Does anyone manufacture a "variable heat" electric range, where when you
select the heat setting, it would have a constant heat at a certain
temperature? (Like you can do with a gas range...)

This would be sort of like a dimmer switch for a light where you can adjust
how much light is output from the bulb.

The way electric ranges work now is they go on and off, on and off.

Less heat means the "burner" goes on for a little while, then off for quite
awhile. Then with more heat, the "burner" is on for a long time, then off
for a little amount of time.

With a gas range, you can adjust the heat so it is constant - no off and on.
Seems they could do this with an electric range as well....

Hi Bill,

There are electronic thermostats for electric heating applications
that modulate output (I have some from Aube that control with my
in-floor radiant heat), but they're fairly expensive. I suspect their
high cost and perhaps concerns related to long-term reliability would
limit their use elsewhere. Variable wattage control would be a nice
feature from the utility's point of view (i.e., by smoothing out
demand), but I suspect most consumers wouldn't care one way or the
other.

Cheers,
Paul

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 07:03:35 -0800, "Bill"
wrote:

Does anyone manufacture a "variable heat" electric range, where when you
select the heat setting, it would have a constant heat at a certain
temperature? (Like you can do with a gas range...)

This would be sort of like a dimmer switch for a light where you can adjust
how much light is output from the bulb.

The way electric ranges work now is they go on and off, on and off.

Less heat means the "burner" goes on for a little while, then off for quite
awhile. Then with more heat, the "burner" is on for a long time, then off
for a little amount of time.

With a gas range, you can adjust the heat so it is constant - no off and on.
Seems they could do this with an electric range as well....

On Feb 12, 10:39 am, Paul M. Eldridge
wrote:
Hi Bill,

There are electronic thermostats for electric heating applications
that modulate output (I have some from Aube that control with my
in-floor radiant heat), but they're fairly expensive. I suspect their
high cost and perhaps concerns related to long-term reliability would
limit their use elsewhere. Variable wattage control would be a nice
feature from the utility's point of view (i.e., by smoothing out
demand), but I suspect most consumers wouldn't care one way or the
other.

Cheers,
Paul


This makes no difference to the utility, because they have thousands
of stoves and similar loads, which are all randomly cycling on and
off, effectively averaging it all together, so smoothing out demand
from one stove doesn't do anything. They would never see it.

The reason its done the way it is on electric ranges is it's a cheap
mechanical switch, that cycles it on and off for varying periods.
To make the heating more even would require turning it on and off
rapidly, which is what is done in wall switch dimmers, which do it on
each AC cycle. That requires electronics. And to do that for a
dimmer, which is 600W max, takes a smaller, less expensive
semiconductor than it would require for a range. It's possible
someone offers it, but I haven't seen one.






On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 07:03:35 -0800, "Bill"
wrote:



Does anyone manufacture a "variable heat" electric range, where when you
select the heat setting, it would have a constant heat at a certain
temperature? (Like you can do with a gas range...)

This would be sort of like a dimmer switch for a light where you can adjust
how much light is output from the bulb.

The way electric ranges work now is they go on and off, on and off.

Less heat means the "burner" goes on for a little while, then off for quite
awhile. Then with more heat, the "burner" is on for a long time, then off
for a little amount of time.

With a gas range, you can adjust the heat so it is constant - no off and on.
Seems they could do this with an electric range as well....- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I'm not so sure about that. My utility, Nova Scotia Power, like
virtually ever utility here in Canada, is winter peaking and these
peaks typically occur around 17h30 when street lights start coming on
and electric ranges are being used to prepare evening meals.
**Anything** that helps minimize concurrent demand, no matter how
small, would be helpful from the utility's perspective, especially in
light of the high percentage of homes that are electrically heated in
this country.

Let's say the average electric oven draws 3.0 kW (my convection oven
happens to be 5.5 kW). We might expect the typical household oven to
operate at full power for the first ten minutes or so, then cycle on
perhaps one third of the time thereafter (i.e., an average of one
minute on for every two minutes off). Let's also assume there are
100,000 electric ovens in use province-wide during the suppertime peak
(and here in Nova Scotia, virtually all ovens are electric since only
500 or so homes are currently served by natural gas).

If all 100,000 ovens were energized at the same time, we would expect
this load to be 300 MW. We're assuming, of course, that as each of
these ovens come up to temperature, the actual load at a 33% duty
cycle, would be closer to 100 MW, and since these ovens are not all
turned on at the same time, a coincidental peak of 100 MW is probably
within spitting distance of the mark. If, however, each of these
ovens were equipped with variable wattage controls and, again,
assuming a 33% duty cycle, our coincidental peak should drop to just
33 MW.

On a typical winter's day, Nova Scotia Power's peak falls between
1,500 to 2,000 MW, so a 67 MW reduction in provincial demand would
represent a peak savings of perhaps as much as 3 to 5 per cent. In
theory, it would exceed the province's total installed wind capacity
of some 60 MW (which, assuming a 40 per cent annual capacity factor, I
take it might be closer to just 25 MW). Even if we were to cut the
number of ovens in operation by half, the impact on a utility such as
Nova Scotia Power is not exactly insignificant.

Cheers,
Paul

On 12 Feb 2007 07:49:37 -0800, wrote:

This makes no difference to the utility, because they have thousands
of stoves and similar loads, which are all randomly cycling on and
off, effectively averaging it all together, so smoothing out demand
from one stove doesn't do anything. They would never see it.

On Feb 12, 1:31 pm, Paul M. Eldridge
wrote:
I'm not so sure about that. My utility, Nova Scotia Power, like
virtually ever utility here in Canada, is winter peaking and these
peaks typically occur around 17h30 when street lights start coming on
and electric ranges are being used to prepare evening meals.
**Anything** that helps minimize concurrent demand, no matter how
small, would be helpful from the utility's perspective, especially in
light of the high percentage of homes that are electrically heated in
this country.

Let's say the average electric oven draws 3.0 kW (my convection oven
happens to be 5.5 kW). We might expect the typical household oven to
operate at full power for the first ten minutes or so, then cycle on
perhaps one third of the time thereafter (i.e., an average of one
minute on for every two minutes off). Let's also assume there are
100,000 electric ovens in use province-wide during the suppertime peak
(and here in Nova Scotia, virtually all ovens are electric since only
500 or so homes are currently served by natural gas).

If all 100,000 ovens were energized at the same time, we would expect
this load to be 300 MW. We're assuming, of course, that as each of
these ovens come up to temperature, the actual load at a 33% duty
cycle, would be closer to 100 MW, and since these ovens are not all
turned on at the same time, a coincidental peak of 100 MW is probably
within spitting distance of the mark. If, however, each of these
ovens were equipped with variable wattage controls and, again,
assuming a 33% duty cycle, our coincidental peak should drop to just
33 MW.

This also means that you have eliminated the normal full on heating
mode of the oven and reduced it to 1/3 of that. Which means now
everyone has to wait 3X as long for the oven or burner to warm up,
which few people are going to put up with. After that, the oven or
burner will be cycling randomly anyway and the sum of them all cycling
randomly is the same And presumably, this cooking load comes late in
the day, like 6PM+, which is after industrial/commerical use is
decreasing. With all the other loads I fail to see how this is going
to make any difference in the generating capacity needed to meet peak
demand or save the utiltiy even 5cents. It will mean a lot of ****ed
off users though, who can't get their oven hot in a reasonable time.




On a typical winter's day, Nova Scotia Power's peak falls between
1,500 to 2,000 MW, so a 67 MW reduction in provincial demand would
represent a peak savings of perhaps as much as 3 to 5 per cent. In
theory, it would exceed the province's total installed wind capacity
of some 60 MW (which, assuming a 40 per cent annual capacity factor, I
take it might be closer to just 25 MW). Even if we were to cut the
number of ovens in operation by half, the impact on a utility such as
Nova Scotia Power is not exactly insignificant.

So, you have just as many ovens running longer. Unless you have
proof that ovens are causing a peak demand that results in either
higher capital cost for generators to meet peak capacity or are
causing the need to kick in some higher cost energy source during
dinner time, this is just a pipe dream.



Cheers,
Paul

On 12 Feb 2007 07:49:37 -0800, wrote:



This makes no difference to the utility, because they have thousands
of stoves and similar loads, which are all randomly cycling on and
off, effectively averaging it all together, so smoothing out demand
from one stove doesn't do anything. They would never see it.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On 12 Feb 2007 11:12:27 -0800, wrote:

This also means that you have eliminated the normal full on heating
mode of the oven and reduced it to 1/3 of that. Which means now
everyone has to wait 3X as long for the oven or burner to warm up,
which few people are going to put up with. After that, the oven or
burner will be cycling randomly anyway and the sum of them all cycling
randomly is the same And presumably, this cooking load comes late in
the day, like 6PM+, which is after industrial/commerical use is
decreasing. With all the other loads I fail to see how this is going
to make any difference in the generating capacity needed to meet peak
demand or save the utiltiy even 5cents. It will mean a lot of ****ed
off users though, who can't get their oven hot in a reasonable time.

No, please go back and re-read what I said; to whit:

"We might expect the typical household oven to operate at full power
for the first ten minutes or so, then cycle on perhaps one third of
the time thereafter..."

Followed by:

"If all 100,000 ovens were energized at the same time, we would expect
this load to be 300 MW. We're assuming, of course, that AS EACH OF
THESE OVENS COME UP TO TEMPERATURE, the actual load at a 33% duty
cycle, would be closer to 100 MW, and since these ovens are NOT all
turned on at the same time, a coincidental peak of 100 MW is probably
within spitting distance of the mark...."

So there are two key points he

a) the load on our utility during the suppertime peak is minimized
due to the cycling of these elements at what I had estimated
to be 33% and, secondly,

b) due to the fact these ovens are not all turned on at precisely
the same time, the impact of that first ten-minute start-up
is thereby diminished.

Nowhere did I say these ovens would operate at reduced power upon
start-up. Each could continue to operate at full power for as long it
takes to come up to temperature, then drop to the lowest wattage
required to maintain a constant set temperaturer; if the oven element
is rated at 3,000 watts and it normally cycles on one-third of the
time, then it's fair to say a constant 1,000 watts is all that's
needed to maintain a steady temperature from this point forward.
There would be absolutely no inconvenience to the consumer whatsoever
and the utility would still benefit from reduced aggregate load.

So, you have just as many ovens running longer. Unless you have
proof that ovens are causing a peak demand that results in either
higher capital cost for generators to meet peak capacity or are
causing the need to kick in some higher cost energy source during
dinner time, this is just a pipe dream.

You claim these ovens would run longer but as I indicated above, they
won't. In any event, according to U.S DOE EIA, the generating
technology with the lowest capital cost would be a 230 MW advanced
combustion turbine at a cost of $US367.00 per kW (O&M and T&D extra).

Source
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/assu...6).pdf#page=77

Thus, if we can effectively reduce peak demand from by just ***ONE***
MW, the capital savings to the utility is a minimum of $367,000.00 US
($436,730.00 CDN); at 67 MW, the savings amount to $CDN 29.3 million.
To this you would add the additional operational and maintenance costs
(and this *is* the single most expensive way to generate electricity
by conventional means), plus the added transmission and distribution
expenses. Also, bear in mind, the utility continues to sell the same
amount of energy as before, so there's no resulting loss in revenue,
BUT it does get to pocket all these other savings.

Cheers,
Paul

Paul M. Eldridge writes:

Let's say the average electric oven draws 3.0 kW (my convection oven
happens to be 5.5 kW). We might expect the typical household oven to
operate at full power for the first ten minutes or so, then cycle on
perhaps one third of the time thereafter (i.e., an average of one
minute on for every two minutes off).

Suppose you *did* have an oven with electronic variable power control,
where temperature controlled the "on" time of a triac. This oven would
still operate at full current until it came up to operating temperature,
and then sit at 33% duty cycle after that. The only difference between
this and what you have now is that the on/off cycle repeats every 1/120
second, rather than every couple of minutes. But that makes no real
difference to the utility, which is looking at the load averaged over
100000 ovens.

In fact, the electronic control wastes a bit of power in the switching
element, and consumes slightly *more* power than the non-electronic
oven. The triac control also distorts the utility waveform into
something that is less of a sine wave, which the utility also will not
like (the power factor gets worse, so they need higher current capacity
for the same billable watts).

If all 100,000 ovens were energized at the same time, we would expect
this load to be 300 MW.

Right - whether or not they have electronic controls.

We're assuming, of course, that as each of
these ovens come up to temperature, the actual load at a 33% duty
cycle, would be closer to 100 MW, and since these ovens are not all
turned on at the same time, a coincidental peak of 100 MW is probably
within spitting distance of the mark.

Again, true with or without electronic controls.

If, however, each of these
ovens were equipped with variable wattage controls and, again,
assuming a 33% duty cycle, our coincidental peak should drop to just
33 MW.

This makes no sense. The 33% duty cycle has already been factored into
the drop from 300 MW to 100 MW. You can't divide by 3 *again*. You
need that 100 MW to keep all of the ovens at operating temperature.

On a typical winter's day, Nova Scotia Power's peak falls between
1,500 to 2,000 MW, so a 67 MW reduction in provincial demand would
represent a peak savings of perhaps as much as 3 to 5 per cent. In
theory, it would exceed the province's total installed wind capacity
of some 60 MW (which, assuming a 40 per cent annual capacity factor, I
take it might be closer to just 25 MW). Even if we were to cut the
number of ovens in operation by half, the impact on a utility such as
Nova Scotia Power is not exactly insignificant.

This is all based on the assumption that you can somehow run all these
ovens with electronic controls on 1/3 the average power you would need
with conventional switching controls. That's nonsense - they need just
as much energy, on average, to heat the same contents to the same
temperature for the same time.

The only time it makes sense to use dimmer-like electronic power control
is when the temperature swings with conventional controls are too large.

Dave

Hi Dave,

You're right. Clearly I was a couple neurons short in my thinking.
Let me see if I can move closer to the mark this time or, failing
that, embarrass myself further trying, as the case may be.

Our basic assumption is that these elements will operate 33 per cent
of the time, once the oven reaches its set temperature. But this
cycling will be random in nature, so our 100,000 ovens won't be
cycling "perfectly" in the sense that only one-third will be energized
at any one time. As the total number of ovens increase, I take it
we'll move ever closer to this ideal scenario, but it's probably fair
to say their combined load will fluctuate due to the unevenness in
this cycling. If we were to take a series of snap shots, we might
find that perhaps 50 per cent of these elements are energized, in
which case our load at that particular moment in time is closer to 150
MW and not the 100 MW I had stated.

The point of this exercise was to determine if it might be possible to
"smooth out" or flatten this load, so its net contribution to peak can
be lowered. If we have 100,000 ovens running at a constant 1 KW each
once they reach their set temperature, their combined load should
remain fairly close to 100 MW (slightly more to account for the higher
demand during start-up). Again, my thinking is that energy
consumption should remain constant (or perhaps slightly more due to
control related losses, as you suggest), but peak demand should be
reduced.

Your concerns related to power quality are well taken. There may be
ways to address that but I'm afraid I'm not very knowledgeable in this
area.

Please let me know if I'm a little more successful this time out, or
if I should be hiding my face. :-0

Cheers,
Paul

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 19:23:02 +0000 (UTC), (Dave
Martindale) wrote:


In fact, the electronic control wastes a bit of power in the switching
element, and consumes slightly *more* power than the non-electronic
oven. The triac control also distorts the utility waveform into
something that is less of a sine wave, which the utility also will not
like (the power factor gets worse, so they need higher current capacity
for the same billable watts).

How can that be? Any distortion by the triac appears beyond the
triac.

The electricity is billed by what goes through the meter, where it is
undistorted.

Actually, there were electric cooktops that did this--sorta- the old
GE's with the 7 button pushbutton switches. They used coils that were
actually 2 separate coils of different wattages in one., and also had a
neutral to the switch. Highest setting was 240 to both segments of the
coil, then 240 to one and 115 the other, then 240 to one only ( and am
not sure about the exact sequence) it would put the 2 circuits in series
with 240 volts, etc, and finally on the lowest would put 115 to both in
series. In the early 70's we worked on a few ranges, and I remember the
service manager explaining this setup. I do remember going out on one
where the lady said that on certain settings none of the burners would
work right. She also said "the same time the trouble started, I found
this in the drawer underneath the cooktop", and handed me a wirenut.
The incoming power was just spliced right there wide open and something
in the drawer snagged the neutral and pulled it loose. I lived in an
apartment about that same time that had that type of range. It seemed to
work OK, though I really couldn't say it was any better than a regular
type cooktop. Granted my experience with electric was limited (as it
still is) so it wasn't much of a comparison. Larry

On Feb 12, 9:39 am, Paul M. Eldridge
wrote:
Hi Bill,

There are electronic thermostats for electric heating applications
that modulate output (I have some from Aube that control with my
in-floor radiant heat),...

Looking at the product brochures at http://www.aubethermostats.com/,
they're switching thermostats, too, just w/ models as fast as 15-20
second cycle times and solid-state switching instead of mechanical
relays. They don't actually "modulate" output except in the sense of
averaging, same as the range controls.

To do otherwise would require a mechanism to waste the "extra" power
as a in a voltage-divider-type rheostat which would be quite
inefficient and require quite large power resistors or other sinks.
The mass of the burner element is made relatively large in electric
stoves to make the average temperature reasonably constant. Better
stoves control on higher frequency cycles and have better-designed
burners to minimize the thermal cycling -- my Mom used to claim she
could tell the difference between her stove and others in that
regard. Whether real or simply perceived I have no idea...

Hmm, good point. Because it uses a triac, I had assumed (incorrectly)
that it works pretty much like a standard household dimmer.

I have the in-floor heat in my den set at 30C and when I started
typing this, my Aube thermostat was showing three wavy bars indicating
the floor was operating at 60 per cent capacity (and what I had
thought to be 540 watts, versus 900 watts). Oddly, the thermostat
will still cycle on and off because I can hear a loud "snap" when it
does this; in fact, it just clicked off seconds ago and I can see
there are now no bars shown on the display. In a few minutes, I
expect to hear it click back on.

I took a look at one of the manuals and it does clearly state the bars
indicate "the percentage of heating time required to maintain the
desired temperature", so that seems to suggest you are correct.

Source:
http://www.aubetech.com/manuel/2/TH108PLUS.pdf

Ah, sure enough, "snap" and we're back to three bars again.

Cheers,
Paul

On 12 Feb 2007 08:18:13 -0800, "dpb" wrote:

Looking at the product brochures at http://www.aubethermostats.com/,
they're switching thermostats, too, just w/ models as fast as 15-20
second cycle times and solid-state switching instead of mechanical
relays. They don't actually "modulate" output except in the sense of
averaging, same as the range controls.

To do otherwise would require a mechanism to waste the "extra" power
as a in a voltage-divider-type rheostat which would be quite
inefficient and require quite large power resistors or other sinks.
The mass of the burner element is made relatively large in electric
stoves to make the average temperature reasonably constant. Better
stoves control on higher frequency cycles and have better-designed
burners to minimize the thermal cycling -- my Mom used to claim she
could tell the difference between her stove and others in that
regard. Whether real or simply perceived I have no idea...

On Feb 12, 1:13 pm, Paul M. Eldridge
wrote:

On 12 Feb 2007 08:18:13 -0800, "dpb" wrote:

....
they're switching thermostats, too, ...
....

Hmm, good point. Because it uses a triac, I had assumed (incorrectly)
that it works pretty much like a standard household dimmer.
....

The triac is essentially just a bi-directional gated switching circuit
able to be controlled for either voltage polarity, so unless there is
more internally than that, it is essentially just an enhanced switch.
Less expensive dimmers are essentially the same, more expensive may
include other circuitry to modify the waveform and phase to provide
nearer a sinusoidal voltage, but I'd guess these thermostats don't
have that sophistication.

Thanks. I had only a sketchy understanding of how this technology
works so this helps me considerably. And given these thermostats are
connected to resistance loads that should happily work with pretty
much anything you throw at them, they most likely lack any
sophisticated circuitry, as you suggest.

Which brings me to this question: these thermostats are becomming
increasingly popular and they do work extremely well from a consumer's
point of view, but I wonder what impact they may have on power
quality. I understand triacs can generate some nasty THD numbers; one
thing to dim a 60-watt incandescent bulb but 6,000 watts of electric
heat has to kick things up a notch or two. Any thoughts?

Cheers,
Paul

On 13 Feb 2007 15:00:43 -0800, "dpb" wrote:

The triac is essentially just a bi-directional gated switching circuit
able to be controlled for either voltage polarity, so unless there is
more internally than that, it is essentially just an enhanced switch.
Less expensive dimmers are essentially the same, more expensive may
include other circuitry to modify the waveform and phase to provide
nearer a sinusoidal voltage, but I'd guess these thermostats don't
have that sophistication.

On Feb 12, 12:03 pm, "Bill" wrote:
Does anyone manufacture a "variable heat" electric range, where when you
select the heat setting, it would have a constant heat at a certain
temperature? (Like you can do with a gas range...)

This would be sort of like a dimmer switch for a light where you can adjust
how much light is output from the bulb.

The way electric ranges work now is they go on and off, on and off.

Less heat means the "burner" goes on for a little while, then off for quite
awhile. Then with more heat, the "burner" is on for a long time, then off
for a little amount of time.

With a gas range, you can adjust the heat so it is constant - no off and on.
Seems they could do this with an electric range as well....

Our rough and ready electric cooking range seems to work well enough.
It has two larger and two smaller elements on top. Each 'burner' has
one of those rotary thermal controls. They last a long time; we have
rarely replaced one.
Also the usual top and bottom elements in the oven controlled by the
clock/timer and a thermostat.
Seems to be no problem setting any element to Full, or Low or anything
in between.
I think you are correct; but it would require a thermostatic control
for each element'. More complicated, more wiring and more expensive.
Do not see the practical need. Cooking requires attention in any case;
something as simple as sliding a pan off centre of a 'burner' (hob)
can slightly alter the cooking and improve/ruin an omelet!

In article ,
says...
Does anyone manufacture a "variable heat" electric range, where when you
select the heat setting, it would have a constant heat at a certain
temperature? (Like you can do with a gas range...)

This would be sort of like a dimmer switch for a light where you can adjust
how much light is output from the bulb.

The way electric ranges work now is they go on and off, on and off.

Less heat means the "burner" goes on for a little while, then off for quite
awhile. Then with more heat, the "burner" is on for a long time, then off
for a little amount of time.

With a gas range, you can adjust the heat so it is constant - no off and on.
Seems they could do this with an electric range as well....




Why do you want this? The on/off technique works just fine in my
experience. The thermal mass of the burner and the pan even things out.
For example, when I am simmering a soup on low, the soup simmers at an
even, constant rate even though the element is on for 2 seconds then off
for 10 (more or less).

Microwave ovens work the same way, although I have some vague
recollection that some fancy models have variable power.

--
Peter Aitken

"Peter A" wrote in message

Why do you want this?


Well I installed a woodstove and tried cooking on it. I cooked eggs and
noticed they came out perfect!

When I cook eggs on my electric range, they will tend to stick to the bottom
of the pan or overheat / underheat.

Anyway the difference between cooking on the woodstove and on my electric
range is amazing! The difference of course is the "steady heat" of the wood
stove as opposed to the "on/off" heat of the electric range.

And of course I don't have my woodstove fired up in the summer....

I think you're jumping to conclusions. I doubt it's any variation
in heat that's making the difference.

Bill wrote:
"Peter A" wrote in message
Why do you want this?


Well I installed a woodstove and tried cooking on it. I cooked eggs and
noticed they came out perfect!

When I cook eggs on my electric range, they will tend to stick to the bottom
of the pan or overheat / underheat.

Anyway the difference between cooking on the woodstove and on my electric
range is amazing! The difference of course is the "steady heat" of the wood
stove as opposed to the "on/off" heat of the electric range.

And of course I don't have my woodstove fired up in the summer....

"Bill" writes:

Well I installed a woodstove and tried cooking on it. I cooked eggs and
noticed they came out perfect!

When I cook eggs on my electric range, they will tend to stick to the bottom
of the pan or overheat / underheat.

Anyway the difference between cooking on the woodstove and on my electric
range is amazing! The difference of course is the "steady heat" of the wood
stove as opposed to the "on/off" heat of the electric range.

There are many possible explanations for this. Perhaps you just pay
more attention when cooking on the woodstove. Perhaps the large flat
iron cooking surface of the wood stove heats your pan more evenly than a
coil element on the electric stove. Or maybe the cyclic temperature
variations do matter. You haven't provided any evidence for the latter
explanation.

It would be interesting to measure the amount of temperature swing at
the surface of your electric element as the element cycles on and off.
Then measure it on the inside surface of the pan. I'll bet the
temperature range is not very large.

Dave

"Dave Martindale" wrote in message
...
"Bill" writes:

Well I installed a woodstove and tried cooking on it. I cooked eggs and
noticed they came out perfect!

When I cook eggs on my electric range, they will tend to stick to the
bottom
of the pan or overheat / underheat.

Anyway the difference between cooking on the woodstove and on my electric
range is amazing! The difference of course is the "steady heat" of the
wood
stove as opposed to the "on/off" heat of the electric range.

There are many possible explanations for this. Perhaps you just pay
more attention when cooking on the woodstove. Perhaps the large flat
iron cooking surface of the wood stove heats your pan more evenly than a
coil element on the electric stove. Or maybe the cyclic temperature
variations do matter. You haven't provided any evidence for the latter
explanation.

It would be interesting to measure the amount of temperature swing at
the surface of your electric element as the element cycles on and off.
Then measure it on the inside surface of the pan. I'll bet the
temperature range is not very large.

Dave


Coming to conclusions while missing 90% of the pertinent information is a
great American pastime, apparently.

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 22:13:12 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Dave Martindale" wrote in message
...
"Bill" writes:

Well I installed a woodstove and tried cooking on it. I cooked eggs and
noticed they came out perfect!

When I cook eggs on my electric range, they will tend to stick to the
bottom
of the pan or overheat / underheat.

Anyway the difference between cooking on the woodstove and on my electric
range is amazing! The difference of course is the "steady heat" of the
wood
stove as opposed to the "on/off" heat of the electric range.

There are many possible explanations for this. Perhaps you just pay
more attention when cooking on the woodstove. Perhaps the large flat
iron cooking surface of the wood stove heats your pan more evenly than a
coil element on the electric stove. Or maybe the cyclic temperature
variations do matter. You haven't provided any evidence for the latter
explanation.

It would be interesting to measure the amount of temperature swing at
the surface of your electric element as the element cycles on and off.
Then measure it on the inside surface of the pan. I'll bet the
temperature range is not very large.

Dave


Coming to conclusions while missing 90% of the pertinent information is a
great American pastime, apparently.


That's normal. It's a lot easier to ignore 90% or more of what you
heard, and make up stuff to fill the gap.

In article , Peter A writes:
In article ,
says...
Does anyone manufacture a "variable heat" electric range, where when you
select the heat setting, it would have a constant heat at a certain
temperature? (Like you can do with a gas range...)

Why do you want this? The on/off technique works just fine in my
experience. The thermal mass of the burner and the pan even things out.
For example, when I am simmering a soup on low, the soup simmers at an
even, constant rate even though the element is on for 2 seconds then off
for 10 (more or less).

I'm with the OP. I was just commenting that this kind of thing would
be nice to my husband yesterday as I was making our week's dinners. We have a
****-poor glass-topped electric stove. We think it's crappy because it might
be low-watt, but don't know for sure. It can't boil a gallon of water unless
it's tightly lidded, and even then it takes over a half an hour.
Last weekend, I was making a roux, and I really noticed how poor it is
there too. I had trouble getting the correct temp to cook the roux - it cooked
fine while the burner was on, but all cooking stopped when the burner cycled
off. We HATE the thing.

- Sharon
"Gravity... is a harsh mistress!"

"Sharon" wrote in message
...
In article , Peter A
writes:
In article ,
says...
Does anyone manufacture a "variable heat" electric range, where when you
select the heat setting, it would have a constant heat at a certain
temperature? (Like you can do with a gas range...)

Why do you want this? The on/off technique works just fine in my
experience. The thermal mass of the burner and the pan even things out.
For example, when I am simmering a soup on low, the soup simmers at an
even, constant rate even though the element is on for 2 seconds then off
for 10 (more or less).

I'm with the OP. I was just commenting that this kind of thing would
be nice to my husband yesterday as I was making our week's dinners. We
have a
****-poor glass-topped electric stove. We think it's crappy because it
might
be low-watt, but don't know for sure. It can't boil a gallon of water
unless
it's tightly lidded, and even then it takes over a half an hour.
Last weekend, I was making a roux, and I really noticed how poor it is
there too. I had trouble getting the correct temp to cook the roux - it
cooked
fine while the burner was on, but all cooking stopped when the burner
cycled
off. We HATE the thing.

- Sharon
"Gravity... is a harsh mistress!"


You cannot compare a crappy glass top stove with a well designed electric
open-coil stove. That's like saying you like a certain shampoo better than
you like the size of the glove box in your car.

In article ,
says...
In article , Peter A writes:
In article ,
says...
Does anyone manufacture a "variable heat" electric range, where when you
select the heat setting, it would have a constant heat at a certain
temperature? (Like you can do with a gas range...)

Why do you want this? The on/off technique works just fine in my
experience. The thermal mass of the burner and the pan even things out.
For example, when I am simmering a soup on low, the soup simmers at an
even, constant rate even though the element is on for 2 seconds then off
for 10 (more or less).

I'm with the OP. I was just commenting that this kind of thing would
be nice to my husband yesterday as I was making our week's dinners. We have a
****-poor glass-topped electric stove. We think it's crappy because it might
be low-watt, but don't know for sure. It can't boil a gallon of water unless
it's tightly lidded, and even then it takes over a half an hour.
Last weekend, I was making a roux, and I really noticed how poor it is
there too. I had trouble getting the correct temp to cook the roux - it cooked
fine while the burner was on, but all cooking stopped when the burner cycled
off. We HATE the thing.


Sounds awful, but it has nothing to do with it being electric. A decent
electric stove will boil water faster than a gas stove and is usually
superior at low-heat cooking. Time for a replacement maybe?

Ï "Sharon" Ýãñáøå óôï ìÞíõìá
...
In article , Peter A
writes:
In article ,
says...
Does anyone manufacture a "variable heat" electric range, where when
you
select the heat setting, it would have a constant heat at a certain
temperature? (Like you can do with a gas range...)

Why do you want this? The on/off technique works just fine in my
experience. The thermal mass of the burner and the pan even things out.
For example, when I am simmering a soup on low, the soup simmers at an
even, constant rate even though the element is on for 2 seconds then off
for 10 (more or less).

I'm with the OP. I was just commenting that this kind of thing would
be nice to my husband yesterday as I was making our week's dinners. We
have a
****-poor glass-topped electric stove. We think it's crappy because it
might
be low-watt, but don't know for sure. It can't boil a gallon of water
unless
it's tightly lidded, and even then it takes over a half an hour.
Last weekend, I was making a roux, and I really noticed how poor it is
there too. I had trouble getting the correct temp to cook the roux - it
cooked
fine while the burner was on, but all cooking stopped when the burner
cycled
off. We HATE the thing.
Well, excuse me, but in EU (at least in Greece)glass-topped electric stoves
are state-of-the-art, and very expensive, and very robust, and efficient,
too.The traditional stove has four hobs with the elements inside a ring of
iron (not steel),ours is glass-topped (or better, glass-ceramic, and cost
like, 700 euros, while a cheap iron one, like 400-500 euros.

"Peter A" wrote in message
...

-snip-

Microwave ovens work the same way, although I have some vague
recollection that some fancy models have variable power.

I recently purchased a new microwave that has variable output power (labeled
as "inverter technology"). It was sub $100 US so I wouldn't call it
"fancy". It has 4 power ranges and uses duty cycle control between the
power ranges to regulate the 10 available power settings. It is FAR
superior at the lower power settings. When defrosting or cooking on low, my
old microwave would singe and pause repeatedly. Cycling 1/4 power more
often yields MUCH better results.

The new microwave also behaves much better on my small backup generator -
conventional microwaves have really poor power factor AND significant even
order harmonics, both not appreciated by generator voltage regulators. The
even order harmonics are from the voltage doubler magnetron circuit. On one
half of the line waveform, the diode charges the cap up. On the other half
cycle, it fires the magnetron with the cap in series with the line voltage.
Since the back EMF when charging the cap is not equal to the fire voltage of
the magnetron minus the cap charge, the waveform is highly asymmetrical.

I think the main question here is why would anyone who does any serious
amount of cooking want an electric range to begin with? No real cooking can
be done on them.

--
Steve Barker


"Bill" wrote in message
...
Does anyone manufacture a "variable heat" electric range, where when you
select the heat setting, it would have a constant heat at a certain
temperature? (Like you can do with a gas range...)

This would be sort of like a dimmer switch for a light where you can
adjust how much light is output from the bulb.

The way electric ranges work now is they go on and off, on and off.

Less heat means the "burner" goes on for a little while, then off for
quite awhile. Then with more heat, the "burner" is on for a long time,
then off for a little amount of time.

With a gas range, you can adjust the heat so it is constant - no off and
on. Seems they could do this with an electric range as well....

"Steve Barker" wrote in message
...
I think the main question here is why would anyone who does any serious
amount of cooking want an electric range to begin with? No real cooking
can be done on them.

--
Steve Barker


Bull****. Who told you to say that?

Hello, JoeSpareBedroom!
You wrote on Mon, 12 Feb 2007 16:27:24 GMT:

J "Steve Barker" wrote in
J message
...
?? I think the main question here is why would anyone who
?? does any serious amount of cooking want an electric range
?? to begin with? No real cooking can be done on them.
??
?? --
?? Steve Barker

You probably have noticed the massive cross-posting on this
topic: a pretty good troll indicator, IMHO!

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

E-mail, with obvious alterations:
not.jim.silverton.at.comcast.not

In article , "James
Silverton" not.jim.silverton.at.comcast.not says...
You probably have noticed the massive cross-posting on this
topic: a pretty good troll indicator, IMHO!


You are right - I had not noticed, I should pay more attention to this!

--
Peter Aitken

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 10:22:38 -0600, "Steve Barker"
wrote:

I think the main question here is why would anyone who does any serious
amount of cooking want an electric range to begin with? No real cooking can
be done on them.

Nonsense. Maybe 50 years ago, but today electric smoothtops have
just as much heat and control as gas.

Lou

On Feb 12, 11:48�am, Lou Decruss wrote:
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 10:22:38 -0600, "Steve Barker"

wrote:
I think the main question here is why would anyone who does any serious
amount of cooking want an electric range to begin with? *No real cooking can
be done on them.

today electric smoothtops have just as much control as gas.

Bull****. Who told you to say that?

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahaha . . . .

Sheldon

Lou Decruss wrote:
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 10:22:38 -0600, "Steve Barker"
wrote:

I think the main question here is why would anyone who does any serious
amount of cooking want an electric range to begin with? No real cooking can
be done on them.

Nonsense. Maybe 50 years ago, but today electric smoothtops have
just as much heat and control as gas.

There's an element of truth to it. Unless you use an induction element,
you cannot turn an electric element *down* quickly...it takes some time
for the heat in the element to dissipate.

Also, commercial-grade gas ranges have heat outputs that far exceed
electric ranges (and indeed most residential gas ranges). This can be
useful for some types of cooking.

Chris

On Feb 12, 2:58 pm, Chris Friesen wrote:
Lou Decruss wrote:
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 10:22:38 -0600, "Steve Barker"
wrote:
I think the main question here is why would anyone who does any serious
amount of cooking want an electric range to begin with? No real cooking can
be done on them.
Nonsense. Maybe 50 years ago, but today electric smoothtops have
just as much heat and control as gas.

There's an element of truth to it. Unless you use an induction element,
you cannot turn an electric element *down* quickly...it takes some time
for the heat in the element to dissipate.

Chris

I bought two Berghof induction units, and like them. As far as
turning down an induction element quickly, the induction plate/element
still holds the heat from the pan, while it is being turned down. I
have not tried the induction by turning it from a 10 to a 1 to see how
long it takes to stop boiling; vs. turning the range unit from a 10
to a 1 to see how long it will take to stop boiling.
From cooking with both, but neither one for a loooooong time, I would
say the induction takes less time to stop boiling.
However, this was not the question, I realize, as the OP's emphasis is
on creating a invariable/non-variable heat.
Dee

On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 13:58:55 -0600, Chris Friesen
wrote:

Lou Decruss wrote:
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 10:22:38 -0600, "Steve Barker"
wrote:

I think the main question here is why would anyone who does any serious
amount of cooking want an electric range to begin with? No real cooking can
be done on them.

Nonsense. Maybe 50 years ago, but today electric smoothtops have
just as much heat and control as gas.

There's an element of truth to it.

Nice pun.

Unless you use an induction element,
you cannot turn an electric element *down* quickly...it takes some time
for the heat in the element to dissipate.

I did mention smoothtop. The disk on a good quality pan will hold
heat longer than the glass. The element is on or off.

Also, commercial-grade gas ranges have heat outputs that far exceed
electric ranges (and indeed most residential gas ranges). This can be
useful for some types of cooking.

This is very true. But I don't think the OP was referring to a
commercial setting.

Lou

In article ,
says...

I think the main question here is why would anyone who does any serious
amount of cooking want an electric range to begin with? No real cooking can
be done on them.



Absolute drivel. Anyone who cannot figure out how to use an electric
range for any and all cooking is a feeble-minded nitwit. See
http://www.pgacon.com/KitchenMyths.htm (scroll down to "Gas stoves are
better than electric").

--
Peter Aitken

"Bill" wrote

Does anyone manufacture a "variable heat" electric range, where when you
select the heat setting, it would have a constant heat at a certain
temperature? (Like you can do with a gas range...)

If you're talking about the stovetop, perhaps a diffuser would help
your situation if you can't find what you're looking for.

nancy

On Feb 12, 11:45?am, "Nancy Young" wrote:
"Bill" wrote

Does anyone manufacture a "variable heat" electric range, where when you
select the heat setting, it would have a constant heat at a certain
temperature? (Like you can do with a gas range...)

If you're talking about the stovetop, perhaps a diffuser would help
your situation if you can't find what you're looking for.

Electric cooktops maintain constant heat (as do gas), Electric element
cooktops are just not instantly responsive. If one wants the best of
both worlds they need to consider induction cooking, but will also
amplify the worst of both worlds. All things considered, for
precision cooking nothing to date beats gas.

Sheldon

On Feb 12, 10:03?am, "Bill" wrote:
Does anyone manufacture a "variable heat" electric range, where when you
select the heat setting, it would have a constant heat at a certain
temperature? (Like you can do with a gas range...)

This would be sort of like a dimmer switch for a light where you can adjust
how much light is output from the bulb.

The way electric ranges work now is they go on and off, on and off.

Less heat means the "burner" goes on for a little while, then off for quite
awhile. Then with more heat, the "burner" is on for a long time, then off
for a little amount of time.

With a gas range, you can adjust the heat so it is constant - no off and on.
Seems they could do this with an electric range as well....

Electric cook tops do not cycle on and off, only the oven does because
it is thermostatically controlled, exactly the same as with gas
ovens. I don't think you understand your own question... I think what
you want is an electric cooktop with a constantly varible control
rather than with preset detents as most all incorporate, but such a
system would serve no purpose because you cannot visually interpolate
the heat setting directly as one can with an open flame... having
preset detents makes more sense with electric cooking. If you really
want constant variable control buy an inexpensive electric hot
plate... perhaps buy an electric fry pan... or get a gas stove.

Sheldon

On Feb 12, 12:06 pm, "Sheldon" wrote:
On Feb 12, 10:03?am, "Bill" wrote:

Does anyone manufacture a "variable heat" electric range, where when you
select the heat setting, it would have a constant heat at a certain
temperature? (Like you can do with a gas range...)

This would be sort of like a dimmer switch for a light where you can adjust
how much light is output from the bulb.

The way electric ranges work now is they go on and off, on and off.

Less heat means the "burner" goes on for a little while, then off for quite
awhile. Then with more heat, the "burner" is on for a long time, then off
for a little amount of time.

With a gas range, you can adjust the heat so it is constant - no off and on.
Seems they could do this with an electric range as well....

Electric cook tops do not cycle on and off, only the oven does because
it is thermostatically controlled, exactly the same as with gas
ovens.


Of course they cycle on and off, that's how they control the amount of
heat. What do you think they use, a big resistor?





I don't think you understand your own question... I think what
you want is an electric cooktop with a constantly varible control
rather than with preset detents as most all incorporate, but such a
system would serve no purpose because you cannot visually interpolate
the heat setting directly as one can with an open flame... having
preset detents makes more sense with electric cooking.

I understood his question. What he wants is an electric range
element that produces a more uniform and more constant heat, as
opposed to cycling on and off for many secs at a time. I too
question how important that is, but that's what he wants. And not
all electric ranges have detent settings. My Jenn-Aire has a smooth,
constantly variable control. But the element behaves exactly as he
describes, going on and off for many secs at a time, depending on how
high the setting is.





If you really
want constant variable control buy an inexpensive electric hot
plate... perhaps buy an electric fry pan... or get a gas stove.

I'm not sure an electric hot plate or electric fry pan behaves any
different. I think they all apply full current to the heating
element, and just cycle in on or off for varying duty cycles. What
he wants could be done with that approach, but requires varying the
duty cycle on cycles of very short duration.




Sheldon