Congratulations! Your video, First Microwave Upgrade in Forever: Infrared Heat Sensor, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 12 Badge!

Generally such microwave have heat builtin exhaust vents.

If you are using your stove/oven a lot(like in a restaurant or prepare at least 3 meals a day there), then perhaps it's more prudent to keep your microwave elsewhere. In my last apartment I had my microwave above my stove for 13 years. Other than cleaning light grease accumulation from the front once a year(or even rarer), no problems at all.

Nothing he is cooking is rotating in the video. There's a reason most microwaves come with spinning plates, because it's a micro'wave' thus the wave has peaks and troughs. Many spots in the unit will not get hot because of where the food is in the wave. That's why they spin to get complete coverage from the hot points of the waves.

It's clever, but I don't really use my microwave enough to justify this. I know some people do quite clever things with it, but in general I use it to reheat leftovers and make popcorn.

I would definitely be against putting a screen on the microwave. Between computers, phones, tablets, smart tvs, I have plenty of things with displays on them. I have no desire to look up recipes on my microwave.

Side note - is it a good idea to have a microwave directly above your stove top? What with all the water vapour and heat from below.

Nope. Not interested.
Yet more parts to break.
Yet appliances become even more expensive.
Yet more needless complications and gimmicks
Yet more "internet of things" devices that will spy on me.(ala samsung tvs)
I'm fine with my regular spinning tray microwave.

How much extra am i paying for a heat camera and lcd screen, so that i can see my food heating up? I've never had a microwave dilemma needing that kind of equipment.

I.. wouldn't want one so much i'd be willing to pay for the feature. What problem is it solving that makes it worthwhile?

Your video, First Microwave Upgrade in Forever: Infrared Heat Sensor, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

No self-respecting bacon-lover cooks their bacon in the microwave. C'mon, people!

No need! Just install a strong magnet in the base of your microwave and drop a handful of ball bearings in your spaghetti.

I have a microwave that detects heat and has a "warm this"-button, using a weight sensor, heat sensor and humidity sensor to heat the food perfectly. It works great, and it's from 1994.

Followed by 'making a microwave out of chewing gum and paperclips'.

excellent! Now I need to watch the 'making an arc welder out of a microwave' video.

Sure lucky760, I'll do Splenda, since some varieties of Coke Zero have Splenda in them.

First off it is important to note that the majority of the anti-sweetener "science" has been done by one man: Dr. Joseph Mercola. Now, watch out here, because his name is deceptive. You see, Mercola is an osteopathic physician. Osteopathy is a form of pseudoscience that believes that all pathology can be solved by manipulation of the bones and muscles. There is little science to back up these claims because they are clearly insane and worthy of ridicule. So, much like his doctorate, the claims he makes against sweeteners are pseudoscientific. A number of his beliefs are: that AIDS is not cause by HIV but by psychological stress; that immunizations and prescription drugs shouldn't be prescribed but people should instead buy his dietary supplements; that vaccinations are bad for you and your children (a belief which is the cause of recent outbreaks of whooping cough, measles and mumps); and that microwaves are dangerous machines that irradiate their products (they do, but not with the kind of radiation he is thinking of). Since he made a movie called Sweet Mistery: A Poisoned World, he has been at the forefront of anti-sweetener rhetoric. If you watch the movie, note how hilariously bad it is at actual science; the majority of the "evidence" is people claiming side effects after having ingested something with a sweetener in it (anecdotes are worth nothing in science except perhaps as a reason for researching further). So, you have a movement against something seen as "artificial" by a man who is not a doctor, not a scientist and is clearly lacking in the basics of logic.

Now, Splenda. Created by Johnson and Johnson and a British company in the seventies, it's primary sweetener ingredient is sucralose. The rest of it is dextrose, which as I have said above, is really just d-glucose and is safe for consumption in even very large quantities. So really, we are asking about sucralose. Sucralose is vastly sweeter than sucrose (usually around ~650 times) and thus only a very small amount is needed in whatever it is you are trying to sweeten. The current amount that is considered unsafe for intake (the starting point where adverse effects are felt) is around 1.5g/kg of body weight. So for the average male of 180lbs, they would need to ingest 130g of sucralose to feel any adverse effects. This is compared to the mg of sucralose that you will actually be getting every day. The estimated daily intake of someone who actually consumes sucralose is around 1.1mg/kg, which leaves a massive gap. Similarly to aspartame, if you tried to ingest that much sucralose, you would be incapable due to the overwhelming sweetness of the stuff.

There is some evidence that sucralose may affect people in high doses, but once again, this is similar to the issues with aspartame, where the likelihood of you getting those doses is extremely unlikely.

The chemistry of sucralose is actually way too complicated to go into, but suffice it to say that unlike aspartame, sucralose is not broken down in the body at all and is simply excreted through the kidney just like any other non-reactive agent. The reason that it tastes sweet is because it has the same shape as sucrose except that some of the hydroxy groups are replaced with chlorine atoms. This allows it to fit in the neurotransmitters in the tongue and mouth that send you the sensation of sweetness without also giving you all of those calories. Once it passes into the bloodstream it is dumped out by the kidneys without passing through the liver at all.

In sum, if sweeteners were bad for you, they wouldn't be allowed in your food. Science is not against you, it is the only thing working for everyone at the same time. The reason sugar has gotten around this is because we have always had it. If you want to be healthier, don't drink pop, drink water or milk (unless you are lactose intolerant, then just drink water). Don't drink coconut milk, or gatorade, or vitamin water. Assume that when a company comes out with something like "fat free" it really reads "now loaded with sugar so it doesn't taste like fucking cardboard." Assume that when a company says something is "natural" it is no more natural than the oils you put in your car. IF you want to live and eat healthy, stay on the outside of the supermarket, avoiding the aisles. All of the processed food is in the aisles, not on the outsides and the companies know that you don't want to miss anything. Make your food, don't let someone else do it. And never, ever buy popped popcorn, anywhere, the mark-up on that shit is insane.

Exactly what I was going to say! How is the 1-2 minutes of prep plus the 1:30 in the microwave "faster"?