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

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

"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

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

"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.

In article >,
(Peter Lampione) wrote:

> 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


I just bought a few NSF Update pots from cookswares.com (I think)
including a 16 quart stockpot. Professional grade 18/8 stainless;
induction-ready; rolling-pin flat, thick disk bottom for use on my
glass-top; and welded handles. They are a bit heavier to heft around,
but they are fabulous and the price was the best I could find for
similar quality. For lots more money, Mauviel, Demeyere and Sitram are
also induction-ready, similar quality.

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

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!

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!

in article , zenit at
wrote on 10/6/03 11:14 AM:

> On Mon, 06 Oct 2003 12:39:53 GMT, Sheryl Rosen
> >
> had to open a new box of zerones to say
>
>> in article , Peter Lampione
>> at wrote on 10/6/03 1:14 AM:
>>
>>> 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!
>
> As was your remark...
>
> <! -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- >
> zenit

look in the mirror...neither are you.

in article , Kate Dicey at
wrote on 10/6/03 6:10 AM:

> Comparing the old ally stuff I grew up with (very good quality, but a

(snip)

> You can still buy the ally things my ma had as wedding presents, and
(snip)

> 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

(snip)

what, pray tell, is ally?

Sheryl Rosen > wrote in news:BBA702BC.3ABBE%
:


>
> what, pray tell, is ally?
>
>

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

--
Anti-spam advisory: The email address used to post this article is a throw-
away address. It will be invalidated and replaced with another if and when
it is found by spammers.

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

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

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

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 , Nancy Young at
wrote on 10/6/03 4:14 PM:

> 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

am with ya, Nanc.
just say what the hell you mean, for goodness sake.

in article , Nancy Young at
wrote on 10/6/03 5:53 PM:

> 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

at least it's clear what it is. ok, theres an extra i, but you could get it.

Ally? could be a typo for alloy, for all I knew.

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 , Nancy Young at

> > 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.

> at least it's clear what it is. ok, theres an extra i, but you could get it.
>
> Ally? could be a typo for alloy, for all I knew.

That's what I was thinking, do they mean some kind of sandwiched
metal? I didn't realize it was baby talk for aluminum. Sorry if
that offends anyone, but that is what it sounds like.

nancy

in article , Nancy Young at
wrote on 10/6/03 9:20 PM:

>
> That's what I was thinking, do they mean some kind of sandwiched
> metal? I didn't realize it was baby talk for aluminum. Sorry if
> that offends anyone, but that is what it sounds like.
>
> nancy

that's how it sounds to me, too, nancy.

>> > 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
>
------------------------
Unless you're in the UK, where
"aluminum" is spelled with an extra letter "i" in it, thus: "aluminium"
..

I am a big fan of Cuisinart Everyday, formerly Professional. It is
stainless, and has a copper bottom, and independent consumer mags say it
heats too hot. The current product is from Korea, and is better than the
old product from France. It can be found very competively priced.

Peter Lampione wrote:
>
> 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

Nancree wrote:
>
> >> > 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.

> Unless you're in the UK, where
> "aluminum" is spelled with an extra letter "i" in it, thus: "aluminium"

Which is, apparently, pronounced ally.

It's aluminum or aluminium, not ally. That was the original question,
we didn't know what she was talking about.

nancy

Sheryl Rosen wrote:
>
> in article , Nancy Young at
> wrote on 10/6/03 9:20 PM:
>
> >
> > That's what I was thinking, do they mean some kind of sandwiched
> > metal? I didn't realize it was baby talk for aluminum. Sorry if
> > that offends anyone, but that is what it sounds like.
> >
> > nancy
>
> that's how it sounds to me, too, nancy.


Just a sort of nickname, usually denotes something slightly cheap and
cheerful. As in, 'Is that a good frying pan?'... 'Nah, just ally!'

Don't forget, some of your USA expressions sound just as weird to me!

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

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