I can tell how I would calculate it. I use what is called VMD (Volume Metered Density) sometimes when working with smokeless rifle powders for my hand loading endeavors. Most of the time I just weigh my charges but the VMD method works fine also, or as we say close enough. Pure water has a density of 1.0 (One). Tap water will be close enough to a density of one. Using a 3.1 cc dipper I weighed 3.1 cc of granulated everyday sugar and it weighed 42.7 grains on one of my reloading scales. Here is an explanation of VMD. If I fill my 3.1cc dipper with tap water and weigh it I get 3.1 grams so if I divide my volume 3.1cc by the weight in grams 3.1 I get 1.0 which is what I expect.

So in my test a 3.1cc volume of granulated sugar would be 2.7 weight in grams / 3.1 Volume of dipper = 0.870 for the VMD of granulated sugar. 3.1 * 0.870 = 2.697 or call it 2.7.

Now that said I haven't a clue how hygroscopic sugar is. How much does it matter? Beats me but I doubt the weight would change much in that 5 Lbs of sugar unless it is saturated will weigh close enough to 5.0 Lbs. Does the size of the crystals matter? Not much as this works for stick powder, ball powder and flake powder in reloading both handgun and rifle loads. Just a matter of converting grams to Lbs. So 4.0 US Lbs = 1814.37 grams.

That or use a graduated cylinder and dump 4.0 Lbs of sugar in it and see what you get.

The link pretty much covers how to get a Volume Metered Density. That's how I would do it. You only need to measure the weight of a small quantity of sugar as long as it's a known volume.

Ron

Hi Ron,

Yes i used a graduated cylinder as i noted before in this thread and what i found was that if you work in units of cubic inches for the volume and US pounds for the weight we get a factor of very close to 30.
So dividing the cubic inches by 30 gives the weight in pounds, and of course the weight in pounds times 30 gives the volume in cubic inches.

See how that compares to your measurements, which BTW thanks for doing it interesting to hear what other members are doing.

 

I can tell how I would calculate it. I use what is called VMD (Volume Metered Density) sometimes when working with smokeless rifle powders for my hand loading endeavors. Most of the time I just weigh my charges but the VMD method works fine also, or as we say close enough. Pure water has a density of 1.0 (One). Tap water will be close enough to a density of one. Using a 3.1 cc dipper I weighed 3.1 cc of granulated everyday sugar and it weighed 42.7 grains on one of my reloading scales. Here is an explanation of VMD. If I fill my 3.1cc dipper with tap water and weigh it I get 3.1 grams so if I divide my volume 3.1cc by the weight in grams 3.1 I get 1.0 which is what I expect.

So in my test a 3.1cc volume of granulated sugar would be 2.7 weight in grams / 3.1 Volume of dipper = 0.870 for the VMD of granulated sugar. 3.1 * 0.870 = 2.697 or call it 2.7.

Now that said I haven't a clue how hygroscopic sugar is. How much does it matter? Beats me but I doubt the weight would change much in that 5 Lbs of sugar unless it is saturated will weigh close enough to 5.0 Lbs. Does the size of the crystals matter? Not much as this works for stick powder, ball powder and flake powder in reloading both handgun and rifle loads. Just a matter of converting grams to Lbs. So 4.0 US Lbs = 1814.37 grams.

That or use a graduated cylinder and dump 4.0 Lbs of sugar in it and see what you get.

The link pretty much covers how to get a Volume Metered Density. That's how I would do it. You only need to measure the weight of a small quantity of sugar as long as it's a known volume.

Ron

Hello again,

Using your test sample of 3.1cc of granulated sugar i get 2.86 grams, which is about 6 percent higher than your calculation. So what i am seeing now is there there could be as much as a 10 percent difference in different sugar measurements. The method i used to get 2.86 grams is divide the cubic inches by 30 and that gives the US pounds, then convert to grams (with 1 pound = 453.592 grams).

 

I'll get back to it. Have daughter, son-in-law, granddaughter and their dog visiting for the holiday weekend. Our one dog Pilgrim is happy to have a new cousin dog to play with.

Ron

 

Hi Ron,

Yes i used a graduated cylinder as i noted before in this thread and what i found was that if you work in units of cubic inches for the volume and US pounds for the weight we get a factor of very close to 30.
So dividing the cubic inches by 30 gives the weight in pounds, and of course the weight in pounds times 30 gives the volume in cubic inches.

See how that compares to your measurements, which BTW thanks for doing it interesting to hear what other members are doing.

OK, the kingdom is now quiet. Nice holiday weekend.

I come up with a VMD of about 31 and you got 30 so in the US system of weights and measures we have about the same VMD. So I get 4 Lbs of sugar * 30 = 120 cubic inches. I never went beyond my usual hand loading with smokeless powder before now so I am not in my comfort zone.

Ron

 

OK, the kingdom is now quiet. Nice holiday weekend.

I come up with a VMD of about 31 and you got 30 so in the US system of weights and measures we have about the same VMD. So I get 4 Lbs of sugar * 30 = 120 cubic inches. I never went beyond my usual hand loading with smokeless powder before now so I am not in my comfort zone.

Ron

Ok yes.

Also, since 2.86/2.7*30=31.78 i would think even a factor of 32 would be acceptable more or less.
Thanks for doing this. Now we know there is some variance but not too much.

I also realized that they sell sugar in boxes too for smaller quantities. The box is a rectangular thing so it's easy to calculate the volume L*W*H where H the height is the height of the sugar inside. The weight would be stamped on the box and easily verified so it would be easy to make another calculation.

Next up: Maybe compare the sugar factor to a factor for flour and maybe baking powder.

For baking powder i measure the box to be close to 2 x 3.5 x4.2 inches for 1 lb which gives us a factor of 29.4 although i need to measure the height (4.2 inches) inside the box a little more accurately. it is interesting that it is close to the 30 and 31 and 32 factors already. Using numbers found on the web i get a factor of 28.33 so maybe it is a hair lower than sugar meaning it packs slightly better than sugar.

It might be interesting to know that for pure water the factor is 231 a number much higher than 30. So it would take a lot of moisture to change the weight of sugar or baking powder.

 

While I figure both sugar and baking powder are hygroscopic I doubt it matters much. I do know that smokeless powder manufacturers allow a +/- error lot to lot which is why people loading using dippers of known volume powder check each batch when opening a new 1 LB, 2 LB or 8 LB container.

I also know when weighing water down to +/- 0.1 grain the purity doesn't even much matter. The numbers are "close enough".

Ron

 

From what I recall when carrying raw sugar (in bulk) from here to the Colonial Sugar plant near Baton Rouge, the humidity was not mentioned in the Bill of Lading in any way. Their pier was the most stickiest I ever met in my life. Nobody seemed to spend time / water to clean anything upon completion of the discharge.

All condition surveys I recall when loading / discharging sugar in bulk paid more or less attention to the existence of lumps instead.

Jointly with scrap and ammonium nitrate, sugar is the most corrosive bulk cargo I've ever seen. Better you wash your holds carefully. No surprise that scrap / sugar use to be carried in old vessels and freight is certainly LOW.

 

From what I recall when carrying raw sugar (in bulk) from here to the Colonial Sugar plant near Baton Rouge, the humidity was not mentioned in the Bill of Lading in any way. Their pier was the most stickiest I ever met in my life. Nobody seemed to spend time / water to clean anything upon completion of the discharge.

All condition surveys I recall when loading / discharging sugar in bulk paid more or less attention to the existence of lumps instead.

Jointly with scrap and ammonium nitrate, sugar is the most corrosive bulk cargo I've ever seen. Better you wash your holds carefully. No surprise that scrap / sugar use to be carried in old vessels and freight is certainly LOW.

Some interesting stuff we dont usually think about too much. Thanks.

 

Jointly with scrap and ammonium nitrate, sugar is the most corrosive bulk cargo I've ever seen.

On the corrosive thing, I didn't know it applied to sugar. Some people that restore old cars and things do use molasses in a tank or container to remove rust, without the chance of hurting the underlying steel, like acid dipping or sand blasting would do.

 

On the corrosive thing, I didn't know it applied to sugar. Some people that restore old cars and things do use molasses in a tank or container to remove rust, without the chance of hurting the underlying steel, like acid dipping or sand blasting would do.

My comments are referred to raw (demerara variety) in bulk.

All my career was (except an outstanding exception) in old vessels and I mean OLD, with the consequent lack of maintenance (proper painting amongst many other points). The effect of sugar was awfully evident.

And the smell...!!