Induction-Friendly Cookware Selection

[adrianvm]

Why wouldn't I want the answer?  I like answers.  (I might not want to use the proposed method, but that's another matter.) 

 

I did not attempt to measure temperature of the (oil in the) pans for this test.  But my previous observations with heating cast iron were:

 

"Tried measuring a very large cast iron skillet with the Control Freak set to 250 on slow intensity.  After about 20 minutes it is in steady state with the center at 260, a point 2" off center is 260, a point 4" off center is 230, and 5" the temperature is 200.   It took quite a while to reach steady state and overshot by a lot (up to 290) on the "slow" speed. "

 

If it overshoots by a lot that gives it a browning advantage.  It also means that if I preheat longer I'm not waiting for heat to conduct vertically to the pan top but (hopefully) sideways.   Really the pan is 5mm thick, whereas width is 300 mm.  I don't know what the maximum distance from a coil is, but much more than 5mm. 

 

Of course maximal evenness, by which we mean no temperature variation across the pan surface, requires a uniform heat source.  But what about good-enough or practical evenness?  The aluminum base pan browned evenly enough that I noticed no difference in browning across the entire pan with regards to how the meatballs browned.  That's good enough.   My previous testing showed about a 15 deg temperature drop from center to edge, which is pretty even.  For cast iron we have a 50 deg drop.   I don't know what the drop looks like when you heat to 400 instead of 250, but clearly with cast iron it was enough to affect browning performance noticeably and with thick aluminum it was not. 

[Laurentius]

7 hours ago, adrianvm said:

Of course maximal evenness, by which we mean no temperature variation across the pan surface

That's not my meaning.  No temperature variation would violate the Second Law.

 

But you can achieve a minimum Delta T for all the variables.  That's what I mean.

[Laurentius]

On 9/22/2023 at 9:29 AM, Deephaven said:

It pans [sic] me to replace my copper, but the time has come.

 

And the time may have come full circle.  Falk has, somewhat quietly, introduced an induction-bottomed version of its Classic line.  This is not the thinner, clad Coer, but rather the full-thickness 2.3mm Classic fitted with a ferromagnetic disk.  Falk now joins Bourgeat in offering this construction for cooks who want both copper and induction.

 

Bring money.

[adrianvm]

I'm not seeing a pan like you describe.  They've introduced the "Fusion" line with a disk base, total thickness of 2mm comprising 0.6mm stainless on the inside, what they refer to as a "substantial" 1.4mm copper layer, and then a 0.5mm layer for induction compatibility on the outside. 

[Laurentius]

19 minutes ago, adrianvm said:

total thickness of 2mm comprising 0.6mm stainless on the inside, what they refer to as a "substantial" 1.4mm copper layer, and then a 0.5mm layer for induction compatibility on the outside. 

 I was wrong, but I think you may be, too.  Based on this, the bimetal (copper plus lining) is 2.0mm.  https://www.copperpans.com/fusion-line  That probably means the copper thickness is 1.9mm (as in Coer ).  Then with a 0.5mm bottom, the overall thickness would be 2.5mm.  This makes sense, because new dies would not be needed (This is also why Coer has only 1.9mm of copper).    

[adrianvm]

1 hour ago, Laurentius said:

 I was wrong, but I think you may be, too.  Based on this, the bimetal (copper plus lining) is 2.0mm.  https://www.copperpans.com/fusion-line  That probably means the copper thickness is 1.9mm (as in Coer ).  Then with a 0.5mm bottom, the overall thickness would be 2.5mm.  This makes sense, because new dies would not be needed (This is also why Coer has only 1.9mm of copper).    

 

The text you linked to is kind of ambiguous, but if you click through and pick a specific pan, for example https://www.copperpans.com/fusion-frying-pan-24-cm-94-in then you get this explicit breakdown:

• Substantial 1.4 mm copper content for even heat distribution
• Pan lining of 0.6 mm stainless steel for practical durability
• Induction ring on the bottom that is ferritic SS and 0.5 mm thick

Surely if there was more copper they'd brag about it.   It does indeed appear that the bimetal part is 2.0 mm, of which 0.6mm is stainless.  An added 0.5mm of stainless on the bottom brings the total thickness to 2.5mm.   A lot more steel than the Coeur line. 

[Laurentius]

12 minutes ago, adrianvm said:

 

The text you linked to is kind of ambiguous, but if you click through and pick a specific pan, for example https://www.copperpans.com/fusion-frying-pan-24-cm-94-in then you get this explicit breakdown:

• Substantial 1.4 mm copper content for even heat distribution
• Pan lining of 0.6 mm stainless steel for practical durability
• Induction ring on the bottom that is ferritic SS and 0.5 mm thick

Surely if there was more copper they'd brag about it.   It does indeed appear that the bimetal part is 2.0 mm, of which 0.6mm is stainless.  An added 0.5mm of stainless on the bottom brings the total thickness to 2.5mm.   A lot more steel than the Coeur line. 

 

The 0.6mm lining is suspect.  That's thicker than in any other bimetal that I'm aware of (Mauviel, Bourgeat, e.g., 0.2mm).  Even All-Clad's linings, which are overthick, are only about 0.41mm. 

 

If the copper really is only 1.4mm thick, that's a substantial step down from their regular bimetal at 2.3mm.