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 > 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.
>>
>
> 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.