"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.)