I've been using the both burners separately and have not used the
bridge at all. I have a couple of rectangular grills that came with
the stove, but have not used them either, as they seem unwieldy. I
was of the opinion when I bought the stove that I might be able to use
it for an oval shaped pot, but it seems that the pots I've seen are a
little small.


Today seeing an oval 7 qt. ceramic/cast iron pot made me wonder about
using one on the burners/bridge. When I measured the total burners,
they are 17" from end to end, and 7-1/2 wide (they are round). The
pot is 13" x 10.5" hardly a close fit, IMO.

I'm wondering what kind of pots any reading this are using on their
bridge burners that give an adequate fit.

Thanks so much.
Dee

On 30 May 2007 10:16:07 -0700, Dee Dee > wrote:

>I'm wondering what kind of pots any reading this are using on their
>bridge burners that give an adequate fit.

I use the left-front burner with the bridge element for a specific
oval fry pan that I use a lot, as well as any time I'm cooking with
two large pots or pans.

I haven't yet found a griddle suitable for use with both left-hand
burners and the bridge element. None of them seem to have a completely
flat bottom.

-- Larry

"Dee Dee" wrote
> I've been using the both burners separately and have not used the
> bridge at all. I have a couple of rectangular grills that came with
> the stove, but have not used them either, as they seem unwieldy. I
> was of the opinion when I bought the stove that I might be able to use
> it for an oval shaped pot, but it seems that the pots I've seen are a
> little small.
>
>
> Today seeing an oval 7 qt. ceramic/cast iron pot made me wonder about
> using one on the burners/bridge. When I measured the total burners,
> they are 17" from end to end, and 7-1/2 wide (they are round). The
> pot is 13" x 10.5" hardly a close fit, IMO.
>
> I'm wondering what kind of pots any reading this are using on their
> bridge burners that give an adequate fit.
==
I have a long (2-burner) oval cast iron griddle that I use on mine. I've
never used any other
pot on it.

On May 30, 4:47 pm, pltrgyst > wrote:
> On 30 May 2007 10:16:07 -0700, Dee Dee > wrote:
>
> >I'm wondering what kind of pots any reading this are using on their
> >bridge burners that give an adequate fit.

>
> I haven't yet found a griddle suitable for use with both left-hand
> burners and the bridge element. None of them seem to have a completely
> flat bottom.

> -- Larry

This grill came with my range. Due to certain circumstances I have two
of them, exactly alike. The bottom is anything but flat. I don't know
if it is necessary or not. I never asked. The grill top looks like
fairly good quality.

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=4lp5n5j
grill top

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=53j1lk9
grill - underneath


Dee

Dee Dee wrote:
> On May 30, 4:47 pm, pltrgyst > wrote:
>> On 30 May 2007 10:16:07 -0700, Dee Dee > wrote:
>>
>>> I'm wondering what kind of pots any reading this are using on their
>>> bridge burners that give an adequate fit.
>
>> I haven't yet found a griddle suitable for use with both left-hand
>> burners and the bridge element. None of them seem to have a completely
>> flat bottom.
>
>> -- Larry
>
> This grill came with my range. Due to certain circumstances I have two
> of them, exactly alike. The bottom is anything but flat. I don't know
> if it is necessary or not. I never asked. The grill top looks like
> fairly good quality.
>
> http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=4lp5n5j
> grill top
>
> http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=53j1lk9
> grill - underneath

I do not think the elephant will fit on that grill, despite the apparent
size of each.

Matthew

--
I'm a consultant. If you want an opinion I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?

Dee Dee wrote:
> I've been using the both burners separately and have not used the
> bridge at all. I have a couple of rectangular grills that came with
> the stove, but have not used them either, as they seem unwieldy. I
> was of the opinion when I bought the stove that I might be able to use
> it for an oval shaped pot, but it seems that the pots I've seen are a
> little small.
>
>
> Today seeing an oval 7 qt. ceramic/cast iron pot made me wonder about
> using one on the burners/bridge. When I measured the total burners,
> they are 17" from end to end, and 7-1/2 wide (they are round). The
> pot is 13" x 10.5" hardly a close fit, IMO.
>
> I'm wondering what kind of pots any reading this are using on their
> bridge burners that give an adequate fit.
>
> Thanks so much.

I have used a Wearever aluminum griddle ($10 or so) that covers both
burners and the bridge with good success. I have also deglazed very
large roasting pans (suitable for 30# turkeys) that cover far more than
the burners and used broiler pans to quickly reduce sauces. Pans too
large and too small, flat bottomed or not, don't seem to have a bad
effect on my glass top range, though I try not to use pans that are too
small because they just waste heat.

I do have some roasting pans that are re-enforced with iron bands that I
never put on a cook top because only the bands would touch.

Matthew

--
I'm a consultant. If you want an opinion I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?

On May 30, 8:30 pm, "Matthew L. Martin" > wrote:
> Dee Dee wrote:

>
> I do have some roasting pans that are re-enforced with iron bands that I
> never put on a cook top because only the bands would touch.
>
> Matthew
>
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=53j1lk9
As shown here in this picture, is this what you mean by "re-enforced
with iron bands..."
On my griddle, you can see on each corner there is a knob that will
hold the griddle up off the range. Barely, but it does.
Dee

On May 30, 8:23 pm, "Matthew L. Martin" > wrote:

>
> I do not think the elephant will fit on that grill, despite the apparent
> size of each.
>
> Matthew
> - Show quoted text -

Trying to remember, where did that elephant go?
Dee

On 30 May 2007 16:24:17 -0700, Dee Dee > wrote:

>This grill came with my range. Due to certain circumstances I have two
>of them, exactly alike. The bottom is anything but flat. I don't know
>if it is necessary or not. I never asked. The grill top looks like
>fairly good quality.
>
>http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=53j1lk9
>grill - underneath

Do those straight bars rest against the cooktop, or does the whole
grill sit on the four "feet" at the corners?

-- Larry

On 30 May 2007 19:05:02 -0700, Dee Dee > wrote:

>> I do not think the elephant will fit on that grill, despite the apparent
>> size of each.
>
>Trying to remember, where did that elephant go?

Maybe in the refrigerator -- look for footprints in the cheesecake.

-- Larry

On 30 May 2007 19:03:08 -0700, Dee Dee > wrote:

>As shown here in this picture, is this what you mean by "re-enforced
>with iron bands..."
>On my griddle, you can see on each corner there is a knob that will
>hold the griddle up off the range. Barely, but it does.

That's what I was asking about. If the bars sat on the cooktop, I
would try it; but with the four "feet", I wouldn't even consider it.
That's like a Griswold frying pan with a smoke ring -- a definite
no-no for glass cooktops.

-- Larry

Dee Dee wrote:
> On May 30, 8:30 pm, "Matthew L. Martin" > wrote:
>> Dee Dee wrote:
>
>> I do have some roasting pans that are re-enforced with iron bands that I
>> never put on a cook top because only the bands would touch.
>>
>> Matthew
>>
> http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=53j1lk9
> As shown here in this picture, is this what you mean by "re-enforced
> with iron bands..."
> On my griddle, you can see on each corner there is a knob that will
> hold the griddle up off the range. Barely, but it does.

I would not use that griddle on a smooth top cooker unless the
manufacturer was willing to warranty performance.

Matthew

--
I'm a consultant. If you want an opinion I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?

On May 30, 11:02 pm, pltrgyst > wrote:
> On 30 May 2007 16:24:17 -0700, Dee Dee > wrote:
>
> >This grill came with my range. Due to certain circumstances I have two
> >of them, exactly alike. The bottom is anything but flat. I don't know
> >if it is necessary or not. I never asked. The grill top looks like
> >fairly good quality.
>
> >http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=53j1lk9
> >grill - underneath
>
> Do those straight bars rest against the cooktop, or does the whole
> grill sit on the four "feet" at the corners?
>
> -- Larry

The feet raises the grill up enough so the bars do not hit the
cooktop. But it is close.

On May 30, 11:06 pm, pltrgyst > wrote:
> On 30 May 2007 19:03:08 -0700, Dee Dee > wrote:
>
> >As shown here in this picture, is this what you mean by "re-enforced
> >with iron bands..."
> >On my griddle, you can see on each corner there is a knob that will
> >hold the griddle up off the range. Barely, but it does.
>
> That's what I was asking about. If the bars sat on the cooktop, I
> would try it; but with the four "feet", I wouldn't even consider it.
> That's like a Griswold frying pan with a smoke ring -- a definite
> no-no for glass cooktops.
>
> -- Larry

I'm trying to understand the science of this "no-no." I was thinking
just the opposite, but with no understanding of why.

On May 30, 11:33 pm, "Matthew L. Martin" > wrote:
> Dee Dee wrote:
> > On May 30, 8:30 pm, "Matthew L. Martin" > wrote:
> >> Dee Dee wrote:
>
> >> I do have some roasting pans that are re-enforced with iron bands that I
> >> never put on a cook top because only the bands would touch.
>
> >> Matthew
>
> >http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=53j1lk9
> > As shown here in this picture, is this what you mean by "re-enforced
> > with iron bands..."
> > On my griddle, you can see on each corner there is a knob that will
> > hold the griddle up off the range. Barely, but it does.
>
> I would not use that griddle on a smooth top cooker unless the
> manufacturer was willing to warranty performance.
>
> Matthew

Why do you say that? I asked Larry, and I want to know what you think
also.
Two heads are better than ... -- well, you know the rest.
Dee

Dee Dee wrote:
> On May 30, 11:33 pm, "Matthew L. Martin" > wrote:
>> Dee Dee wrote:
>>> On May 30, 8:30 pm, "Matthew L. Martin" > wrote:
>>>> Dee Dee wrote:
>>>> I do have some roasting pans that are re-enforced with iron bands that I
>>>> never put on a cook top because only the bands would touch.
>>>> Matthew
>>> http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=53j1lk9
>>> As shown here in this picture, is this what you mean by "re-enforced
>>> with iron bands..."
>>> On my griddle, you can see on each corner there is a knob that will
>>> hold the griddle up off the range. Barely, but it does.
>> I would not use that griddle on a smooth top cooker unless the
>> manufacturer was willing to warranty performance.
>>
>> Matthew
>
> Why do you say that? I asked Larry, and I want to know what you think
> also.
> Two heads are better than ... -- well, you know the rest.

The less contact between the glass top and the pan, the less efficient
heat transfer will be. My GE cooktop instructions specifically warns
against using pans that don't contact the cooktop. YMMV, but I wouldn't
risk it unless someone else will replace the cooktop if it should fail
during that kind of use.

Matthew

--
I'm a consultant. If you want an opinion I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?

On Thu, 31 May 2007 00:07:14 -0400, "Matthew L. Martin"
> wrote:

>The less contact between the glass top and the pan, the less efficient
>heat transfer will be. My GE cooktop instructions specifically warns
>against using pans that don't contact the cooktop. YMMV, but I wouldn't
>risk it unless someone else will replace the cooktop if it should fail
>during that kind of use.

My manual does too. But I'm in Philadelphia this week, so I can't
quote the passage.

-- Larry

On May 31, 12:29 am, pltrgyst > wrote:
> On Thu, 31 May 2007 00:07:14 -0400, "Matthew L. Martin"
>
> > wrote:
> >The less contact between the glass top and the pan, the less efficient
> >heat transfer will be. My GE cooktop instructions specifically warns
> >against using pans that don't contact the cooktop. YMMV, but I wouldn't
> >risk it unless someone else will replace the cooktop if it should fail
> >during that kind of use.
>
> My manual does too. But I'm in Philadelphia this week, so I can't
> quote the passage.
>
> -- Larry

Thanks, guys. I'm glad I didn't use it. And I won't.
Dee