But what if you're not at standard temperature?
If you are somewhere that's hotter than 20C (or whatever it is) then you'll have less water than you need, surely?
(Me, I'm not... in any way intoxicated, Wed 2 Jun 2010, 17:45, 2 replies, latest was 14 years ago)

but by a tiny degree. expansion of water is something like 8% over 100C so maybe 2% over 20C? it's not a straight mathematical progression if my memory serves me correctly.
so imagine you're preparing the dough at 45C not 25C (STP?) for the sake of your scenario?
compare that % expansion to the scale on a jug being incorrectly positioned by 5mm vertically which i discovered equates to about 50ml on my jug.
that's 1/7th of the 350ml in question, which is about 14%?
that, sir, will fuck your dough right up.
trust me or not, go check it out for yourself.
a set of cheap digital scales (£7 from Lidl) are a shitload more accurate than a £20 pyrex jug.
fact.
( blaireau69 , the Cumbrian Travis Bickle., Wed 2 Jun 2010, 20:45, Reply)

I was teasing a little.
I don't doubt that you are correct I was merely taking the idea of precision a step further.
(Me, I'm not... in any way intoxicated, Thu 3 Jun 2010, 17:29, Reply)

Is bread really that precise?
My parents bake bread with 1000% guess work. Admittedly that's backed up with many years of baking, but they taught me to bake their bread the same way in one go...

I suppose it maybe depends on what bread you're baking - super fluffy white loaves might need the extra care, but my favourite bread is my parents (and when I can be arsed, my) bodgey stuff...

But then I regularly guess/throw in some extra at all my cooking... That said, I usually get compliments rather than cursing...
picasaweb.google.com/oppresswomen/MyCakesD# For some fine examples :)
(errrggghhhh should be doing something else, but what was it?!, Fri 4 Jun 2010, 19:26, Reply)

it's simply about whether or not you're after consistency or not.
i would suggest that to be able to claim you have mastered something then you need to be able to prove you can reproduce the results time after time.
i would also suggest that the "bodgey" approach will not tend to produce this.
no offence intended.
i only tend to use this degree of precision with baking and breadmaking.
( blaireau69 , the Cumbrian Travis Bickle., Fri 4 Jun 2010, 22:38, Reply)

Very good point...
Consistency is important, it should always be enjoyable. But there can (if you want there to be) a large range of 'right' that can be called consistent. Depending a little on cake, but usually I can get consistent looking and tasting results with the bodgey approach. That's what I mean by mastering the proportions (if I mentioned that at all?!) - if the proportions are good then the rest works every time.

For bread making I will confess that I like inconsistency, as then it's like you did a different recipe every time :P I do make a mental note of what biases affect the results and how, so I can keep making a loaf if it's particularly good :)

Really want to do lots of baking now! I forget how much I enjoy it :)
(errrggghhhh should be doing something else, but what was it?!, Mon 7 Jun 2010, 21:07, Reply)

Or cooking in space?!

( Tab Hunter Make this useless process end and so, begin again, Thu 3 Jun 2010, 15:17, Reply)

FUCK!
i didn't think of that.
you got me fair and square.
( blaireau69 , the Cumbrian Travis Bickle., Thu 3 Jun 2010, 16:56, Reply)

you can use springs to work out the mass
but you'll need a stopwatch and to know the Young's modulus of the springs
or some kind of container with markings on the side to display the volume of a liquid that was placed inside it
(fourd, Fri 4 Jun 2010, 20:06, Reply)

Or alternatively
use a two pan balance which measure mass rather than weight. Things have no weight in zero-g but they still have mass. 350ml liquid will still balance a 350g mass on the other side. Although, you may need to create some centripetal force to keep the stuff on the balance itself.
( sandettie light vessel automatic New Twitter - @bollocksreally, Fri 4 Jun 2010, 21:42, Reply)