Dave Bell wrote:
> betsy wrote:
> > Dave Bell wrote:
> >
> >>in her garden wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>First post to this newsgroup. I want a nice, generic butter cake
> >>>recipe that will fit into a 10" springform pan. 10" seems to be a nice
> >>>size to serve 8. I usually serve this type of cake plain or topped
> >>>with whipped cream, ice cream or fruit.
> >>>
> >>>If you either have a ready-sized recipe or you can tell me how to
> >>>retool my (two 8" cake pans) recipe, that would be great. Or perhaps
> >>>you know a website that discusses this?
> >>
> >>Well, the 10" pan relative to an 8" pan is 56% bigger.
> >>(10*10/8*8 = 100/64 = 1.5625)
> >>If it is also 25% deeper, that's almost exactly twice the volume. (1.95)
> >>I would use the 2-8" recipe as-is, for size.
> >>
> >>
> >>>If I were to use my (two 8" cake pans) recipe, I suspect I'd need to
> >>>lengthen the baking time for my recipe, but would I need to lower/raise
> >>>the baking temperature, too?
> >>
> >>Yes, I would lower the temp a little, say from 350F to 325F, and bake
> >>somewhat longer. Start checking about every 10 minutes past the original
> >>time, until a toothpick comes out clean...
> >>
> >>Dave
> >
> >
> > Well, um, er forgive me for butting in, but your formula above is for
> > square pans. To get the surface area of a round pan, the formula is pi
> > * r-squared. I can't write "pi" or a superscript for "squared". So, a
> > 10" pan, 10 is the diameter, 5 is the radius, 5 squared is 25, times pi
> > (3.14) = 78.6 square inches
> >
> > The 8" pan is 50.2 square inches (pi * 16, 4 being the radius)
> >
> > The 8" is 64% of the 10 inch, not allowing for height. To get volume,
> > multiply the square inches of the pan by the height. So if the 8" pan
> > gets a 1.5" high cake, then it would have a volume of approximately
> > 75 cubic inches. That's roughly equal to a 1" height in the 10" pan.
> > If you make the equivalent of 2 8" cake recipes, then a 10" pan would
> > have a cake height of not quite 2 inches, which would look "right" for
> > that size.
>
> Ahem.... Note that I was comparing areas and volumes as *ratios*,
> therrefore Pi was irrelevant. As did you, when you said the 8" pan was
> 64% of the 10", except I said the 10" was 156% of the 8". (OK, 156.25%,
> so sue me!) I then multiplied by the 125% in height, and voila - 1.95X.
>
> > Anyway, better living through chemistry and geometry, _this_ is why you
> > need math in school!
> > Cheers,
> > betsy (an engineer, could you guess that?)
>
> Yep, and so am I...
>
> Dave
>
<snip worst example>

You're right, I just saw 10x10 and figured you'd done squares. But I
like my method of volumes better, to each his own.

BTW, I don't use pocket protectors, who even uses pens any more? And I
don't wear shirts w/ pockets anyway, just t-shirts. I do enjoy
figuring things out in detail, though, that's why I like Harold McGee's
books, lotsa good detail.
thanks all.
b