I poured 114.7+-.1 g of full-leaf Assam (P-OP in size with
a few percent broken) loosely into a measuring cup and
estimated it to fill 390+-10 ml (13.2+-.3 ml).

This gives a dry specific volume of 3.40+-.09 ml/g
(.117+-.003 floz/g, 3.26+-.09 floz/oz).

And a density of 0.294+-.008 g/ml (8.70+-.23 g/floz,
..307+-.008 oz/floz).

Using these measurements, I estimated minimum standard
container sizes for standard retail weights of loose,
full-leaf tea:

weight volume container headroom
100 g 350 ml 14 floz 16%
1/4 lb 385 ml 14 floz 4%
125 g 437 ml 16 floz 6%
1/2 lb 771 ml 28 floz 5%
250 g 873 ml 32 floz 6%

Broken tea (e.g., Twinings loose tea) is expected (and
casually observed) to pack a little more tightly. A
100-gram package of broken tea should fit into a 12-ounce
canister, but the other sized packages of broken tea will
likely need the same container as for full-leaf tea.

Merchants appear typically to overfill consumer packages.
(There's probably nothing worse than having some noob
report you to the dept. of weights and measures because his
scales read low, nor anything better than having a customer
for life because he knows he gets a bonus.) So expect a
purchase to have a couple of percent more tea than the
"net weight" specified. The listed containers should still
suffice.

--Blair
"Why is it tea tastes better simply because
you know you're using the right size caddy?"

Using these measurements, I estimated minimum standard
container sizes

A nice thought, but the density of a particular tea in question is by far the
biggest consideration. I have some tightly wrapped jade pearls that are
perhaps 20x more dense than a fluffy pi lo chun.
As for your math, if you are attempting to add an air of authority to your
argument by presenting such precise numbers, you should know that your
estimates of errors are incorrect, and violate the accepted rules of
significant digits.



-
Eschew obfuscation!

Loiskelly1 wrote:
Using these measurements, I estimated minimum standard
container sizes

A nice thought, but the density of a particular tea in question is by far the
biggest consideration. I have some tightly wrapped jade pearls that are
perhaps 20x more dense than a fluffy pi lo chun.

Probably, but most leafy teas will fit into about the same
volume, and I was specific about the leaf size and quality
to identify it among the choices. If you have data on
other kinds, please post them. All you need are one volume
measurement and one mass measurement, with error bars, and
I can plug them in the spreadsheet that kicks out the rest
of the numbers.

As for your math, if you are attempting to add an air of authority to your
argument by presenting such precise numbers, you should know that your
estimates of errors are incorrect, and violate the accepted rules of
significant digits.

Excess precision in intermediate calculations is not
eschewed by anyone, and violates nothing.

The measurements are that precise because the measuring
devices were that precise; the cup has 10-ml markings
and the scale reads in .05 gram steps (but I only trust
it to within 100 mg).

The final results were reduced to somewhere between
1 and 2 significant figures (1 part in 7 to 16 parts).
They are also a high estimate, labeled as such, and have
an error margin specified.

The air of authority you perceived isn't attempted, it's
accomplished, being the residue of actual expertise in the
subjects of physical metrology, computational precision,
and error estimation.

--Blair
"Your scales read low."