We are buying all new kitchen appliances and my whole family loves to
cook. I find that all the appliances sales people try to sell the most
popular items and it seems most of them have no personal experience
using any of the products they sell. I want to hear from people who
actually use gas cook tops on a daily basis. I simply want the best
gas cook top that is going to be perform well as will be used a lot.
Thanks RW from Canada

RW wrote:
> We are buying all new kitchen appliances and my whole family loves to
> cook. I find that all the appliances sales people try to sell the most
> popular items and it seems most of them have no personal experience
> using any of the products they sell. I want to hear from people who
> actually use gas cook tops on a daily basis. I simply want the best
> gas cook top that is going to be perform well as will be used a lot.
> Thanks RW from Canada

Aside from bells and whistles all gas stoves of equal BTU ratings cook
the same... other than impressing your neighbors anything special
you're trying to accomplish?

Sheldon

My sister LOVES her Bosch cooktop. I have a Thermodor range, and if
their cooktops are anything like there ranges $#@% the expense and get
one.

Cheers,

Steve

Thank You!

I'm not a messy cooker but I understand your point about easy of
cleaning. Some have lots of joints and places to trap spills etc.
Thank you for your advise and I was in fact wondering about getting one
with a grill over two burners. I often cook large volume in a huge pot
so that soups and meat sauces etc. can be stored in the freezer for
future meals so large surface area is a definate consideration.
RW

We very rarely entertain so impressing the neighbors is not a
consideration. I often cook large amounts like soups and meat sauces
etc so cooking area is a consideration. I am also concerned about
quality. As with anything one can purchase an item that will not
withstand wera and tear. I want a cooktop that will take heavy pots
and pans and lots of use that has a great track record for durability
and few requests for service.

I am sooo close to buying a Thermador. I have always heard that they
are well built and durable but never actually talked to someone who
owned one. So thank you.

Two years ago we re-did the kitchen. Of course we wanted a great
kitchen, but in my area (Northern VA) we were getting quotes of 60-75K
for updating our 11 x 10 kitchen. And believe me, we weren't talking
about custom-made Brazilian mahogany cabinets, bioluminescent ceiling
lights, AI enhaced appliances, and hand polished counter tops hewned
from petrified 240 million year old Triassic cycads, by the muscles and
sweat of young virgins. Inflicted with a severe case of dementia, I got
the brilliant idea of renovating our kitchen ourselves. Fortunately,
my wife's cooler head prevailed and we had a plumber move some supply
lines, and the floor drain. But we did 90% of the work ourselves and
saved a BIG bundle, which allowed me to get the stove (with hood) of my
dreams -a Thermador 48 inch gas, dual oven. BTW I just installed the
nifty blue retro-fit knob upgrade. The range works great, is a breeze
to clean, and its built like a tank...not to mention that cool
speedometer-like temp gauge.

Steve the Sauropodman wrote:
> Two years ago we re-did the kitchen. Of course we wanted a great
> kitchen, but in my area (Northern VA) we were getting quotes of 60-75K
> for updating our 11 x 10 kitchen.

Ridiculous bullshit... 110 sq ft of kitchen space is the size of two
tiny apartment sized bathrooms... can't cost half that much.

> And believe me, we weren't talking
> about custom-made Brazilian mahogany cabinets, bioluminescent ceiling
> lights, AI enhaced appliances, and hand polished counter tops hewned
> from petrified 240 million year old Triassic cycads, by the muscles and
> sweat of young virgins. Inflicted with a severe case of dementia, I got
> the brilliant idea of renovating our kitchen ourselves. Fortunately,
> my wife's cooler head prevailed and we had a plumber move some supply
> lines, and the floor drain. But we did 90% of the work ourselves and
> saved a BIG bundle, which allowed me to get the stove (with hood) of my
> dreams -a Thermador 48 inch gas, dual oven. BTW I just installed the
> nifty blue retro-fit knob upgrade. The range works great, is a breeze
> to clean, and its built like a tank...not to mention that cool
> speedometer-like temp gauge.

On 11 Aug 2005 11:38:31 -0700, "RW" > wrote:

>I am sooo close to buying a Thermador. I have always heard that they
>are well built and durable but never actually talked to someone who
>owned one. So thank you.

I have the 5 burner 36" Thermador gas cook top. Two of the burners
have the 3, extra lo (simmer) settings. The burners are star shaped.
I got it last fall when I remodeled the kitchen.

Things I like- Everything except cleaning it. The BTU's are more than
sufficient for anything I cook. The large center burner ( 15,000btu's)
brings a stock pot full of liquid to a boil fast. The simmer settings
are great! They really allow you to simmer things without burning
them.

What I don't like-The star shaped burners provide a lot of little
nooks & crannies to clean. I have finally figured out that some
Barkeepers Friend and a soft toothbrush are the best (fastest) way to
get the area around the burners clean.

Keeping the rest of it clean is no problem. The stainless steel wipes
up well and if there are a lot of splatters, a sponge and some
Barkeepers Friend does the job. I also have some Stainless Steel
cleaning wipes that make short work of most stuff.

Would I buy this cooktop again after almost a year of using it? Yes.

Hope this helps.

Debra

"RW" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> We are buying all new kitchen appliances and my whole family loves to
> cook. I find that all the appliances sales people try to sell the most
> popular items and it seems most of them have no personal experience
> using any of the products they sell. I want to hear from people who
> actually use gas cook tops on a daily basis. I simply want the best
> gas cook top that is going to be perform well as will be used a lot.
> Thanks RW from Canada


With a gas cooktop there are 2 basic considerations:
1. What is the high end of the BTU rating for each burner.
2. What is the low end of the BTU rating for all of the burners.

Most burners are in the 9,300 BTU range. If you want to boil a giant pasta pot
it may take longer then you want. On my cooktop one of the burners is 11,000
BTU rating and even that is a little slow for me.

On the other end - you want a burner that will get low enough without scotching.

Dimitri

RW wrote:
> I want a cooktop that will take heavy pots and pans.

If by cooktop you mean a countertop drop-in then the load capacity is
totally reliant on the weight-bearing strength of the
counter/cabinetry. Drop-in cooktops have the least load bearing
capacity, they're are not meant to withstand the heavier loads a free
standing stove can bear, so it depends on what you mean by "heavy"...
can you be more specific regarding weight? In any event, regardless
which drop-in cooktop you choose I'd not recommend using any pot
containing over 24 liters of liquid (about 50 pounds), actually I'd not
recommend placing pots containing more than 50 pounds on any
residential/commercial 'style' stove/cooktop.

Sheldon

: RW wrote:
: > We are buying all new kitchen appliances and my whole family loves to
: > cook. I find that all the appliances sales people try to sell the most
: > popular items and it seems most of them have no personal experience
: > using any of the products they sell. I want to hear from people who
: > actually use gas cook tops on a daily basis. I simply want the best
: > gas cook top that is going to be perform well as will be used a lot.
: > Thanks RW from Canada

: Aside from bells and whistles all gas stoves of equal BTU ratings cook
: the same... other than impressing your neighbors anything special
: you're trying to accomplish?

: Sheldon


Bullshit! Burner shape and pattern and low-end output make a huge
difference in cooking.

Sheldon is wrong AGAIN.

nolan stupid douche bag wrote:
> : RW wrote:
> : > We are buying all new kitchen appliances and my whole family loves to
> : > cook. I find that all the appliances sales people try to sell the most
> : > popular items and it seems most of them have no personal experience
> : > using any of the products they sell. I want to hear from people who
> : > actually use gas cook tops on a daily basis. I simply want the best
> : > gas cook top that is going to be perform well as will be used a lot.
> : > Thanks RW from Canada
>
> : Aside from bells and whistles all gas stoves of equal BTU ratings cook
> : the same... other than impressing your neighbors anything special
> : you're trying to accomplish?
>
>
> Bullshit! Burner shape and pattern and low-end output make a huge
> difference in cooking.

WTF is "low-end output", you with constipation? BTUs couldn't give a
fiddlers **** about burner configuration, you dumb-assed pinheaded
douche bag.

A 10,000 BTU rated gas burner on a $500 stove will cook exactly
precisely the same as a 10,000 BTU rated gas burner on a $2,000
stove... in fact you don't even need the stove, you just need the
bare-assed burner... the stove chassis is simply furniture, same as
Radios, TVs, HiFis used to come in gigantic ornate furniture consoles,
and now all that is in a teeny hand-held modual... won't be too very
long and all that will be reduced to something the size of a grain of
rice, implanted in the brain... NOT YOU Nelson, you have no brain.

Nolan, you're dumber than a pile of Duh'Wayne's shit... in fact Nolan
is a ringer... another of the assholes posting under several IDs, Nolan
could very well be Duh'Wayne, they share the same IQ, a single digit.

Sheldon

> wrote in message
...
>
> : RW wrote:
> : > We are buying all new kitchen appliances and my whole family loves to
> : > cook. I find that all the appliances sales people try to sell the most
> : > popular items and it seems most of them have no personal experience
> : > using any of the products they sell. I want to hear from people who
> : > actually use gas cook tops on a daily basis. I simply want the best
> : > gas cook top that is going to be perform well as will be used a lot.
> : > Thanks RW from Canada
>
> : Aside from bells and whistles all gas stoves of equal BTU ratings cook
> : the same... other than impressing your neighbors anything special
> : you're trying to accomplish?
>
> : Sheldon
>
>
> Bullshit! Burner shape and pattern and low-end output make a huge
> difference in cooking.

Nope - assuming a decent spread of the burner holes and well as a proper gas/air
mix the only difference in cooking is the ability of the pan to diffuse the heat
evenly and not in the design of the burner. 10K BTU is 10K BTU.

Dimitri

On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 14:31:30 GMT, "Dimitri" >
wrote:

>
>"RW" > wrote in message
roups.com...
>> We are buying all new kitchen appliances and my whole family loves to
>> cook. I find that all the appliances sales people try to sell the most
>> popular items and it seems most of them have no personal experience
>> using any of the products they sell. I want to hear from people who
>> actually use gas cook tops on a daily basis. I simply want the best
>> gas cook top that is going to be perform well as will be used a lot.
>> Thanks RW from Canada
>
>
>With a gas cooktop there are 2 basic considerations:
>1. What is the high end of the BTU rating for each burner.
>2. What is the low end of the BTU rating for all of the burners.
>
>Most burners are in the 9,300 BTU range. If you want to boil a giant pasta pot
>it may take longer then you want. On my cooktop one of the burners is 11,000
>BTU rating and even that is a little slow for me.
>
>On the other end - you want a burner that will get low enough without scotching.
>
Yep! You nailed it! It's all about BTU's and the placement of the
burners if you're thinking about using a grill/griddle over two
burners...or, if you are going to use a couple large pots/pans at the
same time. You need enough space between burners so the large pans
don't "crowd" each other.

The star shaped burners on the Thermador are hyped to "cook better",
but in truth, if they do, it's not all that noticeable.

What is noticeable, is the simmer feature. That really works..because
the burner turns off and on at different intervals depending on which
simmer setting you want...and tha'ts what folks mean when they talk
about "low end BTU's".

Debra

: > wrote in message
: ...
: >
: > : RW wrote:
: > : > We are buying all new kitchen appliances and my whole family loves to
: > : > cook. I find that all the appliances sales people try to sell the most
: > : > popular items and it seems most of them have no personal experience
: > : > using any of the products they sell. I want to hear from people who
: > : > actually use gas cook tops on a daily basis. I simply want the best
: > : > gas cook top that is going to be perform well as will be used a lot.
: > : > Thanks RW from Canada
: >
: > : Aside from bells and whistles all gas stoves of equal BTU ratings cook
: > : the same... other than impressing your neighbors anything special
: > : you're trying to accomplish?
: >
: > : Sheldon
: >
: >
: > Bullshit! Burner shape and pattern and low-end output make a huge
: > difference in cooking.

: Nope - assuming a decent spread of the burner holes and well as a proper gas/air
: mix the only difference in cooking is the ability of the pan to diffuse the heat
: evenly and not in the design of the burner. 10K BTU is 10K BTU.

: Dimitri



So, you and Sheldon always run your burners at full output, regardless of
what it is you're cooking? Yeah, right. A burner shaped like a straight
line will cook very differently than a round burner - duh! Just because
it is capable of 10K BTU output doesn't mean it has the exact same dimensions.
A 5" diameter 10K BTU burner will NOT cook the same as a 3" diameter 10K BTU
burner unless the pot is large enough to cover the entire burner properly.
Ever cook using a very small saucepan on a large diameter burner? The
flame wraps around the sides of the pan instead of heating the bottom of
the pan like it should. This is due to BURNER SHAPE and/or SIZE.

Both of you are showing your ignorance when it comes to cooking with gas.
And Sheldon's digressions to immature name-calling never ceases to amaze
and amuse me!

> wrote in message
...
>
> : >
> : > Bullshit! Burner shape and pattern and low-end output make a huge
> : > difference in cooking.
>
> : Nope - assuming a decent spread of the burner holes and well as a proper
> gas/air
> : mix the only difference in cooking is the ability of the pan to diffuse the
> heat
> : evenly and not in the design of the burner. 10K BTU is 10K BTU.
>
> : Dimitri
>
>
>
> So, you and Sheldon always run your burners at full output, regardless of
> what it is you're cooking? Yeah, right. A burner shaped like a straight
> line will cook very differently than a round burner - duh! Just because
> it is capable of 10K BTU output doesn't mean it has the exact same dimensions.
> A 5" diameter 10K BTU burner will NOT cook the same as a 3" diameter 10K BTU
> burner unless the pot is large enough to cover the entire burner properly.
> Ever cook using a very small saucepan on a large diameter burner? The
> flame wraps around the sides of the pan instead of heating the bottom of
> the pan like it should. This is due to BURNER SHAPE and/or SIZE.
>
> Both of you are showing your ignorance when it comes to cooking with gas.
> And Sheldon's digressions to immature name-calling never ceases to amaze
> and amuse me!


And you tell me just where in the hell you're going to find a 3" or a 5" burner
with the same BTU output for home use?
or better yet how about one with in a straight line.

Dimitri

Dimitri wrote:
> > wrote:
> >
> > : >
> > : > Bullshit! Burner shape and pattern and low-end output make a huge
> > : > difference in cooking.
> >
> > : Nope - assuming a decent spread of the burner holes and well as a proper
> > gas/air
> > : mix the only difference in cooking is the ability of the pan to diffuse the
> > heat
> > : evenly and not in the design of the burner. 10K BTU is 10K BTU.
> >
> > : Dimitri
> >
> >
> >
> > So, you and Sheldon always run your burners at full output, regardless of
> > what it is you're cooking? Yeah, right. A burner shaped like a straight
> > line will cook very differently than a round burner - duh! Just because
> > it is capable of 10K BTU output doesn't mean it has the exact same dimensions.
> > A 5" diameter 10K BTU burner will NOT cook the same as a 3" diameter 10K BTU
> > burner unless the pot is large enough to cover the entire burner properly.
> > Ever cook using a very small saucepan on a large diameter burner? The
> > flame wraps around the sides of the pan instead of heating the bottom of
> > the pan like it should. This is due to BURNER SHAPE and/or SIZE.
> >
> > Both of you are showing your ignorance when it comes to cooking with gas.
> > And Sheldon's digressions to immature name-calling never ceases to amaze
> > and amuse me!
>
>
> And you tell me just where in the hell you're going to find a 3" or a 5" burner
> with the same BTU output for home use?
> or better yet how about one with in a straight line.

Of course differently configured burners cook differently... doesn't
your 3" burner add s n' p... my 5" burner stirs the pot. LOL And if
you add 3 and 5 together you have nolan's IQ! <G>

Ahahahahaha. . . .

Sheldon

On 15 Aug 2005 13:35:22 -0700, "Sheldon" > wrote:

>
>Dimitri wrote:
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > : >
>> > : > Bullshit! Burner shape and pattern and low-end output make a huge
>> > : > difference in cooking.
>> >
>> > : Nope - assuming a decent spread of the burner holes and well as a proper gas/air
>> > : mix the only difference in cooking is the ability of the pan to diffuse the heat
>> > : evenly and not in the design of the burner. 10K BTU is 10K BTU.

10K BTU is 10K BTU, however on a gas stove not all 10K BTU are delivered
to the contents of the cooking vessel. A certain amount of the hot gas
escape up the sides and don't deliver their energy to the vessel. The
'longer' the hot gases are in contact with the cooking vessel the more
heat they can transfer.

In that regard the 'shape' of the burner will have an effect on how
efficient they are of transferring BTUs to the cooking vessel. The
extreme example is a large single outer ring burner with a 1 qt sauce
pan, centered. Most of the flames are outside the burner ring. A star,
a dual sided single ring, or a dual sided ring with a center burner will
all be more efficient than the first example.

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 23:47:49 GMT, Robert Klute
> wrote:

>10K BTU is 10K BTU, however on a gas stove not all 10K BTU are delivered
>to the contents of the cooking vessel.

Howdy,

Perhaps I missed this earlier in the thread, but why would
we assume that a burner described by the manufacturer as 10K
was even close?

Were descriptions of that sort trustworthy, my Toyota would
be getting 20% better gas mileage.

All the best,
--
Kenneth

If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."

Robert Klute wrote:
><PENMART01> wrote:
>
> >
> >Dimitri wrote:
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > : >
> >> > : > Bullshit! Burner shape and pattern and low-end output make a hu=
ge
> >> > : > difference in cooking.
> >> >
> >> > : Nope - assuming a decent spread of the burner holes and well as a =
proper gas/air
> >> > : mix the only difference in cooking is the ability of the pan to di=
ffuse the heat
> >> > : evenly and not in the design of the burner. 10K BTU is 10K BTU.
>
> 10K BTU is 10K BTU, however on a gas stove not all 10K BTU are delivered
> to the contents of the cooking vessel. A certain amount of the hot gas
> escape up the sides and don't deliver their energy to the vessel. The
> 'longer' the hot gases are in contact with the cooking vessel the more
> heat they can transfer.
>
> In that regard the 'shape' of the burner will have an effect on how
> efficient they are of transferring BTUs to the cooking vessel.

Actually you're WRONG... you have it back asswards... it's the shape of
the vessel that affects the transfer of heat energy. Btw, BTUs do NOT
transfer shit, you are another dumb **** who hasn't a clue what's a
BTU... IGNORANT ASSHOLE, and yer momma's a whore, a 25=A2 donkey ****ing
WHORE... who made the mistake of not digging you out of her filthy
crotch with a rusty coat hanger and flushing you down the terlit. I
really ain't in the mood for yoose ignoranuses. You're one of those
stoopid mother****ers who thinks it's cooler at night because the Sun's
BTU rating decreases... is the Earth flat too, you no IQ son of a
bitch? DUH! They don't come any dumber than you... DUMB ****!!! As
yoose can gather, tonight I ain't in the mood for retarded folks, and
you, Klute are an IMBECILE, an honest to goodness genuwine IMBECILE!!!


And it's not funny how much a waste of protoplasm you are... you're
even dumber than the moron WOP ****torius Pinhead, the verbose vacuum!.

What kinda friggin' handle is Klute... one of them square head sub
human Norse *******s... shoulda drowned your reindeer humping ass in
them friggin' fjords.

Sheldon

On 15 Aug 2005 18:55:21 -0700, "Sheldon" > wrote:

>
>Robert Klute wrote:
>><PENMART01> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Dimitri wrote:
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > : >
>> >> > : > Bullshit! Burner shape and pattern and low-end output make a huge
>> >> > : > difference in cooking.
>> >> >
>> >> > : Nope - assuming a decent spread of the burner holes and well as a proper gas/air
>> >> > : mix the only difference in cooking is the ability of the pan to diffuse the heat
>> >> > : evenly and not in the design of the burner. 10K BTU is 10K BTU.
>>
>> 10K BTU is 10K BTU, however on a gas stove not all 10K BTU are delivered
>> to the contents of the cooking vessel. A certain amount of the hot gas
>> escape up the sides and don't deliver their energy to the vessel. The
>> 'longer' the hot gases are in contact with the cooking vessel the more
>> heat they can transfer.
>>
>> In that regard the 'shape' of the burner will have an effect on how
>> efficient they are of transferring BTUs to the cooking vessel.
>

Did you forget to take your meds again?

>Actually you're WRONG... you have it back asswards... it's the shape of
>the vessel that affects the transfer of heat energy.

It's both.

>Btw, BTUs do NOT
>transfer shit, you are another dumb **** who hasn't a clue what's a
>BTU...

British Thermal Unit - the amount of heat necessary to raise 1 lb of
water from 39.1 degrees F to 40.1 degrees F.

So, it may have been sloppy wording in that one sentence, but it is
still technically correct.

<...a whole lot of incoherent, irrelevant effing deleted...>
>
>What kinda friggin' handle is Klute... one of them square head sub
>human Norse *******s... shoulda drowned your reindeer humping ass in
>them friggin' fjords.

Wrong country. American of German/Irish descent. So you can make
references to the Bund, but being sephardic I don't think I would be
welcome there.

"Robert Klute" > wrote in message
...
> On 15 Aug 2005 18:55:21 -0700, "Sheldon" > wrote:

<snip>

British Thermal Unit - the amount of heat necessary to raise 1 lb of
> water from 39.1 degrees F to 40.1 degrees F.
>
> So, it may have been sloppy wording in that one sentence, but it is
> still technically correct.
>

Nope - changed in 1956 - see below:

..British thermal unit (BTU)
Encyclopædia Britannica Article

Page 1 of 1


a measure of the quantity of heat, defined since 1956 as approximately equal to
1,055 joules, or 252 gram calories. It was defined formerly as the amount of
heat required to raise the temperature of one pound of water 1° F. The
definition was changed because it was dependent on the initial temperature of
the water. Gas utilities frequently use a larger unit, the therm, defined as
100,000 BTU, <snip>

Dimitri

Funny, that's what I said to the kitchen contractors...along with other
equally colorful metaphors. Saddly, renovation cost are insane arpund
the DC area. And if you think 65k for a kitchen re-do is nuts, how
about 650-700K on a 2000 sq ft townhouse, with cheezy luan doors,
low-budget appliances, and stock paint-grade molding from Home Depot.

On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 13:24:54 GMT, "Dimitri" >
wrote:

>
>"Robert Klute" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On 15 Aug 2005 18:55:21 -0700, "Sheldon" > wrote:
>
><snip>
>
> British Thermal Unit - the amount of heat necessary to raise 1 lb of
>> water from 39.1 degrees F to 40.1 degrees F.
>>
>> So, it may have been sloppy wording in that one sentence, but it is
>> still technically correct.
>>
>
>Nope - changed in 1956 - see below:
>
>.British thermal unit (BTU)
> Encyclopædia Britannica Article
>
>Page 1 of 1
>
>
>a measure of the quantity of heat, defined since 1956 as approximately equal to
>1,055 joules, or 252 gram calories. It was defined formerly as the amount of
>heat required to raise the temperature of one pound of water 1° F. The
>definition was changed because it was dependent on the initial temperature of
>the water. Gas utilities frequently use a larger unit, the therm, defined as
>100,000 BTU, <snip>


British thermal unitIT (Btu-IT) joule (J) 1,055.056
British thermal unitth (Btu-th) joule (J) 1,054.350
British thermal unit (mean) (Btu) joule (J) 1,055.87
British thermal unit (39 °F) (Btu) joule (J) 1,059.67
British thermal unit (59 °F) (Btu) joule (J) 1,054.80
British thermal unit (60 °F) (Btu) joule (J) 1,054.68

IT - International Table
TH - ThermoChemical

Kenneth wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 23:47:49 GMT, Robert Klute
> > wrote:
>
> >10K BTU is 10K BTU, however on a gas stove not all 10K BTU are delivered
> >to the contents of the cooking vessel.
>
> Howdy,
>
> Perhaps I missed this earlier in the thread, but why would
> we assume that a burner described by the manufacturer as 10K
> was even close?
>
> Were descriptions of that sort trustworthy, my Toyota would
> be getting 20% better gas mileage.

Simply means you drive with no concern for economics... maybe you speed
or idle a lot. Many folks have poorly insulated homes and have
exhorbitant heating/cooling bills, hasn't a whit to the BTU ratings of
their furnace/AC. Some folks leave their fridge door open while they
mull over what to cook, some even go take a leak and forget they left
the door open... they waste energy but the BTU rating doesn't change.
The burner doesn't care whether there's a pan over it or not. Like
your brain cells number about the same as everyones but most of yours
have never been engaged, their potential is the same, but they're just
sitting there idle, wasting calories. A BTU rating is potential, not a
tangible.

Btw, gas burner BTU ratings are very easy to ascertain and with
exquisitely precise accuracy... all the testing lab needs do is measure
the volume of gas consumed in a particular time period... gas contains
a particular number of therms per cubic foot... by therms is how the
gas company bills you, NOT by BTUs, they don't care that you light your
stove and forget to cook anything (do you know how many light their
oven and totally forget to put in the roast, for hours, some get a
phone call and go out on a date to get laid, they don't realize the
oven is on sometimes for days... doesn't do shit to the BTUs... if
they're lucky the roast is still in the fridge). BTU accuracy on a
burner is maintained by the regulator and orifice, not the burner
configuration. Variables are a result of altitude, not burner
configuration. The BTUs are available the same whether you use them or
not. Differently configured burners are for accomodating differently
configured pans (and to some degree marketing esthetics, people are
impressed by intricate/pretty patterns) and NO other reason whatsoever.
Some pinheads even increase the BTU rating of their burners by
fiddling with the regulator, orifice, and air shuttle, but that is
highly perilous.... but you can't change the BTU rating by fiddling
with the burner.... if you drill the holes larger you'd best use a
larger pot, BTUs will remain the same but the pattern will be larger,
and of course I don't recommend altering the burner either, but I'm
sure there are pinheds out there who have. With older stoves, with
solid cast iron burners, the BTU rating would decrease as grease
clogged the holes, part of the maintenance was to clean out the
holes... you'd know it was time because of the flashback, a big poof of
flame at the orifice when the stove was lit. Moderen gas stoves are
much safer, even safer than electric.

Sheldon

On 17 Aug 2005 11:43:22 -0700, "Sheldon" > wrote:

>
>Kenneth wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 23:47:49 GMT, Robert Klute
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >10K BTU is 10K BTU, however on a gas stove not all 10K BTU are delivered
>> >to the contents of the cooking vessel.
>>
>> Howdy,
>>
>> Perhaps I missed this earlier in the thread, but why would
>> we assume that a burner described by the manufacturer as 10K
>> was even close?
>>
>> Were descriptions of that sort trustworthy, my Toyota would
>> be getting 20% better gas mileage.
>>
>Btw, gas burner BTU ratings are very easy to ascertain and with
>exquisitely precise accuracy... all the testing lab needs do is measure
>the volume of gas consumed in a particular time period... gas contains
>a particular number of therms per cubic foot... by therms is how the
>gas company bills you, NOT by BTUs, they don't care that you light your
>stove and forget to cook anything

A therm is 100,000 BTUs. Since 1 cubic foot of natural gas has a heat
content of between 1,000 and 1,030 BTUs, 100 cubic feet of natural gas
will deliver 1 therm of energy.

>(do you know how many light their
>oven and totally forget to put in the roast, for hours, some get a
>phone call and go out on a date to get laid, they don't realize the
>oven is on sometimes for days... doesn't do shit to the BTUs... if
>they're lucky the roast is still in the fridge). BTU accuracy on a
>burner is maintained by the regulator and orifice, not the burner
>configuration. Variables are a result of altitude, not burner
>configuration. The BTUs are available the same whether you use them or
>not. Differently configured burners are for accomodating differently
>configured pans (and to some degree marketing esthetics, people are
>impressed by intricate/pretty patterns) and NO other reason whatsoever.


We all know that if you light your 10K burner and turn it on high,
10,000 BTUs/hr. are being produced. Whether they all go to heating the
pan or heating the room is another matter.

The combination of burner pattern and pot/pan shape will affect the
efficiency of the heat transfer. That is what we are talking about - the
efficiency of various designs.

When you hold your hand above and near a cold pan sitting on a hot
burner and get a toasty feeling, that is wasted heat - heat that is not
going to warm the pan or its contents. Efficiency is affected by burner
geometry, air/gas ratio, gas dwell time (how long the hot gases are in
contact with the pot), and grate geometry.

: >> > : > Bullshit! Burner shape and pattern and low-end output make a huge
: >> > : > difference in cooking.
: >> >
: >> > : Nope - assuming a decent spread of the burner holes and well as a proper gas/air
: >> > : mix the only difference in cooking is the ability of the pan to diffuse the heat
: >> > : evenly and not in the design of the burner. 10K BTU is 10K BTU.

: 10K BTU is 10K BTU, however on a gas stove not all 10K BTU are delivered
: to the contents of the cooking vessel. A certain amount of the hot gas
: escape up the sides and don't deliver their energy to the vessel. The
: 'longer' the hot gases are in contact with the cooking vessel the more
: heat they can transfer.

: In that regard the 'shape' of the burner will have an effect on how
: efficient they are of transferring BTUs to the cooking vessel. The
: extreme example is a large single outer ring burner with a 1 qt sauce
: pan, centered. Most of the flames are outside the burner ring. A star,
: a dual sided single ring, or a dual sided ring with a center burner will
: all be more efficient than the first example.


This is exactly the point I was trying to make, which Sheldon and Dimitri
are apparently incapable of understanding.

nolan farted:

Some asshole shit:
> :the 'shape' of the burner will have an effect on how
> : efficient they are of transferring BTUs to the cooking vessel.

BTUs CANNOT be transferred.

> : example is a large single outer ring burner with a 1 qt sauce
> : pan, centered. Most of the flames are outside the burner ring.

But of course, the PAN configuration is at fault, NOT the burner...
what kinda kitchen moron would expect a pan smaller than the burner to
be efficient... shit for brains. Heat transfer and efficiency has
NOTHING to do with BTUs.


> This is exactly the point I was trying to make, which Sheldon and Dimitri
> are apparently incapable of understanding.

IMBECILE NOLAN... what a friggin' waste of protoplasm.


Sheldon

> wrote in message
...
>: >> > : > Bullshit! Burner shape and pattern and low-end output make a huge
> : >> > : > difference in cooking.
> : >> >
> : >> > : Nope - assuming a decent spread of the burner holes and well as a
> proper gas/air
> : >> > : mix the only difference in cooking is the ability of the pan to
> diffuse the heat
> : >> > : evenly and not in the design of the burner. 10K BTU is 10K BTU.
>
> : 10K BTU is 10K BTU, however on a gas stove not all 10K BTU are delivered
> : to the contents of the cooking vessel. A certain amount of the hot gas
> : escape up the sides and don't deliver their energy to the vessel. The
> : 'longer' the hot gases are in contact with the cooking vessel the more
> : heat they can transfer.
>
> : In that regard the 'shape' of the burner will have an effect on how
> : efficient they are of transferring BTUs to the cooking vessel. The
> : extreme example is a large single outer ring burner with a 1 qt sauce
> : pan, centered. Most of the flames are outside the burner ring. A star,
> : a dual sided single ring, or a dual sided ring with a center burner will
> : all be more efficient than the first example.
>
>
> This is exactly the point I was trying to make, which Sheldon and Dimitri
> are apparently incapable of understanding.

I have always understood that point however the ability of the pan to absorbed
heat is a constant and is not significantly variable based upon the shape of the
burner. I assume the original poster is NOT going to go out and change all
their cookware to pots and pans that absorbed and hold (another factor) the
heat.

Good Lord..............

Dimitri