Timeline for Why didn't microwaving a stainless steel spoon set my kitchen on fire?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
30 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:33 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://cooking.stackexchange.com/ with https://cooking.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Mar 27, 2017 at 12:09 | comment | added | Astor Florida | Time to consider buying a dish washer | |
| Mar 27, 2017 at 4:21 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackCooking/status/846215510668840960 | ||
| Mar 27, 2017 at 3:02 | review | Close votes | |||
| Apr 1, 2017 at 3:04 | |||||
| Mar 26, 2017 at 2:25 | answer | added | evan dean | timeline score: -2 | |
| Mar 24, 2017 at 23:10 | comment | added | rumtscho♦ | A note for the comments and flags of "should be on Physics": The SE network policy is to always respect the OP's choice of site. If a question is on topic on the site where it was asked, it does not get migrated, no matter how well it would fit on a different site. Cross posting is also not allowed. The only thing that might still happen is that the OP decides to self-delete the question here and then post anew somewhere else. | |
| Mar 24, 2017 at 23:07 | comment | added | rumtscho♦ | @theonlygusti I disagree that the only thing random is the quantum world. Even with a narrow definition of randomness (I cannot predict it with any amount of information), determinism is an unsolved question. And if you accept a more pragmatic definition (I cannot predict it with the amount of information that I can reasonably gather) it is even more clear that we are talking about a chance of fire, not about a certainty of fire. | |
| Mar 24, 2017 at 22:55 | comment | added | user55537 | @rumtscho but the only thing that is random is the quantum world, and I don't think that the spoon not exploding would have been affected by that. There is no "random chance" that this will happen. | |
| Mar 24, 2017 at 6:51 | vote | accept | David Bruce Borenstein | ||
| Mar 23, 2017 at 20:32 | comment | added | Jason C | @rumtscho To be fair I am not sure this "random" as much as "something that would be understood by Physics users moreso than Seasoned Advice users". There's a fuzzy line between "not understood" and "random"! But of course there's a ton of variables we don't know as well, like the details of the design of this particular microwave, the detailed physical properties of the objects in it, etc. So, yeah. | |
| Mar 23, 2017 at 20:14 | comment | added | T. Sar | Welcome to the Sleep-Deprived Dads' Club! Congrats on your kids and condolences on your sleep. | |
| Mar 23, 2017 at 18:40 | answer | added | lordmogul | timeline score: 0 | |
| Mar 23, 2017 at 17:14 | comment | added | rumtscho♦ | I find this question very difficult to answer. When you are warned to not do something because there is a risk of X happening (in this case fire) people don't mean "every time you do it, X will happen". When there is a random chance that something happens and it does not happen, it is not really possible to explain why - this is the definition of randomness. | |
| Mar 23, 2017 at 12:46 | history | edited | jscs | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Title that actually describes the situation.
|
| Mar 23, 2017 at 12:31 | comment | added | J... | This is probably a better post for Physics SE since the correct answer is entirely related to the interaction of the microwaves with the water and the spoon. Microwaves will attenuate strongly in water (that's how it heats up) so the water offers a degree of protection to the spoon inside. The water will also act to dissipate and bleed any charge accumulation on the spoon surface and is otherwise a strong dielectric (so will polarize heavily to suppress surface potential on the metal). Physics SE could give you a much better answer. | |
| Mar 23, 2017 at 10:08 | answer | added | rackandboneman | timeline score: 9 | |
| Mar 23, 2017 at 10:08 | comment | added | Spehro 'speff' Pefhany | I usually reheat single bowls of soup or chili with a spoon stuck in it (puncturing a paper towel overtop if it looks like it might pop stuff over the inside of the oven). That's with a 1970s-era RadarRange. If the utensil is not near a wall and there is lots of microwave-absorbent food to go along with it there should not be an issue. Please don't invoke divine intervention when James Clerk Maxwell will suffice. | |
| Mar 23, 2017 at 8:05 | answer | added | Jason C | timeline score: 41 | |
| Mar 23, 2017 at 2:43 | answer | added | Journeyman Geek | timeline score: 21 | |
| Mar 23, 2017 at 1:54 | vote | accept | David Bruce Borenstein | ||
| Mar 24, 2017 at 6:51 | |||||
| Mar 23, 2017 at 1:54 | vote | accept | David Bruce Borenstein | ||
| Mar 23, 2017 at 1:54 | |||||
| Mar 23, 2017 at 0:12 | answer | added | Ecnerwal | timeline score: 4 | |
| Mar 22, 2017 at 21:23 | review | Close votes | |||
| Mar 23, 2017 at 7:31 | |||||
| Mar 22, 2017 at 21:16 | comment | added | David Bruce Borenstein | Catija, the sterilizer is like a steamer: you put water in the bottom and the stuff sits in a basket above it. moscafj, thanks--I did cite that question and I think it's different but related. | |
| Mar 22, 2017 at 21:08 | vote | accept | David Bruce Borenstein | ||
| Mar 23, 2017 at 1:54 | |||||
| Mar 22, 2017 at 21:01 | comment | added | moscafj | oops just realized this was answered! | |
| Mar 22, 2017 at 21:00 | comment | added | moscafj | Possible duplicate of Why is some metal safe to use in a microwave, but others not? | |
| Mar 22, 2017 at 20:57 | comment | added | Catija | Was the spoon completely surrounded by water? | |
| Mar 22, 2017 at 20:51 | answer | added | moscafj | timeline score: 31 | |
| Mar 22, 2017 at 20:34 | history | asked | David Bruce Borenstein | CC BY-SA 3.0 |