"Dee.Dee" wrote:
>
> "Tracy" > wrote in message ...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> The electric kettle shuts off when the water boils so uses minimal
> >> electric. The one I have has a water level view tube maked in cups,
> >> so no need to boil more than needed, another energy saver. I have
> >> this one, in every respect it's perfect, even very easy to clean the
> >> interior.
> >>
> >> http://www.amazon.com/Braun-WK200W-E.../dp/B00004S9H7
> >>
> >> Once you use this you'll never go back.
> >>
> >> Sheldon
> >
> > I was just looking at that one (or one very similar) today - except in
> > black.
> >
> > -Tracy
> > (putting in on my Xmas list)
>
> 200Watt?
> Dee Dee

Model WK200W, Power output: 1500 watts

"Pete C." > wrote in message
...
> "Dee.Dee" wrote:
>>
>> "Tracy" > wrote in message ...
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> The electric kettle shuts off when the water boils so uses minimal
>> >> electric. The one I have has a water level view tube maked in cups,
>> >> so no need to boil more than needed, another energy saver. I have
>> >> this one, in every respect it's perfect, even very easy to clean the
>> >> interior.
>> >>
>> >> http://www.amazon.com/Braun-WK200W-E.../dp/B00004S9H7
>> >>
>> >> Once you use this you'll never go back.
>> >>
>> >> Sheldon
>> >
>> > I was just looking at that one (or one very similar) today - except in
>> > black.
>> >
>> > -Tracy
>> > (putting in on my Xmas list)
>>
>> 200Watt?
>> Dee Dee
>
> Model WK200W, Power output: 1500 watts

OK, got it. Thanks.
Dee Dee

Sheldon wrote:
> "Pete C." wrote:
> > Tracy wrote:
>
> > > I saw in the small appliances thread that some use an electric kettle
> > > instead of the traditional stove top type. �Just wondering why you
> > > prefer the electric version. �I am thinking of getting one myself.
> > > Brand recommendations?
>
> > > Tracy
> > > (who has gone through more stove top kettles than she can count on both
> > > hands....)
>
> > In the UK where they can get 3,800 Watts + from their 240V outlets, the
> > countertop electric kettles are popular. The US versions which can only
> > get 1,800 Watts from the 120V outlets aren't nearly as useful.
>
> That just means that the US kettles are far more efficient. Â*You don't
> "get" watts... watts is energy *consumed*, not energy produced.
>
> The old UK klunker kettles were made of metal, a fairly large mass of
> thick metal... most of those 3,800 watts were consumed to heat the
> kettle, not the water contained therein... why would any normal
> brained person want to also heat three pounds of steel when all they
> want to heat is one cup water. Â*The new modern plastic kettles consume
> half as many watts to heat twice as much water in half the time. Â*I
> don't know about yoose but I don't want to spend my money to heat
> pots. Â*When I buy small electrical appliances I look for those that
> can do the job with the lowest wattage rating. Â*The UK doesn't make
> those old high wattage consuming klunker kettles anymore... those
> things consumed all those watts because they were poorly designed,
> they couldn't heat small quantites of water like one or two cups
> efficiently, you had to fill the entire pot to fully submerge the
> heater element, so naturally they consumed 3,800 watts because they
> had to heat like 2 quarts of water in order to fully submerge the
> heating element to function at their best efficiency. Â*Those old
> klunkers were not fast all, they needed like 3-4 minutes to boil one
> cup of water. Â*The new modern plastic units boil one cup of water in
> one minute and very efficiently... the 1,500 watt rating is only for
> boiling a full pot, one cup probabvly consumes less than 200 watts.
>
> Sheldon

Btw, I didn't want to confuse so I didn't mention that the wattage
rating for appliances is *watts per hour* (like a 100W light bulb
consumes 100 watts per hour), therefore with a 1,500 watt kettle if
one cup of water is heated to boiling in one minute then the wattage
consumption to boil one cup of water is probably in the neighborhood
of 10-12 watts, costs less than a penny. The 1,500 watt rating is
what that pot consumes running for a full hour... for most families
that's a full month's worth of boiling water. I think some are
beginning to fathom how a kettle with a 3,800 watt rating will cost a
lot more to operate.

Now for pure resistance appliances like with light bulbs and water
heaters wattage ratings make sense. But for motorized appliances like
stand mixers wattage *consumption* means very little in relation to
power *produced*... folks who are impressed with higher wattage
ratings with motorized appliances like stand mixers are blithering
imbeciles. Those wattage ratings mean one thing and one thing only,
how many watts are consumed running full out for one hour, has
practically nothing to do with how much shaft horsepower is produced,
in fact a higher wattage rating for a larger stand mixer can very well
mean less usable power produced, could well mean higher rpm, lots more
heat, and less power produced, because the larger diameter bowl
necessitates larger diamerter beaters that mean the moment of force
during motion consumes more available power that does absolutely
nothing to cause the machine to mix better but will raise the electric
bill. When motorized appliances have no horsepower rating (typically
those without a transmission) then the wattage rating only means how
much it costs to operate, not a whit to do with shaft horsepower
produced... much of that higher wattage goes right up the chimney as
heat. And that's what occurs with the old fashioned higher wattage
kettles, much of the wattage goes to heat the pot.

Don't ever buy a kettle by higher wattage rating, time needed for
heating water is all that's important, with all being equal chose the
kettle with the lowest wattage rating.

Sheldon

On Dec 6, 9:54Â*pm, zxcvbob > wrote:
> Sheldon wrote:
> > "Pete C." wrote:
> >> Tracy wrote:
>
> >>> I saw in the small appliances thread that some use an electric kettle
> >>> instead of the traditional stove top type. �Just wondering why you
> >>> prefer the electric version. �I am thinking of getting one myself.
> >>> Brand recommendations?
> >>> Tracy
> >>> (who has gone through more stove top kettles than she can count on both
> >>> hands....)
> >> In the UK where they can get 3,800 Watts + from their 240V outlets, the
> >> countertop electric kettles are popular. The US versions which can only
> >> get 1,800 Watts from the 120V outlets aren't nearly as useful.
>
> > That just means that the US kettles are far more efficient. Â*You don't
> > "get" watts... watts is energy *consumed*, not energy produced.
>
> > The old UK klunker kettles were made of metal, a fairly large mass of
> > thick metal... most of those 3,800 watts were consumed to heat the
> > kettle, not the water contained therein... why would any normal
> > brained person want to also heat three pounds of steel when all they
> > want to heat is one cup water. Â*The new modern plastic kettles consume
> > half as many watts to heat twice as much water in half the time. Â*I
> > don't know about yoose but I don't want to spend my money to heat
> > pots. Â*When I buy small electrical appliances I look for those that
> > can do the job with the lowest wattage rating. Â*The UK doesn't make
> > those old high wattage consuming klunker kettles anymore... those
> > things consumed all those watts because they were poorly designed,
> > they couldn't heat small quantites of water like one or two cups
> > efficiently, you had to fill the entire pot to fully submerge the
> > heater element, so naturally they consumed 3,800 watts because they
> > had to heat like 2 quarts of water in order to fully submerge the
> > heating element to function at their best efficiency. Â*Those old
> > klunkers were not fast all, they needed like 3-4 minutes to boil one
> > cup of water. Â*The new modern plastic units boil one cup of water in
> > one minute and very efficiently... the 1,500 watt rating is only for
> > boiling a full pot, one cup probabvly consumes less than 200 watts.
>
> > Sheldon
>
> You do realize that almost everything you just said is wrong, don't you?
>
> Bob

Naturally how you know this is why you explained it all... shit for
brains... I'm positive, absolutely 100pct positive that you never went
to school past 7th grade, you are dumber than a small cow flop.

Sheldon

In article >,
Janet Baraclough > wrote:


> In the UK, electric kettles are more or less universal in domestic
> kitchens (even among gas stove users) because they are so much faster
> and turn themselves off as soon as they boil; a more efficient use of
> energy.

Not to mention safer (they don't boil dry, either).

> If however you use the hot water every hour for the
> > first 4 hours of the morning and perhaps again at lunch, its more energy
> > efficient to just keep it warm with the electric types then turn it
> > off when
> > your main use time is done.
>
> But we aren't aiming to keep water warm in a kettle!.I just turn it on
> whenever I want boiling water to make tea and hot drinks, or a pan of
> boiling water to cook veg or pasta etc. Mine boils a litre of water in
> less than one minute then turns itself off.

Exactly.

Miche

--
Electricians do it in three phases

Oh pshaw, on Thu 06 Dec 2007 07:38:49p, Cshenk meant to say...

>
> "Tracy" wrote
>>>> I am looking for a replacement for the yucky looking "stainless"
>>>> model on my stove top.
>>>
>>> Oh? I like mine! Very retro 50's and highly functional.
>
>> I do like the look of a retro kettle. I just hate trying to keep the
>> thing clean.
>
> Aw, well, I throw mine in the dishwasher now and again. Needs nothing
> more.
>
>>> I think of it much like a rice cooker. Useless waste of space to a
>>> person who eats rice at best once a week. An energry saving essential
>>> for folks like me who have it 2-3 times a day and need to keep a batch
>>> warm from breakfast to dinner time. Useless to me are rice units that
>>> just cook then turn off.
>>
>> I agree. My husband has been bugging for a rice cooker, but we eat
>> rice about once a month. I don't see the need.
>
> It is possible, if you had one, you would make rice more often but it
> does not sound like an essential item to your cookery. Mine, just
> finished most of the rice so added 3 cups dashi and some bits of things
> like freeze dried mussels, dried shrimp, dried shiitake and some nori
> etc. I turned it off and in the morning I'll turn it on for fresh
> congee. Once it's eaten for breakfast, I'll make more rice around
> lunchtime and have enough for dinner and post-school munchies. As you
> can see from that, it's a bit more versatile than you may have thought
> but it still probably doesnt fit your lifestyle.
>
>>> Grin, I see on the appliance thread I am abnormal. I can easily
>>> afford 300$ a month electric bills but my habits run me far less
>>> stateside. My only electric bill so far came in and was 87$
>>> (5OCT-15NOV). I'm augmenting the gas heat and electric blower with
>>> the fireplace (have a real one, functional and 2 cords of wood). The
>>> stove and water heater are also gas. Havent got a gas bill yet but I
>>> think it will be pretty low comparitive to my area.
>>
>> We put our son to the task of helping lower our electric bills. He is
>> constantly turning out lights on us...saying things like "do you really
>> need this 3rd light on?" We created a monster.
>
> LOL.
>
>> We also recently moved. Our new apartment has a timer on the
>> thermostat. I love this! I can set it so the heat goes off during the
>> day when we aren't home and at night for sleeping (I set it to 58-60F)
>> It comes on in the am for a bit and when we come home from work. 68F
>> in the winter - on really cold days like today - 27F right now. I can
>> deal with 64 or 65 if it is not below freezing outside.
>
> Well, we stay at 70-72F here unless the fireplace makes it warmer. I
> wouldnt mind dropping it lower at night but Don doesnt like that.
>
>

I have no use for a kettle, either electric or stovetop. Neither of us
drink hot tea, and I have few uses for boiling water where it wouldn't work
better in a cooking pot or a small quantity in the microwave. For me it
would be a totally useless appliance.

--
Wayne Boatwright

Date: Thu, 12/6/07

*******************************************
Countdown 'til Christmas
2wks 2dys 2hrs
*******************************************
Only those who attempt the absurd
achieve the impossible.
*******************************************

Sheldon wrote:
>
> Btw, I didn't want to confuse so I didn't mention that the wattage
> rating for appliances is *watts per hour* (like a 100W light bulb
> consumes 100 watts per hour), therefore with a 1,500 watt kettle if

No, it's not. 100W is 100W. It's consuming 100W
whether you run it for an hour or a day.
The watt is a unit of power, not energy.

The unit of energy is the watt-hour. Running
a 100W lightbulb for 1 hour would consume
100 watt-hours. Running it for 10 hours
would consume 1000 watt-hours. Running it
for 6 minutes would consume 10 watt-hours.

Tracy > wrote:

> I saw in the small appliances thread that some use an electric kettle
> instead of the traditional stove top type. Just wondering why you
> prefer the electric version. I am thinking of getting one myself.
> Brand recommendations?

Modern electric cordless kettles are much more energy-efficient. Also,
given sufficient power, they are very much faster than any
stove-top-like contraption for boiling water. I have a Russell Hobbs
Reflexions-series 3000 W kettle I bought about 8 months ago for 47
euros. At full capacity (1.7 l/ 7.2 cups), water boils after 4 minutes.
You will need a 220 V outlet to plug it in. See, for example,
<http://www.amazon.co.uk/Russell-Hobbs-12501-Reflections-Kettle/dp/B000ARK76K>.

There are currently other Russell Hobbs kettle models with the same
wattage, some costing substantially more or substantially less,
depending entirely on their design (some are made of glass and wood and
are rather more expensive). As to the performance, they do not differ
much from each other.

I used to use a Simplex stove-top chrome kettle for many years and,
before that, an even better-looking one for many more years. The
Simplex kettle is as beautiful and traditional-looking as they get, but
its bottom is not really smooth (it is ridged, for want of a better
word), so it is extremely inefficient on anything but a gas or another
open-fire cooktop, even though it is advertised as being suitable for
any cooktop, including induction. And, even if its bottom were smooth,
it still wouldn't be as efficient as most present-day electric kettles.

Victor

zxcvbob > wrote:

> I wish I could find a 3000+ watt kettle, but those only seem to
> be available in UK. I know I'd have to change the plug, and it wouldn't
> be UL listed (might be Canadian listed though), those are not problems

They are available throughout Europe. Why not order one from there?
Postage differs but could be bearable, depending on the country and
supplier.

Victor

"Tracy" > wrote in message ...
>I saw in the small appliances thread that some use an electric kettle
>instead of the traditional stove top type. Just wondering why you prefer
>the electric version. I am thinking of getting one myself. Brand
>recommendations?
>
> Tracy
> (who has gone through more stove top kettles than she can count on both
> hands....)

I love mine. Can't remember what brand it is. I got it as a clearance item
at the military commissary. So it might not have been anything available to
the general public. They sometimes have stuff that is made just for them.

I decided to get it after buying tea kettle after tea kettle and none held
up. They either rusted or lost parts or leaked!

I don't drink a lot of tea but I do use boiling water for some things and I
can get boiling water in about a minute with this thing. I also like that I
can have it going on the side and not have to use a burner. It's great to
have while canning. I always have boiling water when I need it.

"Victor Sack" > wrote in message
.. .
> zxcvbob > wrote:
>
>> I wish I could find a 3000+ watt kettle, but those only seem to
>> be available in UK. I know I'd have to change the plug, and it wouldn't
>> be UL listed (might be Canadian listed though), those are not problems
>
> They are available throughout Europe. Why not order one from there?
> Postage differs but could be bearable, depending on the country and
> supplier.
>
> Victor

It would entail at least minor, possibly major, rewiring in the kitchen to
use it. You need a 240V line on the counter for it .

Sheldon wrote:

>
> Stop dancing all around... go for the 40 bucks and order the Braun...
> then after a week report back. If you're not happy you pay the
> shipping and I will take it off your hands for $40.
>
>

OK, already. I am not waiting for Christmas. I just ordered it.

-Tracy

Mark Thorson wrote:
>
> Sheldon wrote:
> >
> > Btw, I didn't want to confuse so I didn't mention that the wattage
> > rating for appliances is *watts per hour* (like a 100W light bulb
> > consumes 100 watts per hour), therefore with a 1,500 watt kettle if
>
> No, it's not. 100W is 100W. It's consuming 100W
> whether you run it for an hour or a day.
> The watt is a unit of power, not energy.
>
> The unit of energy is the watt-hour. Running
> a 100W lightbulb for 1 hour would consume
> 100 watt-hours. Running it for 10 hours
> would consume 1000 watt-hours. Running it
> for 6 minutes would consume 10 watt-hours.

Bingo!

Victor Sack wrote:
>
> Tracy > wrote:
>
> > I saw in the small appliances thread that some use an electric kettle
> > instead of the traditional stove top type. Just wondering why you
> > prefer the electric version. I am thinking of getting one myself.
> > Brand recommendations?
>
> Modern electric cordless kettles are much more energy-efficient.

I haven't seen a cordless kettle, but I think
it would be much less efficient than a corded
kettle. You lose energy charging the battery,
and you lose more energy through self-discharge
while the charged battery is waiting to be used.

Mark Thorson wrote:
> Victor Sack wrote:
>> Tracy > wrote:
>>
>>> I saw in the small appliances thread that some use an electric kettle
>>> instead of the traditional stove top type. Just wondering why you
>>> prefer the electric version. I am thinking of getting one myself.
>>> Brand recommendations?
>> Modern electric cordless kettles are much more energy-efficient.
>
> I haven't seen a cordless kettle, but I think
> it would be much less efficient than a corded
> kettle. You lose energy charging the battery,
> and you lose more energy through self-discharge
> while the charged battery is waiting to be used.


Your sense of humor is dry enough I can't tell if you are serious or
this is a joke. (congratulations ;-)

"Cordless" means no cord on the kettle itself. The cord is attached to
a base that has electrical contacts and an interlock switch to transfer
the electricity to the kettle when the kettle is sitting on the base.
The heating element is enclosed in the bottom of the removable kettle.

Bob

Mark Thorson wrote:
> Victor Sack wrote:
>> Tracy > wrote:
>>
>>> I saw in the small appliances thread that some use an electric kettle
>>> instead of the traditional stove top type. Just wondering why you
>>> prefer the electric version. I am thinking of getting one myself.
>>> Brand recommendations?
>> Modern electric cordless kettles are much more energy-efficient.
>
> I haven't seen a cordless kettle, but I think
> it would be much less efficient than a corded
> kettle. You lose energy charging the battery,
> and you lose more energy through self-discharge
> while the charged battery is waiting to be used.

They're not battery run as the pot sits upon the electric base element
which does the heating.
They work just fine.

I bought this Capresso cause it's so pretty and it works very well. Not
too big to sit out on the counter in my small kitchen.

http://www.amazon.com/Capresso-259-0...p/B000BYCGTS/r
ef=sr_1_40?ie=UTF8&s=home-garden&qid=1197053807&sr=1-40

Pete C. > wrote:
> Mark Thorson wrote:
> >
> > Sheldon wrote:
> > >
> > > Btw, I didn't want to confuse so I didn't mention that the wattage
> > > rating for appliances is *watts per hour* (like a 100W light bulb
> > > consumes 100 watts per hour), therefore with a 1,500 watt kettle if
> >
> > No, it's not. 100W is 100W. It's consuming 100W
> > whether you run it for an hour or a day.
> > The watt is a unit of power, not energy.
> >
> > The unit of energy is the watt-hour. Running
> > a 100W lightbulb for 1 hour would consume
> > 100 watt-hours. Running it for 10 hours
> > would consume 1000 watt-hours. Running it
> > for 6 minutes would consume 10 watt-hours.

> Bingo!

Sheldon has always been screwed up on the meaning of watts
vs. watt-hours. He really doesn't know what he's talking about.
Of course a 3800 watt kettle will heat water quicker than a 1500
watt model. It a resistive heating element. Resistive heating
elements basically turn electricity into heat at 100% efficiency.
If a 1500 watt kettle takes 1 minute to boil water, that's 1500
watt-minutes, a 3000 watt kettle should do it in half that time
but end up using 1500 watt-minutes also.

Bill Ranck
Blacksburg, Va.

Edwin Pawlowski > wrote:

> It would entail at least minor, possibly major, rewiring in the kitchen to
> use it. You need a 240V line on the counter for it .

The 240V line is there quasi by default in most every American house.
What is needed is just an outlet with both 120V wires active - and at
least one such outlet is already available in many kitchens.

Victor

Mark Thorson > wrote:

> I haven't seen a cordless kettle, but I think
> it would be much less efficient than a corded
> kettle. You lose energy charging the battery,
> and you lose more energy through self-discharge
> while the charged battery is waiting to be used.

There is no battery. There is a connector base which does have a cord.
The kettle, itself cordless, is placed on the base to boil water.

Victor

"Victor Sack" > wrote in message
...
> Edwin Pawlowski > wrote:
>
>> It would entail at least minor, possibly major, rewiring in the kitchen
>> to
>> use it. You need a 240V line on the counter for it .
>
> The 240V line is there quasi by default in most every American house.
> What is needed is just an outlet with both 120V wires active - and at
> least one such outlet is already available in many kitchens.
>
> Victor

The one in the kitchen is used for the range and it is a one unit circuit.
Adding a 3800 watt load on the existing circuit is not allowed. Anything
can be done with enough time and money, but it can add from $50 to $500 to
the cost of getting started.

"Mark Thorson" > wrote in message
..
>
> I haven't seen a cordless kettle, but I think
> it would be much less efficient than a corded
> kettle. You lose energy charging the battery,
> and you lose more energy through self-discharge
> while the charged battery is waiting to be used.

I use a cordless gas model.

"Janet Baraclough" > wrote in message
...
> The message >
> from "Edwin Pawlowski" > contains these words:
>
>
>
>> I use a cordless gas model.
>
> Don't you get blisters from sitting on that kettle?
>
> Janet.

Yes, but it makes you feel warm all over.

On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 13:22:51 -0500, Tracy > fired up
random neurons and synapses to opine:

>I saw in the small appliances thread that some use an electric kettle
>instead of the traditional stove top type. Just wondering why you
>prefer the electric version. I am thinking of getting one myself.
>Brand recommendations?

Late to the thread, but the DH and I love steeped hot tea and have had
a Russell Hobbs 2-piece electric kettle that has worked a treat. It
has an automatic shut off timer and heats water very quickly. At the
time, we could only get a plastic version which doesn't seem to be
available anymore. The below link looks good and if it had been
available at the time, we might have chosen it as it sits out on the
counter and I *hate* plastic cr*p sitting out on my counters:

http://kitchen.cookery-guide.info/br...bs/kettles.php

Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd
--
"If the soup had been as hot as the claret, if the claret had been as
old as the bird, and if the bird's breasts had been as full as the
waitress's, it would have been a very good dinner."

-- Duncan Hines


To reply, replace "meatloaf" with "cox"

Edwin Pawlowski > wrote:

> The one in the kitchen is used for the range and it is a one unit circuit.
> Adding a 3800 watt load on the existing circuit is not allowed.

The kettle is 3000 W, not 3800 W.

In any case, this does not make sense. First, there are frequently more
than one circuits built-in, for example separate ones for the range and the
oven. Second, adding to what? Ranges differ a lot. Any power element in
a range can be over 3000 W, though usually most are lower, with just one
high-power element. Then, there can be an oven, a not exactly unusual
addition, with up to at least 3500 W baking and a 3600 W broiling element,
which can be operated simultaneously. Some have rather more wattage. I do
not even know the wattage of the self-cleaning cycle. Look up
specifications of the current electric ranges/stoves. Then add the
microwave and all the other possible appliances. It is not at all
infrequent to have a total power consumption of over 20,000 W in the
kitchen. See, for example,
<http://www.cs.wright.edu/bie/rehabengr/kitchens/electric.htm>.

Anyway, the circuit - any circuit in the kitchen - is already 240 V quasi
by default, as stated. It is called a "3-wire service." It is all about
just an extra 240 V outlet, if it is not already there. The wattage
capacity of any given circuit equals the amp rating of the breaker times
the voltage. In the case of a 3,000W appliance, even the standard 20-amp
breaker is plenty and one can always install a 50- or 65-amp one.

Victor

Terry Pulliam Burd > wrote:

> The below link looks good and if it had been
> available at the time, we might have chosen it as it sits out on the
> counter and I *hate* plastic cr*p sitting out on my counters:
>
> http://kitchen.cookery-guide.info/br...bs/kettles.php

There are way better looking kettles, if design is of the essence. I
posted a link to the Reflexions-series Russell Hobbs kettle (the one I
have) in the thread. Here are some more, some of them not inexpensive,
but you pay for the design:
<http://www.yatego.com/kleingeraete-kueche/wasserkocher/35-10-34,3,,1,1,q,wasserkocher>.

Victor

On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 20:53:39 -0500, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>
>Sheldon wrote:
>
>> > It's not cultural, it's practical. Your UK electric kettles are about
>> > twice the wattage of the US due to your 240V power, so the US version is
>> > slower than dirt and therefore not popular.
>>
>> You're obviously not an electrician. The fact that Europens use
>> higher voltages for small appliasnces has nothing to do with consuming
>> watts, it has *only* to do with that the European electrical grid is
>> antiquated... with 240V appliances they obviously have far more in
>> home electricutions is all.
>
>And you are obviously not an electrician either. Higher voltage does make
>electrical systems more efficient by reducing the amperage to make a system
>more efficient. Electric motors are more efficient at higher voltages.
>Note that major appliances like stoves, dryers and good water pressure
>systems for rural homes run on 220V. Heavy duty electric motors are wired
>for 220.
>
>
>> The instant water supply units at the sink in the US are first of all
>> 120V, not 240V,
>
>Curiously, electric water heaters run on 220.

220 volts doesn't exist in the US. We have 120/240 in homes. "Heavy
duty" motors are 480V-3 phase. Motors in homes are just little toys.
But you are correct that higher voltage reduces amperage. It also
reduces voltage drop. But that has little to do with an electric
kettle unless you're using 200 ft. of extension cord. <g>

Lou

In article >,
"pavane" > wrote:

> "JoeSpareBedroom" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "zxcvbob" > wrote in message

> >>> I'm just being a pain in the neck by asking, but what if you bought a
> >>> nice thick ceramic trivet, and when you're done using the existing
> >>> kettle, put it on the trivet next to the coffee pot? Cheap, simple
> >>> solution.
> >>
> >>
> >> But then there wouldn't be anything to talk about. Think about it.
> >>
> >> Bob
> >
> >
> > This is true, although it could morph into a discussion of the relative
> > merits of various trivet materials, and the time a trivet exploded and
> > injured someone's aunt Betty.
>
> Right on. Then you have company coming and a broken trivet so
> at the last minute you go out and run around store to store to
> find a suitable replacement trivet, and of course they are all too
> small or too big or too ugly. God, I hate playing trivet pursuit.
>
> pavane

Game, set, and match to Pavane! ROFL!
--
-Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
Notes about our meals in Tuscany have been posted to
http://www.jamlady.eboard.com; 10-16-2007