Please read, carefully, the problem I stated many times. This problem is not that hard to understand, if you can admit it is a problem.MaltLicker said:KnowItAll said:For every unit of trub loss entered in BeerSmith, BeerSmith simply adds the equivalent amount to the mash volume, increases the post boil volume, then increases the mash efficiency (even above 100%) to keep the SG the same. This is not correct.
It appears BeerSmith treats the trub loss as an additional boil off loss, which is incorrect. Trub loss is actually lost wort, and the mash water volume and recipe ingredients need to be scaled up to match the loss, or the volume to fermenter needs to be decreased.
I don't know the code behind this part of it, but to me the logic behind it is this..... you measure your pots, volumes, any losses, etc., and enter them all in a brewing software (any software). These numbers are the constraints that are expected to apply on the next brew, and they are "static" for that brew. Meaning that they are your best forecast for your system that day. So the software takes those constraints and applies your EE% to the grain bill and forecasts SG, SRM and IBU accordingly.
That is what I was trying to do by increasing trub/chiller loss. This is not a 'what if', and even if it was, this is exactly the type of 'what if' scenario the software should handle, since it is no different than calculating any other brew- BeerSmith just does it incorrectly.MaltLicker said:I do not believe brewing software is written so we can play "what if" scenario's with things like trub loss. Your expected losses before a brew should be a single best guess. Why would anyone have multiple guesses as to what their losses will be for the next brew? If I think losses will be higher due to leaf hops, I would bump up that loss before finalizing the recipe.
Not if BeerSmith told you to add 3 gallons of additional mash water to offset trub/chiller losses, but didn't increase ingredients, or reduce the volume to the fermenter, it just increased your mash efficiency to compensate for the extra water it told you to add, so that the SG remains the same.MaltLicker said:If I grossly mis-guess those losses, then my volume suffers, but if I lautered well, collected the boil volume, got close to pre-boil gravity, and evaporated about right, then I should make approximately the beer I aimed at, but have less of it.
A Monte Carlo simulation has nothing to do with this issue. I don't know why it would even be brought up.MaltLicker said:Same thing happens when I spill some. An unexpected spill or a poorly forecast loss of any type costs you volume, but it is your brewing processes that affect your dynamic results (SG, SRM and IBU). A Monte Carlo simulation would provide the "what if" scenarios for as many factors as one wished to put into play, but the goal in brewing is to maximize consistency from brew-to-brew and eliminate such variance.
If I know I will spill 1 gal, my kettle has no dip tube so I leave 1 gal, hops will absorb 1 gal, and my chiller traps 1 gal, I would expect to be able input those into 'trub/chiller loss', and have BeerSmith calculate my batch correctly. The only ways to do this is by increasing post boil volume (in the kettle) and the ingredients, or decreasing the volume delivered to the fermenter. There is no other way, especially not adding more water and magically increasing my mash efficiency since I will be leaving a bunch of wort in the kettle.
I also can't imagine them using software where they enter all the relevant parameters to calculate the amount of fuel needed, including how much remains in the tank inaccessible to the pump, and the software simply adds a bunch of water to gas to account for it, and increases the MPG parameter so that it seems like it will still make the planned distance.MaltLicker said:In the same manner, I can't imagine the NASA team plugging in multiple guesses on fuel consumption and then being upset when Curiosity runs out of gas getting there. Logically, they learn from tests and prior flights and over-engineer what they can to ensure success.
How do you explain the continued avoidance of addressing the issue, which has now been explicitly defined, by blaming it on the user?MaltLicker said:And I do not think this forum is cultish at all. I and others have found errors inside BeerSmith's inner workings and Brad has fixed them. He likes feedback that improves the product and that is part of the success of the program.
Brad did respond to the initial post, but I don't think the initial post outlined the problem correctly. Subsequent posters, myself included have outlined the problem very clearly, yet the collective continues to cloud the issue with completely unrelated information about effeciency, playing tricks on the poor BeerSmith, and Monte Carlo simulations.
This is a clear cut error: Increasing trub/chiller loss results in increased mash water volume, no ingredient increases, no decreasing volume to the fermenter, a larger post boil volume in the kettle, yet retains the same original SG post boil.
Also, I was mistaken previously that BeerSmith handles this correctly if the equipment is already configured. I have now found that when converting a recipe to existing eqipment with trub losses, the same error occurs.