I got a new stock pot and tried it out today, making spaghetti.
It behaved differently than my old one and I thot I'd check here to see
if it's normal.
It's a 12-qt stainless steel and aluminum sandwich (at least on the
bottom.) That's bigger than my old one which was only around 8 qt I'd
guess, and the old one was also only single sheet of metal. Not aluminum
tho, too heavy for that.
The problem is it never would get to a rolling boil tonite. It came
close and have big bubbles coming up the middle of the water but never
quite make it to rolling like the old one. There was more water in it,
but I let it go for what seemed like plenty of time to get it there.
It cooked the spaghetti, but took longer than my old one.

What I want to know is that normal for a large pot of this type?

Pringles CheezUms wrote:
>
> I got a new stock pot and tried it out today, making spaghetti.
> It behaved differently than my old one and I thot I'd check here to see
> if it's normal.
> It's a 12-qt stainless steel and aluminum sandwich (at least on the
> bottom.) That's bigger than my old one which was only around 8 qt I'd
> guess, and the old one was also only single sheet of metal. Not aluminum
> tho, too heavy for that.
> The problem is it never would get to a rolling boil tonite. It came
> close and have big bubbles coming up the middle of the water but never
> quite make it to rolling like the old one. There was more water in it,
> but I let it go for what seemed like plenty of time to get it there.
> It cooked the spaghetti, but took longer than my old one.
>
> What I want to know is that normal for a large pot of this type?

Doesn't sound right. Given enough heat, the water should have come to a
rolling boil eventually. Next time wait for it to come to the proper
boil, even if it takes longer.

On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 19:46:43 -0600, Pringles CheezUms
> wrote:

> The problem is it never would get to a rolling boil tonite. It came
> close and have big bubbles coming up the middle of the water but never
> quite make it to rolling like the old one. There was more water in it,
> but I let it go for what seemed like plenty of time to get it there.
> It cooked the spaghetti, but took longer than my old one.
>
> What I want to know is that normal for a large pot of this type?

If your pot is a better quality, it means your walls are thicker so
that's a factor. Also, a larger pot means more water, which means it
will take longer to boil. When I use my big pot and fill it with
water, I put the lid on. For some reason the water boils faster. Try
using the lid on next time you want to boil water. Oh, yes... did you
put salt in the water? Salt affects the time it takes for water to
boil.

--

Never trust a dog to watch your food.

"Pringles CheezUms" > wrote in message
...
>I got a new stock pot and tried it out today, making spaghetti.
> It behaved differently than my old one and I thot I'd check here to see
> if it's normal.
> It's a 12-qt stainless steel and aluminum sandwich (at least on the
> bottom.) That's bigger than my old one which was only around 8 qt I'd
> guess, and the old one was also only single sheet of metal. Not aluminum
> tho, too heavy for that.
> The problem is it never would get to a rolling boil tonite. It came
> close and have big bubbles coming up the middle of the water but never
> quite make it to rolling like the old one. There was more water in it,
> but I let it go for what seemed like plenty of time to get it there.
> It cooked the spaghetti, but took longer than my old one.
>
> What I want to know is that normal for a large pot of this type?
>
>
What kind of cooktop are you heating on? How wide are the heating elements?
How wide is your stockpot?

Kent

On 12/13/2010 8:26 PM, sf wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 19:46:43 -0600, Pringles CheezUms
> > wrote:
>
>> The problem is it never would get to a rolling boil tonite. It came
>> close and have big bubbles coming up the middle of the water but never
>> quite make it to rolling like the old one. There was more water in it,
>> but I let it go for what seemed like plenty of time to get it there.
>> It cooked the spaghetti, but took longer than my old one.
>>
>> What I want to know is that normal for a large pot of this type?
>
> If your pot is a better quality, it means your walls are thicker so
> that's a factor. Also, a larger pot means more water, which means it
> will take longer to boil. When I use my big pot and fill it with
> water, I put the lid on. For some reason the water boils faster. Try
> using the lid on next time you want to boil water. Oh, yes... did you
> put salt in the water? Salt affects the time it takes for water to
> boil.
>

Ditto what sf said about using the lid and adding salt, plus make sure
the burner isn't too small for the pot.

Sky, who almost typed "using the salt & adding lid"! <VBG>

--

Ultra Ultimate Kitchen Rule - Use the Timer!
Ultimate Kitchen Rule -- Cook's Choice!!

On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 22:09:06 -0600, Sky >
wrote:

> Ditto what sf said about using the lid and adding salt, plus make sure
> the burner isn't too small for the pot.

the burner being too small for the pot.... I thought that was just
my stove! I have too small and too large... no just right.
>
> Sky, who almost typed "using the salt & adding lid"! <VBG>

Are you home now?

--

Never trust a dog to watch your food.

Pringles CheezUms wrote:
>
>I got a new stock pot and tried it out today, making spaghetti.
>It behaved differently than my old one and I thot I'd check here to see
>if it's normal.
>It's a 12-qt stainless steel and aluminum sandwich (at least on the
>bottom.) That's bigger than my old one which was only around 8 qt I'd
>guess, and the old one was also only single sheet of metal. Not aluminum
>tho, too heavy for that.
>The problem is it never would get to a rolling boil tonite. It came
>close and have big bubbles coming up the middle of the water but never
>quite make it to rolling like the old one. There was more water in it,
>but I let it go for what seemed like plenty of time to get it there.
>It cooked the spaghetti, but took longer than my old one.
>
>What I want to know is that normal for a large pot of this type?

Obviously your burner hasn't a great enough BTU rating for bringing 12
quarts of water to a rolling boil... it's not the pot, it's your cook
top.

On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 19:19:14 -0700, Arri London >
wrote:

>
>
>Pringles CheezUms wrote:
>>
>> I got a new stock pot and tried it out today, making spaghetti.
>> It behaved differently than my old one and I thot I'd check here to see
>> if it's normal.
>> It's a 12-qt stainless steel and aluminum sandwich (at least on the
>> bottom.) That's bigger than my old one which was only around 8 qt I'd
>> guess, and the old one was also only single sheet of metal. Not aluminum
>> tho, too heavy for that.
>> The problem is it never would get to a rolling boil tonite. It came
>> close and have big bubbles coming up the middle of the water but never
>> quite make it to rolling like the old one. There was more water in it,
>> but I let it go for what seemed like plenty of time to get it there.
>> It cooked the spaghetti, but took longer than my old one.
>>
>> What I want to know is that normal for a large pot of this type?
>
>Doesn't sound right. Given enough heat, the water should have come to a
>rolling boil eventually. Next time wait for it to come to the proper
>boil, even if it takes longer.

Without a high enough BTU rating NEVER happen.

On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 18:26:47 -0800, sf > wrote:

>On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 19:46:43 -0600, Pringles CheezUms
> wrote:
>
>> The problem is it never would get to a rolling boil tonite. It came
>> close and have big bubbles coming up the middle of the water but never
>> quite make it to rolling like the old one. There was more water in it,
>> but I let it go for what seemed like plenty of time to get it there.
>> It cooked the spaghetti, but took longer than my old one.
>>
>> What I want to know is that normal for a large pot of this type?
>
>If your pot is a better quality, it means your walls are thicker so
>that's a factor. Also, a larger pot means more water, which means it
>will take longer to boil. When I use my big pot and fill it with
>water, I put the lid on. For some reason the water boils faster. Try
>using the lid on next time you want to boil water. Oh, yes... did you
>put salt in the water? Salt affects the time it takes for water to
>boil.

Salt has so little effect on boiling water it is inconsequntial.

"The Effect of Sugar and Salt"

"When salt, sugar, or any other nonvolatile compounds are dissolved in
water, the freezing point of the resulting solution is lowered and
it's boiling point raised. We take advantage of this effect by using
rock salt to melt ice on roads, and to freeze ice cream. As far back
as the 18th century, solutions of calcium chloride were used to reach
temperatures of -27° F. (-33° C.). The helpfullness of solutes at the
other end of the scale is, however, more limited. It takes one ounce
of salt to raise the boiling point of a quart of water by a mere 1° F.
A Denverite who wanted to boil water at 212° F. would have to add more
than half a pound of salt to that quart of liquid." [Berk, Z.
Braverman's Introduction to the Biochemistry of Foods, Amersterdam and
New York: Elsevier, 1976]

On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 22:09:06 -0600, Sky >
wrote:

>On 12/13/2010 8:26 PM, sf wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 19:46:43 -0600, Pringles CheezUms
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> The problem is it never would get to a rolling boil tonite. It came
>>> close and have big bubbles coming up the middle of the water but never
>>> quite make it to rolling like the old one. There was more water in it,
>>> but I let it go for what seemed like plenty of time to get it there.
>>> It cooked the spaghetti, but took longer than my old one.
>>>
>>> What I want to know is that normal for a large pot of this type?
>>
>> If your pot is a better quality, it means your walls are thicker so
>> that's a factor. Also, a larger pot means more water, which means it
>> will take longer to boil. When I use my big pot and fill it with
>> water, I put the lid on. For some reason the water boils faster. Try
>> using the lid on next time you want to boil water. Oh, yes... did you
>> put salt in the water? Salt affects the time it takes for water to
>> boil.
>>
>
>Ditto what sf said about using the lid and adding salt, plus make sure
>the burner isn't too small for the pot.
>
>Sky, who almost typed "using the salt & adding lid"! <VBG>

Adding the lid will help, salt will not.

On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 19:17:03 -0800, "Kent" > wrote:

>
>"Pringles CheezUms" > wrote in message
.. .
>>I got a new stock pot and tried it out today, making spaghetti.
>> It behaved differently than my old one and I thot I'd check here to see
>> if it's normal.
>> It's a 12-qt stainless steel and aluminum sandwich (at least on the
>> bottom.) That's bigger than my old one which was only around 8 qt I'd
>> guess, and the old one was also only single sheet of metal. Not aluminum
>> tho, too heavy for that.
>> The problem is it never would get to a rolling boil tonite. It came
>> close and have big bubbles coming up the middle of the water but never
>> quite make it to rolling like the old one. There was more water in it,
>> but I let it go for what seemed like plenty of time to get it there.
>> It cooked the spaghetti, but took longer than my old one.
>>
>> What I want to know is that normal for a large pot of this type?
>>
>>
>What kind of cooktop are you heating on? How wide are the heating elements?
>How wide is your stockpot?
>
>Kent

If the water came to a rolling boil in the smaller pot then the only
change to consider is the greater volume of water

>>I got a new stock pot and tried it out today...
>> The problem is it never would get to a rolling boil...
>
>What kind of cooktop are you heating on? How wide are the heating elements?
>How wide is your stockpot?

The cooktop is electric. Btu's has never been an issue before.
The element in question is roughly 9" across, and the stockpot fits it
well, maybe an inch wider.
I filled it up about halfway with water, and sprinkled maybe two or
three tablespoons of kosher salt in there.

Tried it again tonite and let it go a little longer. It didn't have a
problem getting to a strong rolling boil with the lid on. But with the
lid off it went to the large bubbles/strong current breaking the
surface.
It helped when the spaghetti went in. Then it got kind of a strong boil,
but not like with the old pot.

On Tue, 14 Dec 2010 21:18:53 -0600, Pringles CheezUms
> wrote:

>
>>>I got a new stock pot and tried it out today...
>>> The problem is it never would get to a rolling boil...
>>
>>What kind of cooktop are you heating on? How wide are the heating elements?
>>How wide is your stockpot?
>
>The cooktop is electric. Btu's has never been an issue before.
>The element in question is roughly 9" across, and the stockpot fits it
>well, maybe an inch wider.
>I filled it up about halfway with water, and sprinkled maybe two or
>three tablespoons of kosher salt in there.
>
>Tried it again tonite and let it go a little longer. It didn't have a
>problem getting to a strong rolling boil with the lid on. But with the
>lid off it went to the large bubbles/strong current breaking the
>surface.
>It helped when the spaghetti went in. Then it got kind of a strong boil,
>but not like with the old pot.

If you're filling half way that's only six quarts... even the smallest
electric element should be able to easily bring six quarts of water to
a rolling boil.

However...

Electric elements are often in sections; in low range the smaller
section is energized, in medium heat range only the larger element is
energized, in high range both elements are energized... you may have a
portion of your element burned out... or possibly not making
connection. Turn it up to full high with no pot... should be easy to
see if a portion doesn't turn red.