In a message dated, Sun, 2 Mar 2003 09:41:50 EST, John said:
-------------------------Quote------------------------
The one serious flaw in Peter Reinhart's Bread Bakers Apprentice is the use
of decimal fractions of an ounce - it has no rationale , is a bastardised
hybrid of decinal and avoidupois measurements with the worst features of
both...........
---------------------------------------------------------
I beg to differ with John's assessment. Whether one-quarter ounce is
stated as a fraction (1/4) or a decimal (.25) it means the same thing.
John further states:
-------------------------Quote------------------------
........and scales electronic or balance, always measure in binary
fractions of an ounce so his quoted weights are unusable.
---------------------------------------------------------
That is absurd. Binary refers to a numerical system that has only two
numbers, one and zero. It is known to mathematicians as the base two
numerical system. The decimal system (base ten) has ten numbers zero
through nine. There also are other numeric systems as well such as,
hexadecimal and octal, to name a just few. The binary system as used in
computers because their memory systems are based on two-position switches
that indicate either on or off, (1 or 0). The decimal system is used in
everyday life because of it's simplicity. Digital scales use a
microprocessor and convert the binary representation of weight to a decimal
readout. Beam balance scales are analog. They don't even have a
microprocessor, to say that a beam balance scale is binary is like saying a
cow is aquatic.
[[ Editor's note: I believe that John refers here to the fact that many
scales in the US intended for kitchen use display fractional ounces as the
sum the powers of two fractions - 1/2, 1/4, 1/8 - while similar metric
scales (often the same ones) display fractional grams as decimals. ]]
To say that the quoted weights are unusable is even more absurd. I have a
digital scale that measures decimal fractions of an ounce as well as
decimal fractions of a gram. I have made many of Reinhart's recipes using
his weights and have encountered no problem whatsoever.
John then continues with:
-------------------------Quote------------------------
Why a baker of his skill and knowledge, in an otherwise marvellous book,
chose such a ridiculous means of expressing weight is beyond me.
---------------------------------------------------------
It appears that the only thing ridiculous is John's inability to comprehend
numerical systems and mathematics.
He concludes with:
-------------------------Quote------------------------
I just use the percentage formulae given in each recipe and work in metric
- if you don't or won't use metric then you've got problems.
---------------------------------------------------------
If John wants to go through the extra bother of converting all of the
measurements to grams, more power to him. Some people just like to do
things the hard way.
As I stated before, I've used the formulae, as stated in the book,
verbatim, and have had no problem. Also, many members of this forum have
reported that they have made recipes from that book using the weights
provided and none have complained of not understanding decimal fractions of
an ounce.
In light of the above, I can only conclude, that John's allegations are
baseless and would best be ignored.
Don