On 4/4/2017 7:54 AM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Apr 2017 20:53:15 -0400, Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
>
>> Granted -- a "cup" of coffee or tea is based upon 6 ounces, and I
>> forget what rice cookers are calibrated in...
>>
> All sorted out for me when I discovered, in a US recipe, that a US cup of
> rice weighs 95g. If you have one of these new-fangled digital kitchen
> scales thats useful to know.
>
> That certainly makes a sensible serving per person, but one of my UK
> teacups is only a little more than half full with that weight of rice in
> it.

The trouble with using weights in cooking measurements is for dry goods,
the weight will vary with the moisture absorbed from the air.  We had to
take precautions against this when weighing chemicals.  On sensitive
scales the weight would accumulate during the measurement.  Just as in
chemistry, rather than weight, what you really care about is molar
quantity, not that your rice weight is going to vary noticeably as you
weigh it.


>> And miles per gallon makes a more meaningful measure to me than liters
>> per km. {I have half a tank [10 gallons]: how far will that get me? Lot
>> easier to do 10 * MPG than to work out an inverse [approximating 4l per
>> gal] 40/l/km}
>>
> I've never driven a car that showed litres per km: my oldish Focus lets
> me select MPG or litres/100 km but that's it. L/100km is probably the
> more useful way of showing fuel consumption if you're used to it, but the
> car's guestimate of miles or km left in the tank can be even more useful.

Uh, my truck reports MPH... It also has a radio that talks to me when
I'm lonely.

--

Rick C

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05