"Joe Sallustio" wrote in message
ups.com...
See NBS Circular C 440, Polarimetery, Saccharimetery and the Sugars by
Bates et. al, Table 109. Keep in mind it's a pretty sterile enviroment
they were working in; pure sucrose was used for the hydrometry values,
that's why it's so precise. They used modulus 145 for the Baume
values, which is ofte called PA.

The reason everyones PA values differ is it's just a SWAG, it doesn't
mean much. It's all ballpark since there are too many variables.
Dissolved solids in the must and fermentation temperature affect
alcohol content. Even the relative humidity barrel aging occurs at
affects the volume of alcohol remaining.

The values just get you in the ballpark, it seems they were never meant
to be used as anything other than a place to start from.

Joe


Not exactly correct. The tables are actually different and meant to be used
differently. There are several different tables based on different
assumptions. You really need to understand the original table to use it.
This is explained in "The Unified Theory of Gravity", Wine Maker Mag.,
April-May 2004, Vol. 7, No. 2. If the tables are applied correctly, as the
original authors intended, they all give the same or very similar results.
Fred and I do not agree on those results but that is another story. He does
not agree with the way Berry, Duncan, Acton, and many of the other original
authors do their calculations. At least you can make published tables yield
similar results so they are not as ball park is it may seam.

Ray