The Great Bottle Opener Giveaway

Home Brew Forums > Home Brewing Beer > Brewing Software > Another Beersmith WTF moment...

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 08-29-2012, 09:12 PM   #11
duboman
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Recipes 
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Glenview, IL
Posts: 5,958
Liked 450 Times on 419 Posts
Likes Given: 200

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cwi View Post
I couldn't read your equip profile, even when scaled, so I am not sure if anything is amiss. The only number that matters is 'losses to trub and chiller', which needs to be 0 for the 'in the kettle' eff method. Then you use your 'in the kettle' eff (same as your 'actual mash eff' in BeerSmith), in the 'brewhouse eff' field ('total eff' everywhere else in BeerSmith, apparently just to confuse people).

The method is outlined fairly well in my first post in this thread (which you just quoted in its entirety 3 posts back). I explain both what the pitfall is; and what to do to whether you just want to avoid falling into it, or eliminate it altogether.

Also here:
http://www.homebrewtalk.com/f39/how-...ml#post4370174
And in a few of my other recent posts, but you would have to wade through some vitriol to find it.

Without reading the linked thread, and its links, which contain more information than is needed; the only other information you might need, in addition that what is in this thread, is how to deal with trub losses. This is done by simply scaling the batch size (using the scale tool, always) by the exact volume of your expected/experienced post-boil kettle losses. Batch size is "Batch size + trub loss" using this method, and your "tot eff" is 'in the kettle' eff. I find this a much easier way to deal with BeerSmith, as do many others, especially for equipment tinkerers and leaf hoppers.

If you have a specific question about how to use BeerSmith in an 'in the kettle' eff mode, I may be able to give more detail.
So...............
Here is my set up and let me see if I get what you are saying:
My brewhouse efficiency is 80%
My mash efficiency is usually 80% as well
Boil volume is 8.95G
Boil time is 60 min
Boil off is 2 g
Evaporation is 22.3%
Post Boil Volume is 6.95G
Shrinkage is 3%
Cooling Loss is .21G
Current: Loss to trub is .5G (Actually measured as the loss in my kettle-deadspace)
Top up water is 0 Gallon
Batch Volume is 6.25G
Fermenter loss is .25G (Actually measured trub amount)
Bottling Volume is 6 Gallons (This is a pretty consistent number for me give or take 1 bottle)

So if I understand you correctly I should set my loss to trub value to 0 and make my batch size then 6.5 Gallons? or 6 Gallons, or am I supposed to adjust my efficiency some how?

When I take pre-boil OG and post boil OG my numbers always match what is expected and I usually create my recipes by hand using percentages first, then enter into BS, everything always seems to match up to what I come up with by hand calculation. When I then go to brew my recipes come out the way they were designed with appropriate gravity readings, this is where my lack of understanding kicks in for what you describe as an issue

sorry-
__________________
Nothing Left to do but smile and drink beer.....

The Commune Brewing Company-Perfecting the "art" of beer since 2010
duboman is offline
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-29-2012, 11:20 PM   #12
cwi
Registered User
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Recipes 
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Austin
Posts: 845
Liked 30 Times on 27 Posts
Likes Given: 1

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by duboman View Post
So...............
Here is my set up and let me see if I get what you are saying:
My brewhouse efficiency is 80%
My mash efficiency is usually 80% as well
Boil volume is 8.95G
Boil time is 60 min
Boil off is 2 g
Evaporation is 22.3%
Post Boil Volume is 6.95G
Shrinkage is 3%
Cooling Loss is .21G
Current: Loss to trub is .5G (Actually measured as the loss in my kettle-deadspace)
Top up water is 0 Gallon
Batch Volume is 6.25G
Fermenter loss is .25G (Actually measured trub amount)
Bottling Volume is 6 Gallons (This is a pretty consistent number for me give or take 1 bottle)

So if I understand you correctly I should set my loss to trub value to 0 and make my batch size then 6.5 Gallons? or 6 Gallons, or am I supposed to adjust my efficiency some how?
First topic: Batch size
If your current value in the BeerSmith's "trub and chiller losses" field is .5G, and your current batch size (to the fermenter as it is currently configured) is 6.25G, then your new batch size, once you set trub loss to 0, would be 6.75G. Old Batch Size + Trub Loss = New 'In the Kettle' Batch Size. This will get you your same 6.25G to your fermenter.

You don't need to worry about your fermenter losses, unless you have a specific 'package volume' you are shooting for. Most people max their fermenter volume out, mainly because their fermenters are already sized for the 'package volume' + yeast cake/loss, so shooting for a 'package volume' is not very common. Think 5.5G batch in a 6G better bottle, to end up with ~5G into a corny keg. If you have extra ferm capacity, and do want to shoot for a specific 'package volume', you just need to include the 'fermenter-to-package' losses as well as your 'kettle-to-fermenter' losses. You would scale the batch size to be 'package volume' + 'kettle-to-fermenter' losses + 'fermenter-to-package' losses.

In your current case this would still be 6.75G, but if you knew a new recipe would increase your yeast/trub loss in the fermenter, like for dry hopping, you would just add the extra expected losses to your 'in the kettle' batch size ('batch size' in BeerSmith, with the trub loss field set to 0). You would do the same thing if you just wanted to increase your final 'package volume', only for notekeeping purposes, you would increase your 'package volume', and leave your expected losses according to what you normally experience.

If you wanted to, you could increase the various losses by some percentage related to how much you increased your 'batch size'/'package volume', and/or adjust the losses base on the observed results. BeerSmith propaganda teaches following the later, and primarily adjusting numbers reactively based on observed results only. Users who understand how to predict losses, prefer to make adjustments proactively. Being proactive can save a few brewing cycles when dialing in equipment/recipes.

Second topic: efficiency
Your original 'to the fermenter' efficiency was 80%.
If you trub loss field in BeerSmith was not 0 (you said it was .5G), there is no way for your 'est mash eff' to be 80%. The 'est mash eff' is a number BeerSmith generates based off of 'to the fermenter' efficiency (which the user enters), less any trub and lauter losses.

If your current BeerSmith 'to the fermenter' efficiency is 80%, and your actual observed mash eff has been 80%, you were supposed to have adjusted your 'to the fermenter' efficiency higher to iteratively dial your numbers in. There is no calculator or tool within BeerSmith to generate your new 'to the fermenter' efficiency, even though it is a calculation that only BeerSmith uses for something meaningful. You have to do it by hand with a formula, which BeerSmith doesn't provide, or find a 3rd party tool online. All the numbers are available within your BeerSmith profile for it to do all of this automatically, but, alas, the 'Why do the calcs yourself' program makes you do this BeerSmith specific one yourself.

For now, in the 'brewhouse eff'/'total eff' field, just use your observed average 'into the kettle' mash efficiency, even if it is 80% and the same as your current BeerSmith 'into the fermenter'/'brewhouse'/'total' efficiency. If you did your measurements right, your observed efficiency is the proper value for the new 'in the kettle' eff method.



Quote:
Originally Posted by duboman View Post
When I take pre-boil OG and post boil OG my numbers always match what is expected and I usually create my recipes by hand using percentages first, then enter into BS, everything always seems to match up to what I come up with by hand calculation. When I then go to brew my recipes come out the way they were designed with appropriate gravity readings, this is where my lack of understanding kicks in for what you describe as an issue

sorry-
The issue is the pitfall created by BeerSmith's choice to use 'to the fermenter' efficiency. This pitfall entraps many unsuspecting users, and also makes it very difficult to use fields like trub loss as they would logically be utilized, unless you do a bunch of extra calculations.

Many users, seemingly yourself included, don't even realize they are being impacted, or have to do these extra calcs. This is because most users go by the more common 'in the kettle' efficiency, and don't realize that BeerSmith's brewhouse eff also includes kettle-to-fermenter losses in this number.

The result is, if you increase the value in the trub loss field due to equip mod, leaf vs. pellet hop, etc.; but do not decrease your brewhouse/total efficiency number, the next time you brew a recipe using the updated profile, your OG will be off if everything else you do remains the same. All BeerSmith has done in this instance, is increase your mash water by the increased loss volume. The most devious part is that BeerSmith displays, very proudly, that your predicted OG will still be the same.

Buried in the fine print, and something most users usually don't look at until after brewing, is your new 'est mash eff' number, which has now magically increased, sometimes over 100%. I have explained in further detail in the other threads why this happens, and it really isn't important. What is important is that there are no warnings, popups, red numbers- nothing.

The issue of people getting tricked by BeerSmith aside, even those who understand, intimately, what is happening and how to deal with it, are forced to jerry rig BeerSmith to make it useable. As designed, BeerSmith does not allow for predicting/compensating for trub/hop losses on a per recipe basis. It also requires unnecessary calculations when modifying equipment losses. Recipe sharing is also impacted, because extra(neous) information has to be conveyed with the recipe in order to share recipes, either within or external to BeerSmith. Importing recipes from other places is equally problematic.

These issues would all be resolved, and no impact to users would be felt, if BeerSmith changed to using 'in the kettle' efficiency. I believe the developer knows this, but has too much code based on the current methodology, and doesn't want to invest the time to fix it. Or, he just believes his way is right. If it is the latter, his background would explain things.
__________________
cwi is offline
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-30-2012, 12:57 PM   #13
duboman
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Recipes 
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Glenview, IL
Posts: 5,958
Liked 450 Times on 419 Posts
Likes Given: 200

Default

Quote:
First topic: Batch size
If your current value in the BeerSmith's "trub and chiller losses" field is .5G, and your current batch size (to the fermenter as it is currently configured) is 6.25G, then your new batch size, once you set trub loss to 0, would be 6.75G. Old Batch Size + Trub Loss = New 'In the Kettle' Batch Size. This will get you your same 6.25G to your fermenter.

You don't need to worry about your fermenter losses, unless you have a specific 'package volume' you are shooting for. Most people max their fermenter volume out, mainly because their fermenters are already sized for the 'package volume' + yeast cake/loss, so shooting for a 'package volume' is not very common. Think 5.5G batch in a 6G better bottle, to end up with ~5G into a corny keg. If you have extra ferm capacity, and do want to shoot for a specific 'package volume', you just need to include the 'fermenter-to-package' losses as well as your 'kettle-to-fermenter' losses. You would scale the batch size to be 'package volume' + 'kettle-to-fermenter' losses + 'fermenter-to-package' losses.

In your current case this would still be 6.75G, but if you knew a new recipe would increase your yeast/trub loss in the fermenter, like for dry hopping, you would just add the extra expected losses to your 'in the kettle' batch size ('batch size' in BeerSmith, with the trub loss field set to 0). You would do the same thing if you just wanted to increase your final 'package volume', only for notekeeping purposes, you would increase your 'package volume', and leave your expected losses according to what you normally experience.

If you wanted to, you could increase the various losses by some percentage related to how much you increased your 'batch size'/'package volume', and/or adjust the losses base on the observed results. BeerSmith propaganda teaches following the later, and primarily adjusting numbers reactively based on observed results only. Users who understand how to predict losses, prefer to make adjustments proactively. Being proactive can save a few brewing cycles when dialing in equipment/recipes.
To start, I do shoot for a consistent package volume of 6 gallons for each and every batch. If I change the batch size to 6.75 as you suggest do I then just "assume" the losses as a mental note that is not directly referenced in the software anywhere? Then, if for example I brew a beer that historically has absorbed an additional .25g due to hop additions I re-scale the recipe to a 7g batch size to account for the additional loss?

Quote:
Second topic: efficiency
Your original 'to the fermenter' efficiency was 80%.
If you trub loss field in BeerSmith was not 0 (you said it was .5G), there is no way for your 'est mash eff' to be 80%. The 'est mash eff' is a number BeerSmith generates based off of 'to the fermenter' efficiency (which the user enters), less any trub and lauter losses.

If your current BeerSmith 'to the fermenter' efficiency is 80%, and your actual observed mash eff has been 80%, you were supposed to have adjusted your 'to the fermenter' efficiency higher to iteratively dial your numbers in. There is no calculator or tool within BeerSmith to generate your new 'to the fermenter' efficiency, even though it is a calculation that only BeerSmith uses for something meaningful. You have to do it by hand with a formula, which BeerSmith doesn't provide, or find a 3rd party tool online. All the numbers are available within your BeerSmith profile for it to do all of this automatically, but, alas, the 'Why do the calcs yourself' program makes you do this BeerSmith specific one yourself.

For now, in the 'brewhouse eff'/'total eff' field, just use your observed average 'into the kettle' mash efficiency, even if it is 80% and the same as your current BeerSmith 'into the fermenter'/'brewhouse'/'total' efficiency. If you did your measurements right, your observed efficiency is the proper value for the new 'in the kettle' eff method.
Are you suggesting then that when I go to brew my next recipe, not a repeat, to make these changes prior to design, brew the beer and evaluate the efficiency and use that as my new efficiency number. Then, I can go back to a previous recipe and re-scale to meet these new numbers based on the revised batch size and efficiency number. the software will then perform the the adjustments to meet the edited equipment profile?

In follow: i will assume if the above is correct the OG/FG issue questioned would then be corrected as well as the re-scaled recipe would account for this based upon the adjusted percentage and batch size?

In short, am I to assume that the ultimate benefit of this procedure and correction in the set up enables a user to simply scale a recipe to account for possible changes in experienced losses on a batch by batch basis without having to make any adjustments to the equipment profile?
__________________
Nothing Left to do but smile and drink beer.....

The Commune Brewing Company-Perfecting the "art" of beer since 2010
duboman is offline
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-30-2012, 04:03 PM   #14
cwi
Registered User
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Recipes 
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Austin
Posts: 845
Liked 30 Times on 27 Posts
Likes Given: 1

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by duboman View Post
To start, I do shoot for a consistent package volume of 6 gallons for each and every batch. If I change the batch size to 6.75 as you suggest do I then just "assume" the losses as a mental note that is not directly referenced in the software anywhere?
Yes, but you can put the note about losses in the recipe notes, the recipe name, or anywhere else that makes sense. The nice thing is that knowing the kettle batch size is much more useful for sharing and equip/ingredient changes. Any post-boil volume losses are virtually 100% finished wort, so when sharing or making adjustments, it is much easier to figure out what batch size to scale to (always checking the 'keep numbers the same' box). There is some extra work to be done using this method, but there are also significant work saving and simplification.

If you haven't been doing the proper calcs that BeerSmith expects you to for the normal way, it may seem like a lot of extra work, but if that is how you have been doing things, your numbers can't have been correct. The benefit to the user depends on how he wants to use BeerSmith. If you want to share/import recipes more easily, make efficiency and trub loss adjustments without having to do extra calcs, adjust efficiency based on grain bills; then the this new method is much easier.

When scaling for new changes, creating new recipes, or simply increasing batch size, it is always best to pick a 'base' version of a recipe that has turned out/hit the numbers well. Make a copy, rename (I put batch size and trub loss in the name), and then scale the copy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by duboman View Post
Then, if for example I brew a beer that historically has absorbed an additional .25g due to hop additions I re-scale the recipe to a 7g batch size to account for the additional loss?
'Historically' is a little confusing, because you would/should have corrected losses for that if it has occurred many times previously, but I think you are describing the process correctly. After brewing a recipe, you check your losses and kettle eff, and adjust the recipe for the next time. The knowledge can also be used to adjust losses/eff to other recipes if you know what caused the losses/eff- hops, grain bill, new equip losses, etc. This is standard BeerSmith procedure. The difference is that the new method is much easier to adjust things per recipe, and all you have to do is put the actual numbers you measure into BeerSmith. There is no need to do the additional 'to the fermenter' efficiency calculation by hand/externally anytime either mash eff, trub loss, hop loss, or equip loss changes.

Even more convenient is you can very easily proactively compensate for ingredient losses like when creating a recipe for an extra hoppy beer, or deciding to switch a recipe from pellet to leaf hops. Before brewing you just predictively figure out the hop absorption/loss (there are several calculators for this), and scale the recipe by that amount. It gets a bit weird here, because since you scale the recipe, the hops increase, so you get more losses. The way to cheat, is to just increase your losses a bit the first time you scale to account for the increased hops. Checking the new hop absorption value compared to your guess will show you if you need to scale again. As long as you are not under, or over by a large amount, most just call it good and don't try to get it exact.

This sounds a little tedious, but is much easier than the old way of using the trub loss field. Doing that, you would have had to do these same calcs, as well as a bunch of extra calcs to get your efficiency number correct. In the BeerSmith forum, I suggested adding a hop loss tool that would do the compensation for you. I was beaten down, and told it wasn't necessary- even after I explained how the trub/hop loss increase causes a feedback loop that causes more hop loss, and requires more scaling.

Quote:
Originally Posted by duboman View Post
Are you suggesting then that when I go to brew my next recipe, not a repeat, to make these changes prior to design, brew the beer and evaluate the efficiency and use that as my new efficiency number. Then, I can go back to a previous recipe and re-scale to meet these new numbers based on the revised batch size and efficiency number. the software will then perform the the adjustments to meet the edited equipment profile?
Yes. If you switch to this method, there should be no difference in the results you would have gotten the old way- nothing changes in the results of the math in BeerSmith. Recipes will not automatically change, so any recipe you want to brew using the new method, you would need to use the new eqipment profile that has no trub losses, your 'kettle/mash' eff as 'tot/brewhouse' eff, and scale the volume for any losses.

The only thing you need is a good current mash eff number, or a good 'tot eff' number that you can get your current 'mash eff' from. If you have a good idea of your current 'mash eff', which you should know even if using BeerSmith the old way, then you can use that directly. If you don't know your mash eff, but have a current 'tot eff' number that has worked for you, the mash eff can be determined from that. BeerSmith even calcs it automatically as 'est mash eff' in the profile. For a known good 'tot eff' number, the 'est mash eff' (since that is your actual mash eff) is the eff number you would put in 'brewhouse/tot eff' if you use the new way of zeroing out trub losses.

After brewing any recipe, new or repeat, you should check your numbers to see if you hit them. You can use this information to adjust all recipes if it is a consistent effect, or by recipe if it is related to ingredients. Mash eff can change for different grain bills, so to get even better estimates you can tune mash efficiency by beer style/grain bill. You just start with a 'base' eff number, and adjust it based on results from similar brews.

Quote:
Originally Posted by duboman View Post
In follow: i will assume if the above is correct the OG/FG issue questioned would then be corrected as well as the re-scaled recipe would account for this based upon the adjusted percentage and batch size?
Yes, when you scale the original recipe (using the scale tool and checking the 'keep numbers the same' box) to increase batch size by your losses (after you change trub loss to 0, and put your 'mash eff' in as the 'tot/brewhouse' value); then the brewday numbers- water vols, grain bill, hops, OG, SRM, IBU, vol to fermenter, etc. will all be exactly the same as the original recipe. For future loss adjustments to the recipe/equip, you would simply scale the batch the same way.

The only change being made to how BeerSmith expects you to use it, is to account for losses in the 'batch size', and use 'kettle/mash' eff as 'brewhouse/tot" eff (which is the common definition anyway).

There is a box next to 'equipment' in the recipe creator that allows you to change the only the local copy that the recipes keeps. Use this for per recipe changes. When you want to change all future brews, create a new equip profile (copy, rename).

Quote:
Originally Posted by duboman View Post
In short, am I to assume that the ultimate benefit of this procedure and correction in the set up enables a user to simply scale a recipe to account for possible changes in experienced losses on a batch by batch basis without having to make any adjustments to the equipment profile?
Yes, much easier to tune on a recipe by recipe basis, but also much easier when just doing normal iterative system tuning for mash eff changes. There is no need to do all the extra calcs required to get the old style 'to the fermenter' eff number. Sharing recipes, both importing and exporting, is also much more straightforward.

Also, there is a math flaw that causes small errors when doing it the old way due to trub loss being included twice in the calculations. In reality it is a very small error, but some people have a disease that won't tolerate it.
__________________
cwi is offline
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-30-2012, 09:06 PM   #15
duboman
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Recipes 
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Glenview, IL
Posts: 5,958
Liked 450 Times on 419 Posts
Likes Given: 200

Default

So i went into BS today and created a new Equipment profile reflecting the changes you suggested and named it accordingly and saved. To verify I changed the loss to trub to 0 but left the loss to fermenter at .25G
I changed the Total Brewhouse Efficiency to reflect my previous Est. Mash efficiency number (I had 1 recipe that came in at 92% and one that came in at 81% so I selected to use 85%. I will assume the next beer I brew from scratch using this equipment set up will give me a better % number to use if it does not come in at the 85%?

Another question is the final bottling volume is reflecting 6.5G instead of the previous 6G as the loss value is now 0. I noted this discrepancy in the equipment profile as well as a note to scale batch size if anticipating different loss values.

Did I get this set up correct?

__________________
Nothing Left to do but smile and drink beer.....

The Commune Brewing Company-Perfecting the "art" of beer since 2010
duboman is offline
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-30-2012, 10:54 PM   #16
cwi
Registered User
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Recipes 
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Austin
Posts: 845
Liked 30 Times on 27 Posts
Likes Given: 1

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by duboman View Post
So i went into BS today and created a new Equipment profile reflecting the changes you suggested and named it accordingly and saved. To verify I changed the loss to trub to 0 but left the loss to fermenter at .25G
I changed the Total Brewhouse Efficiency to reflect my previous Est. Mash efficiency number (I had 1 recipe that came in at 92% and one that came in at 81% so I selected to use 85%. I will assume the next beer I brew from scratch using this equipment set up will give me a better % number to use if it does not come in at the 85%?
That sounds correct. Although 85% is fairly high. It is also a little strange that you had efficiencies that were so different, unless one was from a brew before you dialed your system in, and your system effciency number was different for those brews. There are efficiency differences for different grain bills, but usually not that large.

I would use whatever the est mash eff is from the lastest brew where you hit your numbers. If you have actual measurements for post boil SG and volume in the kettle from your latest 'numbers hitting' brew, you can plug those into BeerSmith for that recipe, and it will give you your actual mash eff 'in the kettle'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by duboman View Post
Another question is the final bottling volume is reflecting 6.5G instead of the previous 6G as the loss value is now 0. I noted this discrepancy in the equipment profile as well as a note to scale batch size if anticipating different loss values.
Because I have been so focused on how BeerSmith should be rewritten to function better, I never really thought about what other workaround options are available to enter losses, without it affecting everything else. Now that I think about it, you could use the 'fermenter losses' field as a data store for all post-boil losses. That way if you actually use the package volume (I think most don't even look at it), your package volume will be correct. Or, you could just put losses up to the fermenter in there, and 'package volume' would now be your 'in the fermenter' volume.

I just put the trub loss in the title of the recipe, and do the math in my head. Then again, I am not worried about sub-gallon accuracy for package volume. I just want the qualitative numbers to be correct in the kettle.

Quote:
Originally Posted by duboman View Post
Did I get this set up correct?
Except for double checking your efficiency number to make sure it is from a recent brew(s) where you hit your numbers.
__________________
cwi is offline
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-30-2012, 11:41 PM   #17
duboman
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Recipes 
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Glenview, IL
Posts: 5,958
Liked 450 Times on 419 Posts
Likes Given: 200

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cwi
That sounds correct. Although 85% is fairly high. It is also a little strange that you had efficiencies that were so different, unless one was from a brew before you dialed your system in, and your system effciency number was different for those brews. There are efficiency differences for different grain bills, but usually not that large.

I would use whatever the est mash eff is from the lastest brew where you hit your numbers. If you have actual measurements for post boil SG and volume in the kettle from your latest 'numbers hitting' brew, you can plug those into BeerSmith for that recipe, and it will give you your actual mash eff 'in the kettle'.

Because I have been so focused on how BeerSmith should be rewritten to function better, I never really thought about what other workaround options are available to enter losses, without it affecting everything else. Now that I think about it, you could use the 'fermenter losses' field as a data store for all post-boil losses. That way if you actually use the package volume (I think most don't even look at it), your package volume will be correct. Or, you could just put losses up to the fermenter in there, and 'package volume' would now be your 'in the fermenter' volume.

I just put the trub loss in the title of the recipe, and do the math in my head. Then again, I am not worried about sub-gallon accuracy for package volume. I just want the qualitative numbers to be correct in the kettle.

Except for double checking your efficiency number to make sure it is from a recent brew(s) where you hit your numbers.
Thanks, yes the efficiencies I stated much earlier were total brew house numbers that were achieved once I got my new mill! You stated though to use the mash efficiency number which was higher after my new mill crush.

I'll use the fermentor loss for my total loss as it see that does not cause the issues you've described and then my bottling volumes will be in line for package.

Thanks! Interested to see how this all calculates out in a couple of upcoming batches.
__________________
Nothing Left to do but smile and drink beer.....

The Commune Brewing Company-Perfecting the "art" of beer since 2010
duboman is offline
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-31-2012, 12:27 AM   #18
cwi
Registered User
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Recipes 
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Austin
Posts: 845
Liked 30 Times on 27 Posts
Likes Given: 1

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by duboman View Post
Thanks! Interested to see how this all calculates out in a couple of upcoming batches.
The beauty of it will be when you tune your system numbers. All that you need to do is get your actual 'kettle efficiency', which BeerSmith will calc for you based on actual SG and volume, compare it your current 'brewhouse/tot' eff, and make an adjustment comparing apples to apples. Same for your actual losses, just make volume adjustments/notes based on comparing volumes.

Using this style, it is best to make systemic changes to a base equip profile (or a new copy), and make per recipe based adjustments using the local copy of the equipment profile (the box with a red check mark next to the equipment drop-down).

Also, don't forget you can proactively adjust for increased/decreased losses based on hoppy/non-hoppy beers, or whatever, by just using the scale tool to increase or decrease batch size.
__________________
cwi is offline
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 09-04-2012, 07:20 PM   #19
duboman
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Recipes 
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Glenview, IL
Posts: 5,958
Liked 450 Times on 419 Posts
Likes Given: 200

Default

So to add yet another question:
This weekend I was re-working a recipe that I am planning on re-brewing and went to copy it and re-scale it to the modified equipment profile with the losses adjusted.

Upon doing so I found that both the grain bill quantities and the estimated OG changed, both increased. It was my understanding this would not happen, especially since my efficiency went up, not down

Can you shed some light on this? I did a save as so I still have both copies of the recipes in question reflecting both equipment profiles.

__________________
Nothing Left to do but smile and drink beer.....

The Commune Brewing Company-Perfecting the "art" of beer since 2010
duboman is offline
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 09-05-2012, 12:16 AM   #20
cwi
Registered User
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Recipes 
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Austin
Posts: 845
Liked 30 Times on 27 Posts
Likes Given: 1

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by duboman View Post
So to add yet another question:
This weekend I was re-working a recipe that I am planning on re-brewing and went to copy it and re-scale it to the modified equipment profile with the losses adjusted.

Upon doing so I found that both the grain bill quantities and the estimated OG changed, both increased. It was my understanding this would not happen, especially since my efficiency went up, not down

Can you shed some light on this? I did a save as so I still have both copies of the recipes in question reflecting both equipment profiles.
Besides getting into yet another of BeerSmith's flaws regarding scaling, it is best to do things one step at a time.

It is best to work only with a copy of a recipe. If you then scale it by picking a new equipment profile, making sure to check the 'keep everything the same' box. You should not have experienced this issue, at least not by what BeerSmith shows you. If you actually do the math by hand, you may find some small errors here and there, which is why you don't want to scale to one profile, scale to a second one (or more), then scale back to the original. Strange things can happen.

What were your steps?
Did you use the scaling tool, then pick the equip profile?
Did you check the 'keep everything the same box?
Did the new "in the kettle' batch size increase over the previous 'to the fermenter' batch size?
__________________
cwi is offline
 
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Reply


Quick Reply
Message:
Options
Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Beersmith help bbrim Brewing Software 2 01-13-2013 05:25 AM
Beersmith zuke395 Brewing Software 10 02-22-2012 07:57 PM
FWH Beersmith Julohan Brewing Software 16 12-14-2011 09:11 PM
If you have something other than Beersmith kedash Brewing Software 13 01-18-2010 01:55 PM
beersmith help sunblock Brewing Software 3 05-22-2009 10:04 PM