wff_ng_7 wrote:

> "Sheldon" > wrote:
> > A 1 qt pot is too small to cook a cup of rice... and too small for egg
> > drop or any other kind of soup for two.... whadaya do, fill it to the
> > tippy top, how do you stir... no wonder your stove looks like slob
> > city, everything boils over.
>
> I see Sheldon has some problems with basic math, not that it is
> unexpected...
>

He seems to have difficulty with a lot of issues that involve reality. When I
suggested a few days ago that most sets of cooking pots came with a variety of
diameters he was quick to disagree and claimed that his 6, 8 and 10 qt. set were
all the same diameter and used the same lids. While it may be that the larger
pots do get deeper, since there is no point in making them wider than burners
and stove tops can handle, the smaller pots that are more commonly used by
modern families and which are usually sold in sets, come in a variety of
diameters each with their own tops. They typically come in 14 16, 18 and 20 cm
diameters.


> Is Sheldon talking about a cup of uncooked rice, or a cup of cooked rice? A
> cup (8 ounces) of cooked rice will obviously fit very comfortably in a quart
> (32 ounce) pot. A cup of uncooked rice will not fit very well in a quart pot
> when cooked, but then that yields at least 4 to 6 servings. What part of
> "cooking for one or two" does Sheldon not understand? Maybe he eats 4 to 6
> servings himself at one sitting?

One had to consider the source there. One quart is 32 oz. One cup of rice and
two cups of water is 24 oz. The pot is roughly 3/4 filled. That leaves 1/4 of
the height for the rice to bubble over, a problem you have only when it is left
covered on a burner that is too hot.

> I think it's time to get the flash cards back out, Sheldon. Didn't they
> cover this basic stuff in the 4th grade? I guess you weren't paying
> attention.

Some people just like to disagree. Others get their facts straight or think
things through before responding.