Kathleen wrote:
> Graham wrote:
>
>> "Jane Gillett" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>> In article >,
>>> congokid > wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article >, Omelet
>>>> > writes
>>>>
>>>>> In article >,
>>>>> bugbear > wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> The (Meyer) non stick pan ended up with a tightly
>>>
>>>>> . It sounds like your pan is not seasoned properly
>>>>> tho'.
>>>
>>>> I thought that part of the point of non-stick pans is that they don't
>>>> need seasoning.
>>>
>>> I agree. Logic says that non-stick pans use a lining that things don't
>>> stick to. In which case, the thing you want is the lining absolutely
>>> clean
>>> without any sort of covering. Seasoning a non-stick pan will just add a
>>> layer on top of the lining and food can stick to that layer. I
>>> suggest what
>>> happened with the onions may have been polymerisation - you formed a
>>> type
>>> of plastic which was resistant to water and detergents and that's why
>>> you
>>> couldn't remove it.
>>>
>>> I remember causing offence on this group some time ago over this
>>> issue. I
>>> said that IMO it was vital to keep non-stick pans "sparkling clean"
>>> and got
>>> the response that her pans were always clean! I obviously didn't get the
>>> message over. I am old enough to remember the time before non-stick pans
>>> were widely available - cleaning frying pans was not an issue. "Wash a
>>> frying pan?" It never happened; not in our house anyway; my mother just
>>> added more fat when the existing fat dropped too low. Breakfast was
>>> fried,
>>> often including fried bread which soaked up the fat, and as for health
>>> issues, a much larger proportion of the population did active manual
>>> work;
>>> and, I expect, they had heart attacks.
>>>
>>
>> Mum used to wash the FP from time to time, I suspect after frying
>> fish. She then seasoned it by boiling potato peelings in it leaving a
>> "skin" of starch, I suppose.
>> Graham
>>
> I don't know what boiling potato peelings was supposed to accomplish,
> but a layer of starch is not likely to render a pan non-stick. Just the
> opposite, I would think.
>
I would think it was more to remove any lingering fishiness.