Thinking about Cast Iron

[Addie]

My cast iron pan is probably one of my greatest purchases.

They are highly recommended here also. Welcome to DC.

 

[roadfix]

I was never able to get a good sear using my dad's fry pans over a rather weak flamed stovetop he has at his condo until one day I brought my Lodge round griddle over. Now the burgers and steaks I cook on his stovetop come out great.
CI's ability to amass and retain heat even over weak flames made a huge difference. I told him to just keep the CI griddle.

 

[Whiskadoodle]

One thing you need to do is use thick hot pads when using CI pans. . Those handles get hot.

I was pulling a frying pan from the oven and it was heavy and hot, so I doubled the hot pad over to get a better grip, leaving part of the handle exposed. I still have a 2 inch scar on my R palm a year later!

 

[Roll_Bones]

I will take aluminum any day over cast iron. Just my preference.
We do use one cast iron skillet for frying chicken. But thats it.
AL all the way. Light and conducts heat much better.

 

[Andy M.]

I will take aluminum any day over cast iron. Just my preference.
We do use one cast iron skillet for frying chicken. But thats it.
AL all the way. Light and conducts heat much better.

Interesting. The only aluminum I have is skillet coated with Teflon.

 

[roadfix]

My daughter uses a thick aluminum griddle which "lock in" nicely over 2 high output stovetop burner grates. Cooks evenly and retains heat well. I like them but costs at least double what a comparably sized CI griddle would cost. But the CI would weigh at least double that of the aluminum griddle.
I still like CI because they're cheap and come in many sizes and configurations. I just don't like the weights of the very large griddles I use....

 

[GotGarlic]

I don't get the problem people have with the weight of cast iron (unless you have medical strength issues). I think of it as a workout without having to go to the gym!

 

[CWS4322]

If you use a cast iron skillet vs. A cast iron grill pan to sear or cook meat, the grill pan holds more heat than a CI skillet, so cooking time will be slightly less if using a grill pan. Love all my CI and LeCreust pans.

 

[dcSaute]

here's the scientific facts on aluminum, cast iron, etc.
https://www.engineersedge.com/properties_of_metals.htm

aluminum does in fact "hold heat" better than cast iron - that's the Specific Heat column.

aluminum will "hold" 0.24 BTU per pound of aluminum for each Fahrenheit degree it is heated.

cast iron is only half as good at "holding heat" -
cast iron will "hold" 0.12 BTU per pound of cast iron for each Fahrenheit degree it is heated.

so, an aluminum griddle/pan must weigh twice as much as a cast iron griddle/pan in order to "hold" the same amount of heat energy.

 

[Andy M.]

here's the scientific facts on aluminum, cast iron, etc.
https://www.engineersedge.com/properties_of_metals.htm

aluminum does in fact "hold heat" better than cast iron - that's the Specific Heat column.

aluminum will "hold" 0.24 BTU per pound of aluminum for each Fahrenheit degree it is heated.

cast iron is only half as good at "holding heat" -
cast iron will "hold" 0.12 BTU per pound of cast iron for each Fahrenheit degree it is heated.

so, an aluminum griddle/pan must weigh twice as much as a cast iron griddle/pan in order to "hold" the same amount of heat energy.

That would be great if an aluminum pan actually weighed twice as much as a a CI pan. In real life, an aluminum pan would weigh a fraction of what a CI pan weighs so it would be less able to hold heat that the heavier CI pan.

 

[dcSaute]

I should drink more coffee before posting stuff....I got distracted trying to be p.c. in the language / expression / etc.

as one will notice, the concluding sentence of my post is in reverse - heated to the same temperature, a pound of aluminum will hold twice the BTU heat energy of a pound of cast iron.

the glitch is, few - if any - aluminum pans of similar size approach half the weight of a cast iron pan. cast iron is 2.65 times 'denser' than aluminum - given similar construction, to achieve equal weight, the aluminum pan would need to be 2.65 times "thicker" -

to achieve equal "heat holding capacity" - half of that or 1.33 times thicker than cast iron - and that's just an unlikely design - with the possible exception cast aluminum stuff from the 1940's-50's. my MIL had "Club" brand that was fairly thick.

the thermodynamic properties on that site apply to the "pure" metal. aluminum cookware is an alloy - and manufacturers typically don't reveal the technical specifics, so without taking the pan to a lab for analysis and testing it is rather more than a lot not possible to make more 'accurate' statements than comparatives.

 

[Sir_Loin_of_Beef]

I've been looking up some things about them on google, but everyone has a different opinion on everything.

And you thought everyone on Google had a different opinion?

 

[Roll_Bones]

Interesting. The only aluminum I have is skillet coated with Teflon.

Some years ago (20+) a family member bought me a set of commercial Calphalon pans. I was sold and have added and deleted from the collection over the years. One reason why I like to buy individual pieces instead of sets.
But hands down, I prefer the AL to the CI.

I should drink more coffee before posting stuff....I got distracted trying to be p.c. in the language / expression / etc.

as one will notice, the concluding sentence of my post is in reverse - heated to the same temperature, a pound of aluminum will hold twice the BTU heat energy of a pound of cast iron.

the glitch is, few - if any - aluminum pans of similar size approach half the weight of a cast iron pan. cast iron is 2.65 times 'denser' than aluminum - given similar construction, to achieve equal weight, the aluminum pan would need to be 2.65 times "thicker" -

to achieve equal "heat holding capacity" - half of that or 1.33 times thicker than cast iron - and that's just an unlikely design - with the possible exception cast aluminum stuff from the 1940's-50's. my MIL had "Club" brand that was fairly thick.

the thermodynamic properties on that site apply to the "pure" metal. aluminum cookware is an alloy - and manufacturers typically don't reveal the technical specifics, so without taking the pan to a lab for analysis and testing it is rather more than a lot not possible to make more 'accurate' statements than comparatives.

Happy to see you corrected the mistake. Saved me from having to look it up.
I never gave much thought to "holding heat" as I was much more concerned with how fast the pan got hot.
I guess we now know the AL heats faster and holds heat longer than CI.

 

[Andy M.]

Hold on. If AL has high thermal conductivity it would have to work the same in both directions. That is, if AL heats up faster than CI, it has to lose heat faster than CI as well.

The specific heat figures are not responsive to AL vs CI pans as there is a huge weight difference. You're not comparing apples to apples.

 

[dcSaute]

oh dear.

aluminum transmits heat faster by coefficient. almost three times as fast.
pure aluminum, that is. aluminum alloys do not transmit so fast - their performance is less, up to 50% less.

however, the coefficient is defined by how much heat energy passes through a plane at right angles/ normal to the flow of the heat energy.

in the shape of a pot/pan that boils down to the thickness of the bottom.
again, most aluminum construction is not as thick as cast iron.

I've had old style Calphalon that was thick; the newer stuff, not so much.

the thickness and mass factors are why discussions of aluminum vs cast iron go in circles of ever decreasing diameter until they spin into nothing. it seems everyone's experiences are different simply because "cast iron" and "aluminum" as the primary determining factor are in fact not the primary determining factors.

here's a pix of a slant logo Griswold from a century ago, vs. a month old Caphalon fry pan.

that era Griswold is 'famous' for being thin and lightweight. it weighs 3 lbs
the Caphalon is roughly half as thick - weighs 2 lb 0.125 ounces
(I'm not going to remove the handles for this....)

modern day Lodge (for example) pans of that size weigh roughly twice as much as the old Griswold, and they are thicker. the mass of today's cast iron is why so many people dislike it - it is heavy. (some of) the old stuff, not so heavy.

all that aside, the folk lore experience is that cast iron holds heat better than aluminum and takes longer to heat up, and even longer to heat up "evenly."

whether it is right or wrong depends on the exact cookware involved - but that is in fact the "legend" and there are very sound explanations as to why that legend evolved.

 

[RPCookin]

all that aside, the folk lore experience is that cast iron holds heat better than aluminum and takes longer to heat up, and even longer to heat up "evenly."

whether it is right or wrong depends on the exact cookware involved - but that is in fact the "legend" and there are very sound explanations as to why that legend evolved.

I'll go a long with the takes longer to heat up evenly. The grill pan replacement for the center grate on my gas range is recommended to preheat for at least 10 minutes before cooking a steak or pork chop on it. I usually give it 12-15 minutes to be sure, and it does a great job.

Since I don't have an aluminum one to compare it to, I can't say for sure, but if I did the same preheat with any of my nonstick aluminum pans, I'd burn the coating right off. All that long preheat does with the grill pan is just slick up the seasoning.

 

[CraigC]

Hold on. If AL has high thermal conductivity it would have to work the same in both directions. That is, if AL heats up faster than CI, it has to lose heat faster than CI as well.

The specific heat figures are not responsive to AL vs CI pans as there is a huge weight difference. You're not comparing apples to apples.

Andy, that is spot on! A lot of electrical equipment use aluminum as a "Heat Sink", since it is an economical means of dispersing excess generated heat. I would think that when you want heat retention in cooking, CI would be the most economical, requiring less energy to maintain an even cooking temp at a lower stove/oven setting than aluminum, which loses heat more rapidly. Of course, gold is much better.

A little OT, but can you freeze to death in 80F water?

 

[Caslon]

Aren't most aluminum pan interiors coated?

 

[Roll_Bones]

Hold on. If AL has high thermal conductivity it would have to work the same in both directions. That is, if AL heats up faster than CI, it has to lose heat faster than CI as well.
The specific heat figures are not responsive to AL vs CI pans as there is a huge weight difference. You're not comparing apples to apples.

Andy, that is spot on! A lot of electrical equipment use aluminum as a "Heat Sink", since it is an economical means of dispersing excess generated heat. I would think that when you want heat retention in cooking, CI would be the most economical, requiring less energy to maintain an even cooking temp at a lower stove/oven setting than aluminum, which loses heat more rapidly. Of course, gold is much better.

A little OT, but can you freeze to death in 80F water?

I agree with both of you and was trying to be funny when I made the last statement.
For AL to heat faster, physics say it must also lose heat faster. Good example Craig in regards to electrical uses for AL. Not only do we use AL heat sinks, we use wire made of aluminum.
Now that you guys got me thinking, maybe this quicker cool down on the AL cookware might just be another great reason to use AL.
Heat up fast and cool off fast. To me, thats what a good pan should do.

Aren't most aluminum pan interiors coated?

Not all. Calphalon anodized is not coated with a non stick material. But its anodized and I am not certain what that means. They are not bright AL, but look almost black or dark gray.
If you ever watched them make scrambled eggs at Waffle House, they are using a AL bright uncoated pan. Nothing sticks.
I did notice in one WH, they were using a CI small fry pan for eggs.

Good discussion.

 

[Roll_Bones]

A little OT, but can you freeze to death in 80F water?

Absolutely, you could die if you stayed in there long enough.
Any outside source that can lower your internal body temperature would be life threatening.
At 80 degrees F, it would take a long time for a normal healthy person.
But entirely possible death could occur.