I'm interested in the same question as I am attracted to the Capital Precision rangetop which has a wok burner that is about 21000 BTU, sealed burner. It seems that having at least one wok burner -- often centered among 4 other lower burners -- is an idea that has grafted with many of the brands.

I also looked at the capital- they have 19,000 burners - sealed- and the option for a wok burner- but again- what is the difference- I read the Rosengarten Report when it originally came out- and he saw a distinct difference in the different ranges- but capital and fivestar offer much higher btu's now- i wish someone would replicate his tests with todays ranges

It is as much about the burner design as the BTU. The Bluestar burners, and most commercial burners, are a star design. This layout spreads the flame pattern across a much greater surface area. If you look at the bubble pattern in a pot of boiling water on a ring burner you will see a ring of bubbles. With a star burner the entire bottom of the pan is bubbling. The even heat distribution of a star burner is also a big plus when you are using a high output burner to simmer.

The overriding factor in the discussion (and somewhat misleading BTU ratings) of closed and open burners is the fact that to create heat (BTUs) you need fuel and oxygen, in the proper ratios. Air flow to an open burner is far superior to a closed burner. On a closed burner air has to flow down from the cooktop and in from the sides, turning over 90 degrees to get to the burner. An open burner is a natural chimney with air rising from below virtually unimpeded. For that reason you will never find a closed burner on a 36K BTU commercial unit. A given burner, under ideal conditions may be rated at 21K BTU, but when that burner is confined in a closed burner range it probably won't be capable of much more than 15K BTU in the real world, because it is starving for air and consequently the air/fuel mixture will have to be adjusted by the manufacturer to compensate. It's a dirty little secrect marketing types of "Pro" ranges won't tell you. BTW for those who want to argue this -- its straight High school physics and chemistry. You may not actually need the extra prerformance anyway, but the open burner will outperform for sure. IMHO the closed burner is much easier to keep clean too --another little myth the marketing guys have created ... boo hoo and I have a closed burner range too!

that was great BBQbear- i really appreciate your response!

my BTUs are bigger than your BTUs :-)

bbqbear, Ok, you're on. I want to question this - I think - partly because your thesis forks and I'm not sure how to follow it.

Here's what I know, any single btu is a measure not of airflow or fuel flow or fuel rate or anything: it is a measure of how much energy is output when said gas burns and is measured by the time required to raise the temperature of a calibrated volume of pure water (known specific heat capacities and all that) by 1 degree Kelvin. Ergo, 21K btu is 21K btus - it doesn't matter what the stove and if the oxygen or methane or propane etc. turned corners or walked straight lines (of course, unless entropy=0, that ain't happening either!) to get to the flame. If it puts out 21K btu, it puts out 21K btus. I don't see how 21K btu can be 15K btu unless it is simply not combusting the hydrocarbons output by the burner valve.

So, that said, are you saying that our 21Kbtu burners in question are calibrated in some sort of stripped down configurations "elsewhere" and then assembled in either the sealed or unsealed configurations leading to the possibility that perhaps that 21KBTU burner may now be in a better (open) or worse (sealed) configuration leading to inequities in its actual installed performance? And that hence our 21KBTU burner is more 15KBTU-like?
OR are you saying that the burner is calibrated in its proper housing (i.e. after assembly) and that the manufacturer has to tweak flow rates, diameter sizing etc. in order to get the 21K btu that they claim? This latter would suggest that while the open may be more efficient, that 21KBTU is still 21KBTU! It just may take more fuel to get there. No?

Thanks in advance for any clarification.

this is getting interesting now

"21KBTU is still 21KBTU! It just may take more fuel"

Ahaa! now there's the rub... adding more fuel without suffcient air for proper combustion will only make a rich mixture and uncomplete combustion (that ugly yellow flame -which coincedentally burns at a lower temerature). No amount of additional fuel will make more heat from that burner. You (the user) get to regulate the amount of fuel into the equation with the valves, but you have no control over the incoming volume of air. That is fixed by the "landscape" (aerodynamics) of the burner and its rangetop. Remember that hot air rises... an open burner acts as a chimney accerating the flow. Sealed burners require the air to radically change direction in a manner that mother nature doesn't agree with. Put your hand next to (1" away) the side of a boiling pot on a lit sealed burner and tell me which way you think the air is flowing up the side of the pot or down to the burner? Maybe you better use an insense stick and watch the smoke. And yes I am suggesting that there are theoretical ratings that often differ from real world performance. I seriously doubt the claims of sealed burners with more than 15K BTU output. I worked in marketing in a couple other industries (not appliances) and quite a few claims being made by manufactureres were exaggerated or questionable. Some of the other claims I question are statements like "150 degree simmer burner." What can that possibly mean? Sorry but the LP or the NG flame in any burner with a proper air mixture burns at a fixed thempurature. The rate of heat tranfer which is affected by the size of the flame (ie the burner (flame) size covers more pot area)to the food product in the pot, is the difference -- that opens several other cans of worms, such as copper, SS, cast iron pans?? Plus what is the absorption rate of the food product itself? That's why some of the star burners mentioned work. Complicated subject huh? I am hungry ready to cook now.

My money says that the BTU ratings have everything to do with the potential energy of the of volume of fuel used and nothing to do with the amount of heat actually generated.

I am sure bbq is right that burner design has a lot to do with efficiency. But the suggestion that sealed burners are starved for oxygen sounds somewhat dramatic. Properly adjusted flames are blue on any burner. It would seem that if there was a lack of oxygen then the mfr would simply set the grates and burner a bit higher off the cooktop surface.

Can anyone here provide results of a controlled test with two burners identical except for that one sits over an open base and the other over a sealed base? If not I myself will have a hard time giving merit to any arguments. On the other hand if you want to go in circles for a while and never agree in the end then please do not let me get in the way. It happens all the time around here.

I will leave the super techy arguments to those whom they interest more. They are important factors indeed though. The question asked was of a more practical nature but the sealed vs open argument has raged on since I have frequented this forum. I have always heard consistently that open is more efficient than sealed which suits me just fine since sealed burners scare me to death from a cleaning and maintainence view point. However, this is the first I have heard that it takes a 21K rated sealed burner to replicate a 15K open burner.

From a practical standpoint, we have the Bluestar with the combination of 15K,22K, simmer and a grill. Since ours is a 60 inch unit, we have an abundance of burner space.

The day to day work horse burners are the 15K. They are clearly the most versatile. The highs are plenty hot and the simmer is quite gentle for most applications. When you really want the HP, the 22K burners are amazing from the hottest of blackening dishes to cranking up those large stock pots and especially when recovery times are critical. For example, our last range had 16.5K open burners and was great but could not sear and blacken even close to the 22K monsters of the BS. As for the simmer capability of the 22k burner, it will simmer my 20 quart stock pot OK but not anything much smaller but I don't need the 22K burners for simmering. Having the dedicated simmer is great too; it will reach well below the simmer capability of the 15K units anD is nice to have when needed.

Now to the grill. It is fun to have, We limit it to chicken, dogs/sausages, and veggies. We rarely do steaks and never fish on it but we could; we just normally insist on full charcoal for true grilling. It does a great job for what we use it for and the reversible Lodge griddle plate imwishing references is available anywhere and fits nicely over 2 burners or, in our case, over the grill converting it to a griddle/grill plate. Finally, the grill also works amazingly as a simmer and/or warming spot when necessary, or in the alternative when not in use, as a landing spot for pots and pans.

As to burner design, I must agree and insist that the star design of the BS is the most efficient delivery by far compared to the last range we had which was the (roughly 3 1/2 inch) circle design.

bbq, I'm in violent agreement with your objection to the nonsensical "150deg simmer flame" but don't comprehend your answer on the subject I asked which was just to clarify yourself.

That hot air rises has nothing to do with whether the combustible gas can, in fact, produce a combustible mixture - aka mix with oxygen - about the burner apparatus.
The thermodynamics about this isn't actually that complicated as the underlying physics is pretty well understood and is frankly, pretty straightforward! The marketing? now that's a different question. Anyhow, For our discussion, the there are just three possibilities for our "21K btu sealed burner":

(1) the vendor is lying through their teeth and that burner cannot/doesn't produce 21K it maxes out at 15K (or whatever).
(2) that burner can produce 21K but if and only if situated in some other assembly (read: an open assebly) that will allow a "different" exposure to oxygen
(3) the burner can and does produce 21K BTU in our sealed burner stove - but it is less efficient in the process than the unsealed burner because it takes more gas, larger diameter burner, larger inflow, its own oxygen tank, whatever ...

I have a sealed burner wolf cooktop and all its burners give a nice blue to clear flame on anything from high to low to simmer settings - it is actually the clear part of the flame surrounding the blue that is the hottest if you recall your middle school chemistry :-).

That said, I think ya_think is probably correct - that the btu ratings stipulated for a product pertain to the fuel flowrate that the valve admits and its heat capacity and that these things are probably never ever actually evaluated in any real test or validation experiment. In other words, a mix of (1) and (2). I'll further support ya_think in his postulation that the sealed burners are oxygen starved is a bit of hyperventilation (sic!) as Ive never seen a properly installed high btu stove with a yellow or unstable flame.

At any rate, carry on ... I was just butted in to request help on clarification about how exactly these things are labelled.

To add more fuel and maybe some air to this post here goes: Do you know... The truth behind sealed burners?

Fire needs air. This simple concept is well known, but somewhat ignored when purchasing a high-power stove.

Companies have been working on bigger and higher BTU sealed burners for years. Here is the reality. Sealed burners are great for cleaning. If you have a major boil over. (Think for a moment how often that really happens) You can clean up the mess by lifting off the grate and burner cap (which still needs to be cleaned) and just wipe around the burner on the top surface to clean up the mess. With an open system, you have to lift off the grate and the burner (sometimes a drip bowl) and pull out the drip pan below.

Sealed burners have a bit less cleaning, but there is a compromise. Remember that BTU's are an input rating. Then even fairly high BTU's like 12,000 in a sealed system may not burn as hot. The reason is supply air. The burner ports need supply air to burn. In a sealed system, they are right on top and very close to the bottom of your cooking pan, sitting on the grate. The flame may seem a bit lazy (or cooler) compared to a burner sitting lower with plenty of supply air around it. Usually the open system burners burn more aggressively (or hotter) than sealed systems.

Some of the companies I am selling offer sealed burner units. I will try to make an honest assessment of their individual systems and notate them on the product information pages. However, generally I do not like sealed burners from a cooking point of view and for me cooking is why I buy an expensive stove, not cleaning.

This is from the owner of Select Appliances.

Here is a link that might be useful: Burners

Wow- i think i am more confused now- and should have paid more attention in science class- I appreciate everyone responses! thank you

great topic!

i'm a professional chef and would *never* buy sealed burners for the reasons cited above, mostly by bbqbear (great posts!).

plus, as someone mentioned, the idea that sealed burners clean up easier is completely false. with open burners, there is simply NOTHING TO CLEAN. once every week or two, you change the foil on your drip tray. you wipe down your grates after you're done cooking. that's it.

do people think that restaurants don't like equipment that's easy to clean? why wouldn't restaurants use sealed burners if they were so superior?

the area under the burners is either something that is so hot any gook will burn off of it, or it's air. neither needs cleaning.

i think one of the major appeals of sealed burners is the clean LOOK they provide. (distinct from "easy to clean".) most mainstream consumers don't like to see the 'guts' of their appliances/electronics. they like a nice clean span of black panel covering them. sealed burners provide a single smooth unbroken span of surface with burners sticking out. to many people, that translates to 'nice'.

i just want to cut and paste this section because it makes so damn much sense that i found myself cheering as i read it:

The overriding factor in the discussion (and somewhat misleading BTU ratings) of closed and open burners is the fact that to create heat (BTUs) you need fuel and oxygen, in the proper ratios. Air flow to an open burner is far superior to a closed burner. On a closed burner air has to flow down from the cooktop and in from the sides, turning over 90 degrees to get to the burner. An open burner is a natural chimney with air rising from below virtually unimpeded. For that reason you will never find a closed burner on a 36K BTU commercial unit. A given burner, under ideal conditions may be rated at 21K BTU, but when that burner is confined in a closed burner range it probably won't be capable of much more than 15K BTU in the real world, because it is starving for air and consequently the air/fuel mixture will have to be adjusted by the manufacturer to compensate. It's a dirty little secrect marketing types of "Pro" ranges won't tell you. BTW for those who want to argue this -- its straight High school physics and chemistry. You may not actually need the extra prerformance anyway, but the open burner will outperform for sure. IMHO the closed burner is much easier to keep clean too --another little myth the marketing guys have created

nailed it! other than the fact that i think you meant that the *open* burner is much easier to keep clean in your last sentence.

i believe the explanation of the BTU ratings (which, yes, supposedly do measure heat output) is that they're not really measured the way they're supposed to be. i think that when these companies publish their BTU ratings, they're just calculating gas flow and the numbers are theoretical.

i've cooked on both and open burners are simply WAY more powerful. it's not even close.

the fact that people on this site are discussing this issue with this degree of detail and intensity speaks highly of this place. about seven years ago, when i was doing my first kitchen, i searched everywhere for this discussion and could not find anyone talking about sealed vs. open. in fact, many high-end ranges still don't even make mention of it in their specs, which is mind-blowing to me, given that i think it's the single most important feature.

(oh, and don't allow a free lodge griddle/grill to influence your decision about which range to buy. it's like a $40 purchase. that's like buying a car because they threw in a tire gauge. get whatever range is best and then buy one.)

Thank you for your posts- i am 98% ready to buy the bluestar but just wanted "someone" to assure me that the fivestar was not the right choice- the lodge issue was more remove-ability of the unit- It is so hard to make a decision- esp on this scale- when the salespeople-all with their own agendas- tell you all different things- plus - you cant try them all out- the only live gas range i have seen is a wolf-but i have nothing to compare it against- it is far superior to my 1950's crown- or is it....

I am buying a Bluestar (or just about to) not looking to change my mind, it's made up. But I'm curious about something, why are Wolf's open burners only 16K BTU? I was looking at them before I discovered Blue Star, and now don't understand why their (Wolf) output is so low?

"with open burners, there is simply NOTHING TO CLEAN. once every week or two, you change the foil on your drip tray. you wipe down your grates after you're done cooking. that's it."

Wow - In the many debates in cleaning open versus sealed I have NEVER seen anyone claim you do not need to clean open burners more that once every couple of weeks. Maybe in a restaurant where things don't need to sparkle - but I think you are bringing the professional kitchen home to a fault.

Very little talk here about simmer which is one of the things imwishing asked about. As noted, the fivestar has ALL burners being 21K and ALL burners being simmer burners. For some in a residential setting, that capability might be more relevant than a little extra on the high end.

I would not dispute that open burners benefit the flame by providing better air flow. My only point was to reiterate what blindstar started to say above: that there are many factors that relate to the how well a burner performs. So unless you are comparing burners that are identical other than being sealed and non-sealed, you are simply comparing apples to oranges no matter how you slice it.

I also do not doubt that a star configuration can distribute heat more evenly. But if in practice it really makes so much of a difference then why, out of all the residential brands out there, are Thermador and Bluestar the only ones (that I know of offhand) that offer it? Surely a star cannot be THAT hard to design.

I do not know the right answer for imwishing. But I am quite confident that the open burner versus sealed burners should not be the only major consideration.

>>why are Wolf's open burners only 16K BTU?

Until a few years ago, 16K burners were considered very powerful! Then Bluestar came out with 18K burners and then 22K burners. Suddenly 16K burners are considered weak. Yes, you can benefit from a 22K burner in some applications, but for most things 16K is more than adequate. My maximum burner is 17.5K and I do use it at maximum for wokking and boiling water, but I hardly consider it weak.

Wow - In the many debates in cleaning open versus sealed I have NEVER seen anyone claim you do not need to clean open burners more that once every couple of weeks.

have you ever owned a range with open burners?

it's not that i let my rangetop get cruddy--i don't. it's that it doesn't need much cleaning. i wipe down the burner grates after i cook and i change the foil. maybe once every six months or so, i take everything off and do a bit of deep cleaning, but usually what i find is that there's not much there to clean.

Maybe in a restaurant where things don't need to sparkle - but I think you are bringing the professional kitchen home to a fault.

actually, restaurant equipment tends to be far better cleaned/maintained then home kitchen equipment. it's also designed to be very easy to clean. so, no, i don't think that's it.

but, honestly, "sparkle" is not what i'm looking for from my range. for me, it's not a showpiece, it's a tool. so maybe we are bringing different standards to the equation.

I would like to make several points:
1. The Bluestar burners, and most commercial burners, are a star design. This is not true. Primarily only Garland professional ranges have star burners, although one brand (name escapes me at present) has a similiar 'flower'-shaped burner. The star burner is their 'signature' feature-in fact I believe they had a patent on it at one time. Most professional ranges use circular burners or something similar. One brand even has square burners!

2. that to create heat (BTUs) you need fuel and oxygen, in the proper ratios. True, but it misses the main point: The ratio of gas to air is created INSIDE the venturi tube in the range. Fuel is injected into the venturi, which because of it's shape (a venturi) creates a low pressure area, which draws in air. The air shutter on the venturi allows the ratio to be optimized for the conditions where the range is used. Minimal air from the outside of the venturi is used.

Want evidence? How about the Space shuttle main engines. They burn in space, where there is NO outside air to use. Another example-how about underwater welding torches? Again, NO outside air, all the air is supplied from the inside.

Thought experiment: Create a large vacuum chamber. Place a burner in it, but with the venturi outside the chamber, in room air. Turn on the gas and light the burner. Now, turn on the vacuum pumps. Would the burner still burn? Yes. Why-the air is supplied by the room air outside the chamber.

What all this really means is that the open versus closed burner debate, from the point of view of creating heat, is a waste of time.

HOWEVER, (isn't there always a however in there somewhere!) an open burner probably delivers that heat to the cooking vessel better than a closed burner. Because the burner is open, the heat produced can rise naturally and smoothly straight up. With a closed burner, air has to come in from the side, mixing with and disrupting the normal, smooth flow of heat upwards. See next paragraph for more information.

As to the comment that Surely a star cannot be THAT hard to design. Vulcan (the #1 maker of pro ranges in the US) claims their circular 'aeration' burner is designed " to direct it toward the pot or pan". In other words, not all makers of ranges want to use star-shaped burners-other designs have advantages too. In essence, they say that their circular burner design, with about 1/2 the holes on the inside of the burners, directs or channels the heat towards the pan better than other burner shapes.

So to get back to the original question, yes, 22K is hotter than 21K, but only slightly. Because it is in an open burner design, the 22 K BTU burner's effective heat output is bigger than the 1 K difference in BTUs. By how much would require a bunch of experiments to determine.

Here is a link that might be useful: Venturi or Inspirator

cpovey's post makes absolute sense to me. Given that I know what my burners are like, I know that the combustible mixture is created before the ignition and not at the ignition. Such is the case with most burners including the second most simple - the bunsen burner (wood burning or charcoal burning "OPEN" fires being the simplest ;-) ).

I'll grant that there may be other efficiencies of open vs sealed burners, I have to say that I don't quite see what those would be. Not sure that there is as much turbulence in play as is made out to be - surely this would be noticeable in a very unsteady flame, wouldn't it?

Also, regarding the previous point about hypothetical numbers based on fuel flow rates, I had started to post on that last night but then got distracted. Anyhow, I'd wanted to say that I'm no longer on board with the idea that 21K sealed burners perhaps deliver the same amount of fuel as does a 21K open but that insufficient combustion results in a reduced thermal output (I think cpovey's response is more correct than this anyhow, but lets carry this liturgical vituperation a tiny bit further, why don't we? ;-) ). Fact is that if we agree that insufficient combustion shows in the flame - yellow flame, unsteady flame whatever, and that I've never seen in mine nor heard anyone say that their high BTU sealed burner stove has such a yellow or red flame or an unsteady one (I know mine doesn't), it stands to reason that all or at least most of the gas delivered is at least combusting and burning pretty darned well (blue, strong flame). So, if the 21K btu sealed stove is so rated because of its gas supply rate, wll, then I can't see any evidence that it isn't burning all that fuel and pretty completely at that and that therefore, whatever the means of getting an air mixture to the fuel, that it isn't pretty darned adequate.

I'm happy to concede to experienced chefs' experiences that sealed burners are the b@stard child of evil marketing geniuses and thus a poor step-cousin to open burners, but I'll take either willful obfuscation on the part of Wolf's or DCS's etc. sealed burner departments who secretly sold us 12.5K btu flowrates and thus burner outputs under the label of 15K, 16K and 17.5K btu burners or something along such lines, but I can't quite bite off: oxygen wandering, incomplete combustion etc. as the reason for a sealed stove's inequities.

The website for fivestar shows video of them with a 100 bill on a burner on simmer, the plate with chocolate test, boiling water in 13 minutes i think, they also show Rick Bayless cooking all kinds of things on it- making a Bearnaise sauce -Apparently he used this range in his home and on his show for many years without being a spokes person- (which he is now) -

The car analogy is interesting- i think somewhat accurate- that these range, rangetops are like different model cars- the only difference being- you cant actually test them- with a car you generally can only go the speed limit or slighly above- so if a car goes 120 is wont really help you- but if with a stove- is the 22k only going to be useful only for blackening or fast boil saving me 4 minutes- can i blacken better on my ceramic grill -or will I use it every day- is the 22K cruise control-something i rarely use- or auto doors- how could i now live without- --thats where it gets tricky --
the Rosengarten tests were great- but are they still accurate- how does the capital or bluestar or ge monogram's ranges sealed burner compare his dcs was 17,500, bluestar was 18, viking and jade were 15,000-

WHEW!!! Thanks edlakin, I am feeling a bit more normal now (with respect to frequency/effort cleaning).

I like our unit to look clean and presentable but have found the Bluestar to be the most effortless to clean. Due in large part ot the BS design, very little collects on the grates or inserts at all. What little debris/material fallout there is goes through to the drip trays. They are stainless so I don't even line them with foil. I just take the trays out 3-4 times a year (TOPS) spray them down with cleaner, hose them off and replace them. The grates and inserts go in the DW every month or 2 if necessary.

For the record, I also do not line the sides of our grill with foil either. I clean debris and build up off periodically and that is it. After a good seasoning, the grills are black and so is everything under them so you just don't see it or notice it. In my mind, the insides of the grill do not need to shine after the new is off. Yes we do have the SS grill cover that has been in a cabinet since the first time the grill was used and the cover has not been used since.

Finally, I know, this has nothing to do range cleaning but we have found that the vent hood baffles need to go into the DW once a month with a good cleaning of the grease traps/slots at the same time. (FWIW).

At any rate, this has been a first class debate of the issues!

Update- finally heard back from Fivestar - The 140 degree- simmer on all burner- is drumroll please..1200 BTU- is the low for each burner- so Bluestar wins in the simmer department- as they report the 22Btu- low is 1200 btu and the 15 btus come in at 1000 - and then they have the simmer burner- Anyone know what the wolf simmer rating is??

So now - there is no Bluestar downside in the simmer dept. - we clearly have debunked the easy/hard to clean dilemma - so all that is left is - the above emtnioned btu- but based upon the Bluestar having the better more efficient use- I think i am getting out the checkbook-

I cant thank you all enough for your help Would love to have you over for a BBQ in Jersey!

edlakin - Have I owned an open burner range? No. Have I ever lived in a house with one and cook on it? Yes, for a couple years. A Garland. Did I ever clean it? Many times, unfortunately. (Did I love it anyway? Yes.)

cpovey - You are a party pooper. Air is mixed in before the gas mixes the burner? Yeah, but, but, but....

mindstorm - Sending common folks like me to dictionary.com and forcing us to re-read sentences in order to decipher the intended message may be great consultant speak but is terrible forum speak. Writing/presenting 101: Know your target audience. I would hate to miss any worthwhile points you might make. I take no shame in saying that.

imwishing - good points about the Rosengarten article. Again, are we comparing apples to apples? One of my friends has a slightly older DCS that is open burner. Another friend has a newer one with sealed. What did Rosengarten test on in 2003? Are his comments on Bluestar's simmer still valid now that the simmer configuration has changed? Viking makes both open and sealed. Again, what did he test on? He recommends open burners but at quick glance (please correct if I am wrong) I do not see that he gave many specifics other than BTU about any range other than Bluestar.

He listed the btus of the ranges - max btus- i listed them above - http://www.prizer-painter.com/reviews_departures2.html#top
this is the link to the article in amex- although i read mine in His Report-
Someone just posted on the Gardenweb made me do it post- they went to someone house woks something on the bluestar- then went to another home with the wolf and did the same meal- they are stating that the bluestar was far better at woking- give it a read-

But yes- he does list in sidebars the range and number of burner but not the simmer rating or if it was open or sealed- but it does say the year

It would be great to do a gardenweb version of the Rosengarten tests- adn compare all the 2007 models-

imwishing, the Wolf has 300BTU simmer burners. Very nice indeed. I understand that the Bluestar is a similarly low simmer of about 350 or 400BTU or suchlike. A nice low simmer. IMO, and in my culinary domain, 1200BTU is not an acceptable simmer - it is much too high. But that is just my opinion.

ya_think, this is a free site; you are not forced to read anything; no homework is assigned and no grades are issued on your comprehension of various posts.
Target audience at GW? The audience here comprises everything from stay-at-home busy moms (and dads) to hard-core practising chefs to high-fallutin' engineers to literary giants and to people with more fashion sense than culinary needs. Ergo, when I post here, I write for me. You are welcome to sidestep my posts if they prove too much for you - it won't cause me any undue distress. On the other hand, if you'd like me to write for you ... well, I take a consultants fee for that, thank you. :-)

imwishing - Yes I know he listed max BTUs. What I am saying is that is about ALL that he lists. I think we are in agreement. Unfortunately even if someone tried to set up objective tests, anyone whose favorite range rates poorly would find fault. Think of how Consumer Reports is regarded here. And even the Appliance Advisor tests. Imagine how Rosengarten's article would be ripped apart here if he were glorifying say a Viking.

mindstorm - LOL all in good fun. Maybe my comments did not come across like that.

yathink- its all cool- i am sorry if you thought i was drafting aggressively- I appreciate your comments- and it was those that lead me to get some follow up simmer info from the manufacturers-

mindstorm- I agree about the simmer- my current crown range has an open burner- although a 1950 one- and the ring aluminum burner and then a triangle burner on top of that- so when it is on low- it is very low- i forget i have it on sometimes-
that is also been one of the hard things - as i have no idea what (btu wise) i have been cooking on and myu open burners are a disaster to clean- you have to take apart the whole top of the stove- but the actual aluminum burner looks like it could have been bought a year ago-

Forget mathematics, lets talk facts. The 10,000 btu open burner on the Bluestar will out perform a 15,000 btu sealed burner, the 15,000 btu open burner will out perform the 21,000 btu sealed and the 22,000 btu open from Bluestar is on a planet of it's own. You must see them in action, not a calculator

that's been my experience as well, although i do admit it's totally anecdotal--i didn't run any sort of controlled experiment or anything.

the arguments above *do* make a lot of sense when i'm reading them, and i'm not well-versed enough in the math/science end of it to rebut them. but then i get out a cast-iron skillet and crank the heat and all i know is what i see happening in the pan.

guadalupe - By "out perform" I assume you mean more heat getting to the pan? If so then can we can follow your "facts" and say that the 1000 BTU simmer of Bluestar's 15K burner is comparable to 1500 BTUs on a sealed burner? And that therefore Bluestar only has one burner that can possibly simmer a residential sized pot of rice? And that that simmer burner would have to get down below 200 BTUs to match mindstorm's 300 BTU simmer on the Wolf?

Or is there some magical inverse relationship on the low end?

Sorry to perpetuate the ridiculousness. There really are a couple intelligent points on this thread.

Well, here's my very minor contribution to the cleaning issue:

I've cooked on an O'Keefe & Merritt 1950's open burner, in my last apartment (and loved it, BTW, would happily own it again). Since then I've had two sealed burner stoves - Kenmore/Frigidaire and Kenmore/Whirlpool, both glass tops with two PowerPlus burners of around 14.5K.

The WP has really outstanding simmer, so low food will cool off if the pan is too large! In fact I never use the 'LO' any longer, keep it on the #1 or #2.

But -- a large 'but' - the cleanability of the WP sucks. When mfgs were forced to remove/reduce the lead in glass, this meant that our pre-1989 gas range cleaned up like a dream. But our replacement 2002 gas range is a nightmare. EVERYTHING burns onto this range; all four burners (even the smallest 9K burner) have baked-on brownish-black crud all around them that will simply not come off, even with oven cleaner.

My DH got so frustrated one day he attacked it with a knife(!) so I banished him from cleaning the stove at all, LOL.

Now, I cook no differently now than I did in 1990. Like to cook and do it a lot, just about every day. I can turn out everything from 10-course Chinese banquets to sushi for 200, no problem.

But I personally will never buy another sealed burner stove for my home. I've cooked on a friend's old Garland and as with the O'Keefe & Merritt, vastly prefer using and cleaning an open burner range. Those star burners are just a better design - an improved mousetrap, if you will - than a circular one, even a stacked circular burner.

I'll take more expert opinion that they deliver more heat efficiently. The Garland is just a lot more fun to cook on, and faster than my beloved OKM.