BIABrewer wrote:Also remember to let those who help you out know your results as it does take a bit of time to convert a recipe into an easy to use format.

I'm following up on my post #64, my impression of the BIABacus:
I would like to thank PistolPatch again for helping me with my first spreedsheet. I learned a lot and have a renewed enthusiasm for brewing and participating on this site, if welcomed.

I am drinking the finished product and my gf likes it too.

I have a 2nd BIABacus recipe I can post, it's a recipe conversion from 'Can You Brew It' with Rogue Brewery's Brewmaster John Maier's interview, sharing the recipe for DEAD GUY. I don't need any help with it though, but maybe it would generate some interest. Let me know MODS.

~Richard

EDIT: March 8th, 2013 (research stuff for the BIABacus file I posted on the thread "Use this thread to convert recipes to suit your equipment thread")

ROGUE DEAD GUY ALE INFORMATION
http://rogue.com/about/about.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://rogue.com/beers/dead-guy-ale.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://rogue.com/about/rogue-brewmaster.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Can You Brew It: Rogue Dead Guy
The Jamil Show

Jamil and Tasty attempt to clone Rogue's Dead Guy Ale on this episode of Can You Brew It. Tune in to hear Brewmaster John Maier talk about the beer and find out if the crew was able to clone it for you!

Interview with John Maier, Brewmaster for Rogue Brewery
mp3 podcast, listen starting at 22:38 - 32:08 minutes

link to mp3;
http://www.thebrewingnetwork.com/post1597/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


VIEW MY BIABacus file here; http://biabrewer.info/viewtopic.php?f=5" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... 076#p29076

Richard;
If the recipe has integrity (or you have tried it yourself & know it to be a good clone) you could just print the recipe report out and place it in the recipes thread.
I would certainly add it to my "to do" list (but that just gets longer & longer)!

Last post for me for today and more questions than answers sorry. [Edit: Looks like the reverse has happened ]

Posting your Recipes whilst BIABAcus is still under Pre-Release

On the answers side... Richard, I reckon mally has the right advice there but I'd also like to be able to access your BIABacus file which at the moment can only be published in the "Use this thread to convert recipes to suit your equipment thread". I reckon do as mally says and then post your BIABacus file in the "Use this thread to convert recipe..." thread with a note saying, "This file relates to this post." After that, edit your original post with the link.

I know that is an incredible PITA but there are many good logistical reasons for having the file posting restrictions. I think you've seen how hard it is already to keep track of pre-release versions and there are only three!

I'd love to see you post your recipe in the above manner if you have the time. Later, when the official release comes out and the site re-structure is done I know that you would take the time and effort to update such a post. See below.

Recipe Integrity

From what I remember, one of the aims of the new site structure is to have recipes of varying levels of integrity. The first level of integrity will be that the recipe has enough info. A recipe posted by someone such as Richard will do that.

The other thing that mally mentioned above is very important. I'm pretty sure that a recipe wouldn't reach integrity 'stage two' unless the brewer had brewed it them self or it came from a very trusted source such as Brewing Classic Styles.

The aim of the new site re-structure, from what I know, is to not have a billion dodgy, unscaleable recipes that lack credibility . Instead, a recipe will have to go through certain stages and as it passes each stage it's integrity 'rating' will increase.

Sounds good/sensible to me. If I wanted to brew an APA, I would much prefer to come here and find something that says, "These are the best two, five or ten APA recipes we have found so far," rather than clicking on a billion APA recipes I know can't be scaled properly and have probably been posted by a brewer with little or no experience.



A Few Things that are Really Annoying Me

Apologies. Thought the first part of this post would not be so long. A bit like everything I post here .

I do have two quick questions though...

1. Can anyone think of a better name and abbreviation for "End of Boil Volume - Ambient (EOBV-A)"? It's the most important volume measurement there is so getting it down to a 3 letter abbreviation would be great.

2. I don't think I can handle writing, "'Use this thread to convert recipes to suit your equipment...' thread," ever again!!!! Can someone think up a shorter title?

The more we can abbreviate stuff like the above without compromising anything, the better.


PP

How about
WVA= Wort volume ambient
WVH= Wort volume hot
I will think on the other, I don't suppose Utthcrtsye will cut it?

PP, EOB is a standard name, My trouble has been Ambient, Since only No-Chill(those who dump the enetire kettle and Slo-Chill in the kettle have an ambient end of boil volume(all Wort, All trub, All Hops)

It may be better to use the difference from HOT wort and Cool wort as "expansion loss" which could be added to KFL(trub, hops, expansion, Acts of God) so, then the EOB-A would be un-needed.

IMHO....

From a noob.. EOBV-A is great once I understood what it meant. However, Lylo's comments are great.. except the last one

Joshua,I think PP is saying that he would like to find an easy to remember 3 letter name for EOB-A. EOB doesn't really relate to anything,ie gravity or volume. I personally don't have aproblem with the EOBV-A abbreviation.
I know that we have a graph somewhere that explains (to those who can read graphs) what everything means,but I think a simple list of all our abbreviations and there meanings would serve us all better.
Maybe
Ambient temperature is your room temperature.
EOBV-A refers to your end of boil volume at ambient temperatures
EOBV-H refers to your end of boil volume at flameout and before chilling or cooling.
Mash volume refers to the total volume of your mash. Water plus grain.
TWN refers to the water you will use throughout this brew regardless of when you may use it.
Something like this would help alot. (I think)
Pat,could this be accomplished with a hover over type function where we could hover over an abbreviation and have it show. I expect this is not a spreadsheet type function though.
Lylo

Lylo, Exactly, The EOB-H tempeature is 209-214F in America depending On altitude, The EAOB-A is a program Number from the expansion of the Wort based on the Specific Density(science) confirmed by measurement at the Ambient temperature. The difference is and can be a calculated Number.

So, We know the TMW is and the water lost to the grains(by the user), and the water lost to boil, the the Volume lost to shrinkage of the wort. Except for the Grain Loss, the remaning numbers can be calulated and IMHO are un-needed to be seen In BIABacus.

The Instructions could explain the Science behind the water used/lost as we brew. But, In the beginning that data is meaningless, and confusing. Later on that data is.........

JMHO

PP,
Question #1: Once the wort is cooled to ambient temperature, it isn't really still at the end of the boil. With no-chill it could be the next day. Maybe that's what you don't like about EOBV-A.

Would BATV work ?...(Boiled Ambient Temperature Volume). I think temperature should be in there as otherwise "ambient" could mean anything from music to the smell of your gum trees.

Question #2 New thread title: “Biabacus Help”

Lylo wrote:Maybe...
Ambient temperature is your room temperature, so...
EOBV-A refers to your end of boil volume at ambient temperatures
EOBV-H refers to your end of boil volume at flameout and before chilling or cooling.

I suspect that adding the 'H' is the way we will have to go Lylo.

You read my drunken thoughts perfectly though. I was hoping for a 3 character abbreviation but I'm not sure we can do it. WVA won't work as it could mean pre-boil wort. We looked at PBV before but that can mean both pre-boil or post-boil .

So, maybe we'll just have to put up with EOBV-H and EOBV-A? It's certainly less ambiguous than EOBV and EOBV-A.

A few of the comments above concern me so I might jot down a few points re EOBV-A.

A Few Notes on EOBV-A

1. EOBV-A is the most important volume number in brewing - All calculations should work forwards and backwards from this number. In other words, the central aim of any brew is to achieve a certain gravity and bitterness at the end of the boil. It's your bulls-eye.

2. EOBV-A is the most important number to communicate - If you want other brewers to copy your recipe or if you want to copy a recipe, you need to know EOBV-A.

3. EOBV-A can be measured in many ways - I wrote on this yesterday here.

4. Despite it's tremendous importance, EOBV-A is either impossible/very hard to find in a Recipe Report. Currently, for most major software, you really can't scale the recipe well unless you own that particular software.

5. The terminology used by other software is very ambiguous - The 'pre-term', EOB is actually something you never see in other software. In the post-script below, I'll write what other software calls EOBV-A (if they even do mention it .)

Considering how important this number is, after reading the post-script, you might also start scratching your head as to why EOBV-A is not clearly defined, named and published by other software. EOBV-A is going to be the hardest figure to educate new/old brewers about as there is currently no education on this number.

I'll be writing another post to follow on from the post I linked in 3 above sometime in the next few days. Wish I could write/explain the problem quickly. It should actually be unnecessary to explain the importance of EOBV-A but unfortunately, existing software design, terminology and help (or lack thereof) make this a very laborious process.

The post-script below may help explain why.


PP

Post-Script

Let's have a quick look at some common software to see what they call EOBV-A...

BeerSmith: No value for EOBV-A is provided. The nearest value provided is called 'Post Boil Vol' and this means EOBV-H. The only easy way to determine EOBV-A from a BeerSmith recipe is to own the program and open the file and then use pen and paper.

ProMash: ProMash has something called 'Wort Volume'. I have no idea if this means EOBV-H or EOBV-A. It gets worse as it then has an option to make 'Wort Size' always equal 'Batch Size'. Let's not even go there.

BrewMate: BrewMate gets things even more confused unfortunately. Somehow you are meant to be able to measure both your KFL and VIF at boiling point . The pic below might explain this better...Other Software: It's really just more of the same. The above is only a very shallow look at some very basic design and terminology errors. If you explore deeper, you will get more shocked. For example, one of the above programs, will always be about 4% out on it's gravity estimates as it ignores the moisture content of the grain.

Very few brewers will ever question the above as individuals. We are very lucky here at BIABrewer that a few members congregated and said, "I'm probably wrong, but these numbers from such and such a program don't seem to add up to me."

Anyway, that's enough for now. The postscript above can act as a prelude to what I mentioned above...

I'll be writing another post to follow on from the post I linked in 3 above sometime in the next few days.

That post will go in the recipe conversion thread - the one with the very long name .

[One last thing, I can't be bothered checking the above programs but, I do know, that if the above programs allow the input of actual figures, there are very few allowed and some hugely important ones missing.]

The EOBV-H and EOBV-A sounds good to me.

p.s.
Beer Tools Pro:
After making similar brews multiple times with BIAB I understood "Final Volume @ 68*F" to mean everything in the kettle. I did a quick and dirty comparison playing the numbers game between the two, and see that this equates closely to VIF.

Now that I am awake how about something like;
ABE-AV -after boil end, ambient volume
or some kind of combination thereof,
ABEV-A, VABE-A.

Got it from the BIABacus recipe print tab.

I don't mind what the abbreviation is, as long as there is a descriptive term to explain it. I have never had a problem with either EOBV or EOBV-A. If anybody can read a sentence/chart/graph with abbreviations and choose to ignore their meaning then.....

I think what we are trying to achieve is to educate the newcomers, or less experienced. I hope all the "old hands" don't need to know why EOBV-A is important!

One thing that occurred to me whilst reading this post was

Pat,could this be accomplished with a hover over type function where we could hover over an abbreviation and have it show

. Is a great idea, and would certainly help anybody that was unsure of the meaning/relevance. I also presume this was considered, as there are "?" in sections that currently do not function, and could be adapted to various critical info too.

I also had a thought about when you fill in forms online, there will be a point where it says "tick here" to show you have read our terms & conditions. Now you could disable the BIABacus sections until a tick is entered, and those conditions can explain terminology etc. If anybody reads them, they should know/understand, if they ignore them well.....

I don't suppose Utthcrtsye will cut it?

That sounds like a UTI (urinary tract infection)!

Guinges - Welcome back! I have missed your posts of late.

End of Boil Volume = EOBV

End of boil Volume Ambient = EOBV-A

Brewing is and education and part of this education is learning the "Language".



Yeasty

Hello Gents!

Sorry but this is not about the terminology above.

Is it possible to in some way to dump your data from say version 1.0 into 1.3 with out having to hand enter everything?

trout

Some thoughts on EOBV-A

EOBV is perfect as it is. It doesn’t need a H on the end. It stands for End Of Boil Volume. The wort will be hot at the end of the boil. In fact it will be 100C so there is no need for an H on the end. EOBV is simple and needs no explanation. It is what it says.

EOBV-A is the complete opposite. It doesn’t mean what it says. There are many contradictions and anomalies in EOBV-A. You can consequently explain it as many times as you like to someone and it still makes no sense. Until that person finally accepts that it doesn’t mean what it says, he will remain confused. It is a code word for something. That kind of code word, if used during war time would have easily defeated the enemy.

EOBV-A stands for End Of Boil Volume-Ambient. What does that mean? It never has made any sense to me, although I think I know what it is intended to mean.

EOBV-A is supposed to mean the volume of the wort once it has finished the boil and is cooled to ambient temperature.

The first problem I have is the EOB (End Of Boil) part, since once the wort has cooled to ambient temperature, it is definitely no longer at the end of the boil. If it were no-chilled it could be the next day. The word “Boiled” could replace those three words and would need no explanation. “Boiled” is in the past tense, meaning the boil has finished, it is completed, it doesn’t mean it is still boiling, or anything else. It means that the wort has finished being boiled.

I see no problem with V for Volume. That one is self-explanatory and essential.

I don’t like the A for Ambient. The word Ambient on its own could mean 101 different things…ambient humidity, ambient lighting. If it is used I think it should be AT for Ambient Temperature. Then it becomes self-explanatory and doesn’t need endless explanation.

I have another concern about ambient temperature. Is that what is really needed? If a Canadian is brewing outside in the winter at -30C, as Canadians are apt to do; once the wort has reached “ambient temperature” it will be a solid block of ice with, I believe a greater volume than the EOBV.

In chemistry labs, the term room temperature (RT) is used. Easily understood by everyone, again self-explanatory. It means comfortable temperature for a room, and that would work well. If a more precise temperature should ever be required, then the work has already been done as “Room Temperature” is generally accepted as being 20C (68F)

If a change can be made, I would like to suggest: BV-RT = Boiled Volume at Room Temperature. Or something like that.

It may be that EOBV-A has been in use by the brewing industry and home brewers for too long to make a change possible.

IMHO, Stands for “in my humble opinion” – Simple! needs no explanation.

EOBV-A, Stands for, end of boil volume-ambient- Not Simple! search the site for endless explanations. Once you have read them see if you understand. I still don’t.

Nice post GR. Can see a little frustration there as well .

On a separate note about the BIABacus;
Has there been any changes in the code between PR1.1E & 1.3?
i have just transferred a recipe over with adjuncts (from the former to the latter) and am getting huge differences between them both.
It is likely something i have done in the spreadsheet but i thought i would ask here as well?

The below is something I started writing a few nights ago but didn't post as I was tired/drunk/too short on time to check it well or, maybe all three? As explained here, I'm stuck for time for an indefinite period so the below is the best I can help here atm.

[EDIT: Just had a quick read over and I remember why I didn't post it - way too rambly. But, it actually might answer the questions asked above except for mally's question re PR 1.1E and 1.3. mally, can you post both your files with some notes to the recipe conversion thread? If you can describe the discrepancies, it might trigger my brain into what was happening at that time.] Here you go...

There are a few questions above asked of both me and Pat (the Admin one). Either one of us can probably answer those questions as we have discussed them.

Hopefully you and he won't mind me trying to get this thread up to date although he'd probably do it in less words .

Terminology Stuff

Some pretty nice posts above. I'd love to comment on each and every one because I do like the thinking. (Will probably send a PM to one of you on one thing.)

Anyway, as far as we can see, it looks like EOBV-H and EOBV-A is the winner so far.

Hold on, how can that be a winner when we have added a letter to one term?

Well, as hard as those who have worked on the terminology have tried to make things shorter, the primary goal has always been to remove ambiguity. EOBV versus EOBV-A always allowed ambiguity when it came to EOBV.

I'm not too sure how many readers of this will be aware of how much work behind the scenes here is aimed at forcing the reader to ask the right questions but changing EOBV to EOBV-H falls in line with this goal.

Any other ideas above were rejected as the abbreviation was no shorter. Definitely still open to ideas though!

Adding Comments to Labels

I know this is possible because I personally did it on one of the earlier BIABacus versions. I think there were 180 labels I had to add a comment to back then. What happened? Well, every time the file was opened by another user, the comments seemed to get re-sized and became unreadable. I won't say how many hours just that one little adventure cost .

But, we also learned something!

Firstly, when the comments were written into the sheet, they'd pop up all the time. Who wants that? It's just bloody annoying. Nearly all labels are self-explanatory anyway. I remember writing comments that were basically just a copy of the label .

Secondly, once we get the help written, the user will only have to click on the ? for the section and will go to a thread that not only explains the terminology but also gives detail, if required, on what that terminology does/affects.

Most of the terminology is pretty self-explanatory anyway. See the six terms written at the end of this post.

Re Suggestion of Forcing Users to Read Certain Threads.

Ah, that was you mally! I loved that post (seriously) but...

Apart from BIABrewer.info lacking the technical skills to incorporate your suggestion, your suggestion has been tested in a few ways by BIABrewer.info since the site began. The whole 'first post' thing is one example of that testing. (Pat tells me there have been a few variations to that process over the years but the end result is apparently still the same). Obviously, the whole 'first post' thing is aimed at getting genuine and constructive members into the community. Anyone can be genuine and constructive by... Just deleted what I had written as being a constructive member here can take so many shapes. Instead, it is much easier to write what a non-constructive member is but even this is a generalisation. Nup, can't write anything on a non-constructive member either. Hold on! Just thought of something! I think a constructive member reads and writes carefully.

Never meant to write so much sorry and am getting tired. I do remember though when starting this section that the main thing I wanted to say was how confusing I found brewing forums/software when I first started out. One bit of credit I do give myself is that I do question things but even with that quality, I still passed on false information for at least several years. (I wrote previously tonight on 'errors of ignorance' if you want more info.)

The other thing that I'm good at is remembering just how confusing all the posts etc I read in my early days were. Luckily a few brewers sent me a PM and said. "You are asking the right questions." In other words, they had given up on posting on forums because any quality posted was immediately drowned out in silliness or ignorance.

Mally, you wrote,

I hope all the "old hands" [here] don't need to know why EOBV-A is important!

Well, if BIABrewer.info and the BIABacus had been available previously, there would be no problem at all. You are one of a very few who are even aware a problem exists. Nearly all old hands here have been exposed to poor software and terminology. You'll still see some of the most valuable posters here use terms such as batch size. Why? Because they think, for a start that everyone is using the same software in the same way as they are. Why shouldn't they think that? (Of course, it gets much worse but that is enough for now .)

Anyway, until BIABrewer.info gets everything into place, the only thing any of us can do is bookmark any good posts we come across and hand them on. Doing that will cost you time but any time you spend handing stuff on always makes you think harder. The worst that can happen is that if yu do this often enough for a long enough time, BIABrewer will give you harder things to think on .

2trout - Dumping of data.

Lol on the dumping of data from one version to another. I asked about this a few times. I think the last time I mentioned it was at the very end of this post. (Skip the pics.)

So, you and I are both complaining about this (I know we aren't really) but your post and my post and another question asked today made me think a bit deeper.

For a start, an earlier, unpublished version of the BIABacus did enable the import and export of recipes. It relied on macros and therefore would not work cross-platform let alone within different versions of Excel/MS. (The guy who wrote that told us it would/should do the latter. I'd guess at least a year was wasted on such professional advice).

Secondly and far more importantly, I think this is not as big an issue as we think it is.

I probably look at and examine more recipes than anyone else (probably in the whole world!) so, now I have stopped complaining about this import/export lack I probably should explain the benefits.

1. You should not be downloading recipes from any old site.

2. Even if you brew a lot, it will only take a few minutes to type an old recipe you have into a new version of the BIABacus.

3. If you have a hundred recipes stored, are you brewing those hundred recipes every week?

4. Any time you get to re-type a recipe into the BIABacus is an opportunity to consciously examine that recipe.

5. If you have more than ten recipes you trust you are doing two times better than me.

So, being forced to 'consciously' consider a recipe for a few minutes, on reflection, is probably a major advantage.

I've written a bit more about this today (well, the other day now) here. The linked post talks about how you really have to consciously think about each brew you do and how you name it.

Later,
PP

except for mally's question re PR 1.1E and 1.3. mally, can you post both your files with some notes to the recipe conversion thread? If you can describe the discrepancies, it might trigger my brain into what was happening at that time.]

Sorry Guys, my mistake! i had to double check section Y again and everything is good.

I suppose to elaborate a little;
I am guessing section C "what you will use" shows the percentage of weight you will use? whereas i was hoping it was a percentage of FGAI.
In this instance it was the Idaho SMaSH recipe that i was designing that uses potato as an adjunct, so a lot of weight is due to water (not fermentables).

Here I am back again! PITA Guinges, with more comments on EOBV-A, like a dog with a bone.

PP, you spend so much time answering questions, and it is rare that you ask a question, so I wanted to give your question about EOBV-A my fullest attention.

I don't think I would put a H on the end of EOBV, as I think it may add confusion.

EOBV specifies a time, and by default, a temperature also. You are measuring the volume “at the end of the boil” which will be at 100C.

If you put a H on the end of EOBV and tie it in with EOBV-A then H for hot could be interpreted as meaning any temperature that is hot. Conceivably someone could measure the volume at 70C and say to themselves “that wort is still hot, I’ll check its EOBV-H now”.

Tying EOBV in with EOBV-A by adding a H to it, would reinforce a belief that EOBV doesn’t mean what it says.....i.e. EOBV doesn't mean what it says in EOBV-A (as discussed here), so why should it mean what it says in EOBV-H

Because EOBV-H has an element of ambiguity, whereas EOBV doesn't, there might then become a need to explain it, and that's counterproductive.

I still like the word "Boiled" for a replacement for the EOB part of EOBV-A. Think boiled eggs. Once the egg is boiled it is boiled, it can be eaten at the end of the boil when it will be 100C, or it could be cooled to room temperature and put in a sandwich.

I don't need a reply PP. This wasn't intended as yet another question for you. My intention was to throw some more thoughts into the thought pool for you to consider, should you wish. It's very much your project, so it's your choice obviously.

By the way the more I use BIABacus the more of its potential I am discovering, the more amazed I am by its potential. My wife asked how many calories were in the beer she was drinking last night and BIABacus told me right away (I wasn't sure what "real calories" meant though)

IMHO



ps. BCV any good? (Boiled and Cooled Volume). That's shorter but less specific than BV-RT (Boiled Volume at Room Temperature)

VBE (volume @ boil end)
VRT (volume @ room temp)

WVBE (wort volume @ boil end)
WVRT (wort volume @ room temp)

I believe I'm having a terminology issue here that I'm trying to wrap my head around. In "L" VIF I have 2.8 G/ 10.6L. That number was very close. After my major fermentation was complete and I racked into a secondary to add a sock with my Dry Hop pellets, I ended up with 1.5 liters of trub. So I added 1.5 Liters to "N" as Wort Lost from fermenter as everything in the fermenter was transferred to the secondary and now it shows I have in "O" VAP as 9.1 Liters or 2.4G

Is not VAP the same thing as VIF..? What I have transferred to the fermenter is the VAP.. or it was in my case. I pitched my 250ml of hydrated yeast into 10.6 Liters of wort.. which actually raises it to 10.85 L.. but, I'm not that critical. I just don't understand the VAP in "O". I need H-E-L-P

Thanks, Bill

BTW, I am posting the latest change with the trub loss so you can see my consternation..

BTW2, If I was supposed to put that trub loss where I did.. I'd guess I'll also have a tiny bit of loss when I transfer to the keg.. cuz I know after I cold crash there will be some crud in the bottom of the secondary.. Do I add the two together? !.5L + whatever is in the bottom of the secondary to Wort Lost in Fermenter in "N"???

mally, GuingesRock and HbgBill, I thought I would be able to quickly answer your posts above but when I started to do so, I found that the questions were a lot harder than I thought . I think the answers I have in mind are much too long for this thread so I am going to give my answers in this thread. (See you there ).

This pre-release thread was initially aimed at being a general feedback thread allowing the user to identify what they like or dislike about the BIABacus Pre-Release. A user's overall, initial impressions are the most valuable.

Some of the feedback leads to discussions. Whilst there really aren't any rules in this thread as far as I can see, I hope no one minds me or anyone else re-directing long answers to the above thread.


PP

P.S. Great questions/thoughts above mally, GuingesRock and HbgBill. Will answer them properly in the other thread as soon as I get time.

Hi All, This is my first post in this thread but have been testing the BIABacus (with help) in this thread http://www.biabrewer.info/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1988

Just to give you an idea of who I am so you know where the feedback is coming from I am a relatively new brewer with only 8 BIAB brews under my belt and only can and a kilo before that. I have been brewing for about 10 months in all and know I will be doing it till the day I die.

Up until now I have used the BIABacus for converting recipes from various sources and found it to be very scary for the first minute until I started to use it then found it to be very easy after that.

I found that the layout is great and if you just start at the beginning and work your way down then you can't go wrong. Being a new brewer I didn't know what everything meant but I found this useful because I would either google it or ask in the forum for help and I have learnt things that I didn't know before.

I have used the Calculator for my first 5 brews and the BIABacus for my last 3 and helped a friend use it for a couple of his brews. I found the Calculator to be a great tool but easy to make mistakes with but the BIABacus is much more intuitive and with the layout it is a lot easier to get things right the first time. I have found that every time I have used it I have used more of it as the basics become more basic and my confidence as a brewer grows.

I have just started planning my first beer that is not a copy of a recipe and I am finding the BIABacus makes it so easy to do, I just put in a few basic things I am aiming for and I now know how much of each ingredient to use. I would say that I found it a bit trickier to use for recipe design than copping. The 2 main stumbling points were

1) The grain bill. I wasn't sure where to put the grain and at first I put it in the substitutions section and nothing worked. I should say I am trying to make a 100% wheat beer so I assumed I didn't need to use the percentage of grain. I soon spotted my mistake and put 100% in the Grams/ratio box. This was probably more me being stupid than a problem with the software.

2) My main problem was with the hop bill. As I wasn't copping a recipe I had no idea how much hops to use so I used the my desired IBU section and put 25 in the box and then filled in the hop name, AA% and mins in the hop section and nothing . I then started to put figures in various places to see where I had gone wrong (2 places). Firstly in section C I put my OG in the "for this batch though I'd like to try an OG of" box and not the "This recipe requires an OG of" box. This is probably because I didn't read the word though . The other problem was that because I didn't have a recipe to copy I had no weight to put for the weight of the hops. I then found that if I put any number in the hop weight box it gives me a result . I should probably say that I am only using a single hop addition at 60 mins.

As an overall I would have to say that without the BIABacus I have no idea how I would of designed even this simplest of recipes. It probably took about 10 mins with the messing about and would only take about 5 mins next time. I am now very confident in trying out some more recipes of my own with the BIABacus. Thanks guys.

I believe that Section V is not working like it should when you have a value in Section X, i.e. 'Kettle Shape Volume Adjustment'

A value of 0 inches in Section V should give me 14.50 Gal (my Kettle Capacity) in Section B.

Measuring the kettle Headspace should return the Volume (based on temp) during the brew day, i.e. knowing the volume other than the 8 times during the brew, also pulling the big swollen hop bag at the end and then take a headspace measurement.

Thanks... ~richard