I have a copper bottom Revere ware pot that I love. I use "Copper
Clean" on the bottom after evertime I use it and keep it shiny.

Last night, I had dinner at a friend's who had the same pan, but has
never shined the bottom.

My question is: does it matter to the efficiency of the cookware if
it's never polished? Does not polishing it lessen the conductivity? I
can't think of the right way to phrase the question but I am wondering
if polishing the copper is only important to the look of the pan, or
does it matter in other ways?

Karen

Karen > wrote:

>I have a copper bottom Revere ware pot that I love. I use "Copper
>Clean" on the bottom after evertime I use it and keep it shiny.

>Last night, I had dinner at a friend's who had the same pan, but has
>never shined the bottom.

>My question is: does it matter to the efficiency of the cookware if
>it's never polished? Does not polishing it lessen the conductivity?

I would think if anything, the reverse: that polishing it would
wear off the copper, making it thinner.

However, the copper is so thin to begin with it probably doesn't
do anything either way.

Steve

In article
>,
Karen > wrote:

> I have a copper bottom Revere ware pot that I love. I use "Copper
> Clean" on the bottom after evertime I use it and keep it shiny.
>
> Last night, I had dinner at a friend's who had the same pan, but has
> never shined the bottom.
>
> My question is: does it matter to the efficiency of the cookware if
> it's never polished? Does not polishing it lessen the conductivity? I
> can't think of the right way to phrase the question but I am wondering
> if polishing the copper is only important to the look of the pan, or
> does it matter in other ways?
>
> Karen

Polishing only matters for looks.

"Karen" > wrote in message
...
>I have a copper bottom Revere ware pot that I love. I use "Copper
> Clean" on the bottom after evertime I use it and keep it shiny.
>
> Last night, I had dinner at a friend's who had the same pan, but has
> never shined the bottom.
>
> My question is: does it matter to the efficiency of the cookware if
> it's never polished? Does not polishing it lessen the conductivity? I
> can't think of the right way to phrase the question but I am wondering
> if polishing the copper is only important to the look of the pan, or
> does it matter in other ways?
>
> Karen

Won't make any difference. The copper is so thin it is not doing anything
for heat transfer anyway. If you like the shine, keep at it. but if you
want to save labor, forget it. You may find it easier to wipe them with
vinegar and salt to brighten them rather than use a commercial polish.

Arri London > wrote:

> The conductivity will be controlled by the *least* conductive
> material making up the pan.

I would say that is backwards. Heat conduction in the horizontal
direction (which is the purpose of any copper, to spread heat
more evenly) is controlled by the more conductive of the two
horizontal layers.

Steve

Karen wrote:
>
> I have a copper bottom Revere ware pot that I love. I use "Copper
> Clean" on the bottom after evertime I use it and keep it shiny.
>
> Last night, I had dinner at a friend's who had the same pan, but has
> never shined the bottom.
>
> My question is: does it matter to the efficiency of the cookware if
> it's never polished? Does not polishing it lessen the conductivity? I
> can't think of the right way to phrase the question but I am wondering
> if polishing the copper is only important to the look of the pan, or
> does it matter in other ways?
>
> Karen

There's likely to be enough copper on the bottom of such pans to affect
conductivity, so polishing it or not is moot. The conductivity will be
controlled by the *least* conductive material making up the pan. Anyway,
IIRC (and could be wrong of course), silver is a better thermal
conductor and there probably isn't a lot of cookware around that is
plated in silver

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> "Karen" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I have a copper bottom Revere ware pot that I love. I use "Copper
>> Clean" on the bottom after evertime I use it and keep it shiny.
>>
>> Last night, I had dinner at a friend's who had the same pan, but has
>> never shined the bottom.
>>
>> My question is: does it matter to the efficiency of the cookware if
>> it's never polished? Does not polishing it lessen the conductivity? I
>> can't think of the right way to phrase the question but I am wondering
>> if polishing the copper is only important to the look of the pan, or
>> does it matter in other ways?
>>
>> Karen
>
> Won't make any difference. The copper is so thin it is not doing anything
> for heat transfer anyway. If you like the shine, keep at it. but if you
> want to save labor, forget it. You may find it easier to wipe them with
> vinegar and salt to brighten them rather than use a commercial polish.
>
>
Does the comment about thinness pertain to all vintages, even
though the older Revereware has a noticeably thicker copper layer?

--
Jean B.

On Jun 29, 8:59*pm, "Jean B." > wrote:
> Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> > "Karen" > wrote in message
> ....
> >> I have a copper bottom Revere ware pot that I love. I use "Copper
> >> Clean" on the bottom after evertime I use it and keep it shiny.
>
> >> Last night, I had dinner at a friend's who had the same pan, but has
> >> never shined the bottom.
>
> >> My question is: does it matter to the efficiency of the cookware if
> >> it's never polished? Does not polishing it lessen the conductivity? I
> >> can't think of the right way to phrase the question but I am wondering
> >> if polishing the copper is only important to the look of the pan, or
> >> does it matter in other ways?
>
> >> Karen
>
> > Won't make any difference. *The copper is so thin it is not doing anything
> > for heat transfer anyway. *If you like the shine, keep at it. but if you
> > want to save labor, forget it. *You may find it easier to wipe them with
> > vinegar and salt to brighten them rather than use a commercial polish.
>
> Does the comment about thinness pertain to all vintages, even
> though the older Revereware has a noticeably thicker copper layer?
>
> --
> Jean B.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

My one Revere copper-clad pan dates to 1962, and it burns everything.
They are lousy pans unless you're just boiling water, IMO.

N.

Nancy2 wrote:
> On Jun 29, 8:59 pm, "Jean B." > wrote:
>> Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>>> "Karen" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> I have a copper bottom Revere ware pot that I love. I use "Copper
>>>> Clean" on the bottom after evertime I use it and keep it shiny.
>>>> Last night, I had dinner at a friend's who had the same pan, but has
>>>> never shined the bottom.
>>>> My question is: does it matter to the efficiency of the cookware if
>>>> it's never polished? Does not polishing it lessen the conductivity? I
>>>> can't think of the right way to phrase the question but I am wondering
>>>> if polishing the copper is only important to the look of the pan, or
>>>> does it matter in other ways?
>>>> Karen
>>> Won't make any difference. The copper is so thin it is not doing anything
>>> for heat transfer anyway. If you like the shine, keep at it. but if you
>>> want to save labor, forget it. You may find it easier to wipe them with
>>> vinegar and salt to brighten them rather than use a commercial polish.
>> Does the comment about thinness pertain to all vintages, even
>> though the older Revereware has a noticeably thicker copper layer?
>>
>> --
>> Jean B.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> My one Revere copper-clad pan dates to 1962, and it burns everything.
> They are lousy pans unless you're just boiling water, IMO.
>
> N.

Those were already lighter. That of my grandmother's era was
lovely and heavy, with deeply etched writing on the bottom. That
from my mother's day were noticeably lighter, and the pots and
pans I got in the 60s were still lighter. Of course, after that
it became pretty junky.

--
Jean B.

On Jun 30, 9:49*am, "Jean B." > wrote:
> Those were already lighter. That of my grandmother's era was
> lovely and heavy, with deeply etched writing on the bottom. *That
> from my mother's day were noticeably lighter, and the pots and
> pans I got in the 60s were still lighter. *Of course, after that
> it became pretty junky.

Mine's an antique. I love it.

I have a few favorite pans I wouldn't trade for the fanciest ones now
available. I have a roasting pan from Australia that is as old as the
hills, and I roast a chicken in every week almost and it makes the
carmelization just perfect.

Karen

"Nancy2" > wrote in message
...
On Jun 29, 8:59 pm, "Jean B." > wrote:
> Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> > "Karen" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> I have a copper bottom Revere ware pot that I love. I use "Copper
> >> Clean" on the bottom after evertime I use it and keep it shiny.
>
> >> Last night, I had dinner at a friend's who had the same pan, but has
> >> never shined the bottom.
>
> >> My question is: does it matter to the efficiency of the cookware if
> >> it's never polished? Does not polishing it lessen the conductivity? I
> >> can't think of the right way to phrase the question but I am wondering
> >> if polishing the copper is only important to the look of the pan, or
> >> does it matter in other ways?
>
> >> Karen
>
> > Won't make any difference. The copper is so thin it is not doing
> > anything
> > for heat transfer anyway. If you like the shine, keep at it. but if you
> > want to save labor, forget it. You may find it easier to wipe them with
> > vinegar and salt to brighten them rather than use a commercial polish.
>
> Does the comment about thinness pertain to all vintages, even
> though the older Revereware has a noticeably thicker copper layer?
>
> --
> Jean B.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

>My one Revere copper-clad pan dates to 1962, and it >burns everything. They
>are lousy pans unless you're just >boiling water, IMO.

I agree, I hate these things. I do have a RW tea kettle though! It does a
fine job on water.


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 14:51:46 -0400, "cybercat" >
wrote:

>
>"Nancy2" > wrote in message
>
>>My one Revere copper-clad pan dates to 1962, and it >burns everything. They
>>are lousy pans unless you're just >boiling water, IMO.
>
>I agree, I hate these things. I do have a RW tea kettle though! It does a
>fine job on water.
>
My Mom's Revere ware is the main reason I've never bought SS pots and
pans. The new type looks great, but I keep remembering the sheer
horror of cooking with that d*mn RW. It was a great day when a cast
iron fry pan appeared somehow and it was even better when anodized
Calphalon came into existence (although I've never had the nerve to
buy a Calphalon fry - saute pan). I bought mine mumble mumble years
ago. They look terrible now, but still cook great. I wonder if
Calphalon trades in old pieces that are losing their coating?
Actually, I'd just like them recoated.


--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

sf > wrote:

>My Mom's Revere ware is the main reason I've never bought SS pots and
>pans. The new type looks great, but I keep remembering the sheer
>horror of cooking with that d*mn RW.

Yeah, it's difficult to do anything more serious than boiling
pasta in a Revereware. Even cooking beans is problematical
(they can stick to the hot spots). The main advantages are
they are cheap and light and you don't have to worry about
damaging them. I'd pick 'em over aluminum pans, or yet-cheaper
SS pans.

But Caphalon or other serious stainless steel pieces are
a whole 'nother animal.

Steve

"sf" <.> wrote
> My Mom's Revere ware is the main reason I've never bought SS pots and
> pans. The new type looks great, but I keep remembering the sheer
> horror of cooking with that d*mn RW. It was a great day when a cast
> iron fry pan appeared somehow and it was even better when anodized
> Calphalon came into existence (although I've never had the nerve to
> buy a Calphalon fry - saute pan). I bought mine mumble mumble years
> ago. They look terrible now, but still cook great. I wonder if
> Calphalon trades in old pieces that are losing their coating?
> Actually, I'd just like them recoated.
>

I'm confused. You have never bought a Calphalon fry pan, but you have a
Calphalon fry pan?

And what coating? Nonstick?? I have the regular Calphalon, and you can
take scouring powder to them. In fact, it is recommended.

Steve Pope wrote:
> sf > wrote:
>
>> My Mom's Revere ware is the main reason I've never bought SS pots and
>> pans. The new type looks great, but I keep remembering the sheer
>> horror of cooking with that d*mn RW.
>
> Yeah, it's difficult to do anything more serious than boiling
> pasta in a Revereware. Even cooking beans is problematical
> (they can stick to the hot spots). The main advantages are
> they are cheap and light and you don't have to worry about
> damaging them. I'd pick 'em over aluminum pans, or yet-cheaper
> SS pans.
>
> But Caphalon or other serious stainless steel pieces are
> a whole 'nother animal.
>

My mom had Revere Ware. I hated it. Everything stuck to it. For that
reason, I shied away from SS form many years. When I started
housekeeping I went with a set of Wagnerware Magnalite. Now those were
pots! Can't even get them any more. They were cast aluminum and heavy.
Awesome heat distribution. Cleaned up well, too.

When I went to replace them (lost them in a wreck with our fifth wheel
trailer)I did a bunch of reasarch and bought a set of Calphalon
stainless steel. The fry pans are coated, but the other pots are not. I
was a little afraid of SS, but these supposedly had some aluminum in
them to distribute heat better.

They are very heavy, but I love them.


--
Janet Wilder
Bad spelling. Bad punctuation
Good Friends. Good Life

Janet Wilder > wrote in news:48696284$0$30335
:

> The fry pans are coated, but the other pots are not. I
> was a little afraid of SS, but these supposedly had some aluminum in
> them to distribute heat better.
>
> They are very heavy, but I love them.
>
>
>

If you want good heat distribution get an induction range.

--

The house of the burning beet-Alan

hahabogus > wrote:

>Janet Wilder > wrote in news:48696284$0$30335

>> The fry pans are coated, but the other pots are not. I
>> was a little afraid of SS, but these supposedly had some aluminum in
>> them to distribute heat better.

>> They are very heavy, but I love them.

>If you want good heat distribution get an induction range.

Not exactly a low-cost quick fix!

I find the stainless steel uncoated Caphalon, which I think have a
bonded alumimum implant, very satisfactory distribution-wise. I
have two such pieces.

Steve

Karen wrote:
> On Jun 30, 9:49 am, "Jean B." > wrote:
>> Those were already lighter. That of my grandmother's era was
>> lovely and heavy, with deeply etched writing on the bottom. That
>> from my mother's day were noticeably lighter, and the pots and
>> pans I got in the 60s were still lighter. Of course, after that
>> it became pretty junky.
>
> Mine's an antique. I love it.
>
> I have a few favorite pans I wouldn't trade for the fanciest ones now
> available. I have a roasting pan from Australia that is as old as the
> hills, and I roast a chicken in every week almost and it makes the
> carmelization just perfect.
>
> Karen

Neat! One thing I really like about the Revereware is the lids.
You know how they catch the steam? Also you can pick the lids and
the pots up without a potholder--and you don't break your wrist
doing so.

--
Jean B.

hahabogus wrote:
> Janet Wilder > wrote in news:48696284$0$30335
> :
>
>> The fry pans are coated, but the other pots are not. I
>> was a little afraid of SS, but these supposedly had some aluminum in
>> them to distribute heat better.
>>
>> They are very heavy, but I love them.
>>
>>
>>
>
> If you want good heat distribution get an induction range.
>
Heh. I guess that's true. I have some trouble at the edges of
the pan, but I only have two relatively small induction burners.
Oddly enough, the burners are SQUARE!

--
Jean B.

Jean B. > wrote:

>Neat! One thing I really like about the Revereware is the lids.
>You know how they catch the steam? Also you can pick the lids and
>the pots up without a potholder--and you don't break your wrist
>doing so.

That's true about the lids -- probably the only pot where you can
thicken a sauce while having it covered.

(I guess the same is true of Farberware.)

S.

hahabogus wrote:
>
> If you want good heat distribution get an induction range.
>

Question: What makes an induction range different from the glass top
electric range I have. They look alike in the pictures.

--
Janet Wilder
Bad spelling. Bad punctuation
Good Friends. Good Life

Steve Pope wrote:

>
> I find the stainless steel uncoated Caphalon, which I think have a
> bonded alumimum implant, very satisfactory distribution-wise. I
> have two such pieces.

That's what I have. Only the two saute pans are coated. Big frying pan
is not. I love that big frying pan!

I have their anodized roaster that I got for free when I ordered my set.
Weighs a ton, but works well and cleans up easily.

I also have an anodized stock pot that I caught for $15 at Marshall's
a couple of years ago.


--
Janet Wilder
Bad spelling. Bad punctuation
Good Friends. Good Life

On Mon 30 Jun 2008 06:37:43p, Janet Wilder told us...

> hahabogus wrote:
>>
>> If you want good heat distribution get an induction range.
>>
>
> Question: What makes an induction range different from the glass top
> electric range I have. They look alike in the pictures.

An induction range actually produces no heat of its own. Each "burner"
element is a controlled electromagnet which, when in close proximity to a
ferrous based metal pot, causes the pot itself to get hot. This is also
why it does not work with aluminum or glass. Even some stainless steel
pots do not work well with it. However, if you have the right cookware,
the heat generated in the pot is extremely good and easily controlled. It
is also virtually "instant on, instant off". The glass surface does get
warm from being in contact with the hot pot, but not nearly so hot as a
conventional glass top range with heating elements underneath. I wish the
technology was as widespread in the US as it is in Europe.

HTH

--
Wayne Boatwright
-------------------------------------------
Monday, 06(VI)/30(XXX)/08(MMVIII)
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
Calvin, we will not have an
anatomically correct snowman!
-------------------------------------------

Wayne Boatwright wrote:

> An induction range actually produces no heat of its own. Each "burner"
> element is a controlled electromagnet which, when in close proximity to a
> ferrous based metal pot, causes the pot itself to get hot. This is also
> why it does not work with aluminum or glass. Even some stainless steel
> pots do not work well with it. However, if you have the right cookware,
> the heat generated in the pot is extremely good and easily controlled. It
> is also virtually "instant on, instant off". The glass surface does get
> warm from being in contact with the hot pot, but not nearly so hot as a
> conventional glass top range with heating elements underneath. I wish the
> technology was as widespread in the US as it is in Europe.

Thanks, Wayne.

--
Janet Wilder
Bad spelling. Bad punctuation
Good Friends. Good Life

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 18:29:13 -0400, "cybercat" >
wrote:

>
>"sf" <.> wrote
>> My Mom's Revere ware is the main reason I've never bought SS pots and
>> pans. The new type looks great, but I keep remembering the sheer
>> horror of cooking with that d*mn RW. It was a great day when a cast
>> iron fry pan appeared somehow and it was even better when anodized
>> Calphalon came into existence (although I've never had the nerve to
>> buy a Calphalon fry - saute pan). I bought mine mumble mumble years
>> ago. They look terrible now, but still cook great. I wonder if
>> Calphalon trades in old pieces that are losing their coating?
>> Actually, I'd just like them recoated.
>>
>
>I'm confused. You have never bought a Calphalon fry pan, but you have a
>Calphalon fry pan?
>
I have sauce pans of various sizes and a stock pot. No fry pan.

>And what coating? Nonstick?? I have the regular Calphalon, and you can
>take scouring powder to them. In fact, it is recommended.
>
This is the original type of anodized coating which is dark gray, not
black, (I think they've improved it over the years) and it's wearing
pretty thin, in fact I can see the base metal in spots. I'm wondering
if I can get them recoated somewhere.



--
I never worry about diets. The only carrots that interest me are the number of carats in a diamond.

Mae West

On Mon 30 Jun 2008 07:12:20p, Janet Wilder told us...

> Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>
>> An induction range actually produces no heat of its own. Each "burner"
>> element is a controlled electromagnet which, when in close proximity to
>> a ferrous based metal pot, causes the pot itself to get hot. This is
>> also why it does not work with aluminum or glass. Even some stainless
>> steel pots do not work well with it. However, if you have the right
>> cookware, the heat generated in the pot is extremely good and easily
>> controlled. It is also virtually "instant on, instant off". The glass
>> surface does get warm from being in contact with the hot pot, but not
>> nearly so hot as a conventional glass top range with heating elements
>> underneath. I wish the technology was as widespread in the US as it is
>> in Europe.
>
> Thanks, Wayne.
>

You're welcome, Janet.

--
Wayne Boatwright
-------------------------------------------
Monday, 06(VI)/30(XXX)/08(MMVIII)
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
You know what I always say...
-------------------------------------------

Janet Wilder > wrote in news:48698a66$0$30613
:

> hahabogus wrote:
>>
>> If you want good heat distribution get an induction range.
>>
>
> Question: What makes an induction range different from the glass top
> electric range I have. They look alike in the pictures.
>

They may look alike but so does a plaster of parris chicken and a rubber
chicken...a wax banana and a plastic one. A picture of tea and realty.

The induction top is powered by electricity but the electricity is used
to create a magnatic field not heat directly... a fast spinning magnetic
field produces the heat inside the ferrous pan bottom not by contact with
a hot burner. It is as fast as gas for on off and increment heat control,
but more efficient fuel wise. The burner never gets hot...the only heat
outside of the pan is reflected heat, reflected back from the pan. Very
fine heat adjustments can be made, turn it on to the setting you choose
and that is the heat you get, immediately; throughout the entire pan
bottom. Some induction hotplates are used in business cafeterias for a
reduction in insurance rates. If you want say a slow simmer you can get
it pretty close once you are familar with the unit. It is a true joy to
scramble eggs on the unit as an even heat is applied to the entire pan
bottom.

Now the ceramic topped stove works through electrically produced
resistance in the burner not the pan and takes time to get the pan to
temp and the burner gets hot and reflects heat to the pan to cook stuff.
The burner isn't producing an even heat all over you pan bottom and
doesn't produce as fine a temperture control as gas. I've never owed one
of these but hear they suck for simmering and only have the coarsest of
temp control; as they constantly are turning on and off.

I only have a induction hot plate...you can turn on the burner and put
your hand on it without getting burned. If you cook say scrambled eggs
and then put your hand on the burner...you will get burned..due to the
heat reflecting back from the pan. The induction works only with magnetic
pots and pans that is to say pans that stick to a magnate.

Just having the stove on isn't a fire hazard as no heat without a proper
type pot. The hotplate comes with timer so you can select cooking time
length. So if you start cooking; it will turn off on time out; if left
unattended. The burner beeps when turned on until a proper ferrous pan is
put on it. The damned thing has a cooling fan. I've had mine for several
years now and am quite happy with it and it is probably outdated as to
features etc as well as it was a cheapie unit when I bought it.

In summary an electric stove produces a heated burner which heats a pan
thru direct contact, which in turn heats your food thru direct contact.
An electric induction burner produces a magnetic field which creates heat
in the pan bottom, which heats your food thru direct contact.

Drawbacks ..not all types of metal pans will work...if a magnet won't
stick to the pan...it won't work on the induction burner. And they are
pricey for a range unit.

Benifits...very fast on/off and incremental temp control and a little
more fuel efficient. Plus safer from a fire POV.




--

The house of the burning beet-Alan

Janet Wilder wrote:

> hahabogus wrote:
>>
>> If you want good heat distribution get an induction range.
>>
>
> Question: What makes an induction range different from the glass top
> electric range I have. They look alike in the pictures.

The don't use the same method for heating your pans.


--
Blinky
Is your ISP dropping Usenet?
Need a new feed?
http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html

Wayne Boatwright wrote:
> On Mon 30 Jun 2008 06:37:43p, Janet Wilder told us...
>
>> hahabogus wrote:
>>> If you want good heat distribution get an induction range.
>>>
>> Question: What makes an induction range different from the glass top
>> electric range I have. They look alike in the pictures.
>
> An induction range actually produces no heat of its own. Each "burner"
> element is a controlled electromagnet which, when in close proximity to a
> ferrous based metal pot, causes the pot itself to get hot. This is also
> why it does not work with aluminum or glass. Even some stainless steel
> pots do not work well with it. However, if you have the right cookware,
> the heat generated in the pot is extremely good and easily controlled. It
> is also virtually "instant on, instant off". The glass surface does get
> warm from being in contact with the hot pot, but not nearly so hot as a
> conventional glass top range with heating elements underneath. I wish the
> technology was as widespread in the US as it is in Europe.
>
> HTH
>
Oh good! I was hoping someone would come up with a nice
explanation. I'm just a user--and my range predates the
availability of better units in the United States. For all *I*
know, those units (e.g., by Wolf, IIRC) have come and gone.

--
Jean B.

hahabogus wrote:
> Janet Wilder > wrote in news:48698a66$0$30613
> :
>
>> hahabogus wrote:
>>> If you want good heat distribution get an induction range.
>>>
>> Question: What makes an induction range different from the glass top
>> electric range I have. They look alike in the pictures.
>>
>
> They may look alike but so does a plaster of parris chicken and a rubber
> chicken...a wax banana and a plastic one. A picture of tea and realty.
>
> The induction top is powered by electricity but the electricity is used
> to create a magnatic field not heat directly... a fast spinning magnetic
> field produces the heat inside the ferrous pan bottom not by contact with
> a hot burner. It is as fast as gas for on off and increment heat control,
> but more efficient fuel wise. The burner never gets hot...the only heat
> outside of the pan is reflected heat, reflected back from the pan. Very
> fine heat adjustments can be made, turn it on to the setting you choose
> and that is the heat you get, immediately; throughout the entire pan
> bottom. Some induction hotplates are used in business cafeterias for a
> reduction in insurance rates. If you want say a slow simmer you can get
> it pretty close once you are familar with the unit. It is a true joy to
> scramble eggs on the unit as an even heat is applied to the entire pan
> bottom.
>
> Now the ceramic topped stove works through electrically produced
> resistance in the burner not the pan and takes time to get the pan to
> temp and the burner gets hot and reflects heat to the pan to cook stuff.
> The burner isn't producing an even heat all over you pan bottom and
> doesn't produce as fine a temperture control as gas. I've never owed one
> of these but hear they suck for simmering and only have the coarsest of
> temp control; as they constantly are turning on and off.
>
> I only have a induction hot plate...you can turn on the burner and put
> your hand on it without getting burned. If you cook say scrambled eggs
> and then put your hand on the burner...you will get burned..due to the
> heat reflecting back from the pan. The induction works only with magnetic
> pots and pans that is to say pans that stick to a magnate.
>
> Just having the stove on isn't a fire hazard as no heat without a proper
> type pot. The hotplate comes with timer so you can select cooking time
> length. So if you start cooking; it will turn off on time out; if left
> unattended. The burner beeps when turned on until a proper ferrous pan is
> put on it. The damned thing has a cooling fan. I've had mine for several
> years now and am quite happy with it and it is probably outdated as to
> features etc as well as it was a cheapie unit when I bought it.
>
> In summary an electric stove produces a heated burner which heats a pan
> thru direct contact, which in turn heats your food thru direct contact.
> An electric induction burner produces a magnetic field which creates heat
> in the pan bottom, which heats your food thru direct contact.
>
> Drawbacks ..not all types of metal pans will work...if a magnet won't
> stick to the pan...it won't work on the induction burner. And they are
> pricey for a range unit.
>
> Benifits...very fast on/off and incremental temp control and a little
> more fuel efficient. Plus safer from a fire POV.
>
>
And cooler in summer. I should add that multi-metal induction
technology has been available in Japan for several years now.

--
Jean B.

"Jean B." > wrote in message
...
> Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>> On Mon 30 Jun 2008 06:37:43p, Janet Wilder told us...
>>
>>> hahabogus wrote:
>>>> If you want good heat distribution get an induction range.
>>>>
>>> Question: What makes an induction range different from the glass top
>>> electric range I have. They look alike in the pictures.
>>
>> An induction range actually produces no heat of its own. Each "burner"
>> element is a controlled electromagnet which, when in close proximity to a
>> ferrous based metal pot, causes the pot itself to get hot. This is also
>> why it does not work with aluminum or glass. Even some stainless steel
>> pots do not work well with it. However, if you have the right cookware,
>> the heat generated in the pot is extremely good and easily controlled.
>> It is also virtually "instant on, instant off". The glass surface does
>> get warm from being in contact with the hot pot, but not nearly so hot as
>> a conventional glass top range with heating elements underneath. I wish
>> the technology was as widespread in the US as it is in Europe.
>>
>> HTH
>>
> Oh good! I was hoping someone would come up with a nice explanation. I'm
> just a user--and my range predates the availability of better units in the
> United States. For all *I* know, those units (e.g., by Wolf, IIRC) have
> come and gone.
>
> --
> Jean B.

That's very interesting. My step-son and DIL are in the process of building
a new home and the cooktop is going to be on the island. It's going to be a
Kenmore Elite induction cooktop.

I agree with Edwin about not using a commercial cleaner for the
copper....use lemon juice and salt....very easy!
Shalom,
Ellie

hahabogus wrote:
> Janet Wilder > wrote in news:48698a66$0$30613

>> Question: What makes an induction range different from the glass top
>> electric range I have. They look alike in the pictures.
>>
>
> They may look alike but so does a plaster of parris chicken and a rubber
> chicken...a wax banana and a plastic one. A picture of tea and realty.
>
> The induction top is powered by electricity but the electricity is used
> to create a magnatic field not heat directly... a fast spinning magnetic
> field produces the heat inside the ferrous pan bottom not by contact with
> a hot burner. It is as fast as gas for on off and increment heat control,
> but more efficient fuel wise. The burner never gets hot...the only heat
> outside of the pan is reflected heat, reflected back from the pan. Very
> fine heat adjustments can be made, turn it on to the setting you choose
> and that is the heat you get, immediately; throughout the entire pan
> bottom. Some induction hotplates are used in business cafeterias for a
> reduction in insurance rates. If you want say a slow simmer you can get
> it pretty close once you are familar with the unit. It is a true joy to
> scramble eggs on the unit as an even heat is applied to the entire pan
> bottom.
>
> Now the ceramic topped stove works through electrically produced
> resistance in the burner not the pan and takes time to get the pan to
> temp and the burner gets hot and reflects heat to the pan to cook stuff.
> The burner isn't producing an even heat all over you pan bottom and
> doesn't produce as fine a temperture control as gas. I've never owed one
> of these but hear they suck for simmering and only have the coarsest of
> temp control; as they constantly are turning on and off.
>
> I only have a induction hot plate...you can turn on the burner and put
> your hand on it without getting burned. If you cook say scrambled eggs
> and then put your hand on the burner...you will get burned..due to the
> heat reflecting back from the pan. The induction works only with magnetic
> pots and pans that is to say pans that stick to a magnate.
>
> Just having the stove on isn't a fire hazard as no heat without a proper
> type pot. The hotplate comes with timer so you can select cooking time
> length. So if you start cooking; it will turn off on time out; if left
> unattended. The burner beeps when turned on until a proper ferrous pan is
> put on it. The damned thing has a cooling fan. I've had mine for several
> years now and am quite happy with it and it is probably outdated as to
> features etc as well as it was a cheapie unit when I bought it.
>
> In summary an electric stove produces a heated burner which heats a pan
> thru direct contact, which in turn heats your food thru direct contact.
> An electric induction burner produces a magnetic field which creates heat
> in the pan bottom, which heats your food thru direct contact.
>
> Drawbacks ..not all types of metal pans will work...if a magnet won't
> stick to the pan...it won't work on the induction burner. And they are
> pricey for a range unit.
>
> Benifits...very fast on/off and incremental temp control and a little
> more fuel efficient. Plus safer from a fire POV.

thank you so much for having taken the time to answer my question in
such detail. I really, really appreciate it.


--
Janet Wilder
Bad spelling. Bad punctuation
Good Friends. Good Life

"Nancy2" > wrote in message
...
> On Jun 29, 8:59 pm, "Jean B." > wrote:
>> Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>> > "Karen" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> I have a copper bottom Revere ware pot that I love. I use "Copper
>> >> Clean" on the bottom after evertime I use it and keep it shiny.
>>
>> >> Last night, I had dinner at a friend's who had the same pan, but has
>> >> never shined the bottom.
>>
>> >> My question is: does it matter to the efficiency of the cookware if
>> >> it's never polished? Does not polishing it lessen the conductivity? I
>> >> can't think of the right way to phrase the question but I am wondering
>> >> if polishing the copper is only important to the look of the pan, or
>> >> does it matter in other ways?
>>
>> >> Karen
>>
>> > Won't make any difference. The copper is so thin it is not doing
>> > anything
>> > for heat transfer anyway. If you like the shine, keep at it. but if you
>> > want to save labor, forget it. You may find it easier to wipe them with
>> > vinegar and salt to brighten them rather than use a commercial polish.
>>
>> Does the comment about thinness pertain to all vintages, even
>> though the older Revereware has a noticeably thicker copper layer?
>>
>> --
>> Jean B.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> My one Revere copper-clad pan dates to 1962, and it burns everything.
> They are lousy pans unless you're just boiling water, IMO.


Interesting. I always thought it was the cook, not the cookware that was
responsible for burned food.

TFM®

On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 13:52:49 -0400, TFM® >
wrote:


>Interesting. I always thought it was the cook, not the cookware that was
>responsible for burned food.
>
>TFM®

Some cookware, especially cheaper, lighter pots are known to have
hotspots which can lead to burning. Even with cooks that watch what
they are cooking.

Heavier pans tend to heat much more evenly.

Christine

Steve Pope wrote:
>
> Arri London > wrote:
>
> > The conductivity will be controlled by the *least* conductive
> > material making up the pan.
>
> I would say that is backwards. Heat conduction in the horizontal
> direction (which is the purpose of any copper, to spread heat
> more evenly) is controlled by the more conductive of the two
> horizontal layers.
>
> Steve

As soon as the heat hits the part with lower conduction, that conduction
is slowed. The heat must eventually be conducted vertically through the
layers of the pan to get to the contents. If it all went horizontal,
nothing would get *into* the pan.
Same with electrical conduction; can't go 'faster' (to use that term
loosely) than the highest ohm resistor will allow.

Arri London > wrote:

>Steve Pope wrote:

>> Heat conduction in the horizontal
>> direction (which is the purpose of any copper, to spread heat
>> more evenly) is controlled by the more conductive of the two
>> horizontal layers.

>As soon as the heat hits the part with lower conduction, that conduction
>is slowed. The heat must eventually be conducted vertically through the
>layers of the pan to get to the contents. If it all went horizontal,
>nothing would get *into* the pan.

The heat must only conduct a trivial distance vertically.
You can ignore the vertical direction.

Steve

TFM® wrote:
> "Nancy2" > wrote in message

>> My one Revere copper-clad pan dates to 1962, and it burns everything.
>> They are lousy pans unless you're just boiling water, IMO.
>
>
> Interesting. I always thought it was the cook, not the cookware that
> was responsible for burned food.
>
> TFM®

<shrug> I can't say that I've ever burned anything because of using
Revereware. If I've burned it was by my own neglect. My Revereware
pots have served me very well over the years.

On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 23:15:43 -0400, Goomba >
wrote:

>TFM® wrote:
>> "Nancy2" > wrote in message
>
>>> My one Revere copper-clad pan dates to 1962, and it burns everything.
>>> They are lousy pans unless you're just boiling water, IMO.
>>
>>
>> Interesting. I always thought it was the cook, not the cookware that
>> was responsible for burned food.
>>
>> TFM®
>
><shrug> I can't say that I've ever burned anything because of using
>Revereware. If I've burned it was by my own neglect. My Revereware
>pots have served me very well over the years.

i've not had bad experiences either. my nine-inch frying pan has
become a little 'domed' in the middle, which kinda ****es me off, but
other than that they've held up pretty well.

your pal,
blake
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

Steve Pope wrote:
>
> Arri London > wrote:
>
> >Steve Pope wrote:
>
> >> Heat conduction in the horizontal
> >> direction (which is the purpose of any copper, to spread heat
> >> more evenly) is controlled by the more conductive of the two
> >> horizontal layers.
>
> >As soon as the heat hits the part with lower conduction, that conduction
> >is slowed. The heat must eventually be conducted vertically through the
> >layers of the pan to get to the contents. If it all went horizontal,
> >nothing would get *into* the pan.
>
> The heat must only conduct a trivial distance vertically.
> You can ignore the vertical direction.
>
> Steve

Nah! My original training was in engineering; never ignore anything in
the vertical direction