Loiskelly1 > wrote:
>>Using these measurements, I estimated minimum standard
>>container sizes
>
>A nice thought, but the density of a particular tea in question is by far the
>biggest consideration. I have some tightly wrapped jade pearls that are
>perhaps 20x more dense than a fluffy pi lo chun.

Probably, but most leafy teas will fit into about the same
volume, and I was specific about the leaf size and quality
to identify it among the choices. If you have data on
other kinds, please post them. All you need are one volume
measurement and one mass measurement, with error bars, and
I can plug them in the spreadsheet that kicks out the rest
of the numbers.

>As for your math, if you are attempting to add an air of authority to your
>argument by presenting such precise numbers, you should know that your
>estimates of errors are incorrect, and violate the accepted rules of
>significant digits.

Excess precision in intermediate calculations is not
eschewed by anyone, and violates nothing.

The measurements are that precise because the measuring
devices were that precise; the cup has 10-ml markings
and the scale reads in .05 gram steps (but I only trust
it to within 100 mg).

The final results were reduced to somewhere between
1 and 2 significant figures (1 part in 7 to 16 parts).
They are also a high estimate, labeled as such, and have
an error margin specified.

The air of authority you perceived isn't attempted, it's
accomplished, being the residue of actual expertise in the
subjects of physical metrology, computational precision,
and error estimation.

--Blair
"Your scales read low."