Ghee

Bob Pastorio said:

Lena B Katz said:

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Bob Pastorio wrote:

A bit more or less of most ingredients

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

JimLane said:

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

Steve Wertz said:

JimLane said:

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" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:1074155700.933854@news-
1.nethere.net... <snip>

Quoted message said:

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 said:

Bob Pastorio said:

Lena B Katz said:

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.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

JimLane said:

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

Steve Wertz said:

JimLane said:

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

Charles Gifford said:

"JimLane" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:1074155700.933854@news-
1.nethere.net... <snip>

Quoted message said:

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

JimLane said:

Charles Gifford said:

"JimLane" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:1074155700.933854@news-
1.nethere.net... <snip>

Quoted message said:

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 [censored] 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 said:

JimLane said:

Charles Gifford said:

"JimLane" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...
<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 [censored] 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 said:

Bob Pastorio said:

JimLane said:

Charles Gifford wrote:

> "JimLane" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...
> <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 [censored] 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

Quoted message said:

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 said:

JimLane said:

Bob Pastorio said:

JimLane wrote:

> Charles Gifford wrote:
>
>> "JimLane" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:1074155700.933854@news-
>> 1.nethere.net... <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 [censored] 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

Quoted message said:

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 said:

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 =

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

Why I got into this, was that there seemed to be an immediate rush (tha=

t=20

Quoted message said:

other fella's) that it would make no difference at all and the issue wa=

s=20

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

I am partially to blame for not saying that earlier.

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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 said:

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?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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?

Quoted message said:

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."

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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 said:

JimLane said:

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?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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?

Quoted message said:

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."

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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 said:

Apparently, JimLanes anal probe is stuck way too high to be

removed. The

Quoted message said:

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 here:

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 said:

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 here:

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.

Quoted message said:

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 >>>>>>>>>>>>

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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."

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

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