Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [Distillers] Fermentation calculation of alcohol content

Expand Messages
  • Robert Thomas
    It depends on the og of your wine/beer. for say 1.040 beer, 0.129 is close, but for wines say 1.100 .135 is better. This is covered in notice 226 from UK
    Message 1 of 4 , Aug 1, 2005
      It depends on the og of your wine/beer.
      for say 1.040 beer, 0.129 is close, but for wines say
      1.100 .135 is better.
      This is covered in notice 226 from UK Customs and
      Excise. This is the official rulebook for brewers in
      the UK.
      Unfortunately, I long since lost my copy, so can't
      give you the full table, but from memory
      og multiplier
      1.040 .129
      1.060 .135
      and approx linear between. Higher ogs aren't linear.
      It has something to do with an assumption that the
      yeast uses a fixed amount of sugar to initially grow
      (producing no ethanol).
      Hope that helps,
      Rob.


      --- Mark <markgofast@...> wrote:

      > I have always used (Initial Specific Gravity -
      > Final Specific
      > Gravity) X 135 to calculate the abv of a fermented
      > wash.
      >
      > Reviewing TA's site, I saw (ISG-FSG) X 129 ! ! !
      > !
      >
      > About a 5% difference. Which one is right?
      >
      > I got the 135 factor from Lines Big Book a bazillion
      > years ago. I
      > think Miller uses the same factor.
      >
      > Mark
      >
      >
      >
      >


      __________________________________________________
      Do You Yahoo!?
      Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
      http://mail.yahoo.com
    • rodmacd2000
      For a straight sugar wash 129 is correct. I ve seen the derivation of this from basic principles a couple of times but can t remember where. Maybe on Tony
      Message 2 of 4 , Aug 2, 2005
        For a straight sugar wash 129 is correct. I've seen the derivation of
        this from basic principles a couple of times but can't remember where.

        Maybe on Tony Ackland's WEB site. Or one of Mike Nixon's postings to
        this forum? Or one of Dr. John Stone's book?

        --- In Distillers@yahoogroups.com, "Mark" <markgofast@h...> wrote:
        > I have always used (Initial Specific Gravity - Final Specific
        > Gravity) X 135 to calculate the abv of a fermented wash.
        >
        > Reviewing TA's site, I saw (ISG-FSG) X 129 ! ! ! !
        >
        > About a 5% difference. Which one is right?
        >
        > I got the 135 factor from Lines Big Book a bazillion years ago. I
        > think Miller uses the same factor.
        >
        > Mark
      • Robert Thomas
        It s definately not constant, unless you og/fg are constant. See: http://tinyurl.com/8cb2y http://tinyurl.com/c7wlq that said and done, whats a few % petween
        Message 3 of 4 , Aug 2, 2005
          It's definately not constant, unless you og/fg are
          constant.
          See:
          http://tinyurl.com/8cb2y
          http://tinyurl.com/c7wlq

          that said and done, whats a few % petween friends.
          Rob.


          --- rodmacd2000 <rmacdoug@...> wrote:

          > For a straight sugar wash 129 is correct. I've seen
          > the derivation of
          > this from basic principles a couple of times but
          > can't remember where.
          >
          > Maybe on Tony Ackland's WEB site. Or one of Mike
          > Nixon's postings to
          > this forum? Or one of Dr. John Stone's book?
          >
          > --- In Distillers@yahoogroups.com, "Mark"
          > <markgofast@h...> wrote:
          > > I have always used (Initial Specific Gravity -
          > Final Specific
          > > Gravity) X 135 to calculate the abv of a fermented
          > wash.
          > >
          > > Reviewing TA's site, I saw (ISG-FSG) X 129 ! !
          > ! !
          > >
          > > About a 5% difference. Which one is right?
          > >
          > > I got the 135 factor from Lines Big Book a
          > bazillion years ago. I
          > > think Miller uses the same factor.
          > >
          > > Mark
          >
          >
          >
          >


          __________________________________________________
          Do You Yahoo!?
          Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
          http://mail.yahoo.com
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.