h a l f b a k e r yKeep out of reach of children.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
I like to cook, but I'm not a big fan of the
stovetop. If all the burners are burning,
and you need something from the back,
sometimes you burn your hand. plus, it's
harder to get things in and out of the
pots
on the backburners.
This could be solved if the stovetop was
made with two
levels. The back level
would be maybe 15cm above the front,
increasing accessibility. It would kinda
screw up the dimensions of the oven.
frodocopier
http://www.halfbake...lr/idea/Frodocopier
I'm all for accessibility [neilp, Oct 04 2004, last modified Oct 05 2004]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Destination URL.
E.g., https://www.coffee.com/
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)
|
| |
stadium seating for pans, this is a great idea. |
|
| |
Er, schematics, you're not supposed to reach things on the the back burners by putting you hand over the front ones... |
|
| |
[schematics] Love this idea and would like to have such a cooktop - for me it would be functional and would look kind of industro-cool - but it could be done for induction and electric stovetops and cooktops as well. Bun++ |
|
| |
The trouble with such a design would be in convincing regulators (and your insurers) that the arrangement was safe (in so far as the possibility of the upper pots slipping off the shelf) - never underestimate the capacity of the stupid and careless to harm themselves. |
|
| |
Like this. I'd also like cookers to be available in differnt heights. |
|
| |
A brilliantly simple and simply brilliant idea. + |
|
| |
Maybe a small ledge could be put on it,
to avoid slipping. |
|
| |
Seems potentially dangerous. Two levels introduces an increased potential for tipping and fires. |
|
| |
If you ever had to remove something from a back burner very quickly (fire, overboiling, whatever), you couldn't just pull it off without it falling. If something on a front burner caught fire, it could more easily ignite something on a raised back burner. |
|
| |
Ah. So you're really suffering from poor kitchen design, not poor stove design. |
|
| |
While at first glance, this seems like a great idea but, upon reading [waugs] reasoning, I agree that quickly yanking a burning pot from a rear burner could be disasterous. (er, disastrous) |
|
| |
I like the mentality of examining and questioning the design of everything. But, I have to agree, with waugsqueke and bristolz (sp: disastrous)(sorry bristolz, it looked like a rare opportunity so I had to take it). |
|
| |
Also, it's quite common to transfer items between front and rear burners, this design would make that much less convenient. |
|
| |
Also, if a large pot is on the front burner, it may need to overlap in to the back burner space a bit to be centered over the heat source and/or not hang over the edge. Couldn't happen with this design. |
|
| |
Also, if a large pot, heavy, due to containing a large amount of water, etc. is on the back burner, you wouldn't be able to slide it to the front easily and would therefore be required to lift the weight with your arms extended. Bad back waiting to happen. |
|
| |
guys, remember, this is for when all the
burners are going. If you need to set
something aside, take it off the stove. |
|
| |