Well, I take exception to this, since I am supposed to know
physics quite well ;-)

1) "The thicker and heavier the pot, the better it will conduct".
Sure, but I want heat to be conducted _upwards_, from stove to water.
So, "thicker" in the down-to-up direction just means "wider".
You are saying that wider pots (on wider burners) work better.
I don't argue with this.

2) Not all metals used for cooking are good conductors: stainless steel
is a poor conductor, while aluminum or copper are much better.
Since I want to heat the water, rather than the air around it,
the best pot would be one whose bottom is very conductive, and whose
sides are not good conductors (to keep the water inside warm, instead
of heating the air). This would call for an aluminum (or copper) bottom,
and stainless steel sides.
Pots that use good heat conductors in the sides do so for cooking
roasts or other food; for heating water, it's not only not needed,
but (very slightly) counterproductive.

In any case, I thank you for your comments.
And by chance, I think on the web I found again what was the pot
I was using (borrowed) during college time that worked so well
for heating water fast: it was a Revere with aluminum disk bottom.
Which confirms my above theory!
Ok, it seems my problem is solved without complicated Lagostinas to buy.

Best,

Peter


Colin > wrote in message >...
> Peter,
>
> Your understanding of physics is slightly incorrect.
>
> > The pot needs to be lightweight (less mass to heat), except
> > that the bottom has to be flat, and as good a heat conductor
> > as possible.
>
> Heat conduction is directly related to thickness and mass. Just as in
> electrical wires (the thicker the wire, the more electrons it can
> carry), the thicker and heavier the pot, the better it will conduct heat.
>
> Since metals used for cooking are all 'good conductors", they will
> conduct the heat quickly to the material inside. In addition, since
> metals don't hold heat well, there is little heat loss due to the mass.
>
> Note that silver and copper are the best conductors, as they are very
> dense, compared to aluminum, the third best conductor.
>
> You are correct in that the flatter the bottom, the better it is for use
> with a flattop cooking unit.
>
> Colin

in article , Peter Lampione
at wrote on 10/6/03 1:14 AM:

> 2) Not all metals used for cooking are good conductors: stainless steel
> is a poor conductor, while aluminum or copper are much better.
> Since I want to heat the water, rather than the air around it,
> the best pot would be one whose bottom is very conductive, and whose
> sides are not good conductors (to keep the water inside warm, instead
> of heating the air). This would call for an aluminum (or copper) bottom,
> and stainless steel sides.
> Pots that use good heat conductors in the sides do so for cooking
> roasts or other food; for heating water, it's not only not needed,
> but (very slightly) counterproductive.


Ahhh...another argument against All-Clad!

overpriced, overkill...and actually, not even necessary!

Actually, my analysis is correct only under the assumption that
the surface of contact between water and pot bottom is sufficient
to allow the water to absorb all the heat from the stove.
This is true, I believe, due to the high specific heat of water,
and due to the fact that convection (hot water raising, cooler
water replacing the hot one) makes the heat transfer very
efficient.
However, if the heat transfer at the bottom surface were a
constraint to the heating rate of the water, then maybe having
all-clads would help, since the sides would also contribute to
heat transfer.

This is becoming a bit complicated just to make pasta! :-)

BTW, a quick trick, for those still reading: if you make pasta,
a quick way to pre-heat the dishes is to use them (one by one)
as lids for the pot (this presumes that the dishes are wider than
the pot; otherwise use method B below). Just dry them off
with a towel then before putting them on the table. Not
very elegant, but very effective.
Another way (method B) consists in putting a bit of the hot cooking
water in the dish, and then pouring it out and drying the dish
before putting it on the table.
This method is better also when many dishes need to be pre-heated.
Preheating pasta dishes is very nice! I never like lukewarm pasta.

All the best, and thanks for all the advice posted here,

Peter

(Peter Lampione) wrote in message . com>...
[...]
> 2) Not all metals used for cooking are good conductors: stainless steel
> is a poor conductor, while aluminum or copper are much better.
> Since I want to heat the water, rather than the air around it,
> the best pot would be one whose bottom is very conductive, and whose
> sides are not good conductors (to keep the water inside warm, instead
> of heating the air). This would call for an aluminum (or copper) bottom,
> and stainless steel sides.
> Pots that use good heat conductors in the sides do so for cooking
> roasts or other food; for heating water, it's not only not needed,
> but (very slightly) counterproductive.
[...]

in article , Peter Lampione
at wrote on 10/6/03 6:14 PM:

>
> This is becoming a bit complicated just to make pasta! :-)

buy a big cheap enameled pot at the local hardware store. black with white
specks. usually the label has a photo of corn on the cob or lobsters. that's
all you need for cooking pasta.

Sheryl Rosen wrote:

> in article , Peter Lampione
> at wrote on 10/6/03 6:14 PM:
>
>>This is becoming a bit complicated just to make pasta! :-)
>
> buy a big cheap enameled pot at the local hardware store. black with white
> specks. usually the label has a photo of corn on the cob or lobsters. that's
> all you need for cooking pasta.

This begins to feel like angels dancing on the head of a pin.

Restaurants use aluminum pots because the balance of cost measured
against performance will almost always tip it that way. I've tried
everything from the old Club Aluminum pots and pans through Farber and
Wearever and T-Fal and Kitchen-Aid, Cuisinart and All-Clad and lots of
forgotten ones plus imported others including iron and enamels and
ceramics. The differences between them wasn't worth dealing with.
Except the heavy iron ones weren't very good.

The stock pots I use at home are commercial-weight aluminum. I have
one largish pot (16 quarts) that's an old cheapie stainless pot I use
for cooking corn and the odd lobster. The reason I keep it around for
those rare moments is because it's what my mother used and it has
sentimental value - all the way from the 50's. My kids call it
"grandma's corn pot."

Sheryl, that speckled pot will work as well as any of the others. Mine
is blue with white specks. As you imply, it's all too easy to get
caught up in the crayon rather than the drawing.

Pastorio

<snippage>

> The stock pots I use at home are commercial-weight aluminum. I have
> one largish pot (16 quarts) that's an old cheapie stainless pot I use
> for cooking corn and the odd lobster. The reason I keep it around for
> those rare moments is because it's what my mother used and it has
> sentimental value - all the way from the 50's. My kids call it
> "grandma's corn pot."

Bob,

I know what you mean... I have an 8 quart Regal Dutch oven which I use
about once a year and am planning to replace it. However, I had to make
sure it would go to a good home as it was a gift for my late mother who
wanted it very much and we bought it for her.

My son wants it both for cooking and especially sentimental value.

Chris in Pearland, TX