Hi, I thought I had already posted this, but I hear no one else but me can see it so I post again.

I wonder if you can help me again?

I was talking SG / PA with the guy that turned me on to wine making and he had to correct me on what I thought I knew
about SG/PA.

Here is a shot of my hydrometer. I rotated it to show the markings for SG and PA and drew lines across as a visual
guide at each major graduation. Is my triple scale hydrometer wrong? It shows the 1.110 as being 'above 17%' etc as
you can see. How can a hydrometer be wrong? Or am I missing the point again...

http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/9...rometer7qj.jpg

Jim

Yes, that's incorrect. If the sg scale is right, then the PA scale
overestimates by about 2-2.5% at this level, it should be 14.5-15% or
so. I'd get a better hydrometer because if one scale is wrong to such a
degree, the other ones might be as well.

The PA scales are more trouble than anything else, once you get the
hang of things, just go by the sg or Brix scales.

Pp


On Jan 23, 9:12 am, "jim" > wrote:
> Hi, I thought I had already posted this, but I hear no one else but me can see it so I post again.
>
> I wonder if you can help me again?
>
> I was talking SG / PA with the guy that turned me on to wine making and he had to correct me on what I thought I knew
> about SG/PA.
>
> Here is a shot of my hydrometer. I rotated it to show the markings for SG and PA and drew lines across as a visual
> guide at each major graduation. Is my triple scale hydrometer wrong? It shows the 1.110 as being 'above 17%' etc as
> you can see. How can a hydrometer be wrong? Or am I missing the point again...
>
> http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/9...rometer7qj.jpg
>
> Jim

Wow, according to the paper scale in both my hydrometers, 1.110 = ~14%PA =
~24Brix. At 17% the SG corresponds to 1.130 -- on my scale. The two
instruments were purchased from different sources, about two years apart.
Also, the PA and Brix should both be zero at 1.000SG. Is it on your scale?


"jim" > wrote in message
...
> Hi, I thought I had already posted this, but I hear no one else but me can
> see it so I post again.
>
> I wonder if you can help me again?
>
> I was talking SG / PA with the guy that turned me on to wine making and he
> had to correct me on what I thought I knew
> about SG/PA.
>
> Here is a shot of my hydrometer. I rotated it to show the markings for SG
> and PA and drew lines across as a visual guide at each major graduation.
> Is my triple scale hydrometer wrong? It shows the 1.110 as being 'above
> 17%' etc as you can see. How can a hydrometer be wrong? Or am I missing
> the point again...
>
> http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/9...rometer7qj.jpg
>
> Jim
>
>

That is a bit odd. I wonder if the PA scale on that is calibrated for
alcohol by weight instead of volume? It can't be for beer; (beer does
not consume all of the dissolved solids but they expect that actually
and just subtract final gravity from original gravity to calculate
gross ABV). Maybe the Scots report alcohol in a method other than V/V?


Th PA scale in general is more trouble than it's ever been worth either
way as I see it.

Joe

> >http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/9...rometer7qj.jpg

It's definitely VV, but I did find 5 different ways of calculating PA and some scales weren't too far off what the
hydrometer said. I told the retailer about the problem and their reply was that they didn't use PA and it was better to
use SG.

I mostly go by SG, but if you buy a triple scale hydrometer, my view is that all the scales should be correct! Oh well,
I'll print out some other charts to have for quick reference...

Thanks all for your replies, Jim


"Joe Sallustio" > wrote in message ups.com...
> That is a bit odd. I wonder if the PA scale on that is calibrated for
> alcohol by weight instead of volume? It can't be for beer; (beer does
> not consume all of the dissolved solids but they expect that actually
> and just subtract final gravity from original gravity to calculate
> gross ABV). Maybe the Scots report alcohol in a method other than V/V?
>
>
> Th PA scale in general is more trouble than it's ever been worth either
> way as I see it.
>
> Joe
>
>> >http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/9...rometer7qj.jpg
>

On Jan 25, 7:28 am, "jim" > wrote:
> (SNIP)... I told the retailer about the problem and their reply was that they didn't use PA and it was better to use SG.
>
> I mostly go by SG, but if you buy a triple scale hydrometer, my view is that all the scales should be correct! Oh well,
> I'll print out some other charts to have for quick reference...

My view is that if all the scales should be correct, you should insist
on having the retailer provide you with triple scale hydrometer with
all the scales correct!

Guy

I agree totally, but stupidly its a trip right across town to a place I don't really use anymore. I suppose I am going
to continue to use it for its SG readings (which are the same as my other hydrometer) and buy a new one when I am at the
store I go to now. It would cost me as much money to take it back and get it returned for free as to buy a new one
annoyingly. The store won't pay return postage as they are basically saying that to all intents and purposes, the PA
scale is arbitary at best and pointless at worst - many here would probably agree.

They won't fess up and accept it is wrong and the copyright notice is from 1983. It must be right by someone's
reckoning or they would surely have changed it years ago. I am sure that there are many here who'd agree. Though I'd
have to say that I don't have enough experience or memory yet to judge the starting SG of a must and say "Oh yes, with
an OG of x and so much sugar, this wine will be y% at finishing without refering to charts. Seems like the internet
wins over my recent real world chart!

Jim

"guy" > wrote in message ups.com...
>
>
> On Jan 25, 7:28 am, "jim" > wrote:
>> (SNIP)... I told the retailer about the problem and their reply was that they didn't use PA and it was better to use
>> SG.
>>
>> I mostly go by SG, but if you buy a triple scale hydrometer, my view is that all the scales should be correct! Oh
>> well,
>> I'll print out some other charts to have for quick reference...
>
> My view is that if all the scales should be correct, you should insist
> on having the retailer provide you with triple scale hydrometer with
> all the scales correct!
>
> Guy
>

It really isn't worth the effort, the hydrometer is clearly marked as
reading PA in V/V and is also clearly wrong for what you intend it for.
It must be ignoring the non sugar solids or something silly like that
but it would clearly overestimate your alcohol content so should be
ignored. If you want a lot of detail on these scales see Pgs 193-195
of Principles and Practices of Winemaking by Boulten et al. (I looked
at it an after reviewing your jpeg I have no idea what the maker was
thinking on this scale but maybe you will have better success).

More important than anything, check zero by placing the hydrometer in
20 C distilled water; see if it reads 1.000. If not, either pitch it
or compensate, but keep in mind the SG scale is only roughly linear.

You could contact the MFG, I'm sure they have a good reason for using
that curve. The Scots are very good instrument makers. Those scales
have not really changed for at least 60 years; no one considers
hydrometry a very precise measure of alcohol content given the advances
in other methods.

Joe

Cheers Joe, sounds like a good idea!

Jim

"Joe Sallustio" > wrote in message oups.com...
>
>
> It really isn't worth the effort, the hydrometer is clearly marked as
> reading PA in V/V and is also clearly wrong for what you intend it for.
> It must be ignoring the non sugar solids or something silly like that
> but it would clearly overestimate your alcohol content so should be
> ignored. If you want a lot of detail on these scales see Pgs 193-195
> of Principles and Practices of Winemaking by Boulten et al. (I looked
> at it an after reviewing your jpeg I have no idea what the maker was
> thinking on this scale but maybe you will have better success).
>
> More important than anything, check zero by placing the hydrometer in
> 20 C distilled water; see if it reads 1.000. If not, either pitch it
> or compensate, but keep in mind the SG scale is only roughly linear.
>
> You could contact the MFG, I'm sure they have a good reason for using
> that curve. The Scots are very good instrument makers. Those scales
> have not really changed for at least 60 years; no one considers
> hydrometry a very precise measure of alcohol content given the advances
> in other methods.
>
> Joe
>

This whole thread seems to be full of nonsense. It's a printing error
plain and simple. Probably another example of "out sourcing". ;o)
Throw it away.

Like Joe said, the hydrometer scales haven't changed in living memory.
Seems a pretty good indication that they got it right the first time !! And
it still provides the best available information for general purpose
winemaking.

Those that work only with grapes will tell you that all you need is a single
scale (Brix) hydrometer, and for them this is true. And those that work
only with kits and fixed recipes will tell you that all you need is SG, and
for them this is also true (in most cases) because that is what is most
often used in the instructions that come with kits/fixed recipes. But
anyone that works with"country" wines knows that a triple scale
hydrometer and a sugar table are indispensible tools of the craft !!
And PA is where you most often _start_ when designing your own
recipes !!

It shouldn't surprise anyone that the internet is full of misinformation.
Or that many of the books on the subject also have errors. Makes it
hard for begginers to sort thru all this stuff and make sense of it all....

Get yourself a standard hydrometer. Find a hydrometer/sugar table that
agrees with your hydrometer, and you are well on your way to learning
about winemaking. HTH

Frederick


"jim" > wrote in message
...
> Cheers Joe, sounds like a good idea!
>
> Jim
>
> "Joe Sallustio" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>
>>
>> It really isn't worth the effort, the hydrometer is clearly marked as
>> reading PA in V/V and is also clearly wrong for what you intend it for.
>> It must be ignoring the non sugar solids or something silly like that
>> but it would clearly overestimate your alcohol content so should be
>> ignored. If you want a lot of detail on these scales see Pgs 193-195
>> of Principles and Practices of Winemaking by Boulten et al. (I looked
>> at it an after reviewing your jpeg I have no idea what the maker was
>> thinking on this scale but maybe you will have better success).
>>
>> More important than anything, check zero by placing the hydrometer in
>> 20 C distilled water; see if it reads 1.000. If not, either pitch it
>> or compensate, but keep in mind the SG scale is only roughly linear.
>>
>> You could contact the MFG, I'm sure they have a good reason for using
>> that curve. The Scots are very good instrument makers. Those scales
>> have not really changed for at least 60 years; no one considers
>> hydrometry a very precise measure of alcohol content given the advances
>> in other methods.
>>
>> Joe
>>
>
>

I found 5 different ways PA calculations he http://www.brsquared.org/wine/CalcInfo/HydSugAl.htm
Thanks for your commments though.
Jim

"frederick ploegman" > wrote in message ...
> This whole thread seems to be full of nonsense. It's a printing error
> plain and simple. Probably another example of "out sourcing". ;o)
> Throw it away.
>
> Like Joe said, the hydrometer scales haven't changed in living memory.
> Seems a pretty good indication that they got it right the first time !! And
> it still provides the best available information for general purpose
> winemaking.
>
> Those that work only with grapes will tell you that all you need is a single
> scale (Brix) hydrometer, and for them this is true. And those that work
> only with kits and fixed recipes will tell you that all you need is SG, and
> for them this is also true (in most cases) because that is what is most
> often used in the instructions that come with kits/fixed recipes. But
> anyone that works with"country" wines knows that a triple scale
> hydrometer and a sugar table are indispensible tools of the craft !!
> And PA is where you most often _start_ when designing your own
> recipes !!
>
> It shouldn't surprise anyone that the internet is full of misinformation.
> Or that many of the books on the subject also have errors. Makes it
> hard for begginers to sort thru all this stuff and make sense of it all....
>
> Get yourself a standard hydrometer. Find a hydrometer/sugar table that
> agrees with your hydrometer, and you are well on your way to learning
> about winemaking. HTH
>
> Frederick
>
>
> "jim" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Cheers Joe, sounds like a good idea!
>>
>> Jim
>>
>> "Joe Sallustio" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>>
>>>
>>> It really isn't worth the effort, the hydrometer is clearly marked as
>>> reading PA in V/V and is also clearly wrong for what you intend it for.
>>> It must be ignoring the non sugar solids or something silly like that
>>> but it would clearly overestimate your alcohol content so should be
>>> ignored. If you want a lot of detail on these scales see Pgs 193-195
>>> of Principles and Practices of Winemaking by Boulten et al. (I looked
>>> at it an after reviewing your jpeg I have no idea what the maker was
>>> thinking on this scale but maybe you will have better success).
>>>
>>> More important than anything, check zero by placing the hydrometer in
>>> 20 C distilled water; see if it reads 1.000. If not, either pitch it
>>> or compensate, but keep in mind the SG scale is only roughly linear.
>>>
>>> You could contact the MFG, I'm sure they have a good reason for using
>>> that curve. The Scots are very good instrument makers. Those scales
>>> have not really changed for at least 60 years; no one considers
>>> hydrometry a very precise measure of alcohol content given the advances
>>> in other methods.
>>>
>>> Joe
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

> I found 5 different ways PA calculations hehttp://www.brsquared.org/wine/CalcInfo/HydSugAl.htm
> Thanks for your comments though.

Jim,
That is a very good reference, Ben is very well informed. Those
references I was talking about in 'Principles and Practices of
Winemaking' are very similar to what Ben describes. The reason I
mentioned 60 years was that one of the last good references written (in
the US) was by Bates called Polarimetry, Saccharimetry and the Sugars
in 1943 or so. NIST still used that reference to calibrate hydrometers
last time I checked. I got a used copy (because I'm a geek and had to
know...)

Joe.

Thanks Joe, your input helps validate another source of information for me. I'm not after n'th degrees here, just a
reasonable 'likely PA' to help me make easy decisions. I will indeed be after a hydrometer which matches some published
scales at least. The SG readings make the grade thankfully for now.

That just leaves me claculating residual sugar in my cranberry-currant wine which is looking dangerously high this close
to transfer to secondary at 1060 with two days to go (out of 7 projected at 20C or so) at an average temperature of 21C
.. Damn my attempts to convert and scale up US Pints to UK litres from a 1 - 6 gallon (US quantities) My maths will let
me down even ifmy hydrometer doesn't.

As Terry Garey tells me, 'time is on your side'! A good job, since this newbie in the UK is wishing that they bought a
triple scale hydrometer at the other shop... Seriously, thanks to everyone who replies as well as reads (and without
prejudice) you help a very new winemaker to learn by his mistakes...

Jim

"Joe Sallustio" > wrote in message ups.com...
>> I found 5 different ways PA calculations hehttp://www.brsquared.org/wine/CalcInfo/HydSugAl.htm
>> Thanks for your comments though.
>
> Jim,
> That is a very good reference, Ben is very well informed. Those
> references I was talking about in 'Principles and Practices of
> Winemaking' are very similar to what Ben describes. The reason I
> mentioned 60 years was that one of the last good references written (in
> the US) was by Bates called Polarimetry, Saccharimetry and the Sugars
> in 1943 or so. NIST still used that reference to calibrate hydrometers
> last time I checked. I got a used copy (because I'm a geek and had to
> know...)
>
> Joe.
>

> That just leaves me calculating residual sugar in my cranberry-currant wine which is looking dangerously high this close
> to transfer to secondary at 1060 with two days to go (out of 7 projected at 20C or so) at an average temperature of 21C
> . Damn my attempts to convert and scale up US Pints to UK litres from a 1 - 6 gallon (US quantities) My maths will let
> me down even if my hydrometer doesn't.
>
Hi Jim,
Well, it turns out I'm a metrologist so I can help with those
conversions. To begin, throw out logic as to why there are two
different gallons.

1 US gallon = 128 US ounces
1 US gallon = 4 quarts or 8 pints.
5 UK (Imperial) gallons = 6 US gallons.

metric conversions:
1 US ounce = 29.6 ml
I US gallon = 3.785 litres

I would suggest you not transfer that wine until the ferment slows
considerably, at 1.060 you still have a lot of sugar in there. To be
honest I never understood this step unless the goal is to get the wine
'more' protected from oxidation by transferring it to a better sealed
container as the fermentation slows down. I ferment in pails and
carboys; whites go into the carboy sooner for me for that reason.

Joe

Jim wrote "I'm not after n'th degrees here, just a reasonable 'likely PA' to
help me make easy decisions."

Jim, if you just want a reasonable alcohol prediction here's a pretty simple
approach. These equations assume a wine ferments to dryness. Even though a
hydrometer will display a negative number for a dry wine, I assume the end
point is 1.000 because you can't ferment anything that wasn't there in the
first place. And, the negative hydrometer reading for a wine at dryness is
due to the influence of alcohol. By using only the starting specific gravity
value there is no influence of alcohol. Therefore, I use the difference
between starting specific gravity and 1.000 in the calculation.

Alcohol By Volume Calculation
Reference; "Homebrewing, Volume 1", by Al Korzonas, pg 31
og = original specific gravity
fg = final specific gravity (in the case of wine 1.000)

Calculation of alcohol by weight;
%ABW = (og - fg) x 105

Calculation of alcohol by volume;
%ABV = %ABW x 1.25

Combined method for %ABV;
%ABV = (og - fg) x 131.25

It's simple to set up the "Combined method for %ABV" equation in a
spreadsheet...then just plug in the starting specific gravity and get your
answer. All you need is a hydrometer that reads in specific gravity...no
charts, no tables.

Bill Frazier
Olathe, Kansas USA







I will indeed be after a hydrometer which matches some published
> scales at least. The SG readings make the grade thankfully for now.
>
> That just leaves me claculating residual sugar in my cranberry-currant
> wine which is looking dangerously high this close to transfer to secondary
> at 1060 with two days to go (out of 7 projected at 20C or so) at an
> average temperature of 21C . Damn my attempts to convert and scale up US
> Pints to UK litres from a 1 - 6 gallon (US quantities) My maths will let
> me down even ifmy hydrometer doesn't.
>
> As Terry Garey tells me, 'time is on your side'! A good job, since this
> newbie in the UK is wishing that they bought a triple scale hydrometer at
> the other shop... Seriously, thanks to everyone who replies as well as
> reads (and without prejudice) you help a very new winemaker to learn by
> his mistakes...
>
> Jim
>
> "Joe Sallustio" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>>> I found 5 different ways PA calculations
>>> hehttp://www.brsquared.org/wine/CalcInfo/HydSugAl.htm
>>> Thanks for your comments though.
>>
>> Jim,
>> That is a very good reference, Ben is very well informed. Those
>> references I was talking about in 'Principles and Practices of
>> Winemaking' are very similar to what Ben describes. The reason I
>> mentioned 60 years was that one of the last good references written (in
>> the US) was by Bates called Polarimetry, Saccharimetry and the Sugars
>> in 1943 or so. NIST still used that reference to calibrate hydrometers
>> last time I checked. I got a used copy (because I'm a geek and had to
>> know...)
>>
>> Joe.
>>
>
>

On Jan 27, 11:14 am, "William Frazier" >
wrote:
(SNIP) Calculation of alcohol by volume;
> %ABV = %ABW x 1.25 (SNIP)

Bill, You will have to explain this solution!

Guy

guy wrote "Calculation of alcohol by volume;
%ABV = %ABW x 1.25 ~Bill, You will have to explain this solution!"

Guy- The equations I use for estimating alcohol in beer and wine come from
homebrewing books. All of the books listed below have essentially the same
eqauations;

"Homebrewing, Volume 1" by Al Korzonas
"New Brewing Lager Beer" by Greg Noonan
"The New Complete Joy of Home Brewing" by Charlie Papazian

There is an extensive table in the "Handbood of Chemistry and Physics", 40th
edition, that gives water/alcohol content in %W/W and %V/V. We're
interested, for winemaking purposes, in alcohol from about 7 to 20%. In
this range if you divide the alcohol %V/V values by the alcohol %W/W values
you get a factor that ranges from 1.230. to 1.247. The values in these old
(I used my copy while in college in the 60s) texts were derived empirically
and probably are the basis for the 1.25 values used in the alcohol
calculation equations.

Bill Frazier
Olathe, Kansas USA

Bill:

Do you adjust the calculated PA value for wines with residual sugar?
E.g.,. if the starting sg is 1.090 and final sg is 1.000, do you get
the same result as if the final sg is 0.992? The reason I'm asking is
I'm not sure this formula is meant to be used by ignoring the fg
values under 1.000.

Pp

On Jan 27, 8:14 am, "William Frazier" >
wrote:
> Jim wrote "I'm not after n'th degrees here, just a reasonable 'likely PA' to
> help me make easy decisions."
>
> Jim, if you just want a reasonable alcohol prediction here's a pretty simple
> approach. These equations assume a wine ferments to dryness. Even though a
> hydrometer will display a negative number for a dry wine, I assume the end
> point is 1.000 because you can't ferment anything that wasn't there in the
> first place. And, the negative hydrometer reading for a wine at dryness is
> due to the influence of alcohol. By using only the starting specific gravity
> value there is no influence of alcohol. Therefore, I use the difference
> between starting specific gravity and 1.000 in the calculation.
>
> Alcohol By Volume Calculation
> Reference; "Homebrewing, Volume 1", by Al Korzonas, pg 31
> og = original specific gravity
> fg = final specific gravity (in the case of wine 1.000)
>
> Calculation of alcohol by weight;
> %ABW = (og - fg) x 105
>
> Calculation of alcohol by volume;
> %ABV = %ABW x 1.25
>
> Combined method for %ABV;
> %ABV = (og - fg) x 131.25
>
> It's simple to set up the "Combined method for %ABV" equation in a
> spreadsheet...then just plug in the starting specific gravity and get your
> answer. All you need is a hydrometer that reads in specific gravity...no
> charts, no tables.
>
> Bill Frazier
> Olathe, Kansas USA
>
> I will indeed be after a hydrometer which matches some published
>
>
>
> > scales at least. The SG readings make the grade thankfully for now.
>
> > That just leaves me claculating residual sugar in my cranberry-currant
> > wine which is looking dangerously high this close to transfer to secondary
> > at 1060 with two days to go (out of 7 projected at 20C or so) at an
> > average temperature of 21C . Damn my attempts to convert and scale up US
> > Pints to UK litres from a 1 - 6 gallon (US quantities) My maths will let
> > me down even ifmy hydrometer doesn't.
>
> > As Terry Garey tells me, 'time is on your side'! A good job, since this
> > newbie in the UK is wishing that they bought a triple scale hydrometer at
> > the other shop... Seriously, thanks to everyone who replies as well as
> > reads (and without prejudice) you help a very new winemaker to learn by
> > his mistakes...
>
> > Jim
>
> > "Joe Sallustio" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >>> I found 5 different ways PA calculations
> >>> hehttp://www.brsquared.org/wine/CalcInfo/HydSugAl.htm
> >>> Thanks for your comments though.
>
> >> Jim,
> >> That is a very good reference, Ben is very well informed. Those
> >> references I was talking about in 'Principles and Practices of
> >> Winemaking' are very similar to what Ben describes. The reason I
> >> mentioned 60 years was that one of the last good references written (in
> >> the US) was by Bates called Polarimetry, Saccharimetry and the Sugars
> >> in 1943 or so. NIST still used that reference to calibrate hydrometers
> >> last time I checked. I got a used copy (because I'm a geek and had to
> >> know...)
>
> >> Joe.- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -

Pp - I ferment almost all wine to dryness. I use the 1.000 FG value to
calculate alcohol because, in my mind, when all fermentables are consummed
by yeast, there is nothing left to cause the specific gravity to be greater
than 1.000. And, this is just an approximation so I have an alcohol content
to put on my labels. Of course, the alcohol that is present causes the
actual FG to be below 1.000. If you use the actual FG on your wine label
you don't really know how much sugar is in the wine because the FG is
affected by alcohol. When I back sweeten I put the amount I've added on the
label. All just for infomation so I can discuss the wines at wine club
meetings or with people I give wine to as a present.

When I use the equation in beer making the alcohol content value is less
meaninfgul...the FG for beer always ends up greater than 1.000. I still run
the calculation just to have an approximate value for the label.

Bill Frazier
Olathe, Kansas USA


"pp" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Bill:
>
> Do you adjust the calculated PA value for wines with residual sugar?
> E.g.,. if the starting sg is 1.090 and final sg is 1.000, do you get
> the same result as if the final sg is 0.992? The reason I'm asking is
> I'm not sure this formula is meant to be used by ignoring the fg
> values under 1.000.
>
> Pp

"jim" > wrote in message
...

>I found 5 different ways PA calculations he
>http://www.brsquared.org/wine/CalcInfo/HydSugAl.htm
> Thanks for your commments though.
> Jim
>

Conspicuous by their absence are the _standard_ scales and charts.
So, even as a purely intellectual exercise, it lacks any point of
reference. And it only serves to confuse the beginner just as it has
done you. Your friend saw right away that your hydrometer wasn't
standard. Listen to your friend. HTH

As always, just one man's personal opinion.......

Frederick

Oh I almost invariably do

Thanks, Jim

"frederick ploegman" > wrote in message ...
>
> "jim" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>I found 5 different ways PA calculations he
>>http://www.brsquared.org/wine/CalcInfo/HydSugAl.htm
>> Thanks for your commments though.
>> Jim
>>
>
> Conspicuous by their absence are the _standard_ scales and charts.
> So, even as a purely intellectual exercise, it lacks any point of
> reference. And it only serves to confuse the beginner just as it has
> done you. Your friend saw right away that your hydrometer wasn't
> standard. Listen to your friend. HTH
>
> As always, just one man's personal opinion.......
>
> Frederick
>
>
>
>