Mojavean,

I may try something like that with one of my burners. I thought someone said the proper orifice would be 0.055 with only the inner ring open to make an 8K low simmer burner.

Billy

>If the CC cannot properly simmer meat sauce for three hours, unattended except for occasional checking and stirring, then I will exclude it from consideration. I am not going to change my mother's recipe, heat up my kitchen with a hot oven or keep lugging a heavy pot out of it simply because an expensive stove can't perform the way I need it to.

If I had a cc I would do what mojo said. Easy.

>each required was an occasional stir, maybe a couple of times an hour.

Not everyones idea of a true simmer

> I was home cooking for the family so I was around the stove

And if were not? The oven right? Fair enough.

No, I needed the oven and rotisserie to make the Porchetta.

"take that darned burner cap down to a welding shop and have them braze 2 beads around the underside of those two outer rings of gas ports, sealing them permanently. Next, I'd find a smaller orifice (or plug and redrill the existing one to a smaller orifice size) voila, bonafide simmer burner."

It's a good plan (one I might have to implement myself if Capital doesn't provide a solution in the next 3 months and we don't go for the BS instead). HOWEVER, THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT DANGER INVOLVED. If the orifice is too large for the burner cap, surplus and potentially explosive air/gas mixture will spill out around the burner cap. There is a risk this could pool in the base of the range top and then explode.

If you do go down this path, start with an orifice that is too small, and enlarge it in tiny increments (invest in a set of "number drills"). Always err on the too small side - you may lose the last few percent of output on full, but it is guaranteed to be safe.

The other question to consider is whether a valve designed for 1,000 - 23,000 BTU/Hr will work nicely with an orifice that is much smaller. You might find that all the adjustment is in the first 1/3 of the valve's travel, which would be tiresome.

All that said, easier options for blocking holes include plugging them with JB Weld epoxy (rated to 500F, which should be plenty), or plugging them with brads (somewhere around 16g would probably do the job).

billy g, I saw a posting by Trevor on that and he stated that he thought it was a #55 orifice. That is actually a drill size in this case close .052" but as #s get larger holes get smaller a # 60 for instance is .040" and a #50 is .070"
mojavean, I have thought about purchasing an extra burner cap and doing just that, although cast iron is tricky to weld. Still I would like to play around with the air shutter and simmer screw a little more first. I have it to the point where it is at least ok with a simmer plate now.

Geez you guys are scaring me. We are talking about combustible gas here -- and potentially a lot of it if you screw up. No pun intended.

Hopefully you-all know what you're about. But personally, I'd check in with an engineer first, and even though I don't know you personally, I know enough of you to really, really hope that you take care should you set down this path of personal gerry-rigging. Please don't blow yourself up. More to the point, please don't blow up collateral innocents in the next room or house over...

I know it's a free country, but still...

>If you do go down this path, start with an orifice that is too small, and enlarge it in tiny increments (invest in a set of "number drills"). Always err on the too small side - you may lose the last few percent of output on full, but it is guaranteed to be safe

Solid advise.

>although cast iron is tricky to weld.

I think iactually go the jb weld route.

Yikes....I am with Aliris...I would be scared of blowing the place up.

I think I would wait for the 2012 CC Simmer Tour Bus to make it to my town and let Joey and the cross country tech handle the adjustment.

But that's just me - a scared girl around flammable things. I won't even relight the pilot light on my gas fireplace. I called for service.

Please be careful!

A lot trickier than just buying a different range.

Billy, you are certainly going to be close with that hole size. My 8K burner orifice is, for some inconvenient reason, not stamped with the gauge size.

The smallest drillbit I have around here is 1/16" (.0625) and it is too big to insert into the orifice for the 8K. I would estimate it at around .050 to .055.

The orifice really comes into play only when the gas valve is fully open. You want the orifice to be small enough to prevent "jetting" at the burner ports which could result in improper mixture and extinguishment of the fire. You would certainly want whatever orifice you chose to allow a blue flame and a good, reliable, ignition every time.

If you decide to do the fix, you might give Trevor or one of the techs at Capital a call to see what size orifices they have used and would recommend. But if they can't talk about it due to lawyer-induced laryngitis then I would start with a 55 gauge, (.052). You can always drill it out if you need a bigger fire. (Assuming you have a bunch of tiny drillbits sitting around.)

We are big boys and girls around here. I make bullets and shoot them all of the time, and that includes working up loads of my own design that I then purposely explode in any of several large guns that I own. It is a blast, literally. I make modifications to high powered motorcycles and then ride them all over the country. Dodge (Gary) takes his life in his hands every time he hops in one of those old beasts he drives around in.

A stove is a simple device; an enterprising person can make the simple modifications we are talking about here with little to no risk assuming they understand the interconnecting variables at play. If you are blocking gas ports at the burner, you need to neck down the gas orifice so that you don't end up with too high a volume of gas trying to escape through fewer holes. You do this by changing the orifice and then adjusting the mixture shutters and, finally, the low burner setting on the valve.

Remember, the valve is still there. If something doesn't look right, shut the burner off and fix it.

And if you are not comfortable turning a wrench on your stove, don't! No big deal! But there are some of us on here with both the resourcefulness and technical chops to pull this job off in our sleep.

BTW, Billy, that reminds me, the orifice sizes discussed assume Natural Gas, not LP.

I would think twice about JB Weld, though. It is an epoxy, a resin. It is flammable. It is subject to chemical decomp in a fire. You are putting it just below an active fire, one you purposely intend to be able to walk away from for hours at a time. Yeah, it might work, but why have to worry about it? Metal filling won't burn. Potter's clay won't burn either, if you are looking for something less difficult to use.

Heck, if welding or brazing is too tough, go find some nails with a taper that will wedge tightly in the gas ports, drive them in securely and cut them off with a grinder or Dremel.

Yeah, I would really think twice about JB weld, but that's just me. YMMV. Best of luck!

Mojavean: I take your advise in this field. Just say NO to jb weld. :)

FWIW, the chili in the picture I posted above (this is a meat chili, no beans: chuck, bacon, onions, garlic and multiple types of freshly ground toasted dried chilis (this one was mulato, new mexico, and ancho) never burned or scorched over two and a half hours (or even threatened to do so). It was stirred a couple times, but otherwise unattended. Prior to the long cook, the meat was seared in batches in bacon oil in the pot, and the onions deglazed the result of that searing. Pot is a well-seasoned cast iron. It was cooked covered (lid fully in place) since it did not need to be reduced (I prefer to thicken this chili with pre-hydrated harina at the end for the last 15 minutes/half hour), so the listed temp is higher than it would be for open pot simmering and reducing. So meat stews of this consistency will likely be fine for long cooking in the appropriate pot.

The last bit of cooking was done uncovered, too bad I didn't take a temp.

You guys are right -- he said a #55, not a .055. Thanks for the reminder.

There are some cements made for high temperature, like for muffler repair. I suspect they may not be epoxies. If that doesn't work I spill roux on them like already did once. That clogs up the ports f'sure!

Billy

I don't know if someone addressed this before, but has anyone who has a satisfactory simmer checked to make sure their max BTU is unaffected? Still boiling a gallon of water in 6-7 minutes? (I think those are the figures I've seen on a website that I can't seem to find now comparing various ranges including induction and measuring boil times.)

David

David, according the the engineer at Capital, it is not affected. Personally, I have also not noticed any difference. But I haven't tested it, so I have no empirical evidence.

Hi jscout

i'm sorry if this is the wrong forum to ask on but I would really like your porchetta recipe on the rotisserie. Do you use fennel powder and did it require self clean afterwards?

Please, if there is a recipe forum or a better forum for this question, let me know.

tyguy and marcolo, I am one of those old Italian cooks (I don't know how amazing but I seem to please). When I had my conversation with Joey, one of the things we talked about was the long, slow, simmer. He told me out right that the capital simmer was not really set up for simmering past 30-40 minutes and they will have to address what they might be able to suggest for those of us who require simmering for much longer. This is when we started discussing a simmer plate.

That is extremely important to know, mangiamo, That would make a CC a no-go for me.

BTW porchetta means all kinds of things, different things here than in Italy. You should try our family recipe--dead simple. Get a picnic shoulder and slice through the skin and fat in a harlequin pattern. Rub with S&P, rosemary and fennel powder (I grind my own; I never see it in the store) as well as oil and chopped garlic. Use a sharp knife to make little holes, and lard the meat with the garlic and rub. Pour a bit of white wine and water in the pan (helps with the smoking, makes good juice); pop it into a hot oven and immediately turn it down to whatever low temp you're comfortable with and have time for--no more than around 300. Just leave it in for many hours. You don't want it quite as tender as pulled pork--you should be able to cut it with a sharp knife but still keep it in chunks. This is the only preparation in which pork still tastes like pork to me. Aroma is to die for.

For the Italian recipes I am totally unable to name times, quantities etc. It's the way I learned them.

Sorry for the digression. Back to our programming.

Hi marcolo, that is my recipe almost exactly ( I also use sage). Please reconsider the CC. I have not had my simmer adjusted properly yet. Joey said it was a function how much solid stuff (meat, beans, etc) is in the simmer mixture. When this solid matter achieved a certain internal temperature then the more rapid bubbling would ensue. But this may not mean a vigorous bubbling that wouldn't allow for a properly formed sauce. Let us get our simmers adjusted, do some long slow simmers, and report back. I am happy to prepare any thing that you generally cook, providing you share your recipe with me. I am very happy with the range and would hate to think that our collective simmer issues have caused you to totally rule out the culinarian. I do a lot of pan searing with a finish in the oven and the culinarian has performed beautifully.

Sorry, mangiamo, I don't have a recipe, per se. I cook off the top of my head. But I did not have fennel pollen, so I cheated and used some ground fennel. If you do a search for "jscout zartimis" you should be able to see the CC accessories or something like that thread where I wrote out all the steps I used. There's even a picture of the finished product.

Appreciated, mangiamo. I delayed a kitchen reno two years, and now may be targeting next year for actual work assuming the Mayans were wrong. But I just restarted the planning and budgeting phase so I am a little more focused on cooking tools than I was. So there's still plenty of time for CC to win me back.

I have to say, I do know that no one machine is ever going to be a good fit for me. It's always a compromise. I would prefer a vintage enamel stove with open burners (or maybe induction) that simmers like a dream but boils water fast. Not made. So you have to weigh the pros and cons of everything.

>tyguy and marcolo, I am one of those old Italian cooks (I don't know how amazing but I seem to please).

Don't know what it is about you ol italian birds, but I think you are born to please the taste buds! :)

>When I had my conversation with Joey, one of the things we talked about was the long, slow, simmer. He told me out right that the capital simmer was not really set up for simmering past 30-40 minutes

Whew!!! A voice of reason!!! And coming from (head?) Engineer to boot.
> and they will have to address what they might be able to suggest for those of us who require simmering for much longer. This is when we started discussing a simmer plate.

I'm 100% positive they will come up with a solution. A specially designed simmer plate maybe?

Really?? 30-40 minutes?? Didn't they ask any cooks? Or their own mamas? I'm not Italian, but learned to make the meat sauce (what, in the East, they call "gravy") from one...it doesn't even start getting good until it's been simmering 3-4 hours! Matzah balls take at least four hours to get fluffy (I don't believe in the super ball kind). Stock takes 4-5 hours to cook down completely. And that's just the basics!

Disclaimer - I am not an engineer but have been working on, repairing and modifying all things mechanical for a lot of years. I am also a certified welder so working with flammable gasses is second nature to me. My calculations are for academic discussions only � the numbers presented have not been tested or confirmed.

This post will attempt to put some logic to some of the numbers which have been battered about concerning the CC burner and it�s simmer capabilities � or lack thereof. My contention, as well as that of others, has been that Capital needs to design a much smaller "Simmer Burner" or a modification to the existing burner needs to be done to get a low simmer. I have advocated and Trevor has stated that one of the options would be to block the ports in the outer and middle rings. In fact I believe Trevor has stated that one of the Capital engineers came to Eurostoves, blocked the outer and middle rings, changed the orifice to a # 55, adjusted the air shutter and they achieved about an 8K burner. Let�s look at these numbers. For the purpose of this exercise I am assuming all of the ports are essentially equal in diameter and output.

The stock CC burner has 93 ports. 36 in the outer ring, 36 in the middle ring and 21 in the inner ring (I am counting the port nearest the igniter in these figures), uses a #45 orifice (Which measures .0820" in diameter) and puts out 23,000 Btu.

If we were to block the outer and middle rings with only the inner ring open to gas flow we would have .2258064% of the original gas port area. In a linear equation this would mean the inner ring would only have an output of 5,193 Btu (Might be good for simmering). If we take the area of the original #45 orifice (.0820" diameter) and reduce it to .2258064% (The same reduction as the number of ports) and then we calculate the diameter of the orifice necessary to achieve this reduced area I came up with .03896" which is between a # 61 (.0390") and a #62 (.0380"). Therefore if my calculations are not too far off if you block off the outer and middle rings I think you will need to use either a #61 or #62 orifice.

Since Trevor indicated he and the Capital engineer blocked the outer and middle rings and achieved an 8K burner I did some more calculations. It appears that it would take about 32 ports to achieve this 8K rating. But interesting enough my calculations indicates an 8K burner would need an orifice with a diameter of .4835" which is very close to a # 55 which is what Trevor used.

If any of you BS folks actually read this � What is the size of the orifice in you BS 8K burner?

Bottom line for me - IF I were to modify one of my burners by blocking the outer and middle rings I would start with a # 61 orifice and go from there.

>Really?? 30-40 minutes?? Didn't they ask any cooks?

I'm certain he meant 30-40 minutes unattended, which is fine for some, not for others.

mojavean, I agree, I wouldn't use JB weld either. I am a gear head like you, and have successfully welded the spyder shafts ia place in a differential, so I am not really worried if I can do it. Getting the tig torch inside would probbably be the issue, but I could blast off the coating from the outside. As this isn't for strength I would probbly use silicon bronze rod as it sticks to just about anything.
aliris 19, something clicked when you mentioned the flames dancing above the ports, so I readjusted the air shutters to get the flame better seated, then re adjusted the simmer. I then brought the 2qt Emeril sauce pan 3/4 full of water up to a boil, then reduced the flame to a simmer and after an hour it was down to 131 deg. Now I have to try it with a sauce without the simmer plate, and then with it. If I really can't maintain a low enough simmer even with the simmer plate for 4-5 hours, then I think I will weld up one of the burners.

Hey Daddy -- good work. I didn't watch as they adjusted the air mixture but wish I had. I imagine that's a matter of loosening screws and rotating the metal plate that sits over the venturi until the jets erupt at the right place and intensity and shape. I'd been thinking, I guess sort of in squealy-girl mode, that I'd leave that to the professionals. Or maybe it's in overpaying-consumer mode. Whatever.

My question: do you also now feel a difference in responsiveness and hear a difference too? It wasn't so dramatic at the time of the fix but when I went to use the range, it is clearly present, this change, somewhere in ones unconscious. I'm wondering if you notice that too?

I am leery of using a thermometer, to tell you the truth - leery about succumbing to the false sense of objectivity the presence of numbers gives. Since at the end of the day the bottom line is how the machine performs practically, in terms of the recipes we want to cook, the numbers will lead to a false sense of security in awareness of the issues and problems. We've seen this already as the engineers define the parameters of testing and overlook -- as plllog so nicely puts it -- their mamas.

Yet of course numbers are relatively comparable, sort of, if they are. Problem is, I don't know the error term on these thermometers, and they're all different and user-differences are likely to be huge as well too. That is, where the probe is inserted relative to the pan, type of pan, size, shape, intensity of flame, etc. Then there's a "boil" - as in when is it? So... I've been reluctant to wade into the false-security-numbers-game.

That said, I am also, it is true, beginning to get a better feel for what these number might mean anyway. Caddi's figure in concert with an explanation of how it got lower like that, has a little meaning in that it sounds like with proper air-mixture tuning and *then* simmer-screw adjustment, the ranges may perform rather similarly. If that's true, then, at last, we could start to pull into the realm where it makes sense to discuss whether the configuration is inherently incapable of providing what a cook might want, that long, slow blending of flavors given by an all-day simmer.

Eurostoves has a video of the air shutter adjustment on its website or on YouTube.

http://capital-culinarian.com/Eurostoves_Capital_Culinarian/Video_1.html

Billy

Here is a link that might be useful: Culinarian Air Shutter Adjustment

billy g, watching the video there is too much air going to the burner, notice how the flames lift off the ports. You need to adjust the air shutter to keep the flame tips as sharp as possible while not lifting off the ports, mine were too open. If you close the air shutters too far the inner cones will become fuzzy and yello flame tips will apppear. The correct adjustment is somewhere between.
aliris 19, on the thermometer it is digital with a probe that can be clipped to the edge of the pot without touching the side or bottom. At full boil it read 210 deg. The boiling point of water drops 1 deg.C for every 1000 feet above sea level. I am at 900 ft above sea level so water should boil at 99.1 deg.C or 210.38 deg.F so I think that is pretty accurate, but we'll see what happens when I try a sauce or chile or something next time. As far as responsiveness, what I did notice was that the flame was less likely to go out when rapidly adjusting it. The sauce pan I used is 8.5" in diameter with a thick copper and stainless bottom.

Ooooh -- sorry; ditz-mode -- I absolutely didn't understand that this is what was meant by "air shutter". I was picturing some sort of two-way shuttering valve, not this venturi. Which makes no sense of course.

And .... now I really have to apologize. Because if I hadn't been so defeatest about thinking that just because Capital had been out here it meant the machine must have been adjusted correctly -- if I had watched some of Trevor's videos I would have understood otherwise. What he shows and explains in the video referenced above is exactly what was wrong with my stove. It wasn't as bad as the worst case scenario he depicts, but the first one, where it looks good, kinda, if you don't know better -- that was mine.

Course, it is true that Capital's guys left it that way ...

Actually, looking carefully at Trevor's example of a perfect flame seems a little off to me. I see some of that "lifting" of the flame up off the burner on some of the jets. Whatever -- could be that with time the burners get gunky and you can't sustain a perfect jet on every single one of them, or maybe the gas mixture isn't even, maybe the gas comes from the "company" - or wherever it comes from - with impurities.

This is so much more than I ever wanted to think about...

OTOH, it's my 4K, so it's probably worth it to invest a couple grey cells to better understand how and what makes it work well and how to keep it that way.

I'm not one to watch videos, but it seems Trevor's helpful videos are worth watching, others who may not yet have bit the bullet to do so.

I guess ... I don't really know how to find these videos. If there is already, I don't see where this is a folder's worth of technical videos. You should be able to click on a Capital section which has a box for "technical videos" or some-such and then you click and see an array of the available videos that will help you tune and understand the thing. It's probably all there, I just don't see it. Others are forever giving links; I can't find the videos to browse them. Pointers appreciated....

I'm going to re-adjust my range this weekend too. It think it would be worthwhile for us CC owners to at least be on the same or similar page so we can all compare notes.

jscout, I'm thinking about re-adjusting mine too. I also may experiment with a burner modification.

Caddi-daddy-o, I think you're right about the adjustment in the video. Should the air shutter adjustment be made with the gas cranked all the way up?

Billy

I may use muffler and tailpipe putty to fill the holes -- good up to 2000 degrees (hotter than the Bluestar gets and almost as hot as the CC). Oops, there goes a flame war.

Billy

Here is a link that might be useful: High Temerature Putty

billy g,
Caddi-daddy-o, I think you're right about the adjustment in the video. Should the air shutter adjustment be made with the gas cranked all the way up? --yup
2000 deg. ay...better not use any aluminum cookware there.

"Should the air shutter adjustment be made with the gas cranked all the way up?"

Start at full gas, then check at low gas. As others have said, the goal is for the flames to appear to be attached to the ports, but without yellow tips. If you needed to adjust at low gas, check again at full gas. Check the effects of different-sized pans. Adjust the simmer setting and check again. Rinse and repeat to find the happy medium. Check again when the weather is different, because air pressure and density varies from one day to another.

If you can't get it "just so" at both ends of the scale, your jet is the wrong size (not likely at 900', but very likely at much higher elevations).

If this all sounds like a lot of work, you have understood why BS went with different-sized burners. IOW, it's the price you pay for wanting a single simple burner to be "all things to all men".

The ideal solution is a stacked burner with two-stage valves. But that would be a difficult and expensive thing to provide, especially x6

Just watched that video. You can see the burner orifices themselves and they look easy to get to and swap. And though I can't be certain, I think I recognize them:

If I am correct, the orifices are the Garland small hood style affairs, just like the Bluestar, only easier to get to and replace.

Here is a link to a #55 replacement orifice.

You can get other sizes by doing a search on Google for "Garland M8-XX" where the XX is the orifice drill size you are looking for.

Well, if anybody wants to do a temporary test to see how a modified burner arrangement would work, get some pottery clay. (this will be a temporary fix for testing purposes) Use the clay to block the outer two rings of the burner cap, install the smaller orifice and see if it will work through the full range of valve adjustment. If you see jetting on high, or flame extinguishment on high, then the orifice you selected is too big.

Re: the suitability (or otherwise) of JB Weld for this purpose, to those of you who have a CC and an infrared thermometer, please try running a burner on full for 15 minutes under a large pan, then turn the burner off and immediately check its temperature with the IR gun. My guess is 350F, tops, but that number really is plucked out of my nether regions.

As much as others here doubt the suitability of JB Weld, I really don't like the idea of any sealing technique that requires making the burner cap red hot - I think the finish will be marred and the cap may even warp. If the cap temperature is too near to JB Weld's 500F limit, I'd be looking for a mechanical plug solution (small brads tapped into the holes).

"My guess is 350F, tops, but that number really is plucked out of my nether regions."

Reading that back, I decided to be the first person to mention Mexican food... :)

Surely I am not the only person to remember way back 2 or so years ago reading with anticipation about the coming Culinarian and one feature under discussion then was a single ring simmer, a double ring mid-power,and of course the triple ring high power burners if I remember correctly. Since some are now talking of sealing up a ring of ports by way of muffler cement or nails or welding, Capital needs to consider offering a lower output optional burner to those who prepare foods requiring a lower heat simmer since these ranges are intended not just for those who only boil pasta water and heat tinned soup. I am not trying to add to the mine is better than yours saga,I LIKE the Culinarian, but come on, muffler cement?

Can you say .... warranty violation?

Can you say ... Magnuson-Moss Act. That act says a manufacturer can only refuse warranty service on the grounds of unauthorized modification if the modification is the cause of the failure. IOW, modifying a burner in the way discussed here doe not void the warranty on the rest of the range.

Wow; amazing what a little true knowledge gets you. I had zero idea of this -- so interesting!

Plug away boys. ;) And let us see the pictures please!

As a well-gone-over aside, I am compelled, yet again, to remark on how totally neat it is to have on a single forum together such a diversity of knowledge and experience and "comfort levels". Thanks for putting up with those of us waiting for the -- what did Michelle say? "the 2012 CC Simmer Tour Bus ...", guys. We may be appalled by all the testosterishness, but speaking for myself, it's appalled in a fascinated, beneficial way. Sort of floats the boats of all knowing what a non-intimidated, knowledgeable person can get away with. Makes me very comfortable, truthfully, about tackling the air flow in the future. Seems a whole lot more tame than, say, welding the burners shut! Everything's relative ;)

Iceman, I did some counting on my Bluestar and it has 35 gas ports around the inner hub of the 8K burner (There are no gas ports out on the arms of the "star")

This would align rather nicely with the number of ports in the center ring rather than the inner ring. (if one were seeking to mimic the output of the Bluestar "simmer" burner)

Regarding your calcs for the #61 orifice, I used your method and came up with the same ratio. The only thing would be how the density, or rather, viscosity, of NG behaves across the universe of possible orifice sizes. Anyway, if you were going to use the inner ring, it might be better to start smaller than larger, unless we can get someone who has done it (meaning you, Trevor) to weigh in with experimental evidence.

But it occurs to me that it might be better to see if it were possible to plug only the outer ring, then plug a staggered pattern of holes in the inner and middle rings of ports to allow something close to the total of 35 open ports.

You ask if I could measure the orifice on my range (the Bluestar). I would like to, but I do not have a drill bit small enough to clear the hole in the jet. My smallest drill bit is 1/16" and it won't clear the jet. Also, the drill size is not stamped on it either, but just an eyeball wag tells me that it is probably around a 55 gauge. It certainly is not very far off from that. If I were going to go with a 35 gas port array, then I would go with the 55#.

I did not realize, until you posted the counts, that we were talking about far fewer ports in the inner ring. Thanks for posting.

Peter, I don't have my infrared with me right now as I am down in the city for the next few days. But if nobody responds I'll check it out when I get home (as well as I can -- I don't have the fancy Fluke scanner, my infrared reader is a little thing that came with my Thermapen thermometer -- not sure how accurate it is)

Aliris, LOL!! I'm enjoying the discussion from afar too. ;) Maybe, though, now they'll know why some people just prefer Wolf. My teeny tiny, modestly powered Wolf closed burner cooktop boils fast enough for me, and simmers like the dickens, with no fuss or bother at all. :)

Yeah, I'm beginning to get the impression this is not the Macintosh of kitchen ranges. Not sure whether BS is either, but perhaps Wolf is -- as in "it just works".

Though ... that aside, it is hard to tell what is teething pains, what is sensitivity to initial conditions, and what is likely to be ongoing temperamentalness. Before getting too sniffy about it, I think it fair to remind myself that I did walk into the purchase of a new product on the market wide-eyed. I didn't *want* to take on such problems, but their having surfaced doesn't make it the product's or purchase's fault. No fair knowing the risks of the gamble, losing, and blaming the gamble.

Not that I've lost - I'm happy with the range overall, increasingly more so every day, for sure. The gamble was that there would be no issues out-of-the-box, like your Wolf. On that, well, there's been more drama than is ideal. :)

Mojavean: Interesting thought to block the outer and inner rings or some combination to achieve the diameter of fire you deserve as well as the desired Btu output. After a little more mental gymnastics and research here is what I have discovered.

I contacted our natural gas supplier and was told our NG has an energy content of 1050 Btu per cubic foot (at sea level) and it is delivered to into the home (after the meter/regulator) at an average pressure of 7" WC. I then discovered a reference chart which identifies the Btu available by fuel type (NG or LP), pressure and orifice size. The values for NG at 7" WC are very close to the figures I have been using. This chart can be found at http://www.andersonforrester.com/orifice_capacities/default.html.

If you take the 93 ports in a CC burner and divide this into the claimed 23,000 Btu you get 247.31 Btu available at each port. This would give the inner ring (21 ports) a capacity of 5193 Btu and would require a #61 office. If you used the middle ring only (36 ports) this would give you a rating of 8903 Btu and would require a # 55 orifice. If you knew how many BTUs and diameter of fire you wanted I think it would be possible to get about any combination you could desire IF you were willing to modify the burner.

Another interesting thing I discovered from the chart is a #45 orifice has a capacity of 24,144 Btu. The CC burner is rated at 23,000 Btu and it uses a #45 orifice. All things considered I think the 23,000 Btu claim by Capital for the CC burner is pretty darn close.

To avoid increasing the diameter of the flame by using some of the middle ring ports, it might be possible to enlarge the inner ring ports a little. But I suspect that using a few of the middle ring ports to get up to 8K would not be an issue.

Of course, since the primary goal here is to get a low simmer, the best approach would be to progressively block middle ring ports until the simmer is low enough, and let the maximum be defined by that.

I noticed the cook of the family had a pot of fava beans sitting on simmer for the last hour or so, so it was a good chance to get an updated temp of a Culinarian simmer (this is a burner that I did a minor adjustment on to improve the simmer). The chili photo above was from a closed-pot cooking session and not really all that helpful. This one had been sitting open and had been going at least an hour before I grabbed a temp reading:

It's not a thick sauce (and I also don't know if such a sauce properly simmers at a higher or lower temp than a pot of dried beans in water), but the simmer temp here is a serviceable (tho not ultra low) 176F.

Capital did arrange for someone to come adjust our simmer and they should be out in the next week or so. [I was late in responding to their request for info, so the delay in having this adjustment made is all due to me].

We still don't have all our equipment in (we are redoing some cabinetry so have continued to leave items in storage). I still consider the real test to be whether it can control a modern pressure cooker appropriately.

My appt is set for this Wed to change the ignitors. I'll report back shortly after.