"Charles Demas" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Douglas Reynolds > wrote:
> >
> >"Charles Demas" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> In article >,
> >> Douglas Reynolds > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >What I really meant is: Is there a functional difference? - a
functional
> >> >reason for the difference? Would fully-clad cookware cook better
with a
> >> >thicker bottom? Would disk-bottom cookware cook just as well with a
> >bottom
> >> >no thicker than fully-clad cookware?
> >>
> >> Fully clad cookware has a copper core to even out the temperature
> >> over the pan. This is what the disk bottomed stuff is also trying
> >> to do. Thicker bottoms mean more even temperature over the
> >> pan bottom. How even depends on the thickness.
> >>
> >Most good/high quality fully-clad cookware (All-Clad Stainless, Calphalon
> >Tri-Ply, Viking, Kitchenaid) has a core not of copper but of aluminum,
the
> >same material used for disks. So it appears the question remains.
>
> Aluminum or copper, both tend to even out the temperature
> gradient across the cooking area above. How even depends on the
> thickness.
>
> What is/was the question you think still remains?
>
> Chuck Demas

The question is/was: Does the differing bottom thickness of fully-clad vs.
disk-bottom make a functional difference or is it really a difference
without a distinction? Your answer seems to imply that disk-bottoms are to
some degree better or at least equal due to heat spread/evenness, and I
don't necessarily disagree with this (also see Vox Humana's post).
Really......except for eye appeal or snob appeal is there any reason to pay
the extra bucks for fully clad? I do note that Calphalon's Tri Ply is
substantially cheaper than the ridiculously priced All Clad, etc. Perhaps
some of the All Clad boosters here will chime in.