Setting up Equipment in BrewSmith... 5 Gallon Batch, 10 gallon Cooler Mash Tun

Hi Everyone,

I just bought BeerSmith after already having the iOS version for some time now. In both cases, I've seen the pre-installed settings for a 5 gallon batch size only use a 5 gallon cooler.

My 5 gallon brew equipment currently includes an 8 gallon kettle, a mash tun with false bottom converted from a Home Depot 10 Gallon cooler. My sparge tank also uses another 10 gallon home depot cooler. Probably not necessary, but these are all of course using ball valves. (I'm still bottling, but tips on filling out any of the kegging info would be helpful as well, since the keg is at least on the way.)

How can I input the right values into BeerSmith, considering I'm using the 10 gallon coolers, not the 5?
i.e. The deadspace is obviously going to be different with the larger cooler.

Is the mash tun cooler the only cooler affected by the size difference?
Or do I need to make a setup change to tell it I'm using another 10 gallon cooler to hold sparge water as well?

Any other tips for values to enter would be much appreciated.

Thanks,
BrewKev

Brad has blogs and videos on the web site to guide you through setting up your equipment profile. 

One thing to keep in mind is not to confuse your equipment size with your batch size.  The fact that you don't use most of the volume has no bearing on the actual volume of the equipment.  You could mash in a 50 gal cooler making 5-gal batches, but your mash tun size is still 50 gallons.

Having just purchased Beersmith I was disappointed in the equipment profiles offered. Why is there no effort to represent the equipment that are commonly sold in home brew shops? Most common is a 40qt/8gal pot set up to make a 5 gallon wort. Yes, I can scale another profile but why? I bought the program to simplifiy the process.

The equipment profiles are templates which you can modify for your particular set up.  Even when you can match exactly the batch volume and mash tun size of a kit, everybody's boil off rate, trub losses, and other process variables can vary greatly.

They are not presented to be an absolute or to mimic everyone's system and process.

Along these lines:

Is there a reason why batch volume, etc... is tied to equipment profile?

I have a fixed set of equipment: a 6gal kettle, a 15 gal kettle, a 15 gal mash tun, etc...

I might brew a 5 gal bath in my 15 gal kettle, or it might be a 10 gallon batch... or 6 gallons, or 7... This requires me to build separate equipment profiles for the same physical piece of equipment.

Why is not only the static info about the equipment (weight, specific heat, deadspace, etc...) associated with the equipment profile, but also recipe-specific info like top up water, boil time, & batch volume?

Batch volume is tied to a particular equipment profile as a starting point.  There is no reason that with that same equipment profile you cannot scale a recipe up or down to another size.  It just gives you a default starting point.

There may be some changes in boil off rate of a 5 gal batch vs. a 10 gal batch when using the same equipment profile, but you can also make those adjustments within the recipe.  Once you have selected the equipment profile for that recipe, click on the check mark icon next to it and it will allow you to edit your particular standard equipment for that recipe alone.  Likewise, you can use the 'scale reicpe' feature within a recipe and leave the equipment file the same.

Boil off losses are (significantly more) related to equipment constants for any given time/heat applied, liquid surface area presented being the chief amongst them. Thus tying that to the equipment profile makes sense.

Now it may take longer TIME to get up to boil with more liquid during which evaporation can occur, but that should then be accounted for in the recipe, as that's where you know if you are doing a 5 gal vs. 10 gal batch, no?

Tying batch size to the equipment profile feels clumsy. You either have a bunch of recipes, a number of them which may have the same name as the equipment you have defined in your equipment profile, but  which may not actually be defined the same, as you've checked the box and adjusted for that recipe.

Or, you have what I end up with: 5 different versions of the same equipment, each tied to a different batch size.

My wife has a 4 qt saucepan. Regardless of whether she's making 4 cups of gravy or 12, it's the same sauce pan. If she  needs to adjust based on the volume, she adjusts the recipe, not the pan.

scaesare said:

My wife has a 4 qt saucepan. Regardless of whether she's making 4 cups of gravy or 12, it's the same sauce pan. If she  needs to adjust based on the volume, she adjusts the recipe, not the pan.

Click to expand...

The capacity of the equipment is relevant to the yield volume of any scenario. The saucepan will have a certain amount of gravy stuck to the sides of the pan, regardless of batch size.

No matter which method of scraping, spooning or just pouring is used, something stays behind. Lets say the loss is two ounces. That is loss and it is a higher percentage of smaller batches (2/32= 6%) than larger ones (2/96 = 2%), thus smaller batches are less efficient in that pan.

Well, I'm not sure that's really applicable given the viscosity we are dealing with:

My dip tube in my kettle leaves 0.5 gallons in the bottom of my keg. This is regardless if I start with 5 gallons of wort, or 15. This is measured and consistent (which makes sense, the dip tube does not move).

Are you really trying to tell me Brewsmith is calculating for the immeasurable film of water on the inside of the tun?

I expect not, and that it's just an example.

But nonetheless, it illustrates my point: anything that's recipe-specific should be tied , not to the equipment, which doesn't vary, but to the recipe which does.

scaesare said:

Well, I'm not sure that's really applicable given the viscosity we are dealing with:

My dip tube in my kettle leaves 0.5 gallons in the bottom of my keg. This is regardless if I start with 5 gallons of wort, or 15. This is measured and consistent (which makes sense, the dip tube does not move).

Are you really trying to tell me Brewsmith is calculating for the immeasurable film of water on the inside of the tun?

I expect not, and that it's just an example.

But nonetheless, it illustrates my point: anything that's recipe-specific should be tied , not to the equipment, which doesn't vary, but to the recipe which does.

Click to expand...

SMH....

You're not grasping the concept of wort loss, even with the mathematical illustration of such. It's your analogy, man. I just went with it.

So help me understand:

What are the factors that BS uses to account for wort loss for a boil kettle, for instance?

scaesare said:

So help me understand:

What are the factors that BS uses to account for wort loss for a boil kettle, for instance?

Click to expand...

Whatever you say it is. If it's just a simple trub pile in the bottom of the kettle, or an accumulated loss from kettle plus counterflow chiller plus tubing plus sample; the sum total is what you use for this loss.

EDIT: You might also be asking if BeerSmith adds this amount to the wort boil volume. Yes, it does. It is a post boil, post chill volume. This volume is then subtracted from the post boil total to get your batch size. BeerSmith actually calculates backwards starting with batch size, then adding Trub loss, thermal expansion, evaporation. Top up water is, of course, subtracted from kettle volume if added to the fermenter and from mash/sparge water if added to the kettle.

Trub in the bottom of my kettle is a static constant for given equipment.
Ditto for loss to chiller.
Ditto for loss to tubing.
Ditto for sample.

Thus all of the above make sense for being tied to the equipment.

When I suggest batch size shouldn't be associated with the equipment, but rather the recipe, the responses counter to this stated things such as:

Oginme said:

There may be some changes in boil off rate of a 5 gal batch vs. a 10 gal batch when using the same equipment profile

Click to expand...

This is counter to what I've read, and directly measured. Boil off rate is dependent on things such as surface area of vessel, relative temp, relative humidity, BTU's applied via the burner, etc... and as such need be accounted for variables.

I boil off a .75 gals/hr regardless of starting with 5 gallons or 15 in the same vessel.

So i'm asking for a real-world example of how batch size affects the boil-off performance of the equipment, such that it makes sense to include in the equipment profile?

Another:

brewfun said:

The capacity of the equipment is relevant to the yield volume of any scenario. The saucepan will have a certain amount of gravy stuck to the sides of the pan, regardless of batch size.

No matter which method of scraping, spooning or just pouring is used, something stays behind. Lets say the loss is two ounces. That is loss and it is a higher percentage of smaller batches (2/32= 6%) than larger ones (2/96 = 2%), thus smaller batches are less efficient in that pan.

Click to expand...

The only realisticly measurable loss related to the capacity of the vessel are the ones outlined above (trub, tubing, etc...).

Again, I am asking for a real-world example of how tying the the batch size to the equipment makes a difference?


These are honest questions. This is the first time I've heard the claims that (for the precision available outside a lab) there's an appreciable difference in losses other than the statically defined ones.

If there are, what are they, and is BS accounting for them? If there aren't really, then why does batch size belong with equipment rather than with recipe, as is being presented here?

scaesare said:

Trub in the bottom of my kettle is a static constant for given equipment.
Ditto for loss to chiller.
Ditto for loss to tubing.
Ditto for sample.

Click to expand...

Good. So, you also understand that this static amount becomes a larger percentage of the total wort as your batch size decreases, right?

Thus all of the above make sense for being tied to the equipment.

Click to expand...

Good, so we can stop discussing it, as long as you understand the whole percentage thing.

When I suggest batch size shouldn't be associated with the equipment, but rather the recipe, the responses counter to this stated things such as:

Click to expand...

Here's the thing.... You're in the BeerSmith 2 Questions forum. This presupposes that you are asking for an explanation.

To make a suggestion, use the Suggestions forum. Unless the suggestion is for something already in BeerSmith, you will likely not get any response there because a suggestion is just that. BeerSmith can use lots of new features, according to that forum, and many are very good.

This is counter to what I've read,
...
I boil off a .75 gals/hr regardless of starting with 5 gallons or 15 in the same vessel.

Click to expand...

Good for you. You have a variable that makes that possible: a knob. If you apply the exact same number of BTUs to 5 gallons that you would for 10, you'd experience different results.

The funny thing is, BeerSmith has a setting for you. You can choose to make boiloff a static number, or factored according to time. And it's in your equipment profile because it'd be specific to your equipment. Seems like wish granted, here.

So i'm asking for a real-world example of how batch size affects the boil-off performance of the equipment, such that it makes sense to include in the equipment profile?

Click to expand...

Electric systems where the element is a constant. I happen to use steam and have a constant supply of BTUs that's the same to matter what volume I have and I certainly have changes in boiloff. Direct flame, where the burner is precisely sized for the full volume. I can give you more, but it involves math....

On a more practical note, what if you want to take your recipe to a friend's to make, using their gear? Don't you think that the boiloff of that system will be different than yours?

Another:

brewfun said:

Lets say the loss is two ounces. That is loss and it is a higher percentage of smaller batches (2/32= 6%) than larger ones (2/96 = 2%), thus smaller batches are less efficient in that pan.

Click to expand...

The only realisticly measurable loss related to the capacity of the vessel are the ones outlined above (trub, tubing, etc...).

Click to expand...

Don't strain yourself. Notice that, just like your example, this illustration had the same loss for both scenarios. And, just like your question asked, it outlines two different batch volumes. And, just like the answer that you seek, it plainly shows how loss is a percentage, therefore directly related to Brewhouse Efficiency of the equipment.

Again, I am asking for a real-world example of how tying the the batch size to the equipment makes a difference?

Click to expand...

Asked and answered. Moving a recipe between differing volumes and equipment cannot be accomplished without knowing the capacity of the equipment. The original recipe is just a starting point. Making it work on your system, or mine, is what BeerSmith is all about.

If you somehow get to have one of your recipes made at my brewery, I have to scale it to either 250, 900 or 1800 gallons, depending on the equipment used. Likewise, if you ask me for my porter recipe, it would be for 1800 gallons. It's written for the 4% loss of the largest system, but if I make it on the small system, I have to scale it for the 14.5% loss that the smallest batch size has.

Maybe that's not real world enough for you, though.  :

These are honest questions.

Click to expand...

You're getting honest answers, but aren't making any effort to understand them. You're stuck on rejecting a premise, rather than learning.

This is the first time I've heard the claims that (for the precision available outside a lab) there's an appreciable difference in losses other than the statically defined ones.

Click to expand...

Well, you're new to all grain, by your own description. Even if you have 50 years into your profession, lots of stuff will be "the first time you've heard." Get used to it, too. I have the better part of three decades brewing experience and learn new things all the time. Learning is the best part of brewing.

It isn't the "static" part of the loss that matters. It's the percentage of wort (therefore sugars) it represents. You want your gravity, you get the sugar from either increased Mash efficiency (which is how BeerSmith calculates it) or by adding grain.

It is easily documented, which I have done in my own system:  same kettle, same surface area, same BTU input, different volumes.  The same BTU acting upon different volumes of wort produces a different rate of evaporation. Once you reach boiling, the energy balance looks like this:  energy input (heat from burner) = heat of evaporation + energy loss from ambient cooling.  With a greater volume, there is more area for ambient cooling and higher heat loss through the sides of the kettle.  For smaller volumes, the heat must go somewhere since it cannot raise the temperature greater than the boiling point, so more of the heat energy for a lower volume in the kettle goes towards heat of evaporation once boiling point is reached. When the volumes are close, the difference is really not that great (say 8 liters vs 10 liters).  The larger the difference in volumes for the same kettle, the greater the difference in boil off rate becomes.

Now to your assertions: just because you specify a volume in your equipment file, it does not mean that you can ONLY brew that volume using that equipment profile.  You can take and change the volumes in a recipe at will.  Just be cognizant that the further you change from the design parameters, the less precise the software will be in predicting your outcome.  This software is nearly infinitely amenable to how you want to brew.  If you want to set up one equipment profile for a 100 gallon kettle and then want to brew everything from a 1 gallon batch to an 80 gallon batch, you are free to do it.  just don't expect it to be accurate in its predictions.

If you are looking for accuracy in the modeling, then you want to customize the profiles to be a little more specific to your common batch sizes.