FoodBanter.com - Good stock pots for boiling water on ceramic top range

FoodBanter.com (https://www.foodbanter.com/)

- General Cooking (https://www.foodbanter.com/general-cooking/)

- - Good stock pots for boiling water on ceramic top range (https://www.foodbanter.com/general-cooking/1128-good-stock-pots-boiling.html)

Good stock pots for boiling water on ceramic top range

What are the best pots for boiling water quickly over
a smooth ceramic glass top electic stove?

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.

The pots I see most often mentioned in these newsgroups
(such as All-Clad, Calphalon), are very nice and heavy weight,
and thus heat up slowly.
I have a wonderful Lagostina Irradial (4 qt), that has a
somewhat this but well made aluminum/stainless steel bottom (ready
also for induction!), and very this stainless steel walls.
However, I'd like to have one or two more, in sizes 6 and 8 qts,
and I don't seem to be able to find the Lagostinas easily (I bought
it while traveling).

What are the best stock pots for ceramic ranges, in terms of speed
of cooking?

Many thanks,

Peter

Good stock pots for boiling water on ceramic top range

On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 00:04:17 GMT, Colin wrote:

Peter,

Your understanding of physics is slightly incorrect.

Note that silver and copper are the best conductors, as they are very
dense, compared to aluminum, the third best conductor.

I sucked at chemistry, but aren't they good conductors because of the
free electrons they have, not density. Lead is much denser, for
example, but is quite a poor conductor of heat.

I found it interesting that you neglected to mention the heat
conductivity of stainless steel, which is much, much poorer than
aluminum. It always makes me wonder why so many people go gaga over
stainless steel cookware.

LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net

Good stock pots for boiling water on ceramic top range

"Peter Lampione" wrote in message
om...
What are the best pots for boiling water quickly over
a smooth ceramic glass top electic stove?

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.

While I'll admit that I love my All-Clad, I'll be damned if I'm gonna go out
and spend $300
for a stockpot.
I recently picked up a stainless, 12 quart stockpot at Kitchens Etc. for
$19.99.
Brand name is 'Progressive'.
Light enough to heat quickly, but heavy enough that things shouldn't burn
too easily, assuming heat is
kept at moderate levels.
I assume you'll be using it for pasta and the like, in which case, I can't
recommend anything better
for the price.

HTH-
Stace

Good stock pots for boiling water on ceramic top range

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

Good stock pots for boiling water on ceramic top range

"LRod" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 00:04:17 GMT, Colin wrote:

Peter,

Your understanding of physics is slightly incorrect.

Note that silver and copper are the best conductors, as they are very
dense, compared to aluminum, the third best conductor.

I sucked at chemistry, but aren't they good conductors because of the
free electrons they have, not density. Lead is much denser, for
example, but is quite a poor conductor of heat.

I found it interesting that you neglected to mention the heat
conductivity of stainless steel, which is much, much poorer than
aluminum. It always makes me wonder why so many people go gaga over
stainless steel cookware.

A pan of 100% stainless isn't the best option. Stainless isn't reactive and
cleans well. It makes a great interior for cookware. When you combine it
with a better conductor like aluminum or copper you have the best of both
worlds. The cookware that people recommend here is always some form for
stainless that has a core of aluminum or copper or disk bonded to the
bottom. Most often the exterior is also stainless because it is durable and
can be washed in a dishwasher. All-Clad makes a line of cookware that has
an exterior of brushed aluminum and an interior of stainless.

Good stock pots for boiling water on ceramic top range

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

Good stock pots for boiling water on ceramic top range

LRod wrote:

I sucked at chemistry, but aren't they good conductors because of the
free electrons they have, not density. Lead is much denser, for
example, but is quite a poor conductor of heat.

I found it interesting that you neglected to mention the heat
conductivity of stainless steel, which is much, much poorer than
aluminum. It always makes me wonder why so many people go gaga over
stainless steel cookware.

A lot of stainless cookware has sandwich bases of various sorts, which
improve performance, and the things are almost indestructible.
Comparing the old ally stuff I grew up with (very good quality, but a
tad battered by the time Mum replaced some of it!), and my nice
stainless stuff, I see very little difference in performance, and I can
bung everything in the dishwasher, the stuff bounces without dents if I
drop it, and it stacks better! Yes, in my restricted space, I have to
consider stacking properties along with everything else.

You can still buy the ally things my ma had as wedding presents, and
which were also standard issue in RAF married quarters for many years,
but they are as expensive as good stainless, stainless, look incredibly
utilitarian to modern eyes, and these days are a bit more difficult to
get hold of. Most of the ally you see in shops, and readily available,
has coatings of one sort or another, and this wears off long before the
rest of the article is worn out. Good (and therefore worth buying) ally
stuff is about the same price as good stainless stuff, and takes more
looking after.

I have 6 different makes of saucepan, all stainless:

A couple of Italians things I picked up from a local shop, made by
AEturnum - ok, but not perfect (the sandwich bases are a bit thin). I
have a largish saucepan and a lidded frying pan in this set. The frying
pan suffers from the usual 'sticks like glue' problems of stainless
steel uncoated frying pans.

A Gastronome (made in Holland) stock pot picked up in a sale - nice
thick ally sandwich base, very good pot for general cooking, and with
ears rather than a long handle, so not only does it go well in the
dishwasher, but it also fits in the oven! :) My favourite, but too big
for anything but soup for three people! To get back to the original
question, I can recommend this brand: reading the bottom, you can use it
on any cooker type.

A Prestige stainless frying pan with non-stick lining, bought half price
in the sales specifically for dry-frying, a dietary need, and
surprisingly good for a non stick pan (mind you, I've only had it for a
couple of months, so not long enough to test the durability of the
non-stick). Good ally sandwich base, fully dishwasher proof. The only
problem I have with this one is that it isn't quite big enough! A nice
touch of serendipity is that the lid from the other frying pan fits it
reasonably well.

A single lonesome AGA milk pan sized saucepan, used almost daily - very
nice, as it should be for the price! (£60 or so for this tiddler! Good
job it was a present!). The neat thing about this is that if I had a
stack of them they would stack nicely with their lids on. The downside
of this is that the lid design reduces the capacity of the pan. If I
ever get more of these, I'll get the ear handled ones so they fit in the
oven. A friend of mine has a whole set like that, to go with her AGA,
and they are nice to use. The lid design is so that you can stack them
in the ovens to cook. Saves space, not having to use shelves!

A set of 3 Jonnelle saucepans (John Lewis's own brand), which are
great. Not quite as good as the AGA one, but about half the price!
A double boiler made by Kitchen Craft: the base saucepan is a good solid
little thing that can be used on its own as a saucepan. Has a nice
solid feel to it and a good sandwich base. The big disadvantage is that
it has a glass lid, so I have to be careful not to drop it!

Stainless steel does have a lot of advantages to help counter the
disadvantages. You have to assess your lifestyle as well as cooking
style, and buy what fits. For example, I became a serious fan of ear
handled saucepans when I had a split level cooker with no room to turn
pan handles to a safe position. Now I've had the kitchen re-done, this
is no longer a consideration, but being able to stuff them in the oven
would be nice. I hate washing stuff by hand (I tend to be allergic to
washing up fluid) and dishwashering everything I can is a serious
consideration too.

--
Kate XXXXXX
Lady Catherine, Wardrobe Mistress of the Chocolate Buttons
http://www.diceyhome.free-online.co.uk
Click on Kate's Pages and explore!

Good stock pots for boiling water on ceramic top range

On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 16:14:33 -0400, Nancy Young
wrote:

Debbie Deutsch wrote:

Sheryl Rosen wrote in news:BBA702BC.3ABBE%

what, pray tell, is ally?

Kate is a Brit. Ally = aluminum (in the US).

I guess that's shy they say we're separated by a common language.
When we mean aluminum, we say aluminum.

Don't forget, even when they say aluminum, they say it aluminium.
(you'll have to look closely)

LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net

Good stock pots for boiling water on ceramic top range

Debbie Deutsch wrote:

Sheryl Rosen wrote in news:BBA702BC.3ABBE%

what, pray tell, is ally?

Kate is a Brit. Ally = aluminum (in the US).

I guess that's shy they say we're separated by a common language.
When we mean aluminum, we say aluminum.

nancy

Good stock pots for boiling water on ceramic top range

LRod wrote:

On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 16:14:33 -0400, Nancy Young

Debbie Deutsch wrote:

Sheryl Rosen wrote in

what, pray tell, is ally?

Kate is a Brit. Ally = aluminum (in the US).

I guess that's shy they say we're separated by a common language.
When we mean aluminum, we say aluminum.

Don't forget, even when they say aluminum, they say it aluminium.
(you'll have to look closely)

Actually, I don't, I just didn't want to antagonize anyone further
by mentioning that. Al-you-minium. Sure beats ally. What is up
with that.

nancy