Talk:Induction cooking

message: I saw nothing regarding any possible dangers of a chef wearing metal rings while using a stove like this. Im not sure if it is a real danger or if there are precautions but it seems worth a mention. Say someone with a metal ring gets a bit too close to the stove without making contact. Will it get red hot, burn their finger and be extremely painful (and difficult) to remove quickly enough to prevent injury. It seems a red hot ring on your finger can be very dangerous with little way (in a panic) to get it off your finger quickly enough. - Debeo Morium: to be morally bound (Talk | Contribs) 21:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you read anything (credible) about this happening? Surely in these litiginous times we would have been amply warned to remove all rings, watch bands, belt buckles, Prince Albert piercings and other small metal objects from our persons before approaching the cooktop.  Seems vanishingly unlikely; if you can get your hand between the pot and the cooktop, you'd get burnt anyway no matter what jewelry you were wearing. Ferromagnetic rings tend to rust and so don't get used. A small ring isn't going to allow the cooker to start (try it!) and if you got your hand close to a hot frying pan, surely the pan bottom is a bigger threat than any ring. An object has to be rather close to the top to pick up enough field to heat - lift a pan a few inches and the stove cuts off. I've never noticed my non-ferrous wedding ring or austentic SS pinky ring getting warm when I fry eggs, and I like to show off how close I can hold my hand to the pan when cooking (but that's original research and inadmissable). (Do gas stove manuals warn you not to hold your finger in the fire?) --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  No I have not. I am not saying this would happen. What I am after is an explanation as to WHY it isnt dangerous. Common sense tells me it should be, but I suspect there is some reason it isnt dangerous. This should be explained int he article as a point of interest either way. - Debeo Morium: to be morally bound (Talk | Contribs) 01:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Does the article not already mention that if a pan is lifted off the surface, or if the metal object is too small, the power cuts off? If not, it should. I imagine a few spoons got melted in the early days before they decided dumping 3 kW into a spoon was not what the consumer intended. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

text: All units are designed to require a minimum threshhold mass of ferrous material, and it is not trivial; in fact, one minor but common nag is that induction units will not power up for 4-inch-diameter pans, such as "butter warmers".  So neither rings or other personal jewelry, even if placed directly in contact with the surface over an element, will receive power.  (Nor, more realistically, will a utensil, such as a fork or spatula, laid down by inadvertence).Eric Walker (talk) 08:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

text: Rings are typically made of gold, silver or perhaps other non-ferrous materials. It would be very rare for anyone to be wearing an iron ring, and even then the arguments above would apply. Non ferrous (iron) materials will not heat up to any noticeable degree.Djp (talk) 10:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Dangers of Metal Rings worn during use

message: Under "Drawbacks" it states that "it is not advisable to fit an induction cooker above an oven".  That is wrong.  Most cooktop makers include express and exact information in their installation manuals about how to install the unit over an oven.  The problem, such as it is, is that many makers try to channel the customer into using only an oven of the same make as the cooktop.  Others are less restrictive in their advice.
Here is a sample from an installation manual: "Check the cooktop base for an approved installation label.  Verify approved oven model numbers that can be installed with your cooktop model number. If you do not find this label, your cooktop may not be approved for use over an undercounter built-in oven. Contact your dealer to confirm that your cooktop is approved. Ovens approved for this type of installation will have an approval label located on the top of the oven. If you do not find this label, contact your dealer to confirm that your oven is
approved."
I have modified the text accordingly.
Eric Walker (talk) 00:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ovens 

message: I think that material from deep in the article could usefully be summarised under "Limitations" for readers looking to make a direct comparison.
The section currently says, about cookware:
"must have a flat bottom since the magnetic field drops rapidly with distance from the surface. Induction rings are a metal plate that heat up a non-ferrous pot by contact, but these sacrifice much of the power and efficiency of direct use of induction in a compatible cooking vessel."
However, the extent of the limitations are likely to remain unclear to the reader.  The bottom section "Induction cooking pans" makes these points:
- Ferromagnetic pans which are effective for induction are not good heat conductors.
- For frying and making thick sauces a steel plate pressed into an aluminium pan is be preferable.
- Not all stainless steel pans are ferromagnetic.
It is these considerations which, for me, significantly swing the weight of argument against purchasing induction hobs, and I guess it will be significant to other readers.  These limitations could be explained directly in the "Limitations" section, or else a link could be added ("See 'Induction cooking pans', below")
It's also worth considering whether the section title "Induction cooking pans" could be improved along the lines "Suitable cookware" or "Cookware considerations".
Tsuchan (talk) 09:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if we keep reorganizing the article so that important stuff is at the top, we'd have everything in the lead.  Anyone who's ever picked up a metal pot handle knows that steel conducts heat. From an engineering perspective it would be nice to see a paper that discuses temperature gradients across a cooking vessel against material type, and to set significant criteria of tolerable gradients based on type of food being cooked.  I'd like to see something discussing the distribution of heat generation in an induction-heated pan-seems to me that the eddy current heat would be distributed over the bottom, better than settng a pan on a hot wire.  Probably not a subject for Mythbusters because there's not enough explosions. We should be wary of phrasing things like a buyer's guide; we're not selling pots here, at best we're explaining the physics behind induction cooking so that you can understand the gabble that the salesfolks repeat. You probably meant an aluminum layer inside stainless; the aluminum shields the stainless if its on the outside, as does a copper layer - shiny copper-bottom pans won't work well on induction. Cast iron works well for induction, but my wife won't let me buy a cast fry pan because she's worried about banging the ceramic top. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The quoted sentence--Ferromagnetic pans which are effective for induction are not good heat conductors. - For frying and making thick sauces a steel plate pressed into an aluminium pan is be preferable. - Not all stainless steel pans are ferromagnetic.--is misleading; it is true for cast iron, which virtually all cooks know; but stainless-steel cookware is invariably "clad", meaning multi-layered: the bottom layer is ferrous steel (formerly known as "18/0", meaning nickel-free), the inmost layer is stainless probably of 18/8 or 18/10 shiny steel, and the middle layer is of a metal that is a good heat conductor, typically aluminum, sometimes copper.  (Some cladware has even more layers.)  Cladware intended for use on induction, which is an ever-larger percentage, combines the virtues of ferrous metal to absorb the induction-field energy and high-heat-conductivity metal to assure fast, even heating.  And yes, the heat is more or less restricted to the vessel bottom, and the handles do not get hot.Eric Walker (talk) 09:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: (weeks later)On the other hand, my favorite spaghetti-boiler is a very flimsy stainless pot which makes no claims to "cladding" or layers. OR, yes. But "invariably" probably should only apply to cookware that isn't sold as a 12 piece set for $50. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Limitations 

message: "Small stand-alone induction cookers are relatively inexpensive, priced from around $60 USD."
They may well be in the US. In P. R.China they are about $25. Perhaps this needs removing or specifying. I favour removal as it looks like original research.
Candy (talk) 00:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cost 

message: I wish all that great history of early induction tops had some references.  I'm glad I found that IEEE article, it explains the skin depth a little better than what we had before; I used the table data here to show the ratio fo resistance.  Hmm, 0.0005 inch household aluminum foil is only 0.022 skin depths in aluminum, so would have 44 times the resistance of one skin depth...I bet aluminum foil heats like a son of a gun on an induction top, which is why they warn you to keep it away from the top. (Must try this - but safely, don't want to wreck the new cooktop!) --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: <later> Yep, heats up just fine - but the moment a steam bubble forms under the foil and lifts it out of water, it melts through. Picture on the way. --Wtshymanski (talk) 02:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Lots of hype on the Web saying things like 'induction sales are up 40% this year' but no visible numbers of units sold.  The claims for Japan and the rest of Asia are undocumented.  The German wp has a table from 2004 with no sources given.  I think a trend line showing units sold from, say, 1972 to last year, by continent, would be of great interest. But I'm too cheap to shell out $4900 for the report that claims to give this sort of information. User:Owlcroft, do you have anything for sales statistics? --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:49, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Sales statistics needed

message: I'd like to get a reference for the current and voltage induced in the bottom of a pot. Some back-of-the-envelope calculations for 1 kilowatt, a 6 inch diameter pot, and all the resistance due to one skin depth in mild steel indicates current on the order of 150 amps and implies only a fraction of a volt to drive it, but my methods are crude and I'd like to see an authoritative source;(aside from the problem of WP:OR).  I know they are *safe*, they wouldn't be approved for sale otherwise, but it would be illustrate the point if we could say how many amps are circulating in the bottom of the pot. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Current and voltage needed

message: I think the Eddy current portion of the heating, as it is mentioned now in the article is wrong. Eddy currents are reduced by increasing resistance of a material (see e.g. transformer design). The main component of heating in ferromagnetic pots and pans is, in fact, magnetic hysteresis losses. I do not have a reference for this, but at least the physics makes sense this way since the manufacturers seem to recommend ferromagnetic materials and they will have _higher_ resistance and consequently _lower_ eddy losses.
128.84.69.132 (talk) 21:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You'd be a long time finding a reference for that. The IEEE paper doesn't consider hysteresis to be significant, and if you look at the photos, you'll see an induction cooktop can melt aluminum foil, a metal that has insignificant magnetic hysteresis. The reason that only magnetic pots work is due to the combination of small penetration of magnetic fields into ferromagnetic materials, and the relatively high resistance in that thin penetration depth; in non-magnetic material like aluminum, the current spreads out too deep and so encounters little resistance, unless you have only a thin layer of metal. --Wtshymanski (talk) 02:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your sentence from "The reason that only magnetic pots work" till the end should somehow be incorporated into the fourth paragraph in the introduction. From your comment I think I finally understood why it's important to use a pot with magnetic properties despite the stove-top (and not the pot) creating a magnetic field. There are two interacting magnetic fields in action, right? One is created by the pot and one by the stove-top. This seems important. 93.172.36.181 (talk) 20:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

text: I think the valid point in the IEEE paper is that higher voltages will be induced in a magnetic material because of higher permeability. This can be understood because the circuit will now have higher mutual inductance. I agree with this part. I think the other part about higher resistance of a magnetic material being better is incorrect because higher resistance _reduces_ heat loss in a material for a fixed voltage compared to a lower resistance. This effect is what is used in transformer design to _reduce_ eddy currents by increasing the resistance of the core. I think the article should correct this inaccuracy.
128.84.69.132 (talk) 05:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Fixed voltage is an un-necessary assumption. Think of the system like a current transformer - the more resistance a constant current has to ovecome, the more work it does. It would be as valid to think of the bottom of the pot as a single-turn secondary winding, with some equivalent resistance in circuit. A thick aluminum pot will not even be sensed by the cooktop as a valid load, whereas thin foil, with a high resistance (high areal resistance, specifically) heats just fine, though is liable to melt owing to its thin section. Nothing to do with hysteresis in any case. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am not sure if fixed voltage is an unnecessary assumption. From Maxwell's equations, for a varying magnetic field, you induce an electric field and hence a voltage in the secondary loop. It is not a constant current flowing - it is a constant voltage. So, for increased resistance, one will dissipate less power.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.84.68.146 (talk) 20:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's probably too simplistic to say "constant voltage" or "constant current". Recall that foil melts, but a thick aluminum pot doesn't even register - more resistance, more heat. You've got to use all of Maxwell's equations and don't forget Lenz' Law - that changing field induces a voltage,which causes a current to flow that tends to oppose that field. There's only one magnetic field but it's the resultant of two currents, one in the stove coil, one in the pot.--Wtshymanski (talk) 21:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  A thicker Al foil doesn't "register" because it has higher mass and as a consequence, higher heat capacity. I understand there's only one magnetic field. This is a simple transformer problem. I think someone else with a working knowledge of transformers needs to weigh in.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.84.69.5 (talk) 05:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eddy current vs Magnetic Hysteresis 

message: See the archived talk page for previous discussions on hob vs. cooker vs. cooktop, hysteresis, cookware, and other items. These discussions haven't been active for a while. New additions should go on this talk page, not in the archived page. --Wtshymanski (talk) 02:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Archived old discussions

message: "The time to boil a certain amount of water is inversely proportional to the power; a 3,600-watt induction element is three times as fast as a 1,200-watt element. The actual time depends upon the amount of water but it is typically a few minutes. Heating is much faster without water, e.g., for stir frying — a thin pan containing three tablespoons of oil may heat up to stir-fry temperature in as little as ten seconds." 
What is the value of this paragraph? There is little information and much of it is irrelevant. The very subjective words "thin", "three tablespoons", "stir-fry temperature" and "as little as ten seconds" found in the same sentence make the statement particularly imprecise and informal. I recommend this paragraph be deleted. -Furthermost (talk) 06:08, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this paragraph used to say something meanignful, but it's been up on the garage roof all summer and the color and meaning got leached out of it.  I've replaced it with something that at least I think is more meaningful. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Benefits 

message: If an induction cooktop is 84% efficient and a smooth top is 74% efficient, how much less energy does the induction top use?  12%, not 10%.  To put 100 units of heat in the pot, an induction top will consume 100/.84 = 119 units of energy from the line.  A smooth top will take 100/.74 = 135.  (135-119)/135 = 12%. It's the ratio of efficiencies, not the difference of efficiencies. --Wtshymanski (talk) 03:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed, Use the conventional smooth top as the base and discuss energy saved by switching to induction top, not the other way around. Math is hard. --Wtshymanski (talk) 03:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Efficiency

message: Sentence: "once that this has occurred all the subsequent energy input is delivered to the air as loss" is inaccurate. Part of the energy is used to change the chemistry of food (breakage of bonds, unfold proteins), as generally the food preparation is endothermic. For example calorimetry is used in food industry to assess the progress of temperature-induced changes, (see book: Calorimetry in Food Processing: Analysis and Design of Food Systems, Editor Gönül Kaletunç).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.94.216.112 (talk) 15:25, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Efficiency after reaching boiling temperature

message: So from reading the rest of this talk page, I can make the inference that a hob is a British English word for the burner or cooktop?  This is something which I have never heard used, nor can find reference to, in American English.  I recommend that all the references to 'hob' in this article be replaced with a synonym which is widely recognized in both British and American Englishes, as recommended by the Manual of Style's Opportunities for Commonality section (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Opportunities_for_commonality).  I don't like 'burner' for this because with the induction heating, nothing is actually being burned.  How does 'cooktop' work for the British English speakers? Tom (talk) 04:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: "Cooktop" doesn't even slightly work in British English. We'd probably work out what burner meant, but it's also not ever used in British English. "Cooker" and "Hob" are the only words used in British English, along with "hotplate" which is specific to certain types of (usually portable, single-pan) electric hob. In this case, it appears that there's no common word. Generally speaking, the Wiki etiquette is to leave the original article as written, and add (American English: Burner) or similar, with a redirect from that page where needed Audigex (talk) 17:19, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

text: Well...my local 10-pound Merriam-Webster dictionary at least gives "hob" as a projection into a fireplace used to keep things warm.  It doesn't give "cooktop" at all. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Still, the use of the word 'hob' will cause confusion for American readers, and replacing it with a word recognized and used in both British and American English would be beneficial for all readers.  Merriam-Webster does define 'cooktop' now.  The replacement need not be 'cooktop' though, just something other than 'hob'; are there any other suggestions for words which could work? Tom (talk) 02:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: So what do the sources call them? Hit the catalog Web sites and let's see what the kitchen renovators are recommending to their clients. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hob is a common word in English to describe the cooking device on which pans are heated (the other part is the 'oven' which often has a grill in it as well).  In fact, a more used word does not leap to mind.  (See  for an example of use).  Wikipedia has many articles written in English and it is recognised that some words may not be recognised by non English speakers (e.g. Americans). 86.166.70.84 (talk) 08:48, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Hob' is not used in American English 

message: Everyone who's contributed to this article can now say they've been published in the International Journal of Management and Business Studies, Hyderabad. Sadly, this article  is a little shy abuot revealing its roots on Wikipedia and other Web sites. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Any organisation plagiarising Wikipedia is taking a big risk given the low level of accuracy that it is famed for.  More so if you have had any input to an article. 86.166.70.84 (talk) 08:51, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyvio

message: Contributors please rate new induction cookware if you've been lucky enough to compare models. New types are 5-ply (induction friendly), and ceramic-coated (none induction friendly yet). Please list:
Make, Model #, Descriptor, Year, Set, Material, If Cladding: # ply's, list Ply Material, cladding up side or bottom only, if only some of ply's go up side, list which materials do, Coatings, (non-stick coatings have flaked off into food in the past, so if it is a new non-stick coating list type and advertised benefit). Ease of cleaning cookware with what product (i.e. Bar Keeper's Friend)? Comparison to other type of induction cookware used in the past? Optionally, cost, where bought and which sale if applicable?  19:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments by Spitzikitty 

message: Can someone perhaps revamp this statement so that it makes sense?
:. . . so the DOE efficiency value will be used. This applies to the energy used at the premises; when comparing with gas, the relative cost of electrical and gas energy, and the efficiency of the process by which electricity is generated, affect both overall environmental efficiency.
Rammer (talk) 04:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That was murky, how is it now?  What would be really nice would be a referenced clear discussion of grams of carbon emitted per megajoule absorbed by food for the different cases of heating method and energy source (coil stove-coal fired generation, induction-coal, induction-hydro, nuclear, or solar,  grid gas, on-site biomethane); the interested reader could probably calculate it from what's already in the article, but it's not our place to do this calculation. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarity needed 

message: i removed half a sentence, because it seemed to be a lie/mistake. it was sg like: "...this allows temperature control and prevents overheating in case of the pot boiling dry...". (sorry for the lousy citation, but my wife keeps talking to me while i am writing and i cant concentrate on two things simultaneously.) so it seems to me that having excellent temperature control does not provide in itself a way to detect when the pot became empty because all water boiled away. if there is such mechanism able to detect whether the pot contains liquid, please feel free to revert my edit but, please insert some explanation concerning how the induction cooker prevents a pot being overheated after it has boiled dry.(80.98.212.141 (talk) 20:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue with the pan overheating is making the pan go red hot damaging the hob itself, not burning the food. If you let it boil dry it will almost certainly burn the food.GliderMaven (talk) 14:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  one less mistake/lie in the article 

message: This section is confusing. Can someone who understands what the writer is trying to say, edit it so that it actually communicates clearly the intent?
Energy efficiency is the ratio between energy delivered to the food (and pan) and that consumed by the cooker, considered from the "customer side" of the energy meter. Cooking with gas has an energy efficiency of about 40% at the customer's meter and can be raised only by using very special pots,.[7] When comparing with gas, the relative cost of electrical and gas energy, and the efficiency of the process by which electricity is generated, affect both overall environmental efficiency[8] and cost to the user.
Sarafinadh (talk) 23:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarifying Language 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Induction cooking. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110811185456/http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/pdfs/cookgtsd.pdf to http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/pdfs/cookgtsd.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130626075007/http://www.energystar.gov:80/ia/business/evaluate_performance/site_source.pdf to http://www.energystar.gov/ia/business/evaluate_performance/site_source.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120927223120/http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/pdfs/cookgtsd.pdf to http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/pdfs/cookgtsd.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Induction cooking. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121121011553/http://rdmag.com/RD100SearchResults.aspx?&strCompany=Westinghouse&Type=C to http://www.rdmag.com/RD100SearchResults.aspx?&strCompany=Westinghouse&Type=C
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Induction cooking. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110707154301/http://www.appliancemagazine.com/editorial.php?article=2257&zone=114&first=1 to http://www.appliancemagazine.com/editorial.php?article=2257&zone=114&first=1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Induction cooking. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/pdfs/cookgtsd.pdf#page=49
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ima.kth.se/utb/MJ2663/Electrolux.pdf#page=57
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://aceee.org/files/proceedings/2014/data/papers/9-702.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130626075007/http://www.energystar.gov:80/ia/business/evaluate_performance/site_source.pdf to http://www.energystar.gov/ia/business/evaluate_performance/site_source.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:28, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Induction cooking. 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/20140502032647/http://www.dedietrich.co.uk/documents/DTiM1000C_techspecs.pdf to http://www.dedietrich.co.uk/documents/DTiM1000C_techspecs.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: A recent edit changed "high frequency alternating current" to "low radio frequency," when referring to 24 kHz.
It seems to me that, in the context of "alternating current," the baseline comparison is 60 Hz, so 24 kHz is certainly "high-frequency." But, for sure, in the context of radiofrequency energy, 24 kHz is quite low, and is certainly well under the 3 MHz bound for high frequency.
The article's lead section makes reference to "low radio frequency alternating electric current." At first, I intended to revert 's edit, but it seemed too dissonant to have one part of the article saying it was low radiofrequency and another saying it was high frequency alternating current. Of course, both are true.
I'm not sure how we should fix this (or if it really even needs fixing? Perhaps it is not necessary to make a value judgment as to whether it is low or high. Or perhaps it is fine to pick one and use that. Or perhaps there is not meaningful confusion and both can be used?). Thoughts? jhawkinson (talk) 07:31, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Characterizing the frequency as high or low