Miscellaneous desk
< October 18	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 20 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

October 19

Glass-lid cookware

This is something I have wondered about for a long while (as opposed to short). Why is it that glass-lid cookware is so popular (in the US at least)? It seems so popular in fact that I am unable to find a proper steel-lid Farberware pot at many Bed, Bath and Beyonds.

It doesn't make sense to me that people would prefer to use something so easily broken (drop it and it may break, have too much pressure in the pot, it can shatter dangerously); yet they do anyway.

So why are these things so popular? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 21 Tishrei 5772 01:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Functionally, you can see inside without lifting the lid (i.e. to see if water is boiling etc), but I suspect it is just that they look more impressive. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was just forced to buy one (I need to cook my pasketti goddammit!) and so I will test this hypothesis, but I suspect that the steam would make it very hard to view the inside; though looking at this one it has no hole in it, so I know it will get steamy. xD Looks rather ugly to me, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder after all. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 21 Tishrei 5772 01:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a couple points about your original arguments... A) I've yet to see a pot of this type with a lid so tight that any considerable pressure builds up, much less enough to shatter the lid! B) You mention that you've looked for one manufacturer at one specific chain of stores. Have you thought of looking for other brands at other stores? It seems a bit like complaining that a Coke vending machine only sells Coke products. Dismas|^(talk) 02:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS Stainless steel lids are still around. I don't remember the brand of the pasketti pot I have at home but it has a stainless lid as well. Dismas|^(talk) 03:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently when people have locked them so that the pressure builds up. There is still the problem of falling lids as well. I mentioned that I wanted that specific manufacturer. I guess I should have said that, with the exception of so-called Steel All-Clad I could find no other steel lid pots. I checked two other BBBs, Target stores, Harris Teeter and Wal-Marts as well - same story. The only way to get something with with a good solid lid was to go for Le Creuset or Cast Iron. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 21 Tishrei 5772 03:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know how I made that "PS" edit without an edit conflict... Anyway, I didn't take your original comment to mean that you only wanted that specific brand. The way I read it, you had only looked at that brand. Dismas|^(talk) 03:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd never cooked with a glass lid pot before this year. Mine (and I assume most) has a small hole which allows the steam to escape and keeps it unfogged. I have to say I like it. I was always lifting the metal lid on my old pot to see if the water was boiling. Now I can tell at a glance. Mine is also pretty thick and I assume it is tempered, I imagine I'd have to try pretty hard to break it. --Daniel 03:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thick also means heavier, and even if it is tempered, after a while it is possible it'll break. I will refine my question: Why does it seem that there are no longer any inexpensive steel-lid pots and many brands have switched to only glass-lids including the lids that are available for sale on their own? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 21 Tishrei 5772 03:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You need to shop in appropriately cheap stores. try KMart, Target, Walmart, etc - you'll find lots of nice cheap tin-lid pots there. But I do have to say, I have never seen one of the tempered glass lids crack, chip, break, or shatter, and that is not for lack of trying. They are tough. the thing I dislike about them is that they are harder to clean thoroughly. --Ludwigs2 03:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I did check at two of those. :p Hmmm, really? Alright, I have an idea, I will buy two lids and try dropping one (with some appropriate method to clean it up) and also striking one with something like a hammer (or a hammerstone for fun). I will see how much must be done to break it. If I find that it requires an unreasonable amount of effort, then maybe I will reconsider my view of these lids. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 21 Tishrei 5772 04:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I wouldn't put a lid on a pan I was cooking pasta in. It is easier to adjust the heat to get it boiling properly without boiling over if you can see it, and having no lid makes it easier to give a quick stir. Going by pure guesswork, I'd suspect that with no lid the convection currents will be stronger, and it will 'stir itself' more effectively. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed Andy, but I was referring to the pre heating of the water. With the lid on folk wisdom and I assume real science says that it boils faster. --Daniel 03:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually my science teacher back in high school said that keeping the lid on would actually make it take longer for the water to boil. The way it works is that the steam of the warm (but not yet boiling) water condenses into water on the lid and drops back in the water, thereby cooling it. I guess the difference is minimal in practice, but after that I have never kept the lid on a pan if I wanted to bring water to boil. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think your science teacher forgot about Enthalpy of vaporization (also called latent heat of vaporisation in the UK). Dbfirs 19:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

M'yes, but you cannot buy a pot without a lid usually. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 21 Tishrei 5772 03:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might find a milk saucepan sold with no lid - though perhaps that might be problematic for cooking pasta from the point of view of Kashrut - being a goy, I'm not really clued-up on these things (beyond noting that it isn't generally advisable for a good Jewish boy to fry bacon in his mother's milk saucepan, which an acquaintance of mine once claimed to have done - yes, he was something of a rebel...) AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really subscribe to that level of ensuring kashrut (separate cookware and such, especially given the fact that A, I don't care about microscopic bits of either and our dishwasher uses boiling hot water anyway.) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 21 Tishrei 5772 04:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

THe only glass lid I have seen break was when after use on a frypan it was turned upside down and used as a bowl for sold water. It all cracked up. So they do not stand heat shock too well. The metal edge on them protects from the normal banging and knocking that could chip or smash. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is an odd thread. I've always lived in America and have never had glass-lidded pots and pans--except my cheapo rice cooker and various CorningWare. Perhaps glass lids have become more common at Walmart, Target, and other evil megacorps (excuse my momentary soapboxing). I just got a replacement large-ish skillet pan from a local non-chain store. There were plenty of options, and most pots and pans had metal lids. I found much the same selection at Williams-Sonoma, but those stores give me the creeps--the Starbucks of kitchenware! Still, it makes me wonder if perhaps glass lids are more common in cheaper lower-quality megacorp chains. Perhaps glass lids are simply cheaper to make? Pfly (talk) 09:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've used glass-lidded pans for several years without any problems - and given that in the last fortnight I have broken three wine glasses, smashed a soup bowl, and various other minor mishaps, this seems a good record! They#re a lot sturdier than they might appear; it's usually a tempered glass probably similar to pyrex. Locking them on as a pressure lid would be problematic, but the same could be said for most lids... Shimgray | talk | 18:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've used glass-lidded pans for at least 30 years without ever breaking one. They are surprisingly strong, but if you regularly drop lids onto hard floors then you should buy metal lids. No pressure builds up in any normal pan; only in pressure cookers with very strong lids. Dbfirs 19:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. In 30 years of practically throwing them out the window I have never once seen a glass pan cover break, shatter, or chip. Evene when Feyd-Rautha has cursen me. They take well to an automatic dishwasher too, when necessary. μηδείς (talk) 02:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Building buster in the Batman: Year One film

So I could not help but to notice in the course of this film that the corrupt GCPD used some sort of strange bomb on this derelict building in an attempt to either flush out or kill Batman. Does this device exist in real life? If so, what is it called? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 21 Tishrei 5772 02:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, such a bomb exists. It was called Batman & Robin. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well that is designed to clear living rooms and movie theatres. I am thinking of an incendiary device delivered by helo meant to clear an entire building floor. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 21 Tishrei 5772 16:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See MOVE#1985 bombing for why this is a bad idea. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 17:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't there a "neutron bomb" or some such, in development by the USA, that was supposed to kill personnel while leaving buildings relatively intact? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A neutron bomb still has quite a bit of heat and blast. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 17:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The one named Olivia Neutron-Bomb would no doubt agree with you. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Great. Now I've got the Xanadu soundtrack running through my head. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I had Xanadu running through my head. Instead it's "toreador, oh, don't spit on the floor, oh, use the cuspidor, oh, that is what it's for, oh.

Well, try substituting, "STP, you need some STP; one little can will keep you running free..." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've not seen the film. Could it be something like a thermobaric weapon (fuel-air bomb) designed to produce a huge blast wave which will do very bad things to anybody inside the building, or an incendiary device (such as white phosphorus) which is often used in wartime to destroy bunkers and other fortified structures (sometimes causing air to be sucked out of rooms, as when used in World War Two, and with other very bad effects)? Sadly these articles aren't up to the usual high standards of Wikipedia articles on military history and arms. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure, it was basically a large tank of that looked like it was meant to function as a sort of bomb. It was an animated film though, so I'm not sure how much accuracy they were going for. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 22 Tishrei 5772 23:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dragonfly identification

Which species is this dragonfly? manya (talk) 05:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks a lot like a Ditch Jewel - Brachythemis contaminata. see here Richard Avery (talk) 07:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps a female Crimson Marsh Glider, examples seen here. Mikenorton (talk) 07:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Ditch Jewel. Now that I know the name I can find many matching photos. Thank you Richard. (And Mikenorton, it is certainly not 'crimson'. But thank you for the asia-dragonfly link.) manya (talk) 09:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only the male is crimson, the female is a lot like the one you pictured, see here, notice particularly the dark marks at the leading edges of the wings and the extent of colouring of the wings near the body. Mikenorton (talk) 17:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'thank you', Mmm, Nice. Richard Avery (talk) 13:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]