| flatbutt |
09-21-2022 08:18 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noah930
(Post 11803895)
Yeah, I read that. They would dunk a pellet of gunpowder in the alcohol and try to light it. If it ignited, that was "proof" of a higher alcohol content, and it would be taxed higher. But I guess why create a metric that's exactly double an already established convention (alcohol by volume)? Why not just continue to use ABV? Or is that government bureaucracy for you, even in 1848?
|
That method didn't take into account that temperature effects the flammability of the alcohol. If temperature isn't standard then the method is flawed.
England standardized or tried to standardize proofing. They said a proof liquor had an alcohol level 12⁄13 the weight of an equal volume of distilled water at 11 °C (51 °F).
This method made the proofing system more confusing.
The USA came up with something different. Here, a liquor’s proof is two times the ABV. So this means that a beverage with 30% ABV is 60 proof. A “proof spirit” has to be at least 100 proof. So the 60 means it's only 60% of a fully proof booze. Huh?
French scientist Joseph-Louis Gay-Lussac took 100% ABV to equal 100 proof and 100% water by volume to be 0 proof. This means that the ABV percentage number is the same as the proof number.
The three proof scales arean alcohol with 45% ABV is about 78.9 proof in Great Britain, 90 proof in the U.S., and 45 proof in France.
Now you know...I think.
|