Subject: re calorie formula
Date: 1992-06-02 15:29:40 GMT
> We hav calories = 148.165 in either case. Of course, we have no reason in
> the world to trust those final digits. 148 calories is probably even
> more accuracy than we're entitled to (this is not to casr aspersions
> on the accuracy of George's coefficients, rather a reflection of the
> fact that we're approximating a rational function by a polynomial).
I'd bet you get as much inaccuracy from a typical $5-10 hydrometer as from
the mathematical approximation; I would assume any report of specific
gravity to have a possible error of +/- .002 (effectively, ~5% for typical
changes in gravity), given the coarseness of the markings and the
difficulty of finding the meniscus precisely. But 5% is still likely to be
about as precise as a dieter can measure (absent a scale that is
inconveniently large to carry to meals).
The posts that comprise the Homebrew Digest Searchable Archive remain the
property of their authors.
This search system is copyright © 2008 Scott Alfter; all rights reserved.