Brix vs SG
 

Being a Newbie, I have thousands of questions.

Right now my question is about measuring sugar.

I understand SG, how to use a Hydrometer, and how to calculate ABV.

I also understand the BRIX to SG relationships. Brix=261.3*(1 - 1/
sg),

But degrees Brix and SG seem to accomplish much the same tasks. They
both seem to be methods for measuring sugar in suspension in liquid.
And from this, you can calculate several things, and you can time
various winemaking steps.

As a new winemaker, my instinct says to learn to both methods of
measurement and both scales, but to be honest, i don't know why. While
a hydrometer reads SG and a refractometer reads degrees Brix, to me,
they are both indicators of the same thing.

So, what method should i use?

Brix vs SG
 

Wayne Harris > wrote:
> Being a Newbie, I have thousands of questions.
>
> Right now my question is about measuring sugar.
>
> I understand SG, how to use a Hydrometer, and how to calculate ABV.
>
> I also understand the BRIX to SG relationships.
> Brix=261.3*(1 - 1/sg),
>
>....
>
> So, what method should i use?

I don't know which method you should use. I do know
that I make Mead and need to know the Brix of various
ingredients so that I can estimate OG which I measure
with a hydrometer.

One day digital hydrometers will be available so
inexpensively that there will be a hydrometer on
every fermenter.

Dick

Brix vs SG
 

FWIW: I use a refractometer in the vineyard to get a reading of sugars.
At harvest, I use both a refractometer and a hydrometer and adjust both
for temperature. If there is much discrepancy I do it all over again
and try to figure out why. From then on, I use only the hydrometer.


On 2008-01-30 17:21:05 -0800, Wayne Harris > said:

> Being a Newbie, I have thousands of questions.
>
> Right now my question is about measuring sugar.
>
> I understand SG, how to use a Hydrometer, and how to calculate ABV.
>
> I also understand the BRIX to SG relationships. Brix=261.3*(1 - 1/
> sg),
>
> But degrees Brix and SG seem to accomplish much the same tasks. They
> both seem to be methods for measuring sugar in suspension in liquid.
> And from this, you can calculate several things, and you can time
> various winemaking steps.
>
> As a new winemaker, my instinct says to learn to both methods of
> measurement and both scales, but to be honest, i don't know why. While
> a hydrometer reads SG and a refractometer reads degrees Brix, to me,
> they are both indicators of the same thing.
>
> So, what method should i use?

Brix vs SG
 

On Jan 30, 5:21*pm, Wayne Harris > wrote:
> Being a Newbie, *I have thousands of questions.
>
> Right now my question is about measuring sugar.
>
> I understand SG, how to use a Hydrometer, and how to calculate ABV.
>
> I also understand the BRIX to SG relationships. *Brix=261.3*(1 - 1/
> sg),
>
> But degrees Brix and SG seem to accomplish much the same tasks. They
> both seem to be methods for measuring sugar in suspension in liquid.
> And from this, you can calculate several things, and you can time
> various winemaking steps.
>
> As a new winemaker, *my instinct says to learn to both methods of
> measurement and both scales, but to be honest, i don't know why. While
> a hydrometer reads SG and a refractometer reads degrees Brix, to me,
> they are both indicators of the same thing.
>
> So, what method should i use?

You can use any method you prefer. There are others apart from Brix
and SG, for example, Baume and Oechsle, but they all do pretty much
the same thing. Practically, you might have to translate from one
scale to another at times, but you can use an inexpensive triple scale
hydrometer for that.

One thing though - you can't use the Brix scale on a refractometer
directly to measure the progress of fermentation because alcohol
skewes the values. Use the hydrometer for that purpose.

Pp

Brix vs SG
 

On Jan 31, 5:54 pm, pp > wrote:
> On Jan 30, 5:21 pm, Wayne Harris > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Being a Newbie, I have thousands of questions.
>
> > Right now my question is about measuring sugar.
>
> > I understand SG, how to use a Hydrometer, and how to calculate ABV.
>
> > I also understand the BRIX to SG relationships. Brix=261.3*(1 - 1/
> > sg),
>
> > But degrees Brix and SG seem to accomplish much the same tasks. They
> > both seem to be methods for measuring sugar in suspension in liquid.
> > And from this, you can calculate several things, and you can time
> > various winemaking steps.
>
> > As a new winemaker, my instinct says to learn to both methods of
> > measurement and both scales, but to be honest, i don't know why. While
> > a hydrometer reads SG and a refractometer reads degrees Brix, to me,
> > they are both indicators of the same thing.
>
> > So, what method should i use?
>
> You can use any method you prefer. There are others apart from Brix
> and SG, for example, Baume and Oechsle, but they all do pretty much
> the same thing. Practically, you might have to translate from one
> scale to another at times, but you can use an inexpensive triple scale
> hydrometer for that.
>
> One thing though - you can't use the Brix scale on a refractometer
> directly to measure the progress of fermentation because alcohol
> skewes the values. Use the hydrometer for that purpose.
>
> Pp

Unless you are in the UK where triple scale hydrometers made after
1983 seem to feature a different version of PA to anyone elses heh
heh...

Brix vs SG
 

"Wayne Harris" > wrote in message
...
> Being a Newbie, I have thousands of questions.
>
> Right now my question is about measuring sugar.
>
> I understand SG, how to use a Hydrometer, and how to calculate ABV.
>
> I also understand the BRIX to SG relationships. Brix=261.3*(1 - 1/
> sg),
>
> But degrees Brix and SG seem to accomplish much the same tasks. They
> both seem to be methods for measuring sugar in suspension in liquid.
> And from this, you can calculate several things, and you can time
> various winemaking steps.
>
> As a new winemaker, my instinct says to learn to both methods of
> measurement and both scales, but to be honest, i don't know why. While
> a hydrometer reads SG and a refractometer reads degrees Brix, to me,
> they are both indicators of the same thing.
>
> So, what method should i use?

Wayne

Hmmmm. First. Refractometers are the preferred tool of grape
growers and grape buyers when the_only_requirement is to
evaluate the sugar content of grapes. For everything else hydrometers
are used.

As to Brix vs SG, it's not a matter of one or the other but rather
a progression. SG is used to estimate sugars. This estimate of
sugar is then expressed using Brix as the unit of measure. Make
sense ?? Thereafter, _ALL_ calculations are based on this estimate
of sugar. Folks who work mostly with grapes usually prefer to do
their calculations using Brix as their unit of measure while others
often prefer to use SG. It's mostly a matter of choice.

Home winemakers and those who work with non grape wines
mostly prefer to work with mulit-scale hydrometers because most
of the calculations were done for us when they calibrated these
hydrometers. IOW - there is no need to calculate Brix because
there is already a Brix scale on the hydrometer. And there is no
need to calculate PA because there is already a scale for this on
the hydrometer. This makes it all very easy. And it makes it easy
to understand the relationships between these things by simply
cross referencing back and forth between the scales without
having to do all the calculations and then comparing the results.

HTMS

Frederick

Brix vs SG
 

"jim" > wrote in message
...
> On Jan 31, 5:54 pm, pp > wrote:
>
> Unless you are in the UK where triple scale hydrometers made after
> 1983 seem to feature a different version of PA to anyone elses heh
> heh...

I think the only change was to the temp standard used for calibration.
I still have the older ones that used 60f as the standard. I think
most of the newer ones use 68f as the standard. The standard used
should be printed on the each hydrometer. Temp compensate and
you should end up with the same numbers.

Brix vs SG
 

On Jan 31, 11:18 pm, "frederick ploegman" >
wrote:
> "jim" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > On Jan 31, 5:54 pm, pp > wrote:
>
> > Unless you are in the UK where triple scale hydrometers made after
> > 1983 seem to feature a different version of PA to anyone elses heh
> > heh...
>
> I think the only change was to the temp standard used for calibration.
> I still have the older ones that used 60f as the standard. I think
> most of the newer ones use 68f as the standard. The standard used
> should be printed on the each hydrometer. Temp compensate and
> you should end up with the same numbers.

That is a sensible deduction. However, the hydrometer one I inherited
from my father - which matched the scale commonly used in the US - was
calibrated to the same temperature as my current triple scale which
doesn't match any PA system anyone else seems to use :D

I am sure you are right in general though Frederick!

Jim

Brix vs SG
 

"jim" > wrote in message
...
> On Jan 31, 11:18 pm, "frederick ploegman" >
> wrote:
>> "jim" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> > On Jan 31, 5:54 pm, pp > wrote:
>>
>> > Unless you are in the UK where triple scale hydrometers made after
>> > 1983 seem to feature a different version of PA to anyone elses heh
>> > heh...
>>
>> I think the only change was to the temp standard used for calibration.
>> I still have the older ones that used 60f as the standard. I think
>> most of the newer ones use 68f as the standard. The standard used
>> should be printed on the each hydrometer. Temp compensate and
>> you should end up with the same numbers.
>
> That is a sensible deduction. However, the hydrometer one I inherited
> from my father - which matched the scale commonly used in the US - was
> calibrated to the same temperature as my current triple scale which
> doesn't match any PA system anyone else seems to use :D
>
> I am sure you are right in general though Frederick!
>
> Jim

Hmmmm...The ones I have also state that they are specifically
designed for use in beer and winemaking. Yours ??

Brix vs SG
 

On Feb 1, 9:05 am, "frederick ploegman" > wrote:
> "jim" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > On Jan 31, 11:18 pm, "frederick ploegman" >
> > wrote:
> >> "jim" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> >> > On Jan 31, 5:54 pm, pp > wrote:
>
> >> > Unless you are in the UK where triple scale hydrometers made after
> >> > 1983 seem to feature a different version of PA to anyone elses heh
> >> > heh...
>
> >> I think the only change was to the temp standard used for calibration.
> >> I still have the older ones that used 60f as the standard. I think
> >> most of the newer ones use 68f as the standard. The standard used
> >> should be printed on the each hydrometer. Temp compensate and
> >> you should end up with the same numbers.
>
> > That is a sensible deduction. However, the hydrometer one I inherited
> > from my father - which matched the scale commonly used in the US - was
> > calibrated to the same temperature as my current triple scale which
> > doesn't match any PA system anyone else seems to use :D
>
> > I am sure you are right in general though Frederick!
>
> > Jim
>
> Hmmmm...The ones I have also state that they are specifically
> designed for use in beer and winemaking. Yours ??

Yes they say "wine or beer" at the top of the hydrometer. Both were
made by Peter Stevenson Ltd (made in Scotland). Sadly I have broken
the one which used the same PA scale as the American system (and which
was made I think actually in 1976) The current model was copyrighted
in 1983 and is the same one I can still buy from my winemaking shop.
They were both made for beer and winemaking. Curious isn't it. I
once tested the PA scale of the two side by side and in some areas it
was wildly different. I think the differences are recorded somewhere
on the group though I can't find them at the moment.

Jim

Brix vs SG
 

On Feb 1, 12:40 pm, jim > wrote:
> On Feb 1, 9:05 am, "frederick ploegman" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > "jim" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > > On Jan 31, 11:18 pm, "frederick ploegman" >
> > > wrote:
> > >> "jim" > wrote in message
>
> > ...
>
> > >> > On Jan 31, 5:54 pm, pp > wrote:
>
> > >> > Unless you are in the UK where triple scale hydrometers made after
> > >> > 1983 seem to feature a different version of PA to anyone elses heh
> > >> > heh...
>
> > >> I think the only change was to the temp standard used for calibration.
> > >> I still have the older ones that used 60f as the standard. I think
> > >> most of the newer ones use 68f as the standard. The standard used
> > >> should be printed on the each hydrometer. Temp compensate and
> > >> you should end up with the same numbers.
>
> > > That is a sensible deduction. However, the hydrometer one I inherited
> > > from my father - which matched the scale commonly used in the US - was
> > > calibrated to the same temperature as my current triple scale which
> > > doesn't match any PA system anyone else seems to use :D
>
> > > I am sure you are right in general though Frederick!
>
> > > Jim
>
> > Hmmmm...The ones I have also state that they are specifically
> > designed for use in beer and winemaking. Yours ??
>
> Yes they say "wine or beer" at the top of the hydrometer. Both were
> made by Peter Stevenson Ltd (made in Scotland). Sadly I have broken
> the one which used the same PA scale as the American system (and which
> was made I think actually in 1976) The current model was copyrighted
> in 1983 and is the same one I can still buy from my winemaking shop.
> They were both made for beer and winemaking. Curious isn't it. I
> once tested the PA scale of the two side by side and in some areas it
> was wildly different. I think the differences are recorded somewhere
> on the group though I can't find them at the moment.
>
> Jim

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

Brix vs SG
 

On Feb 1, 8:11*am, jim > wrote:
> On Feb 1, 12:40 pm, jim > wrote:
>
> > On Feb 1, 9:05 am, "frederick ploegman" > wrote:
>
> > > "jim" > wrote in message
>
> > ....
>
> > > > On Jan 31, 11:18 pm, "frederick ploegman" >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >> "jim" > wrote in message
>
> > > ...
>
> > > >> > On Jan 31, 5:54 pm, pp > wrote:
>
> > > >> > Unless you are in the UK where triple scale hydrometers made after
> > > >> > 1983 seem to feature a different version of PA to anyone elses heh
> > > >> > heh...
>
> > > >> I think the only change was to the temp standard used for calibration.
> > > >> I still have the older ones that used 60f as the standard. *I think
> > > >> most of the newer ones use 68f as the standard. *The standard used
> > > >> should be printed on the each hydrometer. *Temp compensate and
> > > >> you should end up with the same numbers.
>
> > > > That is a sensible deduction. However, the hydrometer one I inherited
> > > > from my father - which matched the scale commonly used in the US - was
> > > > calibrated to the same temperature as my current triple scale which
> > > > doesn't match any PA system anyone else seems to use :D
>
> > > > I am sure you are right in general though Frederick!
>
> > > > Jim
>
> > > Hmmmm...The ones I have also state that they are specifically
> > > designed for use in beer and winemaking. *Yours *??
>
> > Yes they say "wine or beer" at the top of the hydrometer. *Both were
> > made by Peter Stevenson Ltd (made in Scotland). *Sadly I have broken
> > the one which used the same PA scale as the American system (and which
> > was made I think actually in 1976) *The current model was copyrighted
> > in 1983 and is the same one I can still buy from my winemaking shop.
> > They were both made for beer and winemaking. *Curious isn't it. *I
> > once tested the PA scale of the two side by side and in some areas it
> > was wildly different. *I think the differences are recorded somewhere
> > on the group though I can't find them at the moment.
>
> > Jim
>
> 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

Well, I decided to buy a refracometer and learn to use both. I
figure it can only help.
Thanks for all your help.

Brix vs SG
 

"jim" > wrote in message
...
> On Feb 1, 12:40 pm, jim > wrote:
>> On Feb 1, 9:05 am, "frederick ploegman" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > "jim" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>> > > On Jan 31, 11:18 pm, "frederick ploegman" >
>> > > wrote:
>> > >> "jim" > wrote in message
>>
>> > ...
>>
>> > >> > On Jan 31, 5:54 pm, pp > wrote:
>>
>> > >> > Unless you are in the UK where triple scale hydrometers made after
>> > >> > 1983 seem to feature a different version of PA to anyone elses heh
>> > >> > heh...
>>
>> > >> I think the only change was to the temp standard used for
>> > >> calibration.
>> > >> I still have the older ones that used 60f as the standard. I think
>> > >> most of the newer ones use 68f as the standard. The standard used
>> > >> should be printed on the each hydrometer. Temp compensate and
>> > >> you should end up with the same numbers.
>>
>> > > That is a sensible deduction. However, the hydrometer one I inherited
>> > > from my father - which matched the scale commonly used in the US -
>> > > was
>> > > calibrated to the same temperature as my current triple scale which
>> > > doesn't match any PA system anyone else seems to use :D
>>
>> > > I am sure you are right in general though Frederick!
>>
>> > > Jim
>>
>> > Hmmmm...The ones I have also state that they are specifically
>> > designed for use in beer and winemaking. Yours ??
>>
>> Yes they say "wine or beer" at the top of the hydrometer. Both were
>> made by Peter Stevenson Ltd (made in Scotland). Sadly I have broken
>> the one which used the same PA scale as the American system (and which
>> was made I think actually in 1976) The current model was copyrighted
>> in 1983 and is the same one I can still buy from my winemaking shop.
>> They were both made for beer and winemaking. Curious isn't it. I
>> once tested the PA scale of the two side by side and in some areas it
>> was wildly different. I think the differences are recorded somewhere
>> on the group though I can't find them at the moment.
>>
>> Jim
>
> 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

Wellll.....It uses 20C (68f) for it's temp standard while mine uses
15.56C (60f), but IIRC (I sometimes don't) that is slightly less
than 1 SG to compensate (0.9 ??). I don't see any balling or brix
scale on that thing and wwithout it there is no way I can "back
engineer" what they may have done. Which pretty much leaves
me clueless at this point. Sorry.........Maybe the maker would
answer your questions........

Frederick

PS - One thing for sure. It's hard to discuss things unless everyone
sings from the same sheet of music. ;o)

Brix vs SG
 

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 Volders
www.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

Brix vs SG
 

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

Brix vs SG
 

"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

Brix vs SG
 

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

Brix vs SG
 

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

Brix vs SG
 

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.

Brix vs SG
 

"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

Brix vs SG
 

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

Brix vs SG
 

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

Brix vs SG
 

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