.. . . . . . that most 4-burner stoves/ranges have the large burners**
up front and close, or rather, why is it the small burner is typically
located in the back row of burners? Isn't it more hazardous to reach
over and behind a tall hot pan/pot to tend the little simmering pan at
the back? SF's post about her really nice new 6-burner cook-top had me
thinking about this conundrum. My GE natural-gas range has large and
middle burners in the front, then middle & small burners at the back.
Seems to me the 'natural order of things' should be little, shorter pans
cook up front with the taller pots to the back when one cooks several
things at the same time. Although, I can see how the large burner can
be handy in the front row when cooking something like a big batch of
stir-fry or fried chicken and such.

Sky

** "Large", "middle" & "small" refer to the BTU output for stove burners

--
Ultra Ultimate Kitchen Rule - Use the Timer!
Ultimate Kitchen Rule -- Cook's Choice

"Sky" > wrote in message
...
>. . . . . . that most 4-burner stoves/ranges have the large burners**
> up front and close, or rather, why is it the small burner is typically
> located in the back row of burners? Isn't it more hazardous to reach
> over and behind a tall hot pan/pot to tend the little simmering pan at
> the back? SF's post about her really nice new 6-burner cook-top had me
> thinking about this conundrum. My GE natural-gas range has large and
> middle burners in the front, then middle & small burners at the back.
> Seems to me the 'natural order of things' should be little, shorter pans
> cook up front with the taller pots to the back when one cooks several
> things at the same time. Although, I can see how the large burner can
> be handy in the front row when cooking something like a big batch of
> stir-fry or fried chicken and such.
>
> Sky
>
> ** "Large", "middle" & "small" refer to the BTU output for stove burners


I've seen one of each front and back also. I like the big ones up front
because that is where most of the frying is done. Front burners probably
get 80% of the total use in our house.

Our Bertazzoni is a little different though. All four burners differ from
each other. The left front is both the most and least powerful. It is a
dual burner with outer shape for high Btu and the center of the burner can
be turned down to 600 Btu for slow cooking. The left rear has a flame
pattern that is perfect for my tea kettle and gets it boiling very fast.
The left rear is good for most boiling and simmering, the right front is
good for frying where you don't need the absolute highest power.

Best would be the ability to change to the pattern you like best. Those
large pots of sauce that simmer for hours are probably best on the back, out
of the way, but the pasta you want to boil rapidly is probably best up front
for easy handling. YMMV, of course.

"Sky" > wrote in message
...
>. . . . . . that most 4-burner stoves/ranges have the large burners**
> up front and close, or rather, why is it the small burner is typically
> located in the back row of burners?
>
> Sky
>

I've never encountered that. There's usually one large and one small in
both back and front.

Jill

Sky wrote:
> . . . . . . that most 4-burner stoves/ranges have the large burners**
> up front and close, or rather, why is it the small burner is typically
> located in the back row of burners? Isn't it more hazardous to reach
> over and behind a tall hot pan/pot to tend the little simmering pan at
> the back? SF's post about her really nice new 6-burner cook-top had me
> thinking about this conundrum. My GE natural-gas range has large and
> middle burners in the front, then middle & small burners at the back.
> Seems to me the 'natural order of things' should be little, shorter pans
> cook up front with the taller pots to the back when one cooks several
> things at the same time. Although, I can see how the large burner can
> be handy in the front row when cooking something like a big batch of
> stir-fry or fried chicken and such.
>
> Sky
>
> ** "Large", "middle" & "small" refer to the BTU output for stove burners
>

We have a 4 burner gas range and the high output burners are at a
diagonal (front right-back left) which works out pretty well.

On 2009-04-12, Sky > wrote:

> things at the same time. Although, I can see how the large burner can
> be handy in the front row when cooking something like a big batch of
> stir-fry or fried chicken and such.

There ya go! Small in back for limited attention like simmering, while
large front burners are handy and accessible for immediate flame adjustment
and put-on/remove-from-heat manipulation. Makes sense to me.

nb

Sky wrote:
> . . . . . . that most 4-burner stoves/ranges have the large burners**
> up front and close, or rather, why is it the small burner is typically
> located in the back row of burners? Isn't it more hazardous to reach
> over and behind a tall hot pan/pot to tend the little simmering pan at
> the back? SF's post about her really nice new 6-burner cook-top had me
> thinking about this conundrum. My GE natural-gas range has large and
> middle burners in the front, then middle & small burners at the back.
> Seems to me the 'natural order of things' should be little, shorter pans
> cook up front with the taller pots to the back when one cooks several
> things at the same time. Although, I can see how the large burner can
> be handy in the front row when cooking something like a big batch of
> stir-fry or fried chicken and such.
>

All my electric stoves have had two large and two small burners with the
large and small burners at opposite corners, so there was a lartge and
small at the front and a large and small at the back.

On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 11:23:11 -0500, Sky >
wrote:

>. . . . . . that most 4-burner stoves/ranges have the large burners**
>up front and close, or rather, why is it the small burner is typically
>located in the back row of burners? Isn't it more hazardous to reach
>over and behind a tall hot pan/pot to tend the little simmering pan at
>the back? SF's post about her really nice new 6-burner cook-top had me
>thinking about this conundrum. My GE natural-gas range has large and
>middle burners in the front, then middle & small burners at the back.
>Seems to me the 'natural order of things' should be little, shorter pans
>cook up front with the taller pots to the back when one cooks several
>things at the same time. Although, I can see how the large burner can
>be handy in the front row when cooking something like a big batch of
>stir-fry or fried chicken and such.
>
>Sky
>
>** "Large", "middle" & "small" refer to the BTU output for stove burners

Our four burner stove has one big and one small burner on each side,
with the sides alternating so there's one at the back AND one at the
front. If I'm making a dish that needs to be simmered or left to cook,
I'll use the rear burner, but if it needs a lot of stirring/attention
that's too awkward to reach and to see into properly. For everything
else (eggs, frying meat etc) I use the front burner because it's
easier to reach.

On Apr 12, 12:33*pm, notbob > wrote:

> There ya go! *Small in back for limited attention like simmering, while
> large front burners are handy and accessible for immediate flame adjustment
> and put-on/remove-from-heat manipulation. *Makes sense to me.
>
> nb
============================

Yeah! What he said!

Lynn in Fargo
(Teeny apartment, teeny stove with teeny oven)

On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 17:33:58 GMT, notbob > wrote:

>On 2009-04-12, Sky > wrote:
>
>> things at the same time. Although, I can see how the large burner can
>> be handy in the front row when cooking something like a big batch of
>> stir-fry or fried chicken and such.
>
>There ya go! Small in back for limited attention like simmering, while
>large front burners are handy and accessible for immediate flame adjustment
>and put-on/remove-from-heat manipulation. Makes sense to me.
>
Hence the expression "put it on a back burner."
--

modom

On Sun 12 Apr 2009 12:21:20p, modom (palindrome guy) told us...

> On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 17:33:58 GMT, notbob > wrote:
>
>>On 2009-04-12, Sky > wrote:
>>
>>> things at the same time. Although, I can see how the large burner can
>>> be handy in the front row when cooking something like a big batch of
>>> stir-fry or fried chicken and such.
>>
>>There ya go! Small in back for limited attention like simmering, while
>>large front burners are handy and accessible for immediate flame
adjustment
>>and put-on/remove-from-heat manipulation. Makes sense to me.
>>
> Hence the expression "put it on a back burner."

I prefer having 1 small and 1 large burner on the front and the same on the
back. I cook many things in smaller pots and don't like having to
constantly reach to the back. Unfortunately, my current range has both
large burners in front and both small burners in back.

--
Wayne Boatwright
------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's bizarre that the produce manager is more important to my
children's health than the pediatrician. ~Meryl Streep

In article >,
notbob > wrote:

> On 2009-04-12, Sky > wrote:
>
> > things at the same time. Although, I can see how the large burner can
> > be handy in the front row when cooking something like a big batch of
> > stir-fry or fried chicken and such.
>
> There ya go! Small in back for limited attention like simmering, while
> large front burners are handy and accessible for immediate flame adjustment
> and put-on/remove-from-heat manipulation. Makes sense to me.
>
> nb

Hence the phrase "on the back burner", used to describe something of a
lower priority that has been put aside while something more important is
seen to.

Miche

--
Electricians do it in three phases

Sky wrote:
> . . . . . . that most 4-burner stoves/ranges have the large burners**
> up front and close, or rather, why is it the small burner is typically
> located in the back row of burners? Isn't it more hazardous to reach
> over and behind a tall hot pan/pot to tend the little simmering pan at
> the back? SF's post about her reall
>
My new gas range has one extra high BTU large burner in front right, a
medium sized burner front left, and two smaller equal sized burners in
the back. Then down the middle is a elongated center burner (with a
griddle or grate option over it which isn't too powerful but I use to
augment over-sized pans that straddle multiple burners.

On 2009-04-12, Wayne Boatwright > wrote:

> constantly reach to the back. Unfortunately, my current range has both
> large burners in front and both small burners in back.

I can see dis/advantages to both arrangements. Thank goodness for choice.

nb

Wayne Boatwright wrote:
> On Sun 12 Apr 2009 12:21:20p, modom (palindrome guy) told us...
>
>> On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 17:33:58 GMT, notbob > wrote:
>>
>>> On 2009-04-12, Sky > wrote:
>>>
>>>> things at the same time. Although, I can see how the large burner can
>>>> be handy in the front row when cooking something like a big batch of
>>>> stir-fry or fried chicken and such.
>>> There ya go! Small in back for limited attention like simmering, while
>>> large front burners are handy and accessible for immediate flame
> adjustment
>>> and put-on/remove-from-heat manipulation. Makes sense to me.
>>>
>> Hence the expression "put it on a back burner."
>
> I prefer having 1 small and 1 large burner on the front and the same on the
> back. I cook many things in smaller pots and don't like having to
> constantly reach to the back. Unfortunately, my current range has both
> large burners in front and both small burners in back.
>
That is my preference too. My current loathesome smoothtop range
has two rather small induction burners on one side (I do like the
induction aspect), and a large burner in front and a small one in
back on the other. I REALLY don't like that. Furthermore, it
points out the need for flexible burner sizes, since many of my
pots and pans don't fit well.

--
Jean B.

In article >,
Kajikit > wrote:


> else (eggs, frying meat etc) I use the front burner because it's
> easier to reach.

Got it! All four burners should be in the front!

:-)

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

"[Don't] assume that someone is "broken" just because they behave in ways
you don't like or don't understand." --Miche

On Sun 12 Apr 2009 01:30:06p, Jean B. told us...

> Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>> On Sun 12 Apr 2009 12:21:20p, modom (palindrome guy) told us...
>>
>>> On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 17:33:58 GMT, notbob > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2009-04-12, Sky > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> things at the same time. Although, I can see how the large burner
>>>>> can be handy in the front row when cooking something like a big
>>>>> batch of stir-fry or fried chicken and such.
>>>> There ya go! Small in back for limited attention like simmering,
>>>> while large front burners are handy and accessible for immediate
>>>> flame adjustment and put-on/remove-from-heat manipulation. Makes
>>>> sense to me.
>>>>
>>> Hence the expression "put it on a back burner."
>>
>> I prefer having 1 small and 1 large burner on the front and the same on
>> the back. I cook many things in smaller pots and don't like having to
>> constantly reach to the back. Unfortunately, my current range has both
>> large burners in front and both small burners in back.
>>
> That is my preference too. My current loathesome smoothtop range
> has two rather small induction burners on one side (I do like the
> induction aspect), and a large burner in front and a small one in
> back on the other. I REALLY don't like that. Furthermore, it
> points out the need for flexible burner sizes, since many of my
> pots and pans don't fit well.
>

My previous smoothtop range was closed to ideal for me. There was one very
large element on the front right that had 3 selectable size zones, one
smaller element behind it with a simmer feature, 1 regular large element on
the rear left, and 1 regular smaller element in front of it. The
combination suited my needs.

--
Wayne Boatwright
------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's bizarre that the produce manager is more important to my
children's health than the pediatrician. ~Meryl Streep

Wayne Boatwright wrote:
> On Sun 12 Apr 2009 01:30:06p, Jean B. told us...
>
>> Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>>> On Sun 12 Apr 2009 12:21:20p, modom (palindrome guy) told us...
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 17:33:58 GMT, notbob > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2009-04-12, Sky > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> things at the same time. Although, I can see how the large burner
>>>>>> can be handy in the front row when cooking something like a big
>>>>>> batch of stir-fry or fried chicken and such.
>>>>> There ya go! Small in back for limited attention like simmering,
>>>>> while large front burners are handy and accessible for immediate
>>>>> flame adjustment and put-on/remove-from-heat manipulation. Makes
>>>>> sense to me.
>>>>>
>>>> Hence the expression "put it on a back burner."
>>> I prefer having 1 small and 1 large burner on the front and the same on
>>> the back. I cook many things in smaller pots and don't like having to
>>> constantly reach to the back. Unfortunately, my current range has both
>>> large burners in front and both small burners in back.
>>>
>> That is my preference too. My current loathesome smoothtop range
>> has two rather small induction burners on one side (I do like the
>> induction aspect), and a large burner in front and a small one in
>> back on the other. I REALLY don't like that. Furthermore, it
>> points out the need for flexible burner sizes, since many of my
>> pots and pans don't fit well.
>>
>
> My previous smoothtop range was closed to ideal for me. There was one very
> large element on the front right that had 3 selectable size zones, one
> smaller element behind it with a simmer feature, 1 regular large element on
> the rear left, and 1 regular smaller element in front of it. The
> combination suited my needs.
>
Well, I can say one lives and learns. I sure know more to look
for in case I ever have my own kitchen again. I think after I
move (still to god only knows where), I may just get a countertop
induction burner, assuming I have space for one.

--
Jean B.

Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>
> They're actually pretty common, Sky. Visually, they're usually represented
> by concentric rings of the sizes etched or printed on the glass top. The
> knob control turns in one direction for one size, the other direction for
> the other size, or sometimes there's a flip switch to change from one size
> to the other with a normal rotary control knob.


If I turn the knob to the right, it is large, if I turn it to the left,
it is small. Could be vice versa, I get it wrong most of the time.


Becca

In article >,
Becca > wrote:

> Wayne Boatwright wrote:
> >
> > They're actually pretty common, Sky. Visually, they're usually represented
> > by concentric rings of the sizes etched or printed on the glass top. The
> > knob control turns in one direction for one size, the other direction for
> > the other size, or sometimes there's a flip switch to change from one size
> > to the other with a normal rotary control knob.
>
>
> If I turn the knob to the right, it is large, if I turn it to the left,
> it is small. Could be vice versa, I get it wrong most of the time.
>
>
> Becca

It should be marked? I have one burner that's variable that way too.
--
Peace! Om

Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass.
It's about learning to dance in the rain.
-- Anon.

On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 13:36:57 -0400, Dave Smith wrote:

> Sky wrote:
>> . . . . . . that most 4-burner stoves/ranges have the large burners**
>> up front and close, or rather, why is it the small burner is typically
>> located in the back row of burners? Isn't it more hazardous to reach
>> over and behind a tall hot pan/pot to tend the little simmering pan at
>> the back? SF's post about her really nice new 6-burner cook-top had me
>> thinking about this conundrum. My GE natural-gas range has large and
>> middle burners in the front, then middle & small burners at the back.
>> Seems to me the 'natural order of things' should be little, shorter pans
>> cook up front with the taller pots to the back when one cooks several
>> things at the same time. Although, I can see how the large burner can
>> be handy in the front row when cooking something like a big batch of
>> stir-fry or fried chicken and such.
>>
>
> All my electric stoves have had two large and two small burners with the
> large and small burners at opposite corners, so there was a lartge and
> small at the front and a large and small at the back.

that's what i have.

christ, i want my gas range back!

your pal,
blake

On Apr 12, 12:01*pm, "jmcquown" > wrote:
>
> I've never encountered that. *There's usually one large and one small in
> both back and front.
>

Oh, of course you haven't, you numb ****.

In article
>,
wrote:

> Oh, of course you haven't

Hey PVC! Long time no see. :-)

High! <waves>
--
Peace! Om

Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass.
It's about learning to dance in the rain.
-- Anon.

"Sky" > wrote in message
...
>. . . . . . that most 4-burner stoves/ranges have the large burners**
> up front and close, or rather, why is it the small burner is typically
> located in the back row of burners?


IMHO There is a simple explanation

There are 2 primary reasons.

The larger the burner the higher the simmer temperature. The smaller
burners are placed in the back out of the way for simmering after the
initial cooking. Then to place simmering pot is out of the way freeing up
the front burners.

Secondly, foods that are simmered are generally simmered for an extended
period of time. Having a simmering pot at the front of the stove is
inherently dangerous for little children. I hope you were taught to rotate
your pots and pans to the inside of the stove if you have little children in
the area.

Dimitri

> wrote in message
...
On Apr 12, 12:01 pm, "jmcquown" > wrote:
>
> I've never encountered that. There's usually one large and one small in
> both back and front.
>

>Oh, of course you haven't, you numb ****.

Netzero? Really?

*snicker*

Dimitri wrote:
>
> "Sky" > wrote in message
> ...
> >. . . . . . that most 4-burner stoves/ranges have the large burners**
> > up front and close, or rather, why is it the small burner is typically
> > located in the back row of burners?
>
> IMHO There is a simple explanation
>
> There are 2 primary reasons.
>
> The larger the burner the higher the simmer temperature. The smaller
> burners are placed in the back out of the way for simmering after the
> initial cooking. Then to place simmering pot is out of the way freeing up
> the front burners.
>
> Secondly, foods that are simmered are generally simmered for an extended
> period of time. Having a simmering pot at the front of the stove is
> inherently dangerous for little children. I hope you were taught to rotate
> your pots and pans to the inside of the stove if you have little children in
> the area.
>
> Dimitri

This makes sense Yes, I know how to cook and observe precautions,
especially when little ones and children were around. Thanks.

Sky

--
Ultra Ultimate Kitchen Rule - Use the Timer!
Ultimate Kitchen Rule -- Cook's Choice

"Sky" > wrote in message
...
> Dimitri wrote:
>>
>> "Sky" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >. . . . . . that most 4-burner stoves/ranges have the large burners**
>> > up front and close, or rather, why is it the small burner is typically
>> > located in the back row of burners?
>>
>> IMHO There is a simple explanation
>>
>> There are 2 primary reasons.
>>
>> The larger the burner the higher the simmer temperature. The smaller
>> burners are placed in the back out of the way for simmering after the
>> initial cooking. Then to place simmering pot is out of the way freeing up
>> the front burners.
>>
>> Secondly, foods that are simmered are generally simmered for an extended
>> period of time. Having a simmering pot at the front of the stove is
>> inherently dangerous for little children. I hope you were taught to
>> rotate
>> your pots and pans to the inside of the stove if you have little children
>> in
>> the area.
>>
>> Dimitri
>
> This makes sense Yes, I know how to cook and observe precautions,
> especially when little ones and children were around. Thanks.
>
> Sky


In addition there may be design liability issues and/or safety regulations
from the government and/or individual states.

Dimitri

On Apr 12, 11:23 am, Sky > wrote:
> . . . . . . that most 4-burner stoves/ranges have the large burners**
> up front and close, or rather, why is it the small burner is typically
> located in the back row of burners? Isn't it more hazardous to reach
> over and behind a tall hot pan/pot to tend the little simmering pan at
> the back? SF's post about her really nice new 6-burner cook-top had me
> thinking about this conundrum. My GE natural-gas range has large and
> middle burners in the front, then middle & small burners at the back.
> Seems to me the 'natural order of things' should be little, shorter pans
> cook up front with the taller pots to the back when one cooks several
> things at the same time. Although, I can see how the large burner can
> be handy in the front row when cooking something like a big batch of
> stir-fry or fried chicken and such.
>
> Sky
>
> ** "Large", "middle" & "small" refer to the BTU output for stove burners
>
> --
> Ultra Ultimate Kitchen Rule - Use the Timer!
> Ultimate Kitchen Rule -- Cook's Choice

My new Whirlpool has two burners in the front that can be either small
or large, depending on how you set the dial; the two in the back are
set for small. Plus I have a warming burner in the center of the
back. I love my WP.

N.

Nexis wrote:
>
> "Sky" > wrote in message
> >
> > I don't believe I've ever seen a cooktop that has adjustable burners
> > sizes. Adjustable flame/temp control, yes, but not where the actual
> > burner size changes. That's a really nice feature!
>
> It comes in really handy, especially during big meals (like holidays). Makes
> for quick changes between pans also. Sometimes I miss having a gas stove,
> but this one is pretty darn good. I like it, anyway

That you like it is what counts ;D

Sky

--
Ultra Ultimate Kitchen Rule - Use the Timer!
Ultimate Kitchen Rule -- Cook's Choice