Hello to all:
The better half wants(needs) a new range.
She says she needs more btus.
Our existing old school burners are all 9100 btus,
The one she is looking at has five burners, but the highest one will
be 17,000 btu.
The question I have, is how do btu,s rate against one another.
In other words is a 17,000 btu burner, almost twice as strong as a
9100, or is there some geometric progression, or regression in the numbers.
Same as with the less intense burners that come with this model. Does it
correlate strictly straight ahead.
Thanks for responding to this message.

"J.Lef" wrote in message
news:%vMsj.371$ph.240@trnddc06...
Hello to all:
The better half wants(needs) a new range.
She says she needs more btus.
Our existing old school burners are all 9100 btus,
The one she is looking at has five burners, but the highest one will
be 17,000 btu.
The question I have, is how do btu,s rate against one another.
In other words is a 17,000 btu burner, almost twice as strong as a
9100, or is there some geometric progression, or regression in the
numbers. Same as with the less intense burners that come with this model.
Does it correlate strictly straight ahead.
Thanks for responding to this message.

BTUs (British Thermal Units) are a unit of heat measurement. A 4000 BTU
burner puts out twice as much heat as a 2000 BTU burner for the same type of
fuel. Of course, it burns twice as much fuel too, so be sure to consider
that.

"J.Lef" wrote:

Hello to all:
The better half wants(needs) a new range.
She says she needs more btus.
Our existing old school burners are all 9100 btus,
The one she is looking at has five burners, but the highest one will
be 17,000 btu.

Yes that 17,000 will be almost twice as hot as your 9100s. I
bought a 5 burner gas range just a few years ago. I couldn't tell
you the BTUs offhand, but the big burner on the lowest setting is
hotter than the smallest one on the highest setting.

I thought it would be confusing- but I've grown to like it. I can
simmer a small pot on the tiny burner- or bring a big pot to a boil in
no time on the giant one.

There are 4 different sized burners in my 5. One huge, 2 big, 1
medium & one tiny. The difference in actual use is noticeable.

Jim

"J.Lef" wrote in message
news:%vMsj.371$ph.240@trnddc06...
Hello to all:
The better half wants(needs) a new range.
She says she needs more btus.
Our existing old school burners are all 9100 btus,
The one she is looking at has five burners, but the highest one will
be 17,000 btu.
The question I have, is how do btu,s rate against one another.
In other words is a 17,000 btu burner, almost twice as strong as a
9100, or is there some geometric progression, or regression in the
numbers. Same as with the less intense burners that come with this model.
Does it correlate strictly straight ahead.
Thanks for responding to this message.

Straight line progression. That stove may need better venting than what you
have too so be sure to check that out. A typical 3 bedroom house will have
about 36000 Btu of air conditioning so running that burner on high will take
half of the available cooling if not vented.

You will need to check out your gas supply. As Kelly states, more BTU
require more fuel.

I had to replace a 1/2 line with a straighter run of 3/4 inch for our
new range.



On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 01:08:11 GMT, "J.Lef" wrote:
Hello to all:
The better half wants(needs) a new range.
She says she needs more btus.
Our existing old school burners are all 9100 btus,
The one she is looking at has five burners, but the highest one will
be 17,000 btu.
The question I have, is how do btu,s rate against one another.
In other words is a 17,000 btu burner, almost twice as strong as a
9100, or is there some geometric progression, or regression in the numbers.
Same as with the less intense burners that come with this model. Does it
correlate strictly straight ahead.
Thanks for responding to this message.

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 01:08:11 GMT, "J.Lef" wrote:

Hello to all:
The better half wants(needs) a new range.
She says she needs more btus.
Our existing old school burners are all 9100 btus,
The one she is looking at has five burners, but the highest one will
be 17,000 btu.
The question I have, is how do btu,s rate against one another.
In other words is a 17,000 btu burner, almost twice as strong as a
9100, or is there some geometric progression, or regression in the numbers.
Same as with the less intense burners that come with this model. Does it
correlate strictly straight ahead.
Thanks for responding to this message.

Sometimes better cookware or, more correctly, cookware that is
intended for the task at hand, will provide better performance. I
might explore this option first, prior to making a commitment to
swapping out your current range. Good luck!

Cheers,
Paul

"Paul M. Eldridge" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 01:08:11 GMT, "J.Lef" wrote:

Hello to all:
The better half wants(needs) a new range.
She says she needs more btus.
Our existing old school burners are all 9100 btus,
The one she is looking at has five burners, but the highest one will
be 17,000 btu.
The question I have, is how do btu,s rate against one another.
In other words is a 17,000 btu burner, almost twice as strong as a
9100, or is there some geometric progression, or regression in the
numbers.
Same as with the less intense burners that come with this model. Does it
correlate strictly straight ahead.
Thanks for responding to this message.

Sometimes better cookware or, more correctly, cookware that is
intended for the task at hand, will provide better performance. I
might explore this option first, prior to making a commitment to
swapping out your current range. Good luck!

Cheers,
Paul


Or, put the lid on the pot of water you want to boil. I used to have a web
link to a video showing this procedure, but I can't find it at the moment.
Sorry. :-(

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 15:12:46 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Paul M. Eldridge" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 01:08:11 GMT, "J.Lef" wrote:

Sometimes better cookware or, more correctly, cookware that is
intended for the task at hand, will provide better performance. I
might explore this option first, prior to making a commitment to
swapping out your current range. Good luck!

Cheers,
Paul


Or, put the lid on the pot of water you want to boil. I used to have a web
link to a video showing this procedure, but I can't find it at the moment.
Sorry. :-(

Hi Joe,

Good point. A tight fitting lid can dramatically reduce the number of
BTUs (and length of time) required to complete the job.

I have a propane cook top and, in my case, propane is significantly
more expensive than electric, plus due to the nature of the design,
much of the heat is lost around the sides of the cookware -- this
waste heat and additional humidity during the summer months is
particularly unwelcome. Thus, if I have a large quanity of water to
heat (e.g., cooking pasta), I first bring it to a boil in an electric
kettle, then transfer it to the pot. The amount of time works out to
be about the same, but it's less expensive and helps keep the kitchen
more comfortable.

Cheers,
Paul

"Paul M. Eldridge" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 15:12:46 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Paul M. Eldridge" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 01:08:11 GMT, "J.Lef" wrote:

Sometimes better cookware or, more correctly, cookware that is
intended for the task at hand, will provide better performance. I
might explore this option first, prior to making a commitment to
swapping out your current range. Good luck!

Cheers,
Paul


Or, put the lid on the pot of water you want to boil. I used to have a web
link to a video showing this procedure, but I can't find it at the moment.
Sorry. :-(

Hi Joe,

Good point. A tight fitting lid can dramatically reduce the number of
BTUs (and length of time) required to complete the job.

I have a propane cook top and, in my case, propane is significantly
more expensive than electric, plus due to the nature of the design,
much of the heat is lost around the sides of the cookware -- this
waste heat and additional humidity during the summer months is
particularly unwelcome. Thus, if I have a large quanity of water to
heat (e.g., cooking pasta), I first bring it to a boil in an electric
kettle, then transfer it to the pot. The amount of time works out to
be about the same, but it's less expensive and helps keep the kitchen
more comfortable.

Cheers,
Paul


I've also found that cutting a potato in half will help it cook faster.
However, I need to submit my findings to some reputable research
organizations, to be sure others can duplicate and confirm the results. I've
tried to contact the appropriate people at Oxford and Harvard, but I haven't
gotten any responses yet. I suspect they're very busy.

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 16:42:56 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

I've also found that cutting a potato in half will help it cook faster.
However, I need to submit my findings to some reputable research
organizations, to be sure others can duplicate and confirm the results. I've
tried to contact the appropriate people at Oxford and Harvard, but I haven't
gotten any responses yet. I suspect they're very busy.

Well, gosh, why didn't you say so? I've got connections with both
universities and Princeton too, so let me get their Blackberrys just a
buzz'n and have them contact you pronto! ;-)

Cheers,
Paul

"Paul M. Eldridge" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 16:42:56 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

I've also found that cutting a potato in half will help it cook faster.
However, I need to submit my findings to some reputable research
organizations, to be sure others can duplicate and confirm the results.
I've
tried to contact the appropriate people at Oxford and Harvard, but I
haven't
gotten any responses yet. I suspect they're very busy.

Well, gosh, why didn't you say so? I've got connections with both
universities and Princeton too, so let me get their Blackberrys just a
buzz'n and have them contact you pronto! ;-)

Cheers,
Paul


I'd appreciate that, Paul. I'm anxious to publish. Next: The Nobel Prize.

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 17:53:45 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

Well, gosh, why didn't you say so? I've got connections with both
universities and Princeton too, so let me get their Blackberrys just a
buzz'n and have them contact you pronto! ;-)

Cheers,
Paul


I'd appreciate that, Paul. I'm anxious to publish. Next: The Nobel Prize.

Well, no offense, Joe, but don't count on it *this* year, as I've got
my own designs on the little guy... I'm busy building a Bluetooth
naval gazing miniature camera for academics.... oh ****! I can't
believe I said that out loud!.

Cheers,
Paul

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 01:08:11 GMT, "J.Lef" wrote:

Hello to all:
The better half wants(needs) a new range.
She says she needs more btus.
Our existing old school burners are all 9100 btus,
The one she is looking at has five burners, but the highest one will
be 17,000 btu.
The question I have, is how do btu,s rate against one another.
In other words is a 17,000 btu burner, almost twice as strong as a
9100, or is there some geometric progression, or regression in the numbers.
Same as with the less intense burners that come with this model. Does it
correlate strictly straight ahead.
Thanks for responding to this message.

Just get the biggest one and be done with it.

--
Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!!
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/

Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.'
'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.'
HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo now available online http://pmilligan.net/palm/

"Paul M. Eldridge" wrote in message

Sometimes better cookware or, more correctly, cookware that is
intended for the task at hand, will provide better performance. I
might explore this option first, prior to making a commitment to
swapping out your current range. Good luck!

Don't cook much do you? There are times when nothing beats more power.

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 22:00:12 -0500, "Edwin Pawlowski"
wrote:

"Paul M. Eldridge" wrote in message

Sometimes better cookware or, more correctly, cookware that is
intended for the task at hand, will provide better performance. I
might explore this option first, prior to making a commitment to
swapping out your current range. Good luck!

Don't cook much do you? There are times when nothing beats more power.

I have a Heartland Legacy range and the heat output on any of the six
burners can be varied from 450 BTUs (0.13 kW) to 15,500 BTUs (4.54
kW). I've never once found it to be underpowered.

There are millions of electric ranges with burners not even half as
powerful and yet, somehow, life as we know goes on. But, hey, if
someone wants a Garland range and a 2,000 CFM exhaust hood in their
kitchen well, by all means, knock yourself out.

Cheers,
Paul

"Paul M. Eldridge" wrote in message
I have a Heartland Legacy range and the heat output on any of the six
burners can be varied from 450 BTUs (0.13 kW) to 15,500 BTUs (4.54
kW). I've never once found it to be underpowered.

At 15,000 Btu it is well powered. Not like hte 9000 the OP has.


There are millions of electric ranges with burners not even half as
powerful and yet, somehow, life as we know goes on. But, hey, if
someone wants a Garland range and a 2,000 CFM exhaust hood in their
kitchen well, by all means, knock yourself out.

They just want to be like you

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 10:51:39 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski"
wrote:


"Paul M. Eldridge" wrote in message
I have a Heartland Legacy range and the heat output on any of the six
burners can be varied from 450 BTUs (0.13 kW) to 15,500 BTUs (4.54
kW). I've never once found it to be underpowered.

At 15,000 Btu it is well powered. Not like hte 9000 the OP has.

There are millions of electric ranges with burners not even half as
powerful and yet, somehow, life as we know goes on. But, hey, if
someone wants a Garland range and a 2,000 CFM exhaust hood in their
kitchen well, by all means, knock yourself out.

They just want to be like you

Sorry, that was poorly worded. What I meant to say is that at 9,100
BTUs/2.67 kW, the OP's burners are twice as powerful as those of a
typical electric range. A standard 6 inch electric element generally
runs in the order of 4,300 BTUs/1.25 kW. A high power 8 inch element
might get you damn close, but they normally top out at 2.2 or 2.3 kW
and gas would be a lot faster off the mark.

I agree that "more is better" in certain applications -- canning and
boiling large pots of lobsters are two that come to mind. But
millions of folks perform these same tasks on electric ranges with
little or no complaint. Again, my advice would be to look at the
cookware first and see if the problem can be resolved that way before
going through the hassle and expense of replacing the range. It could
be something as simple as using a larger bottom pot and keeping it
covered with a lid.

That said, it's not clear to me what, *precisely*, is the problem. Is
the response too slow? Not enough heat to cook a particular dish
properly? Or is it a convenient excuse to ditch an old stove and
"upgrade" to something new? The OP has told us "the better half
wants(needs) a new range" because "she says she needs more btus".
Without knowing the reason(s) why she feels she needs more BTUs, we're
only shooting in the dark.

Cheers,
Paul

On 2008-02-15, Paul M Eldridge wrote:

Sorry, that was poorly worded. What I meant to say is that at 9,100
BTUs/2.67 kW, the OP's burners are twice as powerful as those of a
typical electric range. A standard 6 inch electric element generally
runs in the order of 4,300 BTUs/1.25 kW.

Yes, but I think the 9100 BTU/hr rating on the gas burner is the input
rate of the burner. As a WAG, the gas burner might only deliver 40%
of that power to the pan, while the electric burner may deliver 90% of
its 4300 BTU/hr. Then the two are comparable in heating power.

Cheers, Wayne

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 19:22:47 GMT, Wayne Whitney
wrote:

On 2008-02-15, Paul M Eldridge wrote:

Sorry, that was poorly worded. What I meant to say is that at 9,100
BTUs/2.67 kW, the OP's burners are twice as powerful as those of a
typical electric range. A standard 6 inch electric element generally
runs in the order of 4,300 BTUs/1.25 kW.

Yes, but I think the 9100 BTU/hr rating on the gas burner is the input
rate of the burner. As a WAG, the gas burner might only deliver 40%
of that power to the pan, while the electric burner may deliver 90% of
its 4300 BTU/hr. Then the two are comparable in heating power.

Cheers, Wayne

Hi Wayne,

That's certainly a valid criticism. An electric element comes in
direct contact with the bottom of the pot [more or less], so energy is
transferred quite efficiently. In the case of a gas range, the pot
sits on top of an elevated grate -- extra mass to heat and some
conduction losses via the grate assembly itself but, more importantly,
a direct path for heat to escape around the edge of the pot. Whether
60 per cent is lost in this manner I can't honestly say, but I would
expect the physical size of the pot to have some bearing on this,
which, if true, reinforces my original point.

Cheers,
Paul

P.S.: BTW, did you get my Blackberry message? Oh, and sorry about
that naval gazing reference... cheap shot... ;-)

That said, it's not clear to me what, *precisely*, is the problem. Is
the response too slow? Not enough heat to cook a particular dish
properly? Or is it a convenient excuse to ditch an old stove and
"upgrade" to something new? The OP has told us "the better half
wants(needs) a new range" because "she says she needs more btus".
Without knowing the reason(s) why she feels she needs more BTUs, we're
only shooting in the dark.

Cheers,
Paul

Hello:
I am original poster, and thanks for all the
responses. As far as a new range, we are partially redoing the kitchen,
which has a built in wall oven, and a cooktop. The cooktop is pretty much
shot.
We are in need of a second oven, plus a larger oven. We are
replacing the cooktop with a range. My wife wants the stockpots to boil
faster, plus she wants a highpower for doing some flat bottom wok cooking to
a greater degree of satisfaction then the existing burners.
As far as cookware which has been mentioned, we use all-clad,
which is quick heating and even heating, plus crueset dutch ovens. So its
not cookware.
The cooking portion will also have a fifth center
burner(oblong), which wil handle odd sized cooking vessels(of which we have
a lot), plus the wife says four burners are not enough during holiday times.
Plus it has continuous grates, and sealed burners, which we do not have now.
We have ordered the moderately priced g.e. jgbp88demww. (list
about 1100) We picked it up for around 795 plus tax.
Starting reconstruction next monday, and should take about two weeks.
Will report on stove at that time.

Thanks to all

On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 15:05:42 GMT, "J.Lef" wrote:

Hello:
I am original poster, and thanks for all the
responses. As far as a new range, we are partially redoing the kitchen,
which has a built in wall oven, and a cooktop. The cooktop is pretty much
shot.
We are in need of a second oven, plus a larger oven. We are
replacing the cooktop with a range. My wife wants the stockpots to boil
faster, plus she wants a highpower for doing some flat bottom wok cooking to
a greater degree of satisfaction then the existing burners.
As far as cookware which has been mentioned, we use all-clad,
which is quick heating and even heating, plus crueset dutch ovens. So its
not cookware.
The cooking portion will also have a fifth center
burner(oblong), which wil handle odd sized cooking vessels(of which we have
a lot), plus the wife says four burners are not enough during holiday times.
Plus it has continuous grates, and sealed burners, which we do not have now.
We have ordered the moderately priced g.e. jgbp88demww. (list
about 1100) We picked it up for around 795 plus tax.
Starting reconstruction next monday, and should take about two weeks.
Will report on stove at that time.

Thanks to all

Thanks. The additional information helps fill in the blanks.
Congratulations on your new purchase and good luck with the other
renovations.

Cheers,
Paul