In article >, "Douglas Reynolds"
> wrote:


> 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.


I think the answer lies in what you are trying to cook: The thicker the
disk the more heat that can be stored in the disk and so the heat
reservoir is larger. This is an advantage for some kinds of cooking.
However, it would be a disadvantage if you were making caramel and wanted
to stop it at a particular color: here the heat reservoir would be a
disadvantage because the pan would not be responsive and the caramel would
continue to color because of the large heat reservoir.

For most general cooking tasks, the responsiveness of the pan is not
absolutely critical. But for the few that are a thick disk is a
disadvantage. Every manufacturer has to optimise, between conductivity,
responsiveness, and heat stored. Each product reflects this choice. Le
Creuset optimises for heat stored and so is good for long stews, cooking
beans and the like. Falk copper may be good for tasks that need high
responsiveness etc.

I personally, think the clad cookware with the cladding going up all the
way is really the best design: the Al/Cu core provides increased
conductivity, the mass of the core that goes all the way up is
approximately equal to the mass of a disk (more surface area less
thickness), so in terms of heat storage it is a wash between disk vs
clad. HOWEVER in terms of responsiveness, clad wins because there is more
surface area to both donate heat to food or dissipate heat when the heat
source is removed. So given an infinite budget I would choose heavy
tinned copper or fully clad cookware that has the core going up all the
way. For 95% of cooking tasks the choice of cookware is not critical. I
bet > 90% of commercial kitchens use heavy weight aluminium cookware with
no special treatments.

Roland