h a l f b a k e r yTrying to contain nuts.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
|
Having the burners always make noise when on would be annoying. On the other hand, it would be possible for a microprocessor-controlled stove to determine whether anything was on a burner and either shut itself off or give an alarm if left unattended with nothing on it; indeed, such a stove could probably also detect when a pot of liquid had boiled dry and shut itself off when that occurred.<p> |
|
|
I still miss, though, an old gas burner my parents used to have with a thermostat on it. I wonder why you never see those anymore? |
|
|
I know of a stove with one 'safety' burner -- one element which will not work unless it detects the weight of a pot or pan on it. Naturally, this means that it doesn't work under all sorts of interesting circumstances and is generally unpleasant to use. Maybe a simple infrared checker would be more useful -- if there's anything at all on top, the beam is blocked and the thing assumes that everything is fine. I suppose that then people would become even more careless (I know I would) and would constantly be restarting it by resting things on the elements (hands and so on) which they hadn't planned to cook. |
|
|
There are some grills and things which automatically start a noisy fan whenever you turn them on and stop it again when you turn it off. That's not unlike this idea, I think. |
|
|
What's the point of having *one* safety burner? |
|
|
I haven't tried this, but you might try puting a rattling piece of magnetic metal near the element inside the burner. The 60hz of the AC power line would make it vibrate. |
|
|
egnor: I have no idea. Maybe so they could tout it as a safety feature while still providing three burners that worked from time to time. |
|
| |