My Efficiency into Kettle (EIK) never matches my End of Boil Efficiency. The latter is always a couple of points lower. Yes, I do adjust my gravity readings for temperature.
Does anyone else experience this?
On a related note, I am getting a fairly consistent EIK of around 80%. In a different thread I read a claim that BIABers should get around 99%. Is that really realistic? If so, I guess I would need a much finer crush than I am using now. I use the LHBS's crusher, but they don't like people changing the settings, so I run my grains through twice.
I'm not unhappy with 80%. I'm just wondering it the 99% claim is reasonable.
Post #2 made 12 years ago
Yep! In theory, they should match but my experience is that they don't. I remember concentrating on this a few years ago and running some threads on it on another forum. I was basically getting 5% lower on End of Boil Efficiency. You and I know that we can never trust results on a single brew but this was fairly consistent.smyrnaquince wrote:My Efficiency into Kettle (EIK) never matches my End of Boil Efficiency. The latter is always a couple of points lower.
I did get one good answer on this from MHB which I will look up tomorrow. He is a trained (universtity-educated) brewer and he thought up some reasons for about a 2% difference.
As for the 99% efficiency thing, this is a figure that should be ignored. There are three reasons to ignore it...
1. If they meant EIK, then I can't even begin to explain how many things are wrong there. (I've had the odd brew of over 100% EIK. It never repeated on the next brew so I'm assuming I weighed my grain wrong or took a dodgy refreactometer or hydrometer reading.)
2. If they meant conversion efficiency, that is a complex term that is totally useless for any brewer as it is calculated back, at best, from EIK. (Though I think there may be another very simple way of doing it for full-volume BIAB brewers.)
3. Efficiency, no matter whether it be EIK, end of Boil Efficiency or EIF, it is a variable whereas, most brewers, through a lack of education and understanding and through the encouragement of 'lazy' software, think it is a constant. (I was one of these brewers.)
All mainstream programs treat efficiency (of any sort) as a constant. This makes the programming easy but it is a totally fictitious assumption. We all know logically that the higher gravity beer you want to brew, the less 'sugars' you will extract from it.
This is the number one fault of all mainstream brewing software. You have to set your 'efficiency' and the software says you will get the same resulting gravity from a low-alcohol beer as a high one which we all know is incorrect.
So, now you know, never tell anyone, "I always get 80% efficiency on my brews." For a start, what efficiency are you talking about? EIK or EIF? And secondly, your efficiency should never be the same on two brews of a different gravity (if you were able to measure perfectly which none of us can do at this level.)
I think one of the great things the BIABacus will do is create a real breakthrough in education. It took me many years to see it thanks to the brewing software out there. Now, it is totally obvious. Efficiency is not a constant, it is a variable.
PP
Last edited by PistolPatch on 03 Apr 2012, 23:34, edited 4 times in total.
If you have found the above or anything else of value on BIABrewer.info, consider supporting us by getting some BIPs!
-
- SVA Brewer With Over 100 Brews From Australia
-
Post #3 made 12 years ago
My brews so far have been ranged from OG 1.053 to OG 1.069, so as has been pointed out, I should expect EIK to vary among these brews.
I'm glad to know that a trained (universtity-educated) brewer has an explanation of the difference between EIK and EOB Efficiency.
OK, I went back and found the "99%" post. The author (Stux) was talking about "conversion efficiency", not EIK.
PP, you keep trying to pound into my small head that the word "efficiency" can refer to many things, yet once again I got tripped up by which efficiency was being discussed. Some day I will learn.
I'm glad to know that a trained (universtity-educated) brewer has an explanation of the difference between EIK and EOB Efficiency.
OK, I went back and found the "99%" post. The author (Stux) was talking about "conversion efficiency", not EIK.
PP, you keep trying to pound into my small head that the word "efficiency" can refer to many things, yet once again I got tripped up by which efficiency was being discussed. Some day I will learn.
-
- From United States of America
-
Post #4 made 12 years ago
LOL!
Smyrna, you have a very good mind for looking at detail. All you have to remember now is that most people don't explain what efficiency they are talking about and that any practical efficiency measurement (mainly anything that can be reasonably translated into efficiency into kettle (EIK)), should decrease as OG goes up.
The hard thing about learning this is that you need to ignore about 99% of posts, software or info written on the net! You are 95% of the way there Smyrna and that is a real credit to you.
PP
Smyrna, you have a very good mind for looking at detail. All you have to remember now is that most people don't explain what efficiency they are talking about and that any practical efficiency measurement (mainly anything that can be reasonably translated into efficiency into kettle (EIK)), should decrease as OG goes up.
The hard thing about learning this is that you need to ignore about 99% of posts, software or info written on the net! You are 95% of the way there Smyrna and that is a real credit to you.
PP
Last edited by PistolPatch on 04 Apr 2012, 00:42, edited 3 times in total.
If you have found the above or anything else of value on BIABrewer.info, consider supporting us by getting some BIPs!
-
- SVA Brewer With Over 100 Brews From Australia
-
Post #6 made 12 years ago
Looks like I was having another one of my 'efficiency' moments yesterday 
. Ranty rant 
.
I'm doing four double batches this weekend smyrna so will see what pre and post-boil numbers I get. I'll be using the variable efficiency calcs we have in the BIAABacus2 that resulted from all stux's hard work. I'm also going to sparge two of the four and see how the numbers compare with the more advanced calcs stux has done on sparging.
Looking forward to it!
. Ranty rant .I'm doing four double batches this weekend smyrna so will see what pre and post-boil numbers I get. I'll be using the variable efficiency calcs we have in the BIAABacus2 that resulted from all stux's hard work. I'm also going to sparge two of the four and see how the numbers compare with the more advanced calcs stux has done on sparging.
Looking forward to it!
If you have found the above or anything else of value on BIABrewer.info, consider supporting us by getting some BIPs!
-
- SVA Brewer With Over 100 Brews From Australia
-
Post #7 made 12 years ago
I often wonder how much evaporation/temperature etc throw out peoples refractometer readings. In videos I have seen a lot of people just dripping the hot wort over the glass and leaving it open for a while before shutting it to take the reading, I may try to experiment next brew and take one sample like this and one with the pippette and see if it makes a difference.
I use a pippette and stick it in the freezer for a short time, but have noticed that if I leave it in the freezer for too long then warm it up I will get a higher than normal reading (no idea why.. maybe water crystallizes then hangs out at the top of the pippette once it warms up or something). I normally take a couple of reading just to see if they differ and also check with hydrometer when putting into fermenter.
I use a pippette and stick it in the freezer for a short time, but have noticed that if I leave it in the freezer for too long then warm it up I will get a higher than normal reading (no idea why.. maybe water crystallizes then hangs out at the top of the pippette once it warms up or something). I normally take a couple of reading just to see if they differ and also check with hydrometer when putting into fermenter.
Post #8 made 12 years ago
Hi there smyrna and deebo,
I ended up doing 6 instead of 4 double batches over Easter so have a few figures for you.
deebo: Totally agree with your thoughts. In this thread, you'll see my refractometer results. I've never trusted it but its never been as bad as it was last weekend. Maybe it is just a dodgy refractometer? I did everything I could to ensure a good sample - filling the pipette several times with the wort, filling it right up, holding my finger over it so nothing would escape, cooling it under tap water and then taking a reading with no bubbles. Anyway, my conclusions are in the other thread.
(Btw, with your pipette in the freezer, you'll still have evaporation so the longer left, the higher the reading. Not sure if this would be significant but I think running under the tap while holding your finger over the opening is probably the safest option.)
Before my next brew day, I'd like to work out a faster way of cooling my sample for the hydrometer as water bathing a mug of wort and then putting it in the freezer still takes too long. I'm not too trustworthy of temperature correction calculators for hydromters but I might explore this at some stage.
smyrna:
I found the same drop in efficiency between EIK and post-boil efficiency on these 6 brews so I continue to think there is something in it but would love to see the results from a lot more brews and a lot more brewers. In our small scale of brewing, I really think you need 40 or 50 results to start drawing conclusions on some things. My figures below show good reason why...
All 6 brews dropped in efficiency by the following, 2.1%, 4.4%, 6%, 1.7% 8.5% and 5.1%.
I like to have double-checks when I do measurements so I can get better averages etc. If you go the thread I linked above, you'll see that on the full-volume brews, the three EIK measurements were all within a few percent so those readings are reliable. My post-boil measurements at this stage are only based on one check so are less reliable. Until I can measure the wort in the no-chilled cubes I did, I won't have a confirmation on the EOBV figures.
Some Problems with EOBV Measurement
All gravity measurements are fairly easy to get double or even triple checks on. Volume checks are a bit more clumsy. Even doing double batches where you are reducing the degree of error by half in a way,volumes are still awkward to measure at the boil start and end due to the swelling and contraction of the wort.
I'm going to consider on my next brew, doing a pre and post-boil volume at say 95 C when the wort is more stable and making a correction of say 3.5% for shrinkage rather than 4.162%. (I'll get the theoretical number from Kostas.)
Of course, the best volume check is measuring what you get in the fermentor at ambient temperatures plus measuring your kettle trub.
Finally
While numbers do interest me 'intellectually', they don't really interest me when it comes to my own brewing. Numbers are just tools to help get you in the right ballpark. A good recipe always turns out
so unless you are consistently getting numbers that are lower or higher than estimates, don't even worry about making adjustments.
PP
I ended up doing 6 instead of 4 double batches over Easter so have a few figures for you.
deebo: Totally agree with your thoughts. In this thread, you'll see my refractometer results. I've never trusted it but its never been as bad as it was last weekend. Maybe it is just a dodgy refractometer? I did everything I could to ensure a good sample - filling the pipette several times with the wort, filling it right up, holding my finger over it so nothing would escape, cooling it under tap water and then taking a reading with no bubbles. Anyway, my conclusions are in the other thread.
(Btw, with your pipette in the freezer, you'll still have evaporation so the longer left, the higher the reading. Not sure if this would be significant but I think running under the tap while holding your finger over the opening is probably the safest option.)
Before my next brew day, I'd like to work out a faster way of cooling my sample for the hydrometer as water bathing a mug of wort and then putting it in the freezer still takes too long. I'm not too trustworthy of temperature correction calculators for hydromters but I might explore this at some stage.
smyrna:
I found the same drop in efficiency between EIK and post-boil efficiency on these 6 brews so I continue to think there is something in it but would love to see the results from a lot more brews and a lot more brewers. In our small scale of brewing, I really think you need 40 or 50 results to start drawing conclusions on some things. My figures below show good reason why...
All 6 brews dropped in efficiency by the following, 2.1%, 4.4%, 6%, 1.7% 8.5% and 5.1%.
I like to have double-checks when I do measurements so I can get better averages etc. If you go the thread I linked above, you'll see that on the full-volume brews, the three EIK measurements were all within a few percent so those readings are reliable. My post-boil measurements at this stage are only based on one check so are less reliable. Until I can measure the wort in the no-chilled cubes I did, I won't have a confirmation on the EOBV figures.
Some Problems with EOBV Measurement
All gravity measurements are fairly easy to get double or even triple checks on. Volume checks are a bit more clumsy. Even doing double batches where you are reducing the degree of error by half in a way,volumes are still awkward to measure at the boil start and end due to the swelling and contraction of the wort.
I'm going to consider on my next brew, doing a pre and post-boil volume at say 95 C when the wort is more stable and making a correction of say 3.5% for shrinkage rather than 4.162%. (I'll get the theoretical number from Kostas.)
Of course, the best volume check is measuring what you get in the fermentor at ambient temperatures plus measuring your kettle trub.
Finally
While numbers do interest me 'intellectually', they don't really interest me when it comes to my own brewing. Numbers are just tools to help get you in the right ballpark. A good recipe always turns out
so unless you are consistently getting numbers that are lower or higher than estimates, don't even worry about making adjustments. PP
Last edited by PistolPatch on 10 Apr 2012, 19:13, edited 3 times in total.
If you have found the above or anything else of value on BIABrewer.info, consider supporting us by getting some BIPs!
-
- SVA Brewer With Over 100 Brews From Australia
-
Post #9 made 12 years ago
On my last brew I stuffed around with trying a few different ways to do refractometer readings (unfortunately I didnt bother to put the values/methods into a spreadsheet).
I used the same grainbill and volumes for a brew I had done recently (I recorded 10.6 brix for the previous brew which I think I no chilled) and this time got a range between 11.2 and 11.8 brix after cooling, trying different methods of using pippette/cooling wort etc before reading refractometer.
I tested with the hydrometer also and got a reading of 1049 (which according to beersmith is 12.4 brix so I really have no idea.. as long as the beer tastes good I dont worry too much)
I did double check the refractometer was reading 0 in water.
I used the same grainbill and volumes for a brew I had done recently (I recorded 10.6 brix for the previous brew which I think I no chilled) and this time got a range between 11.2 and 11.8 brix after cooling, trying different methods of using pippette/cooling wort etc before reading refractometer.
I tested with the hydrometer also and got a reading of 1049 (which according to beersmith is 12.4 brix so I really have no idea.. as long as the beer tastes good I dont worry too much)
I did double check the refractometer was reading 0 in water.
Post #10 made 12 years ago
I agree that it is easy to get caught up in numbers and calculations instead of focusing on making beer. Unfortunately, I can more easily play with numbers than make beer during my lunch break.
So, given that I'm eating lunch, I'll talk numbers.
Because I use an immersion chiller in my brewpot, I can fairly easily measure the volume after chilling. I suspect that at 66-68 F (19-20 C) there is not enough expansion to make correcting for it worthwhile.
I don't like trying to measure kettle trub. I pour the wort into my fermenting bucket, which is lined with my (cleaned) brew bag. I then pull the bag and squeeze. The fairly solid lump I am left with does not easily lend itself to volume measurement. The fermenting bucket has sloped sides. For grins once, I tried to do the calculations to allow for the change in diameter with depth to calculate fermenter volume from depth. It is a pain.
It is good that the EIK calculations are fairly consistent. What bothers me is that the EOB Efficiencies are not. If you are brewing to hit a certain OG, the EOB Efficiency is what matters, not the EIK.
All that said, the differences are all small enough that this is really a science discussion and not a brewing discussion. From a science point of view it is interesting, but from a brewing discussion this is all in the noise.
So, given that I'm eating lunch, I'll talk numbers.
Because I use an immersion chiller in my brewpot, I can fairly easily measure the volume after chilling. I suspect that at 66-68 F (19-20 C) there is not enough expansion to make correcting for it worthwhile.
I don't like trying to measure kettle trub. I pour the wort into my fermenting bucket, which is lined with my (cleaned) brew bag. I then pull the bag and squeeze. The fairly solid lump I am left with does not easily lend itself to volume measurement. The fermenting bucket has sloped sides. For grins once, I tried to do the calculations to allow for the change in diameter with depth to calculate fermenter volume from depth. It is a pain.
It is good that the EIK calculations are fairly consistent. What bothers me is that the EOB Efficiencies are not. If you are brewing to hit a certain OG, the EOB Efficiency is what matters, not the EIK.
All that said, the differences are all small enough that this is really a science discussion and not a brewing discussion. From a science point of view it is interesting, but from a brewing discussion this is all in the noise.
-
- From United States of America
-
Post #11 made 12 years ago
I am a lot confused about the technical details here about what you need to get a fairly accurate measurement of mash efficiency. It would seem to me that if you have an idea of how much sugar the grain should produce, you should be able to calculate how much you actually extracted at the end of the boil. I, therefore, use the End of Boil measure of OG (I can take this measurement at the boil, before cooling, accounting for a 4% expansion of the wort at boil temperatures).
With that said, I have achieved an efficiency of 86% on my first BIAB (I am an experienced brewer with other methods and have consistently reached about 75%). With my second BIAB I achieved an efficiency of 93%! These numbers are great, but they throw my recipes off as far as IBU/OG balance is concerned. I am concerned about this because I am somewhat particular about brewing to style (Special Bitter versus ESB, for example).
My quandary is this: do I adjust my future recipes to account for an efficiency of 93%?
BTW. The difference in technique between brew 1 and 2 is that for #2 I mashed in the bag with half of the water, rinsed with the other half at sparge temp. (172 deg F), and ran a small recirculating pump that took the hot liquor from the bottom of the pot back to the top of the grain bill.
Anyone else using a similar method getting 90%+ efficiencies?
With that said, I have achieved an efficiency of 86% on my first BIAB (I am an experienced brewer with other methods and have consistently reached about 75%). With my second BIAB I achieved an efficiency of 93%! These numbers are great, but they throw my recipes off as far as IBU/OG balance is concerned. I am concerned about this because I am somewhat particular about brewing to style (Special Bitter versus ESB, for example).
My quandary is this: do I adjust my future recipes to account for an efficiency of 93%?
BTW. The difference in technique between brew 1 and 2 is that for #2 I mashed in the bag with half of the water, rinsed with the other half at sparge temp. (172 deg F), and ran a small recirculating pump that took the hot liquor from the bottom of the pot back to the top of the grain bill.
Anyone else using a similar method getting 90%+ efficiencies?
Last edited by bcull on 13 Apr 2012, 22:28, edited 3 times in total.
Post #12 made 12 years ago
The standard wisdom is that you need to do several (let's say at least five) brews to be sure of your process. Either of the efficiencies you obtained could have been a fluke. When your efficiencies are consistent, then adjust your recipes accordingly.
-
- From United States of America
-
Post #13 made 12 years ago
When I sparge I get 85-95% efficiency depending on gravity. When I don't sparge I get 75-85% efficiency depending on gravity
Fermenting: -
Cubed: -
Stirplate: -
On Tap: NS Summer Ale III (WY1272), Landlord III (WY1469), Fighter's 70/- II (WY1272), Roast Porter (WY1028), Cider, Soda
Next: Munich Helles III
5/7/12
Cubed: -
Stirplate: -
On Tap: NS Summer Ale III (WY1272), Landlord III (WY1469), Fighter's 70/- II (WY1272), Roast Porter (WY1028), Cider, Soda
Next: Munich Helles III
5/7/12
Post #14 made 12 years ago
I've written a long answer for you bcull but it still needs more work. It's 4am here now so I have given up for today. Here's my 'short' answerbcull wrote:My quandary is this: do I adjust my future recipes to account for an efficiency of 93%?
...The short answer is that as smyrna said above, collect more figures. I've done at least several hundred brews, am very careful with measurements and am pretty well read up on formulas etc, and I just know now that measurements vary, sometimes wildly, from brew to brew. (There are many obvious reasons for this.)
This is what smyrna meant above and I think I implied in this post here. Your measurements should vary a bit between brews. I am especially well-equipped to say this as I double-batch so my measurement errors (volume-wise) are reduced significantly and I have multiple instruments to measure gravity and temperature as well.
I suggested in the post I linked above that you initially calculate using 82% as a ball-park figure for a 1.050 brew whether it be actively sparged or not. (On my measurements, I am not seeing a significant difference to date between an active and passive sparge but stux seems to be getting different results from me so go figure
.)What I think is really worrying you though is how dilution (or adding fermentables post-boil) will affect your gravity to bitterness ratio and therefore the resulting beer.
And, that's a valid point but only if you are confident in your measurement equipment.
I'll come back with my 'long' answer later
,PP
Last edited by PistolPatch on 15 Apr 2012, 04:15, edited 3 times in total.
If you have found the above or anything else of value on BIABrewer.info, consider supporting us by getting some BIPs!
-
- SVA Brewer With Over 100 Brews From Australia
-
Post #15 made 12 years ago
Thanks for the replies Smyna, Stux and Pistol. The collective wisdom is reassuring. For now, I will trust the measurements I have, and perhaps average for the next recipe. It is clear that my efficiencies have changed relative to the old methods that I have used. All-in-all I am very pleased with the brew day results, and more importantly with the resulting brews.
Check out what the lads had to say about my first BIAB brew at www.lotusneuron.blogspot.ca
Cheers!
Check out what the lads had to say about my first BIAB brew at www.lotusneuron.blogspot.ca
Cheers!
Post #16 made 12 years ago
[Lucky for you, my long answer is much shorter than I thought it would be ]
No, thank you bcull,
You really made me stop and think about something that should be quite obvious. When I, and probably most other brewers, dilute a brew, we only think of 'getting the gravity right'. We never think of bitterness.
I've put this to the guys developing the "BIABacus" and I'll try and write the effect into an improved 'The Calculator' that may/may not be used on the site while we complete the BIABacus.
So, again, thank you. This is one 'obvious' thing we hadn't thought of.
....
On a practical scale, I'll dilute some brews from say 19 L to 23L before pitching (at a maximum). I can't say I have noticed any poor results but now that you have brought it to my attention, I probably will.
PP
P.S. I've seen you asking the same question all over the net. Just increase your efficiency on the next brew to the average of your last two brews for now. And, get as many measurements as you can as everything I said in prior posts here is still correct - a single brew's measurements can't be trusted.
]No, thank you bcull
,You really made me stop and think about something that should be quite obvious. When I, and probably most other brewers, dilute a brew, we only think of 'getting the gravity right'. We never think of bitterness.
I've put this to the guys developing the "BIABacus" and I'll try and write the effect into an improved 'The Calculator' that may/may not be used on the site while we complete the BIABacus.
So, again, thank you. This is one 'obvious' thing we hadn't thought of.
....
On a practical scale, I'll dilute some brews from say 19 L to 23L before pitching (at a maximum). I can't say I have noticed any poor results but now that you have brought it to my attention, I probably will
. PP
P.S. I've seen you asking the same question all over the net. Just increase your efficiency on the next brew to the average of your last two brews for now. And, get as many measurements as you can as everything I said in prior posts here is still correct - a single brew's measurements can't be trusted.
If you have found the above or anything else of value on BIABrewer.info, consider supporting us by getting some BIPs!
-
- SVA Brewer With Over 100 Brews From Australia
-
Post #17 made 12 years ago
Thanks Pistol. The measurement I use to assess bitterness is taken directly from Beersmith and an article I read in BYO magazine. The IBU is divided by the last two numbers of the OG. If the IBU was 42 and the OG was 1.059, then the ratio would be 42/59 = .71, which is typical for an IPA. If the brew efficiency resulted in a higher OG, then the value would change accordingly (eg. 42/62 = .68, which is still okay for an IPA).
Hope this helps
Hope this helps
Post #18 made 12 years ago
Thanks again bcull. I'll see if I can slip this into the improved calculator. Good on you .
.If you have found the above or anything else of value on BIABrewer.info, consider supporting us by getting some BIPs!
-
- SVA Brewer With Over 100 Brews From Australia
-
Post #19 made 12 years ago
IBU dilution is simple dilution just like gravity.
The Maxi-BIAB calculator does take this effect into account when it calculates post-boil dilution... trick being of course you're diluting the ex-trub amount...
The Maxi-BIAB calculator does take this effect into account when it calculates post-boil dilution... trick being of course you're diluting the ex-trub amount...
Fermenting: -
Cubed: -
Stirplate: -
On Tap: NS Summer Ale III (WY1272), Landlord III (WY1469), Fighter's 70/- II (WY1272), Roast Porter (WY1028), Cider, Soda
Next: Munich Helles III
5/7/12
Cubed: -
Stirplate: -
On Tap: NS Summer Ale III (WY1272), Landlord III (WY1469), Fighter's 70/- II (WY1272), Roast Porter (WY1028), Cider, Soda
Next: Munich Helles III
5/7/12
Post #20 made 12 years ago
The funny thing is that I have shown people here how to calcualte this - I never however, in the past, have ever considered the effect when I dilute. What an idiot .
.
Last edited by PistolPatch on 17 Apr 2012, 21:41, edited 3 times in total.
If you have found the above or anything else of value on BIABrewer.info, consider supporting us by getting some BIPs!
-
- SVA Brewer With Over 100 Brews From Australia
-
Post #21 made 12 years ago
Smyrna, I found an error in my calcs above. This should have read 2.4%,2.8%,3.6%,-1.1%,6.7% and 2.4% which is an average of 2.8% not 4.63%.PistolPatch wrote:All 6 brews dropped in efficiency by the following, 2.1%, 4.4%, 6%, 1.7% 8.5% and 5.1%.
As mentioned before, I can't do a final check on these numbers until I pitch one of the cubes as being new cubes, I am not too sure what volume they hold. Hopefully by the time I do pitch a cube, I'll still remember what all my notes mean
. I also spent a bit of time on the weekend looking up some of the old answers on this. The only answer that made sense (assuming there is a consistent drop between EIK and EOBE) came from MHB of Mark's Home Brew. He said...
The only problem with this was that the 0.00164 above should actually be 0.0164. I spent a fair bit of time trying to research the above more but it's very hard to even find any numbers that agree on hot and cold break weight/volume.Ref Kunze; Technology Brewing and Malting
Hot Break is typically about 1.42 Kg/100 L
Cold Break about 0.22 Kg/100 L
Just a quick play with the numbers (I realise that there are some other factors, but I think they are below the resolution of the measuring equipment in use)
Total break material ~1.64 Kg/100L,
If the sweet wort was say 1.050
You loose from the solution about 1.42g/L on Boiling and another 0.22g/L on Cooling a total of 1.64g/L.
So you loose some apparent density, the true value for the sugar content of the sweet wort should be ~1.04836, rather than 1.050.
0.05-0.04836 = 0.00164
(0.00164 / 0.050) X 100 = 3.28%
About a 3.3% apparent loss in efficiency; caused by break formation.
Break once it forms can't be stirred in and measured; it has come out of solution, it has no more effect on the gravity reading than would a teaspoon of sand in the bottom of your hydrometer tube.
Even if it's stirred into suspension, it won't affect the gravity reading.
MHB
I think however that Mark's logic certainly makes a lot of sense. Until we collect many more figures though from many different brewers, we really won't know.
Cheers mate and apologies for the incorrect numbers,
PP
Last edited by PistolPatch on 23 Apr 2012, 19:27, edited 3 times in total.
If you have found the above or anything else of value on BIABrewer.info, consider supporting us by getting some BIPs!
-
- SVA Brewer With Over 100 Brews From Australia
-
Post #22 made 12 years ago
Actually, 0.00164 is correct. I checked it on a calculator to make sure that the math in my head was correct.
I think that the break material that is no longer in solution is actually a reasonable explanation for why the efficiencies would not match.
Using MHB's example above, if you were targeting a 1.050 OG and used your EIK to calculate quantities, you would actually end up with a 1.048 OG wort in your fermenter. On the one hand, 0.002 is not a big difference in OG. On the other hand, we are going through a lot of pain to try to hit an OG only to suspect that there is a known source of bias in this number.
I think that the break material that is no longer in solution is actually a reasonable explanation for why the efficiencies would not match.
Using MHB's example above, if you were targeting a 1.050 OG and used your EIK to calculate quantities, you would actually end up with a 1.048 OG wort in your fermenter. On the one hand, 0.002 is not a big difference in OG. On the other hand, we are going through a lot of pain to try to hit an OG only to suspect that there is a known source of bias in this number.
-
- From United States of America
-
Post #23 made 12 years ago
I'm hoping I am going mad because if it is correct, it explains a lotsmyrnaquince wrote:Actually, 0.00164 is correct.
...And before I go any further, I think it does explain everything I've seen.
All I want to do now is get the maths right and I'm not getting 0.00164. Here's why...
1.64 kg = 1640 grams per 100 litres.
Divide that by 100 and you get 16.4 grams per litre.
16.4 grams is not 1.64 grams / litre.
I reckon MHB is right anyway
,PP
Last edited by PistolPatch on 25 Apr 2012, 01:13, edited 3 times in total.
If you have found the above or anything else of value on BIABrewer.info, consider supporting us by getting some BIPs!
-
- SVA Brewer With Over 100 Brews From Australia
-
Post #24 made 12 years ago
I suspect that MHB slipped a decimal point or a metric prefix in his writeup. This site gives trub weight at 200 to 400 g/hL, which is 2-4g/l. That is in line with MHB's 1.64 g/l and he is going by the "bible" of brewing textbooks.
Last edited by smyrnaquince on 25 Apr 2012, 04:42, edited 3 times in total.
-
- From United States of America
-
Post #25 made 12 years ago
Good on you Smyrna .
I suppose all we have to do now is collect lots of numbers from brewers so as we can see if the theory holds true. Collecting enough numbers is always the hard part
.
Thanks mate
.I suppose all we have to do now is collect lots of numbers from brewers so as we can see if the theory holds true. Collecting enough numbers is always the hard part
.Thanks mate
Last edited by PistolPatch on 25 Apr 2012, 21:05, edited 1 time in total.
If you have found the above or anything else of value on BIABrewer.info, consider supporting us by getting some BIPs!
-
- SVA Brewer With Over 100 Brews From Australia
-
