Can't seem to find my UC Davis link. Could one of you post it here
for us please ?? TIA

Frederick

http://www.universityextension.ucdav...king/index.asp

Guy
"frederick ploegman" a écrit dans le message de
news: ...
Can't seem to find my UC Davis link. Could one of you post it here
for us please ?? TIA

Frederick

http://www.universityextension.ucdav...king/index.asp

Guy
"frederick ploegman" a écrit dans le message de
news: ...
Can't seem to find my UC Davis link. Could one of you post it here
for us please ?? TIA

Frederick

Guy Therrien wrote:
http://www.universityextension.ucdav...king/index.asp

Guy
"frederick ploegman" a =E9crit dans le message
de
news: ...
Can't seem to find my UC Davis link. Could one of you post it here
for us please ?? TIA

Frederick


Sorry, but I can't find the link to the better material, only this:

http://wineserver.ucdavis.edu/WineGrape/Homewine/

which is their home winemaker manual. I don't think it has anywhere
near as much technical information as the course material.=20


Andy

Guy Therrien wrote:
http://www.universityextension.ucdav...king/index.asp

Guy
"frederick ploegman" a =E9crit dans le message
de
news: ...
Can't seem to find my UC Davis link. Could one of you post it here
for us please ?? TIA

Frederick


Sorry, but I can't find the link to the better material, only this:

http://wineserver.ucdavis.edu/WineGrape/Homewine/

which is their home winemaker manual. I don't think it has anywhere
near as much technical information as the course material.=20


Andy

I see some have already given it too you. In the future you can find it on
the left side of the page on Jack Keller's Wine Blog. Might be a convenient
place to remember it.

Ray

"frederick ploegman" wrote in message
...
Can't seem to find my UC Davis link. Could one of you post it here
for us please ?? TIA

Frederick

I see some have already given it too you. In the future you can find it on
the left side of the page on Jack Keller's Wine Blog. Might be a convenient
place to remember it.

Ray

"frederick ploegman" wrote in message
...
Can't seem to find my UC Davis link. Could one of you post it here
for us please ?? TIA

Frederick

I see some have already given it too you. In the future you can find it on
the left side of the page on Jack Keller's Wine Blog. Might be a convenient
place to remember it.

Ray

"frederick ploegman" wrote in message
...
Can't seem to find my UC Davis link. Could one of you post it here
for us please ?? TIA

Frederick

Ray Calvert wrote:
I see some have already given it too you. In the future you can find
it on
the left side of the page on Jack Keller's Wine Blog. Might be a
convenient
place to remember it.

Ray


That's just their home winemaker manual. It's not the course material
they had around there somewhere.
Frederick,

I wonder if they took it off their site.

Andy

"JEP62" wrote in message
ps.com...

Ray Calvert wrote:
I see some have already given it too you. In the future you can find
it on
the left side of the page on Jack Keller's Wine Blog. Might be a
convenient
place to remember it.

Ray


That's just their home winemaker manual. It's not the course material
they had around there somewhere.
Frederick,

I wonder if they took it off their site.

Andy

Probably since the sell their course now. I understand it is quite pricy.

Ray

Here is the one I was referring to:

http://wineserver.ucdavis.edu/oldsite/MTWAH.pdf

Not very detailed but it does show how they arrive at PA. (see
second to the last para on page 10 for an example) I don't seem
able to find the more detailed material any more. Sorry.

Frederick

"frederick ploegman" wrote in message
...
Can't seem to find my UC Davis link. Could one of you post it here
for us please ?? TIA

Frederick

Frederick:

Ok, thanks, that's good enough. The discussion there makes sense, I've
got no problem with what they're saying, apart from the fact that the 2
constants they use (0.59 multiplication factor and 3 B subtraction for
solids) are not supported by clear references - I've seen other numbers
in different formulas.

One point, though - this is not what the hydrometer scale is based on.
Hydrometer PA scale is linear (as a function of B or sg), but their
formula isn't because B is multiplied by sg, so in higher B ranges, 1 B
drop in the scale gives more alcohol then in lower B ranges. I'm
bringing this up because I'd really like to know what the hydrometer
scale is based on - maybe it is derived from lots of research data, as
you suggested, but it's not this research.

Pp

frederick ploegman wrote:
Here is the one I was referring to:

http://wineserver.ucdavis.edu/oldsite/MTWAH.pdf

Not very detailed but it does show how they arrive at PA. (see
second to the last para on page 10 for an example) I don't seem
able to find the more detailed material any more. Sorry.

Frederick

"frederick ploegman" wrote in message
...
Can't seem to find my UC Davis link. Could one of you post it here
for us please ?? TIA

Frederick

Frederick:

Ok, thanks, that's good enough. The discussion there makes sense, I've
got no problem with what they're saying, apart from the fact that the 2
constants they use (0.59 multiplication factor and 3 B subtraction for
solids) are not supported by clear references - I've seen other numbers
in different formulas.

One point, though - this is not what the hydrometer scale is based on.
Hydrometer PA scale is linear (as a function of B or sg), but their
formula isn't because B is multiplied by sg, so in higher B ranges, 1 B
drop in the scale gives more alcohol then in lower B ranges. I'm
bringing this up because I'd really like to know what the hydrometer
scale is based on - maybe it is derived from lots of research data, as
you suggested, but it's not this research.

Pp

frederick ploegman wrote:
Here is the one I was referring to:

http://wineserver.ucdavis.edu/oldsite/MTWAH.pdf

Not very detailed but it does show how they arrive at PA. (see
second to the last para on page 10 for an example) I don't seem
able to find the more detailed material any more. Sorry.

Frederick

"frederick ploegman" wrote in message
...
Can't seem to find my UC Davis link. Could one of you post it here
for us please ?? TIA

Frederick

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

"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