Thread: Gas stove "hot" burner capacity

On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 17:32:05 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet <[email protected]>
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 18:54:03 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

> On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 17:32:05 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet <[email protected]>
> 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.

My Kitchenaide has a 18K burner (cost was about $1,400) but I don't
like how wide it is. For wok cooking you want to the flame to be
fairly concentrated/narrow at the bottom and the heat from there to
wrap up around the sides. With the way this burner is designed it's
as if it expecting an 18" stock pot rather than a wok.

This is what I think you really have to watch out for - the width of
the burner as well as the BTU's.

-sw

On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 17:32:05 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet <[email protected]>
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 <[email protected]>,
Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 17:32:05 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet <[email protected]>
> 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 <i...@witzend.com> wrote:
> In article <l2n5k7pddammaoljmp00nu4a03gv9f0...@4ax.com>,
> *Ed Pawlowski <e...@snet.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 17:32:05 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet <d...@dd-b.net>
> > 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
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Feb 20, 11:54*pm, isw <i...@witzend.com> wrote:
>> In article <l2n5k7pddammaoljmp00nu4a03gv9f0...@4ax.com>,
>> *Ed Pawlowski <e...@snet.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 17:32:05 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet <d...@dd-b.net>
>> > 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 <[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 17:32:05 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet <[email protected]>
>> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 23:54:09 -0800, isw <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> writes:

> On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 17:32:05 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet <[email protected]>
> 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, [email protected]; 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 <[email protected]> writes:

> On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 17:32:05 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet <[email protected]>
> 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, [email protected]; 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 Pawlowski<[email protected]> writes:
>
>> On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 17:32:05 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet<[email protected]>
>> 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 <[email protected]>
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
> <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> writes:

> On 2/21/2012 8:30 AM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>> Ed Pawlowski<[email protected]> writes:
>>
>>> On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 17:32:05 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet<[email protected]>
>>> 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, [email protected]; 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 <[email protected]> writes:

> On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 23:54:09 -0800, isw <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>> Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 17:32:05 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet <[email protected]>
>>> 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, [email protected]; 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
<[email protected]> 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 Dyer-Bennet<[email protected]>
> 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.