"pp" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Took me a while to figure out I had to switch to Google beta to be able
> to post... and now I don't seem to be able to quote the previous
> message to respond to explicit points. Hmm, hopefully that'll get
> ironed out soon.
>
> Frederick, can you supply a better reference than "the UC Davis site" -
> I can't find any reference to PA articles there, nor anything
> resembling page 10. I'd really like to read this article as it seems to
> be the primary source of your PA stance.
>
> Thx,
>
> Pp
>

Hi PP

First. I really must apologize for terminating my previous answer so
abruptly. Being pressed for time is not much of an excuse. Sorry.

Second. I can't seem to find my "links" list this morning. So - I have
posted a separate request to the group for this link. Hopefully one of
those folks will post it here (or there) for us. If not, I will have to go
find it again. The reference is not a separate article on PA. It is
contained in their basic winemaking book (pdf file).

It's gong to make this post *VERY* long but I will copy and paste my
previous answer here so we have a point of reference: (See below
the "end copy" for my further comments)

<copy> ......................

PP

I have been over the material in this book a number of times with
several people (I thought you were one of them). But - let me try to
plod through it again. Comments interspersed:

"pp" > wrote in message
om...
> "frederick ploegman" > wrote in message
> >...
>>
>> The only thing I find are "pre-pitch" (original gravity) tables. These
>> cannot be used in the manner stated above because it fails to consider
>> the effect that alcohol has on the "post ferment" reading. So far, I
>> have
>> not seen a single answer in this thread that considers this, so the
>> answers
>> thus obtained are wrong.
>>
>> I am hoping that Jack or someone else here has a "post ferment/end
>> alcohol" table that they could share with us. Tables, after all, are
>> nothing more than a simple listing of all of the answers that a formula
>> can provide. They have the advantage that folks that can't even
>> _spell_the word algebra can look up the answers they need without
>> having to understand the math. So - if someone has a suitable formula,
>> it should be no problem converting it to a table.
>>
>> Frederick
>
> Frederick:
>
> I certainly agree with you that alcohol will affect the final sg
> reading, but I disagree with your conclusions in this thread. As you
> say, a table just reflects an underlying formula. There are formulas
> out there that use final sg reading to calculate the PA, so tables
> based on these formulas then reflect both the starting and final sg.
>

Such formulas use an ADJUSTED final gravity and_not_the ACTUAL
final gravity !!

> To take one example, Duncan and Acton's Progressive Winemaking
> mentions a simple formula PA = (Gs - Gf)/7.4, where G is the gravity,
> defined as SG*1000. The constant 7.4 is actually an approximation -

Read this again_veeeery_carefully. G is defined as having a reference of
1.000. This means BOTH Gs AND Gf !! So long as they both share the
same reference point, then yes, this formula will work. BUT (big but),
folks don't understand this and they _try_ to use their ACTUAL end SG
reading when using this formula. If Gf is NOT restored to a reference
point of 1.000 by compensating for the effect of alcohol on the final
gravity reading, this formula does NOT work !! Gee whiz. This is what
I have been_trying_ to explain all along !! From the rest of what you
say here, I suspect that you are still making this same mistake yourself.

> they also give a more complicated formula, where the constant depends
> on the starting gravity, but for simplicity, we can stick with the one
> value 7.4 here.

Not what I use, but "good enough", IF Gf is adjusted.

>
> The point is that this does not falsely increase the amount of sugar
> in the must.

It _does_have this effect when Gf is _not_ adjusted.

>Instead, the formula describes PA in terms of the total
> drop in gravity during fermentation (which directly depends on the
> sugar content of the must).

I would view this statement as wrong in this particular context. Only
_part_ of the total drop is caused by the consumption of fermentable
sugars. The _rest_of the drop is due to the effect of alcohol on our
end SG reading. However, (to avoid another nit) if this statement is
taken to mean that the amount of drop is dependent on the amount of
fermentable sugars available to the yeast, then yes I can buy that.

>As such, it's not better or worse by
> itself than formulas that describe the PA only in terms of the initial
> sg (sugar content).

Wrong. PA is based _solely_ on the amount of fermentable sugars
available to the yeast. Let me say once more - there is NO FIXED
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SG AND PA !! SG is a measure of
_total_solutes (not just the sugar).

>Which formula is better is an empirical question -

Nope.

> any formula gives only a rough estimate of the final alcohol,

Estimate yes, rough no.

>so the
> quality of any formula would have to be measured against decent amount
> of real data.

Every country and every state that has any interest at all in having a
winemaking industry has government funded labs which lack for
nothing by way of facilities and the best and most modern equipment.
These are staffed by people who spend entire_life_ times dedicated to
winemaking research. This being the case, how can you even_imagine_
such data does not already exist and has not already been incorporated
into the things we use ?? (eg the PA scale on our hydrometers, etc..)

>
> To continue with the above formula - since it's linear in terms of the
> total gravity drop, we can use the method that Jack described and
> shift the final gravity to 1000 (sg to 1.000) if we shift the initial
> gravity by the same amount.

Wrong, wrong, wrong !! The final gravity_does_ need to be shifted,
but the original gravity is_not_effected by the presence of alcohol so it
does_not_have to be shifted. (It_already_has a reference point of
1.000) Which of course is my whole point here.
BOTH readings have to share the SAME reference point !!

>And then a table that is based on this
> formula will show the PA reading for the adjusted Gs - the adjustment
> is needed because it allows us to start tabulating from sg 1.000.

Nope - see above. In view of my previous answers here, I won't go
on with this at this time. HTH and HTMS

Frederick

>
> Pp

<end copy> .................

To continue:

Please allow me to ramble on for a while. The reference you are using
went out of print about a quarter of a century ago because the section
on alcohol is a total mess. They confused theoretical values with "real
life" values and the result is a disaster. I don't have this reference but
I
have discussed parts of it often enough, and I did manage to briefly get
my hands on a copy. Only had about 30 minutes to review the alcohol
section before I had to return it. Frankly, I laughed until I had tears.
It's quite possibly the tallest mountain of bull chips in all of winemaking
literature !! To understand this, one need only compare the PA numbers
in their chart with the PA numbers we find on our hydrometers. Theirs
are the pie in the sky maximum_theoretical_values while the PA numbers
we find on our hydrometers are the realistic_practical_values that we
need for_practical_applications in our every day winemaking. Simply
put, in real life, sugar is converted to alcohol by a wasteful, inefficient,
living organism which is FAR from perfect !! Thus, "theoretical" values
are useless in a pragmatic, practical world. HTMS

Earlier we were discussing their "short" formula, but you also mentioned
a different (longer) formula. Even as screwed up as Duncan was, even
he recognized the fact that alcohol_does_have an effect on total drop.
You will find it in that formula expressed as: "...(Go - 7)..." (eg
original gravity_minus_7 gravity points). Now, it really doesn't matter if
we subtract the correction from the original gravity or add the correction
to the end gravity. The effect is the same in that we_decrease_the amount
of total drop thus compensating for the effect of the alcohol on our end
SG reading.

I suppose (if he hadn't been using theoretical numbers) we could modify
his short formula to incorporate this as follows:

Either: Gs - (Gf +7)/7.4 = Ae (eg end alcohol)
Or: (Gs-7) - Gf/7.4 = Ae ( ditto )
*However*: In this instance, G would NOT be defined as having a
reference of 1.000, but rather, we would be using the ACTUAL
SG readings as taken. HTMS

I really hate discussing this reference because I always have to convince
people that authors are people, people make mistakes, and some of these
mistakes find their way into print - so - you CAN'T believe everything
you read !! If you base your work on a reference where the author
got it wrong, your own work will turn out to_also_be wrong !!
It once appeared in writing that the earth was flat. I don't use that
as a reference any more.

We can go on discussing this stuff this way but I suggest that
you put that book aside and find yourself some other reference. ANY
other reference !!

HTH and HTMS

Frederick

PS - Please never be offended by anything I say. I really_am_only trying
to be helpful here.

frederick ploegman wrote:
<snip>
..... because the section on alcohol is a total mess.

<snip>
> It's quite possibly the tallest mountain of bull chips in all of winemaking
> literature !!
Frederick,

You're absolutely right. I still have a copy, and it's a remarkable
source of mis-information in some areas, like alcohol. Even as a self
taught winemaker 30 years ago, I knew there was something quite wrong
with their either words or my works. It took me a while to realize it
was them, but 'til that point, they had my attention. Having learned a
bit since then, the book lies unused. Other sources do it better, like
Lum's, or Jack's, or Ben's sites.

Mike MTM, Cokesbury, New Jersey, USA

Hi Frederick et al.:

I've finally put together my reply - it's long as well, so I've decided
to just summarize where we were in the discussion and do it the post in
1 piece instead of spreading it as comments throughout. I hope this
time it all will make sense - and don't worry, I'm not offended, just
find it fascinating there is so much discussion/confusion on this
subject.

Here goes:

Let me briefly summarize the issue as I understand it. The current
round of PA discussion was trigerred by Jack's post, in which he
described a method of determining PA by:
1) taking the initial sg reading and then the final sg reading with a
hydrometer,
2) subtracting the final reading from the initial one,
3) adding the result to 1.000 and
4) using a lookup table to correlate the final number with PA level

Frederick then put this into question by claiming that no such table
exists and people who tried to produce anything along these lines
failed, the reason basically being that alcohol produced during
fermentation shifts the reference point below sg 1.000. Thus, any
specific gravity drop below 1.000 is caused by alcohol and as such
should be disregarded because it contributes nothing toward the amount
of alcohol in the wine.

I then argued that while it is certainly true that alcohol affects the
final sg reading, this in itself doesn't preclude one from designing a
formula/table that works exactly as Jack described it. The idea is that
instead of basing the formula only on the amount of sugar in the must,
the formula should be based on the total gravity drop during the
fermentation. I offered Duncan & Acton's formula (the simple version)
PA = (Gs-Gf)/7.4, where G stands for gravity, or sg*1000, as an
example.

At this point, the discussion went basically off track, most likely
because of the negative connotations that some of us in this thread
have with D&A's work on PA. So what I thought I'd like to do in this
post is to stop talking about things on theoretical level and do what
Frederick originally asked for - provide a formula/table that works as
Jack described.

For the sake of this discussion, I'm adopting the following
assumptions:
1) the PA scale on the hydrometer correctly reflects the average PA
level in wine for the given initial sg,
2) the hydrometer scale is based on initial sg reading only.

For simplicity, I will work with the sg range of 1.060-1.120, as this
should more than cover the wine alcohol range. According to my
hydrometer (regular triple scale model), the PA levels for this range
(start, middle, end) a
sg PA
1.060 8%
1.090 12%
1.120 16%
The values are actually slightly lower than the whole numbers above,
but rounding up doesn't matter in this context, so I will ignore the
small difference.

I want to end with a formula that uses both initial and starting sg and
that predicts the same (with a reasonable deviation) PA as hydrometer
in the sg range 1.060-1.120. The starting point will be D&A's formula,
but instead of the constant divider 7.4, I will first use an unknown
value X:
PA = (Gs-Gf)/X or PA = 1000(SGs-SGf)/X

To determine X, I will make a third assumption, based on experience:
3) a finished dry wine hardly ever falls under sg 0.990
and then solve the PA equation above to give me 12% for initial sg
1.090, the middle of the range:
12 = 1000 * (1.090-0.990) / X
X = 100/12 = 8.33

This gives us (using only the gravity version here):
PA = (Gs-Gf)/8.33
as the formula we were looking for. The only remaining question is to
see how its predictions compare with the hydrometer values. This
depends on the average final gravity for dry wines, but we can again
assume as a benchmark here the value of 0.990:
sg PA hydrometer PA formula
1.060 8% 8.4%
1.090 12% 12%
1.120 16% 15.6%

So the results are within +/- 0.4% of the hydrometer value in the PA
range 8-16%. For the more typical wine PA range of 10-14%, the maximum
difference is only +/- 0.2%. That's about as close as two different
formulas will get in practice, but if we wanted to get really fancy, we
could make the divider X depend on initial sg as D&A's (complex)
formula does. I won't go into that, but it should be fairly obvious
that that could be done to reduce the difference between the 2
approaches even further.

To recap, we've ended up with a simple formula PA = (Gs-Gf)/ 8.33,
which:
- needs only 2 sg readings - initial and final,
- works equally well for dry, off-dry, or sweet wines,
- by subtracting the 2 gravity readings, automatically accounts for the
effect of soluble solids other than sugar on the calculation, and
- is within +/- 0.2% of the PA hydrometer values in the typical wine PA
range 10-14%.

I hope this clearly shows that there is no methodological problem per
se in using final gravity readings for determining the PA content of
wine, one only has to know how any given formula/table/scale should be
correctly used. And that brings me to the last point, really an aside.
My hydrometer (as I said, a typical triple scale hydrometer, made in
Japan) actually came with an instruction sheet in the tube, and this is
what the instructions say:

"In order to determine the alcohol content of a wine, you will need to
make two readings, one before fermentation commences and another after
fermentation stops. Subtract the final figure from the first reading
and you will have the alcohol content percentage by volume. For
example: 13% - 1% = 12%."

So here we have a standard winemaking tool, that Frederick assumes to
be authoritative and based on lots of practical data and research, with
instructions that clearly contradict the assumption that the hydrometer
PA scale is only based on the initial sg reading. No wonder this topic
is confusing to so many winemakers!

Hope this all makes sense,

Pp


>
> Hi PP
>
> First. I really must apologize for terminating my previous answer so
> abruptly. Being pressed for time is not much of an excuse. Sorry.
>
> Second. I can't seem to find my "links" list this morning. So - I
have
> posted a separate request to the group for this link. Hopefully one
of
> those folks will post it here (or there) for us. If not, I will have
to go
> find it again. The reference is not a separate article on PA. It is
> contained in their basic winemaking book (pdf file).
>
> It's gong to make this post *VERY* long but I will copy and paste my
> previous answer here so we have a point of reference: (See below
> the "end copy" for my further comments)
>
>
> HTH and HTMS
>
> Frederick
>
> PS - Please never be offended by anything I say. I really_am_only
trying
> to be helpful here.

Fredrick, pp, et.al.,

Nice discussion...I've enjoyed it all. But, it seems we are just back to
where it started. The potential alcohol markings on a hydrometer, pp's
formula and a simplistic alcohol formula based only on the starting gravity
(assumes fermentation to dryness at 1.000 sg) all give alcohol percentages
essentially the same and they are only estimates;

Theoretical starting Spec. Grav. 1.060 1.090 1.120
potential alcohol from hydrometer 8.0 12.0 16.0
pp's formula 8.4 12.0 15.6
simplistic calculation using only OG 7.9 11.8 15.8

So, I guess it's use whatever you want unless you can actually measure the
alcohol with an ebulliometer or some other such instrument.

Bill Frazier
Olathe, Kansas USA

Fredrick, pp, et.al.,

Nice discussion...I've enjoyed it all. But, it seems we are just back to
where it started. The potential alcohol markings on a hydrometer, pp's
formula and a simplistic alcohol formula based only on the starting gravity
(assumes fermentation to dryness at 1.000 sg) all give alcohol percentages
essentially the same and they are only estimates;

Theoretical starting Spec. Grav. 1.060 1.090 1.120
potential alcohol from hydrometer 8.0 12.0 16.0
pp's formula 8.4 12.0 15.6
simplistic calculation using only OG 7.9 11.8 15.8

So, I guess it's use whatever you want unless you can actually measure the
alcohol with an ebulliometer or some other such instrument.

Bill Frazier
Olathe, Kansas USA

Bill:

The hydrometer readings and the simplistic OG calculation are probably
the same, those numbers look like what's actually on the hydrometer. My
formula was "calibrated" to the hydrometer values, so it makes sense
that in all 3 cases we'd get basically the same predictions. By
necessity, any formula will be only an estimate of the actual alcohol
level in the wine, so the best one can hope for is for the prediction
to be within a reasonable margin of error from the actual value.

In terms of what formula to use - I'd agree that it's up to everybody's
choice and what we believe is a good estimation of the PA value. The
main point is to use the formula/scale correctly, i.e., to avoid
artificially increasing or decreasing the PA by using final gravity
with tables designed to work only with initial gravity and vice versa.
Personally, I use Margalit's formula PA = B * 0.57 because I trust his
work in general, it's the most recently published reference, and it
seems to be best supported by references. This gives slightly higher
values than the hydrometer readings.

As for measuring the alcohol by ebulliometer - I've never tried that
but from what I've heard, it's very hard to get a better precision than
+/- 0.5% anw. The difficulty of measuring alcohol level in wine is
supported IMO by the fact that US wines can be +/- 1.5% off in what's
stated on the label as opposed to what the alcohol content actually is.
So I don't think we can get any better than a decent PA formula.

Pp

William Frazier wrote:
> Fredrick, pp, et.al.,
>
> Nice discussion...I've enjoyed it all. But, it seems we are just
back to
> where it started. The potential alcohol markings on a hydrometer,
pp's
> formula and a simplistic alcohol formula based only on the starting
gravity
> (assumes fermentation to dryness at 1.000 sg) all give alcohol
percentages
> essentially the same and they are only estimates;
>
> Theoretical starting Spec. Grav. 1.060 1.090 1.120
> potential alcohol from hydrometer 8.0 12.0 16.0
> pp's formula 8.4 12.0
15.6
> simplistic calculation using only OG 7.9 11.8 15.8
>
> So, I guess it's use whatever you want unless you can actually
measure the
> alcohol with an ebulliometer or some other such instrument.
>
> Bill Frazier
> Olathe, Kansas USA

Bill:

The hydrometer readings and the simplistic OG calculation are probably
the same, those numbers look like what's actually on the hydrometer. My
formula was "calibrated" to the hydrometer values, so it makes sense
that in all 3 cases we'd get basically the same predictions. By
necessity, any formula will be only an estimate of the actual alcohol
level in the wine, so the best one can hope for is for the prediction
to be within a reasonable margin of error from the actual value.

In terms of what formula to use - I'd agree that it's up to everybody's
choice and what we believe is a good estimation of the PA value. The
main point is to use the formula/scale correctly, i.e., to avoid
artificially increasing or decreasing the PA by using final gravity
with tables designed to work only with initial gravity and vice versa.
Personally, I use Margalit's formula PA = B * 0.57 because I trust his
work in general, it's the most recently published reference, and it
seems to be best supported by references. This gives slightly higher
values than the hydrometer readings.

As for measuring the alcohol by ebulliometer - I've never tried that
but from what I've heard, it's very hard to get a better precision than
+/- 0.5% anw. The difficulty of measuring alcohol level in wine is
supported IMO by the fact that US wines can be +/- 1.5% off in what's
stated on the label as opposed to what the alcohol content actually is.
So I don't think we can get any better than a decent PA formula.

Pp

William Frazier wrote:
> Fredrick, pp, et.al.,
>
> Nice discussion...I've enjoyed it all. But, it seems we are just
back to
> where it started. The potential alcohol markings on a hydrometer,
pp's
> formula and a simplistic alcohol formula based only on the starting
gravity
> (assumes fermentation to dryness at 1.000 sg) all give alcohol
percentages
> essentially the same and they are only estimates;
>
> Theoretical starting Spec. Grav. 1.060 1.090 1.120
> potential alcohol from hydrometer 8.0 12.0 16.0
> pp's formula 8.4 12.0
15.6
> simplistic calculation using only OG 7.9 11.8 15.8
>
> So, I guess it's use whatever you want unless you can actually
measure the
> alcohol with an ebulliometer or some other such instrument.
>
> Bill Frazier
> Olathe, Kansas USA

Bill Frazier from the flat lands of Kansas wrote (in part):

> Going back to the original question about how to calculate alcohol
> in dry wine. I totally agree with Frederick (Nov.30 post) that you
> can only consider the starting SG and a finished SG of 1.000 when
> you calculate alcohol. Beyond this simple calculation you will
> need a Ebulliometer ($663 at piwine) for more accurate alcohol
> determinations.

OK, how does an Ebulliometer work? Is it reasonably possible to
build one?

Dick

Bill Frazier from the flat lands of Kansas wrote (in part):

> Going back to the original question about how to calculate alcohol
> in dry wine. I totally agree with Frederick (Nov.30 post) that you
> can only consider the starting SG and a finished SG of 1.000 when
> you calculate alcohol. Beyond this simple calculation you will
> need a Ebulliometer ($663 at piwine) for more accurate alcohol
> determinations.

OK, how does an Ebulliometer work? Is it reasonably possible to
build one?

Dick

>> I have just started brewing my own beer and wine. I have made so
>> rather odd concoctions the process. Some of the wine tastes good,
>> some bad, and some like there is no alcohol at all. I want to
>> know how I can figure the alcohol content of a drink. Does anyone
>> know a home method of measuring alcohol content?

> Set some bottles of it out by the nearest homeless shelter. If the
> residents come out and start drinking it, you've got a winner!

Fotunately I had my mug in my left hand when I read this. So when
the Mead spat out of my mouth, it went into the mug and not into
the keyboard. I've cleaned a keyboard of beer and wine, but Mead
would be a sticky mess.

A pox upon your house - may your next batch taste somewhere between
Steel Reserve Malt Liquor and Chateau Mad dog and may your next lover
be a New York Yankee fan who drinks T.J. Swan.

Dick

>> I have just started brewing my own beer and wine. I have made so
>> rather odd concoctions the process. Some of the wine tastes good,
>> some bad, and some like there is no alcohol at all. I want to
>> know how I can figure the alcohol content of a drink. Does anyone
>> know a home method of measuring alcohol content?

> Set some bottles of it out by the nearest homeless shelter. If the
> residents come out and start drinking it, you've got a winner!

Fotunately I had my mug in my left hand when I read this. So when
the Mead spat out of my mouth, it went into the mug and not into
the keyboard. I've cleaned a keyboard of beer and wine, but Mead
would be a sticky mess.

A pox upon your house - may your next batch taste somewhere between
Steel Reserve Malt Liquor and Chateau Mad dog and may your next lover
be a New York Yankee fan who drinks T.J. Swan.

Dick

Dick - Go to www.piwine.com. Their catalog has a list of all the parts for
the Ebulliometer. I tried to just use the thermometer and some lab ware I
had on hand several years ago but didn't get acceptable results. They, or
someone else on this ng, may be able to comment on how much of the entire
list of parts is required.

Bill Frazier
Olathe, Kansas USA....11F this morning


> OK, how does an Ebulliometer work? Is it reasonably possible to
> build one?

Dick - Go to www.piwine.com. Their catalog has a list of all the parts for
the Ebulliometer. I tried to just use the thermometer and some lab ware I
had on hand several years ago but didn't get acceptable results. They, or
someone else on this ng, may be able to comment on how much of the entire
list of parts is required.

Bill Frazier
Olathe, Kansas USA....11F this morning


> OK, how does an Ebulliometer work? Is it reasonably possible to
> build one?

Bill,
It was -7 at my humble abode this morning (and that doesn't include the wind
chill factor).
Darlene
Wisconsin

"William Frazier" > wrote in message
...
> Dick - Go to www.piwine.com. Their catalog has a list of all the parts
> for the Ebulliometer. I tried to just use the thermometer and some lab
> ware I had on hand several years ago but didn't get acceptable results.
> They, or someone else on this ng, may be able to comment on how much of
> the entire list of parts is required.
>
> Bill Frazier
> Olathe, Kansas USA....11F this morning
>
>
>> OK, how does an Ebulliometer work? Is it reasonably possible to
>> build one?
>
>

"Dar V" > wrote in message
...
> Bill,
> It was -7 at my humble abode this morning (and that doesn't include the
> wind chill factor).
> Darlene
> Wisconsin]

Too cold for me Darlene. However, my wife says winter is now over since the
days start to get longer. She's such an optimist. I'll tell her about the
balmy temperature a few miles north. Even if cold we lucked out on the big
storm. Here in KC bone dry with a south wind. I've got a golf date on
Monday so looking forward to better conditions.

Bill Frazier
Olathe, Kansas USA

"Dar V" > wrote in message
...
> Bill,
> It was -7 at my humble abode this morning (and that doesn't include the
> wind chill factor).
> Darlene
> Wisconsin]

Too cold for me Darlene. However, my wife says winter is now over since the
days start to get longer. She's such an optimist. I'll tell her about the
balmy temperature a few miles north. Even if cold we lucked out on the big
storm. Here in KC bone dry with a south wind. I've got a golf date on
Monday so looking forward to better conditions.

Bill Frazier
Olathe, Kansas USA

Bill,
Your wife is right, the days are going to start to get longer. Golf,
huh...so you all missed the snow and the cold. Guess that front went
between us, because we didn't get the snow either, but the cold wave is
here. They say, by Monday, we'll be in the balmy upper 20's - heat wave for
sure. The only thing keeping us warm is the Green Bay Packers win over the
Vikings. Happy holidays.
Darlene
Wisconsin (just north of Milwaukee)

"William Frazier" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dar V" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Bill,
>> It was -7 at my humble abode this morning (and that doesn't include the
>> wind chill factor).
>> Darlene
>> Wisconsin]
>
> Too cold for me Darlene. However, my wife says winter is now over since
> the
> days start to get longer. She's such an optimist. I'll tell her about
> the
> balmy temperature a few miles north. Even if cold we lucked out on the
> big
> storm. Here in KC bone dry with a south wind. I've got a golf date on
> Monday so looking forward to better conditions.
>
> Bill Frazier
> Olathe, Kansas USA
>
>
>
>

Bill,
Your wife is right, the days are going to start to get longer. Golf,
huh...so you all missed the snow and the cold. Guess that front went
between us, because we didn't get the snow either, but the cold wave is
here. They say, by Monday, we'll be in the balmy upper 20's - heat wave for
sure. The only thing keeping us warm is the Green Bay Packers win over the
Vikings. Happy holidays.
Darlene
Wisconsin (just north of Milwaukee)

"William Frazier" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dar V" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Bill,
>> It was -7 at my humble abode this morning (and that doesn't include the
>> wind chill factor).
>> Darlene
>> Wisconsin]
>
> Too cold for me Darlene. However, my wife says winter is now over since
> the
> days start to get longer. She's such an optimist. I'll tell her about
> the
> balmy temperature a few miles north. Even if cold we lucked out on the
> big
> storm. Here in KC bone dry with a south wind. I've got a golf date on
> Monday so looking forward to better conditions.
>
> Bill Frazier
> Olathe, Kansas USA
>
>
>
>