Pilch, 19C yeast, most likely will give Many Fruity Easter Flavors, and Hydrogen sulfurous Aromas at 28C. Not the Best Idea......BTDT....

Pilch, Can you make Drinkable water in to ICE, say, a liter in a plastic Tray????

Leave 1 or 2 liters out of the Boil, and add that Ice, about 45 minutes to 60 minutes after Flame out.

The ice will take out a lot of Heat, as it melts, and Drop the Warm wort quickly.

The 1.058, is a good O.G. for a Stout, Since Stout is suppose to be a BIG beer, really "Stout".

Since you put the 28C Wort into your Brew fridge, quickly, you probably did not have enough Time for the Yeast to change.
It should be a Good Beer!

Did you Aerate the Wort?
If not, it will take a longer time to get to your projected F.G.

JMHO, YMMV

I would be more concerned about shocking the yeast and possibly killing some of cells off.

Pilch
The optimal amount of pure oxygen in wort is 9PPM. A good stir can get you upto 4 PPM. I've never had an issue with just giving it a good hard stir.
Have you seen any signs of fermentation yet?

[MODNOTE: The following posts were moved from #post15 of this thread to keep the thread easy to read.]

By the way, GA, Welcome to the forum

Good job filling out the BIABacus.

While we are waiting on PP to sort you out on your BS file....

[EDITED: probably got the math wrong, here is what I calculate now. can someone look at this for me?

35.49 (ppg) * .87 (# more grain) / 5.83 (gallons VAW) = 5.29 ; 5.29 * .792 (79.2% efficiency) = 4.14 more points ? ]

... this doesn't solve the low efficiency issue here, but I found you 2.5 more points. While Section X is a very nice tool to fine tune with, it is to be used prior to brewing, not after the fact.

I removed all settings in Section X and that raised your grain bill from the 10.5 pounds you said you used, to 11.42 pounds. That would get you 2.5 more points towards your OG / GAW.

MS

GlowingApple, The 32.1F and 211F is Good. It you have a clean Probe, What is you Body temperature?? Preferable in your Mouth, not in the Other Place.

Many Thermo's have a Curve, sometimes 3F to 5F in the Middle of the Curve.

If you have an ELECTRIC heat source, OUTSIDE, the Boiling point of Methanol is 151°F/66.3°C

and Ethanol's Boiling point is 173.1°F/78.37°C

Both of each are near the MASH temperatures we use.

can someone check my math in post #16?

MS, My trusty old calculator came up with 4.194516 PPPPG(Points Per Pound Per Gallon) at 79.2% Where did the .87 Pounds/14 ounces of Grain Come from?? It appears you added 0.92 pounds to the 10.5.

So, let's just say that someone got a 1.052 OG, would the .87 pounds extra grain raise the batch to a 1.056?

Sent from my XT1053 using Tapatalk

That would be 10.5 + 0.87 is 11.37 pounds of grain, where did the 11.42 pounds come from?

I removed all settings in Section X.

Sent from my XT1053 using Tapatalk

Just had a look at your BIABacus. You have 6.6G in for your mash volume, but that was your SWN as you mentioned above.

I edited the file based on your information given. Desired VIF was dropped to 15.7L (sec. B) to get the 6.6G SWN that was used, and overrided kettle efficiency to 71.1% to match the grains on both sides of section C.

I kept your evap rate settings the same, but deleted the other corrections in section X. Now, the VIB and VFO numbers match what you got as well.

With all of this, your VIF is estimated to be 4.15G @ 1.055 ... and you measured 4.5G @1.052.

55.0*4.15= 228.25 (target sugar points)
52.0*4.50= 234.00 (your wort in sugar points)

234/4.15= 56.38 (1.05638 = what your beer would be at the correct estimated BIABacus volume)

I'll definitely need to be double checked on this, hopefully I'm following all of this correctly.

FWIW, my GIB almost always measures lower than target (even when I nail every other number). Pre-boil ... you really have to stir the crap out of it to get anything close to an accurate reading. This worried me at one point as a beginner, but now that I'm fairly experienced I rarely even measure it to save myself a few minutes of vigorous stirring.

edit: you will have to go through all of this and decide on which measurements you feel very confident with. I'm assuming everything laid out is what actually happened. Did you physically measure KFL and VIF , or simply use logic based on some other measurements taken (which could have been off)? Note that it's always best to measure sugar points from VFO/VAW, but I'm uncertain it was an accurate reading ... so really this is me playing Devil's Advocate.

Correction: You used 6.6G TWN(post #8), and heated to strike temp ... which is now a 6.73G volume (SWN). Change my file from 15.7L to 16.06 in section B, and then to 72.7 % in Section X for kettle efficiency.

New calculation: 234/4.24= 55.18 or 1.05518

So really, you could have a potential 1/4 gallon volume measurement error with nearly 73% kettle efficiency .. which was your target to begin with. I guess this is the point I am trying to make.

How are you measuring volume, and are you doing so at the center of the kettle (not the side wall)? I know the DIY etching is a thing now, and many brewers don't realize that the kettle needs to be level for it to be accurate. Just throwing that out there, and maybe we should add that to the list of reasons for low efficiency that Pat linked us earlier.

MODNOTE: Have copied last sentence above back to original thread.

Hi Glowing Apple,

Here are my thoughts...

Efficiency:
I normally get in the 80% range, I think, but it ranges depending on the batch. Plus or minus... Have had as high as 90 (not sure how,,,). My recommendation is use the BIAB process and try to be as consistent as possible. And document it well.

Metric in BIABacus:
I do a quick mental guesstimate conversion and get it close then adjust by decimal point additions / subtractions to get it closer. Calculating it exact from the start pobably great too but his works pretty well and is quick for me.

Just going back up the page a bit...

[center]Agitating the Mash[/center]

To stir the mash without twisting the bag, use a paint stirrer or potato masher type padel. This used in an up and down motion surpasses all other types of paddles. (Historical note: I believe it was yours truly who brought this idea to the breaking world way back in 2006. You'll even see a pic of it in the first BIAB guide I wrote! I've never mentioned that before but it is truly one of my favourite ideas.) See here and here for steel ones and here for my original one I still use today.

It's very easy to maintain the heat during the mash by adding heat whilst stirring assuming you haven't covered your kettle etc in rubber or anything!

"Efficiecny" (Kettle and Fermentor Efficiency) is a Variable

GA, the statement, "Is 79.2% a typical efficiency for BIAB?" is incorrect in two ways although you would have seen similiar statements all over the net. Firstly, there are two main types of efficiency, kettle and fermentor. You must state clearly what one you mean before sense can be made of anything. (You'll see that rule was forgotten above in several posts. The guys were probably drunk ). Efficiency into Fermentor is a very poor cousin to Kettle Efficiency...

Click here to understand the two types of efficiency

Both efficiencies are variables; they are not constants. For example, if you brew a beer that has an original gravity of 1.080, you are going to get a much lower percentage of sugars out of the grain; your kettle efficiency, and therefore, fermentor efficiency will be much lower than brewing say a 1.045 beer. The reason that you read everywhere else things like, "I always get such and such efficiency on every brew," is for many reasons. One main reason though is because...

No other software besides the BIABacus is able to handle kettle efficiency or fermentor efficiency as a variable. It doesn't matter whether you type in 1.080 or 1.045 into other software, it will just tell you that you will get the kettle or fermenter efficiency that you have set it to. With the BIABacus though, it looks at what you are brewing and many other factors and then gives a very good estimation of what your actual efficiencies will be. (On some brews you should get 90% kettle efficiency and in other massive beers it can get down to say 55%.)

[center]Metric versus US Inputs[/center]

There's no way, even with unprotecting the BIABacus (you can do that by simply opening it in LibreOffice and then saving it as an .ool, which, btw, you shouldn't do because you can then never get it back to a properly working .xls and you'll for certain, make errors), that you can change it to US inputs as the spreadsheet is massively complex. On all the major cells to get US appearing on the right beside metric, it will often be passing through masses of other cells. There are heaps and heaps of hidden cells in The BIABacus and some parts it takes even myself a few hours to remember how certain sections work. Read this post and the one after for more info on why The BIABacus has to currently be like this and another way you can use some bits with US numbers. (Btw, there is the converter on the second sheet of The BIABacus as well don't forget.)

[center]BIABAcus and Other Software[/center]

Finally, you mentioned about tweaking BeerSmith to match the BIABacus. Not only does the BIABacus auto-estimate your kettle and fermentor efficiencies, it also auto-estimates a lot of other things by looking at lots of factors; it is dynamic. All other programs are static. For example, "efficiency," which is hardly ever defined as kettle or fermentor, is whatever you tell it to be. Trub losses are whatever you tell it to be. Evaporation is whatever you tell it to be and so on. It takes ages to match a recipe in The BIABacus and BeerSmith because of the differences in this "horsepower". (The fact that there are terminology problems and actual incorrect calculations thrown into the mix don't make things any easier!)

The hardest things anyone finds, who has used other software instead of using The BIABacus from the start, is firstly, realising just how much of a "disease" poor terminology is in the home brewing world. Secondly, this site is the only site that was game enough to take on the incredible labour of producing clear brewing terminology and dynamic versus static brewing software. Static brewing software formulas can be written into a spreadsheet in an 8 hour day (probably 4), because it is basically just adding numbers. The true dynamic nature of brewing and The BIABacus relies on hundreds of multi-layered if/when formulas etc, etc. This complexity, hidden underneath the spreadsheet, results in a very simple and educational tool. You hardly have to know a thing to start using The BIABacus, even though it is so powerful, and can handle a myriad of different brewing circumstances.

Is that enough?
PP

Pat, you are correct. My response on efficiency didn't have appropriate detail. And unfortunately not drunk, rather absolutely exhausted from a long day (and week), looked at the website briefly before going to sleep for a diversion, and thought I could give some input to Glowing Apple.

EIB - Efficiency Into Boil (my assumption is this is what he was looking for). My BIAB batches 6-12 had the following EIB #s: 94, 88, 77, 82, 88, and 91. Pulled the #s off email to LHBS "expert" who claimed BIAB could not possibly have as good of efficiencies as traditional 3V brewing does. When he and I talked, came to the conclusion that what he thinks of as "efficiency" is what we would say is "efficiency into boil".

Glowing Apple - if you remember that there are just under 4 liters in a gallon and are decent at math, should be quick to play with the #s to get it to match. Having it calculate both ways would be cool for us from USA, but an exercise in frustration for whomever is setting up the formulas in Excel. I get it to work pretty well the way I describe.