response 166 of 365:

Nov 2 23:29 UTC 2000

Can anyone recommend a very simplified DOS-based spreadsheet that only adds
rows and columns, no other fancy math, no charts, no graphs?  It would save
typing in the month names so many times, which I have to do if I use my little
database program to keep track of monthly expenses and then do subtotals. 
The other option is to continue with paper and pencil and a calculator, and
write in month names only once, but then have to calculate each row and
column separately (i. e., enter each amount twice).  
Does DOS possibly have a function like this built-in?

response 168 of 365:

Nov 3 01:38 UTC 2000

I can boil plain water in the kitty cooker all day and the most that happens
is the water level in the cup drops. If I put in coffee or tea or anything
else it promptly boils over and goes all over the place. The time-to-boil is
pretty much the same either way as far as I can tell.

response 170 of 365:

Nov 4 21:22 UTC 2000

Is this a calculator?  The matrix calculators seem to add matrix A to matrix
B, rather than adding rows and columns within a matrix.  

response 172 of 365:

Nov 5 17:37 UTC 2000

You can dispense with the Hz information, since your power source is 
presumably the same or close enough not to matter for all the options, 
and likewise, your source voltage is likely the same for all three.  
(Besides, those are for the user's information regarding the required 
source, whereas the wattage is how much power the appliance draws, which 
is what is relevant to the cost.)

So:
        Stove:  6.9 KW/9.9 KW   (I'd guess the smaller number is the stove, 
larger is oven)
        Micro:  1.15 KW
        Crock:  75 W

Since the heat used is directly converted from the electrical energy, and 
since the amount of heat required to boil the water should be relatively 
static, the cost factor is directly determined by the relative efficiency 
of the appliances.  In other words, which one wastes the least amount of 
energy in heating the water?

Since the microwave has that big motor in it which sounds like a fan when 
you run it, you can assume that the energy it takes to run that is not 
necessarily going directly into heating the water.  Major inefficiency.  
However, that may be balanced out by the efficiency of the microwaves 
themselves versus the heating element on the stove or in the crockpot.  
Especially when you consider that it will take 2 minutes or less to boil 
2 cups in the micro versus several minutes on the stove, and much longer 
in the crock.  Since you say the crock doesn't really even boil, then you 
may want to remove it from consideration.

Now we have all the relevant information.  The micro draws 1.15KW to the 
6.9KW of the stove.  Assuming a constant rate of power draw during 
heating, the determining factor is the time required.  Since the micro 
draws less power per unit of time, *and* since it heats the water to the 
boiling point faster than the stove, the obvious answer seems to be the 
micro.

Did I miss anything?

response 174 of 365:

Nov 5 19:16 UTC 2000

        The oven will more than likely be 240 volt, drawing power from
both legs of your electrical line to the house.  The meter spins to 
measure the leg with the greatest draw at the time.  Therefore, with
a balance across the legs used by the electric oven could be more
efficent than you think.
        Still electric oven element on-time would seems to up to 10x 
microwave on time, along with maybe that 9.9kw draw verseus 1.15kw
draw during on-time.

response 176 of 365:

Nov 5 22:42 UTC 2000

Not a clear-cut.  The big savings in a microwave is the concentration of heat
in the food.  Long cooking will leak a lot of heat into the container and
surrounds, and you're really not any more efficient than a crock-pot at that
point.

response 178 of 365:

Nov 6 01:13 UTC 2000

Microwave would be cheaper for the casserole, but a) would it fit in there
and b) food usually tastes better when cooked instead of nuked...  plus you
keep your vitamins.  =)

(I know...not mathematical...but hey...)

response 180 of 365:

Nov 6 03:45 UTC 2000

Microwave ovens do not remove vitamins.  Boiling leaches them into the cooking
water.   Food tastes different when baked or fried than when boiled, steamed
or microwaved partly because of the texture (dry instead of wet) and partly
because higher temperatures can convert some of the starch to sugar (which
caramelizes and turns brown).  

response 182 of 365:

Nov 6 04:29 UTC 2000

Yeah, radiation *must* be bad.  Until we get used to it.

response 184 of 365:

Nov 6 17:39 UTC 2000

        efficient 1: in terms of how much power used

        efficient 2: in terms of how much you will be billed

response 186 of 365:

Nov 6 20:34 UTC 2000

This is one reason why I usually microwave everything in a covered dish, which
retains the heat.   Microwaved foods can be eaten out of the container that
you cooked them in, which (for those of us who do not eat out of the cooking
pot) is more efficient time-wise.   The standard American oven, in a stove,
has a hole at the top which lets heat out, probably on the assumption that
Americans want their baked food to dry out.  This is not energy efficient.
To keep the steam from escaping in an oven, you have to cook the food in a
closed container, which, since the heat is generated outside the container
(unlike in  a microwave oven) is not energy efficient.  I have a small
portable oven which lets you close the hole on top, good for bread baking.

response 188 of 365:

Nov 6 21:52 UTC 2000

There are two "fans". The scattered for the microwaves only looks like
a fan - it is not for moving air, but rather microwaves. It is silent.
The FAN that you hear is internal and blows air past the cavity generator:
if it didn't, it would get red hot very quickly. I think maybe 75%+ of
the energy consumed just heats the cavity, it is so inefficient.

The *best* device for heating just a couple of cups of water for tea or
coffee is a small 1 cup appliance similar to a "cofeemate". We have a
Black and Decker version. It heats and geysers the water. There is very
little other mass heated. 

For larger volumes we use an electric kettle. Every home has one in
England, and most do also in Canada. I looked for one here quite a few
years ago, but they could not be bought in America. So, we picked one up
in Windsor. These heat the water with a heating element immersed directly
in the water, so there is no lost energy heating with an external element
that also loses a lot of heat to the surroundings.