Maybe its just electrolux but I would never purchase an induction cooktop again. Who ever heard of a maximum pan size? Add that to not being able to cook on high on the two largest burners (8.5" oh boy) at the same time and you are very limited. I learned the hard way when using my large (10") dutch oven for stew and then boiled noodles. POP went the cooktop. The first thing the repairman said is "were you using a big pan?" I cook a lot. I have a 13" saute, the usual collection of LeCruset, Clam steamer and stock pots. Not to mention how are you expected to take your roast pan and deglaze it? Just cooking for a family of four is a real challenge on this. I was going to just eat the $1700 and get a gas cooktop but the minimum cutout for this unit in the granite is just a hair larger than the maximum allowed for a gas range. I'm stuck with this. I was able to crank out more food with my $275 four burner electric coil. Too many shills posting rave reviews without telling people what the limitations are. The 30" cooktop with 8" elements is only great when its dinner for 2. Just get gas and you don't have to deal with this nonsense.

Induction newbies with no idea of how many times this topic has been discussed here over the years, along with the source studies, might see Gary's response as an unnecessarily rude and cavalier dismissal. Don't take it that way. Follow the link to the page on the induction site. Gary knows whereof he speaks. Frankly, I'm pretty sure that anybody with health concerns can find an equal amount of interesting, well-founded information as well as alarmist and wackadoodle internet material about the health hazards of cooking with gas. There are plenty of reasons for some people to avoid gas appliances and one of them is a discomfort with the risks of the fuel. As has been noted here several times, the famous James Beard hated having gas gas appliances in his home and had a very strong personal preference for electrical ones. Apparently, with his very sensitive nose, he hated the smell and didn't like the open flames in his own kitchen. There is a distinct element of personal preference in all this, and that has to be accepted. But for the OP, the existence of internet fears and paranoia, and ignorance of how induction works, could be considered a downside to getting induction. The problem is with a potential buyer maybe having heard from "somebody" or read "somewhere" that "doctors in Europe" warn against pregnant women using induction. If it on the interenet, then it must be true, and then, OMG, induction is like cooking with an uncontained microwave radiation! And, you know, I've read on the internet from reputable sites who "really ought to know," that you can electrocute yourself by using metal spoons to stir a pot on an induction burner! (That whopper, IIRC, was from a site called Living Large.) You get the idea. Without investment of time, it gets very hard to sort out the science from the fears, the fears from paranoia, and the paranoia from utter wackadoodle. On the internet, everything is plausible, and everything is true. You can conclude, as some do, that if any scientist anywhere ever raises a question for research, then the worst case scenario has to be assumed to be true and we should ban every suspect device until we can be convinced that it is 100% safe. In some ways, this is like the fear that aluminum pans caused Alzheimer's or that low-frequency ELF from high-voltage power transmission lines caused leukemic cancers in children. The reality is that there are a ton of variables that affect cancer rates and some scientists apparently hoped that they could prove a link to living near the high-tension power lines and thereby protect health. The problem with the early research on this was that it simply associated home location to power lines as though no other variables need to be explored. As some subsequent studies showed, people living in close proximity to high-tension lines tend to be poorer that the most of the population, poorer people in industrialized societies tend to have higher cancer rates, and when you control for income levels, it seems that there were not statistically significant differences between the cancer rates for the lower income who lived near power lines and those who did not. The subject continues to be studied but the numbers of variables are so large that study results continue to be inconclusive as to measurable effects. When you need absolute reassurance and cannot find it, then you are relying on your personal risk assessment. Take the 1500 or 1600 dishwashers that catch fire in American ktichens every year. Some people see that statistic and think that is outrageously high and nobody should put a dishwasher in residences. Others look at the same statistic and think: there must be 75 million homes with dishwashers in this country and the risk of a fire is so tiny and trivial that I don't care about it. Back to the "doctors in Europe" question, many internet posters assume (incorrectly) that the newer "pregnant women" studies from "Europe" come from the European Commission Directorate-General of Health and Consumer Protection's Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment. That is not the case. As far as I could tell from the last time I tried to check out this "European doctors say . . . " report was that the concerns actually come from a non-profit organization calling itself the "International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection" and some studies funded by them (from Slovenia, I think.) This group starts with the premise that we are all exposed to too many electromagnetic fields (EMF). Induction ranges produce EMF --- but, then, so do a ton of other devices from cell phones, iPods, and televisions to everything with electric motors, such as blenders, and on out to microwave ovens. The self-named Commission has established standards and believe that they have found some evidence that some induction cookers produce EMF levels at 30 cm (1 foot) that exceed what they say the strength should be at that distance for what they regard as safe for an in utero fetus. Can you find some doctors in Europe who would adopt this? Sure. Probably here as well. Is it generally accepted medical practice in Europe or here? Nope. WIll the mere existence of questions scare some people who come in to look at the OP's house when she and her husband eventually put it up for sale? Yup. Some people will be put off and want a different stove. But the thing is, some people will be put off by presence of gas appliances, as well. There's what somebody here once called the the "kaboom" factor. As a practical matter, the actual risk of a gas appliance exploding and causing a house fire is small. Something like maybe 12% of kitchen fires caused by gas stoves were due to gas leaks, IIRC from the last time I checked the National Fire Protection Association statistics. Overall, the biggest reason for home-fires caused by appliances (45% of the fires) was unattended cooking and burners accidentally left on after cooking. Overall, gas cooking appliances were not as likely to cause a fire as the electric ones simply because gas stove owners were only half as likely as electric stove owners to leave an unattended pot cooking on a stove or leave a burner on after cooking. But, in this regard, you might note that induction would be even safer than both gas or radiant electric because: (a) induction burners don't have the waste heat output that can ignite sleeves, towels, etc. that a gas or radiant electric burner can ignit; (b) if you slop or spill oil when frying, there isn't a very hot burner or flame to ignite the spilled oil; (c) most induction cooktops and ranges have safety shut-offs -- that is, if an empty pan overheats, sensors (on many induction ranges and cooktops) will shut off the burner and keep the pan from burning your house down; and (d), if you forget to turn off a burner after you finish with a pot, nothing can happen once the pot is removed from an induction burner. For every potential health problem you can cite for induction, there seem to be more for gas ranges. There are ongoing studies on the potential adverse health effects of combustion by-products from using gas ranges and cooktops in residential and commercial kitchens. Search the internet and you can find postings with titles like "Gas cooking emissions can stifle infant development ..." A year ago, there was a US DOE and EPA study on the need for vent hoods when using gas ranges and cooktops which got some discussion here. IIRC. there are a couple of NY Times articles that sparked that discussion and you can find them here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/01/garden/01fix.html?_r=0 http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/22/the-kitchen-as-a-pollution-hazard/ The link to the gardenweb discussion is here: http://ths.gardenweb.com/forums/load/appl/msg0715091316878.html So, can you make the family gas proponents read that stuff? Maybe they will all decide that you all need to eat raw food and just stay away from all cooking devices. ;>) This post was edited by JWVideo on Wed, Aug 20, 14 at 14:51

Time for a follow up post. The original gas professional came out yesterday and evaluated the situation. He insists that the sizing of pipes is not an issue. Furthermore, he did a test that may point to the source of the problem. He put the manometer on the gas meter, then he had me turn on the furnace (at this point only the furnace and hot water heater would be on). Almost immediately the pressure at the manometer dropped to close to zero. I went upstairs and checked for flame at the furnace and there was none. I went back downstairs and checked for flame on the stove - it was there but hugely reduced in volume. Based on this, he says that the problem lies in the meter. This is potentially good news for me, since the Gas Company is responsible for the meter. I will have the Gas Company back out hopefully next week. Will post a follow up then.

The idea of assembling a wad of randomly chosen paint chips from the stores boggles my mind. I've said many times before that I do not agree with that method. Just because you, the consumer, doesn't have to pay for those paint chips, someone does. One round of refills for color selectors (chip racks) can cost a paint store on average $3,000 - $5,000 or maybe more. Thousands of dollars of collateral that people totally take for granted; parents use the color displays to keep junior busy while they shop, people remove chips and put them back "where ever", etc.. Stores would rather you just lay the chip down on the counter if you don't want it - don't put it back in the wrong place in the rack. I guess I have to take solace that on the other side of this incredibly inefficient process, at the very least, all these unwanted, unused chips are being properly recycled. Yes, it is true that the price of color collateral (paint chips, etc.) is built in to the price per gallon. But it's a moderate, reasonable, average margin. The margin isn't huge to support each person taking a "bazillion" paint chips. And if you make an effort to properly educate yourself on even the basics of color, there is no need for a "bazillion" paint chips to begin with. Not to take a "scolding" tone, it's just there's absolutely nothing about the suggested process that I agree with or think is a good plan. Strikes me as wasteful and a little lazy to be honest. I agree, however, that you should never look at wall color on a horizontal plane. Walls are vertical and that's how you should evaluate the chips/sample boards. Debbie is correct, Aura/Affinity colors are not full spectrum What makes Aura special is the actual paint, not the color palette. If you want SW Creme via MyPerfectColor, you have a really, really good shot at getting the best match possible in a BenM base to a SW color. I know the quality standards for color matching from My Perfect Color and they are best-in-class. They ship paint/color and they fully "get it", they understand the need for precise calibration and standards. MPC is a good option. As far as individual colorants and formulas - there isn't any one data point *within* a paint color that you can identify as more constant or not constant. It's all the factors wrapped up together that contribute to more constant or less constant. A general rule of thumb - not set in stone rule - is the fewer colorants in the can, the less shifting will occur. Black in the formula also aids in capturing light beams and stopping them from reflecting back into the space. Some people equate that to more constant paint colors. Others label it as "dead" color. The expectation that color should not shift or change is, arguably, the core issue. Perhaps it's not the color that needs adjusted as much as the expectation for how the color & light relationship is suppose to work.