Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 37

Thread: Why is it . . . . . ?

  1. #1
    Sky Guest

    Default Why is it . . . . . ?

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

    Sky

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

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

  2. #2
    Ed Pawlowski Guest

    Default Re: Why is it . . . . . ?


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



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

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

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



  3. #3
    jmcquown Guest

    Default Re: Why is it . . . . . ?

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


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

    Jill


  4. #4
    George Guest

    Default Re: Why is it . . . . . ?

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


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

  5. #5
    notbob Guest

    Default Re: Why is it . . . . . ?

    On 2009-04-12, Sky <[email protected]> wrote:

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


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

    nb

  6. #6
    Dave Smith Guest

    Default Re: Why is it . . . . . ?

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


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

  7. #7
    Kajikit Guest

    Default Re: Why is it . . . . . ?

    On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 11:23:11 -0500, Sky <[email protected]>
    wrote:

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


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

  8. #8
    Lynn from Fargo Ografmorffig Guest

    Default Re: Why is it . . . . . ?

    On Apr 12, 12:33*pm, notbob <not...@nothome.com> wrote:

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

    ============================

    Yeah! What he said!

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

  9. #9
    modom (palindrome guy) Guest

    Default Re: Why is it . . . . . ?

    On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 17:33:58 GMT, notbob <[email protected]> wrote:

    >On 2009-04-12, Sky <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> things at the same time. Although, I can see how the large burner can
    >> be handy in the front row when cooking something like a big batch of
    >> stir-fry or fried chicken and such.

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

    Hence the expression "put it on a back burner."
    --

    modom

  10. #10
    Wayne Boatwright Guest

    Default Re: Why is it . . . . . ?

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

    > On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 17:33:58 GMT, notbob <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>On 2009-04-12, Sky <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >>> things at the same time. Although, I can see how the large burner can
    >>> be handy in the front row when cooking something like a big batch of
    >>> stir-fry or fried chicken and such.

    >>
    >>There ya go! Small in back for limited attention like simmering, while
    >>large front burners are handy and accessible for immediate flame

    adjustment
    >>and put-on/remove-from-heat manipulation. Makes sense to me.
    >>

    > Hence the expression "put it on a back burner."


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

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




  11. #11
    Miche Guest

    Default Re: Why is it . . . . . ?

    In article <[email protected]>,
    notbob <[email protected]> wrote:

    > On 2009-04-12, Sky <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > > things at the same time. Although, I can see how the large burner can
    > > be handy in the front row when cooking something like a big batch of
    > > stir-fry or fried chicken and such.

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


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

    Miche

    --
    Electricians do it in three phases

  12. #12
    Goomba Guest

    Default Re: Why is it . . . . . ?

    Sky wrote:
    > . . . . . . that most 4-burner stoves/ranges have the large burners**
    > up front and close, or rather, why is it the small burner is typically
    > located in the back row of burners? Isn't it more hazardous to reach
    > over and behind a tall hot pan/pot to tend the little simmering pan at
    > the back? SF's post about her reall
    >

    My new gas range has one extra high BTU large burner in front right, a
    medium sized burner front left, and two smaller equal sized burners in
    the back. Then down the middle is a elongated center burner (with a
    griddle or grate option over it which isn't too powerful but I use to
    augment over-sized pans that straddle multiple burners.

  13. #13
    notbob Guest

    Default Re: Why is it . . . . . ?

    On 2009-04-12, Wayne Boatwright <[email protected]> wrote:

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


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

    nb

  14. #14
    Jean B. Guest

    Default Re: Why is it . . . . . ?

    Wayne Boatwright wrote:
    > On Sun 12 Apr 2009 12:21:20p, modom (palindrome guy) told us...
    >
    >> On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 17:33:58 GMT, notbob <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 2009-04-12, Sky <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> things at the same time. Although, I can see how the large burner can
    >>>> be handy in the front row when cooking something like a big batch of
    >>>> stir-fry or fried chicken and such.
    >>> There ya go! Small in back for limited attention like simmering, while
    >>> large front burners are handy and accessible for immediate flame

    > adjustment
    >>> and put-on/remove-from-heat manipulation. Makes sense to me.
    >>>

    >> Hence the expression "put it on a back burner."

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

    That is my preference too. My current loathesome smoothtop range
    has two rather small induction burners on one side (I do like the
    induction aspect), and a large burner in front and a small one in
    back on the other. I REALLY don't like that. Furthermore, it
    points out the need for flexible burner sizes, since many of my
    pots and pans don't fit well.

    --
    Jean B.

  15. #15
    Dan Abel Guest

    Default Re: Why is it . . . . . ?

    In article <[email protected]>,
    Kajikit <[email protected]> wrote:


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


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

    :-)

    --
    Dan Abel
    Petaluma, California USA
    [email protected]
    "[Don't] assume that someone is "broken" just because they behave in ways
    you don't like or don't understand." --Miche

  16. #16
    Wayne Boatwright Guest

    Default Re: Why is it . . . . . ?

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

    > Wayne Boatwright wrote:
    >> On Sun 12 Apr 2009 12:21:20p, modom (palindrome guy) told us...
    >>
    >>> On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 17:33:58 GMT, notbob <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On 2009-04-12, Sky <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> things at the same time. Although, I can see how the large burner
    >>>>> can be handy in the front row when cooking something like a big
    >>>>> batch of stir-fry or fried chicken and such.
    >>>> There ya go! Small in back for limited attention like simmering,
    >>>> while large front burners are handy and accessible for immediate
    >>>> flame adjustment and put-on/remove-from-heat manipulation. Makes
    >>>> sense to me.
    >>>>
    >>> Hence the expression "put it on a back burner."

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

    > That is my preference too. My current loathesome smoothtop range
    > has two rather small induction burners on one side (I do like the
    > induction aspect), and a large burner in front and a small one in
    > back on the other. I REALLY don't like that. Furthermore, it
    > points out the need for flexible burner sizes, since many of my
    > pots and pans don't fit well.
    >


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

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




  17. #17
    Jean B. Guest

    Default Re: Why is it . . . . . ?

    Wayne Boatwright wrote:
    > On Sun 12 Apr 2009 01:30:06p, Jean B. told us...
    >
    >> Wayne Boatwright wrote:
    >>> On Sun 12 Apr 2009 12:21:20p, modom (palindrome guy) told us...
    >>>
    >>>> On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 17:33:58 GMT, notbob <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On 2009-04-12, Sky <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> things at the same time. Although, I can see how the large burner
    >>>>>> can be handy in the front row when cooking something like a big
    >>>>>> batch of stir-fry or fried chicken and such.
    >>>>> There ya go! Small in back for limited attention like simmering,
    >>>>> while large front burners are handy and accessible for immediate
    >>>>> flame adjustment and put-on/remove-from-heat manipulation. Makes
    >>>>> sense to me.
    >>>>>
    >>>> Hence the expression "put it on a back burner."
    >>> I prefer having 1 small and 1 large burner on the front and the same on
    >>> the back. I cook many things in smaller pots and don't like having to
    >>> constantly reach to the back. Unfortunately, my current range has both
    >>> large burners in front and both small burners in back.
    >>>

    >> That is my preference too. My current loathesome smoothtop range
    >> has two rather small induction burners on one side (I do like the
    >> induction aspect), and a large burner in front and a small one in
    >> back on the other. I REALLY don't like that. Furthermore, it
    >> points out the need for flexible burner sizes, since many of my
    >> pots and pans don't fit well.
    >>

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

    Well, I can say one lives and learns. I sure know more to look
    for in case I ever have my own kitchen again. I think after I
    move (still to god only knows where), I may just get a countertop
    induction burner, assuming I have space for one.

    --
    Jean B.

  18. #18
    Nexis Guest

    Default Re: Why is it . . . . . ?


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


    My current cooktop (Thermador flat top) is set up like this. There is a
    small burner left front, with a medium behind that. In the middle of the
    back there is a burner that can be small, medium or large. To the right is a
    burner that can be 2 medium or 1 large oval. Front and center are the
    controls. I think it's a good set up...works for me. My mom's is
    different...on one side it has large front, small back and on the other side
    it is the opposite with a large back and small front.

    kimberly
    --
    http://eating-sandiego.blogspot.com



  19. #19
    Sky Guest

    Default Re: Why is it . . . . . ?

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

    >
    > My current cooktop (Thermador flat top) is set up like this. There is a
    > small burner left front, with a medium behind that. In the middle of the
    > back there is a burner that can be small, medium or large. To the right is a
    > burner that can be 2 medium or 1 large oval. Front and center are the
    > controls. I think it's a good set up...works for me. My mom's is
    > different...on one side it has large front, small back and on the other side
    > it is the opposite with a large back and small front.
    >
    > kimberly
    > --
    > http://eating-sandiego.blogspot.com


    I don't believe I've ever seen a cooktop that has adjustable burners
    sizes. Adjustable flame/temp control, yes, but not where the actual
    burner size changes. That's a really nice feature!

    Sky

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

  20. #20
    Wayne Boatwright Guest

    Default Re: Why is it . . . . . ?

    On Sun 12 Apr 2009 09:13:00p, Sky told us...

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

    >>
    >> My current cooktop (Thermador flat top) is set up like this. There is a
    >> small burner left front, with a medium behind that. In the middle of
    >> the back there is a burner that can be small, medium or large. To the
    >> right is a burner that can be 2 medium or 1 large oval. Front and
    >> center are the controls. I think it's a good set up...works for me. My
    >> mom's is different...on one side it has large front, small back and on
    >> the other side it is the opposite with a large back and small front.
    >>
    >> kimberly
    >> --
    >> http://eating-sandiego.blogspot.com

    >
    > I don't believe I've ever seen a cooktop that has adjustable burners
    > sizes. Adjustable flame/temp control, yes, but not where the actual
    > burner size changes. That's a really nice feature!
    >
    > Sky
    >


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

    --
    Wayne Boatwright
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Cutting stalks at noontime. Perspiration drips to the earth. Know
    you that your bowl of rice each grain from hardship comes? ~Chang
    Chan ~Pao




Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32