Not sure why the old thread was locked?
In any event, is the concept of this so called less water or as the companies who manufacture them call it errorneously, "Waterless" worth it?
Some people rationalize that you can pay $1000 every 6 months for a car or pay $15,000 for a reliable car. i don't quite get the analogy except that buying Americraft Waterless (which is not waterless cookware) is about 10-15x more than other decent quality cookware eg. Gordon Ramsey, Jami Oliver, etc. I've had a stainless pot from Ikea for over 20 years. It's a cheapo. It does the job well and certainly a lot cheaper than the Americraft that I got lured into buying.
As far as doing your research, the sad reality is these pitchmen and woman who sell this cookware at fairs or home shows leave the consumer vulnerable and they dont usually have the time to do research. Of course, technology is improving where you can access the internet on your telephone but it's still a cumbersome process to do research on a smartphone instead of a home computer.
The reality is for me and my family anyway is that this Americraft Cookware really was a waste of money for us. The concept is great but the practical usefulness is just not there. Our stainless steel Ikea pot and and iron skillet gets the most use. Our "Waterless Cookware" gets almost none. With the add less water cookware, It takes too long to steam veggies and the handles aren't covered by the warranty which so many people rave about. I dont find it useful for anything but veggies. The iron skillet or pan wins with everything else.