Often one will see recipes that say "Cook on medium heat" or "Cook at a low
setting" ... in the last few days I've seen mention on a couple of TV
cooking shows that lead me to believe that the following may hold:

Medium corresponds to 350 degrees F
Medium-High corresponds to 375 degrees F

I have no idea if that's generally accepted or not. So, what's the
consensus here (right, like we're going to get a consensus!!) for:

High
Medium-High
Medium
Medium-Low
Low
Simmer

We'll leave it as an exercise for myself to determine what that means at my
altitude where water boils at about 195 degrees or so.

Bob

Bob wrote:
> Often one will see recipes that say "Cook on medium heat" or "Cook at a low
> setting" ... in the last few days I've seen mention on a couple of TV
> cooking shows that lead me to believe that the following may hold:
>
> Medium corresponds to 350 degrees F
> Medium-High corresponds to 375 degrees F
>
> I have no idea if that's generally accepted or not. So, what's the
> consensus here (right, like we're going to get a consensus!!) for:
>
> High
> Medium-High
> Medium
> Medium-Low
> Low
> Simmer
>

Except for "simmer" (doesn't belong) those settings apply to oven
temperatures, not cooktop temperatures. Cooktop settings do not
correspond to particular temperatures, and with gas the flame burns at
the same temperature regardless how low or high... with cooktops only
the BTU setting is adjustable... which is why cook top burners do not
have thermostats, with cooktops the cook needs to interpolate, which is
one of the reasons gas is better, it's far easier to interpolate than
electric. Ovens do employ a thermostat, and they cycle full on or full
off, the oven BTU setting is not user adjustable.

Sheldon

"Sheldon" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Bob wrote:
>> Often one will see recipes that say "Cook on medium heat" or "Cook at a
>> low
>> setting" ... in the last few days I've seen mention on a couple of TV
>> cooking shows that lead me to believe that the following may hold:
>>
>> Medium corresponds to 350 degrees F
>> Medium-High corresponds to 375 degrees F
>>
>> I have no idea if that's generally accepted or not. So, what's the
>> consensus here (right, like we're going to get a consensus!!) for:
>>
>> High
>> Medium-High
>> Medium
>> Medium-Low
>> Low
>> Simmer
>>
>
> Except for "simmer" (doesn't belong) those settings apply to oven
> temperatures, not cooktop temperatures. Cooktop settings do not
> correspond to particular temperatures, and with gas the flame burns at
> the same temperature regardless how low or high... with cooktops only
> the BTU setting is adjustable... which is why cook top burners do not
> have thermostats, with cooktops the cook needs to interpolate, which is
> one of the reasons gas is better, it's far easier to interpolate than
> electric. Ovens do employ a thermostat, and they cycle full on or full
> off, the oven BTU setting is not user adjustable.
>
> Sheldon
>

I'm sorry, I should have been more explicit ... the original posting was
meant for the planet Earth. Not sure where you reside but I do appreciate
your efforts in responding ... the translation from your original tongue to
English must have been a major effort.

Bob wrote:
> "Sheldon" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >[...]
> >
>
> I'm sorry, I should have been more explicit ... the original posting was
> meant for the planet Earth. Not sure where you reside but I do appreciate
> your efforts in responding ... the translation from your original tongue to
> English must have been a major effort.

(golf clap)

--Blair
"Hearty spit-take."

Sheldon replied to Bob

>> Often one will see recipes that say "Cook on medium heat" or "Cook at a
>> low setting" ... in the last few days I've seen mention on a couple of
>> TV cooking shows that lead me to believe that the following may hold:
>>
>> Medium corresponds to 350 degrees F
>> Medium-High corresponds to 375 degrees F
>>
>> I have no idea if that's generally accepted or not. So, what's the
>> consensus here (right, like we're going to get a consensus!!) for:
>>
>> High
>> Medium-High
>> Medium
>> Medium-Low
>> Low
>> Simmer
>>
>
> Except for "simmer" (doesn't belong) those settings apply to oven
> temperatures, not cooktop temperatures. Cooktop settings do not
> correspond to particular temperatures, and with gas the flame burns at
> the same temperature regardless how low or high... with cooktops only
> the BTU setting is adjustable... which is why cook top burners do not
> have thermostats, with cooktops the cook needs to interpolate, which is
> one of the reasons gas is better, it's far easier to interpolate than
> electric. Ovens do employ a thermostat, and they cycle full on or full
> off, the oven BTU setting is not user adjustable.


Now let's put this in the context of an electric pan, where the temperature
given on the dial *does* correspond to a cooktop setting. "Simmer" would be
right around 212F.

If the reader is incapable of wrapping his head around that concept, he may
choose to continue to think of cooktop settings in terms of BTU's, though
good cooks wouldn't.

Bob

"Bob" > wrote:
> Often one will see recipes that say "Cook on medium heat" or "Cook at a
> low setting" ... in the last few days I've seen mention on a couple of TV
> cooking shows that lead me to believe that the following may hold:
>
> Medium corresponds to 350 degrees F
> Medium-High corresponds to 375 degrees F
>
> I have no idea if that's generally accepted or not. So, what's the
> consensus here (right, like we're going to get a consensus!!) for:
>
> High
> Medium-High
> Medium
> Medium-Low
> Low
> Simmer
>
> We'll leave it as an exercise for myself to determine what that means at
> my altitude where water boils at about 195 degrees or so.

The reason those terms are so vague is there is so much variability when
using a cooktop. On gas stoves, the power of a burner "full on" can vary
more than two to one from a low end older stove (Magic Chef, 9000 Btu) to a
high end newer stove (Blue Star, 22000 Btu). If the burner controls were
marked similar to your list above, obviously the high on one would not equal
the high on the other, nor wouild any other position.

The other big variable is the size of the pan. Take these two examples, a
little six inch pan cooking two small link sausages, and a big twelve inch
pan cooking two big steaks. To reach the same surface temperature, the large
pan with the two steaks is going to take a far greater amount of power than
the little pan with the two sausages. There is more food to absorb the heat,
and more pan area to dissipate it with the large pan, so the burner will
have to be turned higher to get the same pan temperature.

So it is left to the cook to figure out where to turn the burner control.
Just as a rough approximation, one might say high is full on, medium is half
on, simmer is almost off, with the others in between. One then adjusts the
burner up or down depending on whether the food is cooking too fast or too
slow. With experience, one gets to be pretty good at it and no longer thinks
about it... but if one moves to a different stove or a different pan or a
different amount of food in the pan, one can get thrown off.

Another poster mentioned an electric pan with a thermostatic control. That
would make temperature settings actually make sense. I know years ago (mid
1960s) they used to make cooktops (both gas and electric models) with one
thermostatically controlled burner. My parents had a Caloric gas stove with
one, and it was called "Burner-with-a-Brain". I haven't seen anything like
it in years, at least on gas cooktops. Perhaps there are electric ones that
do have this thermostatic control.

--
( #wff_ng_7# at #verizon# period #net# )

"Bob" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Sheldon" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> Bob wrote:
>>> Often one will see recipes that say "Cook on medium heat" or "Cook at a
>>> low
>>> setting" ... in the last few days I've seen mention on a couple of TV
>>> cooking shows that lead me to believe that the following may hold:
>>>
>>> Medium corresponds to 350 degrees F
>>> Medium-High corresponds to 375 degrees F
>>>
>>> I have no idea if that's generally accepted or not. So, what's the
>>> consensus here (right, like we're going to get a consensus!!) for:
>>>
>>> High
>>> Medium-High
>>> Medium
>>> Medium-Low
>>> Low
>>> Simmer
>>>
>>
>> Except for "simmer" (doesn't belong) those settings apply to oven
>> temperatures, not cooktop temperatures. Cooktop settings do not
>> correspond to particular temperatures, and with gas the flame burns at
>> the same temperature regardless how low or high... with cooktops only
>> the BTU setting is adjustable... which is why cook top burners do not
>> have thermostats, with cooktops the cook needs to interpolate, which is
>> one of the reasons gas is better, it's far easier to interpolate than
>> electric. Ovens do employ a thermostat, and they cycle full on or full
>> off, the oven BTU setting is not user adjustable.
>>
>> Sheldon
>>
>
> I'm sorry, I should have been more explicit ... the original posting was
> meant for the planet Earth. Not sure where you reside but I do appreciate
> your efforts in responding ... the translation from your original tongue
> to English must have been a major effort.

Bob, here is my compilation of replies to my similar question and what I
decided upon from the replies that were focused on both cooking temperatures
stove top and electric skillet.


low 200-250 (for simmering)

Medium low 250-300

Medium 300-350 (for frying)

Medium high 350-400 (for frying)

high 400-450



I hope this answers your query.

Dee Dee

wff_ng_7 > wrote:

> Another poster mentioned an electric pan with a thermostatic control. That
> would make temperature settings actually make sense. I know years ago (mid
> 1960s) they used to make cooktops (both gas and electric models) with one
> thermostatically controlled burner. My parents had a Caloric gas stove with
> one, and it was called "Burner-with-a-Brain". I haven't seen anything like

My sister has one of the gas stoves with a thermostatically controlled
burner, but I haven't seen that feature in years, either.

> it in years, at least on gas cooktops. Perhaps there are electric ones that
> do have this thermostatic control.

I have not seen it on conventional electrics, but it seems to
be a common feature on induction cooktops, at least the one and
two burner models.

Bill Ranck
Blacksburg, Va.

"Dee Randall" > wrote in message
...
>
> Bob, here is my compilation of replies to my similar question and what I
> decided upon from the replies that were focused on both cooking
> temperatures stove top and electric skillet.
>
>
> low 200-250 (for simmering)
>
> Medium low 250-300
>
> Medium 300-350 (for frying)
>
> Medium high 350-400 (for frying)
>
> high 400-450
>
>
>
> I hope this answers your query.
>
> Dee Dee
>

Thanks, Dee Dee, I think we're done ...

"Bob" > wrote in message
. net...
>
> "Dee Randall" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Bob, here is my compilation of replies to my similar question and what I
>> decided upon from the replies that were focused on both cooking
>> temperatures stove top and electric skillet.
>>
>>
>> low 200-250 (for simmering)
>>
>> Medium low 250-300
>>
>> Medium 300-350 (for frying)
>>
>> Medium high 350-400 (for frying)
>>
>> high 400-450
>>
>>
>>
>> I hope this answers your query.
>>
>> Dee Dee
>>
>
> Thanks, Dee Dee, I think we're done ...
Bien que Done? or Fini Done?
Thanks for the unspoken thanks, as well.
Dee Dee

Bob wrote:
>
> I'm sorry, I should have been more explicit.

You're not literate enough... nor do you have a clue about cooking...
you're in the wrong Newsgroup, what's the matter, couldn't find
alt.dumb-mother****ers.nasty.

Bob Terwilliger wrote:
>
> Now let's put this in the context of an electric pan,

How about you shove your faggoty 'lectric pan up your dumb ass... so
we'll know when it's time to add the Crisco.

where the temperature
> given on the dial *does* correspond to a cooktop setting. "Simmer" would be
> right around 212F.

What a moroon! Right on par with the rest of the low IQ Bobs.

They use Bob because they can't spell Robert. <G>

Ahahahsahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. . . .

Bob wrote:
>
> I'm sorry, I should have been more explicit ... the original posting was
> meant for the planet Earth. Not sure where you reside but I do appreciate
> your efforts in responding ... the translation from your original tongue to
> English must have been a major effort.

Pearls before swine. Your inability to understand the difference
between heat energy and temperature is not his fault. -aem

aem wrote:
> Bob wrote:
>>
>> I'm sorry, I should have been more explicit ... the original posting
>> was meant for the planet Earth. Not sure where you reside but I do
>> appreciate your efforts in responding ... the translation from your
>> original tongue to English must have been a major effort.
>
> Pearls before swine. Your inability to understand the difference
> between heat energy and temperature is not his fault. -aem

Hear hear! Oven temps have no correlation to stovetop temps, be they
electric or gas burners. I've never seen a recipe that required me to cook
something on the stovetop at 350F (or whatever). Simmer, boil, etc. are
visual things, not a temperature setting.

Jill

"jmcquown" > wrote

> aem wrote:

>> Pearls before swine. Your inability to understand the difference
>> between heat energy and temperature is not his fault. -aem
>
> Hear hear! Oven temps have no correlation to stovetop temps, be they
> electric or gas burners. I've never seen a recipe that required me to
> cook
> something on the stovetop at 350F (or whatever). Simmer, boil, etc. are
> visual things, not a temperature setting.

No offense meant to the original poster, I almost said those are
oven questions, not cooktop questions, aside from simmer. It
confused me so I waited to see what other people said. I thought
Sheldon nailed it, he said what I was thinking.

nancy

> wrote:
> My sister has one of the gas stoves with a thermostatically controlled
> burner, but I haven't seen that feature in years, either.

Maybe it wasn't the greatest idea? ;-)

Probably several manufacturers were using that same system, as I see the
exact same term "Burner-with-a-Brain" on a Sears Kenmore (definitely not
made by Caloric) gas stove in a 1965 Sears catalog I have.

Though the thermostatic burner never really caught on, that Caloric stove my
parents had came with another feature that has since become de rigueur in
high end gas stoves and outdoor grills. That is, an infrared gas broiler. I
was quite amazed by it as a kid. It basically consisted of a shallow box
covered by a screen through which gas passed. The gas burned on the surface
of the screen and heated it red hot. The broiler was very "directional", in
that a burger that was half out of the path of the infrared rays would get
broiled on one side and not the other. Back then Caloric used the term
"Ultra Ray" when marketing this broiler. The Caloric broiler design
eventually showed up in Amana stoves as Raytheon, the owner of Amana also
acquired Caloric. At some point Maytag acquired both and I think this
broiler design ended up in Maytag stoves too. But on recent checks at
appliance stores, it seems to be gone now from Maytag's (and now
Whirlpool's) various product lines, but it does live on in other high end
products as I've mentioned.

--
( #wff_ng_7# at #verizon# period #net# )

Sheldon wrote:
> Bob Terwilliger wrote:
> >
> > Now let's put this in the context of an electric pan,
>
> How about you shove your faggoty 'lectric pan up your dumb ass... so
> we'll know when it's time to add the Crisco.

Sheldon means he's sorry he doubted you.

> where the temperature
> > given on the dial *does* correspond to a cooktop setting. "Simmer" would be
> > right around 212F.
>
> What a moroon! Right on par with the rest of the low IQ Bobs.
>
> They use Bob because they can't spell Robert. <G>
>
> Ahahahsahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. . . .

Sheldon means he's sorry he was wrong.

--Blair

Sheldon wrote:
> Bob wrote:
> >
> > I'm sorry, I should have been more explicit.
>
> You're not literate enough... nor do you have a clue about cooking...
> you're in the wrong Newsgroup, what's the matter, couldn't find
> alt.dumb-mother****ers.nasty.

Anyone can find that. They can just follow you home.

--Blair

jmcquown wrote:
> aem wrote:
> > Bob wrote:
> >>
> >> I'm sorry, I should have been more explicit ... the original posting
> >> was meant for the planet Earth. Not sure where you reside but I do
> >> appreciate your efforts in responding ... the translation from your
> >> original tongue to English must have been a major effort.
> >
> > Pearls before swine. Your inability to understand the difference
> > between heat energy and temperature is not his fault. -aem
>
> Hear hear! Oven temps have no correlation to stovetop temps, be they
> electric or gas burners. I've never seen a recipe that required me to cook
> something on the stovetop at 350F (or whatever). Simmer, boil, etc. are
> visual things, not a temperature setting.

Of course, no need to know the physics, anyone who actually cooks knows
from mere experience that you can't use the same stove top dial setting
for simmering say one quart of water as 4 quarts of water, Simmer
markings mean nothing, if anything it indicates the smallest burner.
'Lectric element stovetop adjusters will if marked at all have numbers,
say 1 to 10 with ten being the hottest. But it's all relative, not
definite... many simply indicate relative temperature by an ever
widening darkened icon around the dial... I've never yet seen stove top
controls marked with actual temperatures. Stupid 'lectric frypans are
often marked with temperatures but they are absolutely totally
meaningless, those temperatures are there for the imbeciles who can't
cook (is why they own a 'lectric fry pan to begin with) as it depends
what's cooking... if the pan contains water I don't care how high the
temperature is set the pan temperature will not go above 212ºF. If
that same pan only contains a couple three spoonfuls of oil there won't
be enough mass for the pan to sense the temperature. You'd need to use
the pan as a deep fryer, and even then you'd need to check with a
thermometer and likely the temperature settings will be way off... they
are only *relative*, controled by a rheostat, I doubt any of those pans
actually contain a thermostat... I once owned a Wearever 'lectric wok,
it had no thermostat... just turned it up to the 'ten' mark, and still
didn't stay hot enough to stir fry even a handful of radish slices...
had no power. Real cooks cook on stovetops by interpolating BTUs, not
temperature... even if they don't realize it that is what they are
doing... real cooks know where to set the dial the same way they know
where to set bra straps.

Sheldon

Sheldon wrote:

> Bob wrote:
>>
>> I'm sorry, I should have been more explicit.
>
> You're not literate enough... nor do you have a clue about cooking...
> you're in the wrong Newsgroup, what's the matter, couldn't find
> alt.dumb-mother****ers.nasty.

1. Sheldon is as clueless as they come when it comes to some aspects of
cooking. He's self-taught, which means that when he didn't want to learn
something he just made up the garbage he ends up spewing.

2. If you *do* find alt.dumb-mother****ers.nasty, I think you'll discover
Sheldon is an avid reader and poster.

Bob

Sheldon wrote:

>> Now let's put this in the context of an electric pan,
>
> How about you shove your faggoty 'lectric pan up your dumb ass... so
> we'll know when it's time to add the Crisco.

Just about the reaction I expected. Whenever you're wrong you resort to
name-calling. I think you learned that from your mother. She taught you a
few things you carry with you, such as how to please a man and the value of
a quarter -- and how those two things are connected.


>> where the temperature given on the dial *does* correspond to a cooktop
>> setting. "Simmer" would be right around 212F.
>
> What a moroon! Right on par with the rest of the low IQ Bobs.

Can't even spell "moron" correctly. What an idiot.

I'll throw out the same challenge to you that I threw out to ensenadajim: If
you want to compare certified IQ's, I'll bet ten thousand dollars that mine
is higher than yours. Put up or shut up, boy.

Bob

"Sheldon" > wrote in message
ps.com...

<snip> a lot of stuff ...

Okay, we're getting closer and the original posting WAS a bit deficient
(wanted to know the oil temperature in a pan put on a burner set at medium
(et.al.) heat) , but, now, I'm really looking at how to cook bacon and ergs.

Bob wrote:
> "Sheldon" > wrote in message
> ps.com...
>
> <snip> a lot of stuff ...
>
> Okay, we're getting closer and the original posting WAS a bit
> deficient (wanted to know the oil temperature in a pan put on a
> burner set at medium (et.al.) heat) , but, now, I'm really looking at
> how to cook bacon and ergs.

Oh hell, that's easy See the dial on for that stovetop burner? Set it
in the middle. If you set it to the highest temp you'll quickly burn the
bacon and be unhappy with the result. The key is not to be impatient. Some
good things take time

Cook the bacon first (I prefer mine crispy; this may take 5-10 minutes
depending on your cooktop), turning it occasionally. When done, remove the
bacon to paper towels to drain and drain off all but about 2 Tbs. of the
grease. Eggs: depends on how you want your eggs. Same temp (moderate
heat) as the bacon. For two eggs: over-easy, over-medium or hard, gently
break the eggs into the hot grease and sprinkle with salt & pepper. Watch
the whites; they will congeal first. For over easy, you want the yolk to be
still jiggly but slightly firm (hope that makes sense). Over-medium, the
yolk shouldn't be quite so liquidy. Over-hard, well, you get the picture (I
hope). Slide them out onto a plate and eat them with the bacon and anything
else you want

Jill

Jill replied:

>> Okay, we're getting closer and the original posting WAS a bit
>> deficient (wanted to know the oil temperature in a pan put on a
>> burner set at medium (et.al.) heat) , but, now, I'm really looking at
>> how to cook bacon and ergs.
>
<snip>
> Cook the bacon first (I prefer mine crispy; this may take 5-10 minutes
> depending on your cooktop), turning it occasionally. When done, remove
> the bacon to paper towels to drain and drain off all but about 2 Tbs. of
> the grease. Eggs: depends on how you want your eggs.

Jill, Bob made a joke. He wrote "ergs" rather than "eggs" on purpose. Ergs
are a unit of work (in the physics sense).

Bob

Bob Terwilliger wrote:
> Jill replied:
>
>>> Okay, we're getting closer and the original posting WAS a bit
>>> deficient (wanted to know the oil temperature in a pan put on a
>>> burner set at medium (et.al.) heat) , but, now, I'm really looking
>>> at how to cook bacon and ergs.
>>
> <snip>
>> Cook the bacon first (I prefer mine crispy; this may take 5-10
>> minutes depending on your cooktop), turning it occasionally. When
>> done, remove the bacon to paper towels to drain and drain off all
>> but about 2 Tbs. of the grease. Eggs: depends on how you want your
>> eggs.
>
> Jill, Bob made a joke. He wrote "ergs" rather than "eggs" on purpose.
> Ergs are a unit of work (in the physics sense).
>
> Bob

Ah! Sorry, I never took physics. Come join me in chat! sf isn't really
there and neither is anyone else. I'm feeling all lonely LOL

Jill

On Sat, 27 May 2006 21:14:28 -0500, jmcquown wrote:

> Come join me in chat! sf isn't really
> there and neither is anyone else. I'm feeling all lonely LOL

Oh, yeah? I was actively checking until company came over. So, where
are you now? I'll keep checking until I have to leave for my hair
appt in an hour or so.

--

Ham and eggs.
A day's work for a chicken, a lifetime commitment for a pig.

On 27 May 2006 08:37:15 -0700, "Sheldon" > wrote:

>
>Bob wrote:
>>
>> I'm sorry, I should have been more explicit.
>
>You're not literate enough... nor do you have a clue about cooking...
>you're in the wrong Newsgroup, what's the matter, couldn't find
>alt.dumb-mother****ers.nasty.

Although I'm not new to usenet, I'm fairly new to rec.food.cooking.
You must be "that guy."



Tom

On Wed, 31 May 2006 18:06:09 -0700, Tom Yost > wrote:

>On 27 May 2006 08:37:15 -0700, "Sheldon" > wrote:
>
>>
>>Bob wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm sorry, I should have been more explicit.
>>
>>You're not literate enough... nor do you have a clue about cooking...
>>you're in the wrong Newsgroup, what's the matter, couldn't find
>>alt.dumb-mother****ers.nasty.
>
>Although I'm not new to usenet, I'm fairly new to rec.food.cooking.
>You must be "that guy."

Got it in one.

serene
--
Kissing Hank's Ass is 10 years old! http://jhuger.com/kisshank
My personal blog: http://serenejournal.livejournal.com
My new cooking blog: http://serenecooking.livejournal.com