On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Bob Pastorio wrote:

> Lena B Katz wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Bob Pastorio wrote:
> >
> > A bit more or less of most ingredients
> >>won't materially affect the dish. Like everybody's Aunt Minnie cooks
> >>by the handful and it still works.
> >
> > hence why most recipes call for "kosher salt" when they want a different
> > grind...
>
> As far as I'm concerned, kosher salt is an affectation unnecessary for
> virtually all recipes. It's bigger chunks of salt than table salt.
> NaCl. That's all. Different brands are different-sized. Some have
> anti-caking agents, some don't. All sound and fury...

different sizes affect how quickly it dissolves and can radically affect
taste (that's the physicist in me talking). leastaways, my pretzels made
with table salt always taste saltier
than the storebought ones.

> > OTOH, having tastetested colored gelatin (with surprising results), i
> > realize that people don't know what their taste buds tell them, anywhoo.
>
> How, um, interesting.

makes a great parlor game or science experiment (or, try both in one go!)

Lena

Steve Wertz wrote:

> On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 01:22:11 -0800, JimLane
> > wrote:
>
>
>
>>Okay, let's clean this up a bit so the silly clown can see what is what:
>
>
> Jim, you're pathetic. Practically everytime I see your name
> you're involved in a flame war of some sort, or generally being
> anal.
>
> He's not worth it, Bob.
>
> -sw
>

In case it went over your head, I was originally talking to Gifford when
P. dove in, not the other way around.


jim

"JimLane" > wrote in message
...
<snip>
> In case it went over your head, I was originally talking to Gifford when
> P. dove in, not the other way around.
>
>
> jim

Your attributions were poorly done Jim, but I certainly knew that you first
addressed your remarks to me. I did not answer your post because it did not
seem to require any comment from me. Bob responded very well to your post.
Even if I felt your remarks merited comment, there was no need to as Bob
covered them well.

Charlie

Lena B Katz wrote:

> On Wed, 14 Jan 2004, Bob Pastorio wrote:
>
>>Lena B Katz wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Bob Pastorio wrote:
>>>
>>>A bit more or less of most ingredients
>>>
>>>>won't materially affect the dish. Like everybody's Aunt Minnie cooks
>>>>by the handful and it still works.
>>>
>>>hence why most recipes call for "kosher salt" when they want a different
>>>grind...
>>
>>As far as I'm concerned, kosher salt is an affectation unnecessary for
>>virtually all recipes. It's bigger chunks of salt than table salt.
>>NaCl. That's all. Different brands are different-sized. Some have
>>anti-caking agents, some don't. All sound and fury...
>
>
> different sizes affect how quickly it dissolves and can radically affect
> taste (that's the physicist in me talking). leastaways, my pretzels made
> with table salt always taste saltier
> than the storebought ones.

Sure. With pretzels, the larger crystals take longer on the tongue to
dissolve. But for cooking, it makes no difference.

>>>OTOH, having tastetested colored gelatin (with surprising results), i
>>>realize that people don't know what their taste buds tell them, anywhoo.
>>
>>How, um, interesting.
>
> makes a great parlor game or science experiment (or, try both in one go!)

Did it every day in all my restaurants. One time I advertised a
dessert that included a raspberry coulis. We were hammered and had
only made about 40 portions of the coulis for the desserts. Later,
doing our daily analysis, we counted something over 100 orders on the
guest checks for it. I asked my pastry chef how he'd done it. He
looked around to make sure no one heard and said, "Daily's Strawberry
Daiquiri Mix."

Said if you held it in your right hand it was strawberry. Hold it in
your left and it's raspberry. We got no complaints, no questions or
comments that were anything but glowing.

Didn't do it again, but learned something...

Pastorio

Charles Gifford wrote:
> "JimLane" > wrote in message
> ...
> <snip>
>
>>In case it went over your head, I was originally talking to Gifford when
>>P. dove in, not the other way around.
>>
>>
>>jim
>
>
> Your attributions were poorly done Jim, but I certainly knew that you first
> addressed your remarks to me. I did not answer your post because it did not
> seem to require any comment from me. Bob responded very well to your post.
> Even if I felt your remarks merited comment, there was no need to as Bob
> covered them well.
>
> Charlie
>
>


Does not change the fact that I did not start the problem with P., he did.


jim

Steve Wertz wrote:

> On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 00:35:06 -0800, JimLane
> > wrote:
>
>
>>In case it went over your head, I was originally talking to Gifford when
>>P. dove in, not the other way around.
>
>
> So? It doesn't change the fact that you're being a putz again.
>
> -sw

Happy to be joining you. You've been lacking company recently.


jim

JimLane wrote:

> Charles Gifford wrote:
>
>> "JimLane" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> <snip>
>>
>>> In case it went over your head, I was originally talking to Gifford when
>>> P. dove in, not the other way around.
>>>
>>> jim
>>
>> Your attributions were poorly done Jim, but I certainly knew that you
>> first addressed your remarks to me. I did not answer your post because it
>> did not seem to require any comment from me. Bob responded very well to your
>> post.
>> Even if I felt your remarks merited comment, there was no need to as Bob
>> covered them well.
>>
>> Charlie
>>
> Does not change the fact that I did not start the problem with P., he did.

Hey shitwit JimLane. Here's the URL for the thread where you've been
so grievously put upon. <http://tinyurl.com/2drcz>

Read for content and tone, particularly your posts. I wrote what I did
in reply to a rather shallow, clearly erroneous, combative note of
yours. It seems to be more important to you to "win" something than to
actually engage in discourse.

You argue like a child by introducing irrelevancies and slippery
qualifications with little regard for anything approaching truth or
balance. After the "I didn't start it" ploy becomes too transparent, I
expect your version of "I'm rubber; you're glue" to make its way here.

Quit whining.

Pastorio

Bob Pastorio wrote:
> JimLane wrote:
>
>> Charles Gifford wrote:
>>
>>> "JimLane" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> In case it went over your head, I was originally talking to Gifford
>>>> when
>>>> P. dove in, not the other way around.
>>>>
>>>> jim
>>>
>>>
>>> Your attributions were poorly done Jim, but I certainly knew that you
>>> first addressed your remarks to me. I did not answer your post
>>> because it did not seem to require any comment from me. Bob responded
>>> very well to your post.
>>> Even if I felt your remarks merited comment, there was no need to as Bob
>>> covered them well.
>>>
>>> Charlie
>>>
>> Does not change the fact that I did not start the problem with P., he
>> did.
>
>
> Hey shitwit JimLane. Here's the URL for the thread where you've been so
> grievously put upon. <http://tinyurl.com/2drcz>
>
> Read for content and tone, particularly your posts. I wrote what I did
> in reply to a rather shallow, clearly erroneous, combative note of
> yours. It seems to be more important to you to "win" something than to
> actually engage in discourse.
>
> You argue like a child by introducing irrelevancies and slippery
> qualifications with little regard for anything approaching truth or
> balance. After the "I didn't start it" ploy becomes too transparent, I
> expect your version of "I'm rubber; you're glue" to make its way here.
>
> Quit whining.
>
> Pastorio
>

Still waiting for that verifiable, peer-reviewed research that supports
your claim that small amounts of additional salt from salted butter are
undetectable in taste by people.


jim

JimLane wrote:

> Bob Pastorio wrote:
>
>> JimLane wrote:
>>
>>> Charles Gifford wrote:
>>>
>>>> "JimLane" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>> In case it went over your head, I was originally talking to Gifford
>>>>> when P. dove in, not the other way around.
>>>>>
>>>>> jim
>>>>
>>>> Your attributions were poorly done Jim, but I certainly knew that
>>>> you first addressed your remarks to me. I did not answer your post
>>>> because it did not seem to require any comment from me. Bob
>>>> responded very well to your post.
>>>> Even if I felt your remarks merited comment, there was no need to as
>>>> Bob covered them well.
>>>>
>>>> Charlie
>>>>
>>> Does not change the fact that I did not start the problem with P., he
>>> did.
>>
>> Hey shitwit JimLane. Here's the URL for the thread where you've been
>> so grievously put upon. <http://tinyurl.com/2drcz>
>>
>> Read for content and tone, particularly your posts. I wrote what I did
>> in reply to a rather shallow, clearly erroneous, combative note of
>> yours. It seems to be more important to you to "win" something than to
>> actually engage in discourse.
>>
>> You argue like a child by introducing irrelevancies and slippery
>> qualifications with little regard for anything approaching truth or
>> balance. After the "I didn't start it" ploy becomes too transparent, I
>> expect your version of "I'm rubber; you're glue" to make its way here.
>>
>> Quit whining.
>>
>> Pastorio

> Still waiting for that verifiable, peer-reviewed research that supports
> your claim that small amounts of additional salt from salted butter are
> undetectable in taste by people.

Res ipsa loquitur.

Pastorio

Bob Pastorio wrote:
> JimLane wrote:
>
>> Bob Pastorio wrote:
>>
>>> JimLane wrote:
>>>
>>>> Charles Gifford wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "JimLane" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>> In case it went over your head, I was originally talking to
>>>>>> Gifford when P. dove in, not the other way around.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> jim
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Your attributions were poorly done Jim, but I certainly knew that
>>>>> you first addressed your remarks to me. I did not answer your post
>>>>> because it did not seem to require any comment from me. Bob
>>>>> responded very well to your post.
>>>>> Even if I felt your remarks merited comment, there was no need to
>>>>> as Bob covered them well.
>>>>>
>>>>> Charlie
>>>>>
>>>> Does not change the fact that I did not start the problem with P.,
>>>> he did.
>>>
>>>
>>> Hey shitwit JimLane. Here's the URL for the thread where you've been
>>> so grievously put upon. <http://tinyurl.com/2drcz>
>>>
>>> Read for content and tone, particularly your posts. I wrote what I
>>> did in reply to a rather shallow, clearly erroneous, combative note
>>> of yours. It seems to be more important to you to "win" something
>>> than to actually engage in discourse.
>>>
>>> You argue like a child by introducing irrelevancies and slippery
>>> qualifications with little regard for anything approaching truth or
>>> balance. After the "I didn't start it" ploy becomes too transparent,
>>> I expect your version of "I'm rubber; you're glue" to make its way here.
>>>
>>> Quit whining.
>>>
>>> Pastorio
>
>
>> Still waiting for that verifiable, peer-reviewed research that
>> supports your claim that small amounts of additional salt from salted
>> butter are undetectable in taste by people.
>
>
> Res ipsa loquitur.
>
> Pastorio
>

Hmmm, your Latin seems better than (insult deleted here, P., feeling
courteous this day) Let's step back and I'll try a few different words
to put this into perspective.

The origin of you and I butting heads was about whether or not the use
of salted vs. unsalted butter would be detectable.

Why I got into this, was that there seemed to be an immediate rush (that
other fella's) that it would make no difference at all and the issue was
bogus. When you jumped in, you said, no way, José, without any
questioning of why people would say what they had been saying.

In my area, for someone to just jump in with a pronouncement like that
without exploring why would be considered very, VERY, unprofessional.

Note, that once I indicated to you that I was a bit salt-sensitive and
used far less salt than called for in recipes, you have backed off.

I am partially to blame for not saying that earlier.

It is a fact that there are a wide range of tasting capabilities, from
people to whom everything tastes like a big mac patty to supertasters.
For some of us, the difference in a dish prepared with unsalted butter
plus salt and that same dish with salted butter are two very different
dishes and the salt levels immediately apparent.

This is why I asked for any peer reviewed research that backed up the
position that the difference in a recipe using salted versus unsalted
butter was a non-issue and didn't make any difference in taste.

Now, I don't believe in using Latin (even if I could) to jape at
someone. I use very clear English.

Do you have something to say which bears on the question?


jim

JimLane wrote:

> Hmmm, your Latin seems better than (insult deleted here, P., feeling=20
> courteous this day) Let's step back and I'll try a few different words =

> to put this into perspective.
>=20
> The origin of you and I butting heads was about whether or not the use =

> of salted vs. unsalted butter would be detectable.

Not quite all of it. I see you didn't take my suggestion to go read=20
what you wrote. You were absolutist, belligerent and snide. First with=20
Charles Gifford and then with me. I answered rather moderately until=20
you pressed it.

> Why I got into this, was that there seemed to be an immediate rush (tha=
t=20
> other fella's) that it would make no difference at all and the issue wa=
s=20
> bogus. When you jumped in, you said, no way, Jos=E9, without any=20
> questioning of why people would say what they had been saying.

I read what was on the screen and replied to it rather extensively.=20
Here's the URL for the discussion <http://tinyurl.com/37aaq> Go read=20
yourself. Things like:

"Hmmm, I see only your opinion. Not a fact anywhere in sight. You are
assuming that because you MIGHT not be able to taste it in the bare
cake, then no one else would either. That is arrogance. And stupidity"=20
Doesn't exactly read like a seeker of information might write it.

> In my area, for someone to just jump in with a pronouncement like that =

> without exploring why would be considered very, VERY, unprofessional.

JimLane, it just doesn't matter what else is in your world. I told you=20
the outline of the experiment, I told you the methodology, I told you=20
the universe of testers and I told you their conclusions. I told you=20
that it was an effort to provide a matrix of experimentation for a=20
12-year-old who wondered about something. It wasn't a university=20
study. It wasn't any sort of organized research beyond the very=20
simple, one-variable test. It was also predicated on a rather=20
thoroughgoing body of experiment and experience in my history.

> Note, that once I indicated to you that I was a bit salt-sensitive and =

> used far less salt than called for in recipes, you have backed off.

Not really, I've not really bothered to even try to deal with it. You=20
haven't been listening.

> I am partially to blame for not saying that earlier.

It doesn't really matter. It wasn't about you.

> It is a fact that there are a wide range of tasting capabilities, from =

> people to whom everything tastes like a big mac patty to supertasters.

I'm a supertaster. My daughter is likewise a supertaster. We have both=20
had bitter stuff in out mouths to see if it were so. I don't know=20
about the friends and relatives who participated. But it doesn't=20
really matter. *Everybody* said the same thing even though they=20
weren't asked at the same time and weren't consulting on it. IN the=20
extremely informal survey we did.

> For some of us, the difference in a dish prepared with unsalted butter =

> plus salt and that same dish with salted butter are two very different =

> dishes and the salt levels immediately apparent.

And my experience in feeding hundreds of thousands of people over=20
three decades doesn't bear that out. Empirical information.

Unless the recipe demands a great deal of butter *and* a great deal of=20
salt, my experience is that it doesn't matter whether the butter is=20
salted or not. And in the instance of the hypothetical recipe cited, a=20
minor adjustment solves the whole "problem."

I've used both butters in different batches of the same dish and never=20
had anyone say anything about it or note any difference in finished=20
result. Never. Not once.

> This is why I asked for any peer reviewed research that backed up the=20
> position that the difference in a recipe using salted versus unsalted=20
> butter was a non-issue and didn't make any difference in taste.

JimLane it's become all about *your* taste buds. You've said=20
repeatedly that you can taste the difference. What earthly value would=20
it have to offer a citation that disagrees with your personal=20
position? It won't change your perception of what's happening in your=20
mouth. It won't alter anything. But to put this "peer-reviewed"=20
business to rest, below is a reported study that has bearing on the=20
subject.

> Now, I don't believe in using Latin (even if I could) to jape at=20
> someone. I use very clear English.

This isn't really relevant. Obviously, I do believe in using Latin or=20
any of the other languages I'm comfortable in if they express the=20
though at hand tidily.

> Do you have something to say which bears on the question?

See above about that question.

But there's good news ahead for you. As you age, you'll lose your=20
ability to taste. Salt won't bother you so much.=20
<http://dukemednews.duke.edu/news/article.php?id=3D665>

And here's some honest-to-god science with statistics and charts and=20
technical terms like "moles' and other cool stuff.=20
<http://lib.tmd.ac.jp/jmd/5001/14_ohno.pdf> Look at the=20
concentrations of saline solutions that were undetectable. See the=20
pretty lines in the perceptivity charts. Based on their conclusions,=20
you'll want to forego brushing your tongue before eating. Dentures=20
won't matter for salinity, only bitterness. These were elderly=20
subjects with reduced sensitivity from what they should have been able=20
to perceive when younger. But the mean thresholds of perceptivity is=20
rather higher than I would have thought.

Here's what a molar solution is about=20
<http://www.public.iastate.edu/~bkh/teaching/molarity.pdf>

A molar solution of salt would be 58.44 grams of salt in enough liquid=20
to make a liter. How much salt was in each solution? Well, to quote=20
myself, "A tablespoon of table salt weighs right at 0.6 ounces or 16.8=20
grams. A tablespoon is 3 teaspoons of salt which weigh 5.6 grams each."

1=3D 0.0008 M solution =3D 0.047 g
2=3D 0.0017 =3D 0.099 g
3=3D 0.0033 =3D 0.193 g
4=3D 0.0067 =3D 0.392 g
5=3D 0.0134 =3D 0.783 g
6=3D 0.0267 =3D 1.560 g
7=3D 0.0535 =3D 3.127 g

Note the mean thresholds for perceiving salinity on page 4. Do the=20
math. Are we done with this now?

Pastorio

Here's the only relevant thing Bob wrote in reply to what brought me
into this discussion:


> Unless the recipe demands a great deal of butter *and* a great deal
of > salt, my experience is that it doesn't matter whether the butter is
> salted or not. And in the instance of the hypothetical recipe cited,
a > minor adjustment solves the whole "problem."


And that adjustment might come after someone else has tasted and
commented on the dish, perhaps, "Bob, this is a bit salty for me."

The question is, is this possible because of using salted vs unsalted
butter? Could that difference be enough to tip a dish into the "salty"
side of taste for some people?

You have been saying "absolutely no way." I have been saying prove that
with replicable research, not opinion, not anecdotal stories.

What peer-reviewed research do you have on people's perceptions of taste
that proves your point - that this can make no difference at all?



jim

JimLane wrote:

> Here's the only relevant thing Bob wrote in reply to what brought me
> into this discussion:

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Can you not see that your "show me
some science" whine has been answered? Can you not see that your
request for empirical information has been satisfied?

> > Unless the recipe demands a great deal of butter *and* a great deal
> of > salt, my experience is that it doesn't matter whether the butter is
> > salted or not. And in the instance of the hypothetical recipe cited,
> a > minor adjustment solves the whole "problem."
>
> And that adjustment might come after someone else

Why must it be someone else?

> has tasted and
> commented on the dish, perhaps, "Bob, this is a bit salty for me."

Oh, wait. JimLane's newest twist is that if *anyone* can discern a
single, lonely molecule of salinity, the whole thing of "salted butter
won't make much of a difference in the real world" is null, void and
probably a commie plot.

Poor JimLane seems to want absolute assertion at which point he'll
still say, "I can tell the difference."

> The question is, is this possible because of using salted vs unsalted
> butter? Could that difference be enough to tip a dish into the "salty"
> side of taste for some people?
>
> You have been saying "absolutely no way."

Really? I said that? I used the word "absolutely?" I said that in my
experience it wouldn't. I say that in the experience of a dozen people
who participated in a specific, informal experiment it didn't. I'm
saying that the paper I cited (Sunday morning and again Sunday
evening) said there were thresholds below which people couldn't even
perceive salinity and the amounts were of the orders of magnitude used
in recipes.

> I have been saying prove that
> with replicable research, not opinion, not anecdotal stories.

I did. You're still asking for the information you've already been
given. But no matter what, it won't change your mind since you say you
can taste salt at extremely low concentrations.

> What peer-reviewed research do you have on people's perceptions of taste
> that proves your point - that this can make no difference at all?

You're trying to make my position be absolute. It isn't, of course
because finally it's either a matter of a person's personal taste
perception or what *they say* to some researcher. There is no
objective measurement possible.

Did this part of the message I sent at 7:41 Sunday morning get past
you? You're replying to it, how could you have missed it so completely?

<<<<<<<<<<<<begin quote >>>>>>>>>
And here's some honest-to-god science with statistics and charts and
technical terms like "moles' and other cool stuff.
<http://lib.tmd.ac.jp/jmd/5001/14_ohno.pdf> Look at the
concentrations of saline solutions that were undetectable. See the
pretty lines in the perceptivity charts. Based on their conclusions,
you'll want to forego brushing your tongue before eating. Dentures
won't matter for salinity, only bitterness. These were elderly
subjects with reduced sensitivity from what they should have been able
to perceive when younger. But the mean thresholds of perceptivity is
rather higher than I would have thought.

Here's what a molar solution is about
<http://www.public.iastate.edu/~bkh/teaching/molarity.pdf>

A molar solution of salt would be 58.44 grams of salt in enough liquid
to make a liter. How much salt was in each solution? Well, to quote
myself, "A tablespoon of table salt weighs right at 0.6 ounces or 16.8
grams. A tablespoon is 3 teaspoons of salt which weigh 5.6 grams each."

1= 0.0008 M solution = 0.047 g
2= 0.0017 = 0.099 g
3= 0.0033 = 0.193 g
4= 0.0067 = 0.392 g
5= 0.0134 = 0.783 g
6= 0.0267 = 1.560 g
7= 0.0535 = 3.127 g

Note the mean thresholds for perceiving salinity on page 4. Do the
math. Are we done with this now?
<<<<<<<< end quote >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

We're done with this now, JimLane. I'm not going to continue with this
sort of dissembling from you. I've answered every question you've
asked, explained what I did, what the intentions were, and explained
from the principle under which it was formulated to the instance. I've
stated my premises, thinking, positions, and third-party data and
restated them in different words hoping you'd grasp it. If you still
want to know about the subject, and it doesn't seem that it's the
case, I suggest you go looking by yourself. I'm confident that no
matter what you find, it will either be "insufficient" or it will
confirm what you already "know."

Bob

Bob wrote:
> JimLane wrote:
>
>> Here's the only relevant thing Bob wrote in reply to what brought me
>> into this discussion:
>
>
> Are you being deliberately obtuse? Can you not see that your "show me
> some science" whine has been answered? Can you not see that your request
> for empirical information has been satisfied?
>
>> > Unless the recipe demands a great deal of butter *and* a great deal
>> of > salt, my experience is that it doesn't matter whether the butter is
>> > salted or not. And in the instance of the hypothetical recipe
>> cited, a > minor adjustment solves the whole "problem."
>>
>> And that adjustment might come after someone else
>
>
> Why must it be someone else?
>
>> has tasted and commented on the dish, perhaps, "Bob, this is a bit
>> salty for me."
>
>
> Oh, wait. JimLane's newest twist is that if *anyone* can discern a
> single, lonely molecule of salinity, the whole thing of "salted butter
> won't make much of a difference in the real world" is null, void and
> probably a commie plot.
>
> Poor JimLane seems to want absolute assertion at which point he'll still
> say, "I can tell the difference."
>
>> The question is, is this possible because of using salted vs unsalted
>> butter? Could that difference be enough to tip a dish into the "salty"
>> side of taste for some people?
>>
>> You have been saying "absolutely no way."
>
>
> Really? I said that? I used the word "absolutely?" I said that in my
> experience it wouldn't. I say that in the experience of a dozen people
> who participated in a specific, informal experiment it didn't. I'm
> saying that the paper I cited (Sunday morning and again Sunday evening)
> said there were thresholds below which people couldn't even perceive
> salinity and the amounts were of the orders of magnitude used in recipes.
>
>> I have been saying prove that with replicable research, not opinion,
>> not anecdotal stories.
>
>
> I did. You're still asking for the information you've already been
> given. But no matter what, it won't change your mind since you say you
> can taste salt at extremely low concentrations.
>
>> What peer-reviewed research do you have on people's perceptions of
>> taste that proves your point - that this can make no difference at all?
>
>
> You're trying to make my position be absolute. It isn't, of course
> because finally it's either a matter of a person's personal taste
> perception or what *they say* to some researcher. There is no objective
> measurement possible.
>
> Did this part of the message I sent at 7:41 Sunday morning get past you?
> You're replying to it, how could you have missed it so completely?
>
> <<<<<<<<<<<<begin quote >>>>>>>>>
> And here's some honest-to-god science with statistics and charts and
> technical terms like "moles' and other cool stuff.
> <http://lib.tmd.ac.jp/jmd/5001/14_ohno.pdf> Look at the concentrations
> of saline solutions that were undetectable. See the pretty lines in the
> perceptivity charts. Based on their conclusions, you'll want to forego
> brushing your tongue before eating. Dentures won't matter for salinity,
> only bitterness. These were elderly subjects with reduced sensitivity
> from what they should have been able to perceive when younger. But the
> mean thresholds of perceptivity is rather higher than I would have thought.
>
> Here's what a molar solution is about
> <http://www.public.iastate.edu/~bkh/teaching/molarity.pdf>
>
> A molar solution of salt would be 58.44 grams of salt in enough liquid
> to make a liter. How much salt was in each solution? Well, to quote
> myself, "A tablespoon of table salt weighs right at 0.6 ounces or 16.8
> grams. A tablespoon is 3 teaspoons of salt which weigh 5.6 grams each."
>
> 1= 0.0008 M solution = 0.047 g
> 2= 0.0017 = 0.099 g
> 3= 0.0033 = 0.193 g
> 4= 0.0067 = 0.392 g
> 5= 0.0134 = 0.783 g
> 6= 0.0267 = 1.560 g
> 7= 0.0535 = 3.127 g
>
> Note the mean thresholds for perceiving salinity on page 4. Do the math.
> Are we done with this now?
> <<<<<<<< end quote >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> We're done with this now, JimLane. I'm not going to continue with this
> sort of dissembling from you. I've answered every question you've asked,
> explained what I did, what the intentions were, and explained from the
> principle under which it was formulated to the instance. I've stated my
> premises, thinking, positions, and third-party data and restated them in
> different words hoping you'd grasp it. If you still want to know about
> the subject, and it doesn't seem that it's the case, I suggest you go
> looking by yourself. I'm confident that no matter what you find, it will
> either be "insufficient" or it will confirm what you already "know."
>
> Bob
>

Apparently, JimLanes anal probe is stuck way too high to be removed. The
aliens were unnecessarily vicious and malevolent this time around.

Rich

--
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Dum spiro, spero. (Cicero) As long as I breathe, I hope.

Richard Periut wrote:

> Apparently, JimLanes anal probe is stuck way too high to be
removed. The
> aliens were unnecessarily vicious and malevolent this time around.

Bet he'll have trouble getting through airport security, then. Or do
they make them out of non-metallic things with their far-advanced
technology?

Can you see the look on the face of the guy with that wand thing doing
a thorough search for the source of the beeps? Eeewwww.

Bob

Bob wrote:

Here you go Bob, but first a word about your recipe example, allow me
some poetic license because I am looking at a model he

Bob put up a recipe that calls for unsalted butter and this recipe ends
up having, for grins, 100 units of salt in it. Whoops, no unsalted, so
we'll add some salted butter in (btw, let's not get into "adjusting"
because the other salt is already in). Say there is enough salt in the
butter added to bring the overall salt content up five units.

Bob says that will wash out and doesn't make any difference, because
that 5% is inconsequential (remember, the actual number here is for
illustration).

Here's the rub, Bob, there is an assumption everyone would make the dish
with 100 units of salt. Not so. People on salt-restricted diets or those
who naturally eat low levels of salt might only put in 25 units. Now
that extra five is a 20% increase and that is significant and detectable.

Here's why (I went out and found some actual real research, Bob, that is
replicable and not meaningless numbers).


Elmer, Patricia Jeanne. 1988. The Effect Of Dietary Sodium Reduction and
Potassium-Chloride Supplementation on Sodium-Chloride Taste Perceptions
in Mild Hypertensives. University of Minnesota.

Now, I haven't read the full document, but if I get the gist of what she
says, people who are on low sodium diets, prefer significantly less salt
and showed significant changes in their salt taste (variables) and
showed a preference for significantly lower concentrations of (salt).

Now, I haven't read the whole thing, but is appears that science and
replicable research back my position that the shift from unsalted to
salted butter in a recipe CAN make a difference in taste. As opposed to
your, no way.

Hopefully, this will add some new information for you to consider.
instead of blindly rejecting the possibility that a mere change from
unsalted to salted butter can make a difference.


jim

JimLane wrote:

> Bob wrote:
>
> Here you go Bob, but first a word about your recipe example, allow me
> some poetic license because I am looking at a model he

Are you ****ing insane? "Poetic license?" We're not talking poetry,
we're talking science. Or, at least, I am. We're talking REAL numbers,
not some airy-fairy POETIC LICENSE.

Deal with the real numbers in both the recipe and the butter. Then it
begins to mean something. Your silly, self-serving "example" is
apparently all you have. Poor JimLane.

> Bob put up a recipe that calls for unsalted butter and this recipe ends
> up having, for grins, 100 units of salt in it. Whoops, no unsalted, so
> we'll add some salted butter in (btw, let's not get into "adjusting"
> because the other salt is already in). Say there is enough salt in the
> butter added to bring the overall salt content up five units.

Here's the real information, JimLane. Why not use it? No need for you
to strain your pretty little head making up stuff.

<<<<<<<<<<< begin quote >>>>>>>>>>>
The cakes each took 2 tablespoons butter, 5 eggs, 3/4 cup of flour,
1/4 cup milk, 3/4 cup sugar, teaspoon baking powder, 1/8 teaspoon
salt, teaspoon lemon extract. The butter (if I had measured it
exactly) contained 0.45 grams of salt (28 grams are an ounce), 1/62nd
of an ounce or 0.08 teaspoons of butter. Eight hundredths of a
teaspoon. Less than 1/10th of a teaspoon. That's a Scroogy pinch for a
whole cake intended to serve 8. Combining 1/8 teaspoon salt the recipe
calls for with the 1/12th teaspoon from the butter makes the amount of
salt leap from 3/24 of a teaspoon to 5/24 of a teaspoon. All the way
up to just under 1/5 of a teaspoon in a 9-inch cake.
<<<<<<<<<< end quote >>>>>>>>>>>>

> Bob says that will wash out and doesn't make any difference, because
> that 5% is inconsequential (remember, the actual number here is for
> illustration).

Bob says that adding 0.08 of a teaspoon of salt in a 9-inch cake would
be undetectable except to laboratory instruments. Stick that
no-basis-in-reality 5% where you store all your other "facts."

Why use fake numbers when the real ones were given to you? How sad a
show.

> Here's the rub, Bob, there is an assumption everyone would make the dish
> with 100 units of salt. Not so. People on salt-restricted diets or those
> who naturally eat low levels of salt might only put in 25 units. Now
> that extra five is a 20% increase and that is significant and detectable.

You know, I believe that you don't know how to read the citation I
gave you. Why are you talking in abstract "units" when the absolute
numbers are there for you to use? That 5% is significant *only* as a
percent increase. It's *only* significant as an abstract numerical
concept.

But, anyway, We don't perceive % increases, we perceive absolute
amounts. Your preposterous "example" is like saying that if I have $5
and you give me $1, that's more "detectable" than if I have $100 and
you give me $19.

So if you actually read the full paper I cited, there's a buncha of
NUMBERS and CHARTS and CONCLUSIONS. Unlike your "citation."

> Here's why (I went out and found some actual real research, Bob, that is
> replicable and not meaningless numbers).

"Meaningless numbers" to someone who doesn't know how to interpret
them. But that's why I also posted what they meant. To spare you all
that pesky thinking.

I don't see *any* numbers from you here. I see you "interpreting" a
paper that you offer no quotes from, no access to, and haven't even
read all the way through, by your own admission. Is this how you deal
with professional citations in your work?

You've attacked me for not offering data and say that in your field,
just making statements without support is bad. You're doing exactly
that. I believe that you aren't a technical person and you certainly
aren't a scientist. You certainly don't know how to present data.

> Elmer, Patricia Jeanne. 1988. The Effect Of Dietary Sodium Reduction and
> Potassium-Chloride Supplementation on Sodium-Chloride Taste Perceptions
> in Mild Hypertensives. University of Minnesota.
>
> Now, I haven't read the full document, but if I get the gist

Gist this. I love "haven't read the full document, but..." Couldn't
even offer a URL? Right. Very credible. I searched for the paper for
about 5 minutes and didn't come up with it. The title got nothing. The
author got nothing. Keywords didn't come up with it, either. I'd be
very interested in reading it.

Remember this that I've posted twice to you?

<<<<<<<<<<<< begin quote >>>>>>>>>
And here's some honest-to-god science with statistics and charts and
technical terms like "moles' and other cool stuff.
<http://lib.tmd.ac.jp/jmd/5001/14_ohno.pdf> Look at the
concentrations of saline solutions that were undetectable. See the
pretty lines in the perceptivity charts. Based on their conclusions,
you'll want to forego brushing your tongue before eating. Dentures
won't matter for salinity, only bitterness. These were elderly
subjects with reduced sensitivity from what they should have been able
to perceive when younger. But the mean thresholds of perceptivity is
rather higher than I would have thought.

Here's what a molar solution is about
<http://www.public.iastate.edu/~bkh/teaching/molarity.pdf>

A molar solution of salt would be 58.44 grams of salt in enough liquid
to make a liter. How much salt was in each solution? Well, to quote
myself, "A tablespoon of table salt weighs right at 0.6 ounces or 16.8
grams. A tablespoon is 3 teaspoons of salt which weigh 5.6 grams each."

1= 0.0008 M solution = 0.047 g
2= 0.0017 = 0.099 g
3= 0.0033 = 0.193 g
4= 0.0067 = 0.392 g
5= 0.0134 = 0.783 g
6= 0.0267 = 1.560 g
7= 0.0535 = 3.127 g

Note the mean thresholds for perceiving salinity on page 4. Do the
math. Are we done with this now?
<<<<<<<<<<<<< end quote >>>>>>>>>>>>>

Perhaps you noted that the mean thresholds of perceptivity were up at
solution 7. When people first noticed that there was any salt at all.
And that was in plain water with no obscuring other flavors as would
be in the cake, particularly sugar and starch.

Here's another way of looking at it: The cake weighs in at about 630 g
+/-. The salt was increased by 0.45 g. or a factor of 0.0007 or 0.07%,
all but impossible to detect as a differential. And even with both
salt additions included, the total percentage of salt in the recipe is
at 0.0018 or 0.18 percent. That scales out at a hair over the
concentration in solution 6.

> of what she
> says, people who are on low sodium diets, prefer significantly less salt
> and showed significant changes in their salt taste (variables) and
> showed a preference for significantly lower concentrations of (salt).
>
> Now, I haven't read the whole thing, but is appears that science and
> replicable research back my position that the shift from unsalted to
> salted butter in a recipe CAN make a difference in taste. As opposed to
> your, no way.
>
> Hopefully, this will add some new information for you to consider.
> instead of blindly rejecting the possibility that a mere change from
> unsalted to salted butter can make a difference.

Either you're illiterate or deliberately being obtuse. Perhaps both.

I predicted that in using salted versus unsalted butter, any
difference would be undetectable in the quantities at hand. A dozen
people tasted both cakes and confirmed that hypothesis. Period.

I also cited a study that dealt with thresholds of perceptivity and
offered quotes from it. You can jump up and down and flap your arms
all you want with your hypothetical numbers and obscure papers you
only claim to have half-read, but you've shown nothing. You're
offering only your opinions, exactly as you chastised me for doing.
I've brought reference materials. See how it's done?

Here's 5 bucks, JimLane. Buy yourself something frilly.

Pastorio