Thanks Joe, I was doing what I did off the top of my head. I probably
should have waited till I had access to my hand book at home.

Ray

"Joe Sallustio" > wrote in message
om...
> I followed Ray's reasoning and tended to agree with him, so I did some
> calculations. It turns out the rate of change looks to be 5 times as
> much at the upper end of the temperatures wine is exposed to as at the
> lower end.
>
> In short, forget about the 1.4ml/F idea, it's far from linear as Ray
> stated.
>
> I would like to run some tests to prove these values out, but would be
> happy to email the spreadsheet this is based on to anyone interested,
> I tried to post an abbreviated version below. Maybe the tabs will be
> preserved, maybe not...
>
> Joe
>
> Here are some values:
>
> Temp Ethyl Water Weight Glassware %ABV Density
> Dens
> F Density Density 1 US Gallon Correction @ ABV
> ml/l
>
>
> 32 0.80625 0.99987 3780.543 1.00048 10 0.98098 0.00
> 41 0.80207 0.99999 3781.090 1.00036 10 0.98055 0.43
> 50 0.79788 0.99973 3780.167 1.00024 10 0.97978 0.77
> 59 0.79367 0.99913 3777.962 1.00012 10 0.97870 1.08
> 68 0.78945 0.99823 3774.653 1.00000 10 0.97735 1.35
> 77 0.78522 0.99707 3770.340 0.99988 10 0.97577 1.58
> 86 0.78097 0.99567 3765.109 0.99975 10 0.97396 1.81
> 95 0.77671 0.99406 3759.050 0.99963 10 0.97197 1.99
>
> 32 0.80625 0.99987 3780.543 1.00048 11 0.97904 0.00
> 41 0.80207 0.99999 3781.090 1.00036 11 0.97857 0.47
> 50 0.79788 0.99973 3780.167 1.00024 11 0.97776 0.81
> 59 0.79367 0.99913 3777.962 1.00012 11 0.97665 1.11
> 68 0.78945 0.99823 3774.653 1.00000 11 0.97526 1.38
> 77 0.78522 0.99707 3770.340 0.99988 11 0.97365 1.61
> 86 0.78097 0.99567 3765.109 0.99975 11 0.97181 1.84
> 95 0.77671 0.99406 3759.050 0.99963 11 0.96979 2.02
>
> 32 0.80625 0.99987 3780.543 1.00048 12 0.97710 0.00
> 41 0.80207 0.99999 3781.090 1.00036 12 0.97659 0.51
> 50 0.79788 0.99973 3780.167 1.00024 12 0.97574 0.85
> 59 0.79367 0.99913 3777.962 1.00012 12 0.97459 1.15
> 68 0.78945 0.99823 3774.653 1.00000 12 0.97318 1.42
> 77 0.78522 0.99707 3770.340 0.99988 12 0.97153 1.64
> 86 0.78097 0.99567 3765.109 0.99975 12 0.96966 1.87
> 95 0.77671 0.99406 3759.050 0.99963 12 0.96762 2.04
>
> 32 0.80625 0.99987 3780.543 1.00048 13 0.97517 0.00
> 41 0.80207 0.99999 3781.090 1.00036 13 0.97461 0.56
> 50 0.79788 0.99973 3780.167 1.00024 13 0.97372 0.89
> 59 0.79367 0.99913 3777.962 1.00012 13 0.97254 1.19
> 68 0.78945 0.99823 3774.653 1.00000 13 0.97109 1.45
> 77 0.78522 0.99707 3770.340 0.99988 13 0.96941 1.68
> 86 0.78097 0.99567 3765.109 0.99975 13 0.96752 1.90
> 95 0.77671 0.99406 3759.050 0.99963 13 0.96545 2.07
>
> 32 0.80625 0.99987 3780.543 1.00048 14 0.97323 0.00
> 41 0.80207 0.99999 3781.090 1.00036 14 0.97263 0.60
> 50 0.79788 0.99973 3780.167 1.00024 14 0.97170 0.93
> 59 0.79367 0.99913 3777.962 1.00012 14 0.97048 1.22
> 68 0.78945 0.99823 3774.653 1.00000 14 0.96900 1.48
> 77 0.78522 0.99707 3770.340 0.99988 14 0.96729 1.71
> 86 0.78097 0.99567 3765.109 0.99975 14 0.96537 1.92
> 95 0.77671 0.99406 3759.050 0.99963 14 0.96327 2.10

I didn't think the format would be preserved, oh well.

The first column is temperature in F
2nd, density of ethyl alcohol at that temp
3rd, density of water at that temp
4th, weight of 1 US gallon at that temp
5th, coefficient of thermal expansion compensation for glass
6th, %ABV
7th, calculatated density of 1 liter at that temp
((%ABV * Alc Dens)+(remaining water * water dens)* glass
expansion/l)
8th, change on ml from one step to the next due to changes on density
and volume of the container;
In other words, using the first group for an example, how much change
you should expect to see in a 10% ABV solution for a 5 degree C (9F)
change.

These are calculated values, I want to test them out too. They do not
account for disolved solids, that is around 2% of the total on average
from memeory.

Joe

> > 32 0.80625 0.99987 3780.543 1.00048 10 0.98098 0.00
> > 41 0.80207 0.99999 3781.090 1.00036 10 0.98055 0.43
> > 50 0.79788 0.99973 3780.167 1.00024 10 0.97978 0.77
> > 59 0.79367 0.99913 3777.962 1.00012 10 0.97870 1.08
> > 68 0.78945 0.99823 3774.653 1.00000 10 0.97735 1.35
> > 77 0.78522 0.99707 3770.340 0.99988 10 0.97577 1.58
> > 86 0.78097 0.99567 3765.109 0.99975 10 0.97396 1.81
> > 95 0.77671 0.99406 3759.050 0.99963 10 0.97197 1.99
> >
> > 32 0.80625 0.99987 3780.543 1.00048 11 0.97904 0.00
> > 41 0.80207 0.99999 3781.090 1.00036 11 0.97857 0.47
> > 50 0.79788 0.99973 3780.167 1.00024 11 0.97776 0.81
> > 59 0.79367 0.99913 3777.962 1.00012 11 0.97665 1.11
> > 68 0.78945 0.99823 3774.653 1.00000 11 0.97526 1.38
> > 77 0.78522 0.99707 3770.340 0.99988 11 0.97365 1.61
> > 86 0.78097 0.99567 3765.109 0.99975 11 0.97181 1.84
> > 95 0.77671 0.99406 3759.050 0.99963 11 0.96979 2.02
> >
> > 32 0.80625 0.99987 3780.543 1.00048 12 0.97710 0.00
> > 41 0.80207 0.99999 3781.090 1.00036 12 0.97659 0.51
> > 50 0.79788 0.99973 3780.167 1.00024 12 0.97574 0.85
> > 59 0.79367 0.99913 3777.962 1.00012 12 0.97459 1.15
> > 68 0.78945 0.99823 3774.653 1.00000 12 0.97318 1.42
> > 77 0.78522 0.99707 3770.340 0.99988 12 0.97153 1.64
> > 86 0.78097 0.99567 3765.109 0.99975 12 0.96966 1.87
> > 95 0.77671 0.99406 3759.050 0.99963 12 0.96762 2.04
> >
> > 32 0.80625 0.99987 3780.543 1.00048 13 0.97517 0.00
> > 41 0.80207 0.99999 3781.090 1.00036 13 0.97461 0.56
> > 50 0.79788 0.99973 3780.167 1.00024 13 0.97372 0.89
> > 59 0.79367 0.99913 3777.962 1.00012 13 0.97254 1.19
> > 68 0.78945 0.99823 3774.653 1.00000 13 0.97109 1.45
> > 77 0.78522 0.99707 3770.340 0.99988 13 0.96941 1.68
> > 86 0.78097 0.99567 3765.109 0.99975 13 0.96752 1.90
> > 95 0.77671 0.99406 3759.050 0.99963 13 0.96545 2.07
> >
> > 32 0.80625 0.99987 3780.543 1.00048 14 0.97323 0.00
> > 41 0.80207 0.99999 3781.090 1.00036 14 0.97263 0.60
> > 50 0.79788 0.99973 3780.167 1.00024 14 0.97170 0.93
> > 59 0.79367 0.99913 3777.962 1.00012 14 0.97048 1.22
> > 68 0.78945 0.99823 3774.653 1.00000 14 0.96900 1.48
> > 77 0.78522 0.99707 3770.340 0.99988 14 0.96729 1.71
> > 86 0.78097 0.99567 3765.109 0.99975 14 0.96537 1.92
> > 95 0.77671 0.99406 3759.050 0.99963 14 0.96327 2.10

Joe, as I said off-list, I would perform the same experiment with a
12% alcohol/water mixture in a graduated liter cylinder. The
graduations were not fine enough to allow milliliter measures and so I
"borrowed" a 250-mL cylinder from work. I began this before you
posted your table.

My mixture was constituted at 78 degrees F and chilled to 50 degrees.
Like you, my measurements were of contraction. I will not go into
details here except to say they agree with your table in that the
contraction is as predicted therein (to the extent I could approximate
tenths of a milliliter), but they differ in that I began my 250
milliliters at 78 degrees.

Here is the problem I see with all of this and it is one I mentioned
in my original post to you that prompted your initial experiment. The
CRC tables all begin with the density of water being 1.000 at 4
degrees C (39.2 F), whereas we all constitute our must and the
resulting wine at a much higher ambient temperature. Our mixtures
have already expanded due to elevated temperature and so we begin with
X liters of wine under airlock at, say, 68 degrees F and then the
temperature rises. The volumetric expansion from 39.2 F, which your
table predicts, is meaningless to us. We need the expansion from 68
F. It turns out one can calculate this from your table, but it isn't
all that straightforward.

Any idea how to more easily work the problem we face in real life?

Now, having said all of that and asked my question, I still say the
solution is not to be surprised by a volume increase due to rising
temperature. Simply look at your carboys daily and when the wine
approaches the airlock remove the airlock and then some of the wine.
That is another use of a wine thief.

Jack Keller, The Winemaking Home Page
http://winemaking.jackkeller.net/

Hi Jack,
I follow your logic, but the last column on that table was actually
the difference between points of 5 C, not from maximum density. It's
way too coarse at 5C steps so I started to make one in 1 C steps,
then I decided I had better think this through.

I am actually wondering if any of this is valid since both the
container and must are changing with temperature. I know the general
coefficient of thermal expansion for glass, I may plug that in and run
a few numbers after thinking it through.

Joe



.... The
> CRC tables all begin with the density of water being 1.000 at 4
> degrees C (39.2 F), whereas we all constitute our must and the
> resulting wine at a much higher ambient temperature. Our mixtures
> have already expanded due to elevated temperature and so we begin with
> X liters of wine under airlock at, say, 68 degrees F and then the
> temperature rises. The volumetric expansion from 39.2 F, which your
> table predicts, is meaningless to us. We need the expansion from 68
> F. It turns out one can calculate this from your table, but it isn't
> all that straightforward.
>
> Any idea how to more easily work the problem we face in real life?
>
> Now, having said all of that and asked my question, I still say the
> solution is not to be surprised by a volume increase due to rising
> temperature. Simply look at your carboys daily and when the wine
> approaches the airlock remove the airlock and then some of the wine.
> That is another use of a wine thief.
>
> Jack Keller, The Winemaking Home Page
> http://winemaking.jackkeller.net/

> I know the general coefficient of thermal expansion for glass, I may plug
> that in and run a few numbers after thinking it through.

Got'cha, but just remember that the CRC numbers for glass are for
borosilicate glassware (Pyrex. Also, there are major differences
between CRC's F-3 and D-146 tables. The D-146 table looks better to
me for our purposes, and the 1-degree C graduation is built in....

Ray, where are you on all of this?

Jack Keller, The Winemaking Home Page
http://winemaking.jackkeller.net/

Joe, as I said off-list, I would perform the same experiment with a
12% alcohol/water mixture in a graduated liter cylinder. The
graduations were not fine enough to allow milliliter measures and so I
"borrowed" a 250-mL cylinder from work. I began this before you
posted your table.

My mixture was constituted at 78 degrees F and chilled to 50 degrees.
Like you, my measurements were of contraction. I will not go into
details here except to say they agree with your table in that the
contraction is as predicted therein (to the extent I could approximate
tenths of a milliliter), but they differ in that I began my 250
milliliters at 78 degrees.

Here is the problem I see with all of this and it is one I mentioned
in my original post to you that prompted your initial experiment. The
CRC tables all begin with the density of water being 1.000 at 4
degrees C (39.2 F), whereas we all constitute our must and the
resulting wine at a much higher ambient temperature. Our mixtures
have already expanded due to elevated temperature and so we begin with
X liters of wine under airlock at, say, 68 degrees F and then the
temperature rises. The volumetric expansion from 39.2 F, which your
table predicts, is meaningless to us. We need the expansion from 68
F. It turns out one can calculate this from your table, but it isn't
all that straightforward.

Any idea how to more easily work the problem we face in real life?

Now, having said all of that and asked my question, I still say the
solution is not to be surprised by a volume increase due to rising
temperature. Simply look at your carboys daily and when the wine
approaches the airlock remove the airlock and then some of the wine.
That is another use of a wine thief.

Jack Keller, The Winemaking Home Page
http://winemaking.jackkeller.net/