A Food and drink forum. FoodBanter.com

Welcome to FoodBanter.com forums which provide access to the finest food and drink related newsgroups.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most newsgroup discussions and access our other FREE features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics to the food related newsgroups, communicate privately with other FoodBanter.com members (PM), respond to polls, upload your own photos and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact support.

Go Back   Home » FoodBanter.com forum » Food and Cooking » Cooking Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Cooking Equipment (rec.food.equipment) Discussion of food-related equipment. Includes items used in food preparation and storage, including major and minor appliances, gadgets and utensils, infrastructure, and food- and recipe-related software.

Cookware Thickness



 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 09-04-2004, 08:40 PM
Douglas Reynolds
Usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Cookware Thickness

All brands of good quality fully-clad cookware are, with slight variations,
of a certain thickness.
All brands of good quality disk-bottom cookware have, with slight
variations, bottom disks of a certain thickness.
Question: Why are the bottoms of disk-botom cookware to much thicker than
the bottoms of fully-clad cookware?


Ads
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 09-04-2004, 09:23 PM
Charles Demas
Usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Cookware Thickness

In article ,
Douglas Reynolds wrote:
All brands of good quality fully-clad cookware are, with slight variations,
of a certain thickness.
All brands of good quality disk-bottom cookware have, with slight
variations, bottom disks of a certain thickness.
Question: Why are the bottoms of disk-botom cookware to much thicker than
the bottoms of fully-clad cookware?


Probably because the fully clad metal is only available
in relatively smaller thicknesses.

The disk bottomed stuff has the disk bonded to the bottom of
the pan.


Chuck Demas

--
Eat Healthy | _ _ | Nothing would be done at all,
Stay Fit | @ @ | If a man waited to do it so well,
Die Anyway | v | That no one could find fault with it.
| \___/ | http://world.std.com/~cpd
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 11-04-2004, 03:59 AM
Fred
Usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Cookware Thickness


"Douglas Reynolds" wrote in message
...
All brands of good quality fully-clad cookware are, with slight

variations,
of a certain thickness.
All brands of good quality disk-bottom cookware have, with slight
variations, bottom disks of a certain thickness.
Question: Why are the bottoms of disk-botom cookware to much thicker than
the bottoms of fully-clad cookware?



Because it can be. If you made clad cookware that thick it would be heavier
(and more expensive) than most people would want their cookware to be.

Fred
The Good Gourmet
http://www.thegoodgourmet.com



  #4 (permalink)  
Old 13-04-2004, 02:18 PM
Douglas Reynolds
Usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Cookware Thickness


"Fred" wrote in message
...

"Douglas Reynolds" wrote in message
...
All brands of good quality fully-clad cookware are, with slight

variations,
of a certain thickness.
All brands of good quality disk-bottom cookware have, with slight
variations, bottom disks of a certain thickness.
Question: Why are the bottoms of disk-botom cookware to much thicker

than
the bottoms of fully-clad cookware?



Because it can be. If you made clad cookware that thick it would be

heavier
(and more expensive) than most people would want their cookware to be.

Fred
The Good Gourmet
http://www.thegoodgourmet.com



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?


  #5 (permalink)  
Old 13-04-2004, 03:44 PM
Charles Demas
Usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Cookware Thickness

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.


Chuck Demas

--
Eat Healthy | _ _ | Nothing would be done at all,
Stay Fit | @ @ | If a man waited to do it so well,
Die Anyway | v | That no one could find fault with it.
| \___/ | http://world.std.com/~cpd
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 13-04-2004, 06:31 PM
Douglas Reynolds
Usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Cookware Thickness


"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.


  #7 (permalink)  
Old 13-04-2004, 06:37 PM
Vox Humana
Usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Cookware Thickness


"Douglas Reynolds" wrote in message
news

"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.


I think that the added mass on the bottom of disk cookware has a functional
advantage over the thinner, fully clad cookware. I suspect that the reason
that fully clad cookware isn't thicker is due to manufacturing limitations.
Some people insist that having the cladding on the sides of cookware is very
desirable. They say that food will burn on the sides of disk type cookware.
I don't have that problem, so the increased cost of cookware like All-Clad
makes no sense to me. Therefore, the vastly less expensive cookware with
heavy disks is ideal for my cooking needs. (I agree that most tri-ply
cookware has an aluminum core, not copper.)


  #8 (permalink)  
Old 13-04-2004, 06:58 PM
Charles Demas
Usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Cookware Thickness

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

--
Eat Healthy | _ _ | Nothing would be done at all,
Stay Fit | @ @ | If a man waited to do it so well,
Die Anyway | v | That no one could find fault with it.
| \___/ | http://world.std.com/~cpd
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 13-04-2004, 08:15 PM
Douglas Reynolds
Usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Cookware Thickness


"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.


  #10 (permalink)  
Old 13-04-2004, 10:29 PM
Joe Doe
Usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Cookware Thickness

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
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 13-04-2004, 11:21 PM
Vox Humana
Usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Cookware Thickness


"Joe Doe" wrote in message
...
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.


You can immerse the pan in cold water to stop the cooking.


  #12 (permalink)  
Old 14-04-2004, 02:00 AM
Joe Doe
Usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Cookware Thickness

In article , "Vox Humana"
wrote:

"Joe Doe" wrote in message
...
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.


You can immerse the pan in cold water to stop the cooking.





Sure you can. You can learn to cook around any cookware/heat source you
have. If you do it often enough , you could anticipate how much more
coloring you get by residual heat and stop the process early etc. etc.

The original question though asked if there was a theoretical ideal. I
feel there is a theoretical ideal that is better approximated by cookware
with a core extending all the way. As the rest of my original post and
your commentary indicated, practically any cookware is usable for most
cooking tasks by anybody with half a brain who is willing to adjust their
technique to what they have.


Roland
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 16-04-2004, 02:48 AM
Fred
Usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Cookware Thickness


"Douglas Reynolds" wrote in message
...

"Fred" wrote in message
...

"Douglas Reynolds" wrote in message
...
All brands of good quality fully-clad cookware are, with slight

variations,
of a certain thickness.
All brands of good quality disk-bottom cookware have, with slight
variations, bottom disks of a certain thickness.
Question: Why are the bottoms of disk-botom cookware to much thicker

than
the bottoms of fully-clad cookware?



Because it can be. If you made clad cookware that thick it would be

heavier
(and more expensive) than most people would want their cookware to be.

Fred
The Good Gourmet
http://www.thegoodgourmet.com



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?

Maybe, but probably not since the fully clad cookware is thick enough. You
can get to a point where the thickness of the bottom does little more than
extend the cooking time just to heat the pan. I dearly love my Berndes non
stick cookware but I think the bottoms are perhaps a little too thick. I
wait seemingly forever for them to heat up. My All Clad pans, on the other
hand heat up significantly faster and still don't suffer from scorching or
hot spots. I think it's just a matter of degree.

Fred
The Good Gourmet
http://www.thegoodgourmet.com


 




Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ping Sheldon -- Need cookware help Dennis Spexet General Cooking 6 19-05-2004 09:37 AM
Sitram Cookware Review Kisanna Cooking Equipment 0 10-02-2004 09:17 AM
Wolfgang Puck Cookware -- How do you like it? Kisanna General Cooking 15 29-01-2004 07:36 PM
Kirkland/Costco Cookware news.compuserve.com Cooking Equipment 0 17-10-2003 05:15 AM
KitchenCraft cookware and waterless cooking Rick & Cyndi Cooking Equipment 30 02-10-2003 07:16 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:37 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.SEO by vBSEO 3.2.0
Copyright 2004-2014 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.