[gojomo]

The headline writer is simply speaking figuratively, for maximum effect in constrained space. This is easily understood by a general audience, but sometimes misunderstood by the extra-literal/extra-critical mindset often seen in HN threads.

In the headline, 'Microwave' stands synecdochally for 'microwave oven' and then also for the more-general category 'fast-heating appliance'.

When there are multiple ways to interpret something, assume the interpretation that credits the writer/speaker with some sense, not an interpretation that is most-literal or most-amenable as the setup for an insult.

[Amadou]

I voted you up for truth.

But... don't discount the profound disappointment that a headline like that generates in those of us who do know how a microwave works. We were teased with the idea of learning something we thought would alter our understanding of the universe -- some sort of microwave version of the peltier effect[1] -- only to find out it was something as pedestrian as poetic license.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectric_effect

[waps]

Those who know physics would hopefully know that a cooling microwave would be a blatant violation of the second law of thermodynamics.

[cookingrobot]

No it wouldn't - as long as the device, target and environment heat up as a whole. For ex, laser cooling where a laser reflects off a surface with more energy than it started with.

[Amadou]

Oddly enough, your response is basically the same sort of overly-narrow literalism that gojomo was complaining about, just from the other direction.

[serf]

No, it's not.

"reverse microwave" is correct in a sense, because as gojomo pointed out, the author meant it as a way to convey the concept of "rapid-heating appliance".

"You can't do x because of thermodynamics" actually was incorrect, and didn't take into account multiple specific instances which show that closed systems can create such results.

[jsilence]

In soviet russia...

SCNR