5 Mar
2001
5 Mar
'01
10:39 a.m.
On Mar 5, 18:51, Tony Duell wrote:
Except that, traditionally, there are two teaspoons in a dessertspoon and
two dessertspoons in a tablespoon. It doesn't add up :-)
> If you think all that's bad, I still
haven't figured out the
measurements
> for cooking...like how many tablespoons in a cup,
and how many cups in
a
quart and all
that nonsense. Who came up with this crap anyway?
I knew the HP49G was useful for something :-). It has all those units in
the unit management system..
According to that machine :
1 cup = 16 tablespoons
1 tablespoon = 3 teaspoons 1 cup = 8 fluid ounces
1 quart = 4 cups
1 cup = 236.5882365 ml
And those are U.S. measures, I think. A cup is half a pint; an imperial
pint is 20 fluid ounces, not 16. An imperial quart = 2 imperial pints =
1.136523 litres (1136 ml); 4 U.S. cups = 946 ml.
A tablespoon is supposedly 15ml (mine aren't but that's another story :-))
So 16 tbsp (1 U.S. cup) would be 240ml. Close enough for cookery, I
suppose.
And of course that only applies to liquid measure. When you're measuring
dry materials, you're supposed to use a rounded (not heaped! that's
different) spoonful -- an allowance for the hypothetical meniscus, of
course.
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Network Manager
Dept. of Computer Science
University of York
5 Mar
5 Mar
11:17 a.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 1328 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20010305/200f7521/at…
11:47 a.m.
On Mon, 5 Mar 2001, Tony Duell wrote:
When you consider that most recipies include such
reproducable
standards as '1 egg' or 'a pinch of salt', you come to realise that
measuring _anything_ accurately is probably a total waste of time :-)
This is especially true with cooking. You're allowed to be a bit
imprecise thanks to the flexibilities of peoples' tastes :)
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
2:22 p.m.
Nothing drove that point home for me more than when I found that if I left
something other than flour, yeast, or water, out of my bread recipe, it really
didn't matter much. Moreover, if I put in an extra cupp of flour, or
inadvertently left one out, it didn't matter either. It still produced bread,
and the normal result wasn't sufficiently reproducible to point up any
difference between the amounts either...
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Duell" <ard(a)p850ug1.demon.co.uk>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 3:17 PM
Subject: Re: New here :-)
> > I knew the HP49G was useful for something
:-). It has all those units in
<snip>
ml. Close
enough for cookery, I suppose.
When you consider that most recipies include such reproducable standards
as '1 egg' or 'a pinch of salt', you come to realise that measuring
_anything_ accurately is probably a total waste of time :-)
-tony
6 Mar
6 Mar
5:13 a.m.
At 06:22 PM 3/5/01 -0700, Richard Erlacher wrote:
Moreover, if I put in an extra cupp of flour, or
inadvertently left one out, it didn't matter either. It still produced bread,
and the normal result wasn't sufficiently reproducible to point up any
difference between the amounts either...
Just to drive this thread more deeply off-topic, cooking is
all about reproducibility. That's why smart bread-makers
measure flour by weight, not volume. :-)
- John
11:10 a.m.
At 06:22 PM 3/5/01 -0700, Richard Erlacher wrote:
As an infrequent, but still a breadmaker, I find it one of the fussiest
bits of cooking requiring exact matching of wet and dry stuff. Talking
about it does kind of give me the urge to cook some up.
Moreover, if I put in an extra cupp of flour, or
inadvertently left one out, it didn't matter either. It still produced
bread,
and the normal result wasn't sufficiently reproducible to point up any
difference between the amounts either...
Just to drive this thread more deeply off-topic, cooking is
all about reproducibility. That's why smart bread-makers
measure flour by weight, not volume. :-) 
6:31 a.m.
New subject: New here :-) (OT!!!)
It depends.... have you tried making croissant dough, the french
"mille fleure" (sp?) thing with the wrong proportions of stuff?
Or phyllo dough? believe me, an extra/missing cup does matter in
that case.
At 06:22 PM 3/5/01 -0700, you wrote:
Nothing drove that point home for me more than when I
found that if I left
something other than flour, yeast, or water, out of my bread recipe, it
really
didn't matter much. Moreover, if I put in an extra
cupp of flour, or
inadvertently left one out, it didn't matter either. It still produced
bread,
and the normal result wasn't sufficiently
reproducible to point up any
difference between the amounts either...
Dick
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos E. Murillo-Sanchez carlos_murillo(a)nospammers.ieee.org
9:13 a.m.
New subject: New here :-) (OT!!!)
Well, it matters with the bread, too, in that the consistency is impacted
considerably, but it's still bread.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Carlos Murillo" <cmurillo(a)emtelsa.multi.net.co>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 10:31 AM
Subject: Re: New here :-) (OT!!!)
It depends.... have you tried making croissant dough, the french
"mille fleure" (sp?) thing with the wrong proportions of stuff?
Or phyllo dough? believe me, an extra/missing cup does matter in
that case.
At 06:22 PM 3/5/01 -0700, you wrote:
Nothing drove that point home for me more than
when I found that if I left
something other than flour, yeast, or water, out of my bread recipe, it
really
didn't matter much. Moreover, if I put in an
extra cupp of flour, or
inadvertently left one out, it didn't matter either. It still produced
bread,
and the normal result wasn't sufficiently
reproducible to point up any
difference between the amounts either...
Dick
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos E. Murillo-Sanchez carlos_murillo(a)nospammers.ieee.org
5 Mar
5 Mar
11:55 a.m.
On Mon, 5 Mar 2001, Pete Turnbull wrote:
Would that have anything to do with the British culinary reputation?
1 tablespoon =
3 teaspoons
Except that, traditionally, there are two teaspoons in a dessertspoon
and
two dessertspoons in a tablespoon. It doesn't add up :-) And those are U.S. measures, I think. A cup is half a
pint; an imperial
pint is 20 fluid ounces, not 16. An imperial quart = 2 imperial pints =
1.136523 litres (1136 ml); 4 U.S. cups = 946 ml.
Where does "A pint is a pound the world around" apply and/or originate?
12:13 p.m.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Cisin (XenoSoft)" <cisin(a)xenosoft.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 3:55 PM
Subject: Re: New here :-)
Using an appaling mishmash of measurement systems, dubious logic, and
half-remembered facts:
1 pint ~= 500 millilitres and 1 milliLitre of water weighs 1 gram.
So, 1 pint ~= 500 grams, and 454 grams = 1 pound, so postulate that a pint
of water might weigh 1 pound.
Or, a "metric pound", commonly used in Germany is 500 grams. So (in Germany
at least), a pint is a (metric) pound.
Cheers,
Mark.
> And those are U.S. measures, I think. A cup is
half a pint; an
imperial
> pint is 20 fluid ounces, not 16. An imperial
quart = 2 imperial pints
=
1.136523
litres (1136 ml); 4 U.S. cups = 946 ml.
Where does "A pint is a pound the world around" apply and/or originate?
1:50 p.m.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Gregory" <gregorym(a)cadvision.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 9:43 AM
Subject: Re: New here :-)
Using an appaling mishmash of measurement systems,
dubious logic, and
half-remembered facts:
1 pint ~= 500 millilitres and 1 milliLitre of water weighs 1 gram.
So, 1 pint ~= 500 grams, and 454 grams = 1 pound, so postulate that a
pint
of water might weigh 1 pound.
I think you will find that metric measures are co-related at their basic
unit levels.
Essentially, this means that 1 Litre of pure water weighs 1Kg and is
where the basic units came from.
I seem to recall that a metre is 1 millionth of the circumference of the
Earth at the equator, or perhaps at the meridian
of Paris. (Napoleon started this I think). Something like that anyway.
Cheers
Geoff Roberts
Computer Systems Manager
Saint Mark's College
Port Pirie,
South Australia
geoffrob(a)stmarks.pp.catholic.edu.au
ICQ: 1970476
1:45 p.m.
On Mon, 5 Mar 2001, Fred Cisin (XenoSoft) wrote:
On Mon, 5 Mar 2001, Pete Turnbull wrote:
Would that have anything to do with the British culinary reputation?
Doubtless in a pub in Britain! Though, I fear the financial
relationship need a bit of updating :(
- don
1
tablespoon = 3 teaspoons
Except that, traditionally, there are two teaspoons in a
dessertspoon and
two dessertspoons in a tablespoon. It doesn't add up :-) And those are U.S. measures, I think. A cup is
half a pint; an imperial
pint is 20 fluid ounces, not 16. An imperial quart = 2 imperial pints =
1.136523 litres (1136 ml); 4 U.S. cups = 946 ml.
Where does "A pint is a pound the world around" apply and/or originate?
2:19 p.m.
I've never actually encountered a table spoon that measures a "tablespoon."
3:1
seems to be the ratio of teaspoons to tablespoons, yet I've never used a
"teaspoon" three of which would fill a real tablespoon, though I guess the
measures work out that way.
The purpose of the recipe is to provide a place to start ... <sigh> ... that's
all one can hope for, I guess.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pete Turnbull" <pete(a)dunnington.u-net.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 2:39 PM
Subject: Re: New here :-)
On Mar 5, 18:51, Tony Duell wrote:
Except that, traditionally, there are two teaspoons in a dessertspoon and
two dessertspoons in a tablespoon. It doesn't add up :-)
> If you think all that's bad, I still
haven't figured out the
measurements
> for cooking...like how many tablespoons in a
cup, and how many cups in
a
quart and
all that nonsense. Who came up with this crap anyway?
I knew the HP49G was useful for something :-). It has all those units in
the unit management system..
According to that machine :
1 cup = 16 tablespoons
1 tablespoon = 3 teaspoons 1 cup = 8 fluid ounces
1 quart = 4 cups
1 cup = 236.5882365 ml
And those are U.S. measures, I think. A cup is half a pint; an imperial
pint is 20 fluid ounces, not 16. An imperial quart = 2 imperial pints =
1.136523 litres (1136 ml); 4 U.S. cups = 946 ml.
A tablespoon is supposedly 15ml (mine aren't but that's another story :-))
So 16 tbsp (1 U.S. cup) would be 240ml. Close enough for cookery, I
suppose.
And of course that only applies to liquid measure. When you're measuring
dry materials, you're supposed to use a rounded (not heaped! that's
different) spoonful -- an allowance for the hypothetical meniscus, of
course.
--
Pete Peter Turnbull
Network Manager
Dept. of Computer Science
University of York
8543
days inactive
8544
days old
12 comments
11 participants
participants (11)
-
ard＠p850ug1.demon.co.uk -
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
cmurillo＠emtelsa.multi.net.co -
donm＠cts.com -
edick＠idcomm.com -
foo＠siconic.com -
geoffrob＠stmarks.pp.catholic.edu.au -
gregorym＠cadvision.com -
jfoust＠threedee.com -
mikeford＠socal.rr.com -
pete＠dunnington.u-net.com