We have plenty of things to show that - lights on UPS, other electronic clocks, and of course dimes in the ice trays.
1 Like
I looked into a Siemens. It does not have turntable but it comes from Germany although shipping is free. However, we have to use a converter.
I am delighted with this thread. We have twin microwave ovens in town and country. Both date from the '80s. A dial, no buttons. No turntable. Excellent for our simple reheat needs. Both are obviously on borrowed time altho neither has ever hiccoughed in these 40 years.
We have been dismayed by newer models with all kinds of āvalue addedā features which for which we have little need. This ācommercialā model would be perfect for us.
Be sure to read the label on the back. CE does in the EU what UL does in the US. You need to pay attention to both voltage (V or VAC) and frequency (Hz). You can change voltage with a transformer but not frequency. For that you need either a motor-generator set or a power-supply and matched inverter. Neither is cheap. Both are big. Some appliances can be run over a range of voltages and frequencies - small electronics are a good example.
1 Like
Iām not an expert in electricity and converters. My kitchenmaid mixer, a semi pro model (not on sale here) is bought in US, I need to use a converter, rather big in size.
thanks you Dave. I was responding to naf re her siemenās microwave. It is indeed one without a turntable but it has to come all the way from Germany and it will not work as I have to use a transformer.
I was able to get a commercial inverter Panasonic which is SS inside and out except for the bottom shelf which is either glass or ceramic because the microwave comes from below as well as the stirrer. It has the same voltage and Hz as my old non commercial one. All commercial equipment lost their warranty when purchased by homeowner but Katom Kitchen Supply says they will honor my warranty should it be a lemon. I hope it will work for me as I hate those turntables. Although the exterior is 1 inch bigger, the interior being .8 instead of my 1.2 cu ft Panasonic, the interior cavity is only 1 inch smaller in W and D. I look forward to it arriving in a few days,
Not quite, though in the case of microwave ovens, which are relatively āhigh riskā, itās probably fairly similar. There are international substantial-equivalents to UL listing, which always involve testing by independent third-parties, but āCEā is not an āitā, like UL and its peers, itās (just) a mark of (alleged) conformity with EU regs, and depending on the product involved, may merely be āself-certifiedā by the manufacturer. (Whether the mark can be self-certified or not depends on the kind/degree of potential risk involved.) Which is generally/probably satisfactory when the manufacturer is a Known Quantity with a reputation at stake and much to lose financially if they screw up (badly), but is virtually meaningless if the manufacturer is a borderline fly-by-night mass producer of cheap products sold to re-branders (which is still fairly common for products less complex than microwaves, though China, for example, has slowly but semi-surely been cracking down on things like thatā¦)
You can buy this Panasonic commercial microwave ( NE 1064-F) from Katom Restaurant Supply if interested in retiring your 2 microwaves . It is SS both interior and exterior except for the bottom shelf which is either glass or ceramic, ( apparently, they are changing some fo the features from one to the other acc to Panasonic so I would not know which one I will receive) . It is $1220 if you look at Panasonic web site but Katom and other sites are now discounting it for $550. Ask for JR the salesman . He gave me another $100 off so my cost is only $459.80 He also told me not to worry about warranty although Panasonic claims there is no warranty for commercial products if used in a residence. I also had to pay Md tax when I buy thru internet but I was not charged tax either.
My 12 year old 1.2 cu ft residential cu ft Panasonic still works but I am tired of cleaning the interior as well as under the turntable ( I broke mine twice ) . Despite the fact that this model is only 0.8 cu ft, the interior dimensions are only 1 inch smaller than my 1.2 cu ft one.
In my experience (CE vice ABYC) CE is regulatory vice advisory (UL is advisory also, is it not?). Iām a āno more rulesā sort of guy, but I like CE.
Yes, UL is advisory ā and CE is regulatory, but the āself-certifiedā CE mark doesnāt mean anything more than that the manufacturer (and/or possibly re-branders - not sure who has the responsibility in those cases) is asserting that the product meets the relevant legal requirements. Aside from shifting the burden of compliance to the manufacturer rather than an importer/distributor, itās really no different than a distributor asserting that a product meets US regulatory requirements simply by selling it publicly (since the relevant laws/regs require that "all products sold in the US shall comply with blah-blah-blah). A good analogy in the US would be the āFCC complianceā labeling on electronic products; or the laser-power labeling on products with laser diodes (though Iām not sure which agency regulates that). As far as I know, there is no mandatory third-party testing for any of it, but the labels do purport to meet āXYZ regulatory requirementsā and the manufacturer will āget in troubleā if the products donāt in fact meet those standards (for whatever thatās worthā¦)
Iām perfectly happy to view third-party marks (like ETL) as the equivalent of UL listing, but I do take CE marks with a grain of salt unless the product is of a type likely to require third-party testing, and thatās not at all obviousā¦
ā Though in some cases I think (but am not 100% sure) that laws/regulations may require UL listing, just as (I think) many regulatory schemes require NSF listing for certain products in certain contextsā¦
I think it depends. I know FCC requires third party testing at the expense of the manufacturer for products in most services. I donāt believe there is any random production testing. I know the CE mark on my boat was based on drawings and calculations. I donāt think there was any testing, but neither do ABS, DnV, or Lloyds on commercial ships.
From a subjective perspective I think CE is pretty dependable.
1 Like
According to the Wikipedia article on CE (which I wouldnāt put all that much faith in on a subject like this except that itās such typical bureaucratic legalese that I think itās basically just an abstract of the actual regs), whether āreferenceā to a third-party is required depends on the kind and degree of risk involved. So for something like a boat, it might well require at least independent review of the drawings and specs, if not physical testingā¦
I am a naval architect and used to write the stability booklets for USN warships. Testing per se isnāt in the cards, although we did inspections and even inclining experiments. Who is going to ātestā a bridge and how? On point, if a company is going to build a million microwave ovens no advisory or regulatory body will inspect them all. The nice thing about relatively cheap consumer items like microwaves testing, even destructive testing is possible. I donāt think UL does that. Nor does CE to my knowledge.
1 Like
