On Saturday, 2 June 2018 13:08:57 UTC+1, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 12:44:35 +0100, tabbypurr wrote:
On Saturday, 2 June 2018 11:41:57 UTC+1, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jun 2018 02:12:06 +0100, tabbypurr wrote:
On Friday, 1 June 2018 21:32:34 UTC+1, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:
On Fri, 01 Jun 2018 21:25:40 +0100, Brian Gaff wrote:

Back many years ago this idea was tried by Philips, their microwaves with
the drop down door, and with rotating aerial rather than a turntable. to be
quite honest it was rubbish and left cold spots in the food so you still had
to stop and turn the food.

I think the mistake is that the cavity is not moved in relation to the food
so standing waves still exist in the same places and only moving the food
relative to those is a true answer to this.
End of story.
Brian

That doesn't make sense. Spinning the pattern of microwave radiation must be identical to spinning the food. In both cases they are rotated in relation to one another.

not identical at all. turntables produce much better evenness than stirrers. Both together are best.

As I said, it's relative. The food and the microwave pattern are relative to each other. Where the oven is and where the kitchen is don't matter. If you rotate the food, or rotate the microwave pattern, PRECISELY the same effect is achieved.

I know you think that, you already said. And as so many have pointed out you're clueless.

Not one person has pointed out why one is more efficient than the other. Please do explain and I will be happy to accept I'm wrong. I doubt Panasonic will though.

you're too clueless to even accept you might be wrong. I'm not going to spend any more time on this.