Talk:Electric stove

This article doesn't seem to make any mention of the kind of electric cooker with the spiral heating element, which was like the only kind for eighty years. It just skips right to those ceramic-top ones. Sofar 2 (talk) 08:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Invented twice?
Text originally moved from the stove article. There are two different inventors / dates listed here for invention. Which is it? Chris Cunningham 20:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's very unlikely that Ahearn did anything related to the electric stove in 1882. What is known is that in 1892, he prepared a meal which he transported by streetcar to the Windsor Hotel.  This is known from the press it received in the Ottawa Journal.  The internet articles with claims about stoves and inventions and the years they mention likely stem from this.  For creation of this meal, it is highly likely that he used a device which he patented in 1892, a device he called "electric oven".  It is also highly likely that Ahearn employed some of his ideas for use in electric stoves, it is likely that some of these ideas were highly innovative, and it is likely that he built some stoves.  However, the only official records of any of this are likely to only be the 1892 patent for his "electric oven" device.

Induction
Someone please clarify the part about ferromagnetic cookware. Any conductor will heat up if induction currents are going through it, it does not need to ferromagnetic for that. What frequencies do they use? Sergivs-en 06:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and modified the article... If anyone knows better, please provide sources.78.43.249.100 (talk) 22:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * An editor who always believes he knows better than everyone else changed it back. It's been reverted.  It was true that hobs using older technology did require ferrous metal pans and say so in their literature.  A lot of the newer hobs use a higher frequency which works with any metalic pan (though I'm not sure why ferrous was required in the first place as it surely must be eddy currents that provide the heat and these are not confined to ferrous metals).  In fact the better conductors such as copper work better than steel pans on the latest technology. 86.150.65.44 (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * This is expanded upon in Induction cooking, referenced to the paper by Moreland who built Westinghouse's first commercial induction cooktop. It's useful to think of the "surface resistance" of materials for induction cookware - this is a result of the skin depth in the material and its resistivity. If the magnetic permeability varies and the (bulk, DC) resistivity remains constant, the skin depth is deeper in the lower permeability material, the current penetrates deeper, and so the effective resistance is less. At circa 24 kHZ, the surface resistance of a stainless pot is about 80 times that of a copper pot, which means the induction coil develops much less power in the copper vessel. Since skin depth is proportional to the square root of frequency, to obtain the same heating effect that stainless steel develops at 24 kHz would require a frequency hundreds of times higher in copper. I suppose someone makes solid-state devices that can produce a couple of kilowatts at 150 MHZ, but they won't be as cheap as a magnetron. Keeping all the power in the near field would be a challenge, too.


 * Would our learned anonymous correspondent care to provide a citation for an available induction range that works with copper pots? Who makes it, where can I buy one? Oh, and thanks for the personal attack, too, eh? --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Can you smell something? Doggy do?  No.  Cats?  Nope.  I know what it is - it's BULLSHIT!  One editor has a hob that does not work with non ferrous pans, therefore no hob works with a non ferrous pan.  Perfect logic - NOT.  My Teknik hob works perfectly with aluminium pans.  However, I am pretty sure that it is rebadged from another manufacturer as all there other stuff seems to be so I cannot tell you who actually made it.  And I have no idea on the technical details either. 212.183.128.165 (talk) 16:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It was not a personal attack but a statement of undisputed fact (and was not even disputed by you at the recent Request for Comment Request, whose outcome you still continue to ignore. The above two points underline the point admirably. 86.150.65.44 (talk) 17:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it's a personal attack. Could you please expand on the "Teknik" brand name, all I can find are alibaba.com and similar sites that give me some Malaysian company. If you type in "induction cooking aluminum" you get several hundred hits on Google explaining that aluminum pots don't work with induction cooktops. A single cite to a manufacturer's Web site that says they make a product that does work with aluminum or copper pots would be very valuable. Until that comes up, it seems to be unverifiable. --  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wtshymanski (talk • contribs) 18:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You have the burden of citation the wrong way around. You are the one making the claim (or reverting the claim if you did not make it originally) that they only work with ferrous pans.  The burden of citation therefore lies with you to provide the necessary references.  Whilst I would agree that: histotrically I believe that induction stoves did only work with ferrous pans, the relentless pace of technological advancement is such that it may no longer be true and as such, I certainly would not unreservedly support such a claim without evidence - after all, I made a career out of doing the 'impossible'.  Any reference supplied must therefore by an up to date one proving the impossibility, not something from a couple of years ago.  Your contribution above is unreferenced and reads as original research.


 * I am familiar with the 'Teknik' brand name as I have a kitchen full of Teknik appliances, as will many people in the UK (and possibly Europe?) who have had a custom kitchen installed. They do not manufacture anything, but buy in branded appliances; attach their own brand name (or more likely, get the original manufacturer to do so) and then sell via custom kitchen installation companies.   It seems that this way, the kitchen owner has a variety of manufacturer's appliances, but a single brand name and uniform appearance throughout the kitchen.  There is rarely a clue as to who the original manufacturer is but you do get to find out who made a particular appliance when it goes wrong; you contact Teknik and a van from the original manufacturer (or their service agent) shows up. It was this way that I found out that my dishwasher is made by Bosch, so they do seem to use reputable sources.   As far as I know, Teknik don't sell via any other route, so they don't seem to have an on line presence or any form of catalogue.  I am very surprised that googling 'Teknik' turns up zero hits with respect to domestic appliances as I would have thought that at the very least there would at be a forum somewhere with people griping about their appliances.  There are a few (AFAICT unrelated) companies with similar names such as 'Tecnic' or 'Tecknic'. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 11:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Even if "Teknik" only labels white-box manufactured items, I would expect some kind of customer support Web site. Or do they only sell to the kitchen builders and don't expect to deal with consumers directly? Google apparently gives different results in different parts of the world. A URL to a (UK) "Teknik" brand Web site might have a link to descriptions of their induction cooktop hobs, which would then allow a link to a citation to something that says their induction hobs work with alumin(i)um, copper, Pyrex, etc. I found something called "Tecnik" ( letter C, not letter K) at something called http://www.homeappliancesuk.com/tecnik/ - but you say this isn't related and they don't have induction hobs anyway. A URL would be a great help. I found someone trying to get help with a "Teknik" UK brand dishwasher but no links to the company web site so far.

There are a fair number of references at Induction cooking and none of the ones I've checked, starting with inductionsite.com and working down to the 1975 IEEE paper, say that any available induction hob works with alumin(i)um or copper cookware. Surely this great innovation in induction cooking, which would be welcomed by anyone who loves the look of copper bottom cookware, should not be so obscure that *no one* is talking about it? --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC).


 * Although I don't have an induction hob (mine is an infra red ceramic job), my neighbour had a new kitchen around three months ago with these ubiquitous Teknik appliances including an induction hob.  Apparently, she tells me, that the pots and pans came as part of the deal.   I can confirm that a magnet does not stick to any part of them.  I have just weighed the 8 inch saucepan and it comes in at 681 grammes which strikes me as far too light for there to be any iron or steel in it.  She can't locate the user manual at present otherwise I would have seen what it says, if anything, about pan material.  86.150.65.44 (talk) 18:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I was hoping to be helpful here. I just dug out the user manuals for my kitchen appliances with the intent of giving contact info here.  Although there is a manufacturer's 1 year parts and labour warranty printed on the anti-penultimate page of each book, there is no actual contact information - very helpful.  The documentation from the kitchen installer says to contact them for warranty claims (which I recall is what I did for the dishwasher).  This is equally unhelpful as they went bust last year.  I therefore find myself unable to provide any useful information on this company that seems to place secrecy on a par with the freemasons.  DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 19:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I have just tracked the company down. Their head office is in Pittsford, New York.  DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 19:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Dang it! I saw the first 'k' and didn't check the last letter.  It's another close spelling and another unrelated company, 'Teknic Inc.'.  They are into motor controls and accessories, not kitchen appliances.  Sorry about that.  DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 19:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * If you have an "aluminium" pan, and it works on an induction hobs, then look for a copper baseplate added to it. This is a common way to make high-end aluminium pans, and a recognised way to make them work with induction hobs. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Copper? Or (ferritic) stainless? Copper has the same problem as aluminum, the permeability is so low that current spreads through the whole depth of the metal - at least at the 20-50 kHz variety of induction hob. My frequency counter can't tell me the frequency of my GE Profile because the AC isn't filtered and the counter doesn't lock on to a circa. 24 kHz carrier with 100%+ modulation depth of 60 Hz on it. --Wtshymanski (talk) 02:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * From the example pans, copper. I think this is probably for better thermal conductivity on small electric rings, or gas burners. Techniques thus developed some time ago for bonding copper thermal baseplates onto both aluminium and stainless pans. When induction hobs appeared later on, the same manufacturing technique was useful again. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * There is that smell refered to above again. 86.150.65.44 (talk) 12:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * An induction cooktop that worked with aluminum or copper pans would be a significant breakthrough in technology and would not be this hard to document. I still don't see a reference saying that there exists a commercially-available induction top that works with copper, or aluminum cookware. You're awfully confident about this and I would be genuinely interested to see a citation of the existence of such a product. If it existed, I expect it would be in high demand. Yes, many pots and pans have copper bonded to the bottom (or were made of copper), but if the copper is the bottom layer of the pot, it effectively shields any steel layers and so doesn't work with induction.


 * Someone weighed an 8 inch sauce pan and thought it was too light to be made of steel - I don't have an 8 inch saucepan, but the 24 cm Ricardo non-stick pan weighs a little over 1050 grams (and works well with induction - it was on bacon frying duty this weekend). Scaling as the square of the diameter (sauce pan height or thickness probably doesn't reduce  with reduced diameter), 8 inches would be around (20/24)^2*1050=730 gr. The other 24 cm pan I weighed is a Paderno with a heavy bimetallic sole plate (aluminum/stainless) on the bottom and it weighed around 1300 gr. I could well imagine a nearly-700 g pan that still had enough steel in it to work with an induction top. The "magnet sticking" test is given in sources,( such as inductionsite.com, Chowhound, and a few books) but applies to the sole plate only. The Paderno pan I tried doesn't strongly attract a magnet except at the sole plate. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Someone else has already pointed out that you are the one claiming the impossibility. No one else has to prove anything.  The burden (WP:BURDEN) of providing references to back you claim rests entirely with you.  A quick count through this discussion thread and the article history shows that five other editors say that you are wrong and a subset of them are aware of non ferrous pans that work with induction technology.  Does that not tell you why you cannot find the requested evidence? 86.150.65.44 (talk) 14:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The magnet totally failed to be stick to the bottom or any other part of the pan. The pans look like aluminium, but it could well be that the bottom could contain something else such as copper, though the weight is against this as copper is denser than steel.  It certainly ain't ferrous. 86.150.65.44 (talk) 14:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Cool. Now if we could only get the name of the maker of this cooktop,we could authoritatively revise both articles. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

If I posted 1% of the citations that Google Books turns up, I'd be accused of link bombing. For starters, here's, and  all saying aluminum pans don't work on induction. Could someone please find a reference for this mystery company that makes the miracle induction cooker that works on aluminum pans? Why is no-one writing about it? Nothing on Google Books, nothign on the Web, Smeg and Fagor and GE are silent on this...c'mon, if it exists, it's got to have some citations. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * As has already been pointed out: it has been stated that the requirement to use ferrous based pans seems to be historical - hence you may well dig up references that support the historial view. There now seems to be evidence that this is no longer the case.  I believe this is why DieSwartzPunkt insisted that any references that you dug up had to be up to date  You have categorically stated that induction systems that are capable of operation with non ferrous pans are impossible.  Yet you have thus far failed to prove it.  Basically: put up or shut up.  In the absence of evidence of impossibility, Induction cooking will require revision to remove the unsubstantiated claim (this article is OK at present - and factually accurate either way!).  In view of the number of editors that claim to be aware of pans that are non ferrous, there would appear to be more than one company knocking these things out.  We certainly know there are at least two, Teknik and whowever's product they rebadged. 86.150.65.44 (talk) 18:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I've already got three citations that say aluminum doesn't work. No-one can point me at a Web page or book that says there is a company that makes an induction unit that works with an aluminum cookpot. So, till someone *finds* this elusive product, I think it's fair for this article to observe that induction cooktops don't work with non-ferrous cookware. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 *  No.  You've got three references that say that up to the point they were published that technology had not advanced far enough that anything other than ferrous would work.  You have still not provided a reference that anything other than ferrous is impossible.  This is not the same thing.  Without that reference, any claim is unproven and therefore unacceptable in WP.  The article is entirely accurate the way it is at present.


 * If you suggested to an electronic engineer in the second world war that you could amplify signals using little more than the sand from the beach, he would say, "impossible". And so it was - at the time.   But technology moves on.  The fact that you are unaware of how it can be done doesn't make it impossible.  Only a proof of impossibility will cut that particular mustard.  But then we do have those five editors who are telling you otherwise. 86.156.154.237 (talk) 11:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Three of many fairly recent references. Five (?) editors ( how many editors to an IP address? How many IP addresses to an editor?), not one of whom has produced a reference; and the only editor who's registered a name has made an effort to reference the mysterious Teknik cooktop, only to find he's come up with nothing citable. Why is  this stunning advance in British technology not being trumpeted from the rafters, instead of only being available from one outfit that is too humble to have a Web site?  Even the enthusiast Web sites like Chowhound still seem to think that ferromagnetic pots are still required for induction cookery. Instead of multiple print and Web references, I'm to take on faith the assurance that some anon IP address weighed a neighbor's frying pan and thinks that their cooktop is induction. Come on. Given the level of credibility I wouldn't be suprised if my anononymous correspondent had confused "halogen" with "induction", as a charitable explanation. ( And a WWII electronics engineer would be very familiar with silicon detector diodes, and if he wasn't too swamped with radar work he might have been able to tell you why Lillenfeld's device didn't work. Beach sand is about as close to semiconductor grade silicon as I am to being made of prime rib.) --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Correct me if I am wrong here, but silicon detector diodes comes up rather short in the amplifying department. As for silicon and beach sand being far removed from one another, where do you think the silicon for semiconductor devices comes from?
 * To expand on 86.156.154.237's analogy. I could cite 3 electronic reference works that all state that the only devices capable of amplifing a signal rely on hot cathodes and a vacuum.  Therefore, amplifying by any other method is impossible.  A facetious argument?  Of course it is.  But is exactly the argument that you have been employing.


 * I note that you have snuck a reference in, but save us all the trouble of trying to find it, what exactly does it say?


 * And including the editor who made the original change, I make it 5 editors as well: 3 IP addresses (who despite your opinion are as entitled to edit and have say as anyone else) and 2 registered editors. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The Basics of Physics, 2006, page 267, "Aluminum and copper cookware that are not magnetically sensistive will not work."

Design and Equipment for Restaurants and Food Service, 2008, page number hidden by Google Books, but "Most steel and cast iron pans are fine, but those made of aluminum, copper and some types of stainless steel are not magnetic and, therefore, will not work on an induction range top."

How Baking Works 2010, page 25 "Cast-iron and some stainless-steel pans work on induction burners, but those made of aluminum or copper do not."

I look forward to a citation about an induction cooktop that works with aluminum or copper cookware. All this talk about romantic walks on a World War II sandy beach is beside the point. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that. The references are dated 2006 and 2010, and it could still be that what it states was true with the state of the art as of 2006 and 2010 respectively.  It would seem that these developments are fairly recent.   The statements given thus do not constitute proof of impossibility, and you have thus failed to provide the required proof of your claim.


 * I am a bit curious with one fragment, "...and some types of stainless steel are not magnetic and, therefore, will not work on an induction range top.". The type of stainless steel refered to is austenitic stainless steel.  However, it is still principally iron.  The only difference between austenitic stainless steel and martensistic stainless steel (which is magnetic) is the adition of a small amount of nickel.  Nickel's magnetic properties cancells those of the iron.  But since the bulk of the steel is still mainly iron, why should it make a difference to whether it works or not?  Austenitic stainless steel is not particualarly suitable for pressing into pans anyway, and I believe it is rather unlikely that a pan manufacturer will machine pans from the solid, though whether they would machine bases is another matter.


 * Are you now claiming that it is not the metal the pans are made from but the fact that they are magnetic? If so, solid chrome and solid nickel pans would all work as both are magnetic (gold also has magnetic properties but a set of solid gold pans would just be plain ostentatious!).  And, at least in theory, a pan made from solid oxygen would also work (if a little briefly). DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I make no claims, look at the references. I haven't the patience or expertise to teach you the metallurgy of stainless steel in a talk page comment. Since we're into anecdotes and rumors here, I relate that I can amuse myself by sliding a magnet around my kitchen sink - on some parts of it, the magnet sticks notably, on others, it doesn't - all to do with the varying permeability of the stainless steel, due to deformations of the crystal structure during working. So, yes, an alloy of ferromagnetic iron and ferromagnetic nickel can, under some circumstances, have a very low permeability - just as a compound of a flammable metal and a poisonous gas can be a delightful addition to a meal. Don't forget that austenetic and ferritic forms interchange depending on the history of the sample.  --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

More on Teknik. It seems that our IP editor who introduced the name managed to misspell it (and I somehow copied the spelling without noticing in spite of having the correct spelling in front of me). Doh! The correct spelling is 'Tecnik' (yet another variation). However, the correct spelling does not help a great deal as all I can find is companies offering spare parts for (what I presume) is a very limited range of their products. I presume this because mine are not amongst them. There is also a company offering support and manuals (here ) however, the range seems limited again because only one of my appliances is listed, and there are no ceramic hobs listed, induction or infra-red, and certainly not mine. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 15:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The narcoleptic IP above says "There now seems to be evidence that this is no longer the case." The IP editor is mistaken; no WP:RS has been offered. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Apart from the abusive remark, there is anecdotal evidence from 4 5 other editors. As has been repeatedly stated: that you are unaware of something does not mean it does not exist or is impossible.  As has also been stated, it is not up to other editors to provide evidence to disprove your claim.  The burden (WP:BURDEN as you obviously still have not read it) of providing the evidence to support your claim rests entirely with you.  A proof of impossibility is required.  No proof - no claim. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * This is abusive. I've got three cites above. Anecdotal evidence isn't a reliable source for Wikipedia. There is no evidence, none, that an induction cooktop is available that works with aluminum.  It's not a question of the "current state of the art", if you have a 200 mm coil energized at the 100+ MHZ required to induce a kilowatt or more into a copper or aluminum pot, it will radiate like a ham radio rig during contest week. Every book I've found discussing induction cooktops is consistent on this, right up to a 2010 copyright date. If there was an induction cooktop that worked with aluminum, where's the books/Web pages to prove it? There aren't any, because our mystery IP addresses can't provide one - because it doesn't exist. Show me. Find me a Web page, a review, a chalk drawing on the side of a burned-out apartment block...something other than "I say so" by some axe-grinding IP address. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

It's a red herring, anyway. No-one has to cite the impossibility of a copper/aluminum compatible induction cooktop, teh article merely observes that cooktops work with ferromagnetic pans. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow, I seem to have started something. I shall therefore provide what little information that I have. The hob is a Tecnik model TKG8725u induction hob. I did mis-spell 'Tecnik' previously - sorry about that. I have the Instruction manual in front of me now [Document ref: 626-854 (3865).1].

Page 3 of the manual lists the features in bullet point form including: The TKG8725u has the following features

There is no further clue as to what the technology is a hybrid of. It would seem that the technology is not actually Tecnik's as we know that it is a rebadged product (the marketing men strike again).
 * The latest Tecnic hybrid induction technology.
 * The latest Tecnic hybrid induction technology.

Page 6 discusses cookware: Tecnik's hybrid technology means that this hob will work quite satisfactorily with cookware made from a wide variety of materials and is not limited to iron or steel pans like traditional induction cookers. The heating effect is dependant on the material from which the cookware is made, though cookware made from ferrous metals will impart a greater heating effect than copper or aluminium. These later types of cookware are usually marked as suitable for induction cookers. I think that last sentence is a typo or mistranslation because I believe they are refering to the ferrous pans being marked. Interesting that they use the word 'materials' rather than 'metals', though I think it is reasonable to assume that polythene will not work. The greater heating effect of ferrous pans would suggest that the hybrid is a combination of the existing technology and something else, but I have no clue beyond blind conjecture.

There is no web address, geographical address or phone number in the instruction manual. 212.183.128.106 (talk) 12:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Now we've got something to go on. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Sadly, Google can't find TKG8725u, TKG 8725, TKG8725, Tecnik TKG8725, etc. (What a contrast with, oh, say "Smeg induction" which gives literally a million hits. "GE PHP900 reviews" gives tens of thousands of hits, the first pagefull looks to be about the cooktop) "Tecnik hybrid induction hob" gives a million results, mostly shopping sites and parts sites, curiously also Siemens and Miele sites,  but no specifics. There's a spare parts site called 4domex.co.uk that lists spares for Tecnik models TKC8525, etc - so the model number looks to be in the same style ( and I wouldn't expect any consumer-replaceable spares in an induction hob anyway). "Tecnik" seems to be very nearly a Google "stop word", it comes up in so many different searches it's like it makes no effect on the search at all.


 * No Web site, no reviews, places that sell "Tecnik" or "Teknik" appliances don't list this model series, or don't even let you search for a "Tecnik" (etc.) brand name, no manufactuer's Web site 'cause it's one of those 21st century branding companies that outsources the mere *manufacturing* to whoever...no reviews, no books talking about the wonder of "hybrid induction technolog". I'm still not sold on this.
 * There's no chance "hybrid" means "has a halogen element as well as induction", is there? Can this hob do the "boiling water in a pot through three sheets of newspaper" stunt that illustrates the induction effect, with an aluminum pot? Is the varying spelling a result of erratic Taiwanese proofreading?


 * I've started E-mailing people who seem to know about induction tops...no response yet, though. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Your indenting corrected. Please learn to indent correctly WP:INDENT.


 * We have been having this problem with Tecnik all along. It is a bit unusual that Googling the 'manufacturer' or the appliance type brings up virtually nothing except suppliers of spares plus the odd manual and FAQs.  Even the range of appliances for which these are available seems somewhat limited.  However, your point about consumer replaceable parts for induction cookers is an entirely valid one.  Even though we now have the correct spelling, I am still surprised that there are no forums with people complaining about minor complaints as virtually every other supplier and product has.  There is no doubt that Tecnik as a company exists and they sell real products.  I have never known such an ellusive organisation to track down.  We are obliged to assume that the information given was provided in good faith.  However, Wtshymanski has raised a legitimate question over the 'hybrid' part of the technology which does require clarification.


 * If (or when) 212.183.128.106 sees this perhaps he could verify that it is the induction technology that is hybrid, or whether the induction is hybrid with something else. Personally, I cannot see the advantage of combining induction technology with halogen or infra-red or whatever.  But then I am not a designer, manufacturer or hawker of cookers.  I would have left a comment on his talk page but it appears to be a dynamic IP address.


 * It is interesting that their are no company details on the documantation because UK law requires that every product sold is identified with the registered details of the manufacturer (if made or assembled in the UK) or the importer if it is not. However, judging by some of the goods I buy, this does not appear to be rigourously enforced.


 * I just had a thought and tried Googling some of the known suppliers of fitted kitchens to see if their were any details (or possibly complaint forums), but, I have drawn a blank here as well. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 14:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't help that Google seems to filter by geographic area, so that much of what I get is not relevant to a UK supplier of appliances. It's downright weird that so little chatter on the World Wide Web pertains to this company. I've read, I can't recall where, of combination induction/halogen or induction/gas cooktops but I can't find the site right now nor can I find an on-line catalog that describes them.  The point, as I recall it, was precisely so that you could continue to use copper-bottom pans; some people have more invested in cookware than I have in a car.


 * 212.183.128.106, you may be our only hope! --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

What is this erratic spelling of which you complain? I have just read through what 212... wrote and found only one (insignificant) spelling mistake - and that maybe just a typo. Or are you complaining about the word 'aluminium' which is spelt perfectly correctly (as indeed is the italisised word, (as indeed is that last italisised word) ad infinitum). I am aware that there is an entire continent that has no idea how to spell 'aluminium' and a good many other English words besides. 86.156.154.237 (talk) 17:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * That's sweet; you're very brave to be coping with your self-esteem issues so well, and I wish you luck. Google Translate says the Spanish Wikipedia has"Is possible to manufacture an induction cooker work with any metal conductor, however the conventional system is simpler and cheaper. To heat metals like aluminum, can be used several coils that are activated cyclically, one after another, generating a moving magnetic field as an AC motor .  This same effect is used to using aluminum in speedometers and squirrel cage motors."
 * But no citation or brand name or anything! German, French and Swedish articles don't help either. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Incompetent indenting corrected. It would have been good to find out more details about my neighbour's Teknik (or Tecnik or whatever) hob, but unfortunately, they have gone on holiday so we will have to wait.


 * Interesting find on Spanish WP, but I'm not sure where the speedometer and squirrel cage motor come in. I don't believe that the goal is to heat anything up in either of those applications. 86.156.154.237 (talk) 10:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I have a mental picture of a cooktop full of pots slowly revolving. I don't understand how a "rotating" field can heat things any better, either. I've e-mailed the Webmaster at theinductionsite.com - they list a bunch of UK induction hobs but the Te{c|k|ck|ch}ni{c|k|ck} name is not there. No response yet. If the neighbor is amenable, a quick look at the hob nameplate nd instruction manual could provide valuable information. If the neighbor has ever done the "boiling water through newsapaper" stunt, (with an aluminum or copper pot), it would demonstrate a pure induction hob and not some combination radiant/induction hybrid. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It has been established, I believe, that the correct spelling is 'Tecnik'. As I said, my neighbour is away on holiday, so is not available at present for further investigation.  Somehow, I doubt whether she has attempted to boil water through a copy of The Times or any other newspaper.  At the moment we are pinning our hopes on 212... .  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.154.237 (talk) 14:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability says in part "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source." I have provided a reliable source (one of many) that says you need ferromagnetic cookware. The proponents of the "Tecnik" stove have yet to find a source showing the opposite. The quote from the owner's manual above, is frustratingly vague and does not identify what the "hybrid" principle is. This might be a "hybrid" halogen-induction combination top, for example.

Since the discovery of an induction cooktop that works with aluminum would be a technological breakthrough on the order of the 53 kbps modem or the self-starter in the automobile, it is *intensely* curious and bizzarre that not one on-line source mentions this. It would overcome one of the major objections people have to induction cooking, namely, that an inventory of cookware that may cost more than the hob itself might have to replaced to use an induction hob. I'm not convinced that there is not some kind of honest mistake made here and the owner of the hob in question has either misidentified the cookware or the technology of the hob.

This site makes the observation that Tecnik is still serviced by BSH group, but that it is a line of "low end budget appliances", "cheap and nasty", and ( as has been observed above) are sourcing appliances from around the world to put their name on. This website calls "Tecnik" a "dead brand" owned by Moben Kitchens and sold through Kitchens Direct. Does anyone else find it a little curious that this brand would be the *sole source in the world* of a breakthrough in high-end cooking technology? --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Also - a company going out of business would explain the lack of a current Web site. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * "Moben" is a breakthrough. This page ] lists a few Technik (with an H, forsooth!) hobs (also Tecnic with no Ks) but none with the TKG model prefix offered above and nothing listed as induction, "hybrid" or otherwise. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * With the number of companies with variations on the name of 'Tecnik', we cannot assume that any alternate spelling is related to the company we are after. It is not unknown for other companies to trade on a good name using a variation of the spelling (and we seem to be knee deep in them).  The number of market stalls here selling 'Duracel' batteries (made in China) instead of the more reputable 'Duracell' alkaline batteries (if you are unfamiliar with the brand) made anywhere but.  DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I believe the Tecnik name has been sold on, because kitchen suppliers other than Moben are now using the brand (Moben ceased trading a couple of years ago, and a brand name can be worth money to the administrators). There is one at the other end of town and their showroom is full of Tecnik (and other) appliances (can't recall their name at present).  Moben had a very good reputation while they were trading (and were considered one of the best, if not the best, supplier of fitted kitchens in the UK).  I doubt they would have taken kindly to being described as 'cheap and nasty'.  My sister had one of their kitchens, and it is certainly finished to a high standard (including the appliances - and no, she has not got an induction hob).  Beyond that, I have still found little else.


 * Let's get something straight here. I personally do not know of any induction cooker that will work with aluminium (or any other non ferrous metal) pans.  I also do not know if it is possible that someone may develop a system in the future or may even be selling one now.  Wtshymanski has been claiming all along that it is impossible to use an induction system with non ferrous pans.  In order for a statement like that to remain in the article, then he must supply a suitable reference to support the claim.  To use his own argument, if it really is impossible then it should be easy to find a reference that supports this contention.


 * He has also been suggesting that one of the other editors prove that it is possible. The only problem here is that it is virtually impossible to prove that something is possible except by actually doing it.  Maybe some manufacturer already has, maybe they haven't.  But if it cannot be proven to be impossible, then it is possible that, if it has not already been done, that it may be done in the future.


 * Still with me?


 * As such, in the absence of evidence of impossibility, this article (and the Induction cooking article cannot claim that induction cooking only works with ferrous pans). What it can say (assuming it has not actually been done) is that with the available technology it is not currently possible to use non ferrous pans (or austenitic stainless steel pans which also are ferrous), which would be encyclopedically more accurate.


 * I suggest that we await for 212.183.128.106 to report back (hopefully soon) with his findings or for 86.156.154.237's neighbour to return from her sojourn. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:15, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I think this is almost the inverse of the argument I have. Recall that the standard on Wikipedia is not "truth", but "verifiability". We have many reliable sources (with names and publishers!) saying "If you want to use an induction cooker you must use magnetic pans" or similar wording. There is no "verifiable" statement about an induction cooker that works with copper or aluminum cookware. It's not "verifiable" that there exists an induction cooker that works with copper or aluminum. It's not necessary to say that its impossible, only that, if you find an induction cooker in a house, you will find someone using magnetic pans on it.


 * I've spent far too much time on browsing various sites reporting the demise of Kitchens Unlimited, Moben and Tecnik Appliances/ Appliances Tecnic Ltd. One thing that I have noticed is that ovens or oven/cooktop combined "ranges" have the prefix TKC, dishwashers TKW, laundry washing machines TKL, and hobs TKH. I haven't found any Tecnik model numbers with a TKG prefix, nor have I found any ads for an induction Tecnik model. I note that they have some "duel fuel" electric/gas appliances. I've also seen many real estate ads advetising Moben kitchens with Tecnik appliances and some frustrating references to them about Tecnik hobs.


 * It doesn't even have to be a Tecnic hob. Surely the machine we've pinned all our hopes on was made by Neff or Bosch or someone else, who sells the *same technolgy* under their own name.  And yet, *no one* is talking about it. Not credible. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * There is much in what you say. But let's be patient a little longer and see if anything develops.  212.183.128.106 does not seem to be a particularly prolific editor. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * To pick up your other point, I think you have missed the essential point. If you were to concede that (in the absence of verifiable evidence to the contrary - the current position) that the present state of the art is such that non ferrous pans will not work, but acknowledge that this position could change with future developments (if not already developed), then the burden of evidence probably lays with verifying that technological changes mean that non ferrous pans may work now or in the future because the claim is non specific.  But that has not been your argument.  Your argument has consistently been that the use of non ferrous pans is impossible now or in the future.  That position shifts the burden of evidence to you because it is a specific claim that consequently requires verifiable references. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * All I know is what I read in the funny papers - and references. The references tell me induction cooktops only work with ferromagnetic pans. The claim is made by the authors of these various references, not me.  It's not my argument, take it up with Moreland, etc. The 1973 Moreland paper tells me *why* induction cooktops only work with ferromagnetic pans (I've read it, you could read it if you wnated). This breakthrough product by a white-box repacker who's gone out of business has no citations available to prove its existence aside from the above, very ambiguous, extract from an owner's manual for a product model number that has no visibility on Google at all.  If the product existed, someone other than anon IP editors would be writing about it on the Internet. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Here's what Moreland said in 1973 (barring OCR errors) "In the frequency range selected it is very difficult to heat utensils made entirely from aluminum or copper. The skin depth is quite deep and the resistivity low (see Table 1) so that, for normal thickness vessels, the surface resistivity is quite small. In fact, the transformed resistance would be comparable to the coil itself. Greater efficiency and higher power levels could be achieved in thinner vessels of these materials but these would not provide sufficient mechanical strength for a general purpose cooking utensil. Other nonmagnetic metals with a higher resistivity could be used, but even a 304 stainless vessel would have to be quite thin to obtain reasonably efficient heating at these frequencies. In addition, the poor thermal conductivity of such a vessel would not provide sufficient lateral heat transfer to obtain uniform temperatures, across its bottom." That's from IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications Vol. IA-9 No. 1 January/February 1973 page 82. Notice he doesn't say "impossible" either, he just says "difficult" (as in "expensive") - earlier on this page he gives the formula relating skin depth to frequency, which have an inverse square root relation. To get the same surface resistivity in copper as in 1010 mild steel, the frequency would have to be a coupe of thousdand times higher than the 24-50 kHz that cooktops now work at. If you're building something that works at 2500 times the freqeuncy of its predecessor, you're making quite a technlogical leap - even PCs haven't matched this.  --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * And page 155 of Tanya Ha, Greeniology 2020: Greener Living Today, and in the Future Melbourne Univ. Publishing, 2012 ISBN 0522858546 says "Aluminium, earthenware, and other non-magnetic cookware can't be used" - Moben has been out of business since before this was copyrighted. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

And here's your "hybrid" cooktop from Electrolux, model EW36CC55GW - two induction elements, three regular "electric". No mystery at all. I assume our "hybrid" above is the same. Sure it works with copper pots...but not by induction. --Wtshymanski (talk) 00:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, your own quotation above shoots your argument firmly in the foot. "In the frequency range selected it is very difficult to heat utensils made entirely from aluminum or copper"  This quotation does not say that is impossible.  Quite the reverse: it states that it is possible (if difficult).  The other problem is that it refers to, "... the frequency range selected ..." which clearly implies that it could become more possible if a different frequency range were to be selected.  You also claim to have found a hybrid hob that uses induction and infra-red (I believe) or regular heating elements.  That does not prove that 212.183.128.106's hob is a hybrid of induction and infra-red (that is pure speculation on your part).  I am intrigued because the fragment from the user manual refered to "... hyprid induction technology ...".  The way these words are arranged implies induction technology hybridised with another induction technology.  But we still have to wait and see if 212.183.128.106 responds, which I think we all hope he does and clears this up.


 * You also refer to Moben being out of business, but the relevance of this is a mystery as it has already been established that Tecnik appliances are still being supplied (by other kitchen fitters) despite the demise of the original owner of the brand name. I have tried to look at appliance availability on the web sites of two kitchen fitting companies close to where I live, but only one has much in the way of a web presence and no mention of individual appliances available (only types).  I suspect this is because the business model for fitted kitchens (at least around here) is that a "kitchen planner" (translation: salesman) visits your home and gives you the hard sell (which is what was tried on when my kitchen was replaced).


 * Also interestingly, I have been finding out what I can about induction technology and it is clear that the traditional technology works best with ferromagnetic pans (as opposed to ferrous pans), and that aluminium and copper do not work (possibly not work well from your own evidence). I have visualised a way of constructing a pan without ferrous metals that (I believe) should work on a traditional induction stove.  However, there is much to work out - I can see one or two minor obstacles.  I will not be revealing any details here (or anywhere else) as this would prejuduce any patent that I may apply for, if the idea has merit (Ideas in the public domain are non-patentable).  At present, I suspect that it may be non runner of an idea due to various factors.  DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, and by the way ISBN 0522858546 does not link to any known publication. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Obviously the wrong ISBN (from Google Books ) completely invalidates the whole argument. I don't know why our citation style requires author names and book titles, when in this modern Internet era all we need is the ISBN. There are several patented methods for using aluminum to heat food on on an induction cooktop, but none of them make "cookware" in the conventional sense; reading the Moreland paper will explain the obvious approach. The Moreland paper, too long and copyrighted to replicate in its entirety here, also explains *why* the "frequency range selected" is "selected" - you don't get a free choice, as it turns out, even with 21st century technology. No matter who makes the mystery hybrid stove, it is not credible that repeated Google searches have yet to turn up anyone talking about an induction hob that works with aluminum or copper utensils; at least two makers of "hybrid" induction/something else cooktops are out there, adn I don't need to spend more time to list them all.  Good luck with your patent application and the study of the metallurgy of stainless steel.  Anecdotal accounts on Chowhound say that people who've tried solid-nickel pans on induction find they work well.  --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * (Shoddy indenting fixed - again). So: there is at least anecdotal evidence that non ferrous pans do work.  More cracks in your argument.  Keep digging! 86.156.154.237 (talk) 15:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, and by the way --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Books on environmental matters by environmentalists are such reliable sources of information aren't they? Environmentalists are fundamentaly wannabe polititions who want to change the world to what they think it should be.  Like polititions, they will lie and deceive to achieve whatever goal they have in mind.  In the subject case, I doubt that the author of this self published book (in that it probably has no backing from any recognised authority) knows much about the technology she is describing and has relied on similar outdated material that you are relying upon. 86.156.154.237 (talk) 15:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I found your request for more information a couple of days ago, and have looked into this a bit more carefully as it seems that Wtshymanski had misgivings.

The hob (as stated) is a Tecnik TKG8725u and was supplied just over three months ago. It does not feature any capability of heating pans up by heat or infra-red. Indeed, during cooking, the hob itself does not emit any heat of its own. It was sold as induction only by the salesman, so I am not surprised at this. The surface is a shiny black (the book says ceramic) with 4 active parts marked (actually square with rounded corners, but I rather believe the active area is round).

None of the cookware supplied as part of the deal is magnetic. The pans themselves would appear to be made from aluminium with a non stick coating on the inside, and have an anodised exterior. My wife will not allow me to investigate them much further. I can boil a litre of water in around three and a half minutes with one of the pans directly on the hob. If I place three sheets of paper between the hob and the pan, the water still boils but takes a little over four minutes.

I tried to find out what the hob is radiating with an oscilloscope, but all it seems to register is rather a mish mash of signal. A spectrum analyser would probably have been a better bet, but I do not possess one. What I can tell you, is that whatever is being radiated, it seems to be modulated in some way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.128.168 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Induction (edit point)
I tried to add an on line link to the hob, but I do not seem to be able to find one. I have no idea what manufacturer it is rebadged from, so I can't persue that avenue either. Nor can I find any on line reference to the technology involved - and I certainly have no idea. 212.183.128.168 (talk) 16:11, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Very interesting. Thank you for that.  It would be interesting to know (and I note that you don't) how recent a development this technology is.  I also note that your hob is about three months old, but would have been in manufacture some months prior to that.  The underlying technology itself would have been in development for some while before that.  It is curious that attempts to research the technology come up blank.  I have to acknowledge that just because I don't know how it works and cannot seem to find out how it works does not mean that it cannot be done - and it obviously can be done.


 * I am just wondering. There was a reference to cycling fields in a quote above, suggesting a 'rotating' field.  Could this be the source of the modulation in the signal that you observed?  It might have been interesting to have had more than one probe connected to your 'scope to see if the time variance is different at differing parts of the hob surface. Any possibility? DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 10:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not believable that the biggest technological advance in cooking since the smoke hole in the roof has no Internet discussions at all. --Wtshymanski (talk) 04:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Whilst I agree that it is strange that there seems to be no mention of it on the internet, we still have to accept the information (and the edit to the article) as a good faith edit - the Wikipedia rules say so. That you do not believe it is not an acceptable reason to revert such a good faith edit.  There are many technological developments that have no discussion on the internet.  Now that the claim has been cited (and the user manual is an acceptable citation in that it is verifiable even if with difficulty), it is now even more encumbent on you to cite a proof that it is impossible if you wish to challenge the edit.  Deleting a validly cited edit is simply edit warring.  I recall that another contributor to this discussion has remarked that he has seen such a hob so the claim would, on the face of it, seem to have creedance. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I spotted the above two comments. Since my neighbour returned earlier this week from holiday, I popped round on the pretence of discussing something else.  Although there is no model number on the upper surfce of her hob (and I figured she might not be too impressed if I took it out to look at the tally plate), she did have the user manual to hand (which does not have a model number on it, just an illustration of the hob).  It looks similar to the one 212.183.128.168 described above so it is either the same or a similar model.  The interesting bit is on page 6 which says, "Tecnik's hybrid technology means that this hob will work quite satisfactorily with cookware made from a wide variety of materials and is not limited to iron or steel pans like traditional induction cookers.  The heating effect is dependant on the material from which the cookware is made, though cookware made from ferrous metals will impart a greater heating effect than copper or aluminium.  These later types of cookware are usually marked as suitable for induction cookers."  Thus to answer a point made by DieSwartzPunkt, the citation supplied by 212.183.128.168 (or whatever IP address he used when he supplied it) has now been positively and independently verified.  That it is word for word as quoted by 212.183.128.168 above would suggest that, at least at the textual level, it is the same user manual.  The only mystery remaining was my neighbour wondering why I scanned her user manual with a hand scanner!86.130.168.254 (talk) 17:29, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * In my limited experience, induction cookers do not use a filtered DC supply to run the oscillator, so the few kHz oscillator will be nearly 100% AM at twice the line frequency (unless you've got three-phase to the cooktop, sure, why not?). This makes the waveform difficult to observe on a 'scope, I used line triggering to freeze the envelope but then the actual oscillation is difficult to see (and I don't have a storage oscilliscope). I would love to see the instruction manual scan, and even more, I'd love to see some Web page or book somewhere that discusses this cooktop. --Wtshymanski (talk) 03:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Fortunately, Wikipedia is not based in your limited knowledge, though we all know that you think it ought to be. Since 211.83.128.168 didn't specify what the frequency of the modulation that he observed was (and it is reasonable to assume that if he is savvy enough to have access to an oscilloscope, then he is savvy enough to spot a 50, 60 100 or 120 hertz contaminant to his observations) then you are only assuming that the modulation is double the mains frequency because it suits the point that you have repeatedly been trying to hammer into the article come hell or high water. 86.130.168.254 (talk) 12:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Whilst you may be right about the modulation of the signal, on one point I have to side somewhat with Wtshymanski. As things stand (and as already said) we have to accept the claim on good faith (especially as it is backed up by two editors). However, it might seem strange that there is no mention of these hobs on the internet. I would not necessarily expect a full description of the technology, but some reference to the development might be expected. On the other hand, maybe the marketing men of the companies involved have failed to appreciate the significance of what some might regard as a subtle change to the way these things work. We have an interest in the development, but your average cook might not care too much as long as he can get his food to cook. The internet doesn't necessarily cater well to minority interests. How many times have you tried to google some specialist subject only to find little or nothing on the subject? DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 *  If the oscillator frequency is not synchronized with the oscillator, (and there's no reason for it to be synchronized), it's very difficult to get a non-storage scope to display the ("carrier") waveform; this is why 'scopes have special triggering for video waveforms, for example. The IP observer didn't describe what (s)he saw, other than to say trace was a mishmash. An order of magnitude estimate would be immensely useful here...if I were trying this, I'd snap a photo of the scope trace using line triggering, and maybe 50 uS/division or a little faster, with a digital camera to see if the oscillator was on the order of tens of kHz or tens of MHz. Line triggering would hold the envelope steady, and at 50 uS/division you'd seen one or two cycles per division for a conventional 24 kHz range, and thousands of cycles per division if the oscillator is in the HF range.
 * If you read foodie forums such as Chowhound, you'll see many stories of people who are reluctant to give up their thousands of dollars worth of Miele copper cookware to use an induction top. Yet I don't see anyone recommending to the cookware owners that they have an alternative. And these are serious foodies, who wouldn't blink at the cost of importing a UK-spec cooktop if it would work with their copper cookware. It's also highly mysterious that the companies who actually make cooktops (Fagor, Bosch, GE, Hitachi, etc.), as opposed to  white-label importers, don't mention this sizeable advance in technology. It's also highly frustating that the catalog number doesn't show up in a Web search, let alone the company offering the cooktop.


 * Like I said, if this is real, it's a huge advantage over conventional induction cookers and would warrant a lot more Web publicity than the talk page of a Wikipedia article.
 * Too bad I'm not a universal expert - unlike pro encyclopedia editors, I have to do something else to make my living. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This ] says Panasonic invented "all metal" induction cookers in 2009. And this says they were on sale in Japan in 2010. No explanation of how they work, though some indication of higher frequency in use. Perhaps the mystery bankrupt British brand name with no Web presence is relabelling Panasonic cooktops? --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This says that the cooktop switches to 3X the frequency for non-ferrous pans. I can't read the full paper because I haven't paid IEEE enough money. Must be something special in the coil design, too, because even at 3X the frequency the effective resistance is going to be very low. There's a patent filed...that will help, if I can find Panasonic's patent in English. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thus proving that technology can exist without you knowing about it. As has been repeatedly said: because you are unaware of it, that is not evidence that it does not exist no matter how much you believe otherwise. 86.166.70.84 (talk) 08:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Try not to be so uncharitable. I grant that Wtshymanski might have been somewhat anally retentive over the existence of (what we now know to be) all metal induction hobs.  At least he went in search of material verifying the technology and had the good grace to share it with us having found it.  Further, he has ammended the article Induction cooker to include the technology and the references that he found.  This is what Wikipedia needs, and it has to be said: that both that article and this article are clearly the better for it.  It is unfortunate that this discussion has been somewhat protracted (and it has to be said) because of Wthymanski's continued stance that the use of non ferrous metal was impossible.  I have to say that I was not totally convinced to start with, but in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I was prepared to keep an open mind. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Did I say "impossible"? Don't think so, but I did say I couldn't find any books talking about the "all metal" induction element and you must admit it's still fairly obscure. I still can't find an English-language book that says something like "Most cooktops need ferrous pots but Panasonic sells one that sort-of works with aluminum and copper". No-one has written any English-language hoopla about this, that Google can find, at any rate. Anon IPs on the Wikipedia are capable of writing the most plausible-sounding things and without references it's impossible to verify them - and even when there are references, a check sometimes reveals the putative references don't actually say what an editor claims they say ( found at least one imaginary Russian physicist this way).

Some places write that Panasonic started building these in 2005, though the IEEE papers are later. Panasonic appears not to promote them heavily outside of their home market, and at least one English abstract of a Japanese paper suggests that the electronics are significantly larger (and perhaps more expensive) than on "conventional" single-frequency induction elements. So, Panasonic has been making these things for 7 years and only a white-box relabeller from a bankrupt kitchen renovator is reselling them in the UK. There must be a reason. I speculate without any evidence that perhaps Matsushita/Panasonic feels the sales volume they'd reach in the US market would not pay for the FCC, UL, etc. testing they'd have to do. My E-mail to theinductionsite.com has gone unanswered, I'll try again with the Panasonic name to see if they can tell me any more. Maybe I can write to Panasonic Japan and see what they say. I still don't have a Pansonic/Matsushita model number.

It's still a reasonable thing to say that ferrous metals are induction compatible, and the number of Panasonic "all metal" tops must be pretty small outside of their home market. --Wtshymanski (talk) 04:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Whatever guise they are selling in, they must be selling in Europe in large enough quantities for the suppliers to pay for all the testing that has to be done to ensure 'CE' compliance (and it is very expensive), so one could hardly regard the market as 'small'. We do not have any evidence that the manufacturer being relabeled is Panasonic, though it might on the available evidence, be a pretty good bet. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 10:15, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Getting far afield from this article, but isn't a CE mark a manufacturer's self-certfication? (The Wikipedia article is more than a little murky.) By contrast, FCC, UL, CSA requires a third-party laboratory test for new products. If the Pansonic technology has a UK patent, then one explanation is that someone like Vance Miller is importing the Panasonic cooktop elements and re-selling them under the Tecnik label, since Panasonic (Matsushita) apparently doesn't sell the top under its own brand name outside Japan. Searching Matsushita (Panasonic) patents might give a clue, though it's useless as far as identifying model numbers that they use nor third parties who use their technology. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Continued on your talk page as not relevant to article content. 86.166.70.84 (talk) 11:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Efficiency of electric vs. gas stoves?
The assertion "Compared to a gas stove, electric stoves are less energy efficient" is not well supported.

The supporting reference for this goes to URL 1. http://tlc.howstuffworks.com/home/gas-vs-electric-cooking.htm which states "Because gas burners provide instant heat, and cooks have greater control over the temperatures, they're generally more energy efficient than their electric competitors" and refers to the UK site Directgov.

But if Directgov currently has nothing to say about the relative efficiency of gas vs electric.

And so, "which is more efficient" depends on what's included in the definition. Although electric stoves take longer to heat up and cool down, the flames on gas stoves heat a lot of things (the stovetop, the air) other than the pan or pot you want to heat. Overall, it seems unlikely that a gas stove is more efficent than an electric one, if oen looks only at the stove.

But if one includes the entire distribution system (fuel to electricity losses, and losses in distribution) the electric stove will have lower efficiency.

The bottom line: without more detail, the assertion "Compared to a gas stove, electric stoves are less energy efficient" is meaningless. It should be removed from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.61.25.254 (talk) 17:39, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Gas ovens are certainly less efficient than electric. The requirement to burn gas and air means that the combustion products together with the heat they contain has to be exhausted to the room space.  This is unnecessary with an electric oven (though the advantage is somewhat offset by the generally higher energy cost of electricity).  I believe that the same argument applies to gas hobs.  Professional chefs usually swear by a gas hob but an electric oven.  The argument they use is the inherent controllability of a gas hob, in that the cooking effect can be reduced almost instantaneously, but this also applies to modern electric systems such as infra red and induction. 86.150.65.44 (talk) 16:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

First technology?
"The first technology used resistive heating coils which heated iron hotplates, on top of which the pots were placed."

I am fairly certain that I have seen in several museums electric hobs where the pans are supported over bare iron wire heating elements. Probably an ideal arrangement if the pan boils over but nobody worried about things like that in those days! 86.150.65.44 (talk) 17:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The science museum in London has an excellent example in their domestic appliances gallery. It pre-dates the invention of nichrome heating elements, so I do not actually know what metal in the element is bit iron would be my guess.  The exhibit's tag notes the danger of the exposed element.  212.183.128.165 (talk) 17:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)