Brewzilla Gen4 Discussion/Tips Talk

[Bottoms_Up]

I think I now have a fix for the Brewzilla Gen 4 temperature calibration issue!

After my third attempt at trying to resolve the temperature difference on my Brewzilla, I think I sort of understand how the calibration algorithm works, at least in general. Knowing how it works is the first step of the solution. I was not able to find out from Kegland what the actual algorithm was, so I had to figure it out by logical deduction. I think the algorithm adjusts the entire temperature range rather than fix two points. Let me explain by using a simple example. I'll use the metric system as the example since there is exactly 100 degrees between the freezing point and the boiling point at sea level, so it is easier to illustrate. (For the Imperial system, it is obviously 180 degrees).

Let's say you measure your Brewzilla temperature with room temperature water, and find it reads low. This could be because the freezing point reads, let's say, 5 degrees too low and the boiling point reads 5 degrees too high. Thus there is a 110 degree range between the freezing point (0) and the boiling point (100). There should only be 100 degrees between these two points.

So you add ice water to the Brewzilla, run the recirculation arm and let the temperature adjust. The Brewzilla reads -5.0 C rather than 0. So you set the calibration point by raising it 5 degrees. Now there is a 105 degree spread between the freezing point and the boiling point rather than 110. Now when you read the water at room temperature, you are closer, but still it is out.

What has happened is that by raising it 5 degrees, you are still 5 degrees out in total. Brewzilla spreads this difference by splitting the 5 in half. So now when you go to the boiling point calibration, the Brewzilla reads 2.5 degrees too high. So you set the calibration point 2.5 degrees lower. Now you have a total range of 102.5. So the range still has 2.5 degrees too much. So it divides the difference, and now, if you were to go back to the freezing temperature, it would read 1.25 degrees too low. You adjust again. Each time the total difference will be halved as to what it was before. So you can repeat the calibration again and again until you feel it is close enough. It will never reach a range of exactly 100, because you are dividing the difference by a half each time.

So the bottom line is that if your Brewzilla is only a degree or two out initially, you may only need to do the calibration once. It should be close enough. But, if you are out by, for example, 7 degrees, as I was, you will need to repeat the calibration at least 3 times, or whenever you can live with the difference.

Note that my explanation is a simplification based on observation and deduction. There may be additional factors in the calibration algorithm, but I think that it is basically how it works.

I think there might be a trick to do it just once. If you were to initially take the reading at the freezing point as well as at the boiling point, and determine the entire spread (e.g. let's say 110 degrees), then if you were to just add that entire difference (10 degrees) at the freezing point calibration (rather than the correct temperature at that point), you should end up with the right range immediately, and thus all the temperatures should line up. Or even easier, rather than going back to the freezing point again, just make the adjustments while you're at the boiling point - and lower it by the difference. That way you only have to do it once.

I haven't tried this, but if anyone does, please let us know how it turned out.

 

[D-Max]

I think it indicates that the calibration has to be done several times in succession, not just once. Each time you correct one of the points, it changes the other. It does seem to get closer each time, though, so it has to be an iterative process.

Please let Kegland know. They keep telling me that nobody else has ever reported this problem to them, so they are unable (unwilling) to check it out.

Guys. You are playing with a non linear temp probe. Yes you could write software to correct the measurement but it would be infinitely easier to use a linear resistance probe that once calibrated would stay calibrated. Step back and ask the question of "What are Kegland's plans heading forward in 2023. They have a great brewing vessel but a hopeless temperature measurement and hence control system. I'm working on my own solution which will be external to the BZ.
I repeat - First accurate repeatable temperature measurement.
Second an actual PID control unit that will control the mash temperature to my requirements. Cheers.

 

[Bottoms_Up]

Guys. You are playing with a non linear temp probe. Yes you could write software to correct the measurement but it would be infinitely easier to use a linear resistance probe that once calibrated would stay calibrated. Step back and ask the question of "What are Kegland's plans heading forward in 2023. They have a great brewing vessel but a hopeless temperature measurement and hence control system. I'm working on my own solution which will be external to the BZ.
I repeat - First accurate repeatable temperature measurement.
Second an actual PID control unit that will control the mash temperature to my requirements. Cheers.

I think the Brewzilla itself is an excellent piece of equipment for the price. Where Kegland failed is in two areas. 1) the RAPT controller; and 2) sufficient documentation. The RAPT controller does not seem to be part of Kegland but something outreached. The factory calibration is not done by using two different temperatures, but using an electrical resistance on a theoretical basis. Maybe this worked for past Brewzillas, but it is obviously not working in the Brewzillas sent out since the Fall. Are they dumping the inefective machines on the western world? They are not willing to admit this new issue and still base all their comments on previous products. I know this wasn't an issue with the 3.1.1 Brewzilla as I have several friends who have one.

The documentation is inferior. I mentioned to them about 4 months ago that there is almost no information about all the default settings and what it means. They said they would correct this and include it in the next update of the manual. I have not seen this to date. ALSO, the PID default settings are not proper for most set-ups. Luckily there are now several videos that explain what more preferred settings should be set at.

The documentation about the 2-point calibration is incomplete and misleading, likely because Kegland has no or little understanding of the algorithm that it uses to calibrate. It doesn't mention that the calibrations must be done repeatedly to narrow the range until it is within an acceptable range. Instead it seems to imply that a single calibration is all that is necessary. I have mentioned this above.

All these things are very simple to correct. Yet they seem to refuse to do so for whatever reason. They seriously need to understand the RAPT technology and address certain issues with their manufacturer. Without fairly accurate temperature control, a brewing system is useless, especially for those brewing the more demanding lagers or other specialty beers. Ales are generally far more forgiving w.r.t. temperatures. Temperature should be the key to the system if they are to satisfy different brewing preferences. Even a cheap $20 kitchen temperature probe is far more accurate than this RAPT probe! Check it out at freezing and boiling temperatures! I bet it won't be out more than a degree or so. Yet the Brewzilla can be out by 6 or 7 degrees!

D-Max, you mentioned that your do-yourself assembled probe was built for less than $20, and it provides accuracy as well as accurate and effective PID functionality. Why can't Kegland do the same? They should throw out the useless stainless steel chiller - which must cost more than $20 - and exchange that cost to add to the accuracy of the temperature probe.

The whole point of brewing is specific, and accurate, temperature control. Yet that seems to be at the bottom of Kegland's priorities!

 

[SanPancho]

I think I now have a fix for the Brewzilla Gen 4 temperature calibration issue!



I think there might be a trick to do it just once. If you were to initially take the reading at the freezing point as well as at the boiling point, and determine the entire spread (e.g. let's say 110 degrees), then if you were to just add that entire difference (10 degrees) at the freezing point calibration (rather than the correct temperature at that point), you should end up with the right range immediately, and thus all the temperatures should line up. Or even easier, rather than going back to the freezing point again, just make the adjustments while you're at the boiling point - and lower it by the difference. That way you only have to do it once.

i'm game. i'll go ahead and do the calibrations in C to make it easy.

that way i'll have some data to submit when i email them about the temp problems.

on different note- how do we DIY that crappy "alert" function to actually be something you'd notice? any idea of how to turn an email into more of an actual "loud-noise-from-phone" type alert? was wondering if you could somehow turn the email into a text or something like that, maybe via google voice? set that "caller" to have a really loud/annoying notification sound. etc. really dont care about the contents of email i dont think, just want some way to make my phone do a noisy alert...

 

[govner1]

I'd look out for a 65litre brewzilla 3 and fit it with a SMARTPID, whirlpool and add in some other sensors, my modded Guten 70 works great.

Thanks but I think the Brewtools systems are much better optiooand their performance and the ability to replace individual components is a very nice plus.

 

[SanPancho]

ok, so i goofed up. thought i had alot more ice than i actually had on hand. oh well. so i modified and just tried to calibrate the mash temp range. also forgot to switch into celsius.

so -
ADC reading was 1890 at what my thermometer showed to be 138F
ADC reading of 1258 at what i showed as 170F.

that was with the pump running less than half open to get circulation and uniformity (hopefully). so those are saved. i'll re-heat tomorrow morning and see what sort of discrepancy i get at the unit's readings of 138 and 170.

 

[D-Max]

Guys. You are playing with a non linear temp probe. Yes you could write software to correct the measurement but it would be infinitely easier to use a linear resistance probe that once calibrated would stay calibrated. Step back and ask the question of "What are Kegland's plans heading forward in 2023. They have a great brewing vessel but a hopeless temperature measurement and hence control system. I'm working on my own solution which will be external to the BZ.
I repeat - First accurate repeatable temperature measurement.
Second an actual PID control unit that will control the mash temperature to my requirements. Cheers.

http://www.manoraz.com/_Uploads/dbsAttachedFiles/PT-100_Table.pdf

 

[Bottoms_Up]

ok, so i goofed up. thought i had alot more ice than i actually had on hand. oh well. so i modified and just tried to calibrate the mash temp range. also forgot to switch into celsius.

so -
ADC reading was 1890 at what my thermometer showed to be 138F
ADC reading of 1258 at what i showed as 170F.

that was with the pump running less than half open to get circulation and uniformity (hopefully). so those are saved. i'll re-heat tomorrow morning and see what sort of discrepancy i get at the unit's readings of 138 and 170.

Do you have any idea on how to interpret the ADC numbers? I know they represent the analogue to digital conversion, but what exactly do they mean?

Regarding the 2-point calibration at 138 F and 170 F, you may still have to do the calibration 2 or 3 times to narrow the range each time you clip some off from either end. Either that, or take the Brewzilla temperature at each point (as measured with your temperature probe) and take the entire difference in range off from one end. Then check. At least in theory that should bring you much closer and faster.

 

[SanPancho]

Do you have any idea on how to interpret the ADC numbers? I know they represent the analogue to digital conversion, but what exactly do they mean?

Regarding the 2-point calibration at 138 F and 170 F, you may still have to do the calibration 2 or 3 times to narrow the range each time you clip some off from either end. Either that, or take the Brewzilla temperature at each point (as measured with your temperature probe) and take the entire difference in range off from one end. Then check. At least in theory that should bring you much closer and faster.

well maybe im not understanding how you're doing things on each pass. from what i see you have to erase all your settings and re-enter them so im not sure i wanna do that until we establish just what exactly the math is. unfortunately i wasnt able to do 32F so my scale will be off vs someone who did the freezing/boiling set points. maybe i'll leave some water outside tonite and that'll get me close.

im guessing the adc numbers have some equivalency to a reverse temp scale. at sea level you boil at 212, so there's no way it can go higher unless you're under pressure, i.e. distilling, which 90% of folks arent doing i'd guess. so they likely set adc to zero or 1000 or whatever they wanna name it, at boiling/212f/100c. then adc runs higher the lower the temp goes, i.e. larger the difference from boiling. (difference in electrical resistance?) you can probably plot it out and figure the data from there.

in any case, here's what i had this morning after setting my calibration last nite using 138f and 170f-
display 140 and i show 138.2
display 155 and i have 152.6
display 170 and i show 169.7

so the range tightens up considerably, however its got its widest discrepancy right where i want it to be the most accurate- in the low to middle of that mash range. if the highest calibrated temp is the fixed reference point then it would make sense i guess, since the adc numbers seem to indicate boiling/212f/100c is the "start" point. and if so, maybe i should make my highest calibration point the one i am most concerned about and least likely to ever go over in a mash, so maybe like 155? hopefully that would mean that my 150s are pretty accurate, and upper 140s too.

 

[Bottoms_Up]

well maybe im not understanding how you're doing things on each pass. from what i see you have to erase all your settings and re-enter them so im not sure i wanna do that until we establish just what exactly the math is. unfortunately i wasnt able to do 32F so my scale will be off vs someone who did the freezing/boiling set points. maybe i'll leave some water outside tonite and that'll get me close.

im guessing the adc numbers have some equivalency to a reverse temp scale. at sea level you boil at 212, so there's no way it can go higher unless you're under pressure, i.e. distilling, which 90% of folks arent doing i'd guess. so they likely set adc to zero or 1000 or whatever they wanna name it, at boiling/212f/100c. then adc runs higher the lower the temp goes, i.e. larger the difference from boiling. (difference in electrical resistance?) you can probably plot it out and figure the data from there.

in any case, here's what i had this morning after setting my calibration last nite using 138f and 170f-
display 140 and i show 138.2
display 155 and i have 152.6
display 170 and i show 169.7

so the range tightens up considerably, however its got its widest discrepancy right where i want it to be the most accurate- in the low to middle of that mash range. if the highest calibrated temp is the fixed reference point then it would make sense i guess, since the adc numbers seem to indicate boiling/212f/100c is the "start" point. and if so, maybe i should make my highest calibration point the one i am most concerned about and least likely to ever go over in a mash, so maybe like 155? hopefully that would mean that my 150s are pretty accurate, and upper 140s too.

I'm not sure why you would want to erase the settings each time you do a calibration, since you want to retain the earlier calibration results. The next calibration then makes the end results closer. I have been leaving a pail of water outside overnight, which brings it close to freezing temperature. Then I just add a few blocks of ice (what you have in a couple of trays in the freezer might be enough) to get it down to freezing.

It sure would be nice to know where the fixed reference temperature point actually is. I assumed it was closer to the middle since I had similar differences at both the freezing point and the boiling point (it was initially 6.3 F degrees low at the freezing point and 7.2 F degrees high at the boiling point.

Your data of decreasing differences as the temperature increases is interesting. I do know that as you circulate, the temperature differences continue to narrow over a period of at least 10 minutes, so the differences you are seeing 'may be a reflection of time and not an indication that the fixed point is at the boiling point. So many questions!

I sure wish I knew what actual algorithm is used, and what the fixed point is. It would add much more understanding of the factors influencing the calibration.

 

[agentbud]

I wonder if it would be worthwhile or do any good to ask Kegland if they would care to join in this forum conversation. If it was my company, I sure would.

 

[Bottoms_Up]

I wonder if it would be worthwhile or do any good to ask Kegland if they would care to join in this forum conversation. If it was my company, I sure would.

I've mentioned to them that there are several people having similar experiences on a forum I'm on, and offered to let them know the link. They were not interested. They seem to rather not know if there are issues, and will only consider them if more than one person notifies them about the same issue.

 

[Bottoms_Up]

Based on the following, the "fixed" reference point does seem to be towards the middle, where the linear "correct" line ("ideal response") intersects with the linear "incorrect" line( "actual response"):

Calibrating Sensors

However, this can't be correct, since it would indicate that the mid-point temperature (i.e. about 122 F) remains correct, which does not seem to be the case, although I never specifically checked it at that temperature. Even if it wasn't the mid-point, if the two lines intersect, then it has to be correct somewhere in the range.

 

[Bottoms_Up]

Based on the following, the "fixed" reference point does seem to be towards the middle, where the linear "correct" line ("ideal response") intersects with the linear "incorrect" line( "actual response"):

Calibrating Sensors

However, this can't be correct, since it would indicate that the mid-point temperature (i.e. about 122 F) remains correct, which does not seem to be the case, although I never specifically checked it at that temperature. Even if it wasn't the mid-point, if the two lines intersect, then it has to be correct somewhere in the range.

It could be that the two slopes don't intersect at all:

Source:
The two-point calibration procedure - ppt download

 

[SanPancho]

I'm not sure why you would want to erase the settings each time you do a calibration, since you want to retain the earlier calibration results. The next calibration then makes the end results closer. I have been leaving a pail of water outside overnight, which brings it close to freezing temperature. Then I just add a few blocks of ice (what you have in a couple of trays in the freezer might be enough) to get it down to freezing.

It sure would be nice to know where the fixed reference temperature point actually is. I assumed it was closer to the middle since I had similar differences at both the freezing point and the boiling point (it was initially 6.3 F degrees low at the freezing point and 7.2 F degrees high at the boiling point.

Your data of decreasing differences as the temperature increases is interesting. I do know that as you circulate, the temperature differences continue to narrow over a period of at least 10 minutes, so the differences you are seeing 'may be a reflection of time and not an indication that the fixed point is at the boiling point. So many questions!

I sure wish I knew what actual algorithm is used, and what the fixed point is. It would add much more understanding of the factors influencing the calibration.

The fixed point has to be boiling at sea level. It’s the only logical answer because unless you’re using pressure there’s no way to go over that temperature by boiling. It’s as close to a constant as you can get. And the adc numbers increase as you move away from it which seems to correlate with it being the reference point.

As for doing second round of calibration you might need to screenshot yours as I didn’t see anything that looked like I could add another reference temp when I got into that menu. Just the saved data from my calibration.

 

[Bottoms_Up]

The fixed point has to be boiling at sea level. It’s the only logical answer because unless you’re using pressure there’s no way to go over that temperature by boiling. It’s as close to a constant as you can get. And the adc numbers increase as you move away from it which seems to correlate with it being the reference point.

As for doing second round of calibration you might need to screenshot yours as I didn’t see anything that looked like I could add another reference temp when I got into that menu. Just the saved data from my calibration.

Regarding the second round of calibration, you simply add freezing ice water, then check it with an accurate probe thermometer. Then add that value into Calibration Point 1 once again as you did the first time. This changes the slope of the line each time you do it, and so it gets closer. The calibration points are retained each time, so you don't want to erase them at all, as they're used for the next calibration. It is an iterative process where the slope becomes closer to the ideal each time you do another calibration.

 

[agentbud]

Just spit balling here.... when you do your calibration, where in the cooled/heated liquid are you placing the external temp probe to get the "accurate" reading? If it is being placed in the middle of the malt pipe, I wonder if the temps would be closer if you tested down at the bottom of the boiler right next to the built-in probe. In other words, is the problem with the temp difference actually a problem with the probe or rather a problem (as has already been discussed elsewhere) with the way the liquid circulates and is drawn straight to the drain hole instead of out next to the probe. I know kegland has recognized this to be an issue and is releasing a heat exchanger plate (HED) that will force the circulating liquid to go out to the edge and down past the sensor, in theory to provide a more even temp throughout. I don't think the HED has been released in the US yet but it would be interesting to hear from someone who gets one if that helps with the temp differences without having to do a calibration.

 

[Bottoms_Up]

Just spit balling here.... when you do your calibration, where in the cooled/heated liquid are you placing the external temp probe to get the "accurate" reading? If it is being placed in the middle of the malt pipe, I wonder if the temps would be closer if you tested down at the bottom of the boiler right next to the built-in probe. In other words, is the problem with the temp difference actually a problem with the probe or rather a problem (as has already been discussed elsewhere) with the way the liquid circulates and is drawn straight to the drain hole instead of out next to the probe. I know kegland has recognized this to be an issue and is releasing a heat exchanger plate (HED) that will force the circulating liquid to go out to the edge and down past the sensor, in theory to provide a more even temp throughout. I don't think the HED has been released in the US yet but it would be interesting to hear from someone who gets one if that helps with the temp differences without having to do a calibration.

Unfortunately, the boiler area is not accessible for direct measuring, so one has to check the liquid in the malt pipe. But before doing that, I have the recirculation pump on full blast and let it recirculate for at least 5 minutes until the temperature stabilizes. It might be a few tenths of a degree different than the area around the probe, but I don't think it should be significant after it has recirculated for some time. It does change during those 5 minutes. Also, recirculation is much better without the malt pipe and screen also inserted, so I do the calibrations with just water and no malt pipe, and about 10 liters of water for more consistency.

I am waiting for the heat exchange plate to become available here. That will certainly help when the malt pipe is inserted along with the grain. But I don't think the difference will be as noticeable when only water is used without the malt pipe.

 

[Bottoms_Up]

So correct me if my understanding is wrong. The ADC numbers are digitial numbers that convert the resistance readings from the temperature probe, which change with temperature. From the freezing point to the boiling point, the resistance changes in a relatively flat line (only slightly curved) but outside that range it curves more dramatically. So the algorithm matches each ADC number with an assumed temperature.

The factory calibration assumes a certain ADC number matches the freezing point and another matches the boiling point. The intervening ADC numbers are assigned a temperature reading based on that line (or slight curve).

In reality, those resistances may not be quite right for whatever reason, so a 2-point calibration has to be done.

At the freezing point, the ADC number that happens to be reading at that temperature gets assigned to 32 (when considering the Imperial measurement).

When one now goes to the boiling point and assigns the ADC number registered at that temperature to 212 (assumed at sea level), we now have two points of the range defined. All the intervening points are assigned temperature values according to the interpolation of the straight line or slight curve between those two points.

Thus, theoretically, if this understanding is correct, there should be no need for a second calibration at all.

But this is not the case. In practice, the result of the first calibration can still result in incorrect temperature readings. In practice, a second calibration does improve that significantly.

From my own experience, the ADC number at the boiling point is about 3920, and the ADC number at freezing point is about 630.

So where is my understanding not correct?

 

[D-Max]

Based on the following, the "fixed" reference point does seem to be towards the middle, where the linear "correct" line ("ideal response") intersects with the linear "incorrect" line( "actual response"):

View attachment 807929

Calibrating Sensors

However, this can't be correct, since it would indicate that the mid-point temperature (i.e. about 122 F) remains correct, which does not seem to be the case, although I never specifically checked it at that temperature. Even if it wasn't the mid-point, if the two lines intersect, then it has to be correct somewhere in the range.

I repeat - A linear output from the temperature measuring probe removes all the issues you are talking about. Yes you can program corrections for a non linear probe but that's messing with their setup. Any input into their program would not correct the temperature control function that we are all experiencing problems with. The solution is to collectively take their hand and gently guide them to the requirements of actual brewers, their customers. Results for them, increased sales and increased profits but most important, happy brewing customers. Cheers

 

[SanPancho]

So correct me if my understanding is wrong. The ADC numbers are digitial numbers that convert the resistance readings from the temperature probe, which change with temperature. From the freezing point to the boiling point, the resistance changes in a relatively flat line (only slightly curved) but outside that range it curves more dramatically. So the algorithm matches each ADC number with an assumed temperature.

The factory calibration assumes a certain ADC number matches the freezing point and another matches the boiling point. The intervening ADC numbers are assigned a temperature reading based on that line (or slight curve).

In reality, those resistances may not be quite right for whatever reason, so a 2-point calibration has to be done.

At the freezing point, the ADC number that happens to be reading at that temperature gets assigned to 32 (when considering the Imperial measurement).

When one now goes to the boiling point and assigns the ADC number registered at that temperature to 212 (assumed at sea level), we now have two points of the range defined. All the intervening points are assigned temperature values according to the interpolation of the straight line or slight curve between those two points.

Thus, theoretically, if this understanding is correct, there should be no need for a second calibration at all.

But this is not the case. In practice, the result of the first calibration can still result in incorrect temperature readings. In practice, a second calibration does improve that significantly.

From my own experience, the ADC number at the boiling point is about 3920, and the ADC number at freezing point is about 630.

So where is my understanding not correct?

thats odd, mine are the opposite. i did a calibration at 200F and the adc was like 700ish. the adc goes up while the temp drops.

when i turned it on today, i got an alert that it was -25F !!!! the house is set for 68F, but okay.....
then as i got it hot i noticed that it kept turning on and off, but still wasnt boiling. thats because it was showing 218F when my thermometer was at like 164f.

so maybe starting with mash temp calibration points wasnt a great idea. dunno. in any case, i'm spreading them out all along the range. so now i've got calibrations at 93F, 138F, 170F, and 200F. waiting for some water to chill then i'll add in 55F and finally i'll put in 32F, although likely tomorrow morning after i leave water out overnite.

 

[Bottoms_Up]

thats odd, mine are the opposite. i did a calibration at 200F and the adc was like 700ish. the adc goes up while the temp drops.

when i turned it on today, i got an alert that it was -25F !!!! the house is set for 68F, but okay.....
then as i got it hot i noticed that it kept turning on and off, but still wasnt boiling. thats because it was showing 218F when my thermometer was at like 164f.

so maybe starting with mash temp calibration points wasnt a great idea. dunno. in any case, i'm spreading them out all along the range. so now i've got calibrations at 93F, 138F, 170F, and 200F. waiting for some water to chill then i'll add in 55F and finally i'll put in 32F, although likely tomorrow morning after i leave water out overnite.

My apologies, you are right - it is the reverse. At boiling temperatures, the ADC is about 630, while at freezing it is about 3920. I must have sampled too much of my latest lager


After my third calibration, it didn't change much from the second calibration. I'm out about a degree F at 150 F (in the rgeneral ange of my mashing temperature). I can live with that, but still wonder why Brewzilla's temperatures does not come close to the accuracy of cheap $20 kitchen temperature probes! I don't even need to calibrate those at all, as they are often within a half degree at all temperatures in the range, to begin with.

I do plan to use an Inkbird meat thermometer probe with a 5 foot metal cable inserted in the mash to monitor the exact mash temperature. It is an inexpensive $25 alternative to the very expensive RAPT probe that they hope to come out with in the future. I really don't think it's at all necessary if you have one of these less expensive probes. They work great, are quite accurate, and give you the very same level of control.

Why continue to support RAPT when they don't support you? Also, why bother with the RAPT probe if the Brewzilla temperature is not correct to begin with? Adjusting between a relatively accurate but expensive probe, and an inaccurate Brewzilla probe makes little sense. If one end is inaccurate, the end result will necessarily be inaccurate.

Stick with a very inexpensive, accurate Inkbird probe, and you will achieve much better results.

328ft Bluetooth Meat Thermometer with 2 External Probes, Inkbird 3 in 1 Instant Read Meat Thermometer IHT-2PB, Rechargable Digital Food Thermometer for Kitchen, Cooking, Smoker, BBQ, Candy, Oven : Amazon.ca: Home

 

[SanPancho]

well the obvious answer is so that you can use the stupid and oversold Rapt portal.

im going to do the 32f calibration tomorrow morning with some water left outside. at that point i'll have 6 points from 32f to 200F. if i'm within 1degree thats good enough for me too.

so now that that's settled- How's about we figure out how to turn these stupid emails into phone alerts??!!?!? we need it to be relatively instantaneous, and be an actual phone alert/notification like for texts, phone calls, timers/alarms, etc.

 

[Bottoms_Up]

well the obvious answer is so that you can use the stupid and oversold Rapt portal.

im going to do the 32f calibration tomorrow morning with some water left outside. at that point i'll have 6 points from 32f to 200F. if i'm within 1degree thats good enough for me too.

so now that that's settled- How's about we figure out how to turn these stupid emails into phone alerts??!!?!? we need it to be relatively instantaneous, and be an actual phone alert/notification like for texts, phone calls, timers/alarms, etc.

I could care less about an email notice as I'm not one to use a smart phone, nor do I want to monitor a tablet every minute. I prefer to stay near the Brewzilla. I do understand from a video, that there is a short, quiet beep on the Brewzilla. I understand that is easy to miss as it is not loud and is not repeated. I have never heard it yet.

 

[SanPancho]

I could care less about an email notice as I'm not one to use a smart phone, nor do I want to monitor a tablet every minute. I do understand from a video, that there is a short, quiet beep on the Brewzilla. I understand that is easy to miss as it is not loud. I have never heard it yet.

i think you're missing the point....

the idea is to NOT HAVE TO monitor a phone or tablet. it just sits there in your pocket being ignored until all the sudden it goes DING loudly and you hear it.

reminds me of this new thing the kids have these days, its called a Text Message....

 

[Bottoms_Up]

i think you're missing the point....

the idea is to NOT HAVE TO monitor a phone or tablet. it just sits there in your pocket being ignored until all the sudden it goes DING loudly and you hear it.

reminds me of this new thing the kids have these days, its called a Text Message....

I'm not missing the point at all. I really don't care to be reminded by email. I would much prefer to hear the Brewzilla itself notify me, as I'm more of an old-time hands-on type of brewer.

 

[SanPancho]

I would much prefer to hear the Brewzilla

this seems to tell us you want a SOUND ALERT from brewzilla, yes?

im saying i ALSO want a sound alert from the brewzilla. the difference is that i want brewzilla to send it to my phone instead using its crappy little tiny speaker.

i'll say it again, the email arrangement is stupid and useless. nobody "wants" the emails. we're on the same page there.

 

[SanPancho]

AHA.

ok, think i have a solution here.

apparently most phone carriers have email-to-text support on their systems. my ghetto ass provider is metro pcs, so the email is [email protected]. sure enough, test email i forwarded came as a text less than 30 seconds after i sent it.


EDIT- got a response from kegland. was told to get the app for my phone. i was a bit surprised. i looked at the instructions online, the august22 version that is top of search results, and there was nothing i could find in there about a mobile app. it kept referencing the "portal" which is the app.rapt.io web link. i found that a bit odd that they didnt even mention there was a phone app. its literally the same portal as the web, so there's no extra functionality that i can see so far. and from what i'm seeing on my phone (iphone SE, ios 16) there is no actual "rapt" app. maybe this deserves its own thread.....

i ran the only profile i have set up which is "clean" and it just runs for 10 mins at 150f. i got weird messages and there were some obvious errors but at the end of 10 minutes, i actually got notication on my phone via text. this was via my email-to-text relay solution above, it was NOT a native phone alarm/sound/notification.

 

[SanPancho]

Regarding the second round of calibration, you simply add freezing ice water, then check it with an accurate probe thermometer. Then add that value into Calibration Point 1 once again as you did the first time. This changes the slope of the line each time you do it, and so it gets closer. The calibration points are retained each time, so you don't want to erase them at all, as they're used for the next calibration. It is an iterative process where the slope becomes closer to the ideal each time you do another calibration.

how are you sure the "extra" calibration points are retained? i ask because i noticed this morning that when i did my final calibration at 39F that the most recent low point that i had tested/recorded at 90F was showing on the screen, but then it disappeared once i accepted the new calibration point i did at 39f.

 

[Bottoms_Up]

how are you sure the "extra" calibration points are retained? i ask because i noticed this morning that when i did my final calibration at 39F that the most recent low point that i had tested/recorded at 90F was showing on the screen, but then it disappeared once i accepted the new calibration point i did at 39f.

Logically, it has to retain it. After the first round of calibrations, the feezing temperature was significantly different than it was before. When I entered a new value, the difference became even less. When you put a new value in, then it changes, but before that it shows the previous entry.

 

[Bottoms_Up]

this seems to tell us you want a SOUND ALERT from brewzilla, yes?

im saying i ALSO want a sound alert from the brewzilla. the difference is that i want brewzilla to send it to my phone instead using its crappy little tiny speaker.

i'll say it again, the email arrangement is stupid and useless. nobody "wants" the emails. we're on the same page there.

Yes, I would much prefer an audible sound alert. It would be nice if it was sent out by the Brewzilla as well as a tablet or phone.

In fact, the ideal place would be the RAPT application itself - the alarm should come from there rather than having an email sent. I'm much more likely to keep an eye on the RAPT app durign a brew than my emails.

 

[mashdar]

Unfortunately, the boiler area is not accessible for direct measuring, so one has to check the liquid in the malt pipe.

I may be misreading your post?

Why would you try to calibrate a sensor without measuring the temperature at the sensor? That's a recipe for inaccuracy and frustration.

Throw a little water in the bottom and calibrate/test.

 

[Bottoms_Up]

I may be misreading your post?

Why would you try to calibrate a sensor without measuring the temperature at the sensor? That's a recipe for inaccuracy and frustration.

Throw a little water in the bottom and calibrate/test.

How would you suggest getting a probe in there? It's all closed off!

 

[mashdar]

How would you suggest getting a probe in there? It's all closed off!

Maybe we're looking at different hardware? The temperature probe for the 35L gen 4 is at the bottom of the kettle in plain sight.

 

[Bottoms_Up]

Maybe we're looking at different hardware? The temperature probe for the 35L gen 4 is at the bottom of the kettle in plain sight.

OK, I see where my understanding was wrong. From Kegland's videos, I initially had the understanding that the probe is actually inside the chamber where the heating element is located, in fact quite near the element (i.e. below the bottom plate of the kettle). This is an inaccessible area, so I wasn't sure how one could measure the temperature of the water near the probe. I thought that the heating element and probe were surrounded by the liquid in a small chamber, before it drained down into the pump.

If the probe is indeed in the bottom of the kettle itself, which I just checked and it is, then yes I can see that it would be preferable to measure the temperature close to this probe. However since the water in the kettle is being recirculated vigorously, (and no screens, mash pipe or mash are being used), there likely won't be a significant difference in temperature. With the mash pipe, the mash itself and two screens, then yes, there would be circulation issues and the temperature in the upper area would likely be significantly different than the temperature near the bottom, and just above the heating element(s).

The next time I do a calibration, to ensure accuracy, I will take your advice, take out the bottom screen, add enough water to cover the probe, and not so much that the probe can't reach it, and measure the temperature immediately next to it.

 

[SkyPie4321]

For everyone's reference, here is the bottom of the brewzilla:

The temp probe is the little nub there.

Also to clarify for the people skimming this, there isn't a chamber the wort touches below this, the drain pipe in the middle goes straight into the pump inlet. The heating elements are potted into the underside of the kettle bottom shown in the pic. Think of it like a pot sitting on an old school electric stove element.

The best way to calibrate something like this is at 0c and 100c. for 0, make a slurry of mostly ice, with just enough water to fill the gaps. No recirc or pump, just need enough to cover that probe and let it all sit for a couple minutes so the bottom can equalize. It should be wet slushy consistency, not a couple cubes floating.

For 100c, put enough distilled water in there to cover the probe by an inch or so? Then get it up to a light boil. Again, no pump. Double check boiling point vs your altitude.

 

[SanPancho]

Logically, it has to retain it. After the first round of calibrations, the feezing temperature was significantly different than it was before. When I entered a new value, the difference became even less. When you put a new value in, then it changes, but before that it shows the previous entry.

My logic says its not retained. Doesnt need to be. we start with OEM calibration. has two set points. produces an OEM slope as you describe.

you swap your first calibration points for the OEM. produces a new slope. more accurate.

your second calibration points produced second new slope. even more accurate because this new slope uses the second calibrations points which were measured against the 1st slope. but doesnt need the OEM.

case in point- my OEM was off by 7F, which i think was similar to yours. after i did the mash temp calibrations i had a new slope. it was good at mash temps, but wildly,wildly off at boiling and in room temp water. considering the OEM boiling temp calibration temp should only have been off by 7, it seems to me that it was no longer being used by system as i had now jumped it to be at least over 50F off at boiling, and 80F vs room temp. to me, that sure seems like what is retained is the current points/slope. but not any prior slopes/points.

but once i did 200 and 39f, i'm down to probably no more than 2F variance. doesnt seem logical to go from variance of 7F, to over 80F, and then down to 2F.

so i dont believe it retains more than one set. but i'm also admit this is just my take on it, not saying this is a fact. unless someone gets into the firmware or kegland answers the question i guess we'll never be 100% sure.

the good thing is that it seems like its a moot point. you're about 1 degree variance, and i'm down to maybe 2 or less. so whether its retaining all the points or just the most recent, it seems like its all just an annoying but mostly fixable problem if you can calibrate close to the 212 and 32F ends of the range.

but as to why kegland keeps saying its not an issue, that still seems up for debate. i emailed them about the problem too. so you're no longer the sole complainer in their eyes i hope.

 

[SanPancho]

Yes, I would much prefer an audible sound alert. It would be nice if it was sent out by the Brewzilla as well as a tablet or phone.

In fact, the ideal place would be the RAPT application itself - the alarm should come from there rather than having an email sent. I'm much more likely to keep an eye on the RAPT app durign a brew than my emails.

YES. exactly what i thought i was getting based on their marketing of the new model. but i think the issue is that the rapt portal isnt an app. i think because its web based, its only option is email. so it doesnt have permissions to get into your phone's OS, which i assume is needed for it to be able to push out "notifications" or sounds.

it cant interact directly with your phone in its current web-based format (if my understanding of mobile os stuff is correct). in any case, as i posted above, i figured out a way to get those rapt emails to come to my phone as texts. its free, at least for most phone carriers in the US. i'd guess canadians probably have same feature. that coupled with a email forward rule in my gmail account and i've got what are effectively "instant" notices as a text message. the test email i sent today was like 15 seconds to become a text. so good enough for me.

i also emailed kegland about it, told them to add a "email address for alerts" property to the rapt profile setup so folks could use the email-to-SMS functions from our carriers. who knows if they ever actually do it. but it seems like it should be super easy, and it costs them nothing (1hr to design, test, and implement?) so i dont see why they wouldnt run with it.....

EDIT: kegland if you do take up the suggestion, no problems from me. i freely give the idea. but if you;re feeling generous how about you send me one of these babies.....

(havent seen them in US, but current conversion rate says they're only about $130 US. Coolossus - Passivated Stainless Steel Counter Flow Chiller Heat Exchanger )

 

[theredviper]

Made another brew with the Gen4 this weekend. Pretty smooth... one thing I did was actually use the top screen for the malt pipe, post sparge.

I came from BIAB where I used to hoist and then squeeze the bag. In a similar fashion, after you've lifted the malt pipe and sparged, you can put the screen on and I pushed down with my mash paddle to get every last drip out.

The used grain is easier to deal with when it's as dry as possible too.

 

[agentbud]

Made another brew with the Gen4 this weekend. Pretty smooth... one thing I did was actually use the top screen for the malt pipe, post sparge.

I came from BIAB where I used to hoist and then squeeze the bag. In a similar fashion, after you've lifted the malt pipe and sparged, you can put the screen on and I pushed down with my mash paddle to get every last drip out.

The used grain is easier to deal with when it's as dry as possible too.

Me too. Brewed my second batch on the gen4 last night and did the exact same thing. Added the top plate after the basket was lifted and draining. This helped 2 ways, 1) kept pressure on the grains so that it helped drain faster and more complete and 2) helped disperse the sparge water that I was pouring on top of it