As a 'normal' skillet flares out about 2 inches, a so-called 12"
skillet (measured across the top) actually is about 10 inches of
bottom cooking surface.

As my largest (6"/9"/12") tri-burner actually measures 6", 8-1/2" and
11", then my recently purchased Lodge 12" skillet which measures
10-1/2 will fit onto the 11" burner (leaving 1/2" of red-heat
unexposed to a skillet).

As I for the first time saw a 14" skillet (at BJ's I think) and had no
tape measure to measure the bottom cooking surace (and it did flare
out a lot), I'm thinking, perhaps 14" skillets are in actuality used
for 12" burners which are in actuality 11" burners. AARRRGGGH!!

I don't believe there is a skillet that will fit correctly on all
these different-sized rings, but I am wondering what the 14" NON-STICK
skillet is used on - a 12" ring that is 11"? Does the 14" flare out
totally 3"?

I haven't yet seen a 14" stainless steel skillet. But I'm thinking if
I buy a 12" stainless steel for my 11" burner, it may or may not fit.
A mystery!

Dee

Dee Dee wrote:

snip
>
> I haven't yet seen a 14" stainless steel skillet. But I'm thinking if
> I buy a 12" stainless steel for my 11" burner, it may or may not fit.
> A mystery!

Hi Dee. Although it is nice if the skillet fits the burner, it is not
necessary. My 14" extends beyond my burners at home. I use it when I want a
large cooking surface with multiple heat levels. Like a wok, the outer edges
are cooler than the area in contact with the burner. I like to do
one-skillet cooking with different foods in the pan at the same time. That
allows me to move the food, which is near finished being cooked, toward the
edge and the food that still needs cooking toward the center.
--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

Dave Bugg said...

> That
> allows me to move the food, which is near finished being cooked, toward
> the edge and the food that still needs cooking toward the center.


I have a heavy lodge 14" cast iron pan that oversets the electric burner by
+2 inch radius. What I've noticed (and I guess it's an optical illusion) is
that the pan surface seems to bow up where it's in contact with the burner.
Very noticeable when the pan is suitably oiled for light pan frying. I'll
take a picture next time around.

???

Andy

Andy wrote:
> Dave Bugg said...
>
>> That
>> allows me to move the food, which is near finished being cooked,
>> toward the edge and the food that still needs cooking toward the
>> center.
>
>
> I have a heavy lodge 14" cast iron pan that oversets the electric
> burner by +2 inch radius. What I've noticed (and I guess it's an
> optical illusion) is that the pan surface seems to bow up where it's
> in contact with the burner. Very noticeable when the pan is suitably
> oiled for light pan frying. I'll take a picture next time around.

If it's what I think it is, Andy, I see it on occasion as well. It's the
result of the expansion of the heated oil, giving the illusion of the pan
bowing. It would be interesting to get a pic of it.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

Dave Bugg said...

> Andy wrote:
>> Dave Bugg said...
>>
>>> That
>>> allows me to move the food, which is near finished being cooked,
>>> toward the edge and the food that still needs cooking toward the
>>> center.
>>
>>
>> I have a heavy lodge 14" cast iron pan that oversets the electric
>> burner by +2 inch radius. What I've noticed (and I guess it's an
>> optical illusion) is that the pan surface seems to bow up where it's
>> in contact with the burner. Very noticeable when the pan is suitably
>> oiled for light pan frying. I'll take a picture next time around.
>
> If it's what I think it is, Andy, I see it on occasion as well. It's the
> result of the expansion of the heated oil, giving the illusion of the pan
> bowing. It would be interesting to get a pic of it.


Dave,

I should rephrase, "Only noticable when..."

Thanks,

Andy

In article >, Andy <q> wrote:

> Dave Bugg said...
>
> > That
> > allows me to move the food, which is near finished being cooked, toward
> > the edge and the food that still needs cooking toward the center.
>
>
> I have a heavy lodge 14" cast iron pan that oversets the electric burner by
> +2 inch radius. What I've noticed (and I guess it's an optical illusion) is
> that the pan surface seems to bow up where it's in contact with the burner.
> Very noticeable when the pan is suitably oiled for light pan frying. I'll
> take a picture next time around.
>
> ???
>
> Andy


My understanding was that several skillets (not necessarily cast iron)
are designed to have a concave bottom. When heated this becomes flat
and the skillet makes perfect flat contact (feature usually found in
better cookware). The behavior you are describing seems to be the
opposite of this.

Roland

On Feb 1, 1:48 pm, "Dave Bugg" > wrote:
> Dee Dee wrote:
>
> snip
>
>
>
> > I haven't yet seen a 14" stainless steel skillet. But I'm thinking if
> > I buy a 12" stainless steel for my 11" burner, it may or may not fit.
> > A mystery!
>
> Hi Dee. Although it is nice if the skillet fits the burner, it is not
> necessary. My 14" extends beyond my burners at home. I use it when I want a
> large cooking surface with multiple heat levels. Like a wok, the outer edges
> are cooler than the area in contact with the burner. I like to do
> one-skillet cooking with different foods in the pan at the same time. That
> allows me to move the food, which is near finished being cooked, toward the
> edge and the food that still needs cooking toward the center.
> --
> Davewww.davebbq.com

Dave, if you weren't or when you aren't doing one-skillet cooking,
which would you prefer?

Placing a skillet on a smaller-burner-than-the-skillet and assuming,
depending on the pan of course, that the whole pan would heat evenly
enough for your cooking.

OR

Placing a skillet on a larger-burner-than-the-skillet with perhaps an
inch-or-two red-hot-burner blazing away in-your-face.

I just don't like that 'extra' heat showing, although I'm not exactly
sure why? Burnt fingers, burnt rag? Wasting fuel?; i.e., would it be
more economical or a more efficient way to cook using a smaller
burner? Does anyone else feel that way?

Dee Dee wrote:

> On Feb 1, 1:48 pm, "Dave Bugg" > wrote:
>> Dee Dee wrote:
>>
>> snip
>>
>>
>>
>>> I haven't yet seen a 14" stainless steel skillet. But I'm thinking
>>> if
>>> I buy a 12" stainless steel for my 11" burner, it may or may not
>>> fit.
>>> A mystery!
>>
>> Hi Dee. Although it is nice if the skillet fits the burner, it is not
>> necessary. My 14" extends beyond my burners at home. I use it when I
>> want a large cooking surface with multiple heat levels. Like a wok,
>> the outer edges are cooler than the area in contact with the burner.
>> I like to do one-skillet cooking with different foods in the pan at
>> the same time. That allows me to move the food, which is near
>> finished being cooked, toward the edge and the food that still needs
>> cooking toward the center. --
>> Davewww.davebbq.com
>
> Dave, if you weren't or when you aren't doing one-skillet cooking,
> which would you prefer?
>
> Placing a skillet on a smaller-burner-than-the-skillet and assuming,
> depending on the pan of course, that the whole pan would heat evenly
> enough for your cooking.
>
> OR
>
> Placing a skillet on a larger-burner-than-the-skillet with perhaps an
> inch-or-two red-hot-burner blazing away in-your-face.
>
> I just don't like that 'extra' heat showing, although I'm not exactly
> sure why? Burnt fingers, burnt rag? Wasting fuel?; i.e., would it be
> more economical or a more efficient way to cook using a smaller
> burner? Does anyone else feel that way?

I use the pan that fits what I'm cooking; I don't make do with a pan that is
either way too big or way too small for what I'm cooking. After choosing the
pan that I need, then I choose a burner that comes closest to matching the
pan. I don't worry about either too much or too little burner showing; at
least not with pans or skillets.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

Dee Dee said...

> On Feb 1, 1:48 pm, "Dave Bugg" > wrote:
>> Dee Dee wrote:
>>
>> snip
>>
>>
>>
>> > I haven't yet seen a 14" stainless steel skillet. But I'm thinking
>> > if I buy a 12" stainless steel for my 11" burner, it may or may not
>> > fit. A mystery!
>>
>> Hi Dee. Although it is nice if the skillet fits the burner, it is not
>> necessary. My 14" extends beyond my burners at home. I use it when I
>> want a large cooking surface with multiple heat levels. Like a wok, the
>> outer edges are cooler than the area in contact with the burner. I like
>> to do one-skillet cooking with different foods in the pan at the same
>> time. That allows me to move the food, which is near finished being
>> cooked, toward the edge and the food that still needs cooking toward
>> the center. --
>> Davewww.davebbq.com
>
> Dave, if you weren't or when you aren't doing one-skillet cooking,
> which would you prefer?
>
> Placing a skillet on a smaller-burner-than-the-skillet and assuming,
> depending on the pan of course, that the whole pan would heat evenly
> enough for your cooking.
>
> OR
>
> Placing a skillet on a larger-burner-than-the-skillet with perhaps an
> inch-or-two red-hot-burner blazing away in-your-face.
>
> I just don't like that 'extra' heat showing, although I'm not exactly
> sure why? Burnt fingers, burnt rag? Wasting fuel?; i.e., would it be
> more economical or a more efficient way to cook using a smaller
> burner? Does anyone else feel that way?


Dee Dee,

My electric cooktop's largest two burners are adjustable. They can be
switched to heat the inner 2 coils (small pots and pans), inner 4 coils
(medium pots and pans) or all 6 coils (large pots and pans). A late 1960's
cooktop design.

Andy

"Dee Dee" > wrote:
> I just don't like that 'extra' heat showing, although I'm not exactly
> sure why? Burnt fingers, burnt rag? Wasting fuel?; i.e., would it be
> more economical or a more efficient way to cook using a smaller
> burner? Does anyone else feel that way?

I haven't had an electric stove in about 15 years, so this might be
outdated. When I did have one, and had the user manual to go with it, I'm
pretty sure it said not to cook with a burner smaller than the pan. I
believe it puts extra thermal stresses on the burner which shortens its
life.

Electric burners of the coil type can definitely "wear out". I've got an old
element from my parent's stove that failed after about 20 years of use. The
coil is broken through at a few points, I presume from being overheated
repeatedly. Anyway, they wouldn't be selling replacement coils as widely as
they do (in local hardware stores, etc.), if they didn't fail with some
regularity.

I'm not sure how all this applies to other types of electric cooktops, but I
would think they are similar in it being a bad thing to do.

Another issue you mention... wasting fuel is also true, but personally I
don't think it amounts to much compared to one's overall electric bill.

--
( #wff_ng_7# at #verizon# period #net# )

On Feb 1, 7:34 pm, "wff_ng_7" > wrote:
> "Dee Dee" > wrote:
> > I just don't like that 'extra' heat showing, although I'm not exactly
> > sure why? Burnt fingers, burnt rag? Wasting fuel?; i.e., would it be
> > more economical or a more efficient way to cook using a smaller
> > burner? Does anyone else feel that way?
>
> I haven't had an electric stove in about 15 years, so this might be
> outdated. When I did have one, and had the user manual to go with it, I'm
> pretty sure it said not to cook with a burner smaller than the pan. I
> believe it puts extra thermal stresses on the burner which shortens its
> life.
>
> Electric burners of the coil type can definitely "wear out". I've got an old
> element from my parent's stove that failed after about 20 years of use. The
> coil is broken through at a few points, I presume from being overheated
> repeatedly. Anyway, they wouldn't be selling replacement coils as widely as
> they do (in local hardware stores, etc.), if they didn't fail with some
> regularity.
>
> ( #wff_ng_7# at #verizon# period #net# )

Thanks.
On my Jennair stove on which I used the ceramic elements, coil
elements, and seldom the grill, and finally the somooth top elements,
during the period of use during 1993 to just recently, I replaced the
total coil elements twice. I'm not certain if they were replaced
during 1988 to 1993.
You might have something there.
Dee