Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
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. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
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.) |
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Jam Consistancy and Thickness | Preserving | |||
Copper cookware thickness | Cooking Equipment | |||
Thickness vs. Time | Sourdough | |||
Hamburger Patties-thickness | General Cooking | |||
Pressure Cooker thickness | Preserving |