Quote from: Secret Santa on February 06, 2019, 11:32 PM
Can you expand a bit on that x1.5 per doubling? Is it that if you double, then rather than doubling the chilli you only increase by 1.5? And if doubling again, and again ... then what?

There's an implicit, logical dead-end to that rule. If we continue to increase the size of the cooking pot at some point there will be no need for any spices at all! It's the cooking equivalent of perpetual motion. It's just not logical.

First of all SS, obviously no one is going to increase the size of a pot as to the point of approaching infinity, and at which the functional incremental spice increase would approach zero.

To expand a bit, yes. This is a theorized and often utilized practice pertaining to the increased quantity of spicing in relation to the increased volume of primary ingredients in a dish.  For each doubling of the primary ingredients there is an applied increase of only 1.5 X the amount of certain spices (as listed above) but certainly including chilli.  This may or may not be necessary in the first instance, ie; in going from a single serve to a double serve in the case of BIR style cooking.

So as not to insult anybody's intelligence, I won't do the sums for us.  Obviously there is no need to be FOAM (fixated on accurate measurement) and rounding up or down to an appropriate closest measure would be more than acceptable. This is a fairly general cooking practice and I have in the past found several sources confirming the application of the adjustment method.   It may be related to the lack of need to use extra ingredients when they are not really required (economy) or it may be related to the actual fact of spice overload of linear scaling, or possibly a combination of both.  My reading certainly indicated it the be to prevent over-spicing of dishes.   I've posted some links in relation to this theory in other related threads in the past. I guess I could trawl the internet again to see if I can re-find references to this material.

Is this related to the fact the chilli heat is transmitted to our palate via the layer of oil which coats the curry, rather than the bulk of the sauce itself?  If the surface area of a curry increases in proportion to the square root of its increase in volume, then should the chilli content increase by 1.41 (square root of 2) each time you double the volume?

In other words, scale the chilli powder in proportion to the increase in surface area of the curry ( the bit where the oil "hangs out"), rather than volume. And before someone starts taking about different shaped dishes, obviously "all else must be equal", i.e. same shape.

.

Quote from: Donald Brasco on February 07, 2019, 07:17 AM
Is this related to the fact the chilli heat is transmitted to our palate via the layer of oil which coats the curry, rather than the bulk of the sauce itself?  If the surface area of a curry increases in proportion to the square root of its increase in volume, then should the chilli content increase by 1.41 (square root of 2) each time you double the volume?

In other words, scale the chilli powder in proportion to the increase in surface area of the curry ( the bit where the oil "hangs out"), rather than volume. And before someone starts taking about different shaped dishes, obviously "all else must be equal", i.e. same shape.

Pretty much no. On all accounts.

Firstly, the chilli heat is not just transferred by the oil. Don't believe me? Throw a raw green chilli in you mouth and start chewing. You know what the effect of that is, right? And where's the oil there?

Secondly, the oil is distributed throughout the curry as an emulsion. So there's no "surface" effect.

Frankly I'm bored with the subject as I don't believe it has any merit. If one chilli is needed in one curry then n chillies are needed in a curry n times the volume to achieve the same chilli-heat effect. Anyone who claims otherwise is bonkers.

Otherwise tell me what the mechanism is that allows less of an ingredient to be used to achieve the same effect purely because the bulk quantity is increased. Or maybe we're to believe that it's some sort of homeopathic mechanism whereby you reduce the active ingredient to increase the ingredient's effect. Or some other undefined witchery.

The person who could have shed real scientific light on this vexed topic (Professor Jack Pridham, founder of "Chemophilia", a web site devoted to debunking chemical myths) sadly died a few years ago.  I have asked someone else (a friend who is a professor of human nutrition) who may be able to shed some light. 

** Phil.

I might go in for pisky [1] logic occasionally, but my scientist friends most certainly do not !
** Phil.
--------
[1] Cornish spelling of pixie.