BIABacus Bugs (PR 1.3)

• • SVA Brewer With Over 100 Brews From Australia
  • Quote
• • • 0
    • 0
    • 0
    • 0
    • 0

• • SVA Brewer With Over 100 Brews From Australia
  • Quote
• • • 0
    • 0
    • 0
    • 0
    • 0

• • SVA Brewer With Over 100 Brews From Australia
  • Quote
• • • 0
    • 0
    • 0
    • 0
    • 0

• • From United States of America
  • Quote
• • • 0
    • 0
    • 0
    • 0
    • 0

• • SVA Brewer With Over 100 Brews From United States of America
  • Quote
• • • 0
    • 0
    • 0
    • 0
    • 0

Green and Gold it is!!!!

Dave, thanks for picking up those omissions. I also changed the # thing you mentioned .

PR1.3D below fixes those plus some more changes...

'Volume into Kettle' changed to 'Volume into Boil (VIB)'
'Efficiency into Kettle' changed to 'Efficiency into Boil (EIB)'
'Sweet Liquor Gravity' changed to 'Gravity into Boil (GIB)'

I think these name changes solve a few ambiguities that still remained. It is annoying for those of us who have become familiar with some names such as EIK and EOBV-A to get used to new things such as EIB and AWV but I don't think they will be too hard to get used to. Main problem, if we keep the new terms, will be seeing if we can find a fast way of changing terminology in old threads so readers won't get confused.

I'm going to spend a few days getting use to some of these new terms and see if they will cover all the bases. After that I'll write a bit on what problems are solved and, if all okay, maybe they will be the final nail in the terminology problem that we have spent so much time on refining.

Go the green and gold .

• • SVA Brewer With Over 100 Brews From Australia
  • Quote
• • • 0
    • 0
    • 0
    • 0
    • 0

• • From United States of America
  • Quote
• • • 0
    • 0
    • 0
    • 0
    • 0

Dave, the symmetry above is something we have been chasing for a very long time but there are a few things still not quite right which I'll come back to below. Firstly, here are some of the things we have worked on...

* We have tried to respect existing terminology but the more we explored it, the more we found that there was almost zero useful existing terminology. Similiar or even identical terms were used to mean many different things. (This is the one thing I will come back to below).
* Terminology we came up with had to be unambiguous.
* Terminology we came up with had to be 'snappy', logical and fast to learn. (We spent quite some time here trying to work out how some terms could be reduced down to 3 letter abbreviations and had no success on some of these terms until just the last week in this thread.)
* The terminology would have to work for BIAB and three-vessel. (Some terms we have been using for a while now here which we thought were great like VIK and EIK seemed fine especially for a 3 vessel brewer but when you look at it from a new BIABrewer where the kettle is a HLT and MLT, then that term is actually very ambiguous, almost senseless. This is something I didn't even see until about two months ago.)

So, what's the problem?

I think the new terms we have come up with in the last few days are good, perhaps even excellent in that they solve some/most of the problems above. I could get used to them fairly quickly and if I can live with the changes then I imagine anyone can as I have written some of the old terms so many times they are automatic now!

The following problems are possibly small/pedantic but I personally would like at least a few more days to think on them and see if a better solution pops up as they are still not sitting quite right.

For example, when you say that VBW is consistent with VIB etc, well it isn't quite as one is a three word phrase while the other is a four word phrase and the original ones all say 'into'. As I said, small/pedantic stuff but when I went to type these changes into the BIABacus, it didn't look or feel quite right/snappy but this could well be due to me being conditioned to the existing set-up.

As for aiming to have all efficiencies begin with "E" and all volumes begin with "V" and all gravities begin with "G", I, of course, love the logic and have been aiming for this but critical things like OG and FG don't fall into line here ...

"Original Gravity (OG)," is a very non-intuitive term but it and, "Final Gravity (FG)," are the only terms I can think of, that are used in every program and by every brewer in the same way . Neither of those terms begin with "G" so I can't see the "E" "V" and "G" strategy ever working.

So, my apologies. I started the day reading your post and thinking something is not quite right there. I then stopped several times during the day and was looking forward to writing the changes into the BIABacus and posting them here. Once I had time to sit down and fully focus though unfortunately I thought on the things I have now written above.

I think we are getting very close though to good terminology or at least as close as we will ever be able to get for now. Thanks Dave for hitting the ball back.


PP

• • SVA Brewer With Over 100 Brews From Australia
  • Quote
• • • 0
    • 0
    • 0
    • 0
    • 0

No matter what terminology you choose, I think you have to stay with OG and FG because they are so widely used. Note that in my message, I said "all gravities begin with "G" (except OG and FG, of course)".

I like that every "xBW" refers to Boiled Wort and that every "Vxx" is a volume, etc.

The consistency I was referring to is that the terms were consistent with respect to what the 1st letter means.

As far is 3-word vs. 4-word, I agree with you that it is a small/pedantic point. BUT, does it matter to you? If so, it will never sit right with you and you are the one who will have to see and use these terms more than anyone else.

All I can do is suggest things that seem to make sense to me, personally. You have your finger on the pulse of the larger community, as well as ownership of the BIABacus itself. I'm really only offering suggestions for consideration before things get set in stone. I don't have a dog in the fight. You have the final say.

• • From United States of America
  • Quote
• • • 0
    • 0
    • 0
    • 0
    • 0

Thanks Dave. Btw, sorry I missed your comment about OG and FG in post #7. Reading too fast or drinking too much .

I haven't replied earlier as I have been playing around with the terminology trying to see if anything sits well. I have just posted a BIABacus PR1.E in this post with another lay-out that uses Vxx etc.

Anyone reading this thread is probably asking, "What's the big deal?" . The big deal is that nearly all questions asked by new brewers relate to poor terminology/definitions and the answers they are then given are very often wrong, once again, thanks to poor terminology/definitions.

I'll add a little spreadsheet here Dave that shows the logic/problems of the latest format. For me, the Mash section contains the biggest problem but we can forget that for now. The only other problem I haven't written into the attached terminology spreadsheet is....

The volume at the end of the boil once it has cooled down is the most important volume figure of all and yet there is no existing common term for it. End of Boil Volume is nice and rolls off the tongue but that is really a 'hot' volume whereas we want the chilled (ambient) volume. Most recipe reports do not publish either the chilled or hot volume figure . If they do, it is then not clear as to whether they are publishing the hot ro the ambient volume. This means that, at the very best, most recipes published on the internet will have an error factor of at least 4% just through poor terminology .

The solutions we have come up with for this critical figure so far are or have been...

Volume of Boiled Wort (VBW)
Volume of Ambient Wort (VAW)
End of Boil Volume (EOBV)
End of Boil Volume - Ambient (EOBV-A)
Boiled Wort Volume (BWV)
Ambient Wort Volume (AWV)

My current thinking is that no one else has defined this most important term properly let alone emphasised its importance so it might be up to us to just create what we think is sensible.

I can see VAW serving us well long-term. If we adopt it, what do we do with all the posts here that emphasise the importance of EOBV-A?


PP

• • SVA Brewer With Over 100 Brews From Australia
  • Quote
• • • 0
    • 0
    • 0
    • 0
    • 0

Pat,

I needed this clarifier! Thanks!

KUTGW (Keep Up The Good Work!) I can do it to (ICDIT) !!!

• • SVA Brewer With Over 100 Brews From United States of America
  • Quote
• • • 0
    • 0
    • 0
    • 0
    • 0

PP,

Why, oh why, are there always more questions?

I just looked at the BIABacus PR1.E you reference above. That particular recipe uses late water additions, where I always do a full-volume BIAB from the start.

So, I noticed that the Strike Water Needed is a "hot" volume. Because I do full-volume brews, I simply put the TWN into a pot and heat it to strike temp. For the recipe posted, the brewer can't do this because the Strike Water Needed is not given at ambient.

Am I atypical, or should the Strike Water Needed be listed as an ambient volume?

By the way, I liked EOBV-A and will miss it.

• • From United States of America
  • Quote
• • • 0
    • 0
    • 0
    • 0
    • 0

Drives you crazy eh?

The strike water needed is a bit of a compromise. For a pure BIAB'er, it is fairly logical and easy - SWN is simply the expanded TWN volume.

To make it easy and logical for non full-volume mashes, is bloody difficult. You'd really have to make Section K appear something like as follows...

Total Water Needed (TWN):
Water Held Back from Mash:
Strike Water Ambient(SWA]:
Strike Water Hot (SWH):

This adds two lines and I'm not sure on this, but I think it possibly makes things more confusing for the full-volume masher. This design problem would be easy to resolve in a coded program of course but, like some other things, is a PITA to get right in a spreadsheet form.

The other thing that is trying to be balanced here is the fact that pure BIAB (full volume mashing, single vessel brewing) is what BIAB is really all about. Maxi-BIAB variations can be useful in many situations but they are also often used unnecessarily.

Anyway, excuse the ramble. Not sure if any of that makes sense Dave and I have written that sober . Off to work now.

• • SVA Brewer With Over 100 Brews From Australia
  • Quote
• • • 0
    • 0
    • 0
    • 0
    • 0

• • From United States of America
  • Quote
• • • 0
    • 0
    • 0
    • 0
    • 0

Howdy Dave ,

Long day today, Nuff has been correcting a whole lot of my spelling mistakes and so I'll make this my last post and will try and keep it short .

Firstly, as to your PS on the terminology, I'm not finding it difficult to get used to, so that's good. Haven't had much time to find the logic errors in it apart from those mentioned here. Maybe on the weekend I'll get a better look. Just deleted quite a few sentences as this terminology thing is very complex and has a lot of repercussions if you choose a wrong word. For example, BIAB was meant to mean full volume mashing with a passive lauter done in a single vessel. Now the term can mean anything. How depressing . For me especially on some days . Poor terminology just costs/wastes so much time.

Okay, let's get to the guts of your post...

1. Things like metal strainers, screens, bags are not going to displace any significant amount of wort. (An immersion chiller will though ). The BIABacus design usually will enable a work-around for any tricky stuff or the user can work out a different way of taking necessary measurements.

2. In section L, there is no point recording your strike water as you should be putting in whatever strike water the BIABacus is telling you. Recording your actual strike water would be the equivalent of the BIABacus asking you to put 5000 grams of grain into your recipe but you then decide to just throw in 6000 grams. You have to start with what you are meant to start with. Anything else is a mistake.

3. Recording mash volume is in the BIABacus for two reasons. It is the first number that is an estimate and not an actual. The intention of the BIABacus is also to hopefully be able to come up with the technology where we can collect actuals easily instead of having to start threads like Mash Gravity Figures Needed for BIABacus.

4. When taking ruler measurements, just go to the centre of the pot to measure depth. The same idea with a bit of thinking can also be used to measure headspace. Simple .

And that is one of the major things about the BIABacus. If it doesn't already instantly solve the hundreds of variations that exist between one brewer and another brewer (even when they have the same equipment ) then there is usually a way of finding a solution fast. For example, if you use an immersion chiller, you can think about it a little and you will find out how the BIABacus can be used to serve you well there or you can measure your volumes in a different way.

Or you could ask on this forum and get an answer on it but hopefully not from me as I spend way too much time already giving individual answers .


PP

• • SVA Brewer With Over 100 Brews From Australia
  • Quote
• • • 0
    • 0
    • 0
    • 0
    • 0

PistolPatch wrote:... BIAB was meant to mean full volume mashing with a passive lauter done in a single vessel. Now the term can mean anything. How depressing . For me especially on some days . Poor terminology just costs/wastes so much time.

This one drives me nuts, too. Over on HBT, anything that uses a bag is BIAB. I read many posts about sparges, adding water, etc. I've stopped trying to proselytize there--lost cause.

PistolPatch wrote:3. Recording mash volume is in the BIABacus for two reasons. It is the first number that is an estimate and not an actual.

Where is the smiley for a head-slap? We are recording actuals! Duh!

PistolPatch wrote:4. When taking ruler measurements, just go to the centre of the pot to measure depth. The same idea with a bit of thinking can also be used to measure headspace. Simple .

I though of that, as well. I was just reluctant to add one more piece of equipment (straigtedge to go across the top of the pot) to what I needed to have on hand. Like I should complain about one piece of equipment when BIAB has made everything so much simpler than 3V.

QUESTION: I want to use the new BIABacus this weekend, buying grains tomorrow. I have everything loaded into BIABacus PR1.3. Have the formulas changed in a later version that I should move my entries over, or are there just terminology changes? (I did ready your warning not to use BIABacus PR1.3F.) Thanks!

• • From United States of America
  • Quote
• • • 0
    • 0
    • 0
    • 0
    • 0

• • From United States of America
  • Quote
• • • 0
    • 0
    • 0
    • 0
    • 0

• • SVA Brewer With Over 100 Brews From United States of America
  • Quote
• • • 0
    • 0
    • 0
    • 0
    • 0

• • From United States of America
  • Quote
• • • 0
    • 0
    • 0
    • 0
    • 0

Dave, that should have been working properly from maybe PR1.3C onwards, I can't remember the exact version where I (hopefully) fixed it. Let me know if you still see a problem though. Good on you .

Here is PR 1.3G which fixes the auto-efficiency problem that occurred in PR 1.3E.

• • SVA Brewer With Over 100 Brews From Australia
  • Quote
• • • 0
    • 0
    • 0
    • 0
    • 0

My apologies. I had my grains, etc., entered into the first PR1.3 and I was too lazy to re-type them all into a later version. I didn't realize what I would be missing.

Almost everything else seemed to work fine.

• Now that the weather here has gotten warmer and humid, the default boil-off rate worked for me. I will reserve my higher boil-off rate for winter brewing.
• Auto-efficiency worked well enough (I wouldn't expect my results to match exactly) with a 1.5x crush. In previous recipes, I double-crushed, but BobBrews, etc., convinced me that this is not necessary. I meant to single crush, but mistakenly sent the grains through the crusher at the LHBS that is meant for steeping grains and has a larger roller gap. I then sent them through the correct crusher, so I guess I consider this a one-and-a-half crush.
• Was tripped up by, but now understand, the difference between entering or not entering, the KFL.

My oddities:

• I measured both VBW and VAW. Cooled to 20C. my measured VAW came in lower than the calculated one (with no KFL entered). I got 92% instead of the expected 96% volume reduction. No explanation, other than I must have mis-read the ruler for one of the measurements.
• My KFL is always small compared to the predicted. I chill with an immersion chiller, line the fermenter with the BIAB bag, then pour everything into the fermenter. Does a great job of aerating the wort, but the bag does not trap as much trub as would be left behind if I whirlpooled and syphoned. (I get about half the predicted value.) I should probably play with the "Adjust KFL" number, but I am not sure that it is worth it for a 3/4-liter difference. (Recall that I do stovetop half-batches. Extrapolating, for a full batch it would probably be a 1.5-liter difference.)

Finally, I am hesitant to call these bugs, because I have been wrong several times now about what is and is not a bug. Let's call them Possible Problems:

Section O (At Pitching). If a KFL is entered in Section L, then the VAP is set to equal to the VIF minus Section N Wort 'Lost' from Fermentor. OK. If no KFL is entered, then the VAP is set equal to the VAW minus wort lost, even if I have entered a VIF. This does not make sense to me. I would expect VAP to equal VIF minus wort lost in both situations.

Also in Section O (At Pitching), the default red note reads "The above requires sunken cells in Section H to be completed." The number of bottles gets calculated based on Sections L and N. Only the priming calculation requires Section H. I recommend a re-wording to something like "Sugar calc requires ferment temp in Section H." That could be better, but space is limited. Maybe someone has a better suggestion? Do we mention both Sections H and L? (If Section N is left blank, it still works.)

Also, as far as wording, to me a "sunken cell" looks like the TWN cell and a "white cell" looks like the Mash Volume cell. I think the comment should refer to "white cells" and not "sunken cells". Maybe that is just my interpretation of the words, though.

• • From United States of America
  • Quote
• • • 0
    • 0
    • 0
    • 0
    • 0

smyrnaquince,
When I read your reference about section x, I thought you had a funny looking bottom too.

• • SVA Brewer With Over 100 Brews From United States of America
  • Quote
• • • 0
    • 0
    • 0
    • 0
    • 0

Before I look at your stuff Dave, I just found that the first line in Section D has a grammatical error and typo. Fixed in unreleased PR 1.3H

Dave, don't be worried about being hesitant. You've always found lots of valid things. For example...

Re your comments on VAP not changing even if a VIF has been entered in L: This is a design error and I know what caused it. It will work on your VIF but only if you have put in a KFL as well. Anyway, have fixed this in unreleased PR 1.3H. Good on you.

As for sunken cells, if we had help written, you would see that the BIABacus has four field types - white, white sunken, green, green sunken. White are input cells and any sunken cell, white or green, has a higher importance than normal cells. The warning directs people to look at Section H and it shouldn't be too hard for them to see the three white sunken cells. Of course only two of these cells are necessary for the priming calcs but pointing that out would be pedantic. Similarly, I am not worried that number of bottles required is not reliant on section H being completed.

Thanks for your attention to detail Dave ,
PP

P.S. This isn't the right thread for the following so if you have any questions re the below, maybe PM me...

1. Don't worry about the discrepancy between VBW and VAW. Wort at boiling point swells and carries on like nobody's business. It is a pretty unreliable volume figure.

2. Be careful adding the bag to the fermentor as it would be easy for it to carry wild yeasts from the grain to the fermentor or other nasties. So make sure it is really clean and well-sanitised.

3. Don't hesitate to use the KFL adjustment in X. It is there for situations like yours. Just type in -50 for the percent field.

• • SVA Brewer With Over 100 Brews From Australia
  • Quote
• • • 0
    • 0
    • 0
    • 0
    • 0

• • From United States of America
  • Quote
• • • 0
    • 0
    • 0
    • 0
    • 0

Great find Dave . That was probably there for quite a while. I have this fixed in PR 1.3H which I will attach below.

PR 1.3H has all the fixes mentioned in posts above plus...

One Terminology Change: EOBV-A / VBW now changed to VFO which means "Volume at Fame-Out". This is pretty unambiguous and I think is the terminology I would have chosen from the start if my mind wasn't cluttered with trying to 'straighten' all the ambiguous terms currently floating around.

One Design Change: In Section L, I have changed the fifth line so that the label changes depending on what actuals have been inputted by the user. Here are four pics of how that section might look.

Capture1.JPG

Capture2.JPG

Capture4.JPG

Capture3.JPG

And here is PR 1.3H.

BIABacus PR1.3H - American Pale Ale - NRB's All AMarillo APA - Batch 1.xls

If this file and the terminology is okay, then we might boot this out as PR1.4 and then start concentrating on writing help and finding ways of getting this past the spreadsheet form.


PP

• • SVA Brewer With Over 100 Brews From Australia
  • Quote
• • • 0
    • 0
    • 0
    • 0
    • 0