ACADEMIC QUESTION: S.G, soluability, physics OR Why am I stupid?

[motobrewer]

As far as dissolving it in water goes, the overall mass of the water/sugar increases, but the amount of space (volume) that is taken up is pretty is EXACTLY the same as the volume of the water did.

i have dissolved a lot of sugar in a lot of water, and this is innaccurate.

In my experience, if you have 8 oz weight of water(~8oz volume, or 1 cup), and put 8oz weight of cane sugar in it, you will have roughly 12oz volume of solution.

 

[evrose]

i have dissolved a lot of sugar in a lot of water, and this is innaccurate.

In my experience, if you have 8 oz weight of water(~8oz volume, or 1 cup), and put 8oz weight of cane sugar in it, you will have roughly 12oz volume of solution.

Volume(final) = Volume(water) + Volume(sugar)

Because there is airspace in the gaps between the sugar grains, it may not look like that. But if you did the math properly, using the mass and density of each component, that's what you'd see.

 

[ACbrewer]

Seriously? Nit-picking? You started a thread asking an "Academic question". You got "Academic answers".
Actually, it has everything to do with weight. Really, when you're calculating the amounts of stuff to use in brewing, you're always dealing with MASS. MASS MASS MASS MASS MASS.

MASS.

Always.

I need a beer.

So then you use a blance scale in your brewhouse? With calibrated masses to balance with? Because othewise, you adding pounds or newtons or weight kg, NOT mass kg. Except for a balance scale, we use weight when measuring or more accurately, the scales measure weights, not masses. And yes we all need a beer now.

 

[Bookworm]

Most of the nit picking answers and information given are not precisely correct, including mine. But without getting into mass spheres, bond angels, dipoles, and a lot of other complicated stuff they are more than close enough for beer.

EDIT: Maybe we could ask Stephen Hawking if he can work on a unified theory of beer but I doubt if it would be much less complicated than coming up with a unified theory of physics.

 

[evrose]

So then you use a blance scale in your brewhouse? With calibrated masses to balance with? Because othewise, you adding pounds or newtons or weight kg, NOT mass kg. Except for a balance scale, we use weight when measuring or more accurately, the scales measure weights, not masses. And yes we all need a beer now.

Oh Bloody *#&#$... It was too early in the morning when I typed that, and by coffee hadn't circulated. Point conceded.

I guess my overriding point to the OP is to STOP confusing the issue. He's making this entire thing more complicated than it needs to be... and frankly, is being a bit stubborn.

I'm going to find that beer...

 

[woozy]

Ugh... the difference between mass and weight has been explained in this thread, so I won't bother to repeat it. If you want to start understanding the science, you have to start thinking like a scientist... which means you have to start using terms like a scientist. Saying, "oh well, it's close enough" is a bad baseline attitude. again... geesh.

Everyone with a high-school education ought to know the difference between mass and weight. Are you telling me that density because it is mass/volume can't possibly be used to measure weight/volume because weight and mass are different things and therefore can't possibly be co-related? Then I question who does and doesn't understand the difference between mass and weight.

My one and only claim and only claim that had anything whatsoever to do with mass was that if a solution has a gravity of 1.046 then a) the solution is 1.046 denser than water b) a volume unit of the solution is 1.046 times heavier than a volume unit of water and c) a volume unit of the solution is 1.046 times more massive than a volume unit of water; and as long as we are on the planet earth (or anywhere else with a consistent gravity) the three statements are equivalent. (i.e. given any one you can conclude the other two)

Are you claiming that that is not true?

Actually, it has everything to do with weight.

That's what I said. It was someone else who said it didn't.

Holy wow Batman... I can't even start to unravel that. And I can't be bothered with the rest of this... it's makes my head hurt trying to read it...

It's all true and accurate. The moon *is* falling. That's what being in orbit is. [falling: moving under the influence of gravity.] And the moon has a "weight" of GMm/R^2 (where G is the gravitational constant; M the mass of the earth; m the mass of the moon; and R the distance between their centers). This is equal to the "weight" of the earth under the moon's gravity.

So then you use a blance scale in your brewhouse? With calibrated masses to balance with? Because othewise, you adding pounds or newtons or weight kg, NOT mass kg. Except for a balance scale, we use weight when measuring or more accurately, the scales measure weights, not masses. And yes we all need a beer now.

*THANK* you!

Oh Bloody *#&#$... It was too early in the morning when I typed that, and by coffee hadn't circulated. Point conceded.

I guess my overriding point to the OP is to STOP confusing the issue. He's making this entire thing more complicated than it needs to be... and frankly, is being a bit stubborn.

I'm going to find that beer...

Confusing *what* issue?

The issue was resolved in the very *second* post when it was pointed out the volumes increase when adding sugar.

And that was *it*. End of story.

*I* am not the one who brought up any red herrings about the difference between mass and weight. ("red herring" and "nit-picking" because i) the concepts where never confused in the original post and ii) any hypothetical misunderstanding of the concepts were not pertainent to the reasoning of the the original post and would not, in this case, have led to the false conclusion.)

 

[woozy]

*My* point is that I'm willing to concede that I was stupid enough the not know what the meaning of soluable was. And that was damn stupid. It was so damned stupid that I'm not willing to blame myself solely and instead am going to blame some indefinate article (pun not intended) that lead me astray. Partially. I was stupid for letting it lead me astray when I should have known better.

But I'm *not* willing to concede that I ever misunderstood the difference between mass and weight even when I used the unfortunate (but still true) phrase "can be considered synonamous" and certainly not that I misused the terms in any way that would have led to a false conclusion.

And in that I am stubborn.

 

[evrose]

I'm going to open a 2008 Stone RIS. This thread has made that a necessity.

 

[Doongie]

Sugar has a diastatic power of 0.

Diastatic power is a measure of enzyme activity.

This ^^^^^

 

[woozy]

This ^^^^^ (diastatic meaning)

Yes. Yes. I acknowledge I used on incorrect terminology. And I'm grateful to have the correction. I'm still unsure of the proper term for "PPGage", that is the gravity factor of sugar.

Nonetheless improper terminology didn't contribute to any faulty conclusion.