# Another take on the angels' share that does not come from evaporation



## BernardSmith (Jan 22, 2015)

Cannot find the post but a couple of months ago (more or less) someone was asking about an apparent loss of volume when they transferred their wine to their garage or basement for aging. Within a day or so the volume had appreciably fallen and there was some banter about two-legged rats but I would like to revisit this issue because of something I think I see.

Elsewhere on this forum I have posted a message about a chocolate mead I recently started. I added Bentonite with the hope that this will help drop the cocoa and help pack the sediment more compactly. What I see this morning is that the cocoa does seem to be slowly falling out of suspension and the apparent volume of the mead seems to be falling too. I wonder then if one possible reason for an apparent sudden drop in volume might be caused by the process of fruit and other particulates dropping out of suspension and compacting - in much the same way that you can fill a can with much more stone and sand if you pack with increasingly larger elements rather than pack the can randomly, and in similar fashion if you completely fill a jar with ground coffee and shake the jar so that the grounds settle there is plenty of room to add more grounds...So my thinking is that as the particulates in the wine drop out of suspension and fall to the bottom of the carboy their self -compaction has the effect of removing volume from the carboy, The loss then, is more apparent than real - the carboy has - for all intents and purposes exactly the same quantity of liquid as it had the day before, the difference is that the solids in the liquid are not as randomly distributed and so they are taking up less room. Thoughts?


----------



## ibglowin (Jan 22, 2015)

Did you move the chocolate mead from a warmer environment to a cooler environment? Or has the room temp gone cooler since it was placed there?

The expansion of alcohol (at warmer temps) is usually the answer here. Alcohol takes up less volume at a cooler temp than a warmer temp.

I had my carboys on heating pads at 70 degrees and full to the lower rim. I turned off the heat and next morning (room temp is 59) and I have 2-3 more inches of dead space in the carboy.


----------



## JohnT (Jan 22, 2015)

Good glowin... Most likely temperature changes, but to be thorough, let me ask...

Do you have ay teenagers living in your house. That could also explain the sudden drop in volume.


----------



## sour_grapes (Jan 22, 2015)

I do believe that your analogy is off base. In the cases you cite (coffee, stones/sand), you are only focussing your attention on the solids, and ignoring the fluid (air). In the case of the wine, you are focussing on both the solids and the fluids.

In both cases, the rearrangement of the solids does NOT affect the volume taken up by a given amount of (solids + fluids). 

In other words, a better analogy is a sealed can of coffee: if you shake it, you may settle the grounds to the bottom, and the air gathers preferentially at the top, but the volume in the can has not changed.


----------



## codeman (Jan 22, 2015)

If you have 1 gallon of water and 1 gallon of alcohol and you blend them, you do not have 2 gallons of liquid.


----------



## JohnT (Jan 22, 2015)

codeman said:


> If you have 1 gallon of water and 1 gallon of alcohol and you blend them, you do not have 2 gallons of liquid.


 

OK, I am by far NOT a chemist, and wondering why that is so. If you are diluting alcohol, you are making a solution and I assume that no chemical reaction has occurred. Why would the volume NOT be a sum of the component volumes????


----------



## BernardSmith (Jan 22, 2015)

ibglowin said:


> Did you move the chocolate mead from a warmer environment to a cooler environment? Or has the room temp gone cooler since it was placed there?
> 
> The expansion of alcohol (at warmer temps) is usually the answer here. Alcohol takes up less volume at a cooler temp than a warmer temp.
> 
> I had my carboys on heating pads at 70 degrees and full to the lower rim. I turned off the heat and next morning (room temp is 59) and I have 2-3 more inches of dead space in the carboy.



Temperature may vary a little but in both directions because the thermostat works homeostatically (puts the heat on and off only after it has overshot the set temperature).. and then there is the evidence of other carboys in the same room on the same table - no solids in those and no evidence of any visible change in volume over the same period. The total change in volume is about 1/4 of an inch, the airlock is "full" and the carboys are made of glass...


----------



## sour_grapes (Jan 22, 2015)

codeman said:


> If you have 1 gallon of water and 1 gallon of alcohol and you blend them, you do not have 2 gallons of liquid.





JohnT said:


> OK, I am by far NOT a chemist, and wondering why that is so. If you are diluting alcohol, you are making a solution and I assume that no chemical reaction has occurred. Why would the volume NOT be a sum of the component volumes????




Codeman is correct. John, you allude to the fact that you realize that volume is not conserved in a chemical reaction, but neither is it conserved in a physical reaction.

Basically, the polar nature of the water molecules and the ethanol molecules interact to allow you to get more molecules into a given space. (Not a very informative explanation, but best I can do at the moment.)


----------



## codeman (Jan 22, 2015)

sour_grapes said:


> Codeman is correct. John, you allude to the fact that you realize that volume is not conserved in a chemical reaction, but neither is it conserved in a physical reaction.
> 
> Basically, the polar nature of the water molecules and the ethanol molecules interact to allow you to get more molecules into a given space. (Not a very informative explanation, but best I can do at the moment.)



Yes, much like adding carbon to iron. The iron won't be a larger volume but it will weigh more as it turns to steel.


----------



## JohnT (Jan 23, 2015)

Thanks.. 

I never would have guessed! I must have been asleep for that part in High School Chemistry class! 

How much of a difference would there be? In other words, what percentage of the total volume would you end up with??


----------



## Floandgary (Jan 23, 2015)

Uh-oh,,,,, "DEFLATE-GATE" strikes in serious territory now!!!


----------



## Floandgary (Jan 23, 2015)

One of the basic laws of Physics is that "matter can neither be created nor destroyed". In addition to the above, consider any transformations into a gaseous state which can escape confinement much easier than a liquid.


----------



## JohnT (Jan 23, 2015)

Floandgary said:


> One of the basic laws of Physics is that "matter can neither be created nor destroyed". In addition to the above, consider any transformations into a gaseous state which can escape confinement much easier than a liquid.


 
What about a nuclear reaction?

I think that this is a law of chemistry and not physics?

(one nit down, now I need to find another to pick)


----------



## wineinmd (Jan 23, 2015)

JohnT said:


> What about a nuclear reaction?
> 
> I think that this is a law of chemistry and not physics?
> 
> (one nit down, now I need to find another to pick)


Is your question about nuclear reactions related to matter being neither created or destroyed? 

Matter isn't destroyed in a nuclear reaction. It is essentially the decay or breakdown of one unstable isotope into one or more other isotopes plus a number of neutrons. The amount of matter at the beginning and the end is the same, just rearranged.


----------



## JohnT (Jan 23, 2015)

wineinmd said:


> Is you question about nuclear reactions related to matter being neither created or destroyed?
> 
> Matter isn't destroyed in a nuclear reaction. It is essentially the decay or breakdown of one unstable isotope into one or more other isotopes plus a number of neutrons. The amount of matter at the beginning and the end is the same, just rearranged.


 
can't plutonium (an element) be created in a nuclear reaction using uranium (another element). In this case, isn't matter being created?

What about the big bang? Wasn't matter created then?


----------



## sour_grapes (Jan 23, 2015)

Floandgary said:


> One of the basic laws of Physics is that "matter can neither be created nor destroyed".





JohnT said:


> What about a nuclear reaction?
> 
> I think that this is a law of chemistry and not physics?





wineinmd said:


> Is your question about nuclear reactions related to matter being neither created or destroyed?
> 
> Matter isn't destroyed in a nuclear reaction. It is essentially the decay or breakdown of one unstable isotope into one or more other isotopes plus a number of neutrons. The amount of matter at the beginning and the end is the same, just rearranged.



Whoa whoa whoa, fellas. One at a time!

John is correct that matter can be created and destroyed -- specifically, it can be exchanged for energy, and energy may be exchanged for matter. You may have heard of E=mc^2 ?

The thing is, this happens in CHEMICAL reactions as well as it does in nuclear reactions. In nuclear reactions, the number of protons+neutrons is conserved (i.e., same before and after), as wineinmd alludes to. However, the total mass of the new nuclei after the reaction is LESS than it was before the reaction (assuming an exothermic reaction). The "missing" mass was given off as energy, perhaps in the form of gamma rays and/or kinetic energy (i.e., motion) of the nuclei. 
It is NO DIFFERENT for chemical reactions. Again, after an exothermic reaction, the remaining atoms actually weigh less than the atoms weighed before the reaction. The "missing" mass is again given off as energy, perhaps in the form of infrared radiation and/or kinetic energy (i.e., motion) of the atoms and molecules.

The difference is the scale of these phenomena. In nuclear reactions, tens of MeV are given off, so about 1 part in 10^5 of the mass is converted. In chemical reactions, a few eV are given off, so about 1 part in 10^12 of the mass is converted. This is an immeasurably small fraction, so it APPEARS that the mass is conserved in a chemical reaction. This is an illusion: It is not conserved.


----------



## wineinmd (Jan 23, 2015)

JohnT said:


> can't plutonium (an element) be created in a nuclear reaction using uranium (another element). In this case, isn't matter being created?
> 
> What about the big bang? Wasn't matter created then?


I think you're confusing elements and matter. Plutonium (and all elements) are a combination of protons, electrons, and neutrons. These basic building blocks aren't created or destroyed in a nuclear reaction, they are rearranged. Plutonium can be produced (created) in a series of reactions starting when uranium atoms absorb neutrons. 

I don't know much about the big bang, so I can't help you on that aspect, but the production/creation of plutonium is definitely within the laws of physics.

Add: Thanks for the clarification/correction sour_grapes. It has been quite a while since I've used that portion of my noggin'.


----------



## GreginND (Jan 23, 2015)

JohnT said:


> can't plutonium (an element) be created in a nuclear reaction using uranium (another element). In this case, isn't matter being created?
> 
> What about the big bang? Wasn't matter created then?



We don't know what existed at the moment of the big bang. So we can't say that matter/energy was created at that point. Certainly whatever was present changed and formed the universe that we observe today.


----------



## JohnT (Jan 23, 2015)

But time did not exist prior to the big bang. Since matter can only exist within the reality of time, matter could not have existed prior to the big bang.


----------



## wineforfun (Jan 23, 2015)

WOW, this conversation is way too deep for me. Now I know why I make/drink Welchs wine.


----------



## codeman (Jan 23, 2015)

Most people don't know that Plutonium is actually a naturally occurring element and nuclear reactors are natural and organic. Or at least the Oklo Reactor is http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor

Uranium 235 is what's normally found in nuclear bombs but if you start with say plutonium 239 and add some tritium (hydrogen 3) and lithium 6 the temperatures will be so hot and with the added neutrons from the h3 you can get uranium 238 to fission. Of course at that stage it wouldn't really be uranium 238.


----------



## codeman (Jan 23, 2015)

Anyone want to talk about quantum chromodynamics?


----------



## wineforfun (Jan 23, 2015)

JohnT said:


> But time did not exist prior to the big bang. Since matter can only exist within the reality of time, matter could not have existed prior to the big bang.



haha
And you know this how? 

Pretty sure none of us were around to validate or disprove this. We don't what things were like at the beginning as we weren't here and everyone always tries to put today's logic, time constraints, science, etc. into action and you don't know that that is relevant.


----------



## codeman (Jan 23, 2015)

JohnT said:


> But time did not exist prior to the big bang. Since matter can only exist within the reality of time, matter could not have existed prior to the big bang.



Time is relative. The faster you're moving or the closer you are to an object with a large mass, the slower time FOR YOU will be. If you orbited a black hole time will pass more slowly for you than someone who's a light year away.


----------



## sour_grapes (Jan 23, 2015)

We just don't know.

We have a very good idea of what the universe was like 10^-11 seconds after the Bang. We have some pretty good ideas and solid speculation for what happened back to 10^-29 seconds after the Bang. And we have fairly good ideas and decent speculation going back to 10^-37 seconds. Beyond that, we just don't know. There are a number of competing ideas.


----------



## tanddc (Jan 23, 2015)

Its amazing all the knowledge on this board...and we still can't figure out where the wine is going.


----------



## sour_grapes (Jan 23, 2015)

codeman said:


> Anyone want to talk about quantum chromodynamics?



Sure! Whaddya got?


----------



## wineforfun (Jan 23, 2015)

tanddc said:


> Its amazing all the knowledge on this board...and we still can't figure out where the wine is going.



That would make a great signature line.


----------



## ibglowin (Jan 23, 2015)

You lost the OP a long time ago!


----------



## JohnT (Jan 23, 2015)

Here is to boldly sipping where no man has sipped before!!!! 

View attachment untitled.bmp


View attachment untitled2.bmp


----------



## JohnT (Jan 23, 2015)

codeman said:


> Time is relative. The faster you're moving or the closer you are to an object with a large mass, the slower time FOR YOU will be. If you orbited a black hole time will pass more slowly for you than someone who's a light year away.


 

The two schools of thought have been that time itself is either a physical manifestation or an unreal element of our brain's own perception of the world around us. 

Recently, it has all but been proven that time actually does exist and is not just simply a product of our brains. Since time is real, time itself must have had a beginning (infinity does not exist). That beginning occurred at the point of the big bang.

Sure time is relative and, like other physical aspects of our reality, can be manipulated. Not just motion, but also gravity. If you were to cross the event horizon, for example, time infinitely slows down to the point where the observer will see you simply stop and never move.


Yes, this is off topic, but I think we addressed the OP fully.


----------



## Steve_M (Jan 23, 2015)

Guys simple physics,

It's not a question of where he grips it! It's a simple question of weight ratios! A five ounce bird could not carry a one pound coconut. 

Thanks,

Steve


----------



## geek (Jan 23, 2015)

Ok, now going back to wine talking and the OP....lol

Temp change definitely is the cause. I put 5 carboys in my garage which is cold in the 30s and all lost wine, or at least compressed the volume as each one is like 2 inches below the top now.


----------



## BernardSmith (Jan 23, 2015)

wineforfun said:


> haha
> And you know this how?
> 
> Pretty sure none of us were around to validate or disprove this. We don't what things were like at the beginning as we weren't here and everyone always tries to put today's logic, time constraints, science, etc. into action and you don't know that that is relevant.



Takes more than this to "lose" me - sorry... 
There was something on WNYC an hour or so ago about time and the big bang and the idea that was being offered by Roger Penrose (the fellow who co-wrote an important paper with Hawking on the existence of black holes ) was that the way we measure time today is utterly dependent on the mass of matter and at the moment of the big bang mass as we understand mass did not exist so time as we understand it did not exist and that says Penrose might suggest that the big bang may have taken place in a universe that was already infinite... I have now exhausted my knowledge of quantum physics... back to the sociology of the everyday...


----------



## GreginND (Jan 24, 2015)

JohnT said:


> But time did not exist prior to the big bang. Since matter can only exist within the reality of time, matter could not have existed prior to the big bang.




I'm not sure matter is restricted to time as we know it in this universe. Regardless that doesn't mean there was nothing. And the concept of "prior to the Big Bang" doesn't make sense because it is inherently temporal.


----------

