The Dsp = 2 Tsp is about as accurate as you can get, John.
 
My research shows that 
 
In Britain, traditional tablespoons varied somewhat in size, and various older 
references give sizes in the range from 1/2 to 5/8 Imperial fluid ounce 
(14.2-17.6 milliliters). Under the metric system the tablespoon has become more 
or less standardized at 15 milliliters in Britain
 
and
 
In Britain, a traditional teaspoonful in the kitchen was equal to 1/8 Imperial 
fluid ounce or approximately 3.55 milliliters, but the medical teaspoonful was 
usually 5 milliliters. In metric kitchens in Britain, a teaspoonful is exactly 
5 milliliters.
 
>From this hodgepodge, we can ascertain that an imperial tablespoon might 
>equal 3 imperial teaspoons. Or it might equal 4 imperial teaspoons.  Hope this 
>helps!
 
Alternatively, it is all set out rationally in metric............


--- On Mon, 13/4/09, John M. Steele <[email protected]> wrote:


From: John M. Steele <[email protected]>
Subject: [USMA:44659] Re: Even with "dual," you can't please everybody
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Date: Monday, 13 April, 2009, 6:48 PM







Thanks, I've made a note in my cookbook that a dessertspoon is two teaspoons.
 
Do you think the UK Tablespoon was originally one-half Imperial fl. oz.?  If 
so, you round a little further than we do, but neither is far off 15 mL.

--- On Mon, 4/13/09, Ken Cooper <[email protected]> wrote:

From: Ken Cooper <[email protected]>
Subject: [USMA:44658] Re: Even with "dual," you can't please everybody
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Date: Monday, April 13, 2009, 2:03 PM







John said
 
"I suspect all the odd dessertspoons, etc used in former UK cooking all have 
precise meanings too, if only we could find them.  Precisely determining their 
meaning and documenting it in metric equivalents is the way to preserve those 
old recipes."
 
My set of measuring spoons is clearly marked
 
1/2 Tsp 2.5 ml
1 Tsp 5 ml
1 Dsp 10 ml
1 Tbsp 15 ml
 
When it's my turn to cook, I tend to do Chinese. Both Ken Hom & Ching-He Hueng 
(well known Chinese chefs) tend to give measurements in a mixture of metric 
(sometimes dual) and spoonfuls.
 
The spoonful measurements are usually for little amounts of ingredients like 
cornflour (cornstarch in US?), light & dark soy, rice wine, hoi-san sauce etc. 
The weights are used for meat/veg etc.

--- On Sat, 4/4/09, John M. Steele <[email protected]> wrote:


From: John M. Steele <[email protected]>
Subject: [USMA:44340] Re: Even with "dual," you can't please everybody
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Date: Saturday, 4 April, 2009, 6:19 PM







Because the ratio of that ingredient to other ingredients measured accurately 
won't be right.  The set of 240:30:15:5 is not exactly right, but they are in 
the right proportions.  The recipe is just scaled about 1.4% larger.
 
You are free to weigh everything.  I am not advocating one style of cooking 
over another.  I am merely challenging the claim that American terms are 
unclear.  They may be unfamiliar, it may be necessary to dig to learn what they 
mean, but there is no uncertainty in what they mean..
 
I suspect all the odd dessertspoons, etc used in former UK cooking all have 
precise meanings too, if only we could find them.  Precisely determining their 
meaning and documenting it in metric equivalents is the way to preserve those 
old recipes.

--- On Sat, 4/4/09, Jeremiah MacGregor <[email protected]> wrote:

From: Jeremiah MacGregor <[email protected]>
Subject: [USMA:44331] Re: Even with "dual," you can't please everybody
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Date: Saturday, April 4, 2009, 12:23 PM






Since the US cups with metric on one side is up to 250 mL, then why not just 
use 250 mL to define a cup?  It would be easier to use then to try to fill to 
the 240 mL line.  
 
Jerry





From: John M. Steele <[email protected]>
To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, April 4, 2009 10:35:46 AM
Subject: [USMA:44329] Re: Even with "dual," you can't please everybody






Pat,
You understandably write from a Commonwealth or Australian perspective (I don't 
mean spelling), and as a metric consultant, you may have a vested interest in 
making old measurements sound more confusing than they are.  I am confused by 
spoons and cups in recipes from Commonwealth nations.
 
However, if you receive a recipe from the US, there is no confusion; the terms 
are well-defined and have been for some time.  I regularly use a recipe from my 
greatgrandmother which dates to around 1890.  Common cups and spoons may be of 
any size, but measuring cups and spoons are well defined.  They are as 
important to us as your scales (most are marked in metric as well).
 
Each term is followed by a definition in Customary units, an overly exact 
metric conversion, and a practically rounded metric conversion:
cup: 8 US fl oz, 236.5882 mL, 240 mL
ounce: 1 US fl oz, 29.573 53 mL, 30 mL
Tablespoon: 0.5 US fl oz, 14.786 76 mL, 15 mL
teaspoon: 0.1666... US fl oz, 4.928 922 mL, 5 mL
 
Dry and wet measuring cups are of different designs, but the same capacity.  
Dry cups are brim fill, stricken level with the back edge of a knife.  Wet cups 
are fill-to-mark.
 
American cooking is entirely volumetric, and it is probably easier to convert 
to metric volume than determine the density of everything.  The cup and 
tablespoon are noticably different than Australian, but no confusion as the 
terms are well defined and standardized by NIST (handbook 44 Appendix, C, 
SP811, etc)
 
Now, if only we could get Americans to convert the above volumes to metric.

--- On Sat, 4/4/09, Pat Naughtin <[email protected]> wrote:

From: Pat Naughtin <[email protected]>
Subject: [USMA:44327] Re: Even with "dual," you can't please everybody
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Date: Saturday, April 4, 2009, 9:34 AM



Dear John,






I have posted a response to this that you can find at the same address 
at http://www.t-g.com/blogs/bettybrown/entry/26458/ 


Cheers,
 
Pat Naughtin


PO Box 305 Belmont 3216,
Geelong, Australia
Phone: 61 3 5241 2008


Metric system consultant, writer, and speaker, Pat Naughtin, has helped 
thousands of people and hundreds of companies upgrade to the modern metric 
system smoothly, quickly, and so economically that they now save thousands each 
year when buying, processing, or selling for their businesses. Pat provides 
services and resources for many different trades, crafts, and professions for 
commercial, industrial and government metrication leaders in Asia, Europe, and 
in the USA. Pat's clients include the Australian Government, Google, NASA, 
NIST, and the metric associations of Canada, the UK, and the USA. 
See http://www.metricationmatters.com/ to subscribe.





      

Reply via email to