[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/ck/ - Food & Cooking



Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



File: maxresdefault.jpg (488 KB, 1920x1080)
488 KB
488 KB JPG
.
>>
great thread
>>
File: images.jpg (5 KB, 183x275)
5 KB
5 KB JPG
>>10606904
fpbp.
>>
>>10606902
Huh?
>>
Cast iron pans are only useful if you're into frying stuff in oil/fat.
>>
Cast iron pans are only useful if you're into frying stuff in oil/fat. If you're into lean cuts of meat or sauteing vegetables with very little oil, it'd be better for you some other kind of pan.
>>
> he doesn‘t use copper clad stainless pans
>>
Cast iron pans are only useful if you're into frying stuff in oil/fat.
>>
File: 71oC4kWsFBL._SL1500_.jpg (72 KB, 1500x1500)
72 KB
72 KB JPG
>>10608720
>$500+ meme pan which isn't induction ready
Tramontina 12" clad skillet masterrace
>>
>>10608736
>Induction
>>
>>10608720
>copper clad stainless

For what reason?

I know why you'd have a stainless pan (ruined by adding the copper) and why you'd have a copper pan (ruined by having the steel) but why would you have a copper/stainless combo seeing as it has the benefits of neither? Does it have a secret hidden 3rd benefit that only shows up when you combine the materials?
>>
Cast iron pans are only useful if you're into frying stuff in water.
>>
>>10608815
NB: Steel-clad copper is great, I know why you'd have that. I'm specifically asking about Copper-clad steel.
>>
>>10607093
how else would you "fry" anything
>>
>>10608815
Having stainless clad copper doesn't ruin the benefits of a copper pan, assuming the stainless layer is thin.

And adding copper to a stainless pan certainly donesn't ruin it either. I don't know what silly ideas are in your head.

>>10608830
>>copper clad steel
Simple. It has the thermal benefits of a copper pan, but the stainless lining is much more durable than the traditional tinning you see in old-fashioned copper pans. Copper is toxic so a copper pan needs to be lined with something. Stainless seems a very practical material to use for this. About the only kind of unlined copper cookware you see is mixing bowls for egg whites, and specialty pans for cooking jam.
>>
>>10609228
what the fuck are you on about? the only reason you have a layer of a different material on a pan is so that the heat is evenly distributed to the inside of the pan, no other reason than maybe aesthetics, which increase sales. nothing to do with durability or practicality.
>>
>>10609247
You are describing adding a layer of heat-spreading metal like copper or aluminum to a stainless pan. This is done to improve how evenly the pan heats.

A solid copper pan is a whole different ballgame. Because it is solid copper it heats much more evenly than any other pan. However, copper is toxic so the interior is never bare, except for the two special applications I mentioned above. It must have a layer of some other material inside it to prevent the bare copper from touching the food. In the old days this was done with tin. The copper pan was heated and brushed with a thin layer of molten tin. The problem with tin is that it melts easily. It's also very soft so it wears out quickly from spatulas, whisks, etc. Then you have to have the pan re-tinned. Nowadays solid copper pans have a very thin layer of stainless added in place of the tin.

TL;DR:
Cheap pan: Mostly stainless, has thin copper layer inside the base.

Expensive pan: Mostly copper, has thin stainless layer inside the pan
>>
>>10607093
>frying stuff in oil/fat
as opposed to...
>>
>>10609309
Show me a solid copper pan that is then "wrapped" with any other metal. Not only would this be outrageously expensive, it also does not make any sense from a comercial point of view, when you can sell colored metal at high prices and consumers will still buy it. Actual copper pans have other issues besides being toxic, copper is highly reactive to a lot of foods, its almost the worse possible material to use for anything other than candy making.
>>
>>10609351
Not that guy but you are really ignorant. Google falk and never post again.
>>
>>10609314
water
>>
>>10609351
>Show me a solid copper pan that is then "wrapped" with any other metal

The "wrapping" is only on the interior. There are several brands. Falk and Mauviel come to mind first.

And, yes, they are expensive.

>>copper is reactive
Yes. That's another reason for the stainless lining (or tin in the old days).
>>
>>10609366
That's boiling. Not frying.
>>
Are Swiss Diamond pans good?
>>
>>10609380
>>10609363
I looked them up, those pans look no different than any other stainless pan with a solid bottom, which achieves exactly the same thing as these "copper" pans what is the point of using $100 pan for anything that a $30 pan can do exactly the same thing, specially since, you never actually cook on copper you're cooking on stainless.
>>
>>10609404
Better than walmart shit like T-fal, but not as good (and more expensive) than restaurant supply store brands like Eagleware (Alegacy).
>>
File: zika.jpg (5 KB, 277x182)
5 KB
5 KB JPG
>>10609406
>being loud, angry, and dumb for attention
Have a (You)
>>
>>10609418
stupid goyim
>>
>>10609406
You're looking at the wrong pans. The copper ones with the stainless interior are a few hundred $$.

They are better than other pans because they are mostly copper. A cheap pan is very little (if any) copper and mostly stainless. An expensive pan like that is mostly copper and only a paper-thin layer of stainless.
>>
File: falk products.jpg (72 KB, 824x524)
72 KB
72 KB JPG
>>10609450
>They are better than other pans because they are mostly copper. A cheap pan is very little (if any) copper and mostly stainless. An expensive pan like that is mostly copper and only a paper-thin layer of stainless.

And this achieves what? As opposed to a solid bottom stainless pan which is thin stainless with solid (something) bottom giving you a evenly heated pan just the same
>>
>>10609473
Copper has a higher thermal conductivty than stainless. So the more copper and the less stainless the more even the heating will be and the faster the pan wil respond to temperature changes. Most "solid bottom" stainless pans are mostly stainless with only a thin layer of copper or aluminum inside.

Whether you actually need that improvement, especially considering the price, is a different question entirely.
>>
File: You built a pc.gif (543 KB, 480x480)
543 KB
543 KB GIF
>>10609473
Thermal conduction. It basically means that the pan will heat to temperature closer to that of the burner at a faster rate than a steel pan. Even if the pan cools down when you put in a lot of stuff simultaneously (don't do that) it will "bounce back" much faster. A good copper pan is a joy to cook with.
>>
>>10609509
>>10609512
The same type of thermal control can be done with a cheap aluminum pan with a stainless interior also. In fact, an even better thermal control can be achieve with a gas stove top and literally any pan. I think you guys are dealing in voodoo here, there is no fucking way copper, when we have other alternatives at a quarter of the price, is justifiable for any use, specially since you're not really using the copper to cook with, you're just using it as a sleeve to a stainless pan. Stainless steel is simply a better material for the kitchen, it has much wider uses and much longer lasting without the need for extreme routines of care to keep it going. If you "need" the extreme heat control, maybe a gas stove with an anodized aluminum pan with stainless steel interior can produce the exact same results, at at least half the price of copper pans, without all the voodoo and marketing koolaid mixed in.
>>
>>10609577
>can be achieve with a gas stove top
Oh lol, I should have known you were a cooklet on a coil stove

Pro tip: it's kinda a given when talking about stovetop cookware that comparative performance statements are like to like
>>
>>10609577
Aluminum is not "the same", but it is close.

I never stated that copper pans justified their expense. I agree that we're well into diminishing returns when we're talking that kind of money.

But it is absurd to state that stainless steel has similar thermal properties to copper. It's not even close.

You also seem to be missing the point when you state "you're not really using the copper to cook with". The layer of stainless in that kind of pan is thinner than a sheet of paper. It's negliable. You are absoloutely getting all the thermal benefits of copper.
>>
>>10609594
>he never used both coil and gas
i have years of use on both gas and electric stoves. You want immediate temperature control, you use a gas cook top.
>>
>>10609617
And yet, obviously, your default state is cooking on coils

If you're gimped that badly, then all of this talk is kinda empty, the weakest link by far is your stove so it doesn't make any sense to worry about how good your cookware is

In fact you're probably fine just using cast iron for everything because any time you move the knob it's going to take another 60 seconds for the pan to respond

But the rest of us are talking about cooking under normal conditions, not a horrible crippled stove in section 8 housing
>>
>>10609612
>The layer of stainless in that kind of pan is thinner than a sheet of paper

I looked for pics of pans cut in half, couldn't find any, I'd have to literally see it to believe it. Either way, I love my ceramic coated cast iron better than anything.
>>
>>10609638
>it's going to take another 60 seconds for the pan to respond
kek it sounds like you don't know how to use a stove. i have gas currently. neither one is worse than the other, gas has benefits, electric has benefits. I can use either one and get the same results.
>>
>>10609653
Imagine being so horrible at cooking that you can't see the advantages of gas
>>
>>10609681
imagine being so obcessed over something that you forget about the reason why youre using to begin with. you sound like an /o/ manuel fag. if you know what you're doing and paying attention while youre cooking, you can achieve exactly the same results with gas as you can with electric, the only difference is you and if you don't know how to use both then I can see why you think one is superior to the other.
>>
>>10609228
>And adding copper to a stainless pan certainly donesn't ruin it either. I don't know what silly ideas are in your head.

>Have to tin the pan to avoid copper poisoning
>Can't use coarse abrasives

Nah mate, adding copper cladding has downsides and I can't think of any upsides besides "looks pretty."
>>
>>10609692
> you can achieve exactly the same results with gas as you can with electric
Mm hmm. Try making hollandaise without a bain marie, in your cast iron, on a coil stove. Make sure to reserve extra time for looking up "bain marie" and "hollandaise"

>you sound like an /o/ manuel fag.
I don't own a cage, cager. But back when I was a vile cager, I did in fact drive a manuel [sic] transmission. Not that there's anything complicated about that as you seem to think
>>
>>10609836
>Try making hollandaise without a bain marie, in your cast iron, on a coil stove
"not just moving goal posts but changing the entire sport" the post. why the fuck would you use a cast iron to make any sauce? quit playing retard, anything you can make on gas stove you can make on a electric stove, if you can't, that's because you just dont know how to use it. a bad cook will blame his tools.
>>10609836
>Not that there's anything complicated about that as you seem to think
I happen to drive pic related
>>
>>10609836
>not just using your immersion blender to make hollandaise in 1 minute
>https://youtu.be/rOWzVV_XrcM
>making hollandaise at all when superior bearnaise takes an extra 30 seconds
>>
>>10609387
wrong gaycock
>>
>>10609715
Neither of those two greentexts you posted even apply.

If the pan has a stainless interior then there's no need to tin it. And likewise with a stainless interior you are welcome to use coarse abrasives on it. (though your'e fucking up bigtime if you ever need abrasives.

The upside to copper cladding is that it conducts heat better than any other cookware material, assuming we're talking about a reasonably thick layer and not a silly decorative coating.
>>
File: IMG_20150803_124405145.jpg (862 KB, 2866x1612)
862 KB
862 KB JPG
>>10606902
did one of these myself a few years ago
>>
>>10609640
>I looked for pics of pans cut in half, couldn't find any

Modernist cuisine has pics. Or you can just do a little basic math. Mauviel m'heritage line is 3.5mm thick copper. A review website gives the overall thickness as 3.6mm. We can subtract one from the other to determine that the stainless interior layer is 0.1mm thick which is roughly that of a sheet of paper.
>>
File: worthless_junk.jpg (38 KB, 697x704)
38 KB
38 KB JPG
>>10609205
>>10609314
an air fryer
>>
>>10609692
>if you know what you're doing and paying attention while youre cooking, you can achieve exactly the same results with gas as you can with electric,

Utter horseshit.
How can I ignite my flambe with an electric range without having to get matches or a lighter? How can I effectively use a round-bottom wok on electric? How can I use electric when there is a power failure? How can I make up the massive difference in power between an electric stove and gas?

I'll agree that either one can be used to cook on. But to suggest the difference is negligible is absurd.
>>
>>10610028
very nice anon. i hope you get a lot of use out of it. let me see your kitchen.
>>
>>10610032
>Or you can just do a little basic math.
>believing the jew spiel

ill see if someone pirated the modernist cuisine though.
>>
>>10610044
What is absurd is to use the examples you stated to state a difference between electric and gas stoves. Except for this one
>How can I make up the massive difference in power between an electric stove and gas?

There is no difference in power, you're just using it wrong.
>>
>>10608736
Why the fuck would anybody cook with induction?
It's unironically worse than heating stones in a campfire and throwing them in a soup.
>>
>>10610063
Why would you think the stainless layer would be any thicker? that would cost more money to make and the pan would perform less effectively. There would be zero reason to use a thick layer of stainless.
>>
>>10609939
>it's moving the goalposts to say there are differences after someone claimed there are no differences
You sound like one of those loonix fags:
>muh open sores is just as good as your properly working computer
>oh, you don't waste time working around this obnoxious, totally unnecessary problem? that's because you are too stupid to have this obnoxious, totally unnecessary problem! wasting time fixing stupid shit all the time proves I'm smart
>oh you can easily do that? nobody needs to do that anyway lol, only stupid babbies can easily do things, smart people recompile everything from source code every time they need to do the most trivial task and then spend hours editing config files with nano because it proves how much moar techy they are then pleb babbies
>oh, that hardware actually works? LMAO I only buy stuff that supports freedom
>oh, you're not used to having hardware that barely works? LMAO that's because you didn't waste hours bug testing drivers for free, lol
>>
>>10610053
I didn't get any use out of it unfortunately. My sister was moving out and I healed these two pans - one for her and one for my mother. Neither got used once I think. I have my own, larger one though that I use.

As for kitchen, its a mess but I've got lots of spices and tools hung up. Pretty nice overall, I post on this board an awful lot so eventually I'll post more. I live by an amish place, 20x the spice amount at better quality than mcormick for same price.

>>10610038
waste of counter space

>>10610044
I agree with you as someone who uses electric. I want gas but have used electric because its what is available. You can do things just fine with it you just have to understand the differences between the two, and quick heat changes are impossible on electric. stuff like adding even cold eggs is far more noticeable on electric to a pan.
>>
>>10610085
>that would cost more money to make
no... it would cost more money to make it thinner than the opposite because more precise machinery would be needed and you'd have a higher rate of scrap pans than if you made it more cruder and thicker. use your fucking head, not everything is about the cost of materials.
>>
>>10610099
>more precise machinery would be needed
Lmao just use electroplating
>>
>>10610077
>>no difference in power
Lol. Most home electric ranges have 2kw (the small ones) and 3 kw (the large) hobs.

Even a modest home gas range has 15,000 to 20,000 btu hobs, which is equivalent to 5kw or more. A commercial or high end brand might have double that.
>>
>>10610080
Other than being faster, more efficient, safer, not requiring a whole different set of piping into your house, and not turning your kitchen into a sweat lodge in summer, there's really no reason.
>>
>>10610119
Induction is more efficient. And it's easy to clean. but otherwise it fucking fails hard.

-can't use round bottom cookware
-can't use certain cookware materials
-annoying as fuck auto-shut-off
-can't grill or roast foods directly over the hob
-no convenient source of ignition for flambes
-can't maintain an even low simmer
-you're fucked in the event of a power outage.

Induction blows.
>>
>>10610099
>because more precise machinery would be needed

Nope. The same rolling mill makes thin or thick sheets of material.

>>Use your fucking head
I am. I work in the industrial machinery business. I sell rolling mills, among other things. You want to buy one? You need a slitting line? I've got one I've been trying to move for over a year now. I'll make you a great deal on it.
>>
>>10610113
Nice idea, but you can only electroplate with pure metals. Stainless steel is an alloy and thus it cannot be electroplated onto something.




Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.