
What’s Hot, What’s Not, in Pots and Pans (2008) - Tomte
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/08/dining/08curi.html?mtrref=topics.nytimes.com&mtrref=www.nytimes.com&_r=0
======
kbart
_" I dropped a cold steak on the surface, then checked the pan temperature
under the steak after a few smoking minutes."_

This is wrong. Of course, temperature will even out after _few minutes_ , but
for steaks (and other food you want to sear) the initial temperature drop is
important -- the higher it is, the higher chance that your steak will be
steamed, not seared. Heavier pans retain more heat (that's why heavy copper,
cast iron and stainless steel pans took longer to heat during the first
experiment), but that's a _good thing_ when making food. Also, what this
article didn't mention, is that light, cheap pans tend to deform as soon as
after few uses, what makes cooking food evenly nearly impossible on a flat
surface. Cast iron and stainless steel pans, on the other hand, are nearly
indestructible if used correctly, I know cases when people still use their
>100 years old cast iron pans from their grand-grand fathers.

------
exodust
I highly recommend a Scanpan ceramic titanium frypan.

Built tough, can't be scratched or warped. Not too expensive either.

Impressive pressure cast technology goes into its construction where
compressed aluminium is bonded with ceramic titanium and a non stick compound
which can't be scraped away. The aluminium is completely internal, encased in
the ceramic titanium so there's no danger with exposing the aluminium - chosen
for its heat transfer properties.

I've had mine for ages and the non-stick surface is as good as ever. I've
abused the frypan, and it takes anything you throw at it. I will never go back
to stainless steel frypan.

------
johnhess
> I started by timing how long it took the pans to bring a cup of water to a
> boil over the maximum gas flame on my stovetop. The copper and the cast iron
> each took 3 minutes, the aluminum-stainless combination 2.5, and the thin
> nonstick aluminum just 2 minutes. Light and cheap win for speed.

Not sure that's the right test... speed isn't what you're going for. For
example, aluminum foil would very quickly conduct heat straight to the water
opposite the flame, rather than distribute it broadly across the surface.

Because heat transfers fastest across the gradient where the temperature
difference is greatest, foil would win the day even though it's a terrible
cooking surface.

A heavy copper pan would evenly distribute the heat it's given to the sides
and all over the bottom rather than straight to the bottom. That's kind of the
point.

~~~
rtkwe
> The heavy copper and the light aluminum pans produced evenly toasted heat
> maps. The stainless-clad aluminum did pretty well, too. But the cast-iron
> pan scorched a small area, and the pattern was familiar.

Two paragraphs later in the article the author talks about the heat gradients
of the different pans.

