The cooking instructions for Stouffer's frozen dinners are for 1100W
ovens. Mine is more powerful but it's a Panasonic so the power level
can be reduced in 10% increments. For small changes, is the
relationship between power and cooking time nearly linear so it would
not make any difference whether I decrease power or time by 10%?

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 11:59:33 -0800 (PST), "
> wrote:

>The cooking instructions for Stouffer's frozen dinners are for 1100W
>ovens. Mine is more powerful but it's a Panasonic so the power level
>can be reduced in 10% increments. For small changes, is the
>relationship between power and cooking time nearly linear so it would
>not make any difference whether I decrease power or time by 10%?

1. You didn't state how many watts your microwave is.
2. Seems bazaar they'd base cooking times on 1100 watts. Aren't more
microwaves under 1000 watts than over?
3. What's wrong with your regular oven?

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

wrote:

> The cooking instructions for Stouffer's frozen dinners are for 1100W
> ovens. Mine is more powerful but it's a Panasonic so the power level
> can be reduced in 10% increments. For small changes, is the
> relationship between power and cooking time nearly linear so it would
> not make any difference whether I decrease power or time by 10%?

Are you actually asking for help microwaving a tv dinner?

Someone please hold me.

--
Mort

wrote:
> The cooking instructions for Stouffer's frozen dinners are for 1100W
> ovens. Mine is more powerful but it's a Panasonic so the power level
> can be reduced in 10% increments. For small changes, is the
> relationship between power and cooking time nearly linear so it would
> not make any difference whether I decrease power or time by 10%?

In my experience these things are about linear, but they get nonlinear
for very short times.
EJ in NJ

On Jan 12, 2:12*pm, Mort > wrote:
> wrote:
> > The cooking instructions for Stouffer's frozen dinners are for 1100W
> > ovens. *Mine is more powerful but it's a Panasonic so the power level
> > can be reduced in 10% increments. *For small changes, is the
> > relationship between power and cooking time nearly linear so it would
> > not make any difference whether I decrease power or time by 10%?
>
> Are you actually asking for help microwaving a tv dinner?

Apparently. One would think that the manual to his inverter would
answer those questions.
>
> Someone please hold me.

Why? Are you feeling lonely?
>
> --
> Mort

--Bryan

EJ wrote on Tue, 12 Jan 2010 15:44:05 -0500:

> wrote:
>> The cooking instructions for Stouffer's frozen dinners are
>> for 1100W ovens. Mine is more powerful but it's a Panasonic so the
>> power level can be reduced in 10% increments. For
>> small changes, is the relationship between power and cooking time
>> nearly linear so it would not make any difference
>> whether I decrease power or time by 10%?

> In my experience these things are about linear, but they get
> nonlinear for very short times.
> EJ in NJ

At least for my oven, the different power levels (10 in my case) are
gotten by turning on the magnetron for different times, 10%, 20% to
100%, so they are no doubt linear except perhaps for very short times.

--

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

On Jan 12, 11:59 am, "
> wrote:
> The cooking instructions for Stouffer's frozen dinners are for 1100W
> ovens. Mine is more powerful but it's a Panasonic so the power level
> can be reduced in 10% increments. For small changes, is the
> relationship between power and cooking time nearly linear so it would
> not make any difference whether I decrease power or time by 10%?

Other than idle curiosity, does it matter? All you're doing is thawing
and heating an already cooked dish so the correct time and power level
is whatever it takes to get it all as hot as you want it. Since
underwarming is easily fixed and overcooked is not, the general rule
for microwave timings is to err on the short side, test, and then
continue. -aem

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 11:59:33 -0800 (PST), "
> > wrote:
>
>>The cooking instructions for Stouffer's frozen dinners are for 1100W
>>ovens. Mine is more powerful but it's a Panasonic so the power level
>>can be reduced in 10% increments. For small changes, is the
>>relationship between power and cooking time nearly linear so it would
>>not make any difference whether I decrease power or time by 10%?
>
> 1. You didn't state how many watts your microwave is.
> 2. Seems bazaar they'd base cooking times on 1100 watts. Aren't more
> microwaves under 1000 watts than over?
> 3. What's wrong with your regular oven?
>
> --

It's not bizarre; most microwaveable meals specify the recommended heating
times and power level based on being tested in a certain wattage MW. 1100
is pretty standard as stated on the packages. This person says they can
step theirs down to 1100 so that's what I'd suggest doing. And I'm guessing
this person doesn't want to use the regular oven because they bought
microwaveable food.

Jill

On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 17:37:15 -0500, "jmcquown" >
wrote:

>"sf" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 11:59:33 -0800 (PST), "
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>The cooking instructions for Stouffer's frozen dinners are for 1100W
>>>ovens. Mine is more powerful but it's a Panasonic so the power level
>>>can be reduced in 10% increments. For small changes, is the
>>>relationship between power and cooking time nearly linear so it would
>>>not make any difference whether I decrease power or time by 10%?
>>
>> 1. You didn't state how many watts your microwave is.
>> 2. Seems bazaar they'd base cooking times on 1100 watts. Aren't more
>> microwaves under 1000 watts than over?
>> 3. What's wrong with your regular oven?
>>
>> --
>
>It's not bizarre; most microwaveable meals specify the recommended heating
>times and power level based on being tested in a certain wattage MW. 1100
>is pretty standard as stated on the packages. This person says they can
>step theirs down to 1100 so that's what I'd suggest doing. And I'm guessing
>this person doesn't want to use the regular oven because they bought
>microwaveable food.
>
That person must be 10 years old.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

On Jan 12, 4:37*pm, "jmcquown" > wrote:
> "sf" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 11:59:33 -0800 (PST), "
> > > wrote:
>
> >>The cooking instructions for Stouffer's frozen dinners are for 1100W
> >>ovens. *Mine is more powerful but it's a Panasonic so the power level
> >>can be reduced in 10% increments. *For small changes, is the
> >>relationship between power and cooking time nearly linear so it would
> >>not make any difference whether I decrease power or time by 10%?
>
> > 1. *You didn't state how many watts your microwave is.
> > 2. *Seems bazaar they'd base cooking times on 1100 watts. *Aren't more
> > microwaves under 1000 watts than over?
> > 3. *What's wrong with your regular oven?
>
> > --
>
> It's not bizarre; most microwaveable meals specify the recommended heating
> times and power level based on being tested in a certain wattage MW. *1100
> is pretty standard as stated on the packages. *This person says they can
> step theirs down to 1100 so that's what I'd suggest doing. *And I'm guessing
> this person doesn't want to use the regular oven because they bought
> microwaveable food.
>
> Jill

Many of my frozen dinners can be prepared in the oven but I don't want
to take the time, especially at lunch.
And although I'm not expecting gourmet results, I want my fast lunch
to be as good as it can be;
since there's a choice of regulating either power or time I thought
I'd check out what others think.
Thanks!
Bob

In article
>,
aem > wrote:

> On Jan 12, 11:59 am, "
> > wrote:
> > The cooking instructions for Stouffer's frozen dinners are for 1100W
> > ovens. Mine is more powerful but it's a Panasonic so the power level
> > can be reduced in 10% increments. For small changes, is the
> > relationship between power and cooking time nearly linear so it would
> > not make any difference whether I decrease power or time by 10%?
>
> Other than idle curiosity, does it matter? All you're doing is thawing
> and heating an already cooked dish so the correct time and power level
> is whatever it takes to get it all as hot as you want it. Since
> underwarming is easily fixed and overcooked is not, the general rule
> for microwave timings is to err on the short side, test, and then
> continue. -aem

It matters more for frozen food. Ice does not absorb microwaves as
well as water. At first this doesn't matter, since the microwaves just
keep bouncing around until they get absorbed. Since they travel at
186,000 miles per second, Joe and Susie Average aren't going to notice
this. However, as soon as any ice melts, now the microwaves are getting
absorbed more in that location. This is often in the corners, or food
that absorbs more. Thus, part of the dinner gets burned, while some is
still frozen. This is why most microwave ovens have a defrost setting.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On Jan 12, 3:11 pm, Kajikit > wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 14:10:33 -0800 (PST), aem >
> wrote:
> [snips] .... Since
> >underwarming is easily fixed and overcooked is not, the general rule
> >for microwave timings is to err on the short side, test, and then
> >continue. -aem
>
> But if you read the box directions ....

Directions for that kind of product are at best a guideline. The
general rule is always a good idea--just as you test food as you go
along when using other methods of cooking it makes sense to do it with
a microwave as well. I've ranted about this several times before.
You don't cook by 'so much time at such a temp,' you cook until your
testing tells you the food is where you want it to be. Think about
it--steamed broccoli is not 5 minutes and 15 seconds, you start
checking at around 4:30 and it's done when the last test is perfect;
spaghetti is not 9 minutes, it's when your test bite gives you
whatever is your ideal 'al dente'. Roast beef is not x minutes per
pound at y temp, it's when the meat thermometer reaches the temp you
like. So trial and error and testing and experience should guide your
microwave use in the same way. The frozen veggie package tells you to
overcook the product but you're the cook and you don't have to do what
they tell you. I frankly don't know what frozen dinner packages say
but I know ithout looking that whatever it says will be only a
guideline and I will test it well before the stated time.. -aem

In article >,
sf > wrote:

> On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 11:59:33 -0800 (PST), "
> > wrote:
>
> >The cooking instructions for Stouffer's frozen dinners are for 1100W
> >ovens. Mine is more powerful but it's a Panasonic so the power level
> >can be reduced in 10% increments. For small changes, is the
> >relationship between power and cooking time nearly linear so it would
> >not make any difference whether I decrease power or time by 10%?
>
> 1. You didn't state how many watts your microwave is.
> 2. Seems bazaar they'd base cooking times on 1100 watts. Aren't more
> microwaves under 1000 watts than over?

That's what I thought. However, this site shows about a third of the
Panasonic ovens *over* 1200 watts!

http://www.epinions.com/Microwave_Ov...rand_panasonic

> 3. What's wrong with your regular oven?

And cooking a regular meal rather than junk? Maybe Bob isn't retired
like we are?

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

Dan Abel wrote:
>
> In article
><snip>


> > Other than idle curiosity, does it matter? All you're doing is thawing
> > and heating an already cooked dish so the correct time and power level
> > is whatever it takes to get it all as hot as you want it. Since
> > underwarming is easily fixed and overcooked is not, the general rule
> > for microwave timings is to err on the short side, test, and then
> > continue. -aem
>
> It matters more for frozen food. Ice does not absorb microwaves as
> well as water. At first this doesn't matter, since the microwaves just
> keep bouncing around until they get absorbed. Since they travel at
> 186,000 miles per second, Joe and Susie Average aren't going to notice
> this. However, as soon as any ice melts, now the microwaves are getting
> absorbed more in that location. This is often in the corners, or food
> that absorbs more. Thus, part of the dinner gets burned, while some is
> still frozen. This is why most microwave ovens have a defrost setting.
>


They only travel at lightspeed until they hit the food. At that point
they slow down of course

jmcquown wrote:
> "sf" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 11:59:33 -0800 (PST), "
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> The cooking instructions for Stouffer's frozen dinners are for 1100W
>>> ovens. Mine is more powerful but it's a Panasonic so the power level
>>> can be reduced in 10% increments. For small changes, is the
>>> relationship between power and cooking time nearly linear so it would
>>> not make any difference whether I decrease power or time by 10%?
>>
>> 1. You didn't state how many watts your microwave is.
>> 2. Seems bazaar they'd base cooking times on 1100 watts. Aren't more
>> microwaves under 1000 watts than over?
>> 3. What's wrong with your regular oven?
>>
>> --
>
> It's not bizarre; most microwaveable meals specify the recommended
> heating times and power level based on being tested in a certain
> wattage MW. 1100 is pretty standard as stated on the packages. This
> person says they can step theirs down to 1100 so that's what I'd
> suggest doing. And I'm guessing this person doesn't want to use the
> regular oven because they bought microwaveable food.
>
> Jill
Women...

Bruce

Andy wrote:
> > wrote:
>
>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> The cooking instructions for Stouffer's frozen dinners are for 1100W
>>> ovens. Mine is more powerful but it's a Panasonic so the power level
>>> can be reduced in 10% increments. For small changes, is the
>>> relationship between power and cooking time nearly linear so it would
>>> not make any difference whether I decrease power or time by 10%?
>>>
>> Are you actually asking for help microwaving a tv dinner?
>>
>> Someone please hold me.
>>
>
> Actually not an unreasonable question.
>
> It's a simple matter of percentage.
>
> Since the box said 1,100 watts for say 5 minutes, and his microwave is
> 1,500 watts, the time will be reduced by 1,100/1,500. So 73% (or .73) of
> 300 seconds (5 minutes for base-10 math) = 220 seconds OR 3:40 minutes.
>
> If the microwave was less powerful, calculate 1,100/900 = 122% (or 1.22)
> for example and you'll get 6:06 minutes.
>
> Andy
>
Women generally aren't good at math. Many of the Walmart jokes I get
show something like SALE! 2 For $7.00! (Was $3.50 each).

Bruce

wrote:
> The cooking instructions for Stouffer's frozen dinners are for 1100W
> ovens. Mine is more powerful but it's a Panasonic so the power level
> can be reduced in 10% increments. For small changes, is the
> relationship between power and cooking time nearly linear so it would
> not make any difference whether I decrease power or time by 10%?

Pretty linear.

Ignore the directions though. I sometimes make Stouffer's for lunch at work
and we have a 1200 watt MW. If the directions say 7.5 minutes, it is
usually done in 4.5 to 5. The thick things like a lasagna though, need
longer times at lower power setting, or a lot more standing time. It cooks
faster if you take it out about half way and cut it down the center and make
an opening. In any case, I've never go near the times on the box.

On Jan 12, 9:17*pm, "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote:
> wrote:
> > The cooking instructions for Stouffer's frozen dinners are for 1100W
> > ovens. *Mine is more powerful but it's a Panasonic so the power level
> > can be reduced in 10% increments. *For small changes, is the
> > relationship between power and cooking time nearly linear so it would
> > not make any difference whether I decrease power or time by 10%?
>
> Pretty linear.
>
> Ignore the directions though. I sometimes make Stouffer's for lunch at work
> and we have a 1200 watt MW. *If the directions say 7.5 minutes, it is
> usually done in 4.5 to 5. *The thick things like a lasagna though, need
> longer times at lower power setting, or a lot more standing time. *It cooks
> faster if you take it out about half way and cut it down the center and make
> an opening. *In any case, I've never go near the times on the box.

Thanks! This seems to be the consensus. I always reduce the time,
just not as much as you. And I do get overcooking at corners. Now I
know.
Bob

In article >, Arri London >
wrote:

> Dan Abel wrote:

> > keep bouncing around until they get absorbed. Since they travel at
> > 186,000 miles per second, Joe and Susie Average aren't going to notice
> > this.

> They only travel at lightspeed until they hit the food. At that point
> they slow down of course

Thanks, Arri. I'll watch them more carefully from now on!

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

In article
>,
" > wrote:

> On Jan 12, 9:17*pm, "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote:
> > wrote:
> > > The cooking instructions for Stouffer's frozen dinners are for 1100W
> > > ovens. *Mine is more powerful but it's a Panasonic so the power level
> > > can be reduced in 10% increments. *For small changes, is the
> > > relationship between power and cooking time nearly linear so it would
> > > not make any difference whether I decrease power or time by 10%?
> >
> > Pretty linear.
> >
> > Ignore the directions though. I sometimes make Stouffer's for lunch at work
> > and we have a 1200 watt MW. *If the directions say 7.5 minutes, it is
> > usually done in 4.5 to 5. *The thick things like a lasagna though, need
> > longer times at lower power setting, or a lot more standing time. *It cooks
> > faster if you take it out about half way and cut it down the center and make
> > an opening. *In any case, I've never go near the times on the box.
>
> Thanks! This seems to be the consensus. I always reduce the time,
> just not as much as you. And I do get overcooking at corners. Now I
> know.

I think it would have to depend on how cold the food was when you put it
in the nuker. There could easily be a 20 F difference between various
freezers, where in them the food was stored (back corner or door), and
so on.

Isaac

Arri replied to Dan:

>> Ice does not absorb microwaves as well as water. At first this doesn't
>> matter, since the microwaves just keep bouncing around until they get
>> absorbed. Since they travel at 186,000 miles per second, Joe and Susie
>> Average aren't going to notice this. However, as soon as any ice melts,
>> now the microwaves are getting absorbed more in that location. This is
>> often in the corners, or food that absorbs more. Thus, part of the
>> dinner gets burned, while some is still frozen. This is why most
>> microwave ovens have a defrost setting.
>
> They only travel at lightspeed until they hit the food. At that point
> they slow down of course

They're still at lightspeed, but lightspeed is different because of the
different medium. That's why refraction occurs.

Bob

On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 00:48:27 -0800, "Bob Terwilliger"
> wrote:

>
>
>They're still at lightspeed, but lightspeed is different because of the
>different medium. That's why refraction occurs.
>
>

So much for Einstein's theories.

Barry in Indy

In article >,
Barry in Indy > wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 00:48:27 -0800, "Bob Terwilliger"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >They're still at lightspeed, but lightspeed is different because of the
> >different medium. That's why refraction occurs.
> >
> >
>
> So much for Einstein's theories.

No. The speed of light is a constant. In a vacuum.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/...2einstein.html

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

Dan Abel wrote:
>
> In article >, Arri London >
> wrote:
>
> > Dan Abel wrote:
>
> > > keep bouncing around until they get absorbed. Since they travel at
> > > 186,000 miles per second, Joe and Susie Average aren't going to notice
> > > this.
>
> > They only travel at lightspeed until they hit the food. At that point
> > they slow down of course
>
> Thanks, Arri. I'll watch them more carefully from now on!
>
>

Remember to remove the foil helmet when you do though

Dan wrote:

>>> They're still at lightspeed, but lightspeed is different because of the
>>> different medium. That's why refraction occurs.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> So much for Einstein's theories.
>
> No. The speed of light is a constant. In a vacuum.
>
> http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/...2einstein.html

But we're not talking about microwaves in a vacuum. We're talking about
microwaves in air (not a vacuum), and then in food (not a vacuum either).
The speed of electromagnetic radiation (including both visible light and
microwaves) is dependent mainly on the density of the medium through which
it travels (as well as some other properties of that medium).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light

Bob

On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 09:33:27 -0800, Dan Abel > wrote:

>In article >,
> Barry in Indy > wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 00:48:27 -0800, "Bob Terwilliger"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >They're still at lightspeed, but lightspeed is different because of the
>> >different medium. That's why refraction occurs.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> So much for Einstein's theories.
>
>No. The speed of light is a constant. In a vacuum.
>
>http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/...2einstein.html

I stand corrected.

Barry in Indy

On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 12:02:53 -0600, Andy wrote:

> Dan Abel > wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> Barry in Indy > wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 00:48:27 -0800, "Bob Terwilliger"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >They're still at lightspeed, but lightspeed is different because of
>>> >the different medium. That's why refraction occurs.
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>> So much for Einstein's theories.
>>
>> No. The speed of light is a constant. In a vacuum.
>>
>> http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/...12einstein.htm
>> l
>
> Geez, Danny, what a dim microwave of brilliance you turned out to be!!!
>
> Light travels at a constant speed of 186,000 mps. Stuff just gets in the
> way. Vacuum has nothing in any way to do with it.
>
> Andy

you are very stupid. ignorant, too.

blake

In article >,
blake murphy > wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 12:02:53 -0600, Andy wrote:
>
> > Dan Abel > wrote:

> >> No. The speed of light is a constant. In a vacuum.
> >>
> >> http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/...12einstein.htm
> >> l
> >
> > Geez, Danny, what a dim microwave of brilliance you turned out to be!!!
> >
> > Light travels at a constant speed of 186,000 mps. Stuff just gets in the
> > way. Vacuum has nothing in any way to do with it.

Physics 101. And light, of course, isn't exactly like microwaves. Most
food stops visible light dead. Most food is somewhat transparent to
microwaves, which is why microwave ovens work.

> you are very stupid. ignorant, too.

I believe the polite word is "misinformed".

Obviously, Andy didn't even look at the above cite.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

blake murphy wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 12:02:53 -0600, Andy wrote:
>
>> Dan Abel > wrote:
>>
>>> In article >,
>>> Barry in Indy > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 00:48:27 -0800, "Bob Terwilliger"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> They're still at lightspeed, but lightspeed is different because
>>>>> of the different medium. That's why refraction occurs.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So much for Einstein's theories.
>>>
>>> No. The speed of light is a constant. In a vacuum.
>>>
>>> http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/...12einstein.htm
>>> l
>>
>> Geez, Danny, what a dim microwave of brilliance you turned out to
>> be!!!
>>
>> Light travels at a constant speed of 186,000 mps. Stuff just gets in
>> the way. Vacuum has nothing in any way to do with it.
>>
>> Andy
>
> you are very stupid. ignorant, too.


Don't laff...I bet Andy would be a pretty good candidate for the next "Mr.
Wizard"...


--
Best
Greg

"Gregory Morrow" wrote:
>blake murphy wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Light travels at a constant speed of 186,000 mps. Stuff just gets in
>>> the way. Vacuum has nothing in any way to do with it.
>>>
>>> Andy
>>
>> you are very stupid. ignorant, too.
>
>
>Don't laff...I bet Andy would be a pretty good candidate for the next "Mr.
>Wizard"...

And the mick would be a good candidate for the next "Grand Wizard"! I
can picture him in that pointy hat... at his stature he'd look just
like the Travelocity Roaming Gnome! LOL-LOL

Kajikit wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 14:10:33 -0800 (PST), aem >
> wrote:
>
>> On Jan 12, 11:59 am, "
>> > wrote:
>>> The cooking instructions for Stouffer's frozen dinners are for 1100W
>>> ovens. Mine is more powerful but it's a Panasonic so the power
>>> level can be reduced in 10% increments. For small changes, is the
>>> relationship between power and cooking time nearly linear so it
>>> would not make any difference whether I decrease power or time by
>>> 10%?
>>
>> Other than idle curiosity, does it matter? All you're doing is
>> thawing and heating an already cooked dish so the correct time and
>> power level is whatever it takes to get it all as hot as you want
>> it. Since underwarming is easily fixed and overcooked is not, the
>> general rule for microwave timings is to err on the short side,
>> test, and then continue. -aem
>
> But if you read the box directions they'll have you believe that
> you'll automatically die a horrible death if you don't microwave the
> food to death! I'm on my own this week so I stocked up on lean
> cuisines and I made the mistake of trying their 'potstickers with
> rice'. The instructions on the box said to nuke it on high for eight
> minutes! So I did... and when I opened the seal I had rice glued into
> a solid lump, and strangely dried-out dumplings. I have no idea why it
> needed to cook twice as long as all the other lean cuisines... I guess
> the dumplings were not pre-cooked. Either way it doesn't matter - they
> were only vaguelly edible and the rice was a total washout.

Just take the package directions as a guideline rather than Holy Writ, and
learn that all frozen dinners (even from the same brand) are not created
equal. Write that one off as a loser.

Oh, and just a suggestion but learn to cook a few simple, quick dishes and
you'll be free of Lean Cuisine forever. Lots of things you can throw
together in half an hour or so--real pot stickers believe it or not is one
of the possibilities--google "pot stickers" and you'll find a bunch of
recipes. Basically just a spoonful of meat on a wonton wrapper and then fry
it up for a bit, add some water to the pot, and boil until done. The real
variation is just what spices you put in the meat and what meat you use.
And if you can do those you can do pierogies and wonton and a few other
things. The rice to go with them you can do on the stovetop but it takes
practice. A Black and Decker steamer does a superb job for cheap, or for
more bucks the Japanese have some really marvelous computerized purpose-made
rice cookers, and either is fire and forget--add water, add rice, turn the
knob, and you don't have to do anything with it until it dings.