I'd like to make a 6 gallon extract batch (with stepping of some speciality grains) and I have a 18L (4.75 gal) pot. I'm trying to create myself an equipement profile but I'm not exactly sure I understand correctly how I should calculate my stuff to fill in the values. Does anyone have such a profile he could share or help me figure my equipement profile?
-
Welcome to the new forum! We upgraded our forum software with a host of new boards, capabilities and features. It is also more secure.
Jump in and join the conversation! You can learn more about the upgrade and new features here.
Equipment question
- Thread starter kontrol
- Start date
tom_hampton
Grandmaster Brewer
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2011
- Messages
- 929
- Reaction score
- 0
Set your efficiency to 100 pct.
Set your true loss to 0 and increase your batch volume to 6.4 to compensate. This is to work around a bug in bs2.
Otherwise looks ok to me.
Set your true loss to 0 and increase your batch volume to 6.4 to compensate. This is to work around a bug in bs2.
Otherwise looks ok to me.
tom_hampton
Grandmaster Brewer
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2011
- Messages
- 929
- Reaction score
- 0
Sorry, autocorrect on my phone.
True loss = "Loss to Trub and chiller"
"Boil off" is the amount of wort (water) that boils off in 1 hour (as long as you keep the box "use boiloff as an hourly rate" checked.
"Cooling loss" is the amount of shrinkage from boiling volume to cooled volume. Beersmith quotes all volumes as "hot" volumes. So, the "post boil volume" is measured while the wort is still near 212 degrees. Then as you cool the wort, the volume measurement will decrease. The "cooling shrinkage" is the percentage that the wort will shrink from boiling to final cooled temperature. 4% is a good number. Cooling loss is simple "post boil Volume * Cooling Shrinkage".
Your final cooled kettle volume (not shown in the screen) will be 3.64 - (3.64 * 4%) = 3.49 gallons.
As I said, BS2 has a bug in it that messes up recipe calculations if you set "Loss to Trub and Chiller" to something other than 0. Its a small issue for all-grain brewers, but its a bigger issue for extract brewers. You have it set to 0.5 gallons now. Set it to 0, and add that 0.5 to your total batch volume to compensate---making your batch volume 6.5 gallons.
So, the way it works is this:
3.93 gallons (Pre-Boil Volume)
- 0.29 gallons (Boil off)
--------------------------------
3.64 gallons (post-boil volume)
-0.15 gallons (cooling shrinkage)
-----------------------------------------
3.49 gallons (cooled kettle volume)
-0.00 gallons (loss to trub and chiller) <<----- due to BS2 bug, otherwise should be 0.5 gallons)
-----------------------------------------------
3.49 gallons (transferred to fermenter) <<---- in real life this will be 2.99 gallons due to trub loss bug
+3.00 gallons (top up volume)
---------------------------------------------------
6.49 gallons (batch volume) <<---------- in real life this will be 6.00 gallons due to trub loss bug
- 0.40 gallons (fermentation loss)
---------------------------------------------------
6.09 gallons (bottling volume) <<--------------in real life this will be 5.59 gallons due to trub loss bug
True loss = "Loss to Trub and chiller"
"Boil off" is the amount of wort (water) that boils off in 1 hour (as long as you keep the box "use boiloff as an hourly rate" checked.
"Cooling loss" is the amount of shrinkage from boiling volume to cooled volume. Beersmith quotes all volumes as "hot" volumes. So, the "post boil volume" is measured while the wort is still near 212 degrees. Then as you cool the wort, the volume measurement will decrease. The "cooling shrinkage" is the percentage that the wort will shrink from boiling to final cooled temperature. 4% is a good number. Cooling loss is simple "post boil Volume * Cooling Shrinkage".
Your final cooled kettle volume (not shown in the screen) will be 3.64 - (3.64 * 4%) = 3.49 gallons.
As I said, BS2 has a bug in it that messes up recipe calculations if you set "Loss to Trub and Chiller" to something other than 0. Its a small issue for all-grain brewers, but its a bigger issue for extract brewers. You have it set to 0.5 gallons now. Set it to 0, and add that 0.5 to your total batch volume to compensate---making your batch volume 6.5 gallons.
So, the way it works is this:
3.93 gallons (Pre-Boil Volume)
- 0.29 gallons (Boil off)
--------------------------------
3.64 gallons (post-boil volume)
-0.15 gallons (cooling shrinkage)
-----------------------------------------
3.49 gallons (cooled kettle volume)
-0.00 gallons (loss to trub and chiller) <<----- due to BS2 bug, otherwise should be 0.5 gallons)
-----------------------------------------------
3.49 gallons (transferred to fermenter) <<---- in real life this will be 2.99 gallons due to trub loss bug
+3.00 gallons (top up volume)
---------------------------------------------------
6.49 gallons (batch volume) <<---------- in real life this will be 6.00 gallons due to trub loss bug
- 0.40 gallons (fermentation loss)
---------------------------------------------------
6.09 gallons (bottling volume) <<--------------in real life this will be 5.59 gallons due to trub loss bug
jeremiahhansen
Apprentice
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2013
- Messages
- 6
- Reaction score
- 0
+1 on mm658's question (about the details of the bug). I've been using that field for my all-grain setup/recipes.
tom_hampton
Grandmaster Brewer
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2011
- Messages
- 929
- Reaction score
- 0
Read this thread: http://www.beersmith.com/forum/index.php/topic,4911.0.html
I didn't agree with the aggressive approach of Knowitall, but I agree with the facts of his observations.
For all grain trub loss is ok to use. But for extract brewing it creates an inescapable problem.
I didn't agree with the aggressive approach of Knowitall, but I agree with the facts of his observations.
For all grain trub loss is ok to use. But for extract brewing it creates an inescapable problem.
Ugh - I remember that thread when it was active, and it made my head hurt then. Revisiting it now is no picnic, either. 
Any indication on what the end game is for this? Is a change coming, or is the workaround (which really doesn't thrill me, because it makes my batch volumes "fudged" and inaccurate) the permanent solution?
Tom - in your opinion, what SHOULD the software be doing? What needs to be changed? I assume the answer is: "decrease the gravities, IBU, SRM, etc., as trub loss increases," but I ask to make sure that I'm understanding where that discussion was going.
Any indication on what the end game is for this? Is a change coming, or is the workaround (which really doesn't thrill me, because it makes my batch volumes "fudged" and inaccurate) the permanent solution?
Tom - in your opinion, what SHOULD the software be doing? What needs to be changed? I assume the answer is: "decrease the gravities, IBU, SRM, etc., as trub loss increases," but I ask to make sure that I'm understanding where that discussion was going.
tom_hampton
Grandmaster Brewer
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2011
- Messages
- 929
- Reaction score
- 0
I'm just one user, and I'm not Brad.... But, you asked for my opinion....
I'm a software engineer, or rather "was" for 18 years. I've graduated and design entire aircraft now. In my experience software should be designed to reflect the way the user works. The user should not have to adjust to the software.
Brewers work and think in terms of mash efficiency. We don't think about total efficiency... As a home Brewer I don't even care about total efficiency. If I were a professional, I would... But, even then for beer quality control, I would still be more concerned with themash . The rest is justvolume loss that I can't really change without redesigning my system.
Then for extract Brewers they effectively have a mash efficiencyof 100% . It's simple, natura , and models the way we actually work and let'sme iinput what I can actually measure.
The reality is that efficiency is a bit tricky. modeling it as a fixed feature of your equipment just isn't right either. Mash efficiency changes significantly based on target OG. The bigger the beer the lower the efficiency. Mash efficiency is affected by the ingredients in the mash tun... Using some ingredients can impact the lauter and reduce the amount of sugar extracted. For example, when I make my pumpkin beer with 5 lbs of roasted pumpkin in the mash, I loose 10% mash efficiency.
Actual trub loss is effected by the amount and type of hops used in the kettle. Large quantities of leaf hops will wasted a lot of wort, compared to pellets. So, tru loss isn't a fixed number either.
If you don't know these things and blindly follow beersmith then you will struggle greatly to get consistent results. I consider efficiency to be a recipe parameter, not an equipment one. Sure there are equipment effects, but the recipe is equally intertwined, causing efficiency fluctuations of up to 20% points (or more for extreme cases like ansAmerican barley wine). That means I cant just have a global efficiency number that I adjust across all recipes. You could however get pretty close by looking at it by style.
I track my mash efficiency by target pre boil gravity. And I track my trubloss by total kkettle hops. Why? Because that's what dominates the effects. I'd make beersmith work the way the real world does, instead of trying to shoehorn the world into a largely made up concept.
Regarding the workaround. I don't really see it as much of a big deal for a home Brewer. I'm about as data driven as they come, if you've read any of my process and data recordingddescriptions of my own process I'msure most ewillagree . It's just easier to target a fixed post boil volume. Every recipe starts with the same amount of wort in the kettle and the Boiloff is always the same, and the post boil volume is always the same. Sure you waste a little bit of wort, but even in an extreme case it might be an extra 1/2 gallon in a 5 gallon batch. For a $30 recipe that $3 waste. But, the consistency that you get in exchange can actually work to improve your beer over time. A fair trade in exchange for one less number to worry about.
That's about 25% of my thoughts on the topic.
I'm a software engineer, or rather "was" for 18 years. I've graduated and design entire aircraft now. In my experience software should be designed to reflect the way the user works. The user should not have to adjust to the software.
Brewers work and think in terms of mash efficiency. We don't think about total efficiency... As a home Brewer I don't even care about total efficiency. If I were a professional, I would... But, even then for beer quality control, I would still be more concerned with themash . The rest is justvolume loss that I can't really change without redesigning my system.
Then for extract Brewers they effectively have a mash efficiencyof 100% . It's simple, natura , and models the way we actually work and let'sme iinput what I can actually measure.
The reality is that efficiency is a bit tricky. modeling it as a fixed feature of your equipment just isn't right either. Mash efficiency changes significantly based on target OG. The bigger the beer the lower the efficiency. Mash efficiency is affected by the ingredients in the mash tun... Using some ingredients can impact the lauter and reduce the amount of sugar extracted. For example, when I make my pumpkin beer with 5 lbs of roasted pumpkin in the mash, I loose 10% mash efficiency.
Actual trub loss is effected by the amount and type of hops used in the kettle. Large quantities of leaf hops will wasted a lot of wort, compared to pellets. So, tru loss isn't a fixed number either.
If you don't know these things and blindly follow beersmith then you will struggle greatly to get consistent results. I consider efficiency to be a recipe parameter, not an equipment one. Sure there are equipment effects, but the recipe is equally intertwined, causing efficiency fluctuations of up to 20% points (or more for extreme cases like ansAmerican barley wine). That means I cant just have a global efficiency number that I adjust across all recipes. You could however get pretty close by looking at it by style.
I track my mash efficiency by target pre boil gravity. And I track my trubloss by total kkettle hops. Why? Because that's what dominates the effects. I'd make beersmith work the way the real world does, instead of trying to shoehorn the world into a largely made up concept.
Regarding the workaround. I don't really see it as much of a big deal for a home Brewer. I'm about as data driven as they come, if you've read any of my process and data recordingddescriptions of my own process I'msure most ewillagree . It's just easier to target a fixed post boil volume. Every recipe starts with the same amount of wort in the kettle and the Boiloff is always the same, and the post boil volume is always the same. Sure you waste a little bit of wort, but even in an extreme case it might be an extra 1/2 gallon in a 5 gallon batch. For a $30 recipe that $3 waste. But, the consistency that you get in exchange can actually work to improve your beer over time. A fair trade in exchange for one less number to worry about.
That's about 25% of my thoughts on the topic.
tom_hampton
Grandmaster Brewer
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2011
- Messages
- 929
- Reaction score
- 0
Sorry about all the typos. This keyboard on my new phone is going to take some adjusting too. I think I fixed all the important ones that affected the meaning.
Thanks for your thoughts, Tom.
My complaint regarding the workaround is that I like to use BeerSmith as my "single source of truth" regarding my brewing activities. Preferably, everything entered is gospel and can be utilized in the future when designing new recipes, etc.
Also, I have several different fermenter configurations that I use, so my batch sizes vary from batch-to-batch, which may not be common, but it's the way I operate.
So, for those two reasons, if I have to look at my list of recipes in BeerSmith and see "fudged" batch sizes rather than what I actually brewed, that's more of a drawback for me than it might be for most users. Disappointing, IMO. (Or, as you aptly stated, "...software should be designed to reflect the way the user works. The user should not have to adjust to the software.")
But again - I appreciate your insight, and hope that maybe Brad will weigh in on this topic at some point with his reasoning/thought process.
And, I apologize to kontrol for hijacking his thread!!
My complaint regarding the workaround is that I like to use BeerSmith as my "single source of truth" regarding my brewing activities. Preferably, everything entered is gospel and can be utilized in the future when designing new recipes, etc.
Also, I have several different fermenter configurations that I use, so my batch sizes vary from batch-to-batch, which may not be common, but it's the way I operate.
So, for those two reasons, if I have to look at my list of recipes in BeerSmith and see "fudged" batch sizes rather than what I actually brewed, that's more of a drawback for me than it might be for most users. Disappointing, IMO. (Or, as you aptly stated, "...software should be designed to reflect the way the user works. The user should not have to adjust to the software.")
But again - I appreciate your insight, and hope that maybe Brad will weigh in on this topic at some point with his reasoning/thought process.
And, I apologize to kontrol for hijacking his thread!!
Since the thread is already hijacked, I'll add one more post.
Two additional 'annoyances' that arise from having to fudge the trub loss by increase batch size:
* 'Bottling volume' winds up being MORE than my real-world batch size, even after fermenter loss.
* More signifcant: if I let the software calculate the boil volume automatically, it will calculate an amount that is higher than it needs to be, because it's calculating a boil for a batch size that is articially increased.
Again - I prefer that the software be a single source of truth regarding the brewing process. The fact that I have all sorts of key fields that contain artificial, 'fudged' data is very disappointing. When I want to tweak recipes months down the road, I don't want to have to remember that "oh, yeah, don't believe the batch size...and the boil size...and the bottling volume....those are artificial to accommodate the trub loss bug."
Not optimal.
Two additional 'annoyances' that arise from having to fudge the trub loss by increase batch size:
* 'Bottling volume' winds up being MORE than my real-world batch size, even after fermenter loss.
* More signifcant: if I let the software calculate the boil volume automatically, it will calculate an amount that is higher than it needs to be, because it's calculating a boil for a batch size that is articially increased.
Again - I prefer that the software be a single source of truth regarding the brewing process. The fact that I have all sorts of key fields that contain artificial, 'fudged' data is very disappointing. When I want to tweak recipes months down the road, I don't want to have to remember that "oh, yeah, don't believe the batch size...and the boil size...and the bottling volume....those are artificial to accommodate the trub loss bug."
Not optimal.