Just an FYI...

I did a little experiment with cheap tequila yesterday. I filled a
250 ml graduate with a 10% solution of alcohol.

(62.5 ml 40% ABV tequila, topped to 250 ml of solute with distilled
water.)

@ 77 F = 250 ml
@ 24 F = 249 ml

That should have worked out to a 76 ml drop in both carboys of red I
have in stabilization; 18.9 L/ .25 L = 76 ml. It did. Both took a
bit over 70 ml, (74 and 76). (I did not mark them exactly when I
chilled them and do not know the exact temperature of the wine prior
to stabilization. I did not expect to do this experiment.)

That works out to a change of 0.0755 ml/L/degree F.

In a 5 gallon carboy that would work out to an increase of 1.4
ml/degree F rise.

Water and alcohol densities are not a constant but for all intents and
purposes it's close enough over the sort range of temperatures
winemakers work with.

Joe

Nice experiment Joe.
Bill Frazier
Olathe, Kansas

"Joe Sallustio" > wrote in message
om...
> Just an FYI...
>
> I did a little experiment with cheap tequila yesterday. I filled a
> 250 ml graduate with a 10% solution of alcohol.
>
> (62.5 ml 40% ABV tequila, topped to 250 ml of solute with distilled
> water.)
>
> @ 77 F = 250 ml
> @ 24 F = 249 ml
>
> That should have worked out to a 76 ml drop in both carboys of red I
> have in stabilization; 18.9 L/ .25 L = 76 ml. It did. Both took a
> bit over 70 ml, (74 and 76). (I did not mark them exactly when I
> chilled them and do not know the exact temperature of the wine prior
> to stabilization. I did not expect to do this experiment.)
>
> That works out to a change of 0.0755 ml/L/degree F.
>
> In a 5 gallon carboy that would work out to an increase of 1.4
> ml/degree F rise.
>
> Water and alcohol densities are not a constant but for all intents and
> purposes it's close enough over the sort range of temperatures
> winemakers work with.
>
> Joe

Nice experiment Joe.
Bill Frazier
Olathe, Kansas

"Joe Sallustio" > wrote in message
om...
> Just an FYI...
>
> I did a little experiment with cheap tequila yesterday. I filled a
> 250 ml graduate with a 10% solution of alcohol.
>
> (62.5 ml 40% ABV tequila, topped to 250 ml of solute with distilled
> water.)
>
> @ 77 F = 250 ml
> @ 24 F = 249 ml
>
> That should have worked out to a 76 ml drop in both carboys of red I
> have in stabilization; 18.9 L/ .25 L = 76 ml. It did. Both took a
> bit over 70 ml, (74 and 76). (I did not mark them exactly when I
> chilled them and do not know the exact temperature of the wine prior
> to stabilization. I did not expect to do this experiment.)
>
> That works out to a change of 0.0755 ml/L/degree F.
>
> In a 5 gallon carboy that would work out to an increase of 1.4
> ml/degree F rise.
>
> Water and alcohol densities are not a constant but for all intents and
> purposes it's close enough over the sort range of temperatures
> winemakers work with.
>
> Joe

Joe,

Great experiment. I am assuming that the cylinder you used was, well,
cylindrical. Would not the volume of one inch of wine in the body of the carboy
(say 10 inches in diameter) be significantly more than one inch of wine in the
neck (say 1 inch in diameter)? Thus the change in height would be greatly
multiplied in the neck of a properly topped carboy. All my carboys are filled
at the moment. I will try some experiments in a gallon jug.

Sure, it's all relative (really bad pun). You are right about the
relative changes and what you are thinking describes how glass
thermometers and mercury barometers actually work. You have a large
pocket of liquid attached to a relatively thin column on top. The
relatively thin column shows the change in volume better and makes it
easier to see.

The cylinder was cylindrical, it's made for general measurement of
liquid volumes. There is a more accurate device called a volumetic
flask that works on the principle you describe, but it's only
calibrated at one point. I have one for 100 ml. That is too small to
use here, the changes would be tough to see.

Joe

rmed (Brewser83) wrote in message >...
> Joe,
>
> Great experiment. I am assuming that the cylinder you used was, well,
> cylindrical. Would not the volume of one inch of wine in the body of the carboy
> (say 10 inches in diameter) be significantly more than one inch of wine in the
> neck (say 1 inch in diameter)? Thus the change in height would be greatly
> multiplied in the neck of a properly topped carboy. All my carboys are filled
> at the moment. I will try some experiments in a gallon jug.

Sure, it's all relative (really bad pun). You are right about the
relative changes and what you are thinking describes how glass
thermometers and mercury barometers actually work. You have a large
pocket of liquid attached to a relatively thin column on top. The
relatively thin column shows the change in volume better and makes it
easier to see.

The cylinder was cylindrical, it's made for general measurement of
liquid volumes. There is a more accurate device called a volumetic
flask that works on the principle you describe, but it's only
calibrated at one point. I have one for 100 ml. That is too small to
use here, the changes would be tough to see.

Joe

rmed (Brewser83) wrote in message >...
> Joe,
>
> Great experiment. I am assuming that the cylinder you used was, well,
> cylindrical. Would not the volume of one inch of wine in the body of the carboy
> (say 10 inches in diameter) be significantly more than one inch of wine in the
> neck (say 1 inch in diameter)? Thus the change in height would be greatly
> multiplied in the neck of a properly topped carboy. All my carboys are filled
> at the moment. I will try some experiments in a gallon jug.

"Joe Sallustio" > wrote in message
om...
> Just an FYI...
>
> I did a little experiment with cheap tequila yesterday. I filled a
> 250 ml graduate with a 10% solution of alcohol.
>
> (62.5 ml 40% ABV tequila, topped to 250 ml of solute with distilled
> water.)
>
> @ 77 F = 250 ml
> @ 24 F = 249 ml
>
> That should have worked out to a 76 ml drop in both carboys of red I
> have in stabilization; 18.9 L/ .25 L = 76 ml. It did. Both took a
> bit over 70 ml, (74 and 76). (I did not mark them exactly when I
> chilled them and do not know the exact temperature of the wine prior
> to stabilization. I did not expect to do this experiment.)
>
> That works out to a change of 0.0755 ml/L/degree F.
>
> In a 5 gallon carboy that would work out to an increase of 1.4
> ml/degree F rise.
>
> Water and alcohol densities are not a constant but for all intents and
> purposes it's close enough over the sort range of temperatures
> winemakers work with.
>
> Joe
>
Not a bad experiment at all and not bat results considering the accuracy of
the measurements and the range of temperature. Here is another approach:

Coefficient of expansion of Water @ 21 deg. C (70 deg F.) is 0.00021
Coefficient of expansion of Methanol (temp not given so STP assumed) is
0.00122

IF you can combine these properties linearly (a big if if someone wants to
correct me) then the Coefficient of expansion of 14% wine will be 0.00034.

Now a 6 gal batch will be 22714 ml so the expansion with 1 deg C temp change
would be 7.75 ml. or for 1 deg F temp change would be 4.31 ml. For a 5 deg
change in your den this would be a whooping 21.5 ml. Now how much rise in
fluid level that translates to in your carboy depends on how high up into
the neck the carboy is filled and the inside diameter of the neck.neck.

Now these figures are for temperature changes around room temperature.
Water coef. of expansion drops drastically at lower temperatures and
methanol coef of expansion probably does as well. Note that the coef of
expansion of water reverses itself below 39 deg F. So over the large change
in temperature you used you would probably get a lower value than is
observed at near room temperature. In fact you got 0.075 ml/l-deg F average
over the range of 77 to 24 deg F. while it get 0.34 ml/l-deg F at
temperatures near 70 deg F. Since most of us do not store our wine at
temperatures that low, the numbers for 70 deg. F are probably more
serviceable.

Does anyone know of any measurements on water methanol mixtures?

Ray

"Joe Sallustio" > wrote in message
om...
> Just an FYI...
>
> I did a little experiment with cheap tequila yesterday. I filled a
> 250 ml graduate with a 10% solution of alcohol.
>
> (62.5 ml 40% ABV tequila, topped to 250 ml of solute with distilled
> water.)
>
> @ 77 F = 250 ml
> @ 24 F = 249 ml
>
> That should have worked out to a 76 ml drop in both carboys of red I
> have in stabilization; 18.9 L/ .25 L = 76 ml. It did. Both took a
> bit over 70 ml, (74 and 76). (I did not mark them exactly when I
> chilled them and do not know the exact temperature of the wine prior
> to stabilization. I did not expect to do this experiment.)
>
> That works out to a change of 0.0755 ml/L/degree F.
>
> In a 5 gallon carboy that would work out to an increase of 1.4
> ml/degree F rise.
>
> Water and alcohol densities are not a constant but for all intents and
> purposes it's close enough over the sort range of temperatures
> winemakers work with.
>
> Joe
>
Not a bad experiment at all and not bat results considering the accuracy of
the measurements and the range of temperature. Here is another approach:

Coefficient of expansion of Water @ 21 deg. C (70 deg F.) is 0.00021
Coefficient of expansion of Methanol (temp not given so STP assumed) is
0.00122

IF you can combine these properties linearly (a big if if someone wants to
correct me) then the Coefficient of expansion of 14% wine will be 0.00034.

Now a 6 gal batch will be 22714 ml so the expansion with 1 deg C temp change
would be 7.75 ml. or for 1 deg F temp change would be 4.31 ml. For a 5 deg
change in your den this would be a whooping 21.5 ml. Now how much rise in
fluid level that translates to in your carboy depends on how high up into
the neck the carboy is filled and the inside diameter of the neck.neck.

Now these figures are for temperature changes around room temperature.
Water coef. of expansion drops drastically at lower temperatures and
methanol coef of expansion probably does as well. Note that the coef of
expansion of water reverses itself below 39 deg F. So over the large change
in temperature you used you would probably get a lower value than is
observed at near room temperature. In fact you got 0.075 ml/l-deg F average
over the range of 77 to 24 deg F. while it get 0.34 ml/l-deg F at
temperatures near 70 deg F. Since most of us do not store our wine at
temperatures that low, the numbers for 70 deg. F are probably more
serviceable.

Does anyone know of any measurements on water methanol mixtures?

Ray

Hi Ray,
You don't want to just add the values, you have 86% water and 14%
alcohol in your sample wine, so factor that in.

I think you want to use ethyl, not methyl as your basis too. You want
the CRC Handbook for those tables, any library will have one.

Glass changes with temperature too, that has to be factored in.

I'll run some numbers in Excel later and post, I have a copy of the
CRC (Chemical Rubber Co. Handbook of Chemistry and Physics).

My wine did not change anywhere near that much as you suggest; a 5
gallon carboy dropping 50 F lost around 3 ounces, that's around 1.5
ml/F. But you bring up a good point, I went through 0C and water
behaves pretty oddly there. That could explain your higher values,
although I'm sure you need to touch them up a bit.

Water density is pretty odd, it actually reaches maximum density at
~4C, then turns around again. (Fish appreciate this, thankfully ice
floats or they would have a bad day every winter...) It's the only
substance that does this. I'll run the numbers over a range of
temperatures, once I get the equations in it's plug and play... I
have good temperature measurement equipment too, I may hook some up
and start getting some empirical data too.

This is a little tricky as the relationships are not intuitive (to me
at least).

Joe

> >
> Not a bad experiment at all and not bat results considering the accuracy of
> the measurements and the range of temperature. Here is another approach:
>
> Coefficient of expansion of Water @ 21 deg. C (70 deg F.) is 0.00021
> Coefficient of expansion of Methanol (temp not given so STP assumed) is
> 0.00122
>
> IF you can combine these properties linearly (a big if if someone wants to
> correct me) then the Coefficient of expansion of 14% wine will be 0.00034.
>
> Now a 6 gal batch will be 22714 ml so the expansion with 1 deg C temp change
> would be 7.75 ml. or for 1 deg F temp change would be 4.31 ml. For a 5 deg
> change in your den this would be a whooping 21.5 ml. Now how much rise in
> fluid level that translates to in your carboy depends on how high up into
> the neck the carboy is filled and the inside diameter of the neck.neck.
>
> Now these figures are for temperature changes around room temperature.
> Water coef. of expansion drops drastically at lower temperatures and
> methanol coef of expansion probably does as well. Note that the coef of
> expansion of water reverses itself below 39 deg F. So over the large change
> in temperature you used you would probably get a lower value than is
> observed at near room temperature. In fact you got 0.075 ml/l-deg F average
> over the range of 77 to 24 deg F. while it get 0.34 ml/l-deg F at
> temperatures near 70 deg F. Since most of us do not store our wine at
> temperatures that low, the numbers for 70 deg. F are probably more
> serviceable.
>
> Does anyone know of any measurements on water methanol mixtures?
>
> Ray

Hi Ray,
You don't want to just add the values, you have 86% water and 14%
alcohol in your sample wine, so factor that in.

I think you want to use ethyl, not methyl as your basis too. You want
the CRC Handbook for those tables, any library will have one.

Glass changes with temperature too, that has to be factored in.

I'll run some numbers in Excel later and post, I have a copy of the
CRC (Chemical Rubber Co. Handbook of Chemistry and Physics).

My wine did not change anywhere near that much as you suggest; a 5
gallon carboy dropping 50 F lost around 3 ounces, that's around 1.5
ml/F. But you bring up a good point, I went through 0C and water
behaves pretty oddly there. That could explain your higher values,
although I'm sure you need to touch them up a bit.

Water density is pretty odd, it actually reaches maximum density at
~4C, then turns around again. (Fish appreciate this, thankfully ice
floats or they would have a bad day every winter...) It's the only
substance that does this. I'll run the numbers over a range of
temperatures, once I get the equations in it's plug and play... I
have good temperature measurement equipment too, I may hook some up
and start getting some empirical data too.

This is a little tricky as the relationships are not intuitive (to me
at least).

Joe

> >
> Not a bad experiment at all and not bat results considering the accuracy of
> the measurements and the range of temperature. Here is another approach:
>
> Coefficient of expansion of Water @ 21 deg. C (70 deg F.) is 0.00021
> Coefficient of expansion of Methanol (temp not given so STP assumed) is
> 0.00122
>
> IF you can combine these properties linearly (a big if if someone wants to
> correct me) then the Coefficient of expansion of 14% wine will be 0.00034.
>
> Now a 6 gal batch will be 22714 ml so the expansion with 1 deg C temp change
> would be 7.75 ml. or for 1 deg F temp change would be 4.31 ml. For a 5 deg
> change in your den this would be a whooping 21.5 ml. Now how much rise in
> fluid level that translates to in your carboy depends on how high up into
> the neck the carboy is filled and the inside diameter of the neck.neck.
>
> Now these figures are for temperature changes around room temperature.
> Water coef. of expansion drops drastically at lower temperatures and
> methanol coef of expansion probably does as well. Note that the coef of
> expansion of water reverses itself below 39 deg F. So over the large change
> in temperature you used you would probably get a lower value than is
> observed at near room temperature. In fact you got 0.075 ml/l-deg F average
> over the range of 77 to 24 deg F. while it get 0.34 ml/l-deg F at
> temperatures near 70 deg F. Since most of us do not store our wine at
> temperatures that low, the numbers for 70 deg. F are probably more
> serviceable.
>
> Does anyone know of any measurements on water methanol mixtures?
>
> Ray

I followed Ray's reasoning and tended to agree with him, so I did some
calculations. It turns out the rate of change looks to be 5 times as
much at the upper end of the temperatures wine is exposed to as at the
lower end.

In short, forget about the 1.4ml/F idea, it's far from linear as Ray
stated.

I would like to run some tests to prove these values out, but would be
happy to email the spreadsheet this is based on to anyone interested,
I tried to post an abbreviated version below. Maybe the tabs will be
preserved, maybe not...

Joe

Here are some values:

Temp Ethyl Water Weight Glassware %ABV Density
Dens
F Density Density 1 US Gallon Correction @ ABV
ml/l


32 0.80625 0.99987 3780.543 1.00048 10 0.98098 0.00
41 0.80207 0.99999 3781.090 1.00036 10 0.98055 0.43
50 0.79788 0.99973 3780.167 1.00024 10 0.97978 0.77
59 0.79367 0.99913 3777.962 1.00012 10 0.97870 1.08
68 0.78945 0.99823 3774.653 1.00000 10 0.97735 1.35
77 0.78522 0.99707 3770.340 0.99988 10 0.97577 1.58
86 0.78097 0.99567 3765.109 0.99975 10 0.97396 1.81
95 0.77671 0.99406 3759.050 0.99963 10 0.97197 1.99

32 0.80625 0.99987 3780.543 1.00048 11 0.97904 0.00
41 0.80207 0.99999 3781.090 1.00036 11 0.97857 0.47
50 0.79788 0.99973 3780.167 1.00024 11 0.97776 0.81
59 0.79367 0.99913 3777.962 1.00012 11 0.97665 1.11
68 0.78945 0.99823 3774.653 1.00000 11 0.97526 1.38
77 0.78522 0.99707 3770.340 0.99988 11 0.97365 1.61
86 0.78097 0.99567 3765.109 0.99975 11 0.97181 1.84
95 0.77671 0.99406 3759.050 0.99963 11 0.96979 2.02

32 0.80625 0.99987 3780.543 1.00048 12 0.97710 0.00
41 0.80207 0.99999 3781.090 1.00036 12 0.97659 0.51
50 0.79788 0.99973 3780.167 1.00024 12 0.97574 0.85
59 0.79367 0.99913 3777.962 1.00012 12 0.97459 1.15
68 0.78945 0.99823 3774.653 1.00000 12 0.97318 1.42
77 0.78522 0.99707 3770.340 0.99988 12 0.97153 1.64
86 0.78097 0.99567 3765.109 0.99975 12 0.96966 1.87
95 0.77671 0.99406 3759.050 0.99963 12 0.96762 2.04

32 0.80625 0.99987 3780.543 1.00048 13 0.97517 0.00
41 0.80207 0.99999 3781.090 1.00036 13 0.97461 0.56
50 0.79788 0.99973 3780.167 1.00024 13 0.97372 0.89
59 0.79367 0.99913 3777.962 1.00012 13 0.97254 1.19
68 0.78945 0.99823 3774.653 1.00000 13 0.97109 1.45
77 0.78522 0.99707 3770.340 0.99988 13 0.96941 1.68
86 0.78097 0.99567 3765.109 0.99975 13 0.96752 1.90
95 0.77671 0.99406 3759.050 0.99963 13 0.96545 2.07

32 0.80625 0.99987 3780.543 1.00048 14 0.97323 0.00
41 0.80207 0.99999 3781.090 1.00036 14 0.97263 0.60
50 0.79788 0.99973 3780.167 1.00024 14 0.97170 0.93
59 0.79367 0.99913 3777.962 1.00012 14 0.97048 1.22
68 0.78945 0.99823 3774.653 1.00000 14 0.96900 1.48
77 0.78522 0.99707 3770.340 0.99988 14 0.96729 1.71
86 0.78097 0.99567 3765.109 0.99975 14 0.96537 1.92
95 0.77671 0.99406 3759.050 0.99963 14 0.96327 2.10

I followed Ray's reasoning and tended to agree with him, so I did some
calculations. It turns out the rate of change looks to be 5 times as
much at the upper end of the temperatures wine is exposed to as at the
lower end.

In short, forget about the 1.4ml/F idea, it's far from linear as Ray
stated.

I would like to run some tests to prove these values out, but would be
happy to email the spreadsheet this is based on to anyone interested,
I tried to post an abbreviated version below. Maybe the tabs will be
preserved, maybe not...

Joe

Here are some values:

Temp Ethyl Water Weight Glassware %ABV Density
Dens
F Density Density 1 US Gallon Correction @ ABV
ml/l


32 0.80625 0.99987 3780.543 1.00048 10 0.98098 0.00
41 0.80207 0.99999 3781.090 1.00036 10 0.98055 0.43
50 0.79788 0.99973 3780.167 1.00024 10 0.97978 0.77
59 0.79367 0.99913 3777.962 1.00012 10 0.97870 1.08
68 0.78945 0.99823 3774.653 1.00000 10 0.97735 1.35
77 0.78522 0.99707 3770.340 0.99988 10 0.97577 1.58
86 0.78097 0.99567 3765.109 0.99975 10 0.97396 1.81
95 0.77671 0.99406 3759.050 0.99963 10 0.97197 1.99

32 0.80625 0.99987 3780.543 1.00048 11 0.97904 0.00
41 0.80207 0.99999 3781.090 1.00036 11 0.97857 0.47
50 0.79788 0.99973 3780.167 1.00024 11 0.97776 0.81
59 0.79367 0.99913 3777.962 1.00012 11 0.97665 1.11
68 0.78945 0.99823 3774.653 1.00000 11 0.97526 1.38
77 0.78522 0.99707 3770.340 0.99988 11 0.97365 1.61
86 0.78097 0.99567 3765.109 0.99975 11 0.97181 1.84
95 0.77671 0.99406 3759.050 0.99963 11 0.96979 2.02

32 0.80625 0.99987 3780.543 1.00048 12 0.97710 0.00
41 0.80207 0.99999 3781.090 1.00036 12 0.97659 0.51
50 0.79788 0.99973 3780.167 1.00024 12 0.97574 0.85
59 0.79367 0.99913 3777.962 1.00012 12 0.97459 1.15
68 0.78945 0.99823 3774.653 1.00000 12 0.97318 1.42
77 0.78522 0.99707 3770.340 0.99988 12 0.97153 1.64
86 0.78097 0.99567 3765.109 0.99975 12 0.96966 1.87
95 0.77671 0.99406 3759.050 0.99963 12 0.96762 2.04

32 0.80625 0.99987 3780.543 1.00048 13 0.97517 0.00
41 0.80207 0.99999 3781.090 1.00036 13 0.97461 0.56
50 0.79788 0.99973 3780.167 1.00024 13 0.97372 0.89
59 0.79367 0.99913 3777.962 1.00012 13 0.97254 1.19
68 0.78945 0.99823 3774.653 1.00000 13 0.97109 1.45
77 0.78522 0.99707 3770.340 0.99988 13 0.96941 1.68
86 0.78097 0.99567 3765.109 0.99975 13 0.96752 1.90
95 0.77671 0.99406 3759.050 0.99963 13 0.96545 2.07

32 0.80625 0.99987 3780.543 1.00048 14 0.97323 0.00
41 0.80207 0.99999 3781.090 1.00036 14 0.97263 0.60
50 0.79788 0.99973 3780.167 1.00024 14 0.97170 0.93
59 0.79367 0.99913 3777.962 1.00012 14 0.97048 1.22
68 0.78945 0.99823 3774.653 1.00000 14 0.96900 1.48
77 0.78522 0.99707 3770.340 0.99988 14 0.96729 1.71
86 0.78097 0.99567 3765.109 0.99975 14 0.96537 1.92
95 0.77671 0.99406 3759.050 0.99963 14 0.96327 2.10

Thanks Joe, I was doing what I did off the top of my head. I probably
should have waited till I had access to my hand book at home.

Ray

"Joe Sallustio" > wrote in message
om...
> I followed Ray's reasoning and tended to agree with him, so I did some
> calculations. It turns out the rate of change looks to be 5 times as
> much at the upper end of the temperatures wine is exposed to as at the
> lower end.
>
> In short, forget about the 1.4ml/F idea, it's far from linear as Ray
> stated.
>
> I would like to run some tests to prove these values out, but would be
> happy to email the spreadsheet this is based on to anyone interested,
> I tried to post an abbreviated version below. Maybe the tabs will be
> preserved, maybe not...
>
> Joe
>
> Here are some values:
>
> Temp Ethyl Water Weight Glassware %ABV Density
> Dens
> F Density Density 1 US Gallon Correction @ ABV
> ml/l
>
>
> 32 0.80625 0.99987 3780.543 1.00048 10 0.98098 0.00
> 41 0.80207 0.99999 3781.090 1.00036 10 0.98055 0.43
> 50 0.79788 0.99973 3780.167 1.00024 10 0.97978 0.77
> 59 0.79367 0.99913 3777.962 1.00012 10 0.97870 1.08
> 68 0.78945 0.99823 3774.653 1.00000 10 0.97735 1.35
> 77 0.78522 0.99707 3770.340 0.99988 10 0.97577 1.58
> 86 0.78097 0.99567 3765.109 0.99975 10 0.97396 1.81
> 95 0.77671 0.99406 3759.050 0.99963 10 0.97197 1.99
>
> 32 0.80625 0.99987 3780.543 1.00048 11 0.97904 0.00
> 41 0.80207 0.99999 3781.090 1.00036 11 0.97857 0.47
> 50 0.79788 0.99973 3780.167 1.00024 11 0.97776 0.81
> 59 0.79367 0.99913 3777.962 1.00012 11 0.97665 1.11
> 68 0.78945 0.99823 3774.653 1.00000 11 0.97526 1.38
> 77 0.78522 0.99707 3770.340 0.99988 11 0.97365 1.61
> 86 0.78097 0.99567 3765.109 0.99975 11 0.97181 1.84
> 95 0.77671 0.99406 3759.050 0.99963 11 0.96979 2.02
>
> 32 0.80625 0.99987 3780.543 1.00048 12 0.97710 0.00
> 41 0.80207 0.99999 3781.090 1.00036 12 0.97659 0.51
> 50 0.79788 0.99973 3780.167 1.00024 12 0.97574 0.85
> 59 0.79367 0.99913 3777.962 1.00012 12 0.97459 1.15
> 68 0.78945 0.99823 3774.653 1.00000 12 0.97318 1.42
> 77 0.78522 0.99707 3770.340 0.99988 12 0.97153 1.64
> 86 0.78097 0.99567 3765.109 0.99975 12 0.96966 1.87
> 95 0.77671 0.99406 3759.050 0.99963 12 0.96762 2.04
>
> 32 0.80625 0.99987 3780.543 1.00048 13 0.97517 0.00
> 41 0.80207 0.99999 3781.090 1.00036 13 0.97461 0.56
> 50 0.79788 0.99973 3780.167 1.00024 13 0.97372 0.89
> 59 0.79367 0.99913 3777.962 1.00012 13 0.97254 1.19
> 68 0.78945 0.99823 3774.653 1.00000 13 0.97109 1.45
> 77 0.78522 0.99707 3770.340 0.99988 13 0.96941 1.68
> 86 0.78097 0.99567 3765.109 0.99975 13 0.96752 1.90
> 95 0.77671 0.99406 3759.050 0.99963 13 0.96545 2.07
>
> 32 0.80625 0.99987 3780.543 1.00048 14 0.97323 0.00
> 41 0.80207 0.99999 3781.090 1.00036 14 0.97263 0.60
> 50 0.79788 0.99973 3780.167 1.00024 14 0.97170 0.93
> 59 0.79367 0.99913 3777.962 1.00012 14 0.97048 1.22
> 68 0.78945 0.99823 3774.653 1.00000 14 0.96900 1.48
> 77 0.78522 0.99707 3770.340 0.99988 14 0.96729 1.71
> 86 0.78097 0.99567 3765.109 0.99975 14 0.96537 1.92
> 95 0.77671 0.99406 3759.050 0.99963 14 0.96327 2.10

I didn't think the format would be preserved, oh well.

The first column is temperature in F
2nd, density of ethyl alcohol at that temp
3rd, density of water at that temp
4th, weight of 1 US gallon at that temp
5th, coefficient of thermal expansion compensation for glass
6th, %ABV
7th, calculatated density of 1 liter at that temp
((%ABV * Alc Dens)+(remaining water * water dens)* glass
expansion/l)
8th, change on ml from one step to the next due to changes on density
and volume of the container;
In other words, using the first group for an example, how much change
you should expect to see in a 10% ABV solution for a 5 degree C (9F)
change.

These are calculated values, I want to test them out too. They do not
account for disolved solids, that is around 2% of the total on average
from memeory.

Joe

> > 32 0.80625 0.99987 3780.543 1.00048 10 0.98098 0.00
> > 41 0.80207 0.99999 3781.090 1.00036 10 0.98055 0.43
> > 50 0.79788 0.99973 3780.167 1.00024 10 0.97978 0.77
> > 59 0.79367 0.99913 3777.962 1.00012 10 0.97870 1.08
> > 68 0.78945 0.99823 3774.653 1.00000 10 0.97735 1.35
> > 77 0.78522 0.99707 3770.340 0.99988 10 0.97577 1.58
> > 86 0.78097 0.99567 3765.109 0.99975 10 0.97396 1.81
> > 95 0.77671 0.99406 3759.050 0.99963 10 0.97197 1.99
> >
> > 32 0.80625 0.99987 3780.543 1.00048 11 0.97904 0.00
> > 41 0.80207 0.99999 3781.090 1.00036 11 0.97857 0.47
> > 50 0.79788 0.99973 3780.167 1.00024 11 0.97776 0.81
> > 59 0.79367 0.99913 3777.962 1.00012 11 0.97665 1.11
> > 68 0.78945 0.99823 3774.653 1.00000 11 0.97526 1.38
> > 77 0.78522 0.99707 3770.340 0.99988 11 0.97365 1.61
> > 86 0.78097 0.99567 3765.109 0.99975 11 0.97181 1.84
> > 95 0.77671 0.99406 3759.050 0.99963 11 0.96979 2.02
> >
> > 32 0.80625 0.99987 3780.543 1.00048 12 0.97710 0.00
> > 41 0.80207 0.99999 3781.090 1.00036 12 0.97659 0.51
> > 50 0.79788 0.99973 3780.167 1.00024 12 0.97574 0.85
> > 59 0.79367 0.99913 3777.962 1.00012 12 0.97459 1.15
> > 68 0.78945 0.99823 3774.653 1.00000 12 0.97318 1.42
> > 77 0.78522 0.99707 3770.340 0.99988 12 0.97153 1.64
> > 86 0.78097 0.99567 3765.109 0.99975 12 0.96966 1.87
> > 95 0.77671 0.99406 3759.050 0.99963 12 0.96762 2.04
> >
> > 32 0.80625 0.99987 3780.543 1.00048 13 0.97517 0.00
> > 41 0.80207 0.99999 3781.090 1.00036 13 0.97461 0.56
> > 50 0.79788 0.99973 3780.167 1.00024 13 0.97372 0.89
> > 59 0.79367 0.99913 3777.962 1.00012 13 0.97254 1.19
> > 68 0.78945 0.99823 3774.653 1.00000 13 0.97109 1.45
> > 77 0.78522 0.99707 3770.340 0.99988 13 0.96941 1.68
> > 86 0.78097 0.99567 3765.109 0.99975 13 0.96752 1.90
> > 95 0.77671 0.99406 3759.050 0.99963 13 0.96545 2.07
> >
> > 32 0.80625 0.99987 3780.543 1.00048 14 0.97323 0.00
> > 41 0.80207 0.99999 3781.090 1.00036 14 0.97263 0.60
> > 50 0.79788 0.99973 3780.167 1.00024 14 0.97170 0.93
> > 59 0.79367 0.99913 3777.962 1.00012 14 0.97048 1.22
> > 68 0.78945 0.99823 3774.653 1.00000 14 0.96900 1.48
> > 77 0.78522 0.99707 3770.340 0.99988 14 0.96729 1.71
> > 86 0.78097 0.99567 3765.109 0.99975 14 0.96537 1.92
> > 95 0.77671 0.99406 3759.050 0.99963 14 0.96327 2.10

Joe, as I said off-list, I would perform the same experiment with a
12% alcohol/water mixture in a graduated liter cylinder. The
graduations were not fine enough to allow milliliter measures and so I
"borrowed" a 250-mL cylinder from work. I began this before you
posted your table.

My mixture was constituted at 78 degrees F and chilled to 50 degrees.
Like you, my measurements were of contraction. I will not go into
details here except to say they agree with your table in that the
contraction is as predicted therein (to the extent I could approximate
tenths of a milliliter), but they differ in that I began my 250
milliliters at 78 degrees.

Here is the problem I see with all of this and it is one I mentioned
in my original post to you that prompted your initial experiment. The
CRC tables all begin with the density of water being 1.000 at 4
degrees C (39.2 F), whereas we all constitute our must and the
resulting wine at a much higher ambient temperature. Our mixtures
have already expanded due to elevated temperature and so we begin with
X liters of wine under airlock at, say, 68 degrees F and then the
temperature rises. The volumetric expansion from 39.2 F, which your
table predicts, is meaningless to us. We need the expansion from 68
F. It turns out one can calculate this from your table, but it isn't
all that straightforward.

Any idea how to more easily work the problem we face in real life?

Now, having said all of that and asked my question, I still say the
solution is not to be surprised by a volume increase due to rising
temperature. Simply look at your carboys daily and when the wine
approaches the airlock remove the airlock and then some of the wine.
That is another use of a wine thief.

Jack Keller, The Winemaking Home Page
http://winemaking.jackkeller.net/

Joe, as I said off-list, I would perform the same experiment with a
12% alcohol/water mixture in a graduated liter cylinder. The
graduations were not fine enough to allow milliliter measures and so I
"borrowed" a 250-mL cylinder from work. I began this before you
posted your table.

My mixture was constituted at 78 degrees F and chilled to 50 degrees.
Like you, my measurements were of contraction. I will not go into
details here except to say they agree with your table in that the
contraction is as predicted therein (to the extent I could approximate
tenths of a milliliter), but they differ in that I began my 250
milliliters at 78 degrees.

Here is the problem I see with all of this and it is one I mentioned
in my original post to you that prompted your initial experiment. The
CRC tables all begin with the density of water being 1.000 at 4
degrees C (39.2 F), whereas we all constitute our must and the
resulting wine at a much higher ambient temperature. Our mixtures
have already expanded due to elevated temperature and so we begin with
X liters of wine under airlock at, say, 68 degrees F and then the
temperature rises. The volumetric expansion from 39.2 F, which your
table predicts, is meaningless to us. We need the expansion from 68
F. It turns out one can calculate this from your table, but it isn't
all that straightforward.

Any idea how to more easily work the problem we face in real life?

Now, having said all of that and asked my question, I still say the
solution is not to be surprised by a volume increase due to rising
temperature. Simply look at your carboys daily and when the wine
approaches the airlock remove the airlock and then some of the wine.
That is another use of a wine thief.

Jack Keller, The Winemaking Home Page
http://winemaking.jackkeller.net/

Hi Jack,
I follow your logic, but the last column on that table was actually
the difference between points of 5 C, not from maximum density. It's
way too coarse at 5C steps so I started to make one in 1 C steps,
then I decided I had better think this through.

I am actually wondering if any of this is valid since both the
container and must are changing with temperature. I know the general
coefficient of thermal expansion for glass, I may plug that in and run
a few numbers after thinking it through.

Joe



.... The
> CRC tables all begin with the density of water being 1.000 at 4
> degrees C (39.2 F), whereas we all constitute our must and the
> resulting wine at a much higher ambient temperature. Our mixtures
> have already expanded due to elevated temperature and so we begin with
> X liters of wine under airlock at, say, 68 degrees F and then the
> temperature rises. The volumetric expansion from 39.2 F, which your
> table predicts, is meaningless to us. We need the expansion from 68
> F. It turns out one can calculate this from your table, but it isn't
> all that straightforward.
>
> Any idea how to more easily work the problem we face in real life?
>
> Now, having said all of that and asked my question, I still say the
> solution is not to be surprised by a volume increase due to rising
> temperature. Simply look at your carboys daily and when the wine
> approaches the airlock remove the airlock and then some of the wine.
> That is another use of a wine thief.
>
> Jack Keller, The Winemaking Home Page
> http://winemaking.jackkeller.net/

> I know the general coefficient of thermal expansion for glass, I may plug
> that in and run a few numbers after thinking it through.

Got'cha, but just remember that the CRC numbers for glass are for
borosilicate glassware (Pyrex. Also, there are major differences
between CRC's F-3 and D-146 tables. The D-146 table looks better to
me for our purposes, and the 1-degree C graduation is built in....

Ray, where are you on all of this?

Jack Keller, The Winemaking Home Page
http://winemaking.jackkeller.net/