|
Quote: "let them dehydrate until"
The trick is hidden right there. Our brain expects the word to be "rehydrate", so we think it's rehydrating the original 1% dehydrated solids.
Caught out by being too quick ...
|
|
|
|
|
Forgive me for being thick but I cannot get my head round that. In 100lb there is 1lb of starch and 99 lbs of water (yes?). So if you lose 1% of the water, isn't that just 1lb less than before?
|
|
|
|
|
OK, so 100ib of potatoes, 99% water.
That means that 1% is not water, and that weighs 1lb.
If you reduce the water content to 98%, that doesn't affect the non-water part, so 1lb of the potatoes is now 2% of the total.
If 2% of the weight is 1lb, then the total weight is now 50lb.
For 97% you get 33.3lb, 96% gives 25lb, and so on.
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
I knew it would be simple.
|
|
|
|
|
It's simple when you see it!
If I recall correctly, I scratched my head a fair amount the first time I saw this one.
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Richard MacCutchan wrote: So if you lose 1% of the water, That's the point that sets you in the wrong direction. You didn't lose 1% of the water, but rather, changed the calculated (relative) percent of water to the whole, not to itself.
(yes - you had other explanations, but this is just a thought-process notice)
Ravings en masse^ |
---|
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you, you are of course correct. That is exactly why I went down a blind alley.
|
|
|
|
|
Richard MacCutchan wrote: So if you lose 1% of the water, isn't that just 1lb less than before?
lets work through this.
if this were the case.
100lb total, 1lb startch, 99lb water
water = 99/100 = 99% of total
- 1lb water = 1lb startch, 98lb water, total 99lb
water = 98/99 = 98.9898989... %
it is not 98.0% yet.
|
|
|
|
|
I think you also misunderstand. See the explanation by OriginalGriff above.
|
|
|
|
|
I was quoting @Richard-MacCutchan and was trying to help explain (to myself aswell) that losing only 1lb water would NOT give 98.0% but only works out to 98.98...%
and that the correct number is something else.
|
|
|
|
|
You are trying to answer a different question. The water content is reduced to only 98%, so the amount of starch is now 2% of the total weight. And if 1lb of starch is 2% then the total weight is 50lbs. Hence the title "the potato paradox".
|
|
|
|
|
A:
100lb total, 1lb startch, 99lb water
water = 99/100 = 99% of total
B:
MATH YOUR BRAIN WANTS TO DO BECAUSE OF 100lb:
100lb total, 2lb startch, 98lb water
water = 98/100 = 98% of total
so far the math makes sense, now the thing is; you did not gain a pound of starch. The startch stays the same so the final answer is:
50lb total, 1lb starch, 49lb water
water = 98/100 = 98% of total
Norm
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: No googling, ok.
Ok, but than please ask it for 45.359237 kg
It does not solve my Problem, but it answers my question
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
OK - the new weight is 22.679618kg.
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
That's more lettuce than potato. A potato will clock in at roughly 75% water (just a tad more than a human).
Still a nice example where math beats intuition
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
These are 'mathematical' potatoes.
But feel free to substitute with jellyfish if you want to.
|
|
|
|
|
Could as well have chosen a mathematical ball of lead with 99% water-content.
--edit
It is misleading, since we have some "experience" with potatoes not shrinking 50% when they lay in the basement.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's because they start out at 80% water, not 99%.
And because nobody regularly checks their spuds for water content...
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: And because nobody regularly checks their spuds for water content... I keep potatoes in a dark and cool closet. After 3 months, they may have lost "some" weight, but not the same amount as your "mathematical" potatoes.
Non-mathematical potatoes do not loose water in a mathematical linear way.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Non-mathematical potatoes do not loose water in a mathematical linear way.
Or as quickly - unless you use the fridge / freezer as a dehydration device, as you do for Triple-Cooked Chips, where reducing the volume of the chips before the final frying probably does approach 50%
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
In which case you extracted more than 1% of liquid. This was also not about volume; are you sure the shrinking is due to the loss of water?
Or could it just be a reaction of those sticks to sudden cold when taking out of the oil?
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Nope: you cut 'em, you simmer them until soft, then cool and into the fridge for 4 or 5 hours. When they come out, they are already smaller as the fridge has reduced the water content.
Low temperature fry - 130C - cool, and back in the fridge for another 4 to 5 hours.
When they come out, they are significantly smaller than they started!
Then the high temp fry - 190C - drain and serve.
Damn good chips - but quite a palaver (especially making enough room in the damn fridge).
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: Nope: you cut 'em, you simmer them until soft, then cool and into the fridge for 4 or 5 hours. When they come out, they are already smaller as the fridge has reduced the water content. So, you let them dry in your fridge and obsorb all the nice smells in there?
OriginalGriff wrote: Low temperature fry - 130C - cool, and back in the fridge for another 4 to 5 hours.
When they come out, they are significantly smaller than they started! Which isn't very surprising after having been cooked, cooled, brought to cook in oil and cool again.
Fact remains that it is not a mathematical potato, and that you removed more than 1% of liquid.
As you probably know, lettuce IS mostly water, moreso than potatoes. Freeze your lettuce for an hour or four, then defrost. You'll find that those non-mathematical lettuce has lost more than just half of its water.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|