Quote from: Fat Les on July 09, 2006, 07:20 AMI would certainly be likely to contribute significanlty more if I felt I was getting positive responses to my posts.  I wonder if others feel the same?

Oh, yes. Negative responses to what you say are just about the biggest turnoff possible.

Often, the way you perceive them also has to be taken into account, though. I've just edited this because of the other topic about photos - painfully aware that my comments could easily be taken the wrong way when no specific 'way' is intended.

Although since the 'Saltgate Affair' (and, I suspect, because of it) it seems to have a very specific one to some people.

I can't help wondering how much the subsequent references to 'donations' have actually cost in terms of such donations. Mine, for one, has been delayed. The last thing I'd want to do is pay only to find things like this happening.

By 'contributing', you (again) mean those who have donated, I presume? So only paying members' opinions count?

Fine.

With respect, curryqueen, the salt thing was a bit of a joke because things were getting a bit heavy. People took it way too seriously. It was harmless, but a seemed to prompt a few to throw their toys out of the pram for some reason.

You don't have to respond to or read things you aren't interested in. It was only one thread, for heaven's sake! And it makes a change from people just posting 'I like curry' stuff - which they're perfectly entitled to do, of course, and which I for one would not condemn outright  :

The number of 'contributing' (as in 'to the thread') members seems to have taken a nosedive as a result of some of the overreactions to it. That's what turned people away, not the post itself. If it hadn't have been dealt with by certain people the way it was, there would have been a few people still having great fun contributing to it just as 'a bit of fun'.

I would have thought that as a moderator you'd be encouraging diversity instead of condemning it. And on a site like this, condemning 'science...?

Pure salt may well absorb moisture from the atmosphere, but it ISN'T a lot. Hence the word 'particularly' in my two posts on the subject You raised hygropscopicity, not me. The biggest effect on the mass of a given volume of salt is the packed density and not hygroscopicity effects.

Do you know what those anti-caking agents are? They are there as lubricants not adsorbents. The ones most likely to be used are colloidal silicon dioxide or magnesium stearate, though I believe salt has magnesium carbonate in it. They improve flow, but they don't preferentially absorb water.

Mass per unit volume IS affected by density. 1000 cm3 of loosely packed salt weighs less than 1000 cm3 of densely packed salt. This was the original point, so don't try and wander off down the you-said-I-said route

No one would measure 2,500 cm3 of salt as in the previous example

Quote from: Yellow Fingers on July 01, 2006, 08:06 AM

Sorry mate you need to do better research. Salt is quite hygroscopic which is why anti-caking agents are always included in retail salt to prevent it clumping together.

We're still just joking to change the subject from that argument about scaling up, aren't we?

Once again: salt isn't particularly hygroscopic. The amount of moisture it can pick up in ambient conditions is quite small and not very rapid. So whereas sugar, for example, can go on taking on moisture under the right conditions until it becomes a liquid, salt doesn't do that.

The anti-caking agents just keep it flowable for salt cellars where even the slightest caking will cause problems. I can assure you that 50kg sacks and 200kg drums of salt/sodium chloride crystals don't contain any such agents and they are perfectly stable.

The biggest effect on mass when measuring it in volumes is the change in density as it consolidates - larger volumes will consolidate more than spoonfuls This was only a pedantic aside to your example about scaling up, after all

For the record, CurryCanuck, I have no need to cut and paste. I work in the science industry, so maybe you could actually learn something, eh?

Is their anything that meets with your ultra-high standards? You seem to have a 'pithy' (I use that term loosely) comment to say about many things Maybe it's you harbouring the miraculous secret to BIRs?

If you can make a trip every now and then, it freezes reasonably well. It isn't exactly the same as using it fresh, but it is a perfectly acceptable alternative in the absence of anything else.

I always try to use fresh when I can, but even if you do have a source locally, you still can't get it at a moment's notice unless they're right next door to you!

What I do is chop the bunches up, put it in bags, and freeze it. You just throw it in frozen and you get the flavour you need.

A few years ago now, I sowed a whole patch of our garden with Rajah coriander seeds.

It grew incredibly well - the plants were well above knee height.

The only problem is you have to use it quickly. So you need to be sowing it all the time you are using it.

When making curries, you use so much of it that those little windowsill pots are woefully too little, and growing it from scratch in the quantities you need is a major project.

So I gave up! I just buy it three bunches for ?1 from the local Asian hypermarket

Quote from: Yellow Fingers on June 30, 2006, 10:00 PMBut just to be absolutely correct, the hygroscopic nature of salt is more likey to have a greater effect than the variation in density due to compaction, because the salt would effectively be uncompacted as it is measured out.

I beg to differ on two points.

Salt isn't particularly hygroscopic, so hygroscopicity isn't really an issue - especially over short time periods. In addition, hygroscopicity effects will depend on local relative humidity, which is randomly variable for all practical purposes.

However, the bulk or uncompacted density of salt crystals is approximately 1.15 g/cm3 against the absolute density figure of approximately 2.17 g/cm3. Since table salt also contains flow aids, it follows that a large volume of the granular material is likely to consolidate at a different rate to a smaller volume, especially given its low angle of repose (32 degrees). And consolidation occurs due to gravity in one direction only: towards higher density.

Thus, consolidation would have the effect mentioned

Quote from: George on June 30, 2006, 06:49 PMe.g. If you put 5ml of salt in 100ml water and taste it, or mesaure the salinity, it will be exactly the same strength as 50ml salt in 1 litre of water or 2500ml salt in 50 litres of water. If you redduce the figure of 2500ml salt by anything significant, it will taste and measure differently.

Ah! Now technically that is true, but practically you would likely find that the larger the batch the more salty it is.

The reason for that is that the density of the salt matters when you are measuring it in terms of volume rather than mass. And a larger volume will likely have a greater density due to compaction, thus occupying a smaller volume, meaning that a fixed volume will have the greater mass pro rata.

Since we're being scientific, and all