Talk:Brix

message: --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Brix and baume are not limited to wine making and brewing either. GraemeLeggett 12:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mind working on a better title but could explain why  Brix is unacceptable? AgneCheese/Wine 18:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They measure the same thing, but they're historicaly and geographicaly different.  Similar to lumping tham all under Öchsle. Fahreheit and Rankine aren't (I hope; well shouldn't be, anyway) lumped under Celcius.  How about Sugar hydrometry?  Yuch!  Sucro-hydrometry?  Yuch!!!  --Saintrain 21:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I can see that point. I do think there should be some type of merge because I really can't see any of the three articles becoming more then a stub-especially since they are all essentially about the same thing. AgneCheese/Wine 06:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Brix doesn't look like a stub article. Its not a long article but I'd say it has most the elmeents of a proper article.GraemeLeggett 09:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: that is a redirect to hydrometer, at the moment. since I made it one anyhow. GraemeLeggett 09:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well then how about a merge into hydrometer? AgneCheese/Wine 09:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hydrometer is only the device, and there are other ways of using the scales eg refractometry, trombone like sections of pipe in a continuous process stream.GraemeLeggett 09:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: As pointed out above, Brix is used in contexts other than measuring must weight -- brewing usage might even outweigh winemaking usage?  More generally, I don't see the point of merging these articles, they are all still developing and should be left in peace until there is a clear reason to merge or reorganise.  I suggest removing the merger proposal. --Ott2 16:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Articles like Öchsle scale have been "developing" since 2005 and are still no more then a stub. I think there are inherent limitations in the subject matter that would be better served in a collective article on the topic rather then a scattering of stubs. There is not much potential for these articles to develop further and I think Flag Steward's idea of merging to the scale articles to must weight with a link to Brix is probably the best. AgneCheese/Wine 18:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It would be an excellent idea to expand the article on must weight to include a comparison between different measurement scales and how they are used in different wine-making countries. However, at least in the case of the Öchsle scale (which was the reason I ended up on this discussion page) it features so prominently in German wine classification and debate about it that it definitely should have its own article. I therefore oppose a merger. Tomas e 13:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Oppose any merger, but the degrees Baume have a commonly used spinoff variant known as degrees API which are commonly used for the density of crude oil.  Gene Nygaard 15:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge [[Öchsle scale]] and [[Baumé scale]] into Brix

message: How about Hydrometry? AgneCheese/Wine 06:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: that is a redirect to hydrometer, at the moment. since I made it one anyhow. GraemeLeggett 09:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well then how about a merge into hydrometer? AgneCheese/Wine 09:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hydrometer is only the device, and there are other ways of using the scales eg refractometry, trombone like sections of pipe in a continuous process stream.GraemeLeggett 09:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: As pointed out above, Brix is used in contexts other than measuring must weight -- brewing usage might even outweigh winemaking usage?  More generally, I don't see the point of merging these articles, they are all still developing and should be left in peace until there is a clear reason to merge or reorganise.  I suggest removing the merger proposal. --Ott2 16:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Articles like Öchsle scale have been "developing" since 2005 and are still no more then a stub. I think there are inherent limitations in the subject matter that would be better served in a collective article on the topic rather then a scattering of stubs. There is not much potential for these articles to develop further and I think Flag Steward's idea of merging to the scale articles to must weight with a link to Brix is probably the best. AgneCheese/Wine 18:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It would be an excellent idea to expand the article on must weight to include a comparison between different measurement scales and how they are used in different wine-making countries. However, at least in the case of the Öchsle scale (which was the reason I ended up on this discussion page) it features so prominently in German wine classification and debate about it that it definitely should have its own article. I therefore oppose a merger. Tomas e 13:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Oppose any merger, but the degrees Baume have a commonly used spinoff variant known as degrees API which are commonly used for the density of crude oil.  Gene Nygaard 15:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Merge Destinations

message: A quick google around seems to indicate that "Antoine Brix" actually was Adolph Brix; Antoine Baumé was the developer of the Baumé scale.  However, there is now a growing perception that Brix was called Antoine (partially due to this page perpetuating this version of events).  Could someone establish the correct version? --Ott2 14:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Ott, I went through the revision history and it appears you accidentally included it in your second edit, I'm going to change it to Adolf. Jonathan888 (talk) 20:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ouch.  Thanks for fixing. -- you are welcome .Ott2 07:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brix: Antoine or Adolph? 

message: The scientific usage section is very poor and just wrong. °Brix, measured by refractometer or by specific gravity (density) only ever gives the correct percentage by weight of sucrose for aqueous solutions of sucrose. For any other solution, the value may or may not bear a relation to sucrose content, depending obviously on whether the solution contains any sucrose and if so how much in relation to other soluble components. In addition, the refractive indices of the other components will also be important (if measuring with a refractometer). Measurements by refractive index and by specific gravity will only ever coincide (other than by luck) for pure sucrose solutions. It is not correct to say therefore that a solution (of any kind, e.g. fruit juice) of 20 °Brix contains 20% by weight of soluble solids. This is such a basic mistake and one that is made over and over (even by researchers who should know better) and thus perpetuated. I would therefore ask the author(s) to revise this section. In addition what is meant by an infrared brix meter is unclear. Are you talking about a digital refractometer?
Guy Self (talk) 14:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific usage section 

message: --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Alternatively, we could merge the three articles and name the combined article Hydrometer scales. Biscuittin (talk) 20:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A merge would be my preference. AgneCheese/Wine 03:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, it could be useful to have an umbrella article hydrometer scale (or is that scales?). But I'm slightly sceptical about a merge that would leave us with just one article called "hydrometer scale", and no separate articles on the individual scales, since that would possibly eliminate the Oechsle scale and must weight articles as well, which I consider "useful articles". (Klosterneuburger Mostwaage/KMW on the other hand is just a redirect.) The reason why I'm sceptical is that these are not just archaic units or historical curiosities, they are actually still used in e.g. wine classification, and different countries use different units in their formal regulations. Thus, all of these are terms which it will be relevant to search for and link to, without arriving at a longish article called something completely different and where you may have to go to further articles to understand the context.On the other hand, the articles for the different scales could be fairly short and concentrate on definition, history and usage of that particular scale. The physics of measurements could probably be left to the umbrella article only, and it could for example include comparison/conversion between the various units. Tomas e (talk) 17:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for this information.  I have added a "Scales" section to the Hydrometer article so I think this removes the need for a separate article.  I would still like to rename "Brix" to "Brix scale" to standardize with the other articles.  Biscuittin (talk) 22:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename? 

message: I would have thought a lot of people would come here trying to figure out what the brix value on a bottle of wine meant. It strikes me that it might be useful to report a table showing typical brix, both at harvest and in the bottle, for classical styles of wines. Anyone think this is a good or bad idea (or do you think it is more common to report residual sugar when it comes to the wine in the glass?) Bilz0r (talk) 00:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding a table with "typical" brix values? 

message: From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brix#Brix_and_Actual_Dissolved_Solids_Content  
"...using a hand held instrument similar to the one in the photograph"
- There's no photograph anywhere in this article. Was there one and it was removed? Was one intended to be added later?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.183.189.148 (talk) 06:16, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text refers to a photograph 

message: Substituted at 10:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Brix. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051016144303/http://fermsoft.com:80/gravbrix.php to http://www.fermsoft.com/gravbrix.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Wiki states that BRIX is a measure of the sucrose density of produce and beverages (an old paradigm). There are 2 counterarguments to this:
1. Modern science indicates that BRIX is measure of the density of all nutrients in F&B, not just sucrose - see http://bionutrient.org/site/bionutrient-rich-food/brix. I am sire there are a number of other scientific bodies who can confirm this, but I have not searched further as this has always been my understanding of BRIX until people started saying BRIX was a measure of sugar content only. And when I tried to find out why they were saying that, and found the answer in Wiki.
2. If BIIX was a measure of sugar content only, then that implies that the produce or beverage consists only of sucrose, does it not? Yet, we know they consist of up to 50 nutrients, vitamins and minerals, according to Dr Patrick Holford in "The Optimum Nutrition Bible", and 37 according to ANZ Foods Standards and other Government Health Organizations around the world .
Any comments?
Cmacquet (talk) 18:48, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  BRIX - measure of sucrose only?, or all minerals, vitamins, and other? 

message: "Note: all polynomials in this article are in a format that can be pasted directly into a spreadsheet"
Except no, they can't. The formulas are displayed as images which can neither be copied nor pasted. And even if they could be, they're not in spreadsheet-compatible format?
Arguably, the formulas in the page source could be copy-pasted, but I doubt we want to expand the note to include details to that effect. Ojh2 (talk) 04:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tables -> Specific Gravity  

message: The NBS polynomial is... let's say suspect with regard to its limited domain and eyebrow-raising amount of difference of its coeffecients compared to the ASBC one. Googling "182.4601 775.6821 775.6821 669.5622" seems to indicate that this stuff originated in Wikipedia. I guess that means we can swap it out all we want?
For what a less suspect equation may look like, I took an extremely abbreviated (5 °Bx interval) table from FisherSci (they also mention a different Brix Emmerich table!) and threw libreoffice calc at it. It vomited out something along the lines of f(x) = 119.1661 x³ − 551.1697 x² + 995.4664 x − 562.5375, which is... quite a bit less of a difference. (Another benefit is that it works for the entire range from 0 to 85. Still, if I am to write one down, I will fit the whole table just to be sure.)  Artoria2e5 🌉 13:03, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any references for NBS polynomial?