Gpupu - not sure what stage of the brewing process you are at and hop additions...sounds like all done? This could screw up the effect of your hops (finishing hops, etc.) - but could you extend the boil for more evaporation / higher OG? If in your situation I might consider this to get a higher OG. I did this on one batch I was low on for 20-30 min extra. Figured it gave me a few extra points of OG. Just an idea...

Toca - The BIABacus doesn't account for wort fermentability, that area is just too vague to even calculate IMHO.

When you add more sugar have you noticed your grain amounts are getting less though?
It is trying to keep your OG as stated in section C, and therefore, ABV will not increase (I presume you already know this but just thought I would mention it).

If you think your wort fermentability is going to be different from default, you will have to alter the attenuation setting in section H to a higher percentage.
Bear in mind though that this is just a guide. Your wort & yeast will end up at what it is regardless of these settings.

Hojt, You can Download "BIABACUS" at http://www.biabrewer.info/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1869

and get "The BIABacus - Help" at http://biabrewer.info/viewtopic.php?f=55&t=1863

This will be the newest, and best Version so far.

I am not sure about the Google Sheets, as I use LibreOffice 4.3.

The Formulas from PR1.3K may not be the same as PR1.3T.

Some users have changed the Formulas and that damages many sections of the Spreadsheet,
so it is best leave the Formulas as they are.

Google Sheets does not handle the BIABacus. Even though there are no macros in it, there are nests and nests of "if/then" statements which are beyond Google Sheets capabilities. Grab yourself a copy of LibreOffice is the best thing to do. Also....

If using LibreOffice, always save the file as .xls, never as an.ods as it buggers up all the cell protection and can lead to a compromised file.

The GAW is the gravity of the cooled Wort.

Adding make-up water, will dilute the GAW. BIABACUS will adjust the the "estimated" VAW, if you entered the Water addition in Section 'W'.

FWIW,

Toca, your Numbers appear to be Very Good, Nearly exact to BIABACUS projections.

Well Done

99.57% is well within the accuracy we can achieve in our kitchen/garage Toca.

To put it another way; If we take your VAW & GAW as being perfectly correct.
To get 100% match you would have to measure your gravity to 1.0572 or volume to 16.37L.

I don't see a problem here.

EAW is only one set of measures, the post boil.

Sent from my XT1053 using Tapatalk

Here is some reading. There is plenty of info on the internet.

http://braukaiser.com/wiki/index.php?ti ... Efficiency

And the BIABacus has lots of intertwined calcs.

http://biabrewer.info/viewtopic.php?f=43&t=3102#p51165

I just trust the BIABacus calcs.

Toga: Is everything a bit clearer to you now? If not, I wrote some stuff on efficiency a couple of days ago here.

dom: Great question . There's two ways the BIABacus can "guess" how many sugars are available in your grain. Let me explain why I am using the word "guess" as this applies to all software.

[center]Working out how much "sugar" is available in a recipe"[/center]
The home brewer actually has no way of knowing the real amount of "sugars" in his/her malt bill.

The amount of "sugars" available from a malt differ from year to year and even from malting to another. The maltster issues a grain specification sheet for each malting but most home brewers will find it hard or impossible to obtain a grain specification sheet for even the base malts they purchase. Even if you were able to obtain grain specification sheets for all the malts you bought for your batch, you still wouldn't know the moisture content at time of brewing unless you own a moisture meter so your prediction could, straight away, easily be at least a few percent out.

The first thing to recognise is that it is a bit of a myth that home brewers can know the amount of "sugar" available in a brew.

How other software gets around this - ambiguity etc.

Most software avoids the brewer thinking about the above by providing a generic value of a malts "sugar" value. It's very hard to find agreement on these values from one bit of software to another and where there is agreement, it is pretty obvious that one bit of software has copied directly from an older one. Another way that the software can get around it is to use very loose terminology or undefined terminology. For example, "Yield", is the term used in the most widely used software out there but that term is undefined and meaningless. In that software, when you change the moisture content of a malt it makes absolutely no change to the estimates. This is, without question, a critical and basic error.

How the BIABacus deals with this - Advanced Method

If you did have a Grain Specification Sheet and did know the moisture content of the malt, then The BIABacus is the only software (I've given up on checking up on other software) that enables you to enter that information properly and unambiguously via Section Y. As a user though, I would only ever consider using Section Y if my recipe had some ingredient in it that was out of the ordinary for an all-grain recipe such as malt extract or raw sugar because...

How the BIABacus deals with this - Default Method

What we did in the early days was run a lot of recipes through other software until we came up with an average "sugar prediction" for an average recipe. We then used this default in "The Calculator" (the pre-cursor to The BIABacus). Over the years, we have repeated this exercise many times against other software and found that, on all-grain recipes, there was very little variance. Since The BIABacus, we have been able to test further by seeing what differences there were on a recipe if we overrode our default by using Section Y. The difference on all-grain recipes was totally insignificant. (Try it yourself!)

[center]Conclusion[/center]
Just stick with The BIABacus defaults unless your recipe has some very sugary ingredients in it or if you know that your particular base grain is known widely as being a bit dodgy, or particulary "out of spec" for that type of malt.


PP

Yep .

As mentioned above, if you can get access to some clear specs, test out some all-grain recipes using both Section Y and the default and you'll see the default works very nicely.

Don't use specs from other software as they are ambiguous. Instead, go directly to a malster's site such as Briess where the individual average or current malt specifications are clear and can be easily copied into The BIABacus.

From memory, I think to date I've never got more than a two percent difference in all-grain recipes but I tink this was when comparing them to BeerSmith where I had to assume that Yield meant a certain thing. Be interesting to see a few BIABAcus recipes posted here with just the default and then using Briess numbers in Section Y. I'm sure I would have done that but really can't remember.


PP

P.S. Maybe try some of the Briess recipes out?