Hey mate, I tried to post last night but I think the site was down. It looks pike PR1.3Q works perfectly but no guarantees it works when I'm drunk .

I'll address your last post before I post what I was going to post last night.

Adding water to a sparge won't change the grain bill at all. It is as efficient (not more, not less) adding the water all at once as it is adding it in stages. So, grain bill stays the same. The L/G ratio refers to the mash so that will change if you do not do a pure, full-volume BIAB.

A for your last sentence, the BIABacus for extract will assume you are adding it at or before flame-out. There's no need for it to do anything else. I might be missing your question here sorry Richard but you wouldn't want to be adding water at flame-out if you could have put it in the kettle before. And, as a matte of interest, if extract is used, the TWN and SWN will go down as there will be less liquor retained by the grain. I've factored that in.

Thanks for looking into the above . Here's what I was going to write to you last night...

Using Section X and Y to Increase Transparency

On my first test of PR1.3Q, I compared a BeerSmith2 file with the BIABacus but this always takes ages and by the time I had finished, I was drunk I think - lol. I'll have another look at that file over the weekend, though. Anyway,it does appear as though 1.3Q is working fine on the extract. Here's how I made checking the numbers a whole lot easier. Open up this file...Here's the critical info...

1. Set Desired VIF in Section B to 5 gallons.
2. Set OG in Section 3 to 1.092/4 (that is 2 x 46.2)
3. Set 5 plus 5 pounds on the left of Section C and you'll see that the left and right side balance.
4. In Section X I have set a whole lot of things to zero including evaporation. This 'brings' all the numbers from boil start on together with no distortions.
5. In Section x I have set the auto-efficiency to 100%
6. In Section Y I have set both fermentables at 100 and 0

Basically in this 'brew' we are putting in 462 US sugar points (10 pounds x 46.2). Divide that by 5 gallons and you get 92.4. In other words, we can expect an OG og 1.092/4. Half the bill is extract and so we have a GIB of half of 92.4, i.e. 1.046/2.

And if you get rid of that b in Section C, then you'll see the GIB jump to 1.092/4 which seeing as we have zero evaporation is correct. So, all is good!!!!

I think the above is a good example of how quickly (it took far more time to write this than the minute or two setting up the above) the BIAbacus can be used to check it's own calculations as well as those from other sources.

Auto-Kettle Efficiency Also Works Nicely with the Extract.

Not sure if you noticed the following but do this in the file above...

Delete the 100 on the first line of Section X. Notice your EIB is now 81.3%? Now get rid of the b beside the second fermentable. Notice how the EIB drops down to 61.6%? This is another major plus of The BIABacus. It will actually auto-adjust for the myriad of situations that putting sugars or extracts into an 'all-grain' beer can result in.

Very Advanced Stuff

When working on the formulas for this, it made me realise something I've never seen written anywhere else before. In a grain brew that has extract or sugar, there is an immediate integrity loss. (mally, this relates in a way to a weight versus sugar contribution question you had here ages ago. You were coming from a different angle then, I think, but it is relevant here.)

In real life, especially for those using a BIABacus recipe from another BIAB'er, this isn't anything to worry about really but it is interesting to see it never talked about.

Let's use the file above as an example. Let's imagine that was in a book and the recipe was 50$ by weight grain and 50% pure sugar. If you were a three vessel brewer and had very poor EIB compared to mine, then this means that my brew will actually have more sugar contribution from the grain than the original brew.

As I said, in real life, this isn't really going to be anything to worry too much about. It's something though that the advance brewer might take into account in extreme situations. As for 'fixing' the problem, well you really can't unless you are given the weights (not percentages) of fermentables from the original recipe and the original brewer's EIB.


PP

PP, Please review my post #149 again, re: Extract version Q.

The liquor to grain ratio is not working!, whereas previous versions are...

In post #149;

3.31 qt/lb * 4.45 lb = 14.73 quarts

14.73 / 4 = 3.68 gallons

3.68 gallons should be the SWN, not 4.61 <=== EDITED

*** EDIT: I should have said SWN. I agree that the TWN should be 4.52 gallons. That 1 gallon is to be added with the 1 pound of DME ***

Richard, thanks a heap for posting that again. I had misunderstood you. I had forgotten to re-write the l/g formula and also the strike temperature one to allow for brews with extract. Btw, my L/G formulas work on an ambient temperature. In other words, if 10 litres of ambient water were heated to mash temp and used to mash 1 kilo of grain, then the l/g ratio is going to be 10 l/kg. Thanks again for the above mate. I would have totally missed that for ages as I never really look at that part .

Version 1.3T (for this thread only) - Basically, this will be it.

Compared to 1.3K, does the following...

1. Allows for sugars and extracts added during the boil. (Section C)
2. Allows for grains to be marked as steeped. (Section C)
3. Allows Miscellaneous ingredients in Section F to be scaled.
4. Allows various volumes to be determined by weight and specific gravity (last section of Unit Conversion sheet).
5. Corrected TWN to match original figures collected from brewers.
6. Report includes striking details and reflect changes in 1, 2 and 3 above.
7. Warnings have been re-structured, re-written and/or more intuitively placed.
8. ABV etc increases if beer is marked as naturally primed in C.
9. 'Req Volumes of CO2' moved from H to Q.
10. Got rid of a few #value and #false displays to neaten things up.

Before Final Release

Link in appropriately with a new forum structure.
Suss out if hyperlinks in spreadsheet are going to be problematic.

NOTE: The American Pale Ale file below was originally published as PR1.4 which was incorrect. See next post.

I just noticed that in the above post I had posted an incorrect file for the American Pale Ale. It was labelled as PR1.4 but is actually a much older file.

Instead, please download, "BIABacus PR1.3T - American Pale Ale NRB's All Amarillo APA - Batch 0.xls" above and please advise asap if there are any errors as we need to get the focus onto other areas...

In other words, in my opinion, in spreadsheet form , I don't think we really can add anything more than what you see in PR 1.3T. So, if that is good to go then we can start writing help etc.


PP

I see on the "recipe report" sheet, line #73 - It says," Mashout for for.....".

Richard, good on you!!! That's been there for months I reckon .

It's going to take a lot of unseen site structural work to get PR1.4 out. Lots of big things have to be done and a heap of little things too that you wouldn't think of. For example, posts in this thread (and many others) need to be retired but remain visible. Fun and games .

Richard, did post #153 answer your question? Has PR 1.3T solved the problem?


PP

PistolPatch wrote:
Richard, did post #153 answer your question? Has PR 1.3T solved the problem?


PP

No it didn't. The L/G increased. The Section K volumes didn't change either. I am expecting to see SWN, Mash Volume and VIB to have a reduced volume because of the extract.

Thinking outside the box a little here regarding the L/G and Volume Estimates in Section K...

...if SWN, Mash Volume and VIB volumes do change if an extract is used, then there should be an additional line added [SOMEWHERE] showing the top up water to be added before VFO and a red warning to add the extract.

EDIT: ADDED SOMEWHERE...

No top up water gets added if you use extract. All your water still goes in at the start. So let's say I substituted half the malt for an extract, all that would happen is the TWN would drop just a tiny bit because there is not as much liquor retained by grain. Liquor to grain ratio goes right up though because the remaining half of malt is getting washed in heaps more water.

Sometime before the end of the boil, the extract gets added but no top up water because all the water is added in the mash.

Make sense now mate?

PistolPatch wrote:
Make sense now mate?

Yes it does make sense.

Referring to the two files I attached, Version Q vs. Version T, Section K's are identical with 12.5% extract. I increased the percentage of the extract, and now I see the numbers changing.

Sorry about the use of the "top up water" terminology, mate.

PistolPatch wrote:[smyrnaquince, I am doing a consecutive post here so make sure you haven't missed my post above ]

The following is advanced stuff that I want to make you experienced guys aware of.

Anyone reading this thread should now be well aware that the higher the OG demanded of a brew, the lower the kettle efficiency but as has been stated previously and as Mad-Scientist remembered to write today in another thread... "The BIABacus auto-efficiency may be off on big gravity brews."

Anyone reading this should be very familiar with posts written by me that contain any of the following...

"Washing machine"
"Cup of coffee"
"Tea"
"Kettle efficiency"
"Fermentor efficiency"
"jeans"
"Sweet Liquor Shop"
etc (we all know it is a hard area to articulate/analogise)

Anyway, Mad-Scientist's taking on board that other question inspired and gave me some time to draw up a pic of what BIABrewer really thinks the auto-efficiency equation should be. Here's the pic...

Kettle Efficiency versus Gravity

Efficiency versus Gravity.jpg

I don't think I have the curve embellished enough but there is no way I can until we collect more figures.

What I am trying to say though, through the pic, is that the BIABacus auto-estimates/corrections, excellent though they are, will still be under-efficient (I mean 'kettle efficient' obviously) on low gravity brews and over-efficient on high gravity ones.

As MS said in that other thread today, we need more people doing extreme brews and recording their numbers. Without real, honest numbers from many more brewers, there really isn't much more to say.


PP

I ran across this discussion of calculation of maximum efficiency based on the ratio of wort volume extracted from a mash to the volume of water into the mash. It is basically the formula to calculate the (maximum) efficiency based on the volume of grain, which is what PistolPatch calls the auto-efficiency. The larger the grain bill, the more sweet wort is retained in the grains and the less sugars you can get out of them (hence the lower efficiency with large grain bills).

So, the theoretical maximum efficiency of a no-sparge (their words, but equivalent to BIAB) mash is:

Effbatch_sparge_step = 100% * Vrun_off / (Vrun_off + Vgrain_absorption + Vdead_space)

Actual efficiencies would always be lower than the theoretical maximum. How does this compare to what BIABacus uses?

Really good question Dave and a very simple and paradoxically a very hard one to answer. I've touched on it a few times before here. In fact, an advanced search of my posts that contain the word, "mathematical," might come up with something better than I end up writing here.

This is so hard to explain... Basically, the equation you posted above is an over-simplification. But, braukaiser, the site you linked has a heap of great stuff in it. I'm pretty sure that braukaiser himself, if you read closely, indicates that the mathematical model is not quite right.

We have definitely gone one better on BIABrewer.info. We have added another extremely practical factor in our calcs than braukaiser has and have several more ready to go if we can get enough people contributing figures.

I could spend a lot of time here explaining this but it is an advanced question and very few brewers will benefit by me going further. I might come back to this later on a lazy day but I can't afford the time right now. Basically the above formula assumes that the sugars in the grain are made completely soluble but this is not the case.

Better keep moving though as I am running way behind,
PP

PR1.3T

Just found a bug in section E. The formula for calculating strike temp based on grain temp isn't correct.

Used it at the weekend and didn't notice Just checking my Hob Goblin recipe and noticed the error.

Yeasty

There's a new bit in Section X, have you seen that Yeasty?

FFS

Hoping I am posting this in the right space. This is for the 1.3T version of BIABACUS. I posted this question originally in the creating your own recipe section under "trying to make a sweet stout". I did my best to follow the link PP gave ( thanks for that and the BYO article link). Just wanting to know if I did section C and Y correctly for the lactose and toasted oats.

Perfect. Read your stuff in the other thread as well. Nice!!!

If it works out well, please post in the temporary high integrity recipe thread that 2trout has going here.

....

Hold on. Why have you set KFL to zero?

I usually just dump everything from the brew kettle into the fermentor after I chill it down to pitching temps.

I discovered this today when looking at a PR1.3K file edzki posted.

Doesn't like zero mins. as a substitution. The zero changes the weight values and has no change on the IBU. The IBU remains the same as the 5 mins. addition in the original hop bill.

Ha! I am still laughing at the Worst Post Moderator thread. Best thread ever!!!

Anyway, this is a problem I have never noticed let alone considered before so nice find mate . It's a problem that only the BIAbacus would ever be forced to deal with as no other software allows such comprehensive hop substitution.

There is a solution but I have already maxed out the number of "IF" statements that Excel can handle in the hop section so I don't think we should worry about it for now as it would add a considerable number of kb to the file. And, it will only occur in the rare situation that a brewer substitutes any minute addition with a zero minute addition. Basically, to avoid a 'divide by zero' error, any 0 minute hop addition is changed to something like 0.00001 minutes. A long story.

I get more confident each day that we'll see the BIABacus in a coded form and the problem above, unlikely though it is to occur, would be easy to fix there.


PP

As long as it's still in a design stage... and,given that I do not have not a complete picture of how spreadsheets work.. Is it possible to have a page tied to the spreadsheet that allows for free text.. a text document? My thought is, I do my APA #1 and want to drop in some thoughts to remember when I do APA #2. For instance, use Yeast Nutrient or Oak cubes soaked in whiskey or.. This APA is spectacular, I would not change a thing. Random thoughts about the brew session or the end result. ETC.

This may already be possible as one goes to other sections. If so, I need some learnin' on this aspect.

I know exactly what you are talking about Bill and it is one area of the BIABacus I am annoyed at because it is one of the most important aspects ever. No other software does it and we could do it in the BIABacus easily but I think that whole area needs a lot of thought (and space). It's something I want to spend a lot of time on and it is also an area where, if we can get the BIABacus written into code, I can get the space needed.

What is needed by the user, for now, is a log or separate spreadsheet to record exactly what you are saying.

Software can be very limiting if not written well Bill so never be scared to draw up a log with pen and paper. In fact, the pen and paper is always the best basis for the best software.

I may be off, but the Cells are locked, as are the Macros, so there is No way to change the Macros.

If the Spread Sheet is functioning, could you Post it???

There are some of of, that can verify if you Recipes is Working.