Questions regarding Viking Range

"Vic" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

However, I am a bit disappointed with the
"chimney effect"(flame wrapping around the
pot) of the burners. I know you can turn down
the burner, but to boil a pot of water, I would
prefer that to happen as quick and efficiently
as possible.

Turn the burner down. You're losing much of the energy by having the flame
too high for your pan and thus not boiling your hypothetical pot of water as
quickly and efficiently as possible.

-j

"jacqui{JB}" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

"Vic" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

However, I am a bit disappointed with the
"chimney effect"(flame wrapping around the
pot) of the burners. I know you can turn down
the burner, but to boil a pot of water, I would
prefer that to happen as quick and efficiently
as possible.

Turn the burner down. You're losing much of the energy by having the
flame
too high for your pan and thus not boiling your hypothetical pot of water
as
quickly and efficiently as possible.

Exactly, and assuming you have halfway decent pots, they are
meant to be heated on the bottom and the pot will be made
so that the sides heat up. If you have the flame too high and it's
going up the sides of the pot, you're not doing yourself or your
water any favors. Just heat the bottom.

nancy

jacqui{JB} said:

"Vic" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

However, I am a bit disappointed with the
"chimney effect"(flame wrapping around the
pot) of the burners. I know you can turn down
the burner, but to boil a pot of water, I would
prefer that to happen as quick and efficiently
as possible.

Turn the burner down. You're losing much of the energy by having the flame
too high for your pan and thus not boiling your hypothetical pot of water as
quickly and efficiently as possible.

Even better, choose a wider pot... imagine, someone buys a $5,000 stove
and doesn't own a pot to [censored] in... it's obviously a whole lot more
stove than the moron can drive.

Sheldon Andretti

Vic said:

It is my first time posting here. I recently bought a Viking 30" all gas
professional range with open burners. As absolutely horrible as this
sounds, when we purchased it, we purchased it purely on looks. We hardly
ever cooked, and we really didn't care about what had the best burner or
anything like that. Although pretty much every retailer we talked to said
that the Viking burner is probably the best burner on the market.

Anyhow, now after buying the Viking, I am enjoying it soooo much that I
look
forward to coming home from work to make dinner. I wont even let the wife
cook if she wanted too!! However, I am a bit disappointed with the
"chimney effect"(flame wrapping around the pot) of the burners. I know
you
can turn down the burner, but to boil a pot of water, I would prefer that
to
happen as quick and efficiently as possible. Also, I find when sautéing
for
instance, the outside portion of the pan gets much hotter than the center.

Here are my million dollar questions:

1) Does the Thermador's star burner cook substantially more evenly
than
the circle burners?

2) Would it boil a pot of water quicker?

3) Is it true that a gas stove actually takes longer than an electric
stove to boil a pot of water? (I read that it is the case on an old post)

My sister just purchased the dual fuel Viking 30" open burner range this
past weekend, but it will be a while before it is installed as part of a
complete kitchen remodel. So I have no personal experience with these
burners yet. She considered many stoves (including Thermador, Wolf, Blue
Star, etc.) and consulted with me on a lot of them. I'll never really know
what her criteria were in finally selecting this one. I know I pointed out
the issue of the rather large circular burner vs. star burners, but this
didn't deter her. She did go to one of those Viking "test drive" classes to
see the stove demonstrated, but of course someone else was doing the
"driving". My suspicion is Blue Star (former Garland?) star burner is a
better burner, but maybe the differences aren't that big in real life. Two
things I steered her away from successfully were sealed burners and burners
that cycle for simmer.

One thing I would say about my sister is she is no novice at cooking, and
takes it all quite seriously. She's had this interest for at least 25 years.
But this is the first time she has gotten to remodel a kitchen to suit her
needs.

Different gas stoves do boil water faster than others, even at the same BTU
rating burner. And I believe that thing about electric stoves being faster
than gas is still probably true, even on the newer higher powered gas
stoves. The attraction of gas is control, when you turn it up it goes up
instantly, when you turn it down, it goes down instantly. But some of the
newer electric technologies have much faster response than the older
designs. Electric stove design hasn't stood still.

For a pretty good discussion of gas burner performance, take a look at the
following article by David Rosengarten on Blue Star's (Prizer Painter's) web
site:

http://www.prizer-painter.com/pages/articlepageone.html

The article has appeared in various places and this web site is not where I
saw it originally. It is a few years old now, so I don't know how much
things might have changed (I don't believe much at all regarding Blue Star
and Viking though). Thermador was not one of the models tested.

wff_ng_7 said:

Different gas stoves do boil water faster than others, even at the same BTU

Not true. BTUs are BTUs regardless where on this planet.

Sheldon Therm

On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 01:22:39 -0500, "Vic" <[email hidden]>
rummaged among random neurons and opined:

Quoted message said:

1) Does the Thermador's star burner cook substantially more evenly than
the circle burners?

Yes. I've had both and the Thermador seems to cook more evenly. It
also has a super-low setting that turns itself on and off for long
simmering.

Quoted message said:

2) Would it boil a pot of water quicker?

Likely not.

Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd
AAC(F)BV66.0748.CA

"If the soup had been as hot as the claret, if the claret had been as
old as the bird, and if the bird's breasts had been as full as the
waitress's, it would have been a very good dinner."

-- Duncan Hines

To reply, replace "spaminator" with "cox"

"Sheldon" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

wff_ng_7 said:

Different gas stoves do boil water faster than others, even at the same

BTU

Quoted message said:

Not true. BTUs are BTUs regardless where on this planet.

Sheldon Therm

Apparently Sheldon knows EVERYTHING. I just wish he'd share the cure for
cancer with everyone else.

I am no expert, but what wff_ng_7 wrote I agree with and Sheldon actually
may be wrong. Any moron would agree a BTU is a BTU...but how a burner is
designed (size, shape) etc has a LOT to do with how efficiently it would
heat. If you had a burner the size of a car tire, it is gonna throw out some
BTU's, but if you place a saucer in the middle of this burner it ant gonna
heat the sauser too effectivly.

To all the other kinda people, thanks for sharing your experiences and
opinions.

Thanks
Ty

"Sheldon" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

jacqui{JB} said:

"Vic" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

However, I am a bit disappointed with the
"chimney effect"(flame wrapping around the
pot) of the burners. I know you can turn down
the burner, but to boil a pot of water, I would
prefer that to happen as quick and efficiently
as possible.

Turn the burner down. You're losing much of the energy by having the

flame

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

too high for your pan and thus not boiling your hypothetical pot of

water as

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

quickly and efficiently as possible.

Even better, choose a wider pot... imagine, someone buys a $5,000 stove
and doesn't own a pot to [censored] in... it's obviously a whole lot more
stove than the moron can drive.

My god, do you have a degree in science?!? I think you MUST. With all of
that info I supplied to you, the ONLY scientific conclusion would be that I
do not own good pots.

Vic said:

"Sheldon" wrote

Quoted message said:

wff_ng_7 said:

Different gas stoves do boil water faster than others, even at the same

BTU

Quoted message said:

Not true. BTUs are BTUs regardless where on this planet.

Apparently Sheldon knows EVERYTHING.

Very true.

Quoted message said:

I just wish he'd share the cure for cancer with everyone else.

I intend to.

Quoted message said:

I am no expert, but what wff_ng_7 wrote I agree with and Sheldon actually
may be wrong. Any moron would agree a BTU is a BTU...but how a burner is
designed (size, shape) etc has a LOT to do with how efficiently it would
heat.

Actually not. Burner configuration is based primarily on its ability
to heat *evenly* and at some point ethetics takes over, fancy flame
patterns do indeed sell. But the rate at which a burner heats is soley
dependant on it's BTU rating, in fact the rate at which burners heat
water is what designates their BTU rating. (the quantity of heat
required to raise the temperature of one pound of water one degree
Fahrenheit at a specified temperature).

Btw, "efficiency" can incorporate many attributes, such as how evenly a
burner disperses heat energy, how broad a range of pot sizes it
accommodates, etc., but hasn't a whit to do with the efficiency of
BTUs... a BTU is a BTU, is a BTU, no matter where on this planet...
BTUs neither are or are not efficient, they just are.

Vic, you obviously don't comprehend the concept of the BTU... and you
never will, because apparently you're a cancer survivor... brain
cancer. hehe

I got your efficiency... yoose got your windshield wipers on... check
this!

Vic Moron

Sheldon Neuron

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. . . .

Sheldon said:

But the rate at which a burner heats is soley
dependant on it's BTU rating, in fact the rate at which burners heat
water is what designates their BTU rating. (the quantity of heat
required to raise the temperature of one pound of water one degree
Fahrenheit at a specified temperature).

And this is where you are absolutely, positively wrong in your
understanding. You are making an invalid assumption that because BTUs are a
measure of heating a known quantity of water a known number of degrees, that
the BTU rating of a stove burner is directly related to how well it boils
water. The connection is only indirect; therefore the variance in
performance among burners of the same BTU rating.

I have a degree in mechanical engineering, and my emphasis was in areas
related to heat transfer, so I do have some idea what I am talking about.

If you look at the rating plate on virtually any fuel burning appliance, you
will see the burner is rated with a term called "Btu Input". It is not rated
as "Btu Output". The reasons for this are many, but one of the main ones is
it is an easily measurable quantity across a broad spectrum of fuel burning
devices. Even the Btu Input rating is not measured directly; it is a derived
result from measuring gas flow and multiplying it by the heat value of the
gas. Even the heat value for a volume of gas is not the same for all natural
gas, so a standard number is used for calculating Btu Input. If you look at
your gas bill, you will see something like "conversion factor" used which
varies during the year. Depending on the source of the natural gas, its heat
value varies. Gas is measured by your gas meter in cubic feet, but you are
billed in "therms", which is a measure of heat value. The conversion factor
on the bill is used to account for the variation in natural gas's heat
value.

I looked at the rating plates on some of the gas burning appliances in my
home. Here's a sampling, and they are ALL in Btu INPUT: stove surface
burners: 9,000 Btu, clothes dryer: 22,000 Btu, water heater: 40,000 Btu,
furnace: 110,000 Btu.

Generally speaking the efficiency of a fuel burning device is related to
conductivity of the walls of the "heat exchanger", but more importantly to
how long the burning gases are in contact with the heat exchanger. The
longer and more convoluted the path, the more heat is transfered, and the
higher the efficiency. Gas furnaces vary between 55% and 95%. That means two
furnaces with the same Btu Input can have a dramatic difference in Btu
Output. The path through newer high efficiency furnaces is so long and
convoluted it requires an induced draft fan to pull the combustion products
through it.

On a stove surfac burner, it's a lot simpler, but the same basic principles
apply. The longer the burning gas is in contact with the pan, the more
efficient it will be in transfering heat to the pan. Burners that direct the
flame more toward the center and up will be more efficient than burners that
direct the flame further from the center and out. An interesting example of
a cooking utensil designed explicity to pull more heat out of the burning
gas is the Simplex Quick Boil Kettle. It has a special heat exchanger on the
bottom of the kettle consisting of a perforated rim containing a spiral
wound copper wire. I have one of these and I tested it against a standard
sauce pan with cover for boiling water. It is definitely faster (so better
at extracting the heat of the gas flame). Here's a picture on one where you
can see the coil on the bottom:

http://tinyurl.com/dayfu

Aside from efficiency, there are a lot of other attributes of burners that
might be important, such as simple esthetics, evenness of heat, stability of
the flame, ease of ignition, ease of cleaning, etc. It's up to the
individual as to which attributes are most important to him.

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

wff_ng_7 said:

And this is where you are absolutely, positively wrong in your
understanding. You are making an invalid assumption that because BTUs are a
measure of heating a known quantity of water a known number of degrees, that
the BTU rating of a stove burner is directly related to how well it boils
water. The connection is only indirect; therefore the variance in
performance among burners of the same BTU rating.

I have a degree in mechanical engineering, and my emphasis was in areas
related to heat transfer, so I do have some idea what I am talking about.

<and it went on like this, with an in-depth examination of btu input and
output ratings, until finally...>

Quoted message said:

Aside from efficiency, there are a lot of other attributes of burners that
might be important, such as simple esthetics, evenness of heat, stability of
the flame, ease of ignition, ease of cleaning, etc. It's up to the
individual as to which attributes are most important to him.

So that makes Vic wrong on three counts, then--

1) His reliance on BTU ratings alone as surefire indications of speed
and efficiency for boiling water

2) Going back to the original post: turning the flame up as high as God
and BTU rating allows, even though it's licking up the sides of the pan,
will make water boil faster

3) His assessment of Sheldon's response to his original post as meaning
he doesn't "own good pots"

pennyaline said:

3) His assessment of Sheldon's response to his original post as meaning he
doesn't "own good pots"

What are you, a Sheldon apologist? ;-)

Like many of Sheldon's posts, the ones he put in this thread carry a very
bitter message that has little to do with the question at hand. The clear
implication of Sheldon's first post was that the original poster was a
moron.

I don't know what his problem is... does he get up out of the wrong side of
bed every day? Did his Mama drop him when he was a baby? Hasn't he got laid
in the last decade? Nothing however justifies his behavior in this
newsgroup.

wff_ng_7 said:

pennyaline said:

3) His assessment of Sheldon's response to his original post as meaning he
doesn't "own good pots"

What are you, a Sheldon apologist? ;-)

As if he needed such support.

Quoted message said:

Like many of Sheldon's posts, the ones he put in this thread carry a very
bitter message that has little to do with the question at hand. The clear
implication of Sheldon's first post was that the original poster was a
moron.

I don't know what his problem is... does he get up out of the wrong side of
bed every day? Did his Mama drop him when he was a baby? Hasn't he got laid
in the last decade? Nothing however justifies his behavior in this
newsgroup.

How does your campaign against Sheldon justify Vic's essential errors?
You've provided a lot of information in an anti-Sheldon assault, but
downplayed that it disproved Vic's assertions. It really doesn't matter
that you are a rocket scientist and a brain surgeon if you use your
education and experience to blow smoke.

There's a lot of unjustifiable behavior in this newsgroup. So what are
you going to do about it? Obviously, railing against it accomplishes
nothing. Find something else to do, something you *can* do. Let the
things you can't do go.

Quoted message said:

So that makes Vic wrong on three counts, then--

1) His reliance on BTU ratings alone as surefire indications of speed
and efficiency for boiling water

OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I DO NOT F'ING BELEIVE
THIS?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
******************************************WHEN******************************
********************* I ask again
************************************WHEN************************************
** did I say that BTUs are the surefire thing to measure boiling water...I
said I would beleive it is thecomplete oposite....that other factors such as
burner design etc may play a roll.

May I quote myself from a previous post?

"I am no expert, but what wff_ng_7 wrote I agree with and Sheldon actually
may be wrong. Any moron would agree a BTU is a BTU...but how a burner is
designed (size, shape) etc has a LOT to do with how efficiently it would
heat....."

Quoted message said:

2) Going back to the original post: turning the flame up as high as God
and BTU rating allows, even though it's licking up the sides of the pan,
will make water boil faster

Let me clarify one thing. I tried different pots and tried to do different
things with them (Not just boil water). As I mentioned when sautéing onions
for instance (On about med heat), the pan get much hotter around the outer
bottom of the pan, not as ideal as the middle, no?!?

WOW!!!!!!!!!! I have to promise myself that this will be the last time I
respond to idiots that can not read....actually, I have nothing against a
person for being illiterate, but when they are arrogant, ignorant AND
stupid, then I have a problem.

Quoted message said:

3) His assessment of Sheldon's response to his original post as meaning
he doesn't "own good pots"

What on earth are you saying?!?!? I gave almost zero data relating to what
pots I used. I did not specify size, brand, material composition, nothing
at all, and he jumped to the conclusion I bought a $5000 stove and don't
have a pot to [censored] in. First I have to say, I am not a monetarily wealthy
person, I am simply middle working class, but I spend a LOT of money on my
house, I love my house. My pots are on display in my house, I am certainly
not going to display crappy pots.

Thank god for people like wff_ng_7. Obviously a very intelligent individual
that does not have resort to trying to put people down in order to satisfy
their inferiority complex. At least he can read and comprehend English. I
was starting to wonder if I was speaking a different language.

Anyway, this topic has gone way off course. I must thank all of those who
made that happen.

Vic said:

Quoted message said:

So that makes Vic wrong on three counts, then--

1) His reliance on BTU ratings alone as surefire indications of speed
and efficiency for boiling water

OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I DO NOT F'ING

what does f'ing mean?

Quoted message said:

BELEIVE
THIS?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Is that a question?

Quoted message said:

******************************************WHEN******************************
********************* I ask again
************************************WHEN************************************
** did I say that BTUs are the surefire thing to measure boiling water...I
said I would beleive it is thecomplete oposite....that other factors such as
burner design etc may play a roll.

No, rolls are usually cooked in the oven. You know, the box that gets
hot underneath the cooktop.

Quoted message said:

May I quote myself from a previous post?

No. you can, though.

Quoted message said:

"I am no expert, but what wff_ng_7 wrote I agree with and Sheldon actually
may be wrong. Any moron would agree a BTU is a BTU...but how a burner is
designed (size, shape) etc has a LOT to do with how efficiently it would
heat....."

Quoted message said:

2) Going back to the original post: turning the flame up as high as God
and BTU rating allows, even though it's licking up the sides of the pan,
will make water boil faster

Let me clarify one thing. I tried different pots and tried to do different
things with them (Not just boil water). As I mentioned when sautéing onions
for instance (On about med heat), the pan get much hotter around the outer
bottom of the pan, not as ideal as the middle, no?!?

Because you don't know how to use your stove.

Quoted message said:

WOW!!!!!!!!!! I have to promise myself that this will be the last time I
respond to idiots that can not read....actually, I have nothing against a
person for being illiterate, but when they are arrogant, ignorant AND
stupid, then I have a problem.

You should get some help for that self-hatred thing you have going.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

3) His assessment of Sheldon's response to his original post as meaning
he doesn't "own good pots"

What on earth are you saying?!?!? I gave almost zero data relating to what
pots I used. I did not specify size, brand, material composition, nothing
at all, and he jumped to the conclusion I bought a $5000 stove and don't
have a pot to [censored] in. First I have to say, I am not a monetarily wealthy
person, I am simply middle working class, but I spend a LOT of money on my
house, I love my house. My pots are on display in my house, I am certainly
not going to display crappy pots.

If you can afford a stove that cost 5G, you are certainly more
monetarily wealthy than most. If you would learn how to use your
equpiment properly, it would probably be easier to keep your pots in
"display" condition; then again, not using them at all is usually the
route chosen for people who buy kitchen equipment based on looks.

<snip>

!!!!???@#$%?#$^@#&#$&^%*%$?*@$?^~??~~?~~~~~??????!!!!!!!!
!

Ok, I feel better now 🙂
--

saerah

"Peace is not an absence of war, it is a virtue, a state of mind, a
disposition for benevolence, confidence, justice."
-Baruch Spinoza

"There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly
what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear
and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There
is another theory which states that this has already happened."
-Douglas Adams

pennyaline said:

Quoted message said:

What are you, a Sheldon apologist? ;-)

....

Quoted message said:

How does your campaign against Sheldon justify Vic's essential errors?

Yes, a confirmed Sheldon apologist, along with a Sarah Bennett.

My campaign against Sheldon? I was correcting a technical error that Sheldon
repeatedly used to try to ridicule Vic. As I pointed out before, Sheldon's
very first post in this thread was intended to insult Vic.

The big difference is Vic and I were trying to use this newsgroup to
exchange information about cooking. If Vic made any "essential errors", he
was trying to bridge the gaps in his knowledge regarding cooking. Sheldon on
the other hand only came into the discussion to throw an insult. There is a
big difference between the two.

I would point out that both you and Sarah Bennett have also contributed zero
information on the original topic and just used the newsgroup to continue
Sheldon's string of insults.

wff_ng_7 said:

pennyaline said:

Quoted message said:

What are you, a Sheldon apologist? ;-)

...

Quoted message said:

How does your campaign against Sheldon justify Vic's essential errors?

Yes, a confirmed Sheldon apologist, along with a Sarah Bennett.

My campaign against Sheldon? I was correcting a technical error that Sheldon
repeatedly used to try to ridicule Vic. As I pointed out before, Sheldon's
very first post in this thread was intended to insult Vic.

The big difference is Vic and I were trying to use this newsgroup to
exchange information about cooking. If Vic made any "essential errors", he
was trying to bridge the gaps in his knowledge regarding cooking. Sheldon on
the other hand only came into the discussion to throw an insult. There is a
big difference between the two.

I would point out that both you and Sarah Bennett have also contributed zero
information on the original topic and just used the newsgroup to continue
Sheldon's string of insults.

I have no love for Sheldon. I also have little patience for morons.

--

saerah

"Peace is not an absence of war, it is a virtue, a state of mind, a
disposition for benevolence, confidence, justice."
-Baruch Spinoza

"There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly
what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear
and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There
is another theory which states that this has already happened."
-Douglas Adams

wff_ng_7 said:

pennyaline said:

Quoted message said:

What are you, a Sheldon apologist? ;-)

...

Quoted message said:

How does your campaign against Sheldon justify Vic's essential errors?

Yes, a confirmed Sheldon apologist, along with a Sarah Bennett.

My campaign against Sheldon? I was correcting a technical error that Sheldon
repeatedly used to try to ridicule Vic. As I pointed out before, Sheldon's
very first post in this thread was intended to insult Vic.

I made no technical error, but you did, lots. Are you trying to
convice folks that when the stove manufacturers give BTU values for
their burner's they are lying/stupid? DUH.

Of course gas companys bill by therms, they don't care how folks use
the fuel they supply... in fact they have no way of knowing for what
purpose the consumer expends the fuel's energy (or even if they expend
it at all, for all the gas company cares you can shove that gas pipe
down your throat, you will still pay by the therm, latent energy). Gas
companys don't have a clue about whether BTU potential is going into
heating food or the air in the room or just poured unburned into the
atmosphere, nor do they care. DUH

If one wastes, or doesn't maximize the burner BTUs, all that means is
they don't know how to cook... does not in any way whatsoever alter the
burner's BTU rating.

I use propane, I get billed by the gallon.... does anyone think the
propane people care whether I use those gallons wastefully or
economically... of course not, so long as they get paid.

<wff_ng_7>, you are truly a pinhead.

Sheldon

"Vic" eructated:

Quoted message said:

Pennyaline said:

So that makes Vic wrong on three counts, then--

Quoted message said:

1) His reliance on BTU ratings alone as surefire indications of speed
and efficiency for boiling water

OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I DO NOT F'ING BELEIVE
THIS?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

******************************************WHEN******************************

Quoted message said:

********************* I ask again

************************************WHEN************************************

Quoted message said:

** did I say that BTUs are the surefire thing to measure boiling

water...I

Quoted message said:

said I would beleive it is thecomplete oposite....that other factors

such as

Quoted message said:

burner design etc may play a roll.

May I quote myself from a previous post?

"I am no expert, but what wff_ng_7 wrote I agree with and Sheldon

actually

Quoted message said:

may be wrong. Any moron would agree a BTU is a BTU...but how a burner is
designed (size, shape) etc has a LOT to do with how efficiently it would
heat....."

You are correct on this point, but not for the reason you think. I
attributed the Btu reliance-thingy to you when I should have credited
wff_ng_7.

Now allow me to provide the remainder the same quote:

Quoted message said:

I am no expert, but what wff_ng_7 wrote I agree with and Sheldon actually
may be wrong. Any moron would agree a BTU is a BTU...but how a burner is
designed (size, shape) etc has a LOT to do with how efficiently it would
heat. If you had a burner the size of a car tire, it is gonna throw out some
BTU's, but if you place a saucer in the middle of this burner it ant gonna
heat the sauser too effectivly.

Here is where you do an abrupt reversal of your hypothesis that cranking
the burner all the way up to get the "chimney effect" will result in
boiling water faster and more efficiently than turning the burner down
to fit the size of the vessel. You're not nearly as good at obfuscation
as wff_ng_7 is, and you certainly lack style.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

2) Going back to the original post: turning the flame up as high as God
and BTU rating allows, even though it's licking up the sides of the pan,
will make water boil faster

Let me clarify one thing. I tried different pots and tried to do

different

Quoted message said:

things with them (Not just boil water). As I mentioned when sautéing

onions

Quoted message said:

for instance (On about med heat), the pan get much hotter around the

outer

Quoted message said:

bottom of the pan, not as ideal as the middle, no?!?

WOW!!!!!!!!!! I have to promise myself that this will be the last time I
respond to idiots that can not read....actually, I have nothing against a
person for being illiterate, but when they are arrogant, ignorant AND
stupid, then I have a problem.

And here is a quote from your original post, where you give your essay
on fast and efficient boiling:

Quoted message said:

Anyhow, now after buying the Viking, I am enjoying it soooo much that I look
forward to coming home from work to make dinner. I wont even let the wife
cook if she wanted too!! However, I am a bit disappointed with the
"chimney effect"(flame wrapping around the pot) of the burners. I know you
can turn down the burner, but to boil a pot of water, I would prefer that to
happen as quick and efficiently as possible. Also, I find when sautéing for
instance, the outside portion of the pan gets much hotter than the center.

Rather than lower the flame to fit the vessel, you're intent on blaming
the stove or the configuration of the burners. You can say whatever
suits you now, but you can't unring the bell. I don't believe for a
minute that you turned the flame to medium heat to saute onions, as you
had already happily flouted your ignorance about how to use the burners
in your very first post.

But I'm just an idiot that can't read.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

3) His assessment of Sheldon's response to his original post as meaning
he doesn't "own good pots"

What on earth are you saying?!?!? I gave almost zero data relating

to what

Quoted message said:

pots I used. I did not specify size, brand, material composition,

nothing

Quoted message said:

at all, and he jumped to the conclusion I bought a $5000 stove and don't
have a pot to [censored] in. First I have to say, I am not a monetarily

wealthy

Quoted message said:

person, I am simply middle working class, but I spend a LOT of money

on my

Quoted message said:

house, I love my house. My pots are on display in my house, I am

certainly

Quoted message said:

not going to display crappy pots.

Could you possibly take yourself more seriously?!

Quoted message said:

Thank god for people like wff_ng_7. Obviously a very intelligent

individual

Quoted message said:

that does not have resort to trying to put people down in order to

satisfy

Quoted message said:

their inferiority complex.

Uh... um... Come again? Subject/object error: whose inferiority complex?

Quoted message said:

At least he can read and comprehend English. I
was starting to wonder if I was speaking a different language.

Anyway, this topic has gone way off course. I must thank all of

those who

Quoted message said:

made that happen.

The topic is right on course, captain. You've been schooled on how to
use your pricey new toy efficiently and effectively. You've also been
shown that you cannot legislate the behavior of others in a newsgroup.
You resent both, but that's *your* problem.

You're welcome.