SC - big spice question

[Philip & Susan Troy]

LYN M PARKINSON wrote:
> 
> Fortunately, I don't know pysics.  All I know is that I can put less
> sugar in a pot of tea, and get satisfactory sweetening, than I can by
> putting the number of teaspoons of sugar in that would equal the amount
> in separate cups from the same pot.

In spite of the fact that most people use more tea in a four-cup pot
than in four individual cups, eh? Hmmm. I've never seen this happen, but
I don't sweeten tea. It might have to do with incomplete sugar
dissolution in a cup, or even more likely, the fact that the amount of
tea used to make an entire pot absorbs more water than   a cup's worth.
This happens to brewers, too. You end up with less usable solution/wort
in the first infusion, the more stuff you soak, so you have to get it
back by sparging or a second mash, or in the case of tea, by reusing the
tea leaves. 

> Works for casseroles and stews and
> soups, too, with other spices/flavorings.  What you say makes sense, but
> MMMV.

But, you see, that's the point. It doesn't, really, or I don't think it
would under controlled circumstances. You know the expression, "all
other things being equal" ? If you're saying this is a consistently
observable phenomena, then there is an equally consistent reason for it.
Nobody has been able even to guess as to why, because the phenomenon
doesn't seem to be consistent, except in my case where it is
consistently absent. You may have noticed isolated incidents where spice
addition produces more spice flavor than you expected, but it doesn't
seem to happen universally, even to those people who report the
phenomenon. It doesn't always happen to Margali, or at least based on
what she's said, doesn't seem to be any kind of observable constant,
it's just something that she's observed now and then, and can provide
examples of those incidents. If it's not a consistently observable
phenomenon, then we could have a series of isolated incidents, each with
a different cause, and this does not a rule make.  How can you base what
amounts to a culinary rule ~"You always end up with too much spice when
you multiply a recipe; the math doesn't work" on an unknown number of
incidents versus an unknown number of incidents when the phenomenon
doesn't occur?
 
My mom claims to have had a run-in, as a child, with low-level
spontaneous combustion. I believe this incident to have occurred because
I've never known her to lie about anything, and can't find anyone else
who has,  and because, well, weird, unexplainable things sometimes do
happen. We had a vice-president who couldn't, and still can't, spell the
word "potato", let alone pluralize it. Now he's running for higher
office. At this point I'll believe anything can happen, but I'm not
prepared to base rules on these incidents and say, "Oh, yeah, never snap
a Necco wafer in half; it'll explode," or "Being a doofus inevitably
leads to a run for the U.S. presidency." Although, now that I think more
on that second one... ;  )

Adamantius   
- -- 
Phil & Susan Troy

troy at asan.com
============================================================================

To be removed from the SCA-Cooks mailing list, please send a message to
Majordomo at Ansteorra.ORG with the message body of "unsubscribe SCA-Cooks".

============================================================================