McCain and George Bush?

Sorry, you'll have to translate that for me. I don't speak American.

--
Regards,
Nicolaas.


.... We are worthy of only as much respect as we are prepared to give
others.
 
N

Nicolaas Hawkins

Jan 1, 1970
0
| On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 16:36:00 GMT, Bill Janssen <[email protected]>
wrote:

| PLEASE DO NOT POST IN USENET GROUPS WITH HTML ITS A BIG NO NO..

It's mildly annoying unless it is done for a purpose but nowhere near as
annoying as SHOUTING.

N

And neither of them anything like as bad as some clown trying to pretend
he/she/it is the moderator.

--
Regards,
Nicolaas.


.... When you argue with a fool, chances are that the fool you are arguing
with is doing the same thing.
 
A

Asimov

Jan 1, 1970
0
"Franc Zabkar" bravely wrote to "All" (18 Dec 04 07:39:15)
--- on the heady topic of "Re: new microwave oven with no seal?"

FZ> From: Franc Zabkar <[email protected]>

FZ> On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 17:48:34 +1300, Lawrence D9Oliveiro
Rubber isn't going to stop microwaves, is it?

FZ> Wouldn't a rubber seal exacerbate leakage issues? I mean, wouldn't it
FZ> effectively *create* a gap through which microwaves could leak?

Maybe "metalized" silicon rubber is a good shield for microwaves?

A*s*i*m*o*v

.... Puddy-tat's not so bwave in Gwanny's microwave!
 
J

Jim Adney

Jan 1, 1970
0
What if each strand was keystone shaped?

Well, that would certainly increase the stability, but I think you'd
still have trouble supporting it at each power pole. I could imagine
some kind of internal support at each support point, but that sounds
like a nightmare to install at every tower.

Adding the tongue and groove to the keyhole shape would be even
better, but you'd still be limited by the shear strength of the
tongue, which is not very great for copper or aluminum.

Does anyone know if any of this has actually been used, or was it just
someone's pipe dream?

-
 
A

Asimov

Jan 1, 1970
0
"NSM" bravely wrote to "All" (18 Dec 04 00:01:10)
--- on the heady topic of "Re: new microwave oven with no seal?"

NS> From: "NSM" <[email protected]>

NS>
NS> | No steenkin' "rubber" seal on my 20 year old Monkey Ward microwave.
NS> |
NS> | Jonesy

NS> Have we beaten this subject to death yet or would the other 100
NS> million microwave owners like to chip in?

No chips in my microwave(s) door!

A*s*i*m*o*v

.... Bald spot? It's a solar panel for a sex machine.
 
N

NSM

Jan 1, 1970
0
| <
| > Like the difference between John McCain and George Bush?
|
| Sorry, you'll have to translate that for me. I don't speak American.

Like the difference between waking up with Diana Rigg or Margaret Thatcher?

N
 
N

NSM

Jan 1, 1970
0
| And neither of them anything like as bad as some clown trying to pretend
| he/she/it is the moderator.

Then let us hope you never fall into that trap!
 
J

Jim Adney

Jan 1, 1970
0
Tell that to your water pipes, your chimney, tubular car chassis
members, and all kinds of other hollow building components where
strength and lightness are both required.

Those are all solid parts, except possibly for the chimney. I
completely agree that solid tubular construction is one of the best
ways to go.

This discussion started with a collection of round wires arranged in a
circle, forming a kind of tubular structure to be used in a HV long
distance transmission line. Then someone suggested making the wires
flat with tongue and grooves, and finally someone suggested making the
wires keystone shaped. Each of these suggestions adds some stability
to the concept, but I'd still be surprised if it could be strung like
this and still just be supported occasionally by the usual HV
transmission towers. I'd be happy to be proven wrong, however.

I don't think my chimney, or yours, would hold up well if we tried to
lay it on its side and then lift it from the middle. ;-)

-
 
N

Nicolaas Hawkins

Jan 1, 1970
0
| And neither of them anything like as bad as some clown trying to pretend
| he/she/it is the moderator.

Then let us hope you never fall into that trap!

In the immortal words of one Eliza Doolittle, "Not BLOODY likely!"

--
Regards,
Nicolaas.


.... Knowledge is good; it is better if we can use it to do good.
 
N

Nicolaas Hawkins

Jan 1, 1970
0
| <
|> Like the difference between John McCain and George Bush?
|
| Sorry, you'll have to translate that for me. I don't speak American.

Like the difference between waking up with Diana Rigg or Margaret Thatcher?

N

Understood now.

--
Regards,
Nicolaas.


.... Children need models, not critics.
 
A

Adder

Jan 1, 1970
0
PLEASE DO NOT POST IN USENET GROUPS WITH HTML ITS A BIG NO NO..

throw away that stone age newsreader with the windows 3.1 user interface
and get a proper one that ignores HTML
 
J

James Sweet

Jan 1, 1970
0
Jim Adney said:
Those are all solid parts, except possibly for the chimney. I
completely agree that solid tubular construction is one of the best
ways to go.


Tubular chassis aren't solid, they're hollow tubes as the name implies, ask
anybody who's worked on race cars. For the weight, a hollow tube is stronger
than a solid rod, note that this is weight, not diameter, yes a solid rod of
the same diameter is stronger than a hollow one, but many times heavier.
 
N

NSM

Jan 1, 1970
0
| Tubular chassis aren't solid, they're hollow tubes as the name implies,
ask
| anybody who's worked on race cars. For the weight, a hollow tube is
stronger
| than a solid rod, note that this is weight, not diameter, yes a solid rod
of
| the same diameter is stronger than a hollow one, but many times heavier.

For a given weight of material, maximum strength is obtained by distributing
it over the greatest cross sectional area possible, up to the point at which
it becomes too thin to resist buckling.

N
 
J

Jim Adney

Jan 1, 1970
0
Tubular chassis aren't solid, they're hollow tubes as the name implies, ask
anybody who's worked on race cars. For the weight, a hollow tube is stronger
than a solid rod, note that this is weight, not diameter, yes a solid rod of
the same diameter is stronger than a hollow one, but many times heavier.

You're right, of course, but what I meant, was that a tube is a single
piece, hence solid even though hollow. The preceeding discussion was
of a "tube" made up of a bunch of separate strips.

I don't think there are any race cars out there which use chassis made
of tubes which consist of a bunch of separate strips. I think you'd
agree that this would be a structural waste of effort.

-
 
J

Jim Adney

Jan 1, 1970
0
For a given weight of material, maximum strength is obtained by distributing
it over the greatest cross sectional area possible, up to the point at which
it becomes too thin to resist buckling.

Interesting, I never thought of it that way. Of course it's only true
if you include the inner hollow as part of the cross section.

Your last clause is the gotcha. That point is the hard one to
determine. ;-)

-
 
N

NSM

Jan 1, 1970
0
|
| >For a given weight of material, maximum strength is obtained by
distributing
| >it over the greatest cross sectional area possible, up to the point at
which
| >it becomes too thin to resist buckling.
|
| Interesting, I never thought of it that way. Of course it's only true
| if you include the inner hollow as part of the cross section.
|
| Your last clause is the gotcha. That point is the hard one to
| determine. ;-)

That's why they pay engineers the big bucks. Hope the engineer for that new
French bridge got the math right!

N
 
N

NSM

Jan 1, 1970
0
| You're right, of course, but what I meant, was that a tube is a single
| piece, hence solid even though hollow. The preceeding discussion was
| of a "tube" made up of a bunch of separate strips.
|
| I don't think there are any race cars out there which use chassis made
| of tubes which consist of a bunch of separate strips. I think you'd
| agree that this would be a structural waste of effort.

The edge connections would inevitably be weak points. Didn't Titanic pop
many of her joints when she hit the berg?

N
 
J

James Sweet

Jan 1, 1970
0
NSM said:
| You're right, of course, but what I meant, was that a tube is a single
| piece, hence solid even though hollow. The preceeding discussion was
| of a "tube" made up of a bunch of separate strips.
|
| I don't think there are any race cars out there which use chassis made
| of tubes which consist of a bunch of separate strips. I think you'd
| agree that this would be a structural waste of effort.

The edge connections would inevitably be weak points. Didn't Titanic pop
many of her joints when she hit the berg?


IIRC the steel itself fractured, it had a high sulphur content and was
especially brittle in the frigid water.
 
D

Don Hills

Jan 1, 1970
0
Adder said:
provided the gap between the door and chassis is small it will be safe

Early microwaves had a mechanical seal - a compressible wire mesh that was
squashed in the gap between door and frame to seal it. This was easily
damaged or torn right off. Modern microwaves have an electrical seal. The
door edge contains a quarter-wave "trap" (cavity) that runs right around the
door. Microwaves leaking down the gap between door and frame enter the
cavity, bounce back from its end and arrive at the opening to the cavity out
of phase with the waves entering, thus canceling each other. It's like a
"short circuit" for radio waves. The door still has to fit reasonably well,
hence the warnings about not using it if the door is warped or doesn't close
properly.
 

Similar threads

Top