Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
You inspired me to brew some
You inspired me to brew some loose lapsang for the afternoon.
The bag has been in my house for a year, and I just guessed how much to use. Double standards!
You can always rely on the
You can always rely on the road.cc regulars for a balance of informative and witty answers.
I have had and continue to
I have had and continue to drink / enjoy plenty of coffee where I just chuck a rough amount [ETA: of supermarket ground] in the moka / filter. The modest home espresso machine is a recent-ish addition, but using fresh specialty coffee it’s very gratifying that what I make at home tastes better than anything short of specialist cafes.
I mean this as a compliment –
I mean this as a compliment – there’s a hint of boatsy about it.
An ode to the balance (to be read to 4 decimal places)
Weighing sticky billowing media,
movement near causes drift.
No weigh boats in my kitchen…
the mucky pups
It does have 0.1g precision. It just doesn’t have 0.1g accuracy.[Edit: should have finished reading through the thread – HP got there before me.]
Thank you both – a distinction I was unaware of.
<Reported to moderators for offensive language>
Hang on, am I not supposed to
Hang on, am I not supposed to tamp the beans?
BECAUSE THIS IS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE…do some blind tasting with slightly different amounts to see what tolerances your palate can tolerate!
as I say, well aware this is not earth shattering, just means that in practice the scales are not practically usable to 0.1g precision as advertised.And it’s insignificant compared to the myriad other variables that I’m not measuring at all / as precisely (tamp force, milk volume etc).
Anyhow, you’re better off weighing the ground coffee.That’s a fair point. Experience with my grinder shows that weight of beans in = weight of grounds out (albeit some of that weight out will be retention from the previous grind). Just seems a bit suspect to say it has 0.1g precision if a single bean which weighs more than 0.1g can’t provide the force to register, so that you can add 20+ g slowly without changing the reading.
I probably deserved that. Of
I probably deserved that. Of course, the follow on question is whether I can trust my scales to weigh 100 beans accurately in the first place.
Jogle wrote:
[quote=Jogle]We already have 1,700 free parking spaces but we’re too lazy to walk and so we also want the pedestrianised road too https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvgjjj0jgv2o.amp%5B/quote%5D
“Because cars can’t come up the high street, it means people don’t see the town.”
Maybe this is just me, but I tend to be able to pay more attention to what’s on the high street when I’m on foot, than when I’m concentrating on driving.
So you were going too fast for the conditions but 10secs before we told you so. Sit back and wait for the media to blow it up into a substantial and concertive attack on motorists :-/To be fair, the article says “some drivers were incorrectly identified as speeding after the limit had changed” – so the suggestion is they were abiding by the updated speed limit, but the cameras hadn’t got the memo yet.
On the other hand, the whole point of variable speed limits is that it allows you to set an appropriate speed in advance, to reduce the impact of something happening out of sight down the road – so a driver driving in excess of a variable speed limit 10 seconds before they were told would not necessarily have any visual cue to indicate their speed is too fast for the conditions.
I guess now we’ve had a bunch of rain, Facebook reels is serving me up a load of car drives through ford clips. Some appear to make it, others not so much.I don’t understand these drivers – this is going to be a loss of £000s or even £0000s and all the inconvenience.
What I particularly don’t understand is seeing that there is someone gleefully filming the ford waiting for some unfortunate soul and still thinking “yeah, I can probably make that”. Unless they’re all in it together and monetising the resulting (annoying compulsive) viewing.
”… also, you can fit a door or a three-foot length of pipe in it,”Ah yes, no option other than using a 2.5 tonne Land Rover to carry [checks notes] 90cm of pipe.
Edited – to be fair, the bloke actually said “a three-metre length of pipe”. But I’m keeping the pic.
Edited again – from the comments on the BBC story, it looks like maybe Chris correctly quoted the article as it stood this morning, in which the BBC had incorrectly quoted the guy as saying “three foot”! They’ve now changed it to metres. Still keeping the pic.
It’s not the size of the
It’s not the size of the occupants that matters (three adults can squeeze in) but the size of the seat the child is legally required to have. Though why you would want three anyway I can’t fathom.
as I say, well aware this is not earth shattering, just means that in practice the scales are not practically usable to 0.1g precision as advertised.