I'd just add up the total surface area touching the pot. The most = the winner.
__________________ Streamline Brewing Company "You can't be a real country unless you have a beer and an airline - it helps if you have some kind of a football team or some nuclear weapons, but at the very least you need a beer." - Frank Zappa
On Deck: Apfelwein
Fermenting: Oatmeal Stout
Conditioning:
Drinking:
I personally can not get a full boil going on one burner on my stove.
My brewpot is wide enough that if I place it between two burners, it covers about 3/4 of each burner and then I am able to get a nice rolling boil. Heats up faster too.
__________________ Caspean Ales and Cider
"I'm sittin' here, completely surrounded by No Beer!" - Onslow
I have an awesome kitchen stove, and I can bring 6.5 gallons to a boil. I don't think I could get a bigger volume boiling, though. So, my advice is to do whatever it takes! Most people can't boil that much on their kitchen stove, so we're lucky I guess.
__________________ Broken Leg Brewery
Giving beer a leg to stand on since 2006
Exactly my situation, two burners. However, due do that fact that the burners are not completely under the pot the flame rides up the side to some degree. I like to have the burner on and fill the pot as I sparge so it doesn't take so long to bring to a boil. But until there is a few gallons I use just one burner. The flame riding up will scorch the wort on the insides if the volume is too low.
I personally can not get a full boil going on one burner on my stove.
My brewpot is wide enough that if I place it between two burners, it covers about 3/4 of each burner and then I am able to get a nice rolling boil. Heats up faster too.
This is what I do.
I've actually started doing my strike and sparge water inside rather than outside in order to save propane.
I have a 20 gallon pot that I heat all of my water in at once.
Over One burner or Two?
Linear Mode
