HbgBill, Cascade hops AA% is 4.5-7% AND BG-86 should read 11.34L so your Tineth will be 41.7

Download http://www.hopunion.com/assets/file/Var ... %20(2).pdf and see almost all the Hops DATA There Are!!

Thanks for the reply. Yes I know the range of AA' for the hop.. just don't know what the packages I buy will read When I purchase them I'll put the correct numbers in and I'll be looking at a total IBU.. or close

But.. What is BG-85 should read 11.34L ?? I get that number as an EOBV.. which I'd assume is pretty close.

Smarten me up

HbgBill, everything is filled in for the brew day. Did you come up with your own recipe? The mash temp looks spot on at 152 F for an APA with 18% Munich, should have some malty aroma , kinda like the Rogue Dead Guy, if it doesn't finish too dry.

HbgBill, yes you will need to populate Section D, EOBV-A with 11.34 L.

HbgBill,as far as the hops go I would input them the same as the original for now ,and then edit them when you get your hops. If you stick with the Cascade you will be fairly close anyway. The shouldn't vary much more than a couple of points.

Thanks MS.. I would NEVER have thought to populate D, EOBV-A as it's not (?) from an external source.. I'm just inputting what looks good. I saw the 11.34L in Section K, EOBV-A and thought I was OK. Can you explain why I have to populate that as I would not have known that volume had it not been calculated for me in Section K. Thanks.

Yes, I like MO and Victory.. good combo IMO. Instead of a SMaSH it will be a MMaSH which will give me a chance to explore more fully a hop that I enjoy. Maybe next time I'll do a MMaSH with Amarillo or ??

Lylo.. Yes, I guess I'll take the average of what Joshua gave me and do any mod based on my actual purchase later in the week.

EDIT: OMGosh.. I input 6 for the AA% of each hop addition and it came out as 66.6.. THREE SIXES.. Noooooo. that is NOT a good number. I'd better change it to 5.7 as a test. I don't want the devil in ANYTHING I do.

BTW, No one commented on my recipe ID.. Was PR1.1 HopSongAPA.xls OK or is there something else it should be listed as..???

Here is a copy of the updated file based on your inputs..........

HbgBill wrote:Thanks MS.. I would NEVER have thought to populate D, EOBV-A as it's not (?) from an external source.. I'm just inputting what looks good. I saw the 11.34L in Section K, EOBV-A and thought I was OK. Can you explain why I have to populate that as I would not have known that volume had it not been calculated for me in Section K. Thanks.

I just learned it myself during my first BIABacus recipe, it was a copy of a 5 gallon brew of mine, and without it, it didn't tell me "what you will use".

Name Changed per Hints.
Does the next change become PR1.3a?
Then the next recipe modification PR1.3b??

Back to Joshua...... What is BG-86???

thanks again to all

Bill

HbgBill, BG across the top, 86 down the left side, is the "Ambient(EOBV-A) was [11.34}L" volume to give you the IBU/Tinseth bitterness value, 41.7

Unfortunately, I can't see BG. I can see thru xyz.. but the letters beyond that are a jumble. The numbers gong down are all clear.

However.. I MS let me know what you were referencing. Thanks again.

BTW, I'm using Open Office.. so that may be the problem.

The following relates to post #984, 985, 986, 999 and 1074...

paudle wrote:

PistolPatch wrote: The Hop Bill

There is a big difference between the .pdf and The BIABacus IBU's. I don't really know if I have any answers here...

I'm definitely not very confident in the hop bill. The discrepancy is just too high???

I talked to Jester King and found out the below:

We test for IBU in the finished beer. The values on the recipe come from ProMash (Rager formula), but I also figure in IBU from the whirlpool additions. 60 EOB is 60 minutes until the boil ends or in other words at the start of the boil.

We leave the EKG in the kettle as we whirlpool for 45 min. We then will rest for another 30 minutes before knocking out. The hops don't come out until the wort is in the fermenter.

Can we use this information to help BIABacus get the right numbers?

Nice work on contacting them Paudle . That is the best thing you can ever do.

AS to whether it can help us, let's see...

Have fun with this .

In the .pdf it said the recipe totalled 50 IBU's with 46 of these coming from the 60 minute addition. The BIABacus gave a total of 31.5 IBU's with 24.6 of these coming from the 60 minute addition.

The first thing to look at from what jestrking wrote is the word 'Rager'. If you do a search on some of my posts using the keywords 'Tinseth' 'Rager' and 'Garetz', you'll read a lot on on how big the discrepancy can be between the three forumlas. This pic here tells the story best. See how none of the formulas agree? See how the third recipe down reads a lot higher in IBU's using Rager than it does in Tinseth?

These formulas all use different algorithms so there is no standard way of changing Tinseth to Rager. Once again, examine this pic.

On top of that discrepancy, we have discepancies in the formulas between software. I can't remember if ProMash has correct formulas or not so I'm going to download it and refresh my memory.

This is actually the only way we are going to get anywhere here. Anyway, I have been meaning to do it for a while so why not now?

Okay, I see why I have put off doing this for ages .

ProMash allows for many alterations on hop utilisation. Who knows what factors JesterKing has varied? Here's a screen shot of some of the ways that the utilisations can be varied. Over and above this, the formulas themselves can be manually adjusted .

As a matter of interest though, I was able to determine that in this particular recipe, on the 60 minute addition, the default settings gave 29.7 Tinseth IBU's (with a concentration factor of 1.3), 24.9 Tinseth IBU's (with a concentration factor of 1) and 37.6 Rager IBU's. (BeerSmith gives a similiar Tinseth result with a concentration factor of 1.3 but does not agree with ProMash's Rager ).

The BIABacus uses Tinseth and a concentration factor of 1. The BIABacus result was 24.6 IBU's for the 60 minute addition. (I only set the recipe up roughly so we can assume Promash Tinseth with a concentration factor of 1 equals Promash Tinseth with a concentration factor of 1.

So, what's the answer?

The above shows, once again, how we can't rely on IBU's from other recipe reports at all. Even when we know the formula and software used, we still don't know how the defaults have been altered. In this case, scaling from a commercial size brew to a home brew, the process is harder again as the big boys do dramatically alter the kettle utilisation figure.

Here is what I think you should do though Paudle.

From all the above calculations and playing around, in Section D on the second line, type in 38.5 IBu's.

(How I got this is 37.6/24.9*31.5 but let's not go there eh ).

Final Conclusion

Well, I think the above says it all. How hard is all the above? And, we could still do a bit more if we wanted to but I think that's enough. (In fact, we never want to go here again do we? ).

Anyway Paudle here is the BIABAcus file of what I think you should do. You will have to change Section B to suit your equipment though.

Once again, good on you for contacting JesterKing. Nice job!
PP

After the above, I think I only have one more post left in me - lol!

metalhophead: Edited my last post to you with a link. If you have any troubles working out the EOBV-A, ask away. Once we have that, we can asnwer the coriander question.

frederick7: There's just one question for you to clear up before we can come back to your post. You'll find the question, "If I limit my VIF to 14L, per your recommendation, it seems like that it should mutate the recipe too much," buried at the bottom of this post. Sorry, I should have put that in an entirely new post.

HbgBill: Looks like josh, Lylo and Richard are getting you sorted .

I noticed a bit of confusion on the cell number thing eg BG-86. I think the best way to go here is not use cell numbers as the BIABacus has one very big advantage in that it has 26 sections on the first sheet that go from A to Z. So, while writing BG-86 is fast, I think writing something like, "On the first line of Section D," or, "Change EOBV-A in Section D to..." is easier.

Your file looks very good Bill - nice work. There are two problems though...

In Section D, you have 'FO' (what is that?) and 'DH' written in the wrong columns. See how there are no numbers on the right hand side? This always tells you there is a problem somewhere. I'll leave that to someone else to help you there but let them know what you mean by 'FO'.

In Section E, don't mash for just 60 minutes. It is too short. Also, do a mash-out if you can. The reasons for these things can be found in the Mash Gravity Figures Needed for BIABacus thread.

Now, a bit on design...

Hints wrote:When designing a recipe, in Section D, unless you want colour results, you can ignore EOBV-A and just type in your desired IBU's.

We don't get many design questions in this thread. Designing a beer, is an advanced area. You can be a new brewer and design a beer but there are lot of potential pitfalls. Relying on brewing software to estimate your bitterness is one big one. (See my last post above ).

A safe way is to brew recipes you know have integrity. Brewing Classic Styles is an excellent source and these recipes can be put into the BIABacus in two seconds. Another great source is from fellow brewers whose beer you have tasted. (Ask them lots of questions). A third source are some recipes on this site. (In the new site-restructure, a high integrity recipe section is planned).

So, consider the above options before you design.

I'm not too sure how much I should say here as this area is quite advanced but the BIABacus is a very powerful design tool. You can get a lot of information from playing around with EOBV-A and the Tinseth input field in Section D.

I think for now there are only two things to say.

The EOBV-A field in Section D affects two things. It affects the colour in Section C and the IBU's on the left hand side of Section D. joshua mentioned above to set EOBV-A to 11.34 L. He is correct but where did he get that number from?

When designing a beer, always set EOBV-A in Section D to match EOBV-A in Section K. This will get the IBU's on the left hand side giving you not only a total value, but more importantly, the individual contributions each hop is making.

If you have enough experience up your sleeve, you can then use the Tinseth input field (second input field in Section D) to lower or raise the hop bill. If you don't put a value in the field, the right hand side total IBU's should equal the left hand side if you have the EOBV-A set correctly. Make sure you understand why.

Anyway, that's enough on that. When it comes to design, experience is a hundred times more important than numbers. Mind you, a good designer will find the BIABacus an extremely fast/valuable design tool.

And, you need to get that 'FO' and 'DH' thing sorted first anyway Bill .


PP

Don't forget Section E either!!!

[NOTE: This post has been edited by Hints.]

PP..
FO = Flameout. I guess I should put a time in there of "0" (zero) ??? Yes

EOBV-A in D. I had no number in there as Joshua mentioned. But I did have that same number in K. I'd guess next time I input a recipe I want to give a try I should input that number that is in K into the field in D.. ? Yes, as PP said, make sure you understand why.

Also, I do understand how to formulate a recipe based on a desired IBU regarding hop / time additions Do you? You will be the first. That's not a problem.. That is a very big problem. One major effort in this thread is to show just how big a problem that is. unless things change in BIAB.. which I doubt..Correct as they don't get added until after the bag is pulled including FWH Very off track here..

Also, tied with my comment above on FO (flame out) Is there any issue with where I placed DH (dry hopping). Yes, as PP said, the right hand side hasn't populated. Study the first three columns of Section D and the note at the bottom of Section D or wait for an answer here.

The above is an experimental batch.. I've not done it before.. but, I think it looks good. Why? I'm going to try it. It'll make beer.. just how good it will be remains to be seen :D The brewpot is a great playground. Sometimes the "mudpies" are a flop.. other times they may turn into a wonderful "artistic creation". Isn't brewing fun Correct.

HbgBill wrote:[NOTE: This post has been edited by Hints.]

EOBV-A in D. I had no number in there as Joshua mentioned. But I did have that same number in K. I'd guess next time I input a recipe I want to give a try I should input that number that is in K into the field in D.. ? Yes, as PP said, make sure you understand why.

I do NOT understand why. Is it a coincidence that it is the same number as in Section K?

Also, I do understand how to formulate a recipe based on a desired IBU regarding hop / time additions Do you? You will be the first. That's not a problem.. That is a very big problem. One major effort in this thread is to show just how big a problem that is. unless things change in BIAB.. which I doubt..Correct as they don't get added until after the bag is pulled including FWH Very off track here..

To clarify. I know how calculate what the total IBU's will be in a recipe given the AA%'s and the minutes in the boil. RE FWH.. if my FO was an incorrect designation.. possibly I might make the same mistake if I want to take an ounce of a hop and use it before the boil. I've never done that.. but, it might be a possibility. Sorry if it seems to confuse the topic.

Also, tied with my comment above on FO (flame out) Is there any issue with where I placed DH (dry hopping). Yes, as PP said, the right hand side hasn't populated. Study the first three columns of Section D and the note at the bottom of Section D or wait for an answer here.

The above is an experimental batch.. I've not done it before.. but, I think it looks good. Why? I'm going to try it. It'll make beer.. just how good it will be remains to be seen :D The brewpot is a great playground. Sometimes the "mudpies" are a flop.. other times they may turn into a wonderful "artistic creation". Isn't brewing fun Correct.

I think it looks like a good recipe in that I believe the percentages of the two main grains will give me good conversion and interesting flavor profile. If there are other suggestion regarding the recipe, my ears are open Thanks for the comments

I've modified the spreadsheet (I hope, as recommended) and posted below. In the meantime I'm going to do a search on EOBV-A to see what I can learn.

I apologize if I seem dense. I thought I answered the questions. I think the main issue was/and is.. I haven't found the answer about EOBV-A. I will continue to try to find the answer to that by "search"

Regarding formulating a recipe based on desired IBU. I think I said that I can develop a recipe based on grainbill to give me a desired 'ballpark' OG/FG. I can figure out what hop profile I want and calculate an end IBU based on amounts at different time additions.

I think I answered PP by modifying my .xls by placing FO and DY in the proper place and adding "0" (zero) for time.. which populated the rest as he suggested.

Finally, I hope I answered the comment about "Why" regarding why I think it's a good recipe as a starter.

Not trying to be dumb.. but maybe I am.. and I, again, apologize. I really am "ears" unless they are placed in an improper place on my head. I'm trying.

Re-cap.. I think the only thing I'm still having to locate is the information on EOBV-A for Section-D. One of the things I did find was that it was something that was difficult to put into words. I don't have the thread reference for that. The only thing I'm aware of.. and not sure how it fits here is that the wort will expand by about 4% when heated.. so, when my gage shows I have 3 gallons I will likely have 2.88 gallons.

Don't give up on me.. please.

No one is giving up on you.

But, we are right back now to the EOBV-A question. Go back a few posts and look at what Hints wrote. No one can explain it any more. You must spend some time now seeing it for yourself.

It's one of those things where you have to find the 'Ah! Now I get it!' moment.


PP

Ok.. I'm not understanding what it is that is not liked about the recipe.. Just because it is not from a book does not mean it won't work well. This is not meant to be rude.. but if you tell me it is not a good recipe.. I would hope for a reason. So, for now, maybe we forget the recipe and concentrate on Biabacus???

Here is what I found from a PP post on this to another seeker, Joco. Joco had a Batch Size of 22.71 L as the amount of beer to be bottled (or kegged). In that thread at post #18 I believe it was.. PP said "My highest recommendation for y ou and anyone else who wants a sound recipe book is to invest in "Brewing Classic Styles," by John Palmer and Zamil Zainasheff. These recipes are sound, solid, award-winning recipes that can be put into the BIABacus by simply typing 22.7 L into the EOBV-A field on the first line of Section D. Simple "

That is simple if that is the number. In my recipe, I want to put 2.5 gallons into my keg which is roughly 9.5 L. I can put that number into EOBV-A.. but, if that volume is still in my kettle after being cooled, I will still have trub to deal with which will drop me down even further. If I'm planning on losing, say 500 ml to trub would I not have to add that to the volume in D and make it 10L?

I have 11.34 as my EOBV-A. Hints said to look at the right hand side of D. It appears to me that everything IS populated except substitutions.. and I hadn't planned to substitute anything. I am not seeing what you are seeing in my file. Also, I'm not fast on the color.. but, I'd like it to be somewhat in the standard for the style.. Same with IBU's. I'm not looking for exactness here either.. just close.

So, I still can't see the comments I'm missing.. I'm sorry. I'm wondering if the latest file was checked rather than the first one?

Bill, Please look over section "K" Your Estimated Volumes, These numberd ARE VERY close to the Volumes I have used for over 63 batches to brew 1 case of American beer bottles(12oz).

Take a look at my "Porter - Lite Stout" recipe..... it is not perfect but it works.

joshua wrote:Bill, Please look over section "K" Your Estimated Volumes, These numberd ARE VERY close to the Volumes I have used for over 63 batches to brew 1 case of American beer bottles(12oz).

Take a look at my "Porter - Lite Stout" recipe..... it is not perfect but it works.

Thanks Josh.. Yes they are quite close. One thing I noticed was your boil time of 45 minutes.. Might that explain the differences?? You have less boil-off based on that.. I'm sure, with by noob observations, it's a lot more complicated than that.

Bill, I've edited some of my posts above and asked Nuff to delete his post. They were far too rushed and not helpful. Let's see if we can give a little better direction here.

HbgBill wrote:Ok.. I'm not understanding what it is that is not liked about the recipe.

I think the recipe is fine but I am no expert. This thread is not about the recipe itself, it is more about getting it written and scaled in the right manner. The last file you posted here is in the right manner so...

What you can do now is post the Recipe Report (not the file) into a new thread and ask for feedback on the actual recipe itself.

Hints wrote:Hints is limited. It provides fast answers and/or asks questions that need to be answered, explained or explored in detail. Please assist each other by expanding on what Hints has stated above.

Here's a few tips on what to read re Hints comments.

The EOBV-A issue mentioned is about understanding how to use the EOBV-A field when desigining a recipe. You can find the answer here*.

In the same post above, you will find IBU's mentioned. The issue here is understanding just how poor and misleading IBU estimate formulas can be. If you are aware of their limitations, then all is good. (If you search my posts for 'Rager' and 'primitive' you will find what some of these limitations are.)

Not sure what Hints meant by "Very off track here"? Maybe he was having trouble understanding your comment on FWH?

When Hints asks why you think the recipe is good, I suspect he wants to make sure that you have built the recipe from a solid knowledge base and understand what each ingredient will add to the beer. I don't think there is a need for you to answer that question here. It's more something to ask yourself.

What you wrote above re wort expansion is correct. EOBV means the volume of the hot wort. EOBV-A means the volume of the wort at ambient temperature.

*You've written a bit more about EOBV-A in this post. Go back to the link I asterixed above. Pay particular attention to what is written about EOBV-A in Section K. No calculations are needed.

Your file is looking good Bill so post the Recipe Report up if you like and see if anyone thinks anything needs tweaking.

Hope the above is a bit more helpful for you.


PP

Yesssss. Very helpful.You said earlier "When designing a beer, always set EOBV-A in Section D to match EOBV-A in Section K." This is exactly what I did in one of my earlier posts and .xls file (#1075). It later got confused.. which further confused me . I just didn't know why until you explained it in #1088.

Now I feel like I've gotten someplace and understand.. even if any/many of the numbers have to be 'tweaked" for the next iteration.. (if I feel it is worth doing a 2nd time).

I certainly could have copied and scaled a recipe out of Jamil's book and brewed a recipe similar to this recipe under discussion previously.. only using Simcoe.. it was well received at my brewing club.. I've done Jamil's Am.Pale Ale and, granted, that should have been my first input into BIABacus.. It would have caused less discussion because mine is not tried. But, I don't think it's going to produce a goofy beer. I'm putting the grain bill together now. All I need is the hops. I'll likely pick them up tomorrow and hopefully brew it on Saturday.

That will allow me to input specific AA #'s into BIABacus as well as fill in actual numbers in some of the other fields.

Thanks for staying with me.. I still have a ton to learn regarding, not only BIABacus... but also interfacing with the folks here on this forum.