• 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.

Extract specific gravity is different between old version and new

kd8ccy

Apprentice
Joined
Nov 27, 2013
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
I don't know if this is a bug or a fix of a bug, however when I look at my recipies in the v2.2 I get lower SG than I had for the same recipies in v2.1.  Nothing has changed with the recipies, just the version of BeerSmith.
 
Attached is a recipe that I have currently sitting in the carboy.  When I brewed this Dunkelweizen I printed the recipe with v2.1 and it showed an original gravity of 1.054 and an estimated ABV of 5.3%.  Tonight when I looked at the same recipe in 2.2.07 it's showing an original gravity of 1.046 and an estimated ABV of 4.5%.  Nothing has changed in the recipe.

I don't have a lot of recipes on my pc, however all are lower than what I remember.  Many are in the left hand yellow or red zones on the scale, and I'm sure with v2.1 none were out of the green.
 

Attachments

  • Mike's Dunkelweizen.bsmx
    20.9 KB · Views: 166
I have the same problem. All my recipes created in Beersmith 2.1 show different OG in Beersmith 2.2, both extract and all grain.

I don't know if it is a bug, or just me who doesn't understand how it works?
 
I looked back at my notes and the measured original gravity when pitching the yeast was 1.056, which is a lot closer to the 1.054 estimated original gravity reading of BS v2.1.
 
Hi,
  The new version considers the trub loss as a "loss" when calculating OG estimates for extract brews.  The old version ignored the "sugars" lost with the trub volume, so it generally provided a higher OG value.  So basically the batch volume plus trub loss is used to get the OG.

  Accounting for the trub loss (as in 2.2) is actually correct since some extract gravity is lost in the trub.

Brad
 
If that's true then why did my measured OG for this recipie match the estimated OG in v2.1, and not the estimated OG in v2.2?
 
According to your equipment design, you decided to boil just one gallon and had a half gallon of trub before topping up with water into the fermenter.

Your measurements say you boiled more and topped up by the same amount you evaporated (3 gal preboil, 3 gal post boil). But you still had a half gallon of trub. So, to get a batch (fermenter) volume, you would have had to add another half gallon.

The sugars left behind in the trub account for the difference in gravities, since the "Measured Batch Size" refers to the fermenter.


 
kd8ccy,

Based on a 3 gallon pot, this is a profile that can work and for the numbers you measured.

Though, if the preboil measurement is accurate, you have a pot larger than 3 gallons. You can't really fill a pot to the rim and get it to boil without creating a bit of a mess, in my experience.

If this is NOT a profile that works, because the measurements are not accurate. Well, ...GIGO.
 

Attachments

  • Mikes 3 gallon Pot.bsmx
    1.4 KB · Views: 174
I use a 3 gallon pot and brew 1 1/2 gallons, then I top off to 3 gallons, which is where the 1.056 OG is measured.  It would be the same as someone with a 5 gallon batch brewing 2 1/2 gallons, then toppng off to 5 gallons.

If my equipment is off, then how come I was so close to the v2.1 estimated original gravity of 1.054?  It sounds to me by the ingredients I used I should have been way off, according to v2.2.  But I wasn't.  I was right on with 1.056.  Why am I now seeing the estimated OG so far off in v2.2?  It sounds like the amount of change in v2.2 is not realistic?
 
I'm sorry, I was wrong.  My equipment profile for my 3 gallon batch had 0.5 gallon of loss to trub.  This was way to much from what I could tell.  When I put it to zero I get the 1.054 that I had with v2.1.

Again, I'm sorry.  Been a rough few days lately and I shouldn't have spoken up in the first place.

Thanks for explaining the equipment profile problem
 
I was composing a response to explain that. Brad told you that the way trub is accounted for has been changed in the update. This has been an expected change because the previous math was problematic for various kinds of all grain brewing.

BTW, if I can ask a favor? Please, Please, Please, take accurate volume readings as well as gravity. In all cases (pre/post boil, batch volume and bottling yield) you noted 3 gallons. I had to discount that possibility, when diagnosing your setup. I chose to believe most of the gravities, which backed me into useful volumes.

Accurate readings will help the BeerSmith community solve issues quickly and accurately.
 
When I said "Thanks for explaining the equipment profile problem" I should have said Thanks for explaining my ignorance about my equipment profile.

And again I'm sorry to everyone, especially to Brad.  I should have listened before I spoke up.  I'm sorry if I offended anyone.
 
brewfun said:
BTW, if I can ask a favor? Please, Please, Please, take accurate volume readings as well as gravity. In all cases (pre/post boil, batch volume and bottling yield) you noted 3 gallons. I had to discount that possibility, when diagnosing your setup. I chose to believe most of the gravities, which backed me into useful volumes.

Accurate readings will help the BeerSmith community solve issues quickly and accurately.

This! 

Its the number one difficulty with troubleshooting anything efficiency or equipment related.  We measure and record gravities to 4 significant digits (1.051 sg) and eyeball volumes to 1 or 2 (1 or 1.5 gallon).  Even when we use two, we generally only record to the nearest quart (0.25, 0.5, 0.75)...that's not really two complete significant digits.

This is not a complaint about you, kd9ccy, its simply a thing that EVERYONE should pay better attention to.  Volumes should be measured with equal precision and accuracy as gravities.  This includes temperature compensation (-4% from boiling to room temp). 

Always record your measurements, and the temperature that the measurement was made at.  THEN apply the correction factor and record the compensated reading.  If something doesn't make sense later you can go back to the original readings and determine where the error occured.  If you only record the corrected values, you don't know of your error might have been in the calculation or the measurment. 

 
Back
Top