• 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.

Trub Loss and Boil SG / Batch volumes

Grumpyowl

Apprentice
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
Hello all,
I am still a bit puzzled with the way BS calculates the Boil Gravity.  Because it works "backward" from a desired batch volume, entering a Trub loss will adjust the boil OG accordingly, so as to correctly hit the final OG in the fermenter.
This does not seem to work well for me as I am working "forward" with a preset boil volume.  I feel the amount of trub losses should NOT adjust the boil OG.  But some users might find it useful to calculate the pre-boil SG given a certain trub loss.
Perhaps a hybrid solution could be that when the "Calc Boil Vol" box is checked off (as is mine since I always use the same boil volume), then the "Batch Size" is the variable that becomes adjusted, and turns gray, so that any trub loss will actually impact the batch volume rather than the boil volume.  Thus, the mash efficiency remains unchanged regardless of the trub loss (but the FG would change indeed). This would also allow the users to interactively play with the trub loss amount to match the actual measured batch size in the fermenter, since that is easier to measure than actual trub losses.
Any comments?  Or am I missing something?
Thanks!
 
Hi,
  I guess I could lock up the batch size, but my concern is that it might confuse a lot of people who certainly think they should be allowed to adjust their batch size!

  If I implemented this I would probably get a dozen emails asking why the batch size is greyed out.

Brad
 
Hello Brad,
Are there any new development on this item?  i.e. other users demanding similar feature?  I have been using the software for a year and a half now and I feel pretty comfortable with it, but this trub loss item is still getting me.  If I change the trub loss in my system, I feel that it should also change the final batch size.
If the batch size should remain unchanged, perhaps the solution is to calculate the Pre-Boil Volume based on the Batch size Volume only, without accounting for the trub loss as it currently does, so that the user can simply input the desired batch size, accounting for whatever trub loss is expected. 
Currently, to hit my numbers correctly, I would have to increase my batch size to be my actual wort volume in the fermenter + trub loss.  But if I do so it will add the already input trub loss and change the pre-boil volume... of course I can also set my trub loss to 0 for a correct pre-boil volume I suppose... and add my trub losses to my Fermenter loss item.
Sounds like a bit of the dog tying to bite its own tail lol! :p

Thank you for the great software - it really helps me improve my brews!
Cheers,
Olivier
 
I'm running into the same thing.  I recently adjusted the amount of trub loss in the software due to the realization that I was leaving more behind than I was giving credit for, but that did nothing to change my OG.  Whether you have .5 gallons or 50 gallons of trub loss input, the OG stays the same.    The workaround of adding the trub loss to fermenter loss, and using a batch size of the volume into the fermenter + trub loss does seem to work, but if a quick workaround could be incorporated, maybe even the inclusion of a checkbox to control which value is locked, I think it would be a helpful feature.
 
I've been away for a while so forgive me if I'm missing some detail here, but I always viewed trub loss as liquid loss, and as such, very similar to spilling wort on the floor. 

Spills (post boil), trub and other late losses don't change OG, only volumes capable of reaching fermentor.  Batch size is what you want to reach fermentor, and we tell BSmith all the known losses of our system so it can calculate the initial boil volume to start with, right?  We all start with rough estimates and gradually hone in until we think we have it down. 

This difference is also borne out in the different efficiency numbers.  I do well with mash efficiency of 78% b/c I get lots of sugars from the grain, but I choose to "spill" 1.2 gallons by leaving it in the boiler in order to ferment very clean wort.  So my overall efficiency stinks at about 60%. 
 
I’m new to Beersmith.  I have the trial version right now but have a copy on order.  I’ve been playing with the equipment to try and get my recipes to match my equipment.  I’m seeing the same thing.  The program seems to treat Trub loss in the boil kettle like water being evaporated and not like spilling wort.  If I run a test and put in 20 lbs of American 2 Row Pale using the default stainless keg system, the OG is 1.052.  That has a Trub loss of 1 gallon.  If I change the Trub loss to 10 gallons the OG is the same at 1.052.  That doesn’t seem right.  If I change the Trub loss to 0 and make the batch size 20 gallons the OG changes to 1.026.  It seems like the OG should be calculated from the post boil volume and not the final batch size volume.  Am I missing something?  Is this different in the purchased version vs. the trial version?  Is there a help section that explains the volumes calculations?

This is seems to be great software so far and I look forward to using it.

Thanks,
Rick
 
brew shepherd said:
........put in 20 lbs of American 2 Row Pale using the default stainless keg system, the OG is 1.052.  That has a Trub loss of 1 gallon.  If I change the Trub loss to 10 gallons the OG is the same at 1.052.  That doesn’t seem right.  If I change the Trub loss to 0 and make the batch size 20 gallons the OG changes to 1.026. 

Trub left behind is a liquid, with the same SG as the clear wort you put into the fermentor.  See the attached pic.  It's not a solid, above which all the sugars mix into the remaining wort.  Trub volume consumes wort.  If you chase efficiency, then you'd try to minimize losses and put every drop into the fermentor. 

That is why there are two measures of EE%:  one for how well we rinse sugars from grains, and another of how well we get every drop into the final wort. 

Once you measure your deadspace/trub loss and tell BSmith what that is, it should seldom change.  If you spill a gallon one day, the SG of the clear wort saved, spilled, and the trub will not change due to that new loss, it only changes the volume that reached the fermentor. 

Changing to double the batch size logically reduces the SG to 1.026, also half.  Same sugars in twice the water equals half the SG. 

 

Attachments

  • DSC00263.JPG
    DSC00263.JPG
    81.6 KB · Views: 831
MaltLicker,

Thanks for the reply.  I agree that the SG of the stuff left behind in the kettle is the same as SG of the wort going to the fermenter. So, if I make a 10 gal batch and tell Beersmith 10 gallons of trub loss then the total batch is 20 gallons and the SG (OG) should be half of one with zero trub loss and a 10 gallon batch.  It doesn’t do that.  It does however change the mash efficiency to 156% so it can hold the OG.  You say to chase the efficiency so I’ll try that but something just seems off to me.
Thanks again,
Rick
 
brew shepherd said:
So, if I make a 10 gal batch and tell Beersmith 10 gallons of trub loss then the total batch is 20 gallons and the SG (OG) should be half of one with zero trub loss and a 10 gallon batch.  It doesn’t do that.  It does however change the mash efficiency to 156% so it can hold the OG. 

I'm not following your example.  I would enter the desired batch size first, then the various losses, and BSmith will tell you what to start with so that you're left with the target batch.  I 'think' that batch size is the source point for many BSmith calculations, so it has to be your goal.

You cannot tell BS the batch size is ten gallons, and that you also have ten gallons of trub loss.  That's not logical, and I would expect an illogical calculation.  A typical starting point would be 5.25 batch, 0.75 loss, 1.0 evaporation/boil off, so start with 7.0 gallons.  You should be able to measure your losses pretty well, and dialing in on typical evaporation may take a few batches, and then you're done.  And the losses and evaporation should not change dramatically, so if you wanted an extra gallon for a dry-hop experiment, change batch to 6.25 and it should be close. 


brew shepherd said:
You say to chase the efficiency so I’ll try that but something just seems off to me.

I said "IF" you chase efficiency, meaning that some people seem driven to maximize their EE%.  To maximize that, you'd have to collect every possible drop of wort in the fermentor.  I ignore efficiency and focus on wort quality, so I waste a lot of wort that others may capture. 
 
I believe you are right.  Beersmith is using the batch size for the calculation.  The 10 gallon example was ment to be extream.  If you don't follow, try it for yourself.  Put in a typical batch for you and then adjust the Trub loss.  Maybe adjust trub loss by a number that makes sense to you like 0.25 gal increments.  You will see how the OG does not change but the Est Mash eff does change to keep the OG the same.  I think you agree, the SG in the final boil is the same as what goes into the fermenter.  In my mind, if we add volumes to the kettle in the way of Trub loss but dont change the grain bill, then the OG should change.
 
With a given system and process, deadspace, trub, evaporation, etc., are fairly fixed.  They are certainly "fixed" during the next brew day b/c they will each be a discrete number you cannot change once you've brewed.  Trub loss is meant to be your estimate of what gets left in the pot EVERY time you brew.  As such, BeerSmith is expecting trub loss to be a constant. 

The way to dial in BeerSmith so that it provides you the best possible forecast of your brew day is to tell it all the "known" losses and your typical/expected EE% of the system. 

So the task is to calculate those items are precisely as possible and enter them into BeerSmith once

Then you specify the batch size you want when done, and add ingredients to reach your OG, IBU and SRM targets.  Pick the yeast that will give the target FG. 

After the brew,  enter the outcomes and compare estimates with measured.  Adjust as necessary, repeat. 


brew shepherd said:
In my mind, if we add volumes to the kettle in the way of Trub loss but dont change the grain bill, then the OG should change.

Experimenting with various trub losses "on the fly" is the same as spilling wort on the floor.  You are suddenly telling BSmith that more wort got left (spilled), but the brew did not change, so the SG would be unchanged.  Since trub loss is a liquid in the boiler, trub loss is a deduction from only volume and not total gravity.  It's all the same gravity, as we agreed. 
 
brew shepherd said:
In my mind, if we add volumes to the kettle in the way of Trub loss but dont change the grain bill, then the OG should change.

MaltLicker said:
Experimenting with various trub losses "on the fly" is the same as spilling wort on the floor.  You are suddenly telling BSmith that more wort got left (spilled), but the brew did not change, so the SG would be unchanged.  Since trub loss is a liquid in the boiler, trub loss is a deduction from only volume and not total gravity.  It's all the same gravity, as we agreed.

You are very dismissive of this being a valid issue, and I can confidently say it is a valid issue after having encountered it while trying to account for additional losses from using leaf hops.  I suggest you carefully read both my post and previous posts.

Using the "edit equipment setting for this recipe" to increase trub losses causes BeerSmith to adjust (increase) the mash water volume, but neither the OG or the grain bill changes.  This is blatantly incorrect.

There are more fundamental problems as well.  Modifying the current equipment profile directly has no effect on the current recipe.  Scaling to a new updated profile seems to trigger adjusting the grain bill correctly, but scaling back and forth seems to continue to increase the grain bill.  Scaling to another equipment profile, then back to the original updated profile also seems to trigger a recalc.  Same ratcheting grain bill though, when switching back and forth.

I did not bother to reverse engineer what the exact fault is, since it would be much easier to look at the code.  I do have a hunch, though.

I can think of several fixes/enhancements that would improve things.  At the very least, when using the "edit equipment settings for this recipe" functionality to adjust the trub loss, BeerSmith should reflect the change to the OG, color, IBUs, etc.; resulting from the change it makes to the mash water volume.  Asking if the recipe should be scaled would be better.

While we are on the topic, how about adding a leaf hop loss/retention calculator.
 
Yes I will agree there is an issue here but its not what you think.

I did not bother to reverse engineer what the exact fault is, since it would be much easier to look at the code.  I do have a hunch, though.

Lmao a hunch eh, why not come out and say it if you know.

-it recalcs the mash eff when you enter a super high loss in one area because nothing else is being changed.

ex-It sees a 8 gallon boil with 8 gallon of loss to trub its going to increase your mash eff to keep your recipe the same.

I ran this test and it changed my mash water amount, kept my gravity the same but changed my mash eff. I entered a 10 gallon batch and 10 gallons of trub loss. It automatically added more water but shot my mash eff up to 1600%. Seems wierd but it isnt because your forcing BS to make a mistake. The problem is it automatically figures and changes your est mash eff. It should keep this the same and drop your gravity (or display a red dot indicating a problem) because trub loss has nothing to do with mash eff, it has to do with you total brewhouse eff. This is what Brad should change if anything. In fact Ive never encountered this problem before running the test today. So I agree with MaltLicker that its not an issue with beersmith. The issue is the lack of knowledge of how to set up equipment profiles and stumbling onto what seems to be a programming error. Its like having a calculator in math class. Yeah the calculator gives you the answer but if you dont know the fundamentals or how to solve the problem by hand or show your work its a meaningless tool.

What I think is your having problems setting up your equipment because you are assuming volumes and such.

-I went from mashing in a 5 gallon gott and boiling in a 8 gallon kettle to a 10 gallon gott and a 15 gallon kettle. I used the same #s that I used for my 5 gallon system (just doubled everything) but was consistently coming up short on gravity. This is because I assumed the losses were the same % (twice the losses due to twice the size of batch). I was dead wrong. My kettles diameter was larger than the preset calc in BS and my old kettle, I had more loss in the new kettle due to its wider diameter and more boil off losses. Also I had a larger deadspace in my mash tun.

Here is the boil off tool I used and a previous post by Pat that will explain equipment set up.

http://www.beersmith.com/forum/index.php/topic,5140.0.html

http://sigginet.info/brewing/tools/boil-off-calculator/


As far as a hop loss tool goes most brewers know to add an extra qt per gallon on average when using whole hops. Yeah it would be a nice addition but I dont think its needed.
 
maddspoiler said:
Yes I will agree there is an issue here but its not what you think.
So, to summarize your post, there is an issue, and the issue is me?
This is feeling like a Apple/Mac fanboy forum.  There is an obvious issue with BeerSmith.  Why is there so much denial and resistance?

I did not bother to reverse engineer what the exact fault is, since it would be much easier to look at the code.  I do have a hunch, though.
maddspoiler said:
Lmao a hunch eh, why not come out and say it if you know.
I had a longer reply, including the mash efficiency effect, but it disappeared when I tried post due to a forced re-login.
Also, root cause of faults is very hard to determine without knowing the code or doing lots of repetitive tests.  Neither I nor you can know for sure exactly what is happening without seeing the code, or doing many more tests/use cases to be certain.  Many software problems are not what they appear to be externally.

maddspoiler said:
-it recalcs the mash eff when you enter a super high loss in one area because nothing else is being changed.

ex-It sees a 8 gallon boil with 8 gallon of loss to trub its going to increase your mash eff to keep your recipe the same.
I don't know for certain what is causing it, but I did identify the repeatable issue-
Using the "edit equipment setting for this recipe", the amount of trub loss increase entered causes a corresponding increase in the mash water volume, but does not scale the recipe- either by 'diluting' everything or 'scaling up' the recipe.  All that happens is the efficiency is increased to compensate.

Are you saying that is a feature and not a bug?  Now I will 'lmao'.

maddspoiler said:
I ran this test and it changed my mash water amount, kept my gravity the same but changed my mash eff. I entered a 10 gallon batch and 10 gallons of trub loss. It automatically added more water but shot my mash eff up to 1600%. Seems wierd but it isnt because your forcing BS to make a mistake.
Ah yes, just like an Apple fanboy, the user is at fault for making the software break.
Try adding even a reasonable amount of loss, like 1 gallon, and your mash water volume will increase, but no change to the OG or batch size.  You are saying this is the proper way for BeerSmith to behave, and I am supposed to manually account for it?  BeerSmith should either scale the recipe, or decrease the batch size.  There is no other way to do it correctly.

maddspoiler said:
The problem is it automatically figures and changes your est mash eff. It should keep this the same and drop your gravity (or display a red dot indicating a problem) because trub loss has nothing to do with mash eff, it has to do with you total brewhouse eff. This is what Brad should change if anything. In fact Ive never encountered this problem before running the test today. So I agree with MaltLicker that its not an issue with beersmith.
This is like reading Chinese propaganda.  In one sentence you admit that for valid user inputs BeerSmith displays values that are incorrect, and in the following one you say the problem is not with BeerSmith.  Whose fault is it?  You agreeing with MaltLicker doesn't make it correct, it makes you both wrong.

maddspoiler said:
The issue is the lack of knowledge of how to set up equipment profiles and stumbling onto what seems to be a programming error. Its like having a calculator in math class. Yeah the calculator gives you the answer but if you dont know the fundamentals or how to solve the problem by hand or show your work its a meaningless tool.
I understand the fundamentals, and that is why I know that I would not increase mash efficiency to account for trub losses.  I would recalc for the lost volume by either upping the ingredients, or decreasing the batch size.  This is what BeerSmith already does when 'scaling', and is what it needs to do in this case as well.  It is blatantly wrong for BeerSmith to simply change efficiency when trub losses are added.

maddspoiler said:
What I think is your having problems setting up your equipment because you are assuming volumes and such.
I am not assuming anything, I updated trub losses for that specific recipe by using a tool provided by BeerSmith, and it quite obviously is 'doing it wrong'.  Changing to another equipment profile with the same changes resulted in what appears to be proper ingredient scaling, but when switching back and forth multiple times between equipment, there was errant behavior with the grain bill ratcheting up, without any batch size change or OG change.  I guess that is just more operator error.

maddspoiler said:
-I went from mashing in a 5 gallon gott and boiling in a 8 gallon kettle to a 10 gallon gott and a 15 gallon kettle. I used the same #s that I used for my 5 gallon system (just doubled everything) but was consistently coming up short on gravity. This is because I assumed the losses were the same % (twice the losses due to twice the size of batch). I was dead wrong. My kettles diameter was larger than the preset calc in BS and my old kettle, I had more loss in the new kettle due to its wider diameter and more boil off losses. Also I had a larger deadspace in my mash tun.

Here is the boil off tool I used and a previous post by Pat that will explain equipment set up.

http://www.beersmith.com/forum/index.php/topic,5140.0.html

http://sigginet.info/brewing/tools/boil-off-calculator/
So I need to use other tools, and hand calcs, to make sure I don't confuse BeerSmith into giving me bad numbers?
Sounds like Steve Jobs' fix to the Iphone antenna issue- "Don't hold it like that!"

maddspoiler said:
As far as a hop loss tool goes most brewers know to add an extra qt per gallon on average when using whole hops.
What do you think I was trying to do when I discovered the problem with BeerSmith?  Although your equation is all wrong.  The correct way to account for hops is liters wort/gram hops.  Compensating by adding volume wort/volume wort is beyond incorrect, it is idiotic.

There is no other place to account for this except 'trub loss', which is the appropriate place, except BeerSmith doesn't scale the recipe or reduce the batch size appropriately.  The only other way would be to up the batch size to account for the hop absorption, but there would be no indication of why it was done, and would make sharing recipes difficult.

maddspoiler said:
Yeah it would be a nice addition but I dont think its needed.
The reason why an integrated hop absorption calculator is absolutely needed is this- If I increase the batch size to account for absorption, the hops will increase, and I would need to increase the batch size again.  But then the hops will increase and I need to increase the batch size again.........  Do you see the problem?

These concepts are not that difficult, just complex, and architecting the software and data to handle it properly can be done.  I have coded similar solutions that were much more complex.
 
The way MaltLicker is explaining it is correct. Kettle trub loss is a geometry issue. That is, the relationship between the racking port and the kettle bottom are constants. Or assumed to be when dialing in the system you use.

If you're tilting the kettle, or have enough hops to clog things up, you're adding a variable no program anticipates. For the program to be consistent, you have to approach your process consistently.

SG will not be affected because the trub came from the grain to begin with. It, along with hops displace some wort, but since the proteins came from grain, they are exactly the same as clear wort, for gravity to volume ratios.

Therefore, it is the amount of protien from the grain that makes the clear wort losses different, from recipe to recipe. Hops add some displacement, but don't change SG.

No matter what, the brewer is in control, not the program. BS is a tool, not a doctrine. Its up to the brewer to sharpen the tool, not the other way around.
 
If I am reading KnowItAll correctly, the premise is that the SG should change based on volume. BS does this in recipe design.

But, in equipment design, BS makes the assumption that the target SG and net yield are the bottom line, not grain efficiency. Thus, it is calculating for starting water volume and telling you the mash efficiency required to achieve target gravity.

Secondly, KnowItAll seems to be assuming Hot & cold break to be additive dispacements, when they are transitive. That is, they exist in the malt, pre boil and reflected in the SG. Then then transition into non-soluble form, but in doing so, they actually reduce the SG, but not the volume. This is countered by concentration, through evaporation, thus we observe an increase in SG.

If you're able to get a truly significant cold break, you will observe a tiny drop in OG, pre vs. post chill.

On a related note, fermentation creates a volume loss roughly equivellent to the alcohol by volume number. Why? Because fermentation results in a 50/50 split of alcohol & CO2. The CO2 portion is the volume loss.

 
brewfun said:
The way MaltLicker is explaining it is correct. Kettle trub loss is a geometry issue. That is, the relationship between the racking port and the kettle bottom are constants. Or assumed to be when dialing in the system you use.
All dissenters need to read more carefully, and suspend your belief that BeerSmith is all knowing and always right.

Regardless how much trub/kettle loss (which is ~100% wort), BeerSmith is not calculating it correctly.  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.

brewfun said:
If you're tilting the kettle, or have enough hops to clog things up, you're adding a variable no program anticipates. For the program to be consistent, you have to approach your process consistently.
This is exactly what the trub loss field is for, to account for wort losses (which, again, is ~100% wort) in the kettle- whether you only lose 1 teaspoon of wort because you tilt your kettle, 1 gallon because you don't have a dip tube, or you lose 2 gallons because you are brewing a leaf hop quad IIPA.

brewfun said:
SG will not be affected because the trub came from the grain to begin with. It, along with hops displace some wort, but since the proteins came from grain, they are exactly the same as clear wort, for gravity to volume ratios.
You don't get it.  BeerSmith is adding additional water volume (which is correct) to account for trub loss (which, for the third time, is ~100% wort), but not increasing ingredients.  The volume of trub and hops is close enough to 100% wort to consider it that, just like any wort left in the kettle due to the kettle drain design.

brewfun said:
Therefore, it is the amount of protien from the grain that makes the clear wort losses different, from recipe to recipe. Hops add some displacement, but don't change SG.
I didn't say hops change SG.  What I am saying is that for whatever value I put into trub loss (which, for the fourth time, is ~100% wort) to account for whatever is left in the kettle for whatever reason, BeerSmith adds the equivalent water volume  to the mash and boil volume, but does not do anything else, except for (incorrectly) increase the mash efficiency to maintain post boil SG.  If BeerSmith numbers are followed and extra water added to the mash, but no extra ingredients, the resulting final boil volume is batch size + trub loss.  This will have lowered the SG by whatever adding that same volume of mash water to the kettle instead of to the mash, had you entered '0' trub loss.

If you still believe BeerSmith is correct, then you also believe that you can brew a 20 gallon batch using 5 gallons worth of ingredients, and just adding extra water to the mash.  This is exactly the logic BeerSmith is using. I will shout it- EXACTLY.

brewfun said:
No matter what, the brewer is in control, not the program.
Which is exactly why I was able to see where the program was faulty.  I did not blindly follow the wisdom dispensed by the all knowing BeerSmith.

brewfun said:
BS is a tool, not a doctrine.
Exactly, which is why I am so confused that people act like I, and others, are insulting the great BeerSmith, and need to conform to the collective.

brewfun said:
Its up to the brewer to sharpen the tool, not the other way around.
BeerSmith is a tool that is supposed to calculate things correctly.  It currently is not.  I am attempting to sharpen the tool, as you say, by pointing out where it is a bit dull.  Although your saying doesn't make much sense to me.  I just tried to speak in the language of the cult in the hopes of it getting through the brainwashing.
 
brewfun said:
If I am reading KnowItAll correctly, the premise is that the SG should change based on volume. BS does this in recipe design.
What I am saying is that BeerSmith is taking 'trub loss' and adding the equivalent volume of water to every volume except batch size to the fermenter, but not adding any ingredients.  This is not correct.  Start with the assumption I am right and BeerSmith is wrong, and it may finally make sense to the cult members.

brewfun said:
But, in equipment design, BS makes the assumption that the target SG and net yield are the bottom line, not grain efficiency. Thus, it is calculating for starting water volume and telling you the mash efficiency required to achieve target gravity.
What all cult members appear to be doing is to somehow explain the obvious BeerSmith error in a way that makes BeerSmith appear to be the perfect all knowing supreme leader.  How are you supposed to control efficiency to account for kettle losses, especially when it is >100% (which is impossible, by the way). 

brewfun said:
Secondly, KnowItAll seems to be assuming Hot & cold break to be additive dispacements, when they are transitive. That is, they exist in the malt, pre boil and reflected in the SG. Then then transition into non-soluble form, but in doing so, they actually reduce the SG, but not the volume. This is countered by concentration, through evaporation, thus we observe an increase in SG.
I don't know why you had to start talkin' all high falutin', it doesn't make BeerSmith any more correct.  The eigen values of the hysteresis function are dominated by a hyperboloid sheet, hence the inconsequential effect of aFourier transform on the Laplacian, Lagrangian, or for that matter, the Gaussian.  There, does that make me right?

brewfun said:
If you're able to get a truly significant cold break, you will observe a tiny drop in OG, pre vs. post chill.
That doesn't seem right, and I don't know what that has to do with the current topic anyway, other than a red herring to confuse the collective.  Are you one of the handlers?

brewfun said:
On a related note, fermentation creates a volume loss roughly equivellent to the alcohol by volume number. Why? Because fermentation results in a 50/50 split of alcohol & CO2. The CO2 portion is the volume loss.
Except that an alcohol molecule is significantly larger than a CO2 molecule.  Speaking in molar quantities, you might be closer to being correct, but only if you ignore all the other molecules created during fermentation.  Again, what does this have to do with the topic at hand, other than some form of speaking in tongues to confuse the cult members to make reprogramming them easier.
 
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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

 
Knowitall-

You ARE correct, but you are bordering on rude.  It is not necessary for you to use the language that you are (idiotic, "cult members", etc) in order to try and make your point.  Disagreement, dissent, and difference of opinion is not grounds for your approach....even if the person is simply wrong.  If you can't make your point without using language like the above...then simply don't post.

There are two mixed topics in this thread: Hops losses, and efficiency.  They are best treated separately.

Beersmith is pretty rudimentary in its usage of efficiency.  It is important to understand two things:

[list type=decimal]
[*]Brewhouse efficiency is a user controlled input.  It is treated as gospel.
[*]Mash efficiency is NOT USED by beersmith.  It is simply a calculation that is based on brewhouse efficiency and system losses.
[/list]

Efficiency
--------------

It would be more accurate to enter MASH efficiency + losses, and then calculate brewhouse efficiency.  Mash efficiency + grain weight makes wort with a certain SG.  Trub losses, etc. then degrade mash efficiency to brewhouse eff.  This would allow you to adjust trub-loss for things like hop losses without having it cause weird things to happen to mash efficiency.

That said....its not that big of a deal in the real world...for average recipes.  In reality if you define a real equipment profile, with real losses, and associated brewhouse efficiency beersmith will be close...not right, but close.  Sure you can fake out beersmith and discover several degenerate cases.  But, a single iteration through making a beer and adjusting the eff/loss numbers based on actual data will converge on reality.  If you are going to talk about Laplace and Gauss...then I'm guessing you understand convergence and how to prove that an iterative feedback system converges. 

I'm not saying its not wrong....I'm just saying its not really as bad as you claim.  In most real cases the effect is less than a 5% error.  Even in those cases where it is larger than that, simply making the beer once, and correcting the recipe for reality will narrow the error to well less than 5%...and more than likely better than your own consistency from batch to batch. 

Hop Losses
-----------------

Again, you are essentially correct.  The problem with what you say is that the magnitude of the effect is not as large as you make it out to be.  Hops absorb roughly 4x their dry-weight in wort during the boil.  So, 4 dry ounces of hops would absorb 16 ounces of wort...a pint.  So, your typical IPA recipe loses an un-accounted for "pint".  Very few people can accurately measure their kettle volumes to the QUART.  So, a pint or so of additional loss is "noise".  That's 1/2 liter out of 23L....~2%

The above is adequate for beers with less than 100 IBUs.  For "Pliny" type beers (200-300+ IBUs) it is not.  These beers have the better part of 3/4 lbs of hops in 5 gallons of wort.  This results in about 3 lbs of wort loss...maybe a little more depending on siphon/dip-tupe-screen configurations.  That's roughly an extra half-gallon of wort.  In these cases, the easiest way to compensate is to increase the batch size by ~1/2 gallon (or more to be safe).  Or you can adjust the trub loss, its equivalent. 

Once you've done this you simply go back and adjust the Hops and Grains to compensate for the increased boil volume.  Sure, this increases the hops absorption, but only by 5-10% of the total absorption...or roughly 1 fl oz.  For my Pliny recipe, I simply increase the batch size by a full gallon, and adjust grain/hops to suit.  Then I brew the beer, adjust and repeat.  I end up with a little extra wort (maybe a quart or 2). 

It works.  Could it be done better?  Sure...as described above.  But, ITS NOT THAT BIG OF A DEAL.


If your this worried about this, then you should also consider that mash efficiency (and as a consequence Brewhouse eff.) are a function of target OG.  I find that its about (3-5)% eff loss / 10 gravity points.  This is a bigger effect than the one discussed above. 




 
Back
Top