Hi All--

First post to this newsgroup. I want a nice, generic butter cake
recipe that will fit into a 10" springform pan. 10" seems to be a nice
size to serve 8. I usually serve this type of cake plain or topped
with whipped cream, ice cream or fruit.

If you either have a ready-sized recipe or you can tell me how to
retool my (two 8" cake pans) recipe, that would be great. Or perhaps
you know a website that discusses this?

If I were to use my (two 8" cake pans) recipe, I suspect I'd need to
lengthen the baking time for my recipe, but would I need to lower/raise
the baking temperature, too?

I wish I had time to experiment, but I really don't. I'm a mom of 3
who works full time & is trying to squeeze in some scratch baking along
the way.

Thanks for any info. I really appreciate the help.

"in her garden" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Hi All--
>
> First post to this newsgroup. I want a nice, generic butter cake
> recipe that will fit into a 10" springform pan. 10" seems to be a nice
> size to serve 8. I usually serve this type of cake plain or topped
> with whipped cream, ice cream or fruit.
>
Since you asked only about the 10" pan, then the answer is simple. A recipe
for two 8 or 9 inch layers fits perfectly into a single 10 inch pan.
Therefore, if you have a recipe for a single 8 or 9 inch layer and you want
to make a single 10 inch layer, double the recipe and use the 10 inch pan.
If you don't believe me then buy a standard cake mix for a two-layer cake
and give it a try.

in her garden wrote:

> First post to this newsgroup. I want a nice, generic butter cake
> recipe that will fit into a 10" springform pan. 10" seems to be a nice
> size to serve 8. I usually serve this type of cake plain or topped
> with whipped cream, ice cream or fruit.
>
> If you either have a ready-sized recipe or you can tell me how to
> retool my (two 8" cake pans) recipe, that would be great. Or perhaps
> you know a website that discusses this?

Well, the 10" pan relative to an 8" pan is 56% bigger.
(10*10/8*8 = 100/64 = 1.5625)
If it is also 25% deeper, that's almost exactly twice the volume. (1.95)
I would use the 2-8" recipe as-is, for size.

> If I were to use my (two 8" cake pans) recipe, I suspect I'd need to
> lengthen the baking time for my recipe, but would I need to lower/raise
> the baking temperature, too?

Yes, I would lower the temp a little, say from 350F to 325F, and bake
somewhat longer. Start checking about every 10 minutes past the original
time, until a toothpick comes out clean...

Dave

Thank you! Yes, if I were better at my high school geometry, I'd
probably be able to figure this out myself. The idea about
experimenting with a boxed mix is a good one, too. I really appreciate
the advice.

Dave Bell wrote:
> in her garden wrote:
>
> > First post to this newsgroup. I want a nice, generic butter cake
> > recipe that will fit into a 10" springform pan. 10" seems to be a nice
> > size to serve 8. I usually serve this type of cake plain or topped
> > with whipped cream, ice cream or fruit.
> >
> > If you either have a ready-sized recipe or you can tell me how to
> > retool my (two 8" cake pans) recipe, that would be great. Or perhaps
> > you know a website that discusses this?
>
> Well, the 10" pan relative to an 8" pan is 56% bigger.
> (10*10/8*8 = 100/64 = 1.5625)
> If it is also 25% deeper, that's almost exactly twice the volume. (1.95)
> I would use the 2-8" recipe as-is, for size.
>
> > If I were to use my (two 8" cake pans) recipe, I suspect I'd need to
> > lengthen the baking time for my recipe, but would I need to lower/raise
> > the baking temperature, too?
>
> Yes, I would lower the temp a little, say from 350F to 325F, and bake
> somewhat longer. Start checking about every 10 minutes past the original
> time, until a toothpick comes out clean...
>
> Dave

Well, um, er forgive me for butting in, but your formula above is for
square pans. To get the surface area of a round pan, the formula is pi
* r-squared. I can't write "pi" or a superscript for "squared". So, a
10" pan, 10 is the diameter, 5 is the radius, 5 squared is 25, times pi
(3.14) = 78.6 square inches

The 8" pan is 50.2 square inches (pi * 16, 4 being the radius)

The 8" is 64% of the 10 inch, not allowing for height. To get volume,
multiply the square inches of the pan by the height. So if the 8" pan
gets a 1.5" high cake, then it would have a volume of approximately
75 cubic inches. That's roughly equal to a 1" height in the 10" pan.
If you make the equivalent of 2 8" cake recipes, then a 10" pan would
have a cake height of not quite 2 inches, which would look "right" for
that size.

But, of course, it will take longer to bake, and you gotta wonder if
the sides of the 10" pan will get too well done while the inside still
needs to cook, given the same recipe. I'd suggest some of those
"baking strips" which are fabric that you wet and put around a pan to
keep the sides cooler, while the rest heats more evenly from top and
bottom.

Anyway, better living through chemistry and geometry, _this_ is why you
need math in school!
Cheers,
betsy (an engineer, could you guess that?)

betsy wrote:

> Anyway, better living through chemistry and geometry, _this_ is why you
> need math in school!
> Cheers,
> betsy (an engineer, could you guess that?)

Pocket protectors a dead giveaway... <G>

Pastorio

betsy wrote:
> Dave Bell wrote:
>
>>in her garden wrote:
>>
>>
>>>First post to this newsgroup. I want a nice, generic butter cake
>>>recipe that will fit into a 10" springform pan. 10" seems to be a nice
>>>size to serve 8. I usually serve this type of cake plain or topped
>>>with whipped cream, ice cream or fruit.
>>>
>>>If you either have a ready-sized recipe or you can tell me how to
>>>retool my (two 8" cake pans) recipe, that would be great. Or perhaps
>>>you know a website that discusses this?
>>
>>Well, the 10" pan relative to an 8" pan is 56% bigger.
>>(10*10/8*8 = 100/64 = 1.5625)
>>If it is also 25% deeper, that's almost exactly twice the volume. (1.95)
>>I would use the 2-8" recipe as-is, for size.
>>
>>
>>>If I were to use my (two 8" cake pans) recipe, I suspect I'd need to
>>>lengthen the baking time for my recipe, but would I need to lower/raise
>>>the baking temperature, too?
>>
>>Yes, I would lower the temp a little, say from 350F to 325F, and bake
>>somewhat longer. Start checking about every 10 minutes past the original
>>time, until a toothpick comes out clean...
>>
>>Dave
>
>
> Well, um, er forgive me for butting in, but your formula above is for
> square pans. To get the surface area of a round pan, the formula is pi
> * r-squared. I can't write "pi" or a superscript for "squared". So, a
> 10" pan, 10 is the diameter, 5 is the radius, 5 squared is 25, times pi
> (3.14) = 78.6 square inches
>
> The 8" pan is 50.2 square inches (pi * 16, 4 being the radius)
>
> The 8" is 64% of the 10 inch, not allowing for height. To get volume,
> multiply the square inches of the pan by the height. So if the 8" pan
> gets a 1.5" high cake, then it would have a volume of approximately
> 75 cubic inches. That's roughly equal to a 1" height in the 10" pan.
> If you make the equivalent of 2 8" cake recipes, then a 10" pan would
> have a cake height of not quite 2 inches, which would look "right" for
> that size.

Ahem.... Note that I was comparing areas and volumes as *ratios*,
therrefore Pi was irrelevant. As did you, when you said the 8" pan was
64% of the 10", except I said the 10" was 156% of the 8". (OK, 156.25%,
so sue me!) I then multiplied by the 125% in height, and voila - 1.95X.

> Anyway, better living through chemistry and geometry, _this_ is why you
> need math in school!
> Cheers,
> betsy (an engineer, could you guess that?)

Yep, and so am I...

Dave

(Worst example I ever saw in public of extra effort like above was in a
pond magazine. They took about a 4"x6" box to explain how to calculate a
10% water change: Assume a rectangular pond, with straight sides.
Multiply the lenght times to width to get the area in square feet. The
multiply the area by the depth (in inches), then divide by 12 to get
volume in cubic feet. Multiply that by 7.45 to get gallons. Take 10% of
that volume. Divide that by the area (from above) to get the change in
depth (in feet), and finally, multiply that by 12, to get inches! All
accompanied by a worked example of something like a 10' by 15' pond, 30
inches deep.

"Or", I said, "take 10% of the depth in inches. 30 * 1/10 = 3 inches")

Dave Bell wrote:
> betsy wrote:
> > Dave Bell wrote:
> >
> >>in her garden wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>First post to this newsgroup. I want a nice, generic butter cake
> >>>recipe that will fit into a 10" springform pan. 10" seems to be a nice
> >>>size to serve 8. I usually serve this type of cake plain or topped
> >>>with whipped cream, ice cream or fruit.
> >>>
> >>>If you either have a ready-sized recipe or you can tell me how to
> >>>retool my (two 8" cake pans) recipe, that would be great. Or perhaps
> >>>you know a website that discusses this?
> >>
> >>Well, the 10" pan relative to an 8" pan is 56% bigger.
> >>(10*10/8*8 = 100/64 = 1.5625)
> >>If it is also 25% deeper, that's almost exactly twice the volume. (1.95)
> >>I would use the 2-8" recipe as-is, for size.
> >>
> >>
> >>>If I were to use my (two 8" cake pans) recipe, I suspect I'd need to
> >>>lengthen the baking time for my recipe, but would I need to lower/raise
> >>>the baking temperature, too?
> >>
> >>Yes, I would lower the temp a little, say from 350F to 325F, and bake
> >>somewhat longer. Start checking about every 10 minutes past the original
> >>time, until a toothpick comes out clean...
> >>
> >>Dave
> >
> >
> > Well, um, er forgive me for butting in, but your formula above is for
> > square pans. To get the surface area of a round pan, the formula is pi
> > * r-squared. I can't write "pi" or a superscript for "squared". So, a
> > 10" pan, 10 is the diameter, 5 is the radius, 5 squared is 25, times pi
> > (3.14) = 78.6 square inches
> >
> > The 8" pan is 50.2 square inches (pi * 16, 4 being the radius)
> >
> > The 8" is 64% of the 10 inch, not allowing for height. To get volume,
> > multiply the square inches of the pan by the height. So if the 8" pan
> > gets a 1.5" high cake, then it would have a volume of approximately
> > 75 cubic inches. That's roughly equal to a 1" height in the 10" pan.
> > If you make the equivalent of 2 8" cake recipes, then a 10" pan would
> > have a cake height of not quite 2 inches, which would look "right" for
> > that size.
>
> Ahem.... Note that I was comparing areas and volumes as *ratios*,
> therrefore Pi was irrelevant. As did you, when you said the 8" pan was
> 64% of the 10", except I said the 10" was 156% of the 8". (OK, 156.25%,
> so sue me!) I then multiplied by the 125% in height, and voila - 1.95X.
>
> > Anyway, better living through chemistry and geometry, _this_ is why you
> > need math in school!
> > Cheers,
> > betsy (an engineer, could you guess that?)
>
> Yep, and so am I...
>
> Dave
>
<snip worst example>

You're right, I just saw 10x10 and figured you'd done squares. But I
like my method of volumes better, to each his own.

BTW, I don't use pocket protectors, who even uses pens any more? And I
don't wear shirts w/ pockets anyway, just t-shirts. I do enjoy
figuring things out in detail, though, that's why I like Harold McGee's
books, lotsa good detail.
thanks all.
b

I had been watching this thread for some time and what was discussed
about is the mathematics how convert from pan A to pan B.

But the question, does it work as expected?
Not all home bakers can produce the same result for the same recipe
even if they use the same pan size and cake mix weights.

..One thing that must not forgotten is that butter cakes are somewhat
bulky cakes with batter gravity that ranges from lightest 0.70 -0.75
grams per cubic centimeter to the heavier 0.90-0.95 grams per cubic
centimeter.
Compare that with sponge cakes with batter gravity of 0.40-0.60
To quantify this in home scale what this number means is that (for
example with butter cakes)
A liter of cake batter will weight 700-750 grams to 900-grams or more.
Dividing that by the weight of a liter of water you will get the
calculated batter gravity.

Lower batter gravity means more aeration and hence better cake volume
per batch weight.
Hence lighter cake batters require lower scaling weight than heavier
cake batters.

Supposing the home baker will make a butter cake at the higher batter
gravity then the cake volume will be lesser and the pan calculation no
matter how accurate will be unable to produce the expected cake height
that the resulting cake still appears small in volume

Therefore its better to keep it simple, place enough butter cake
batter that will be at least 3/4 full for thin batter cake( higher
batter gravity) and 2/3 full for thicker batters( lower batter
gravity).

Unless you are making cakes in controlled conditions such as what
occurs in experimental cake baking, the exact calculation for pan
volume versus unit batter weight is of less importance of the home
cooks and bakers.


> I want a nice, generic butter cake
recipe that will fit into a 10" springform pan. 10" seems to be a nice

size to serve 8.

>Anyway, better living through chemistry and geometry, _this_ is why you
need math in school!

>You're right, I just saw 10x10 and figured you'd done squares. But I
>like my method of volumes better, to each his own

>Yep, and so am I...

chembake wrote:

> Therefore its better to keep it simple, place enough butter cake
> batter that will be at least 3/4 full for thin batter cake( higher
> batter gravity) and 2/3 full for thicker batters( lower batter
> gravity).

But, that's exactly what I told the OP: Filling the (10" diameter by
1.25x as deep) pan with 2x the batter, will fill it to the same
fractional depth as if it were split between the two smaller pans.

Dave

>But, that's exactly what I told the OP: Filling the (10" diameter by
>1.25x as deep) pan with 2x the batter, will fill it to the same
>fractional depth as if it were split between the two smaller pans.

Well only a baking test can confirm that.....If the cake batter was
properly made from a balanced recipes resulting in lower batter
specific gravity the edges will reach the pan rim, however if the
batter appears thinner she will unlikely able to get the desired cake
volume...


There are factors in the scaling up of a batch weight in order to fit
the desired pan sizes and quantities that you cannot predict exactly.
that the outcome will be the same. as with the smaller batch.

That is the reason that when changing pan sizes ( to pans that was
never used before) the only confirmation accepted by experienced cake
bakers is the actual test bake. with a formulation in a particular
pan...They will have to use three scaling weights; the computed, and
the plus and minus of the computed batter weight.( or excess or less
of the computed scaling weight.)

Although you can extrapolate from a similar cake recipe and predict
with certainty that the results should be positive but in the actual
situation the outcome is not accurate as there are factors in the
processing a bigger batch that can also influence the result..
For example the baking powder used for recipe designed for a small
pans is not the same as with bigger pans or the cake will have sunken
appearance and coarse crumb structure..

There are other factors that can follow suit in affecting the cake
baking performance but of minor importance to a home baker such as
different oven temperature damper settings, mixing modifications, and
even desired batter temperatures .

chembake wrote:
>>But, that's exactly what I told the OP: Filling the (10" diameter by
>>1.25x as deep) pan with 2x the batter, will fill it to the same
>>fractional depth as if it were split between the two smaller pans.
>
>
> Well only a baking test can confirm that.....If the cake batter was
> properly made from a balanced recipes resulting in lower batter
> specific gravity the edges will reach the pan rim, however if the
> batter appears thinner she will unlikely able to get the desired cake
> volume...

Of course, all your points about how it will bake up are correct - it
really needs to be tested. All I said was that the *batter* would fill
the 10" pan to the same relative (fraciotnal) depth as 1/2 recipe would
fill an 8" pan.

Dave