Another Book

[Peripatetic Phil]

Some of us slogged our way through this proportional scaling thing six years ago.

"Plus ca change" :-)
** Phil.

[Peripatetic Phil]

It's illogical and unscientific for the very reason I suggested.

I believe that the Church said much the same about the heretical theories of Galileo Galilei.

If you beg to differ, then some other factors must be coming into play (with your cooking).  Like size of pan, size of heat source, etc.

I agree.  But not necessarily that the other factors are those you mention.  I'll explain my own hypothesis below :

But, if you really believe that adding a "single portion" amount of garlic and ginger (for example) to a "double portion", gives the same result as two individual portions combined (with, therefore, twice as much garlic and ginger in it as in a single portion), then good luck to you!  But please don't try and convince others of it and try to sell it as an "empirically proved fact"!  :

Three swallows do not make a summer : and the findings of Neil Faulkner, Ray and myself are not necessarily the same findings as those that a far wider panel of researchers might reach.  But let me address your earlier point, because a priori your argument seems very sound, but I believe that it contains a fundamental error [1].  Let me try to explain.  Suppose that a single portion of curry is made with 3/4 pint base, 5 tbsps oil, 8 oz chicken, 2 tsp chillies, 1 1/2 tsp cumin and 1 tsp methi (a basic KD-style Madras).  Those ingredients are present at the start of cooking.  But what is in the finished dish ?  Some water will have evaporated, but more importantly, the chicken will have cooked, acquiring a distinctive flavour in the process (because it has absorbed some of the essential oils from the spices), and all of the ingredients will have melded together to yield a curry ("a curry is far more than the sum of its parts").  You would not be able to take that curry and remove from it (say) the base; nor would you be able to remove any of its constituents.  So what you have after cooking a single portion is no longer 3/4 pint base, 5 tbsps oil, 8 oz chicken, 2 tsp chillies, 1 1/2 tsp cumin and 1 tsp methi; rather, it is a Chicken Madras a la KD.  Now, if you add that Chicken Madras to another, identically cooked, portion, you will indeed end up with a double portion of Chicken Madras.  But now consider the other side of the equation : suppose you start with 1 1/2 pints base, 10 tbsps oil, 1 lb chicken, 4 tsp chillies, 3 tsp cumin and 2 tsp methi, and you cook them as you cooked your single portion, but adjusting cooking times (etc) to allow for the larger quantities involved : what you will end up with is still identifiably a Chicken Madras, but (in my experience, and that of the other researchers cited) it will be excessively hot, and noticeably out of balance.  Why ?  I don't claim to know.  All I do know is that there is a definite non-linear relationship involved when it comes to spicing, and sadly the one person I knew personally who might have been able to explain this was buried last week [2]. 

** Phil.
--------
[1] The error is that your argument begs the question.  You argue that, because adding two single curries after cooking will yield a double portion, you would get the same results (modulo heat, temperature, duration, size of cooking vessel, etc) by doubling everything up in the first place; but you do not demonstrate why this must be the case other than by arm-waving, and in so doing you overlook the very complex chemical reactions that take place when food is cooked.

[2] The late Professor Jack Pridham.  His famous "Chemophilia" web site is no longer online, but fortunately the Way Back Machine has an archived copy.

[Peripatetic Phil]

Some of us slogged our way through this proportional scaling thing six years ago. We didn't really get anywhere, in terms of a consensus. I'm a bit embarrassed to post the link, as I lost it a bit during the debate, : but here it is anyway:

https://curry-recipes.co.uk/curry/index.php?topic=1037.0

An interesting non sequitur (or perhaps an unintentional faux pas ) in one of the sources cited :

On topic: Thanks for the link, Merrybaker.  I was looking for one too and found this:

http://allrecipes.com/hints/scaling.asp

This includes the lines:

?If you are doubling a recipe, expect to use only about 1 ? times the original amount of seasonings. If you are tripling a recipe, expect to use only about twice the original amount of seasonings. If you are dividing a recipe in half or to one-third, then use a little less than half or a third of the original amount of seasonings.?

If you use less seasonings when scaling up and when scaling down (as the author states), then the end result of this after multiple iterations would be "homeopathic cuisine" ("Ah, wonderful curry : I do find that Bassar curry masala works best at a potency of 30C") !

** Phil.

[Cory Ander]

I'm sorry, Phil, but when you can drop all the flowery (pretentious) words, Latin, French, etc.  And when you can summarise what you're trying to say, in far fewer, clearer, words, then maybe I'll make more of an effort to try and read and understand what it is that you're trying to say, and respond accordingly.  Until then, I'll let it ride.   

[Cory Ander]

Bum!  Against my better judgement, please name me just ONE area of cooking where you would not double the ingredients if you were making twice the amount (with some sort of scientific, not religious or mystical, rationale)?  I can honestly think of none.

Coffee?
Tea?
Toad in the Hole?
Victoria Sandwich?
Stew?
Casserole?
etc,
etc?

I can also think of no chemical, or physical, reaction where that is the case.

I await your response with acute anticipation (NOT constipation!  )! 

[Peripatetic Phil]

Bum!  Against my better judgement, please name me just ONE area of cooking where you would not double the ingredients if you were making twice the amount?

Curries ?

[Cory Ander]

Weak, Phil, very weak  :

[Peripatetic Phil]

I'm sorry, Phil, but when you can drop all the flowery (pretentious) words, Latin, French, etc.  And when you can summarise what you're trying to say, in far fewer, clearer, words, then maybe I'll make more of an effort to try and read and understand what it is that you're trying to say, and respond accordingly.  Until then, I'll let it ride.   

Adding one cooked curry to an identical cooked curry will give you a double-sized portion of that curry.  Nothing in that statement supports your hypothesis that adding the ingredients for a curry to an identical set of ingredients will give you the ingredients for a double-sized portion of that curry.  When the ingredients are cooked, the results is /not/ the sum of the ingredients.

** Phil.

[Stephen Lindsay]

Slightly off topic chaps and descending into a game of ping pong

[Cory Ander]

Slightly off topic chaps and descending into a game of ping pong

Perhaps it is slightly off-topic, SL, but wouldn't you agree that it is a very important point? 

Haldi has raised the question as to whether anyone has seen this book.  DP has cited "two nuggets" of valuable (to be taken at face value?) information in it; one of which is this topic.

I think it's a VERY significant question and very worthy of sensible debate (but should maybe be debated elsewhere, granted). 

Haldi has gone to great lengths to make a full size curry base and it seems to have drawn a bit of a blank.  But, perhaps, goes someway to answering some of these questions.

Many members have questioned the issue of scaling up and scaling down. 

Clearly many members have very different opinions on this topic (but, as you say, should maybe be debated elsewhere). 

But let the "debate" continue! 

PS: why are some of you guys so reluctant to debate some of the salient issues around making BIR curries at home?  Because they are contentious?  Sorry, but that is where the true mileage lies, in my opinion.