I may not live to see our glory

-- but at least I'm packing to good music.

(by Doctor Science)

I haven't posted or commented much recently because our house renovation is at the "Run in Circles Scream and Shout" stage. Theoretically we start moving in on December 19. Theoretically. Also theoretically, my parents and brother will be with us for Yule beginning the evening of the 27th. Since the new place is only a mile away from here as the crow flies (about 2.1 miles as the car drives), we can move piecemeal ... if we're packed.

So I'm packing, and while I pack I'm listening -- again and again -- to Hamilton, Lin-Manuel Miranda's hip-hop multiracial re-imagining of the Founding Fathers. I know the chorus of universal praise probably sounds overdone, but, to quote the New York Times,

Yes, it really is that good.

The sound is revolutionary: both music and lyrics are incredibly dense, full of references and layers. Miranda's lyrics are nearly Shakespearean in their speed and compexity, while his use and re-use of musical themes and leitmotifs is Wagnerian -- if you play a 33 1/3 record of "The Ride of the Valkyries" at 78.

And that's all aside from the ground-breaking casting that makes absolutely every character except George III non-white, because that's the only way to *show*, not just say, that America belongs to all of us.

Speaking of historical change, one of my moving-related tasks is to get some new pots & pans, as we're making the leap into 21st-century cooking: an induction range. I already have a few cast-iron items, but I need new frying pans, sauce pans, and a big pasta/potato pot. My biggest concern is to replace my everyday pan, which I really do use almost every day.

Because I use this pan so much more than any other, I'm thinking that I'll go high-end with it, and buy a more pedestrian (and made in China) set for the rest. For my workhorse, everyday pan, I prefer:

• a large expanse of flat bottom
• slanted sides (to make stir-frying easier)
• about 3 qt capacity, 12" diameter
• two handles
• no heavier than it has to be (I often have carpal tunnel problems)
• extremely even heating
• responsive heating and cooling -- I want things to stop cooking when I take the pan off the heat. I once bought a ScanPan, supposed to be great -- but sausages kept cooking for *10 minutes* after I took the pan off the burner
• oven-safe as well as induction-safe
• stainless inside -- I've gotten sick of non-stick with "lifetime warranty" that isn't

So far, my research suggests:

• Demeyere Proline 5 Star 12.6 Inch Fry Pan
• All-Clad Copper Core 5-Ply Bonded Fry Pan, 12 inch
• All-Clad Stainless Steel Tri-Ply Fry Pan, 12-Inch
• All-Clad d5 5-Ply Fry Pan, 12 inch

Do any of you have any experience with these pans? Or something else that fit my requirements?

An Old Woman Cooking Eggs, by Velázquez. She's currently on tour, in New South Wales.

Comments

[hidflect]

Beast frying pan I ever bought was from Amway. After 15 years the lid would still seal vacuum shut when the food cooled. But heavy, yeah. Ended up having to abandon it fleeing Tokyo.

[Snarki, child of Loki]

Scanpan.
Stainless on the outside (they have some lines that are induction-okay, others not). Non-stick on the inside, and the non-stick is NOT soft teflon-based, it's some sort of tough titanium ceramic. You can use metal utensils.

Yes, pricey, but worth it.

[Doctor Science]

Snarki:

I got a Scanpan, and found that it held heat *too* well -- e.g. sausages kept sizzling for 10 minutes or more after removing the pan from the heat. I need something more responsive.

For the one 12-inch pan, I cook so much that I'm not really paying attention to price, I want the best. The other pans can be more generic.

[wj]

Glad to see you back, Dr S. I was beginning to get a little worried....

[Snarki, child of Loki]

Dr. S: good luck finding what you want..with induction, you don't have as much heat stored in the "burner", but the need for iron/steel pans sure does increase heat capacity, particularly if you're used to aluminum.

[Snarki, child of Loki]

BTW, with an induction range, *do* get the extended guarantee. They're much more sophisticated inside than any other variety of range.

[Crprod]

I really like our Calphalon everyday pan. The only problem we have is that it takes two people to hold the pan and scrape out everything.

[Nigel]

I spent a happy five minutes here:
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/thermal-conductivity-d_429.html

I'd be tempted to go for the copper core.

[cleek]

I'd be tempted to go for the copper core.

or diamond, if you can find it.

[Nombrilisme Vide]

Well, Dr. S did say she wasn't concerned with price for her main pan...

[Doctor Science]

I *am* really tempted by the copper core for the one main pan. The trouble is finding a place that has one in stock, so I can see how I like the heft & handle before I buy.

For the rest I'll get something a lot more down-market, because I just don't use them that much.

I'm also wondering if it's worth getting a real wok again (too many years with an electric stove, I just quit trying). This is one of the areas where I just roll my eyes at Cook's Illustrated, which only reviewed "non-stick" woks. Cast iron or carbon steel for me thanks, with the non-stick coating from properly-seasoned metal.

[JakeB]

The vast majority of my day-to-day cooking is stir-frying. Actually the thing I like most about my wok is that the surface of the stove doesn't get anywhere near as messy as it used to (I am ashamed to admit that better cooking of the dishes comes in second in my cleaning-hating heart). But indeed I just have a light non-stick wok. I do appreciate its having a short handle on one side and a long one on the other, even so.

I would like to use my cast-iron pan more, but I can't get the oil to season correctly. Tired of trying.

[Doctor Science]

JakeB:

What kind of range? electric/gas/induction?

And what brand of wok?

[Areala]

I wish I felt qualified to comment on this, but as my ability to cook barely exceeds "Boil water, add noodles, drain, stir in cheese packet" I'm afraid I'm of no use here. :)

[JakeB]

Doc--

Gas. Dang, thought I mentioned that. As for the wok, apparently it is a Calphalon Kitchen Essentials of some sort. I recall it cost about $30 at the local Target. But I don't see anything anywhere near that cheap on their website so I'm not sure if they make this version anymore.

[Slartibartfast]

All of our stainless is Cuisinart, which in my experience makes a very good product.

If you want something that heats up and cools down quickly, yet heats evenly, you're almost definitionally asking for something with very low thermal mass and very high conductivity. Throwing diamond or graphene to the side as ruinously expensive, you're really wanting, as has been mentioned, stainless or aluminum skin over copper core. Sure, silver is better than copper, but not substantially better, and you're unlikely to find anyone making silver-core pots.

All-Clad copper core stuff looks like about the only product you'd want, but it beats the hell out of me why they put aluminum in as a layer.

Stainless, it turns out, is an extremely poor thermal conductor. Ideally your pots would be all copper at the point of application of heat, with a thin layer of stainless inside. I personally think it's important to have a handle that doesn't get too hot to hold without a pad, but metal handles seem to be all the rage in high-end cookware these days. I'm tempted to handmake some wooden handles for mine. I'd pick walnut, because the stuff is everywhere, here. But I have lots and lots of very lovely maple, too; some spalted and some burled very nicely. I'd want to give that some thought.

My mom has some American-made 7-ply stainless stuff that is extremely heavy-duty with heavy lids that just seal tremendously well. I'll ask her what those are. She had a problem with one of her pots after ~40 years, wrote them a very nice letter about how much she loved their stuff and how could she get this pot replaced/repaired, and they sent her a whole set, gratis.

[cleek]

but metal handles seem to be all the rage in high-end cookware these days

probably because everything else does poorly when you put the pan into a hot oven.

and wood doesn't like dishwashers.

[Snarki, child of Loki]

Slarti: I'd say it's more "steel over Al core", since Cu has higher heat capacity. Dr. S. might be on the path to applied metallurgy/blacksmithing to make her own "ONE pan to RULE THEM ALL".

[wj]

My wife's comment, when I sent this to her, was that "anything which has thermal mass will continue cooking when it taken off the hear." So it seems like the only difference is in how long it will continue cooking.

[Slartibartfast]

probably because everything else does poorly when you put the pan into a hot oven.

and wood doesn't like dishwashers.

Good points (although my pans don't usually see the inside of the dishwasher). Maybe making them removable (as in: slip-on) would be a good idea.

My wife's comment, when I sent this to her, was that "anything which has thermal mass will continue cooking when it taken off the hear"

Yes, that's why I said a low thermal mass would tend to cook for less time.

Low thermal mass probably means you want a thin-ish pan that's got a layer of high thermal conductivity, which usually means copper. Silver and gold are also good, but probably as effectively out of people's price range as would be graphene.

The problem with low thermal mass is that if you don't have enough thermal mass, the food can (depending on your heating apparatus) suck heat out of the fan faster than it's going in, to the point where your pan is too cool to effectively (e.g.) sear.

If you have an induction stove, though, that is probably not going to happen.

I am not in any way an expert on cookware. Or heat conduction. But I would think that you'd want, for the criteria that I mentioned, a pan with a reasonable thickness of copper sandwiched between two layers of stainless; the outer being ferromagnetic so you can use it on an induction stove.

Which is another whole conversation.

[Nigel]

Stainless, it turns out, is an extremely poor thermal conductor. ..

Indeed. So what's your beef about metal handles ?
:-)

More seriously, one of the raisons d'être of high end pans is that they facilitate classic French techniques - which often involve putting said pan in oven.

[cleek]

Maybe making them removable (as in: slip-on) would be a good idea.

there are pans without handles of any kind. for those, you can use snap-on handles.

[Slartibartfast]

Eventually, even poor conductors will get hot. , but wood has a thermal conductivity about 1000 times less than stainless. Low thermal conductivity is, in some applications, a good thing.

The only pan I have that regularly goes in the oven is my cast-iron skillet, which (due to its extraordinary thermal mass) is wonderful for searing steaks.

But it takes a while to get heated up evenly.

[cleek]

(i guess i got caught in da spam trap...?)

there are pans that do not have any handles at all. they are to be used with handles that snap on/off when you need them.

[Slartibartfast]

I've heard that Snap-On stuff is expensive, though.