Hi,
I bought my cookware at walmart, where everything was cheap but
suspiciously thin and light. So when it came to a frying pan, I bought
the cast iron one, assuming that the extra metal should distribute heat
better.

To double-check, does cast iron work for everything that a regular
pan works for, or is it somewhat limited in application...?


Also, for hte future, what's a good value in price vs. performance?
And, can you take any cheap pot and weld a thick plate of steel,
aluminum, brass, or even copper if you can get it to the bottom and
instantly enhance it...? :-)

Bronze is harder than copper, why is not not used for pots as well?
Just curious, so I thought I'd ask.

thanks!
-Bernard Arnest

"Bernard Arnest" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Hi,
> I bought my cookware at walmart, where everything was cheap but
> suspiciously thin and light. So when it came to a frying pan, I bought
> the cast iron one, assuming that the extra metal should distribute heat
> better.

In general, yous that is correct. If you bought a decent brand like Lodge,
Wagner, it is pretty good.

>
> To double-check, does cast iron work for everything that a regular
> pan works for, or is it somewhat limited in application...?

Cast iron is not good for very acidic foods and it is difficult to toss food
in the pan. CI doudles as a roasting pan, can be used in the oven readily.


>
>
> Also, for hte future, what's a good value in price vs. performance?

AllClad is excellnet but there are many other brands of triple ply pans that
will perform as well. Check ot sets at Costco and so forth.

> And, can you take any cheap pot and weld a thick plate of steel,
> aluminum, brass, or even copper if you can get it to the bottom and
> instantly enhance it...? :-)

No. It is not just welding as a seam would be around hte pan and leave poor
contacet in the center portion. Proper multi materials is pressed together
and mechanically bonded.

>
> Bronze is harder than copper, why is not not used for pots as well?
> Just curious, so I thought I'd ask.

Harder is not better. Copper can be bonded to stainless and has good heat
transfer properties. I don't think bronze would form as well. A
mettalurgist can better answer though.

I use cast iron for steaks, non-stick for eggs, and stainless for everything
else.

Walmart sells Lodge cast iron pans. They're very good.


"Bernard Arnest" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Hi,
> I bought my cookware at walmart, where everything was cheap but
> suspiciously thin and light. So when it came to a frying pan, I bought
> the cast iron one, assuming that the extra metal should distribute heat
> better.
>
> To double-check, does cast iron work for everything that a regular
> pan works for, or is it somewhat limited in application...?
>
>
> Also, for hte future, what's a good value in price vs. performance?
> And, can you take any cheap pot and weld a thick plate of steel,
> aluminum, brass, or even copper if you can get it to the bottom and
> instantly enhance it...? :-)
>
> Bronze is harder than copper, why is not not used for pots as well?
> Just curious, so I thought I'd ask.
>
> thanks!
> -Bernard Arnest
>

Stay away from those cast iron stock pots. ;-)

On 18 Sep 2005 00:08:44 -0700, "morgul the friendly drelb"
> wrote:

>Stay away from those cast iron stock pots. ;-)

However, cast iron Dutch ovens are the ooonly way to fly.

--
-denny-

"I don't like it when a whole state starts
acting like a marital aid."
"John R. Campbell" in a Usenet post.

In article >,
Denny Wheeler > wrote:

> On 18 Sep 2005 00:08:44 -0700, "morgul the friendly drelb"
> > wrote:
>
> >Stay away from those cast iron stock pots. ;-)
>
> However, cast iron Dutch ovens are the ooonly way to fly.

Oh yeah!

'specially for pot roasting...... ;-d
And you can use them just fine on the stove top.
--
Om.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch." -Jack Nicholson

Bernard Arnest wrote:
>
> I bought my cookware at walmart, where everything was cheap but
> suspiciously thin and light.

Thin and light does go with cheap, check. Works great
for, uhm, thin-crust pizza, but not really for cookwear.

> So when it came to a frying pan, I bought
> the cast iron one, assuming that the extra metal should distribute heat
> better.

Partially correct. Cast iron is a mediocre heat
conductor so once it absorbs heat it releases it over
time. Thus the heat distribution is both across the
pan and also across time (slow temperature change
response).

> To double-check, does cast iron work for everything that a regular
> pan works for, or is it somewhat limited in application...?

Principle: Use the right tool for the job. Result:
A different pan for every recipe. Gadget freak's
dream.

Principle: Make it work, make do, do without. Result:
One pan is fine. Use it.

In reality you'll eventually end up with a few types of
pans to cross the range of temperature response rates.
Some very high conductivity for sautee, some very low
conductivity for baking beans, some in between.

> Also, for hte future, what's a good value in price vs. performance?

Cast iron is inexpensive and lasts forever. It is a
very good starting point. Branch out over time to
other materials. For example, ever since I could
offord houses that came with dishwahsers I've become
more and more interested on pans that are dishwasher
safe with interior and exterior coatings of stainless.

> And, can you take any cheap pot and weld a thick plate of steel,
> aluminum, brass, or even copper if you can get it to the bottom and
> instantly enhance it...? :-)

You'll even be able to submit it as your lab project
for Mechanical Engineering Lab 1-A. Chuckle.

The problem is hot spots. Heat will tend to build up
at the point where the thermal conductivity changes.
Add a high conductivity plate (Cu, Al), it wicks the
heat to the edge and a hot ring develops. Add a
mediocre conductivity plate (cast iron, steel) and
you will tend to reduce the responsivity.

> Bronze is harder than copper, why is not not used for pots as well?
> Just curious, so I thought I'd ask.

Bronze is used. Copper is coooking contexts means
copper alloy not pure copper. Technically it tends
to be brass (Cu, Ni alloy) not bronze because tin
is toxic. The same is true in coins - Cents haven't
been pure copper since the 1700s and they have been
only coated since 1982.

With brass aka copper, there needs to be a chemically
inert lining like stainless steel or nickel because
copper is toxic.

"Doug Freyburger" > wrote:
>> Bronze is harder than copper, why is not not used for pots as well?
>> Just curious, so I thought I'd ask.
>
> Bronze is used. Copper is coooking contexts means
> copper alloy not pure copper. Technically it tends
> to be brass (Cu, Ni alloy) not bronze because tin
> is toxic. The same is true in coins - Cents haven't
> been pure copper since the 1700s and they have been
> only coated since 1982.
>
> With brass aka copper, there needs to be a chemically
> inert lining like stainless steel or nickel because
> copper is toxic.

I think you got part of this backwards. Tin is non-toxic, and until very
recently was the material that copper pans were lined with to make them
inert. It fell out of favor because of its very low melting point, around
450 degrees F, and its softness. Because of this, the tin lining would often
have to be redone due to wear or overheating. Most of the copper cookware I
have is tin lined.

Tin was also extensively used for coating steel on "tin" cans. If it were
toxic, it would have contaminated the contents of the can.

Tin is the primary, defining element in pewter. In several European
languages (German included), the same word is used for both tin and pewter.
The toxicity of older pewter is due mostly to lead mixed in the alloy.
Modern pewter is lead free, and tends to be over 95% tin (with small amounts
of antimony and copper added).

While bronze is normally an alloy of copper and tin, with other elements,
brass is normally an alloy of copper and zinc. Zinc is quite toxic, even
more so than the copper. The newer pennies that have made for the last
couple decades are copper plated zinc. These occassionally cause problems
for kids that swallow pennies, as the zinc leaches out of the penny. It is a
much more severe problem than copper alone would be.

"Bernard Arnest" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Hi,
> I bought my cookware at walmart, where everything was cheap but
> suspiciously thin and light. So when it came to a frying pan, I bought
> the cast iron one, assuming that the extra metal should distribute heat
> better.
>
> To double-check, does cast iron work for everything that a regular
> pan works for, or is it somewhat limited in application...?

Yes exept for simmering high acid foods which can deplete the "seasoning"

>
> Also, for hte future, what's a good value in price vs. performance?
> And, can you take any cheap pot and weld a thick plate of steel,
> aluminum, brass, or even copper if you can get it to the bottom and
> instantly enhance it...? :-)

Not really as the "sandwich layer" is designed to diffuse (spread) the hear and
limit the formation of hot spots.

Look he
http://www.allclad.com/ Not a recommendation.


Dimitri

wff_ng_6 wrote:
> Doug Freyburger wrote:
>
> > With brass aka copper, there needs to be a chemically
> > inert lining like stainless steel or nickel because
> > copper is toxic.
>
> I think you got part of this backwards.

I got it forwards, I just did not list the history.
New manufacture copper pans in stores today are lined
with high nickel stainless steel alloy not with tin.
Because top quality pans last decades or even
centuries there are still plenty of old ones around
that were made with tin linings. (If any company
still produces tin lined copper please let me know.)

> Tin is non-toxic, and until very recently was the
> material that copper pans were lined with to make
> them inert.

Tin is less toxic than copper, zinc. It is still a
heavy metal and thus still an issue. This is why
recent manufacture has switched to more-inert and
even-less-toxic high-nickel-alloy stainless. Or as
you point out it is one in the list of reasons:

> It fell out of favor because of its very low
> melting point, around 450 degrees F, and its softness.
> Because of this, the tin lining would often
> have to be redone due to wear or overheating.

Hot melted tin oxidizes and becomes more toxic. It
also exposes the toxic copper.

> Most of the copper cookware I have is tin lined.

Your cookware is both good and old.

> Tin was also extensively used for coating steel on "tin" cans. If it were
> toxic, it would have contaminated the contents of the can.

It is no longer used because plastic inside coating is
even more inert and even less toxic. Non-toxic is a
floating point number not a binary and tin has a very
low level of toxicity. There's also the fact that
plastic inside lining costs less.

> Tin is the primary, defining element in pewter. In several European
> languages (German included), the same word is used for both tin and pewter.
> The toxicity of older pewter is due mostly to lead mixed in the alloy.
> Modern pewter is lead free, and tends to be over 95% tin (with small amounts
> of antimony and copper added).

I have also seen lead-free pewter that includes silver.

> While bronze is normally an alloy of copper and tin, with other elements,
> brass is normally an alloy of copper and zinc. Zinc is quite toxic, even
> more so than the copper. The newer pennies that have made for the last
> couple decades are copper plated zinc. These occassionally cause problems
> for kids that swallow pennies, as the zinc leaches out of the penny. It is a
> much more severe problem than copper alone would be.

"Doug Freyburger" > wrote:
> Because top quality pans last decades or even
> centuries there are still plenty of old ones around
> that were made with tin linings. (If any company
> still produces tin lined copper please let me know.)

Two companies that still make it and are still carried at some places in the
USA are Mauviel in France and Ruffoni in Italy. Retailers tend to only carry
the stainless lined pans, except the specialty pans that are only made tin
lined. I think if you searched the net, you would find some retailers that
still carried standard pans with tin linings. In addition to those two
manufacturers, I am pretty sure that there are others. I have a couple of
specialty pieces from Portugal also with tin linings that I got within the
past five years or so.

I suppose part of the reason for retailers not carrying the tin lined pans
is they are really easy to damage through overheating and such, and perhaps
they just don't want to deal with customer complaints on it. Of course,
there is no risk with that happening when copper pans are used as a
decorator touch in a trophy kitchen! ;-)

When I say specialty pieces, I mean either low volume and/or hammered copper
pieces. I'm not sure if you even can line a hammered pan with stainless
using their normal methods. It's probably not worth their time to setup for
the low volume pieces, even if it is possible to do.

One place that definitely still carries the tin lined Mauviel standard
pieces is a store near me in Alexandria, VA called La Cuisine
(http://lacuisineus.com/)

>> Modern pewter is lead free, and tends to be over 95% tin (with small
>> amounts
>> of antimony and copper added).
>
> I have also seen lead-free pewter that includes silver.

I know there are various pewter alloys, and part of the reason has to do
with the manufacturing method to be used to make a piece. One proportion of
alloying elements might be added to improve flow of the liquid metal into
molds for cast items, while another proportion might be added to improve
ductility for spinning or hammering.

The strangest alloy I have ever come across on an item I have personally is
aluminum silver. I have a berry spoon from the late 1800s that was made when
aluminum was still a semi-precious metal due to the great difficulty in
refining it. Aluminum silver was used for only a very short period, because
refining methods for aluminum improved very quickly and the cost dropped
dramatically. This spoon has a most unusual luster and color, unlike any
other metal I've seen.

Cast iron is good for hearty savory type of foods where the small amount of
iron transfer will only highten the taste of the food. They are bad for
light flavored food like seafood or French style scrambled eggs. For that
use a Stainless steel pan or a non-stick if you don't use it very often. I
have a stainless steel just for cooking eggs and have to use it nearly every
other day to keep it primed; or is it me that needs priming.

Ron Leedy

Bernard Arnest wrote:
>
> To double-check, does cast iron work for everything that a regular
> pan works for, or is it somewhat limited in application...?
>
>

Not sure I understand the question. A cast iron pan is a regular pan.

b.

wrote:
> Bernard Arnest wrote:
>>
>> To double-check, does cast iron work for everything that a regular
>> pan works for, or is it somewhat limited in application...?
>>
>>
>
> Not sure I understand the question. A cast iron pan is a regular pan.
>
> b.

Good catch!

Ken.

I am sort of new at cooking, but I loved to use cast iron skillets for
stovetop and oven use. They provided good even cooking across the total
surface of the pan. But when we purchased a new glass-top/flat-top range, we
had to switch over to stainless steel. We bought the Wolfgang Puck with
thick metal bottoms and they provide even cooking like the cast iron. We
did save one cast iron pan for oven use, however. We now like the
stainless better because we don't have to season them and they can be placed
in the dishwasher.







"Ken Davey" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
> > Bernard Arnest wrote:
> >>
> >> To double-check, does cast iron work for everything that a regular
> >> pan works for, or is it somewhat limited in application...?
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Not sure I understand the question. A cast iron pan is a regular pan.
> >
> > b.
>
> Good catch!
>
> Ken.
>
>