I'm shopping for a new stove. We've got gas plumbing in place and no
240V in place, so we're looking for an all-gas range with dual ovens
and a decently high-power burner.

I stir-fry a lot, so a real high-power burner would be nice, but I'm not
interested in $4k stoves -- and I can't find any with above 20,000
BTU/hr burners anyway (I can find commercial stoves taking bigger gas
lines, and I can find dedicated Wok burners to connect to a gas line or
propane tank, but I don't have room for that). I can find 17,000 BTU/hr
burners on $1k stoves.

Has anybody ever tested the actual heat transferred to a pot of water on
their stove? How did the measured BTU/hr compare to the rating? Many
online articles suggest the rating is about 2x the actual. I can't look
up the rating on my old stove, it's a Magic Chef from perhaps the 1950s,
or even older. (I measured the heating on my old stove as about 3950
BTU/hr, which is compatible with the articles suggesting a rating of 2x
the practical measure, since 8,000 BTU/hr is at the low end of modern
"ordinary" burners.)

Does anybody have experience with the LG line of stoves? They're
relatively new, and might be at the point in the curve where they're
still offering aggressive pricing to build reputation, but have already
learned to make a decent produce. Maybe. There's a model that's about
perfect for my requirements, high-power burner plus dual ovens, that's
selling locally right at $1000.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 17:32:05 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet >
wrote:



>
>I stir-fry a lot, so a real high-power burner would be nice, but I'm not
>interested in $4k stoves -- and I can't find any with above 20,000
>BTU/hr burners anyway (I can find commercial stoves taking bigger gas
>lines, and I can find dedicated Wok burners to connect to a gas line or
>propane tank, but I don't have room for that). I can find 17,000 BTU/hr
>burners on $1k stoves.

Pretty much the max from what I've seen.

>
>Has anybody ever tested the actual heat transferred to a pot of water on
>their stove? How did the measured BTU/hr compare to the rating?

Not easily done at home. Most of us have nothing near what is
required to measure that kind of heat.



>
>Does anybody have experience with the LG line of stoves? They're
>relatively new, and might be at the point in the curve where they're
>still offering aggressive pricing to build reputation, but have already
>learned to make a decent produce. Maybe. There's a model that's about
>perfect for my requirements, high-power burner plus dual ovens, that's
>selling locally right at $1000.

Sounds like a bargain at the price. I have no idea how LG appliances
are, but I like my LG TV and LG computer monitor. I don't cook on
either one though.

On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 17:32:05 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet >
wrote:

> Does anybody have experience with the LG line of stoves? They're
> relatively new, and might be at the point in the curve where they're
> still offering aggressive pricing to build reputation, but have already
> learned to make a decent produce. Maybe. There's a model that's about
> perfect for my requirements, high-power burner plus dual ovens, that's
> selling locally right at $1000.

What model is that? I see the LDG3016ST MAP - but it's closer to
$2000 than $1000. I was going to recommend looking at Kitchenaid
ranges but they cost even more. My KA cooktop has 20,000 btu burners,
but you're looking for and all in one so that won't do. Good luck
finding anything worthwhile for $1000 but if you do, let us know how
it's going in 5 years because it's something I'd recommend to others
if it doesn't need any service calls in that time.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

In article >,
Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

> On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 17:32:05 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet >
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >
> >I stir-fry a lot, so a real high-power burner would be nice, but I'm not
> >interested in $4k stoves -- and I can't find any with above 20,000
> >BTU/hr burners anyway (I can find commercial stoves taking bigger gas
> >lines, and I can find dedicated Wok burners to connect to a gas line or
> >propane tank, but I don't have room for that). I can find 17,000 BTU/hr
> >burners on $1k stoves.
>
> Pretty much the max from what I've seen.
>
> >
> >Has anybody ever tested the actual heat transferred to a pot of water on
> >their stove? How did the measured BTU/hr compare to the rating?
>
> Not easily done at home. Most of us have nothing near what is
> required to measure that kind of heat.

Actually, it's very easy. All it takes is a big pot of water, a
thermometer, and a clock.

First, note that cookstove burners are rated in BTU *per hour*, not just
BTU.

It takes 8.34 BTU to increase one gallon of water one degree F. (note
that it doesn't matter how long it takes). If your stove accomplished
that in one hour, you'd have a 8.34 BTU/hr burner. If it could do it in
one minute, you'd have a (8.34*60 = 500.4) BTU burner. One gallon, ten
degrees in one minute, 5,004 BTU/hr. And so on.

So here's how:

Put a big pot of water on the burner (Use a thin-walled pot so its mass
doesn't affect things too much). Measure the amount of water (an exact
number of gallons will make the calculations easier). Measure the
temperature. Turn on the heat. Wait a while -- a few minutes -- using a
clock so you'll know how long. Measure the temperature again. You'll get
better accuracy if you use more water and a smaller temperature rise.

As a side note, the largest heating element you can get on an electric
cooktop is probably about 7-8,000 BTU/hr. Which is probably why you
don't see electric stoves in very many professional kitchens ...

Isaac

On Feb 20, 11:54*pm, isw > wrote:
> In article >,
> *Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 17:32:05 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet >
> > wrote:
>
> > >I stir-fry a lot, so a real high-power burner would be nice, but I'm not
> > >interested in $4k stoves -- and I can't find any with above 20,000
> > >BTU/hr burners anyway (I can find commercial stoves taking bigger gas
> > >lines, and I can find dedicated Wok burners to connect to a gas line or
> > >propane tank, but I don't have room for that). *I can find 17,000 BTU/hr
> > >burners on $1k stoves.
>
> > Pretty much the max from what I've seen.
>
> > >Has anybody ever tested the actual heat transferred to a pot of water on
> > >their stove? *How did the measured BTU/hr compare to the rating?
>
> > Not easily done at home. *Most of us have nothing near what is
> > required to measure that kind of heat.
>
> Actually, it's very easy. All it takes is a big pot of water, a
> thermometer, and a clock.
>
> First, note that cookstove burners are rated in BTU *per hour*, not just
> BTU.
>
> It takes 8.34 BTU to increase one gallon of water one degree F. (note
> that it doesn't matter how long it takes). If your stove accomplished
> that in one hour, you'd have a 8.34 BTU/hr burner. If it could do it in
> one minute, you'd have a (8.34*60 = 500.4) BTU burner. One gallon, ten
> degrees in one minute, 5,004 BTU/hr. And so on.
>
> So here's how:
>
> Put a big pot of water on the burner (Use a thin-walled pot so its mass
> doesn't affect things too much). Measure the amount of water (an exact
> number of gallons will make the calculations easier). Measure the
> temperature. Turn on the heat. Wait a while -- a few minutes -- using a
> clock so you'll know how long. Measure the temperature again. You'll get
> better accuracy if you use more water and a smaller temperature rise.
>
> As a side note, the largest heating element you can get on an electric
> cooktop is probably about 7-8,000 BTU/hr. Which is probably why you
> don't see electric stoves in very many professional kitchens ...
>

Alternatively, I would fill a pot of water 2/3 of the way up, mark the
level, then add a quart of water. Then time how long it takes to boil
that quart of water away. The advantage is that you will humidify your
dry winter air at the same time.

On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 00:11:54 -0800 (PST), spamtrap1888
> wrote:

>On Feb 20, 11:54*pm, isw > wrote:
>> In article >,
>> *Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 17:32:05 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet >
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > >I stir-fry a lot, so a real high-power burner would be nice, but I'm not
>> > >interested in $4k stoves -- and I can't find any with above 20,000
>> > >BTU/hr burners anyway (I can find commercial stoves taking bigger gas
>> > >lines, and I can find dedicated Wok burners to connect to a gas line or
>> > >propane tank, but I don't have room for that). *I can find 17,000 BTU/hr
>> > >burners on $1k stoves.
>>
>> > Pretty much the max from what I've seen.
>>
>> > >Has anybody ever tested the actual heat transferred to a pot of water on
>> > >their stove? *How did the measured BTU/hr compare to the rating?
>>
>> > Not easily done at home. *Most of us have nothing near what is
>> > required to measure that kind of heat.
>>
>> Actually, it's very easy. All it takes is a big pot of water, a
>> thermometer, and a clock.
>>
>> First, note that cookstove burners are rated in BTU *per hour*, not just
>> BTU.
>>
>> It takes 8.34 BTU to increase one gallon of water one degree F. (note
>> that it doesn't matter how long it takes). If your stove accomplished
>> that in one hour, you'd have a 8.34 BTU/hr burner. If it could do it in
>> one minute, you'd have a (8.34*60 = 500.4) BTU burner. One gallon, ten
>> degrees in one minute, 5,004 BTU/hr. And so on.
>>
>> So here's how:
>>
>> Put a big pot of water on the burner (Use a thin-walled pot so its mass
>> doesn't affect things too much). Measure the amount of water (an exact
>> number of gallons will make the calculations easier). Measure the
>> temperature. Turn on the heat. Wait a while -- a few minutes -- using a
>> clock so you'll know how long. Measure the temperature again. You'll get
>> better accuracy if you use more water and a smaller temperature rise.
>>
>> As a side note, the largest heating element you can get on an electric
>> cooktop is probably about 7-8,000 BTU/hr. Which is probably why you
>> don't see electric stoves in very many professional kitchens ...
>>
>
>Alternatively, I would fill a pot of water 2/3 of the way up, mark the
>level, then add a quart of water. Then time how long it takes to boil
>that quart of water away. The advantage is that you will humidify your
>dry winter air at the same time.

Call me stupid but what will that show?

Lou

On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 23:54:09 -0800, isw > wrote:

>In article >,
> Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 17:32:05 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >I stir-fry a lot, so a real high-power burner would be nice, but I'm not
>> >interested in $4k stoves -- and I can't find any with above 20,000
>> >BTU/hr burners anyway (I can find commercial stoves taking bigger gas
>> >lines, and I can find dedicated Wok burners to connect to a gas line or
>> >propane tank, but I don't have room for that). I can find 17,000 BTU/hr
>> >burners on $1k stoves.
>>
>> Pretty much the max from what I've seen.
>>
>> >
>> >Has anybody ever tested the actual heat transferred to a pot of water on
>> >their stove? How did the measured BTU/hr compare to the rating?
>>
>> Not easily done at home. Most of us have nothing near what is
>> required to measure that kind of heat.
>
>Actually, it's very easy. All it takes is a big pot of water, a
>thermometer, and a clock.
>
>First, note that cookstove burners are rated in BTU *per hour*, not just
>BTU.
>
>It takes 8.34 BTU to increase one gallon of water one degree F. (note
>that it doesn't matter how long it takes). If your stove accomplished
>that in one hour, you'd have a 8.34 BTU/hr burner. If it could do it in
>one minute, you'd have a (8.34*60 = 500.4) BTU burner. One gallon, ten
>degrees in one minute, 5,004 BTU/hr. And so on.
>
>So here's how:
>
>Put a big pot of water on the burner (Use a thin-walled pot so its mass
>doesn't affect things too much). Measure the amount of water (an exact
>number of gallons will make the calculations easier). Measure the
>temperature. Turn on the heat. Wait a while -- a few minutes -- using a
>clock so you'll know how long. Measure the temperature again. You'll get
>better accuracy if you use more water and a smaller temperature rise.
>
>As a side note, the largest heating element you can get on an electric
>cooktop is probably about 7-8,000 BTU/hr. Which is probably why you
>don't see electric stoves in very many professional kitchens ...

I've read that method before but why would you need to do it in a real
life situation?

I was on a job that needed a new boiler. It was originally coal and
then oil and finally converted to gas. It was installed in 1927 and
there was no way of telling how many btu it was with testing it. They
turned off anything in the building that was gas and took a meter
reading. Then jumped the stat to run continuously for 30 minutes and
took another meter reading. They came up with 1.4 million btu and
estimated 60% efficiency and came up with the proper sized modern
boiler to replace it.

Lou

On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 23:54:09 -0800, isw > wrote:

> As a side note, the largest heating element you can get on an electric
> cooktop is probably about 7-8,000 BTU/hr. Which is probably why you
> don't see electric stoves in very many professional kitchens ...


--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 23:54:09 -0800, isw > wrote:

> As a side note, the largest heating element you can get on an electric
> cooktop is probably about 7-8,000 BTU/hr. Which is probably why you
> don't see electric stoves in very many professional kitchens ...

Electric is more efficient with less heat loss than gas, so it doesn't
need to be as strong. I think gas is used in professional kitchens
for the instant on and off.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 09:31:37 -0800, sf > wrote:

>On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 23:54:09 -0800, isw > wrote:
>
>> As a side note, the largest heating element you can get on an electric
>> cooktop is probably about 7-8,000 BTU/hr. Which is probably why you
>> don't see electric stoves in very many professional kitchens ...
>
>Electric is more efficient with less heat loss than gas, so it doesn't
>need to be as strong.

Wrong. Electric is more efficient when used as immersible heating
elements but not as a standard cooktop. Electric element cooktops
rely on 100% contact for best efficiency but in RL that never happens,
50% contact is hardly achievable Gas cooktops are more than twice as
efficient as electric, that's one reason why restaurants use gas, but
more importantly is that gas cooking is far more sensitive.... think
of cooking with gas as playing a Stradivarius and cooking with
electric as playing a kazoo.

Ed Pawlowski > writes:

> On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 17:32:05 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>>I stir-fry a lot, so a real high-power burner would be nice, but I'm not
>>interested in $4k stoves -- and I can't find any with above 20,000
>>BTU/hr burners anyway (I can find commercial stoves taking bigger gas
>>lines, and I can find dedicated Wok burners to connect to a gas line or
>>propane tank, but I don't have room for that). I can find 17,000 BTU/hr
>>burners on $1k stoves.
>
> Pretty much the max from what I've seen.
>
>>
>>Has anybody ever tested the actual heat transferred to a pot of water on
>>their stove? How did the measured BTU/hr compare to the rating?
>
> Not easily done at home. Most of us have nothing near what is
> required to measure that kind of heat.

Oh, no, it's very easy. You measure three things: volume of water,
temperature of water, and time. All are easy to measure. A normal
instant-read kitchen thermometer that I'd expect us all to have goes
from about freezing (solidly below room temp, anyway) up to about 220F
(they cost about $8 new).

What I did was measure out two quarts of water, read the temperature,
heat it on high for 5 minutes, and measured the temperature again. A
pint of water weighs 1.02xxx or some such -- "1" is close enough, so two
quarts is 4 pounds. One BTU is the energy to raise one pound of water
one degree F.

So, the BTU/hr actually transferred into the water is:

(finaltemp - originaltemp) * 60 / 5 * 4

I had final temp 130F, original temp 67F, and I heated for 4 minutes
rather than 5, so (130 - 67) * 60 / 4 * 4 = 3780.

(Which is not quite the number I got, so some random value in the
example here isn't what I actually did at home.)

(Not all the heat goes into the pot and the water, some escapes all sort
sof different directions, and the pot isn't perfectly insulated, and for
that matter combustion isn't 100% efficient either, so the actual
measured heating will be less than the rating for the burner; online
discussions elsewhere suggested the rating will be roughly twice what
you measure with this procedure. I'm wondering if anybody else who
knows the rating on their burners has done this, to verify the 2x
factor?)

>>Does anybody have experience with the LG line of stoves? They're
>>relatively new, and might be at the point in the curve where they're
>>still offering aggressive pricing to build reputation, but have already
>>learned to make a decent produce. Maybe. There's a model that's about
>>perfect for my requirements, high-power burner plus dual ovens, that's
>>selling locally right at $1000.
>
> Sounds like a bargain at the price. I have no idea how LG appliances
> are, but I like my LG TV and LG computer monitor. I don't cook on
> either one though.

We've got a washer of theirs that works -- slightly closer to a stove
than a TV, maybe. It's been good so far.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

sf > writes:

> On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 17:32:05 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet >
> wrote:
>
>> Does anybody have experience with the LG line of stoves? They're
>> relatively new, and might be at the point in the curve where they're
>> still offering aggressive pricing to build reputation, but have already
>> learned to make a decent produce. Maybe. There's a model that's about
>> perfect for my requirements, high-power burner plus dual ovens, that's
>> selling locally right at $1000.
>
> What model is that? I see the LDG3016ST MAP - but it's closer to
> $2000 than $1000. I was going to recommend looking at Kitchenaid
> ranges but they cost even more. My KA cooktop has 20,000 btu burners,
> but you're looking for and all in one so that won't do. Good luck
> finding anything worthwhile for $1000 but if you do, let us know how
> it's going in 5 years because it's something I'd recommend to others
> if it doesn't need any service calls in that time.

I saw a Kithenaid with 20k burners, but it was an open-box item on
super-special discount for $4000, AND had only a single oven. So we
didn't buy it. But 20k burners do have a certain charm!

I've seen this LG in two places now. It's 4 burners (no fifth burner or
griddle area in the middle), two ovens with the larger one on the bottom
(convection in the bottom oven), all-gas (not electric oven). I think
it's a last-year's model being moved out at $1000, not MSRP of $1000.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

On 2/21/2012 8:30 AM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> Ed > writes:
>
>> On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 17:32:05 -0600, David >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I stir-fry a lot, so a real high-power burner would be nice, but I'm not
>>> interested in $4k stoves -- and I can't find any with above 20,000
>>> BTU/hr burners anyway (I can find commercial stoves taking bigger gas
>>> lines, and I can find dedicated Wok burners to connect to a gas line or
>>> propane tank, but I don't have room for that). I can find 17,000 BTU/hr
>>> burners on $1k stoves.
>>
>> Pretty much the max from what I've seen.
>>
>>>
>>> Has anybody ever tested the actual heat transferred to a pot of water on
>>> their stove? How did the measured BTU/hr compare to the rating?
>>
>> Not easily done at home. Most of us have nothing near what is
>> required to measure that kind of heat.
>
> Oh, no, it's very easy. You measure three things: volume of water,
> temperature of water, and time. All are easy to measure. A normal
> instant-read kitchen thermometer that I'd expect us all to have goes
> from about freezing (solidly below room temp, anyway) up to about 220F
> (they cost about $8 new).
>
> What I did was measure out two quarts of water, read the temperature,
> heat it on high for 5 minutes, and measured the temperature again. A
> pint of water weighs 1.02xxx or some such -- "1" is close enough, so two
> quarts is 4 pounds. One BTU is the energy to raise one pound of water
> one degree F.
>
> So, the BTU/hr actually transferred into the water is:
>
> (finaltemp - originaltemp) * 60 / 5 * 4
>
> I had final temp 130F, original temp 67F, and I heated for 4 minutes
> rather than 5, so (130 - 67) * 60 / 4 * 4 = 3780.
>
> (Which is not quite the number I got, so some random value in the
> example here isn't what I actually did at home.)
>
> (Not all the heat goes into the pot and the water, some escapes all sort
> sof different directions, and the pot isn't perfectly insulated, and for
> that matter combustion isn't 100% efficient either, so the actual
> measured heating will be less than the rating for the burner; online
> discussions elsewhere suggested the rating will be roughly twice what
> you measure with this procedure. I'm wondering if anybody else who
> knows the rating on their burners has done this, to verify the 2x
> factor?)

My suggestion would be to keep a lid on the pot and make sure you do
your measurements well before the boiling point of the water.

>
>>> Does anybody have experience with the LG line of stoves? They're
>>> relatively new, and might be at the point in the curve where they're
>>> still offering aggressive pricing to build reputation, but have already
>>> learned to make a decent produce. Maybe. There's a model that's about
>>> perfect for my requirements, high-power burner plus dual ovens, that's
>>> selling locally right at $1000.
>>
>> Sounds like a bargain at the price. I have no idea how LG appliances
>> are, but I like my LG TV and LG computer monitor. I don't cook on
>> either one though.
>
> We've got a washer of theirs that works -- slightly closer to a stove
> than a TV, maybe. It's been good so far.

We have a LG washer and dryer. The controls are not like any W/D that
we've had before although it's easy enough to operate once you learn
how. There's a big dial for the wash settings, an on/off switch, a bunch
of buttons that I don't mess with, and a run/pause button that's sort of
like something you'd find on a DVD player. There a pretty icon panel
that I don't know how to interpret with a big numeric display that shows
the estimated number of minutes remaining for the wash. I was somewhat
shocked that the normal wash takes about 50 minutes.

As it goes, we're pretty much an all Korean family. Even our car and my
mother-in-law are Korean. So far, these K-products have preformed quite
competently, although my mother-in-law looks like hell.

On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 12:34:21 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet >
wrote:

> I've seen this LG in two places now. It's 4 burners (no fifth burner or
> griddle area in the middle), two ovens with the larger one on the bottom
> (convection in the bottom oven), all-gas (not electric oven). I think
> it's a last-year's model being moved out at $1000, not MSRP of $1000.

I thought it had to be a sale price. Well, get it if it's that good
of a deal! It may not be there for you if you horse around too long
trying to decide. Surely you've looked at enough models to know if
it's a deal or not. Since it's last year's model, what do the reviews
say? I see the LG LDG3015ST 30 is $300 more, but it has a 5th burner.

My only question is: Does it self-clean or continuous clean? I hate
cleaning ovens and it would be a deal breaker for me if it didn't have
at least one that self-cleaned.

The other thing you need to look at is the placement of the oven
light. Mine are at the back in the right-hand corner and they are a
bear to replace. With a lot of effort (because the screws were
frozen), I was able to replace the light in my upper oven - but I had
to call the repairman anyway because I couldn't get it back together
properly (and he had a hard time too). The light in my lower oven is
out now but I'm not expending the effort to replace it. I'll just
have the repairman do it for me the next time I need to call one for
some other reason.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

Lou Decruss wrote:
>
> On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 00:11:54 -0800 (PST), spamtrap1888
> > wrote:
> >Alternatively, I would fill a pot of water 2/3 of the way up, mark the
> >level, then add a quart of water. Then time how long it takes to boil
> >that quart of water away. The advantage is that you will humidify your
> >dry winter air at the same time.
>
> Call me stupid but what will that show?

OK....Hi stupid. It will show condensation on your kitchen window.

Gary

dsi1 > writes:

> On 2/21/2012 8:30 AM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>> Ed > writes:
>>
>>> On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 17:32:05 -0600, David >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I stir-fry a lot, so a real high-power burner would be nice, but I'm not
>>>> interested in $4k stoves -- and I can't find any with above 20,000
>>>> BTU/hr burners anyway (I can find commercial stoves taking bigger gas
>>>> lines, and I can find dedicated Wok burners to connect to a gas line or
>>>> propane tank, but I don't have room for that). I can find 17,000 BTU/hr
>>>> burners on $1k stoves.
>>>
>>> Pretty much the max from what I've seen.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Has anybody ever tested the actual heat transferred to a pot of water on
>>>> their stove? How did the measured BTU/hr compare to the rating?
>>>
>>> Not easily done at home. Most of us have nothing near what is
>>> required to measure that kind of heat.
>>
>> Oh, no, it's very easy. You measure three things: volume of water,
>> temperature of water, and time. All are easy to measure. A normal
>> instant-read kitchen thermometer that I'd expect us all to have goes
>> from about freezing (solidly below room temp, anyway) up to about 220F
>> (they cost about $8 new).
>>
>> What I did was measure out two quarts of water, read the temperature,
>> heat it on high for 5 minutes, and measured the temperature again. A
>> pint of water weighs 1.02xxx or some such -- "1" is close enough, so two
>> quarts is 4 pounds. One BTU is the energy to raise one pound of water
>> one degree F.
>>
>> So, the BTU/hr actually transferred into the water is:
>>
>> (finaltemp - originaltemp) * 60 / 5 * 4
>>
>> I had final temp 130F, original temp 67F, and I heated for 4 minutes
>> rather than 5, so (130 - 67) * 60 / 4 * 4 = 3780.
>>
>> (Which is not quite the number I got, so some random value in the
>> example here isn't what I actually did at home.)
>>
>> (Not all the heat goes into the pot and the water, some escapes all sort
>> sof different directions, and the pot isn't perfectly insulated, and for
>> that matter combustion isn't 100% efficient either, so the actual
>> measured heating will be less than the rating for the burner; online
>> discussions elsewhere suggested the rating will be roughly twice what
>> you measure with this procedure. I'm wondering if anybody else who
>> knows the rating on their burners has done this, to verify the 2x
>> factor?)
>
> My suggestion would be to keep a lid on the pot and make sure you do
> your measurements well before the boiling point of the water.

Yes to both (and I didn't use a lid; should have).

>>>> Does anybody have experience with the LG line of stoves? They're
>>>> relatively new, and might be at the point in the curve where they're
>>>> still offering aggressive pricing to build reputation, but have already
>>>> learned to make a decent produce. Maybe. There's a model that's about
>>>> perfect for my requirements, high-power burner plus dual ovens, that's
>>>> selling locally right at $1000.
>>>
>>> Sounds like a bargain at the price. I have no idea how LG appliances
>>> are, but I like my LG TV and LG computer monitor. I don't cook on
>>> either one though.
>>
>> We've got a washer of theirs that works -- slightly closer to a stove
>> than a TV, maybe. It's been good so far.
>
> We have a LG washer and dryer. The controls are not like any W/D that
> we've had before although it's easy enough to operate once you learn
> how. There's a big dial for the wash settings, an on/off switch, a
> bunch of buttons that I don't mess with, and a run/pause button that's
> sort of like something you'd find on a DVD player. There a pretty icon
> panel that I don't know how to interpret with a big numeric display
> that shows the estimated number of minutes remaining for the wash. I
> was somewhat shocked that the normal wash takes about 50 minutes.
>
> As it goes, we're pretty much an all Korean family. Even our car and
> my mother-in-law are Korean. So far, these K-products have preformed
> quite competently, although my mother-in-law looks like hell.

So, practical, but not necessarily pretty? :-)
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

Lou Decruss > writes:

> On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 23:54:09 -0800, isw > wrote:
>
>>In article >,
>> Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 17:32:05 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >
>>> >I stir-fry a lot, so a real high-power burner would be nice, but I'm not
>>> >interested in $4k stoves -- and I can't find any with above 20,000
>>> >BTU/hr burners anyway (I can find commercial stoves taking bigger gas
>>> >lines, and I can find dedicated Wok burners to connect to a gas line or
>>> >propane tank, but I don't have room for that). I can find 17,000 BTU/hr
>>> >burners on $1k stoves.
>>>
>>> Pretty much the max from what I've seen.
>>>
>>> >
>>> >Has anybody ever tested the actual heat transferred to a pot of water on
>>> >their stove? How did the measured BTU/hr compare to the rating?
>>>
>>> Not easily done at home. Most of us have nothing near what is
>>> required to measure that kind of heat.
>>
>>Actually, it's very easy. All it takes is a big pot of water, a
>>thermometer, and a clock.
>>
>>First, note that cookstove burners are rated in BTU *per hour*, not just
>>BTU.
>>
>>It takes 8.34 BTU to increase one gallon of water one degree F. (note
>>that it doesn't matter how long it takes). If your stove accomplished
>>that in one hour, you'd have a 8.34 BTU/hr burner. If it could do it in
>>one minute, you'd have a (8.34*60 = 500.4) BTU burner. One gallon, ten
>>degrees in one minute, 5,004 BTU/hr. And so on.
>>
>>So here's how:
>>
>>Put a big pot of water on the burner (Use a thin-walled pot so its mass
>>doesn't affect things too much). Measure the amount of water (an exact
>>number of gallons will make the calculations easier). Measure the
>>temperature. Turn on the heat. Wait a while -- a few minutes -- using a
>>clock so you'll know how long. Measure the temperature again. You'll get
>>better accuracy if you use more water and a smaller temperature rise.
>>
>>As a side note, the largest heating element you can get on an electric
>>cooktop is probably about 7-8,000 BTU/hr. Which is probably why you
>>don't see electric stoves in very many professional kitchens ...
>
> I've read that method before but why would you need to do it in a real
> life situation?

If you follow back to the message where I started this thread, you would
know.

Briefly, because my old stove is old enough I can't find a rating for
the heat output of the burners, and it occurred to me to wonder whether
a "high output" burner on a modern stove would be significantly more
powerful. So I went through the process (maybe 15 minutes including
research) of measuring it myself.

> I was on a job that needed a new boiler. It was originally coal and
> then oil and finally converted to gas. It was installed in 1927 and
> there was no way of telling how many btu it was with testing it. They
> turned off anything in the building that was gas and took a meter
> reading. Then jumped the stat to run continuously for 30 minutes and
> took another meter reading. They came up with 1.4 million btu and
> estimated 60% efficiency and came up with the proper sized modern
> boiler to replace it.

I don't see any obvious signs of ours having gone through an oil stage,
but one of our furnaces was originally coal, now converted to gas. I
think it's the original from when the house was built in 1916. I'm
thinking we can probably keep it going long enough to have a 100th
birthday party for it :-).

--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 09:00:28 -1000, dsi1
> wrote:

>On 2/21/2012 8:30 AM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

>>>> Does anybody have experience with the LG line of stoves? They're
>>>> relatively new, and might be at the point in the curve where they're
>>>> still offering aggressive pricing to build reputation, but have already
>>>> learned to make a decent produce. Maybe. There's a model that's about
>>>> perfect for my requirements, high-power burner plus dual ovens, that's
>>>> selling locally right at $1000.
>>>
>>> Sounds like a bargain at the price. I have no idea how LG appliances
>>> are, but I like my LG TV and LG computer monitor. I don't cook on
>>> either one though.
>>
>> We've got a washer of theirs that works -- slightly closer to a stove
>> than a TV, maybe. It's been good so far.
>
>We have a LG washer and dryer. The controls are not like any W/D that
>we've had before although it's easy enough to operate once you learn
>how. There's a big dial for the wash settings, an on/off switch, a bunch
>of buttons that I don't mess with, and a run/pause button that's sort of
>like something you'd find on a DVD player. There a pretty icon panel
>that I don't know how to interpret with a big numeric display that shows
>the estimated number of minutes remaining for the wash. I was somewhat
>shocked that the normal wash takes about 50 minutes.

When it breaks down are you going to repair it with those generic
parts you spoke of?

Lou

On 2/21/2012 9:31 AM, sf wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 12:34:21 -0600, David >
> wrote:
>
>> I've seen this LG in two places now. It's 4 burners (no fifth burner or
>> griddle area in the middle), two ovens with the larger one on the bottom
>> (convection in the bottom oven), all-gas (not electric oven). I think
>> it's a last-year's model being moved out at $1000, not MSRP of $1000.
>
> I thought it had to be a sale price. Well, get it if it's that good
> of a deal! It may not be there for you if you horse around too long
> trying to decide. Surely you've looked at enough models to know if
> it's a deal or not. Since it's last year's model, what do the reviews
> say? I see the LG LDG3015ST 30 is $300 more, but it has a 5th burner.
>
> My only question is: Does it self-clean or continuous clean? I hate
> cleaning ovens and it would be a deal breaker for me if it didn't have
> at least one that self-cleaned.

>
> The other thing you need to look at is the placement of the oven
> light. Mine are at the back in the right-hand corner and they are a
> bear to replace. With a lot of effort (because the screws were
> frozen), I was able to replace the light in my upper oven - but I had
> to call the repairman anyway because I couldn't get it back together
> properly (and he had a hard time too). The light in my lower oven is
> out now but I'm not expending the effort to replace it. I'll just
> have the repairman do it for me the next time I need to call one for
> some other reason.
>

The imaginary stove that I claim to have has a very nice light. It's so
bright and white and clear! I have to admit that it never occurred to me
to see what kind of light it is or where it's located but I'll have to
check because it is the best light that I've ever had in an oven.

On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 14:20:03 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet >
wrote:

>Lou Decruss > writes:

>> I've read that method before but why would you need to do it in a real
>> life situation?
>
>If you follow back to the message where I started this thread, you would
>know.
>
>Briefly, because my old stove is old enough I can't find a rating for
>the heat output of the burners, and it occurred to me to wonder whether
>a "high output" burner on a modern stove would be significantly more
>powerful. So I went through the process (maybe 15 minutes including
>research) of measuring it myself.

OK That makes sense. Sorry I missed that part.

>> I was on a job that needed a new boiler. It was originally coal and
>> then oil and finally converted to gas. It was installed in 1927 and
>> there was no way of telling how many btu it was with testing it. They
>> turned off anything in the building that was gas and took a meter
>> reading. Then jumped the stat to run continuously for 30 minutes and
>> took another meter reading. They came up with 1.4 million btu and
>> estimated 60% efficiency and came up with the proper sized modern
>> boiler to replace it.

>I don't see any obvious signs of ours having gone through an oil stage,
>but one of our furnaces was originally coal, now converted to gas. I
>think it's the original from when the house was built in 1916. I'm
>thinking we can probably keep it going long enough to have a 100th
>birthday party for it :-).

It is steam?

Lou

On 2/21/2012 10:15 AM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> > writes:
>>
>> As it goes, we're pretty much an all Korean family. Even our car and
>> my mother-in-law are Korean. So far, these K-products have preformed
>> quite competently, although my mother-in-law looks like hell.
>
> So, practical, but not necessarily pretty? :-)

The LG W/D is super pretty. It's at the top of the stairs in our condo
and if the lights are off, its red, green, and yellow display is just
beautiful and mesmerizing. Oddly enough, the control layout is exactly
the same for the washer and dryer. I've never seen that done before.

My Samsung washer is beautiful too and is really quiet in operation but
the tiny flat panel buttons forces you to stick your eyes about 8" from
the control panel to be able to read them. The stainless steel interior
looked great in the store but mineral deposits make it look ugly as
hell. I would never get another dishwasher with a SS interior.

My mother-in-law is pretty much non-functional and can't do anything. I
can't say how aware she is of her surroundings. It's a heck of an
existence. My wife is committed to taking care of her until one of them
dies and that's a testament to her character and strength of will.

sf > writes:

> On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 12:34:21 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet >
> wrote:
>
>> I've seen this LG in two places now. It's 4 burners (no fifth burner or
>> griddle area in the middle), two ovens with the larger one on the bottom
>> (convection in the bottom oven), all-gas (not electric oven). I think
>> it's a last-year's model being moved out at $1000, not MSRP of $1000.
>
> I thought it had to be a sale price. Well, get it if it's that good
> of a deal! It may not be there for you if you horse around too long
> trying to decide. Surely you've looked at enough models to know if
> it's a deal or not. Since it's last year's model, what do the reviews
> say? I see the LG LDG3015ST 30 is $300 more, but it has a 5th burner.

Yeah, I've been thinking the same thing.

> My only question is: Does it self-clean or continuous clean? I hate
> cleaning ovens and it would be a deal breaker for me if it didn't have
> at least one that self-cleaned.

I believe so. Haven't had one of those in decades, but it's a nice
idea.

> The other thing you need to look at is the placement of the oven
> light. Mine are at the back in the right-hand corner and they are a
> bear to replace. With a lot of effort (because the screws were
> frozen), I was able to replace the light in my upper oven - but I had
> to call the repairman anyway because I couldn't get it back together
> properly (and he had a hard time too). The light in my lower oven is
> out now but I'm not expending the effort to replace it. I'll just
> have the repairman do it for me the next time I need to call one for
> some other reason.

Oh, yes, it probably does have a light in it, and a window in the door.
That would be a way it differs from our current oven.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

On 2/21/2012 10:26 AM, Lou Decruss wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 09:00:28 -1000, dsi1
> > wrote:
>
>> On 2/21/2012 8:30 AM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>
>>>>> Does anybody have experience with the LG line of stoves? They're
>>>>> relatively new, and might be at the point in the curve where they're
>>>>> still offering aggressive pricing to build reputation, but have already
>>>>> learned to make a decent produce. Maybe. There's a model that's about
>>>>> perfect for my requirements, high-power burner plus dual ovens, that's
>>>>> selling locally right at $1000.
>>>>
>>>> Sounds like a bargain at the price. I have no idea how LG appliances
>>>> are, but I like my LG TV and LG computer monitor. I don't cook on
>>>> either one though.
>>>
>>> We've got a washer of theirs that works -- slightly closer to a stove
>>> than a TV, maybe. It's been good so far.
>>
>> We have a LG washer and dryer. The controls are not like any W/D that
>> we've had before although it's easy enough to operate once you learn
>> how. There's a big dial for the wash settings, an on/off switch, a bunch
>> of buttons that I don't mess with, and a run/pause button that's sort of
>> like something you'd find on a DVD player. There a pretty icon panel
>> that I don't know how to interpret with a big numeric display that shows
>> the estimated number of minutes remaining for the wash. I was somewhat
>> shocked that the normal wash takes about 50 minutes.
>
> When it breaks down are you going to repair it with those generic
> parts you spoke of?
>
> Lou

Just this once, I'll let you ask me a question, and I will respond.

The answer is "I don't know." The situation is that same as with auto
parts. I can easily get dirt-cheap third party parts for a Chevy or GM
product - getting a part for a foreign make is another matter.

My guess is that I can't get it from the same suppliers that I get
Whirlpool parts. I may have to go to the dealer. I have no idea who
deals in these parts or even if LG has a service center on this rock.
Samsung and LG may use interchangeable parts but I have not confirmed
this. Certain Kenmore appliance lines may also use Samsung and/or LG parts.

I have no experience with working on these micro-processor controlled
appliances. My guess is that you need a diagnostic reader to trouble
shoot the electronics. I don't have one but sooner or later, I may have
to buy one.

In article >,
Lou Decruss > wrote:

> On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 00:11:54 -0800 (PST), spamtrap1888
> > wrote:
>
> >On Feb 20, 11:54*pm, isw > wrote:

> >Alternatively, I would fill a pot of water 2/3 of the way up, mark the
> >level, then add a quart of water. Then time how long it takes to boil
> >that quart of water away. The advantage is that you will humidify your
> >dry winter air at the same time.
>
> Call me stupid but what will that show?

If you actually try that test, it will show you how stupid you are are,
when you go to convert the number of minutes to boil a quart of water
away to BTUs, and realize that you have been given no information about
how to compute that. Once you do the research and figure that out,
you'll find you are screwed unless you tracked the temperature (and
volume) of the water to start with. And don't forget to factor in the
altitude!

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

On Feb 21, 2:19*pm, Dan Abel > wrote:
> In article >,
> *Lou Decruss > wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 00:11:54 -0800 (PST), spamtrap1888
> > > wrote:
>
> > >On Feb 20, 11:54*pm, isw > wrote:
> > >Alternatively, I would fill a pot of water 2/3 of the way up, mark the
> > >level, then add a quart of water. Then time how long it takes to boil
> > >that quart of water away. The advantage is that you will humidify your
> > >dry winter air at the same time.
>
> > Call me stupid but what will that show?
>
> If you actually try that test, it will show you how stupid you are are,
> when you go to convert the number of minutes to boil a quart of water
> away to BTUs, and realize that you have been given no information about
> how to compute that. *Once you do the research and figure that out,
> you'll find you are screwed unless you tracked the temperature (and
> volume) of the water to start with. *And don't forget to factor in the
> altitude!
>

Do I have to spoon feed everyone everything?

Assume Sea level, and track the time between the start of the boil and
the disappearance of that quart of water. The latent heat of
evaporation is 2020 BTU.

dsi1 > writes:

> On 2/21/2012 10:15 AM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>> > writes:
>>>
>>> As it goes, we're pretty much an all Korean family. Even our car and
>>> my mother-in-law are Korean. So far, these K-products have preformed
>>> quite competently, although my mother-in-law looks like hell.
>>
>> So, practical, but not necessarily pretty? :-)
>
> The LG W/D is super pretty. It's at the top of the stairs in our condo
> and if the lights are off, its red, green, and yellow display is just
> beautiful and mesmerizing. Oddly enough, the control layout is exactly
> the same for the washer and dryer. I've never seen that done before.

I'm used to big differences, yes. The functions really are somewhat
different -- but many of the cycles are related, so I can kind of see
it.

> My Samsung washer is beautiful too and is really quiet in operation
> but the tiny flat panel buttons forces you to stick your eyes about 8"
> from the control panel to be able to read them. The stainless steel
> interior looked great in the store but mineral deposits make it look
> ugly as hell. I would never get another dishwasher with a SS interior.

Mineral levels vary; here in Minneapolis it's different from suburbs,
because we use soft river water and they use hard artesian well water,
for example.

> My mother-in-law is pretty much non-functional and can't do
> anything. I can't say how aware she is of her surroundings. It's a
> heck of an existence. My wife is committed to taking care of her until
> one of them dies and that's a testament to her character and strength
> of will.

Sounds like you have an awesome wife.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

Lou Decruss > writes:

> On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 14:20:03 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet >
> wrote:
>
>>Lou Decruss > writes:
>
>>> I've read that method before but why would you need to do it in a real
>>> life situation?
>>
>>If you follow back to the message where I started this thread, you would
>>know.
>>
>>Briefly, because my old stove is old enough I can't find a rating for
>>the heat output of the burners, and it occurred to me to wonder whether
>>a "high output" burner on a modern stove would be significantly more
>>powerful. So I went through the process (maybe 15 minutes including
>>research) of measuring it myself.
>
> OK That makes sense. Sorry I missed that part.

And sorry I was snarky about it; depending where and how you're reading,
tracing the thread back can be hard or even impossible, and I snarked as
if it was always easy.

>>> I was on a job that needed a new boiler. It was originally coal and
>>> then oil and finally converted to gas. It was installed in 1927 and
>>> there was no way of telling how many btu it was with testing it. They
>>> turned off anything in the building that was gas and took a meter
>>> reading. Then jumped the stat to run continuously for 30 minutes and
>>> took another meter reading. They came up with 1.4 million btu and
>>> estimated 60% efficiency and came up with the proper sized modern
>>> boiler to replace it.
>
>>I don't see any obvious signs of ours having gone through an oil stage,
>>but one of our furnaces was originally coal, now converted to gas. I
>>think it's the original from when the house was built in 1916. I'm
>>thinking we can probably keep it going long enough to have a 100th
>>birthday party for it :-).
>
> It is steam?

Hot water. Convective, not pumped.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

On 2/21/2012 1:30 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> > writes:
>
>> On 2/21/2012 10:15 AM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>>> > writes:
>>>>
>>>> As it goes, we're pretty much an all Korean family. Even our car and
>>>> my mother-in-law are Korean. So far, these K-products have preformed
>>>> quite competently, although my mother-in-law looks like hell.
>>>
>>> So, practical, but not necessarily pretty? :-)
>>
>> The LG W/D is super pretty. It's at the top of the stairs in our condo
>> and if the lights are off, its red, green, and yellow display is just
>> beautiful and mesmerizing. Oddly enough, the control layout is exactly
>> the same for the washer and dryer. I've never seen that done before.
>
> I'm used to big differences, yes. The functions really are somewhat
> different -- but many of the cycles are related, so I can kind of see
> it.
>
>> My Samsung washer is beautiful too and is really quiet in operation
>> but the tiny flat panel buttons forces you to stick your eyes about 8"
>> from the control panel to be able to read them. The stainless steel
>> interior looked great in the store but mineral deposits make it look
>> ugly as hell. I would never get another dishwasher with a SS interior.
>
> Mineral levels vary; here in Minneapolis it's different from suburbs,
> because we use soft river water and they use hard artesian well water,
> for example.

I should have said "dishwasher." This is the first time I've seen
something like this because this rock has some pretty soft water - at
least I've never had to worry about mineral deposits before. The marks
pretty much appeared soon after we got it. I've been running some cycles
with some TSP to little effect. I think my dishes come out spotless
though. Some citric acid would probably work but I can't find any
locally. I'll probably just spray it with some bathroom tub and tile
cleaner and run a cycle.

Of course, I could use some Tang but that's way too goofy. I wonder if
Kool-ade would work? :-)

>
>> My mother-in-law is pretty much non-functional and can't do
>> anything. I can't say how aware she is of her surroundings. It's a
>> heck of an existence. My wife is committed to taking care of her until
>> one of them dies and that's a testament to her character and strength
>> of will.
>
> Sounds like you have an awesome wife.

On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 13:47:56 -1000, dsi1 >
wrote:

> I should have said "dishwasher." This is the first time I've seen
> something like this because this rock has some pretty soft water - at
> least I've never had to worry about mineral deposits before. The marks
> pretty much appeared soon after we got it. I've been running some cycles
> with some TSP to little effect. I think my dishes come out spotless
> though. Some citric acid would probably work but I can't find any
> locally. I'll probably just spray it with some bathroom tub and tile
> cleaner and run a cycle.

Have you found any "Finish" dishwasher detergent? Try a box of that,
it may work for you.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

Gary > wrote:
> Lou Decruss wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 00:11:54 -0800 (PST), spamtrap1888
>> > wrote:
>>> Alternatively, I would fill a pot of water 2/3 of the way up, mark the
>>> level, then add a quart of water. Then time how long it takes to boil
>>> that quart of water away. The advantage is that you will humidify your
>>> dry winter air at the same time.
>>
>> Call me stupid but what will that show?
>
> OK....Hi stupid. It will show condensation on your kitchen window.

I guess no one is going to answer. It takes 965 BTU to vaporize a pound of
water at
212 degrees, so if you waited until it started boiling and timed it, you'd
know
how many minutes it takes to get around 1930 BTU. To get BTU/hour, take
115800 and divide by time in minutes. If you're not at sea level, use the
other method.
That's quite insensitive to altitude and you don't have to let it start
boiling. But
you do need a thermometer.

Assuming I didn't make some obvious error.

Mike Beede

spamtrap1888 > wrote:
> On Feb 21, 2:19 pm, Dan Abel > wrote:
>> In article >,
>> Lou Decruss > wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 00:11:54 -0800 (PST), spamtrap1888
>>> > wrote:
>>
>>>> On Feb 20, 11:54 pm, isw > wrote:
>>>> Alternatively, I would fill a pot of water 2/3 of the way up, mark the
>>>> level, then add a quart of water. Then time how long it takes to boil
>>>> that quart of water away. The advantage is that you will humidify your
>>>> dry winter air at the same time.
>>
>>> Call me stupid but what will that show?
>>
>> If you actually try that test, it will show you how stupid you are are,
>> when you go to convert the number of minutes to boil a quart of water
>> away to BTUs, and realize that you have been given no information about
>> how to compute that. Once you do the research and figure that out,
>> you'll find you are screwed unless you tracked the temperature (and
>> volume) of the water to start with. And don't forget to factor in the
>> altitude!
>>
>
> Do I have to spoon feed everyone everything?
>
> Assume Sea level, and track the time between the start of the boil and
> the disappearance of that quart of water. The latent heat of
> evaporation is 2020 BTU.

Arrgh. Forgot that a quart of water is a little more than 2 pounds, but I
guess it's within measurement error.

Mike Beede

On 2/21/2012 2:06 PM, sf wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 13:47:56 -1000, >
> wrote:
>
>> I should have said "dishwasher." This is the first time I've seen
>> something like this because this rock has some pretty soft water - at
>> least I've never had to worry about mineral deposits before. The marks
>> pretty much appeared soon after we got it. I've been running some cycles
>> with some TSP to little effect. I think my dishes come out spotless
>> though. Some citric acid would probably work but I can't find any
>> locally. I'll probably just spray it with some bathroom tub and tile
>> cleaner and run a cycle.
>
> Have you found any "Finish" dishwasher detergent? Try a box of that,
> it may work for you.
>

I'm using Finish in tablet form. The one that has a red ball sitting on
it like a red pearl in an oyster. BTW, "Finish" is the new brand name
for "Electrasol."

On 2/21/2012 2:10 PM, Mike Beede wrote:
> > wrote:
>> Lou Decruss wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 00:11:54 -0800 (PST), spamtrap1888
>>> > wrote:
>>>> Alternatively, I would fill a pot of water 2/3 of the way up, mark the
>>>> level, then add a quart of water. Then time how long it takes to boil
>>>> that quart of water away. The advantage is that you will humidify your
>>>> dry winter air at the same time.
>>>
>>> Call me stupid but what will that show?
>>
>> OK....Hi stupid. It will show condensation on your kitchen window.
>
> I guess no one is going to answer. It takes 965 BTU to vaporize a pound of
> water at
> 212 degrees, so if you waited until it started boiling and timed it, you'd
> know
> how many minutes it takes to get around 1930 BTU. To get BTU/hour, take
> 115800 and divide by time in minutes. If you're not at sea level, use the
> other method.
> That's quite insensitive to altitude and you don't have to let it start
> boiling. But
> you do need a thermometer.
>
> Assuming I didn't make some obvious error.
>
> Mike Beede

Why measure heat output so indirectly by the evaporation of water? would
the shape and size of the pan or relative humidity affect evaporation
rates? Maybe it wouldn't but maybe it would. You'd have to test to this
too.

Testing heat output this way is like measuring the power of an amp by
playing a Lady GaGa track and seeing how long it takes to clear a room
full of old farts.

On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 14:21:34 -1000, dsi1 >
wrote:

> On 2/21/2012 2:06 PM, sf wrote:
> > On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 13:47:56 -1000, >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I should have said "dishwasher." This is the first time I've seen
> >> something like this because this rock has some pretty soft water - at
> >> least I've never had to worry about mineral deposits before. The marks
> >> pretty much appeared soon after we got it. I've been running some cycles
> >> with some TSP to little effect. I think my dishes come out spotless
> >> though. Some citric acid would probably work but I can't find any
> >> locally. I'll probably just spray it with some bathroom tub and tile
> >> cleaner and run a cycle.
> >
> > Have you found any "Finish" dishwasher detergent? Try a box of that,
> > it may work for you.
> >
>
> I'm using Finish in tablet form. The one that has a red ball sitting on
> it like a red pearl in an oyster.

I didn't start using Finish until I found granules (for some odd
reason, most stores only carried tabs).

So, even the tabs leave water spots inside your dishwasher? Do you
use Jet Dry? I find it makes a big difference. I don't see how
citric acid would help if Finish and Jet Dry don't do anything for
you.

> BTW, "Finish" is the new brand name for "Electrasol."
>
I didn't know that. The name Finish has been around a long time.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 11:26:07 -1000, dsi1
> wrote:



> The stainless steel interior
>looked great in the store but mineral deposits make it look ugly as
>hell. I would never get another dishwasher with a SS interior.
>

Run a cycle with CLR or Lime Away or some other citrus based cleaner
that has been mentioned here before. Consider a water softener too,
those minerals are on your laundry, in your hair, and on your body
too.

On 2/21/2012 2:41 PM, sf wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 14:21:34 -1000, >
> wrote:
>
>> On 2/21/2012 2:06 PM, sf wrote:
>>> On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 13:47:56 -1000, >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I should have said "dishwasher." This is the first time I've seen
>>>> something like this because this rock has some pretty soft water - at
>>>> least I've never had to worry about mineral deposits before. The marks
>>>> pretty much appeared soon after we got it. I've been running some cycles
>>>> with some TSP to little effect. I think my dishes come out spotless
>>>> though. Some citric acid would probably work but I can't find any
>>>> locally. I'll probably just spray it with some bathroom tub and tile
>>>> cleaner and run a cycle.
>>>
>>> Have you found any "Finish" dishwasher detergent? Try a box of that,
>>> it may work for you.
>>>
>>
>> I'm using Finish in tablet form. The one that has a red ball sitting on
>> it like a red pearl in an oyster.
>
> I didn't start using Finish until I found granules (for some odd
> reason, most stores only carried tabs).
>
> So, even the tabs leave water spots inside your dishwasher? Do you
> use Jet Dry? I find it makes a big difference. I don't see how
> citric acid would help if Finish and Jet Dry don't do anything for
> you.

The water marks are streaks of calcium deposits. I believe it's the same
stuff that clogs up drip coffee makers. I could use vinegar, I suppose
but the idea is repulsive to me. I'll try bathtub scum remover first. Yummy!


>
>> BTW, "Finish" is the new brand name for "Electrasol."
>>
> I didn't know that. The name Finish has been around a long time.
>

On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 18:18:52 -1000, dsi1
> wrote:

>
> The water marks are streaks of calcium deposits. I believe it's the same
> stuff that clogs up drip coffee makers. I could use vinegar, I suppose
> but the idea is repulsive to me. I'll try bathtub scum remover first. Yummy!

ICK! Please use vinegar first (I think white is what people use)!

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 22:38:06 -0500, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

>On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 11:26:07 -1000, dsi1
> wrote:
>
>
>
>> The stainless steel interior
>>looked great in the store but mineral deposits make it look ugly as
>>hell. I would never get another dishwasher with a SS interior.
>>
>
>Run a cycle with CLR or Lime Away or some other citrus based cleaner
>that has been mentioned here before. Consider a water softener too,
>those minerals are on your laundry, in your hair, and on your body
>too.

If the inside of that dishwasher is clad with mineral deposits it
would be the same with any dishwasher interior... and in fact so are
the dishes... just because it's more visible on stainless steel
doesn't mean those deposits are not on all other surfaces. That
dishwasher is being run for nothing. If one has hard water there is
no better investment than a water softener, pays for itself the first
year, because if hard water is messing up your dishwasher imagine how
it's shortening the life of all your other plumbing. Softened water
will also save more than half the cost of all cleaning products, and
hot water itself because soft water cleans well with cold water...
plus the hot water heater will be be much more efficient, hot water
central heating alone will save about about 30% on fuel... your
baseboard heating is coated thick with mineral deposits, barely any
heat transfer at all. Hard water is a big time pick pocket, in every
way yoose can imagine, and in many ways yoose haven't thought of.
Didja know that hard water cuts the effectiveness of antibiotic meds
by half... well, okay, if you have hard water you won't need to buy
antacids, think of all the money you'll save by not buying Tums. And
the best part is bathing in soft water, close your eyes and yoose old
bags will think you're caressing the skin of a sweet sixteen year old.

On Feb 21, 4:36*pm, dsi1 > wrote:
> On 2/21/2012 2:10 PM, Mike Beede wrote:
>

>
> > > *wrote:
> >> Lou Decruss wrote:
>
> >>> On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 00:11:54 -0800 (PST), spamtrap1888
> >>> > *wrote:
> >>>> Alternatively, I would fill a pot of water 2/3 of the way up, mark the
> >>>> level, then add a quart of water. Then time how long it takes to boil
> >>>> that quart of water away. The advantage is that you will humidify your
> >>>> dry winter air at the same time.
>
> >>> Call me stupid but what will that show?
>
> >> OK....Hi stupid. *It will show condensation on your kitchen window. *
>
> > I guess no one is going to answer. It takes 965 BTU to vaporize a pound of
> > water at
> > 212 degrees, so if you waited until it started boiling and timed it, you'd
> > know
> > how many minutes it takes to get around 1930 BTU. *To get BTU/hour, take
> > 115800 and divide by time in minutes. *If you're not at sea level, use the
> > other method.
> > That's quite insensitive to altitude and you don't have to let it start
> > boiling. But
> > you do need a thermometer.
>
> > Assuming I didn't make some obvious error.
>
> > * * *Mike Beede
>
> Why measure heat output so indirectly by the evaporation of water?

Try it. You will find it is a very robust measurement compared to
measuring change in temperature. Realize that a pot of water on a
stove can have huge temperature gradients between the bottom and top,
and between the sides and center. Convection could be moving the
thermocouple measurement location, giving misleading results. Water at
a rolling boil is more likely to all be at the same temperature. If
you measure only delta T, you should have at least nine thermocouples.

> would
> the shape and size of the pan or relative humidity affect evaporation
> rates? Maybe it wouldn't but maybe it would. You'd have to test to this
> too.

These effects are more pronounced for the delta T measurements.
Humidity will affect measurement of small temperature changes more,
because water can always evaporate even when no heat is applied to the
pot. Moreover, more water evaporates from shallow pans than from
narrow and deep ones, for a given volume. Therefore you will never
actually know how much water is in the pot at any given instant.

Recall the OP:

"Has anybody ever tested the actual heat transferred to a pot of water
on
their stove? How did the measured BTU/hr compare to the rating? Many
online articles suggest the rating is about 2x the actual."

What's being measured is the amount of heat actually transferred to
the pot. This amount will surely depend on the shape and size of the
pan, because the wider the pot, the more surface will be in contact
with the flame. Therefore, using the exact pot under consideration is
very important.

Later the OP goes on to say he needs the information for his wok. I
would start out by getting a baseline measurement for the heat
transferred into a stock pot, then repeat the measurement using the
actual wok.

Air pressure will change the latent heat. For improved accuracy, find
the barometric pressure, and use it to obtain the latent heat of
evaporation from a steam table. Weigh the quart of water as well,
because the latent heat is given per pound.


>
> Testing heat output this way is like measuring the power of an amp by
> playing a Lady GaGa track and seeing how long it takes to clear a room
> full of old farts.

The OP does not want to measure heat output, but the amount of heat
transferred. If you're going to critique the methodology used to
achieve a goal, don't change the stated goal, then complain the
methodology is wrong.

On Feb 21, 4:41*pm, sf > wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 14:21:34 -1000, dsi1 >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2/21/2012 2:06 PM, sf wrote:
> > > On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 13:47:56 -1000, >
> > > wrote:
>
> > >> I should have said "dishwasher." This is the first time I've seen
> > >> something like this because this rock has some pretty soft water - at
> > >> least I've never had to worry about mineral deposits before. The marks
> > >> pretty much appeared soon after we got it. I've been running some cycles
> > >> with some TSP to little effect. I think my dishes come out spotless
> > >> though. Some citric acid would probably work but I can't find any
> > >> locally. I'll probably just spray it with some bathroom tub and tile
> > >> cleaner and run a cycle.
>
> > > Have you found any "Finish" dishwasher detergent? *Try a box of that,
> > > it may work for you.
>
> > I'm using Finish in tablet form. The one that has a red ball sitting on
> > it like a red pearl in an oyster.
>
> I didn't start using Finish until I found granules (for some odd
> reason, most stores only carried tabs).
>
> So, even the tabs leave water spots inside your dishwasher? *Do you
> use Jet Dry? *I find it makes a big difference. *I don't see how
> citric acid would help if Finish and Jet Dry don't do anything for
> you.

Back in the day, Jet Dry appeared to spot glasses more than anything
else, so we quit using it.

Did Finish contain phosphates? As I recall, high phosphate detergents
for all purposes have been prohibited in many places to avoid algae
bloom, etc.