Greetings Winemakers.

I just posted my winemaking calculator at
http://web2.airmail.net/sgross/fermcalc/. It's a Java applet and you'll
need to install the Java Plugin (http://www.java.com/) to run it.

This started out as a project for a Java class I took, and it developed into
something I find useful in my winemaking, so I've decided to document and
share it. The accompanying "Calculation Details" pages document all of the
formulas and assumptions in the calculations. I've tried to validate the
calculations with published tables and other calculators out there, but if
you see any strange results be sure to let me know.

It should run on any platform, but I've only tested it on Windows XP. I'd
appreciate it if any Linux or Mac users out there could give it a try. Any
feedback would be appreciated.

Peace,
Steve

Thanks Steve, I've had a quick look and book marked the page. Good of you to share, it looks very useful.

Many thanks, Jim

"Steve Gross" <gross**at**pdq**dot**net> wrote in message ...
> Greetings Winemakers.
>
> I just posted my winemaking calculator at
> http://web2.airmail.net/sgross/fermcalc/. It's a Java applet and you'll
> need to install the Java Plugin (http://www.java.com/) to run it.
>
> This started out as a project for a Java class I took, and it developed into
> something I find useful in my winemaking, so I've decided to document and
> share it. The accompanying "Calculation Details" pages document all of the
> formulas and assumptions in the calculations. I've tried to validate the
> calculations with published tables and other calculators out there, but if
> you see any strange results be sure to let me know.
>
> It should run on any platform, but I've only tested it on Windows XP. I'd
> appreciate it if any Linux or Mac users out there could give it a try. Any
> feedback would be appreciated.
>
> Peace,
> Steve
>
>

Steve, thanks!

I have a barrel that I needed to add sulphite to, and the calculator
nailed it! Love that you can specify PotMet, choose crystal, or
solution and concentration to calculate qty needed.

I'm a Mac user on Firefox and it worked great after I 'allowed' Java
scripting on that page.

Good Job! I'll definitely bookmark your page.

Thanks Steve. I particularly appreciate that you've revealed the
formulas underlying the calculations - that's often not the case. In
terms of the actual calculations, you'll most likely get some flak for
PA - that's a hot button topic for many people. I've never seen that
Balling formula - a quick Google search came up with some references
but all in the context of beer?

Pp

On Feb 19, 2:57 am, "Steve Gross" <gross**at**pdq**dot**net> wrote:
> Greetings Winemakers.
>
> I just posted my winemaking calculator athttp://web2.airmail.net/sgross/fermcalc/. It's a Java applet and you'll
> need to install the Java Plugin (http://www.java.com/) to run it.
>
> This started out as a project for a Java class I took, and it developed into
> something I find useful in my winemaking, so I've decided to document and
> share it. The accompanying "Calculation Details" pages document all of the
> formulas and assumptions in the calculations. I've tried to validate the
> calculations with published tables and other calculators out there, but if
> you see any strange results be sure to let me know.
>
> It should run on any platform, but I've only tested it on Windows XP. I'd
> appreciate it if any Linux or Mac users out there could give it a try. Any
> feedback would be appreciated.
>
> Peace,
> Steve

Steve,

Great, it works like a charm.
I am from Holland so I tested using liters and kilograms etc.

My OS is linux, more specific Mandriva.

Your caluculation page is now in my favorites.
Thanks.

Luc Volders



> It should run on any platform, but I've only tested it on Windows XP. I'd
> appreciate it if any Linux or Mac users out there could give it a try. Any
> feedback would be appreciated.
>
> Peace,
> Steve

Don't talk to me about PA! At least Steve's calculated PA will be more accurate than my own triple-scale hydrometer's
version! Grrr. Don't get me started

Jim

"pp" > wrote in message ups.com...
> Thanks Steve. I particularly appreciate that you've revealed the
> formulas underlying the calculations - that's often not the case. In
> terms of the actual calculations, you'll most likely get some flak for
> PA - that's a hot button topic for many people. I've never seen that
> Balling formula - a quick Google search came up with some references
> but all in the context of beer?
>
> Pp
>
> On Feb 19, 2:57 am, "Steve Gross" <gross**at**pdq**dot**net> wrote:
>> Greetings Winemakers.
>>
>> I just posted my winemaking calculator athttp://web2.airmail.net/sgross/fermcalc/. It's a Java applet and you'll
>> need to install the Java Plugin (http://www.java.com/) to run it.
>>
>> This started out as a project for a Java class I took, and it developed into
>> something I find useful in my winemaking, so I've decided to document and
>> share it. The accompanying "Calculation Details" pages document all of the
>> formulas and assumptions in the calculations. I've tried to validate the
>> calculations with published tables and other calculators out there, but if
>> you see any strange results be sure to let me know.
>>
>> It should run on any platform, but I've only tested it on Windows XP. I'd
>> appreciate it if any Linux or Mac users out there could give it a try. Any
>> feedback would be appreciated.
>>
>> Peace,
>> Steve
>
>

In article >,
"Steve Gross" <gross**at**pdq**dot**net> wrote:

> Greetings Winemakers.
>
> I just posted my winemaking calculator at
> http://web2.airmail.net/sgross/fermcalc/. It's a Java applet and you'll
> need to install the Java Plugin (http://www.java.com/) to run it.
>
> This started out as a project for a Java class I took, and it developed into
> something I find useful in my winemaking, so I've decided to document and
> share it. The accompanying "Calculation Details" pages document all of the
> formulas and assumptions in the calculations. I've tried to validate the
> calculations with published tables and other calculators out there, but if
> you see any strange results be sure to let me know.
>
> It should run on any platform, but I've only tested it on Windows XP. I'd
> appreciate it if any Linux or Mac users out there could give it a try. Any
> feedback would be appreciated.
>
> Peace,
> Steve


Thanks for that - it works fine on Safari on my Mac. My only complaint
is that I didn't see this until this morning (Tuesday AM - Australian
time) and I can't really blame you for that, can I. : - )

When we crushed on Sunday, we did our usual back of an old envelope
calculation for sulphite additions and came up with 220 grams for 800
litres of wine - D'oh - it should have been 22 g, just like your
calculator said.

Next year we'll get it right.

Thanks again



--
Cheers

Charlie

Feel free to make fun of my music he

http://members.iinet.net.au/~puffin/mp3.html

Thanks, EnoNut, for testing it on your Mac. I'm glad it's working for you
and potentially for other Mac users.

"EnoNut" > wrote in message
ps.com...
Steve, thanks!

I have a barrel that I needed to add sulphite to, and the calculator
nailed it! Love that you can specify PotMet, choose crystal, or
solution and concentration to calculate qty needed.

I'm a Mac user on Firefox and it worked great after I 'allowed' Java
scripting on that page.

Good Job! I'll definitely bookmark your page.

Luc, I'm happy it's working on your linux machine. Thanks for trying it
out.

"Luc Volders" > wrote in message
news Steve,

Great, it works like a charm.
I am from Holland so I tested using liters and kilograms etc.

My OS is linux, more specific Mandriva.

Your caluculation page is now in my favorites.
Thanks.

Luc Volders



> It should run on any platform, but I've only tested it on Windows XP. I'd
> appreciate it if any Linux or Mac users out there could give it a try.
> Any
> feedback would be appreciated.
>
> Peace,
> Steve

Okay, I didn't mean to start a fight! But in answer to Pp's comment about
the Balling formula, yes, there don't seem to be any references to its use
in the context of wine, at least on the web. But when I tested it, the
results were remakably similar to the Duncan & Acton formula. And when you
compare equations (5) and (8) on my documentation page
(http://web2.airmail.net/sgross/fermc...c_alcohol.html) you'll see
that both formulas have a very similar form. I found these comparisons
somewhat compelling, so I included both formulas in the calculator.

Steve

"jim" > wrote in message
...
Don't talk to me about PA! At least Steve's calculated PA will be more
accurate than my own triple-scale hydrometer's
version! Grrr. Don't get me started

Jim

"pp" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Thanks Steve. I particularly appreciate that you've revealed the
> formulas underlying the calculations - that's often not the case. In
> terms of the actual calculations, you'll most likely get some flak for
> PA - that's a hot button topic for many people. I've never seen that
> Balling formula - a quick Google search came up with some references
> but all in the context of beer?
>
> Pp
>
> On Feb 19, 2:57 am, "Steve Gross" <gross**at**pdq**dot**net> wrote:
>> Greetings Winemakers.
>>
>> I just posted my winemaking calculator
>> athttp://web2.airmail.net/sgross/fermcalc/. It's a Java applet and
>> you'll
>> need to install the Java Plugin (http://www.java.com/) to run it.
>>
>> This started out as a project for a Java class I took, and it developed
>> into
>> something I find useful in my winemaking, so I've decided to document and
>> share it. The accompanying "Calculation Details" pages document all of
>> the
>> formulas and assumptions in the calculations. I've tried to validate the
>> calculations with published tables and other calculators out there, but
>> if
>> you see any strange results be sure to let me know.
>>
>> It should run on any platform, but I've only tested it on Windows XP.
>> I'd
>> appreciate it if any Linux or Mac users out there could give it a try.
>> Any
>> feedback would be appreciated.
>>
>> Peace,
>> Steve
>
>

Steve:

No fight here. I noticed the 2 results closely correlate but that
could just mean one formula could be derived from the other the real
test is judging the computed results against measured values. The
practical problem with this is we don't seem to have ready access to
measured alcohol values so it's hard to support any result well.

Some people discard D&A's work because they argue considering the
final gravity is plain wrong because anything that goes under sg 1.0
is just the effect of alcohol created from the sugar (which is
captured by initial s.g. value). That would also apply to Balling's
formula. This is more pronounced for wines where often the final s.g.
can get to 0.990 for dry wines.

Personally, I think that argument is faulty because it ignores how the
formula was designed - it's just as easy to base the PA values solely
on the initial s.g. as it is to base them on the difference between
final and initial s.g. The latter does not artifically "add sugar
that's not there", it just incorporates the fact that the sugar
progressively changes into alcohol and bases the calculation on that.
The results will not completely agree but it's just an estimate anyway
because the actual alcohol depends on many factors that cannot really
be measured in practice.

That said, based on the s.g. values of the grapes and juice we
routinely get from California these days, I think the D&A formula
exagerates the PA values by about 0.5-1% of abv. Again, this is
imprecise as it's based on taste comparisons of my wines with
commercial wines with stated alcohol value, but it works for me and
that's really what matters in the end .

You might want to check out this page: http://www.brsquared.org/wine/
in the Calcs/Info section, it has some other formulas from the
literature. Actaully, given that you're already showing 2 different
values anyway, it might be of real value to collect all the different
formulas you can get hands on and add those to the applet, kind of
like what Ben has in his table but more extensive. That would give
people a full range of PA results comparison in one place; I think
that'd be really useful.

One final note on the subject of precision - I think all calculations
should be round up to give the PA values in 0.5% increments. Anything
more than that gives a false impression that the computed value is the
exact amount of alcohol in the wine, which is at odds of what the
formulas can really do.

Sorry, I've made this longer than I wanted - I keep promising myself I
won't get involved in these debates anymore but it doesn't seem to
work...

Pp


On Feb 19, 6:17 pm, "Steve Gross" <gross**at**pdq**dot**net> wrote:
> Okay, I didn't mean to start a fight! But in answer to Pp's comment about
> the Balling formula, yes, there don't seem to be any references to its use
> in the context of wine, at least on the web. But when I tested it, the
> results were remakably similar to the Duncan & Acton formula. And when you
> compare equations (5) and (8) on my documentation page
> (http://web2.airmail.net/sgross/fermc...c_alcohol.html) you'll see
> that both formulas have a very similar form. I found these comparisons
> somewhat compelling, so I included both formulas in the calculator.
>
> Steve
>

Ha ha, I don't think there can be a logical fight when there are several ways to calculate it. I just mean that after
my thread about far out my hydrometer's PA scale was, a good general guide in the calculator was a good thing, hence the
wink

I had to state the same bsquared table as you did Pp to demonstrate just how confused I was about PA and why there
weren't absolutes. My PA scale doesn't equate to any of those five either. I wondered what the Scottish makers of my
hydrometer were basing their callibration on and couldn't find a scale in agreement with them.

I'm just grateful for the tool, and for opinions and information so generously shared here by the winemaking community.

Jim

"pp" > wrote in message ups.com...
> Steve:
>
> No fight here. I noticed the 2 results closely correlate but that
> could just mean one formula could be derived from the other the real
> test is judging the computed results against measured values. The
> practical problem with this is we don't seem to have ready access to
> measured alcohol values so it's hard to support any result well.
>
> Some people discard D&A's work because they argue considering the
> final gravity is plain wrong because anything that goes under sg 1.0
> is just the effect of alcohol created from the sugar (which is
> captured by initial s.g. value). That would also apply to Balling's
> formula. This is more pronounced for wines where often the final s.g.
> can get to 0.990 for dry wines.
>
> Personally, I think that argument is faulty because it ignores how the
> formula was designed - it's just as easy to base the PA values solely
> on the initial s.g. as it is to base them on the difference between
> final and initial s.g. The latter does not artifically "add sugar
> that's not there", it just incorporates the fact that the sugar
> progressively changes into alcohol and bases the calculation on that.
> The results will not completely agree but it's just an estimate anyway
> because the actual alcohol depends on many factors that cannot really
> be measured in practice.
>
> That said, based on the s.g. values of the grapes and juice we
> routinely get from California these days, I think the D&A formula
> exagerates the PA values by about 0.5-1% of abv. Again, this is
> imprecise as it's based on taste comparisons of my wines with
> commercial wines with stated alcohol value, but it works for me and
> that's really what matters in the end .
>
> You might want to check out this page: http://www.brsquared.org/wine/
> in the Calcs/Info section, it has some other formulas from the
> literature. Actaully, given that you're already showing 2 different
> values anyway, it might be of real value to collect all the different
> formulas you can get hands on and add those to the applet, kind of
> like what Ben has in his table but more extensive. That would give
> people a full range of PA results comparison in one place; I think
> that'd be really useful.
>
> One final note on the subject of precision - I think all calculations
> should be round up to give the PA values in 0.5% increments. Anything
> more than that gives a false impression that the computed value is the
> exact amount of alcohol in the wine, which is at odds of what the
> formulas can really do.
>
> Sorry, I've made this longer than I wanted - I keep promising myself I
> won't get involved in these debates anymore but it doesn't seem to
> work...
>
> Pp

pp,

Thanks for the discussion. I don't disagree with any of the points you
make. I especially agree that there's no reason not to include final sg's
that are under 1.0 in the alcohol content calculation. It seems to me that
only by considering the total sg drop can you really estimate the overall
compositional change during fermentation. But I know others out there
disagree.

Steve


"pp" > wrote in message
ups.com...
Steve:

No fight here. I noticed the 2 results closely correlate but that
could just mean one formula could be derived from the other the real
test is judging the computed results against measured values. The
practical problem with this is we don't seem to have ready access to
measured alcohol values so it's hard to support any result well.

Some people discard D&A's work because they argue considering the
final gravity is plain wrong because anything that goes under sg 1.0
is just the effect of alcohol created from the sugar (which is
captured by initial s.g. value). That would also apply to Balling's
formula. This is more pronounced for wines where often the final s.g.
can get to 0.990 for dry wines.

Personally, I think that argument is faulty because it ignores how the
formula was designed - it's just as easy to base the PA values solely
on the initial s.g. as it is to base them on the difference between
final and initial s.g. The latter does not artifically "add sugar
that's not there", it just incorporates the fact that the sugar
progressively changes into alcohol and bases the calculation on that.
The results will not completely agree but it's just an estimate anyway
because the actual alcohol depends on many factors that cannot really
be measured in practice.

That said, based on the s.g. values of the grapes and juice we
routinely get from California these days, I think the D&A formula
exagerates the PA values by about 0.5-1% of abv. Again, this is
imprecise as it's based on taste comparisons of my wines with
commercial wines with stated alcohol value, but it works for me and
that's really what matters in the end .

You might want to check out this page: http://www.brsquared.org/wine/
in the Calcs/Info section, it has some other formulas from the
literature. Actaully, given that you're already showing 2 different
values anyway, it might be of real value to collect all the different
formulas you can get hands on and add those to the applet, kind of
like what Ben has in his table but more extensive. That would give
people a full range of PA results comparison in one place; I think
that'd be really useful.

One final note on the subject of precision - I think all calculations
should be round up to give the PA values in 0.5% increments. Anything
more than that gives a false impression that the computed value is the
exact amount of alcohol in the wine, which is at odds of what the
formulas can really do.

Sorry, I've made this longer than I wanted - I keep promising myself I
won't get involved in these debates anymore but it doesn't seem to
work...

Pp


On Feb 19, 6:17 pm, "Steve Gross" <gross**at**pdq**dot**net> wrote:
> Okay, I didn't mean to start a fight! But in answer to Pp's comment about
> the Balling formula, yes, there don't seem to be any references to its use
> in the context of wine, at least on the web. But when I tested it, the
> results were remakably similar to the Duncan & Acton formula. And when
> you
> compare equations (5) and (8) on my documentation page
> (http://web2.airmail.net/sgross/fermc...c_alcohol.html) you'll see
> that both formulas have a very similar form. I found these comparisons
> somewhat compelling, so I included both formulas in the calculator.
>
> Steve
>

I have found no one who can definatively say which way is right. I include
the drop below 1.000 but have been in heated arguements with those who
disagree. You could calculate it both ways and report the results as a
range.

Ray

"Steve Gross" <gross**at**pdq**dot**net> wrote in message
...
> pp,
>
> Thanks for the discussion. I don't disagree with any of the points you
> make. I especially agree that there's no reason not to include final sg's
> that are under 1.0 in the alcohol content calculation. It seems to me
> that
> only by considering the total sg drop can you really estimate the overall
> compositional change during fermentation. But I know others out there
> disagree.
>
> Steve
>
>
> "pp" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> Steve:
>
> No fight here. I noticed the 2 results closely correlate but that
> could just mean one formula could be derived from the other the real
> test is judging the computed results against measured values. The
> practical problem with this is we don't seem to have ready access to
> measured alcohol values so it's hard to support any result well.
>
> Some people discard D&A's work because they argue considering the
> final gravity is plain wrong because anything that goes under sg 1.0
> is just the effect of alcohol created from the sugar (which is
> captured by initial s.g. value). That would also apply to Balling's
> formula. This is more pronounced for wines where often the final s.g.
> can get to 0.990 for dry wines.
>
> Personally, I think that argument is faulty because it ignores how the
> formula was designed - it's just as easy to base the PA values solely
> on the initial s.g. as it is to base them on the difference between
> final and initial s.g. The latter does not artifically "add sugar
> that's not there", it just incorporates the fact that the sugar
> progressively changes into alcohol and bases the calculation on that.
> The results will not completely agree but it's just an estimate anyway
> because the actual alcohol depends on many factors that cannot really
> be measured in practice.
>
> That said, based on the s.g. values of the grapes and juice we
> routinely get from California these days, I think the D&A formula
> exagerates the PA values by about 0.5-1% of abv. Again, this is
> imprecise as it's based on taste comparisons of my wines with
> commercial wines with stated alcohol value, but it works for me and
> that's really what matters in the end .
>
> You might want to check out this page: http://www.brsquared.org/wine/
> in the Calcs/Info section, it has some other formulas from the
> literature. Actaully, given that you're already showing 2 different
> values anyway, it might be of real value to collect all the different
> formulas you can get hands on and add those to the applet, kind of
> like what Ben has in his table but more extensive. That would give
> people a full range of PA results comparison in one place; I think
> that'd be really useful.
>
> One final note on the subject of precision - I think all calculations
> should be round up to give the PA values in 0.5% increments. Anything
> more than that gives a false impression that the computed value is the
> exact amount of alcohol in the wine, which is at odds of what the
> formulas can really do.
>
> Sorry, I've made this longer than I wanted - I keep promising myself I
> won't get involved in these debates anymore but it doesn't seem to
> work...
>
> Pp
>
>
> On Feb 19, 6:17 pm, "Steve Gross" <gross**at**pdq**dot**net> wrote:
>> Okay, I didn't mean to start a fight! But in answer to Pp's comment
>> about
>> the Balling formula, yes, there don't seem to be any references to its
>> use
>> in the context of wine, at least on the web. But when I tested it, the
>> results were remakably similar to the Duncan & Acton formula. And when
>> you
>> compare equations (5) and (8) on my documentation page
>> (http://web2.airmail.net/sgross/fermc...c_alcohol.html) you'll
>> see
>> that both formulas have a very similar form. I found these comparisons
>> somewhat compelling, so I included both formulas in the calculator.
>>
>> Steve
>>
>
>

But in answer to Pp's comment about
> > the Balling formula, yes, there don't seem to be any references to its use
> > in the context of wine, at least on the web.

You won't find references to Balling because it's pretty much replaced
by Brix. I have a definitive reference; Polarimetry, Saccharimetry
and the Sugars by Bates et al; NBS C440; see page 248.

To make a long story short Balling proposed measuring sucrose by
weight but he used an odd temperature reference; 17.5C for the
standard solutions. Brix recalculated that scale based on a standard
temperature of 20C which is the most common temperature hydrometers
are calibrated for. (this was in the mid 1800's.) Beer-makers seem
to love obscure scales; they use Plato too and that one is unusual
too, it uses that same reference temperature of 17.5 C. I think South
Africa may still use Balling.

Potential Alcohol is even less useful than a hydrometer; at best it
should be considered a ballpark measurement. Too many variables exist
that have nothing to do with density for this measurement to be useful
for precise measurements. That said, ballpark is all an amatuer ever
needs, we are not taxed on alcohol levels like commercail wineries.

Joe

Steve, Pp, et al

Why not try that "boil off the alcohol" procedure that someone
mentioned here earlier. With the alcohol gone and the "before
and after" readings restored to direct comparability, any of the
old formulas that ignored alcohol completely should then work.

Never tried this myself. Just found it easier to compensate for
the alcohol numerically. HTH

Frederick


"pp" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Steve:
>
> No fight here. I noticed the 2 results closely correlate but that
> could just mean one formula could be derived from the other the real
> test is judging the computed results against measured values. The
> practical problem with this is we don't seem to have ready access to
> measured alcohol values so it's hard to support any result well.
>
> Some people discard D&A's work because they argue considering the
> final gravity is plain wrong because anything that goes under sg 1.0
> is just the effect of alcohol created from the sugar (which is
> captured by initial s.g. value). That would also apply to Balling's
> formula. This is more pronounced for wines where often the final s.g.
> can get to 0.990 for dry wines.
>
> Personally, I think that argument is faulty because it ignores how the
> formula was designed - it's just as easy to base the PA values solely
> on the initial s.g. as it is to base them on the difference between
> final and initial s.g. The latter does not artifically "add sugar
> that's not there", it just incorporates the fact that the sugar
> progressively changes into alcohol and bases the calculation on that.
> The results will not completely agree but it's just an estimate anyway
> because the actual alcohol depends on many factors that cannot really
> be measured in practice.
>
> That said, based on the s.g. values of the grapes and juice we
> routinely get from California these days, I think the D&A formula
> exagerates the PA values by about 0.5-1% of abv. Again, this is
> imprecise as it's based on taste comparisons of my wines with
> commercial wines with stated alcohol value, but it works for me and
> that's really what matters in the end .
>
> You might want to check out this page: http://www.brsquared.org/wine/
> in the Calcs/Info section, it has some other formulas from the
> literature. Actaully, given that you're already showing 2 different
> values anyway, it might be of real value to collect all the different
> formulas you can get hands on and add those to the applet, kind of
> like what Ben has in his table but more extensive. That would give
> people a full range of PA results comparison in one place; I think
> that'd be really useful.
>
> One final note on the subject of precision - I think all calculations
> should be round up to give the PA values in 0.5% increments. Anything
> more than that gives a false impression that the computed value is the
> exact amount of alcohol in the wine, which is at odds of what the
> formulas can really do.
>
> Sorry, I've made this longer than I wanted - I keep promising myself I
> won't get involved in these debates anymore but it doesn't seem to
> work...
>
> Pp
>
>
> On Feb 19, 6:17 pm, "Steve Gross" <gross**at**pdq**dot**net> wrote:
>> Okay, I didn't mean to start a fight! But in answer to Pp's comment
>> about
>> the Balling formula, yes, there don't seem to be any references to its
>> use
>> in the context of wine, at least on the web. But when I tested it, the
>> results were remakably similar to the Duncan & Acton formula. And when
>> you
>> compare equations (5) and (8) on my documentation page
>> (http://web2.airmail.net/sgross/fermc...c_alcohol.html) you'll
>> see
>> that both formulas have a very similar form. I found these comparisons
>> somewhat compelling, so I included both formulas in the calculator.
>>
>> Steve
>>
>

Ooops...Nope. With the alcohol gone, seems I would have to
add 3 points to the difference in order to get the best
estimates when using the "old" formulas (a la CJJ Berry).
(eg. to compensate for the 3 point allowance for acid used
in the BRIX calculation). These "old" formulas were based
on the assumption that the acid and alcohol would cancel
eachother which of course isn't true or we would never
get readings below 1.000.

FWIW - For dry ferments, no calculation is required because
the original PA already tells us how much alcohol the wine
will have when (if) all of the sugar gets converted. So - the
only time we need to calculate is for RS wines/musts. With
sugar, alcohol, and acid all present when the post pitch
reading is taken, it is then a matter of sorting out how much
influence each one has on the single SG reading we have to
work with.

I no longer have my books and my memory sure ain't what
it used to be, so I think I better shut up and let you guys
figure this out...........HTH

Frederick



"frederick ploegman" > wrote in message
...
> Steve, Pp, et al
>
> Why not try that "boil off the alcohol" procedure that someone
> mentioned here earlier. With the alcohol gone and the "before
> and after" readings restored to direct comparability, any of the
> old formulas that ignored alcohol completely should then work.
>
> Never tried this myself. Just found it easier to compensate for
> the alcohol numerically. HTH
>
> Frederick
>
>
> "pp" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>> Steve:
>>
>> No fight here. I noticed the 2 results closely correlate but that
>> could just mean one formula could be derived from the other the real
>> test is judging the computed results against measured values. The
>> practical problem with this is we don't seem to have ready access to
>> measured alcohol values so it's hard to support any result well.
>>
>> Some people discard D&A's work because they argue considering the
>> final gravity is plain wrong because anything that goes under sg 1.0
>> is just the effect of alcohol created from the sugar (which is
>> captured by initial s.g. value). That would also apply to Balling's
>> formula. This is more pronounced for wines where often the final s.g.
>> can get to 0.990 for dry wines.
>>
>> Personally, I think that argument is faulty because it ignores how the
>> formula was designed - it's just as easy to base the PA values solely
>> on the initial s.g. as it is to base them on the difference between
>> final and initial s.g. The latter does not artifically "add sugar
>> that's not there", it just incorporates the fact that the sugar
>> progressively changes into alcohol and bases the calculation on that.
>> The results will not completely agree but it's just an estimate anyway
>> because the actual alcohol depends on many factors that cannot really
>> be measured in practice.
>>
>> That said, based on the s.g. values of the grapes and juice we
>> routinely get from California these days, I think the D&A formula
>> exagerates the PA values by about 0.5-1% of abv. Again, this is
>> imprecise as it's based on taste comparisons of my wines with
>> commercial wines with stated alcohol value, but it works for me and
>> that's really what matters in the end .
>>
>> You might want to check out this page: http://www.brsquared.org/wine/
>> in the Calcs/Info section, it has some other formulas from the
>> literature. Actaully, given that you're already showing 2 different
>> values anyway, it might be of real value to collect all the different
>> formulas you can get hands on and add those to the applet, kind of
>> like what Ben has in his table but more extensive. That would give
>> people a full range of PA results comparison in one place; I think
>> that'd be really useful.
>>
>> One final note on the subject of precision - I think all calculations
>> should be round up to give the PA values in 0.5% increments. Anything
>> more than that gives a false impression that the computed value is the
>> exact amount of alcohol in the wine, which is at odds of what the
>> formulas can really do.
>>
>> Sorry, I've made this longer than I wanted - I keep promising myself I
>> won't get involved in these debates anymore but it doesn't seem to
>> work...
>>
>> Pp
>>
>>
>> On Feb 19, 6:17 pm, "Steve Gross" <gross**at**pdq**dot**net> wrote:
>>> Okay, I didn't mean to start a fight! But in answer to Pp's comment
>>> about
>>> the Balling formula, yes, there don't seem to be any references to its
>>> use
>>> in the context of wine, at least on the web. But when I tested it, the
>>> results were remakably similar to the Duncan & Acton formula. And when
>>> you
>>> compare equations (5) and (8) on my documentation page
>>> (http://web2.airmail.net/sgross/fermc...c_alcohol.html) you'll
>>> see
>>> that both formulas have a very similar form. I found these comparisons
>>> somewhat compelling, so I included both formulas in the calculator.
>>>
>>> Steve
>>>
>>
>
>

PS - The news reader at my ISP only allows me to read the
last 60 days worth of posts. If you are posting replies to
threads older than this, I can't read them. Since I think
others may be having the same problem, it might be nice if
you would start new threads instead. TIA

Frederick

"frederick ploegman" > wrote in message
...
> Ooops...Nope. With the alcohol gone, seems I would have to
> add 3 points to the difference in order to get the best
> estimates when using the "old" formulas (a la CJJ Berry).
> (eg. to compensate for the 3 point allowance for acid used
> in the BRIX calculation). These "old" formulas were based
> on the assumption that the acid and alcohol would cancel
> eachother which of course isn't true or we would never
> get readings below 1.000.
>
> FWIW - For dry ferments, no calculation is required because
> the original PA already tells us how much alcohol the wine
> will have when (if) all of the sugar gets converted. So - the
> only time we need to calculate is for RS wines/musts. With
> sugar, alcohol, and acid all present when the post pitch
> reading is taken, it is then a matter of sorting out how much
> influence each one has on the single SG reading we have to
> work with.
>
> I no longer have my books and my memory sure ain't what
> it used to be, so I think I better shut up and let you guys
> figure this out...........HTH
>
> Frederick
>
>
>
> "frederick ploegman" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Steve, Pp, et al
>>
>> Why not try that "boil off the alcohol" procedure that someone
>> mentioned here earlier. With the alcohol gone and the "before
>> and after" readings restored to direct comparability, any of the
>> old formulas that ignored alcohol completely should then work.
>>
>> Never tried this myself. Just found it easier to compensate for
>> the alcohol numerically. HTH
>>
>> Frederick
>>
>>
>> "pp" > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>>> Steve:
>>>
>>> No fight here. I noticed the 2 results closely correlate but that
>>> could just mean one formula could be derived from the other the real
>>> test is judging the computed results against measured values. The
>>> practical problem with this is we don't seem to have ready access to
>>> measured alcohol values so it's hard to support any result well.
>>>
>>> Some people discard D&A's work because they argue considering the
>>> final gravity is plain wrong because anything that goes under sg 1.0
>>> is just the effect of alcohol created from the sugar (which is
>>> captured by initial s.g. value). That would also apply to Balling's
>>> formula. This is more pronounced for wines where often the final s.g.
>>> can get to 0.990 for dry wines.
>>>
>>> Personally, I think that argument is faulty because it ignores how the
>>> formula was designed - it's just as easy to base the PA values solely
>>> on the initial s.g. as it is to base them on the difference between
>>> final and initial s.g. The latter does not artifically "add sugar
>>> that's not there", it just incorporates the fact that the sugar
>>> progressively changes into alcohol and bases the calculation on that.
>>> The results will not completely agree but it's just an estimate anyway
>>> because the actual alcohol depends on many factors that cannot really
>>> be measured in practice.
>>>
>>> That said, based on the s.g. values of the grapes and juice we
>>> routinely get from California these days, I think the D&A formula
>>> exagerates the PA values by about 0.5-1% of abv. Again, this is
>>> imprecise as it's based on taste comparisons of my wines with
>>> commercial wines with stated alcohol value, but it works for me and
>>> that's really what matters in the end .
>>>
>>> You might want to check out this page: http://www.brsquared.org/wine/
>>> in the Calcs/Info section, it has some other formulas from the
>>> literature. Actaully, given that you're already showing 2 different
>>> values anyway, it might be of real value to collect all the different
>>> formulas you can get hands on and add those to the applet, kind of
>>> like what Ben has in his table but more extensive. That would give
>>> people a full range of PA results comparison in one place; I think
>>> that'd be really useful.
>>>
>>> One final note on the subject of precision - I think all calculations
>>> should be round up to give the PA values in 0.5% increments. Anything
>>> more than that gives a false impression that the computed value is the
>>> exact amount of alcohol in the wine, which is at odds of what the
>>> formulas can really do.
>>>
>>> Sorry, I've made this longer than I wanted - I keep promising myself I
>>> won't get involved in these debates anymore but it doesn't seem to
>>> work...
>>>
>>> Pp
>>>
>>>
>>> On Feb 19, 6:17 pm, "Steve Gross" <gross**at**pdq**dot**net> wrote:
>>>> Okay, I didn't mean to start a fight! But in answer to Pp's comment
>>>> about
>>>> the Balling formula, yes, there don't seem to be any references to its
>>>> use
>>>> in the context of wine, at least on the web. But when I tested it, the
>>>> results were remakably similar to the Duncan & Acton formula. And when
>>>> you
>>>> compare equations (5) and (8) on my documentation page
>>>> (http://web2.airmail.net/sgross/fermc...c_alcohol.html) you'll
>>>> see
>>>> that both formulas have a very similar form. I found these comparisons
>>>> somewhat compelling, so I included both formulas in the calculator.
>>>>
>>>> Steve
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>