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 > wrote:
>>
>>> On 2009-04-12, Sky > 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.