"jim" wrote in message
...
On Feb 1, 7:04 pm, Luc Volders wrote:
Well take 5 winemaking books and compare the SG scales with the PA
they mention and they are all different.

I once wrote a web-log entry on it but unfortunately it is only in Dutch
and I am not going to translate it like I do nowadays on my web-log.

One author stated you needed 16 grams sugar for 1% alcohol and another
stated as high as 20 grams sugar for 1% alcohol.
So why would the scales on hydrometers be different ???

You should trust the reading and calculate yourself from that.

Luc Volderswww.wijnmaker.blogspot.com



Sorry for the poor composition but here are the markings at the high
end of my hydrometer:
http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l9...r/montaged.jpg

They don't tally at all with any of the 5 PA sclaes on the chart from
brsquared.org

That's why I think it's weird...

Jim

--www.wijmaker.web-log.nl

Sorry Frederick the photo is from one I took months ago, if I get the
chance I will take a panoramic of my current hydrometer. I kept the
insert from the older (and more contemporary triple scale I broke)
which sits in front of me on the wall as I type right now - they both
have PA, SG - the older one has sugar in oz per gallon and the newer
one has sugar in grams per litre.

Hi Luc, I work in SG and I trust my hydrometer just fine using that
scale... My point was really as Frederick summed up: "One thing for
sure. It's hard to discuss things unless everyone sings from the same
sheet of music." and since - as you agree - there are as many PA
interpretations as wine-experts its very hard to feel that you are on
the same page if you use equipment which is arbitarily calibrated.

Thanks for your reply!

Jim

Take a look at Jack Keller's hydrometer page. You may find
it useful. Look he

http://winemaking.jackkeller.net/hydrom.asp

HTH

Frederick

Jim

Please excuse me if I ramble. This one just keeps rattling around
in my head, nagging at me.

1. Both hydrometers were made by the same company.
2. No great revelations occured in 1983 that would justify such
a radical change.
3. What_did_ occur in that time frame was the UK converting
from IMP to Metric measure (IIRC ??)
4. I think maybe someone at that company screwed up the
conversion and it has taken 25 years for someone to come along
to discover that error. (remember, both were made by the same
company)
5. Try getting a hydrometer made by a different manufacturer and
see if it doesn't conform to the normal convention........

Just the ramblings of one old man. Easily ignored if they prove to be
wrong. HTH

Frederick

On Feb 4, 6:59 am, "frederick ploegman" wrote:
Jim

Please excuse me if I ramble. This one just keeps rattling around
in my head, nagging at me.

1. Both hydrometers were made by the same company.
2. No great revelations occured in 1983 that would justify such
a radical change.
3. What_did_ occur in that time frame was the UK converting
from IMP to Metric measure (IIRC ??)
4. I think maybe someone at that company screwed up the
conversion and it has taken 25 years for someone to come along
to discover that error. (remember, both were made by the same
company)
5. Try getting a hydrometer made by a different manufacturer and
see if it doesn't conform to the normal convention........

Just the ramblings of one old man. Easily ignored if they prove to be
wrong. HTH

Frederick

Hi Frederick.

It occurs to me that you have hit the nail on the head! I have tried
to get another brand of hydrometer - because I wanted one that matched
the common US interpretations but none of the 4 shops on the high
street and online sell one by a different manufacturer. I may be able
to source one online. I will have a crack at getting a 360 view of
the current hydrometer and will scan in my current to show the clear
variation.

I feel certain that if more people in the UK went by PA rather than SG
they would have modified their markings years ago

Thanks again for the rationale!

Jim

http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/8186/master2nb8.jpg

OK, I have taken some new shots of the new hydrometer (on the right)
and scanned and laid the old hydrometer (on the left) as best as I can
fit it to the same markings. There are a couple of inconsistencies
with what I said before I th ink. Firstly the old hydrometer is from
1973 (the second being 1983) and second the calibration temperature on
the old hydrometer is 21C (70F) whereas on the new hydrometer it is
20C (68F).

You can see that by the time you are over 1.090 the scales differ
greatly. Also the PA interpretation is rather different. Fair
enough, as Luc reiterated there are many ways of interpreting PA.
However, interesting that one company would change its interpretation,
scale and calibration. It would make sense that it was due to
computational differences as the UK moved from Imperial to Metric.
This has interested me for a long time!

Hope that provides some food for thought either way Frederick.

Regards, Jim

p.s. I decided to scale the old hydrometer size to match the new
one. At first I scaled so that 0.090 matched and 1.20 matched. Then
decided that it was more likely that the inconsistencies between the
two hydrometers would arise at greater extremes of density/PA so I
scaled to match as many SG graduations as I could. If I have
introduced greater error in the process this should be noted.

"jim" wrote in message
...
http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/8186/master2nb8.jpg

OK, I have taken some new shots of the new hydrometer (on the right)
and scanned and laid the old hydrometer (on the left) as best as I can
fit it to the same markings. There are a couple of inconsistencies
with what I said before I th ink. Firstly the old hydrometer is from
1973 (the second being 1983) and second the calibration temperature on
the old hydrometer is 21C (70F) whereas on the new hydrometer it is
20C (68F).

You can see that by the time you are over 1.090 the scales differ
greatly. Also the PA interpretation is rather different. Fair
enough, as Luc reiterated there are many ways of interpreting PA.
However, interesting that one company would change its interpretation,
scale and calibration. It would make sense that it was due to
computational differences as the UK moved from Imperial to Metric.
This has interested me for a long time!

Hope that provides some food for thought either way Frederick.

Regards, Jim

p.s. I decided to scale the old hydrometer size to match the new
one. At first I scaled so that 0.090 matched and 1.20 matched. Then
decided that it was more likely that the inconsistencies between the
two hydrometers would arise at greater extremes of density/PA so I
scaled to match as many SG graduations as I could. If I have
introduced greater error in the process this should be noted.

The old one conforms to the normal convention that I have always
used. Seems the problem with the new one lies in the "Approximate
Sugar" column. And, since PA is based on the estimate of sugar,
the PA column is also wrong. Guess you could use the new one
to take SG readings and then use the old chart to work from.
Seems to me that it would just be easier to get a hydrometer from
another manufacturer though. HTH

Frederick

On Feb 4, 8:05 pm, "frederick ploegman" wrote:
"jim" wrote in message

...



http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/8186/master2nb8.jpg

OK, I have taken some new shots of the new hydrometer (on the right)
and scanned and laid the old hydrometer (on the left) as best as I can
fit it to the same markings. There are a couple of inconsistencies
with what I said before I th ink. Firstly the old hydrometer is from
1973 (the second being 1983) and second the calibration temperature on
the old hydrometer is 21C (70F) whereas on the new hydrometer it is
20C (68F).

You can see that by the time you are over 1.090 the scales differ
greatly. Also the PA interpretation is rather different. Fair
enough, as Luc reiterated there are many ways of interpreting PA.
However, interesting that one company would change its interpretation,
scale and calibration. It would make sense that it was due to
computational differences as the UK moved from Imperial to Metric.
This has interested me for a long time!

Hope that provides some food for thought either way Frederick.

Regards, Jim

p.s. I decided to scale the old hydrometer size to match the new
one. At first I scaled so that 0.090 matched and 1.20 matched. Then
decided that it was more likely that the inconsistencies between the
two hydrometers would arise at greater extremes of density/PA so I
scaled to match as many SG graduations as I could. If I have
introduced greater error in the process this should be noted.

The old one conforms to the normal convention that I have always
used. Seems the problem with the new one lies in the "Approximate
Sugar" column. And, since PA is based on the estimate of sugar,
the PA column is also wrong. Guess you could use the new one
to take SG readings and then use the old chart to work from.
Seems to me that it would just be easier to get a hydrometer from
another manufacturer though. HTH

Frederick

Yes very interesting...

I work from SG anyway so it doesn't make much odds, its just handy for
an 'at a glance' reference seeing as it is supposed to be a triple
scale! I found it interesting also that neither hydrometers are
marked below a PA of 5 anyway...

Thanks for having a think anyway Frederick, much obliged,

Jim

On Feb 4, 3:15 pm, jim wrote:
On Feb 4, 8:05 pm, "frederick ploegman" wrote:



"jim" wrote in message

...

http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/8186/master2nb8.jpg

OK, I have taken some new shots of the new hydrometer (on the right)
and scanned and laid the old hydrometer (on the left) as best as I can
fit it to the same markings. There are a couple of inconsistencies
with what I said before I th ink. Firstly the old hydrometer is from
1973 (the second being 1983) and second the calibration temperature on
the old hydrometer is 21C (70F) whereas on the new hydrometer it is
20C (68F).

You can see that by the time you are over 1.090 the scales differ
greatly. Also the PA interpretation is rather different. Fair
enough, as Luc reiterated there are many ways of interpreting PA.
However, interesting that one company would change its interpretation,
scale and calibration. It would make sense that it was due to
computational differences as the UK moved from Imperial to Metric.
This has interested me for a long time!

Hope that provides some food for thought either way Frederick.

Regards, Jim

p.s. I decided to scale the old hydrometer size to match the new
one. At first I scaled so that 0.090 matched and 1.20 matched. Then
decided that it was more likely that the inconsistencies between the
two hydrometers would arise at greater extremes of density/PA so I
scaled to match as many SG graduations as I could. If I have
introduced greater error in the process this should be noted.

The old one conforms to the normal convention that I have always
used. Seems the problem with the new one lies in the "Approximate
Sugar" column. And, since PA is based on the estimate of sugar,
the PA column is also wrong. Guess you could use the new one
to take SG readings and then use the old chart to work from.
Seems to me that it would just be easier to get a hydrometer from
another manufacturer though. HTH

Frederick

Yes very interesting...

I work from SG anyway so it doesn't make much odds, its just handy for
an 'at a glance' reference seeing as it is supposed to be a triple
scale! I found it interesting also that neither hydrometers are
marked below a PA of 5 anyway...

Thanks for having a think anyway Frederick, much obliged,

Jim

Jim,
I'm a metrologist but can't open those pictures, if you email them to
me I can give it a look; I used to calibrate hydrometers... I use
S.G. exclusively but it's a personal preference.

Joe

On Feb 6, 6:16*am, Joe Sallustio wrote:
On Feb 4, 3:15 pm, jim wrote:





On Feb 4, 8:05 pm, "frederick ploegman" wrote:

"jim" wrote in message

....

http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/8186/master2nb8.jpg

OK, I have taken some new shots of the new hydrometer (on the right)
and scanned and laid the old hydrometer (on the left) as best as I can
fit it to the same markings. *There are a couple of inconsistencies
with what I said before I th ink. *Firstly the old hydrometer is from
1973 (the second being 1983) and second the calibration temperature on
the old hydrometer is 21C (70F) whereas on the new hydrometer it is
20C (68F).

You can see that by the time you are over 1.090 the scales differ
greatly. *Also the PA interpretation is rather different. *Fair
enough, as Luc reiterated there are many ways of interpreting PA.
However, interesting that one company would change its interpretation,
scale and calibration. *It would make sense that it was due to
computational differences as the UK moved from Imperial to Metric.
This has interested me for a long time!

Hope that provides some food for thought either way Frederick.

Regards, Jim

p.s. *I decided to scale the old hydrometer size to match the new
one. *At first I scaled so that 0.090 matched and 1.20 matched. *Then
decided that it was more likely that the inconsistencies between the
two hydrometers would arise at greater extremes of density/PA so I
scaled to match as many SG graduations as I could. *If I have
introduced greater error in the process this should be noted.

The old one conforms to the normal convention that I have always
used. *Seems the problem with the new one lies in the "Approximate
Sugar" column. *And, since PA is based on the estimate of sugar,
the PA column is also wrong. *Guess you could use the new one
to take SG readings and then use the old chart to work from.
Seems to me that it would just be easier to get a hydrometer from
another manufacturer though. *HTH

* * * * Frederick

Yes very interesting...

I work from SG anyway so it doesn't make much odds, its just handy for
an 'at a glance' reference seeing as it is supposed to be a triple
scale! *I found it interesting also that neither hydrometers are
marked below a PA of 5 anyway...

Thanks for having a think anyway Frederick, much obliged,

Jim

Jim,
I'm a metrologist *but can't open those pictures, if you email them to
me I can give it a look; I used to calibrate hydrometers... *I use
S.G. exclusively but it's a personal preference.

Joe- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

In looking at this the scale makes no sense. I think it's V/W not V/V
as it's marked. I emialed the manufacturer's technical support to see
what equation they are using, Personally i would ignore this scale,
I think you are right on going with S.G.

Joe