"Tinman" > wrote:

>
>I looked at both and don't recall the two being similar in construction.
>IIRC, the PF model's SS was mostly cosmetic and in the front.
>
>

OK, I stopped by again this evening. The non-IR PFs are as you described with a
SS cover trimed in black metal. The IR models are all 304 SS.


>
>The patent that expired was for the ceramic design. They have since gone to
>a SS burner design with the glass plate. That design is still
>patent-protected.
>

Yep. The TECs are using a metal IR burner as you mentioned. I was wrong to say
both were using a ceramic burner. The burner covers about 90% of the grate as
you mentioned.

Interestingly enough, the PF IR burner was rated at 18K BTU, but covers about
50% of the grate area. The TEC did not list a separate IR burner rating, but
based on the total burner rating, looked to be considerably less - around 12K.

They may get an equal temp at the food by putting the IR burner right under the
grate with only the glass plate in between.


>
>The TEC burner also heats the entire area uniformly.
>

Hard to say how the PF would compare, other than the burner chamber is funnel
shaped and has a larger burner. The greater distance may even things out a bit.
The design of the metal around the burner would make it very easy to lay a sheet
of IR glass. This would protect the burner and possibly even things out were
that necessary.

> Plenty of discussion about the model he
>"http://www.bbqsource-forums.com/invboard/index.php?showtopic=1250&st=165"

Good link - thanks.

--
"Tell me what I should do, Annie."
"Stay. Here. Forever." - Life On Mars