Well, I've had a few hiccoughs the last few months so this is my first post in quite some time. Let's hope I remember how to post!!!

Firstly cheers to @ShorePoints. He's on to everything, a true favourite of mine.
Secondly, hi there @tizoc. Good questions.
Thirdly, to me. I just had a big operation and have had to take a lot of drugs so read the following at your own risk...

Okay I've read the above posts quickly... contrary to what I've read above, I can advise that the BIABacus handles a myriad of calculations - the "spreadsheet" handles a diabolical amount of scenarios. The only constant we have been unable to write into it is bullshit. For example, if you typed, one plus one will equal three, the BIABacus will throw a return of, "Bullshit."

Now, back to you again @tizoc . [I wasn't joking about the big operation. It's taken me out of the game for the last three months and I'm not sure if I can stay in it for another three months. I also pay the bills for this site - I think it's over $40 per month so bear with me.] What I think you might be trying to do is figuring out my calculations rather than the logic behind them. The BIABacus defaults are derived from formulas/algorithms. Formulas/algorithms come from data which I have asked for and so many fantastic brewers have given me.

I have freely given those averages to some other software companies and some others have pinched them.

But the averages we have been at true pains to collect here and others copy are simply, averages. They pinch the average but they don't pinch the point....

For example, Volume Loss from Lauter is not a mysterious thing. Imagine you have two towels in front of you. One is a face washer and the other is a king size towel. Now squash each of those "towels" between your hands. In fact, wring them in your hands as hard as you can. Which towel ends up drier?

The BIABacus will give you a very good default on things like this but it goes way beyond that. For example, it will throw you some pretty cool warnings that other software simply cannot do if you throw brewing scenarios at it that won't work.

But, the BIABacus is not an app (and can't be an app atm as the maths are far too complicated) and, if something isn't an app then what use could it be???

We better ask Yuval

It is great to have PistolPatch back to correctly answer the in-depth BIABacus matters. Welcome back.

I have not been alone,trying to keep up. Scott has answered at least as many posts as I and better for some..

Anyway, PistolPatch knows how deep the spreadsheet is because he wrote it.

Thanks @ShorePoints for the welcome back. Re-reading my post above, I think I may need more time to start talking sense . And I know Scott has been doing his usual excellent work and that the old faithfuls are still posting (e.g. @mally when they haven't been hit by cyclones (e.g. @Mad_Scientist ) etc.

@tizoc , thanks for your best wishes and apologies for my post above which, on a quick re-read, has a fair bit of off-topic stuff in it. Let's see if I can do a bit better now... You were asking something like...

I noticed in the BIABacus that when I changed the Volume Loss from Lauter, it didn't change the amount of grain needed. Is this a bug?

Well, tizoc, it might be . So, firstly, congratulations to you on asking the question. That's truly impressive

I suspect it could be but I'm not going to jump straight in and say it is because my brain isn't running at full steam yet and, even when it was running at full steam, I second-guessed and quadruple-checked some of the more complex calculations many, many times only to finally remember that they were correct and why they were correct.

Excellent Thinking

I really admire, after a semi-proper read the way you are thinking tizoc. (I'm looking forward to studying Zeno's Paradox - had never heard of that!) For example, one tool I use to check calculations/assumptions is exaggeration. You mentioned above changing 'Volume Loss to Lauter settings to ridiculous values." Perfect thinking! In fact, changing 'Volume Loss from Lauter' (in a later unpublished BIABacus version, this is called 'Sweet Liquor Retained by Grain') to not even just 3/kg but to 200 or zero only changes 'Total Water Needed.'

And, at a quick glance, that seems wrong but it may not be...

Even if it is a Bug, in Reality...

I'm so pleased to read back over your question and see not only the things I've pointed out above but you also wrote phrases like, '"the more water the grain touches, the more it is "washed."' There are very , very few brewers, amateur or professional, that understand the things you have mentioned.

On a quick "thought experiment," I think that even if it is a bug, one side would balance the other out. In fact, after writing all the above, I think the BIABacus is correct and that I probably have thought this through in earlier stages. (There was an incredible amount of stuff to think through; to this day, mainstream software still has incorrect formulas, ambiguous terminology and no idea of the concepts we have talked about above.)

I may be wrong though tizoc.

If I am wrong, then the ranges we are talking about will be insignificant and "correcting" for the small error may not be as worthy an endeavour as say having the BIABacus include the amount of dry hops used when auto-estimating FPL. e.g. a massively dry-hopped beer will incur a massive 'Fermenter to Packaging Loss,' compared to a beer with no dry hops.

To Finish Up...

In an unreleased version of the BIABacus, I do have it auto-estimating FPL etc based on dry-hopping and some other variables. But, it should not be able to do that. It should throw a "circular error." [NOTE: For anyone that has followed the history of the BIABacus, we've worked on many versions. Kostas was by far the most diligent, humble and clever. After a billion Skype hours we realised that programming something like the BIABacus would take both of us 96 hours a day!

So, at the moment, the BIABacus is a spreadsheet but, the latest version I have here seems to be smarter than those who wrote it. It should not be able to auto-estimate some figures it is doing so I won't be releasing it until I understand it. I do personally use the un-released version and love it but am scared to death there is some error in it.

Anyway tizoc, think this through as hard as you can. I'll also think it through several more times over the next few days. There's definitely nothing major to worry about but, being mathematically correct, or establishing where we are in error, can only help every brewer.

Cheers to you,
PP

It’s great to have you back, @PistolPatch ! Hope you recover fully soon!!!

Thanks a heap @Scott. (I owe you and some others*)

In the meantime, I have to deal with the likes of @tizoc

What tizoc describes is a definite error

I've written a PM to tizoc re this and some other stuff such as some of the complexities involved in coding the BIABacus. In that PM, I've explained how to unlock the BIABacus and examine the formulas. The error is not one that is practically significant but, personally, I found it very interesting. In my PM I attempted to share some of the reasons why this error was missed. (Tizoc, please feel free to share those reasons.) I am super-pleased that tizoc found the error!!!

I'll think more and write more on the Volume Loss from Lauter error when I can. It's definitely nothing to worry about so that's good. Can't wait to see if it explains the 'corrections' I had to make in my extreme partigyle brew
PP

*I've been working for about 17 hours straight now. A lot of that has been spent writing. Today was the first day I felt I was able to write well enough to say thanks to two organisations that have astounded me with their care. They were number two on my list of people to thank. You, Scott, are one of the number ones!!! [Please excuse this off-topic note. Back on track now I hope...]

I'm a little rusty on my biabacus, and haven't used it in a while. I believe the water absorbed by the grains is included somewhere else and the boil off evaporation is it's own cell. After a number of recorded brews you can Chang the evaporation numbers to the boil off rate of your specific equipment.

I may have misunderstood your question stefanoch, but evaporation is the loss of water during boiling of wort.
As you mention, diameter of the kettle plays a part, but also wall thickness, fuel type, kettle shape, indoors/outdoors etc.
It is fairly consistent regardless of volume in the kettle though (for your particular equipment) give or take a small percentage.

It sounds like you are getting confused between evaporation and the volume losses due to the recipe.
You should see changes in section "K" (your estimated volumes) when altering VIF, but evaporation should remain the same.
My setup typically loses 3.5L per hour as an example.

Check Mally's reply above in this thread. Keep the separate terms separated.
The mash volume includes both the grist and the water. The relative amounts can vary depending on the mix of grains, but the BIABACUS gets pretty close. True that 500 mL of liquid seems a small amount retained in the lifted bag of wet grains, but if it is left to self-drain (above the kettle or in a colander above a collecting vessel) it is not off by much. Squeezing the bag is a different question - some do, some don't, some attribute bad things to squeezing, etc.

As always on liquids your mileage may vary some. Also, grind will change the absorption rate. Always try to grind the same setting for consistancy. Boil rate will change if you use a propane burner also.
As far as "To squeeze or not to squeeze , that is the question" I personally have never had off flavors {tannins} due to squeezing the bag. I do also let it drain over a collender not the pot. Only change in flavor profile has been due to I brew outside and will pick up wild yeast due to spring and fall pollen seasons.
J

jhough wrote: ↑

6 months ago

As always on liquids your mileage may vary some. Also, grind will change the absorption rate. Always try to grind the same setting for consistancy. Boil rate will change if you use a propane burner also.
As far as "To squeeze or not to squeeze , that is the question" I personally have never had off flavors {tannins} due to squeezing the bag. I do also let it drain over a collender not the pot. Only change in flavor profile has been due to I brew outside and will pick up wild yeast due to spring and fall pollen seasons.
J

I'm with you on this.
In addition, Section W lets you set aside some mash water for a sparge of the pulled bag. There are times when my kettle is full and using Section W for 1 liter helps. Heated to ~70 ºc and poured over the spent grains in the bag in a colander (added to the warming wort or the boil later) makes grains taste more like wet cardboard - no sweetness. The volumes in Section K are always really close to what the marks on the kettle say.