Edited by mikeinspokane, 05 April 2009 - 11:41 AM.
2008 BJCP Guidelines and Promash
#1
Posted 05 April 2009 - 11:40 AM
#2
Posted 05 April 2009 - 02:25 PM
#3
Posted 05 April 2009 - 03:34 PM
yeah I know about the lack of updates, I am attached to it though.doo any othe members here who may have also updated the guidlines have a copy of the .bsim file ?I used the free Promash for a while. Then when I was ready to purchase, I heard the updates are "few and far between". So, I tryed the intro. version of Beer Smith and ended up buying it. No regrets.
#4
Posted 06 April 2009 - 04:32 AM
#5
Posted 06 April 2009 - 08:12 AM
Please, this a thread about getting the new BJCP guidelines into ProMash. I'm glad that you like Beer Smith but that really isn't helpful.I used the free Promash for a while. Then when I was ready to purchase, I heard the updates are "few and far between". So, I tryed the intro. version of Beer Smith and ended up buying it. No regrets.
#6
Posted 06 April 2009 - 08:45 AM
I think the numbers changed in some of the Belgian Cats. I think they dried them out.IIRC The numbers didn't change for 2008. Just some of the wording and reference beers.So the 2006 update should work OK.
#7
Posted 06 April 2009 - 09:43 AM
Yeah, but since Promash wisely avoids FG predictions, it shouldn't matter/I think the numbers changed in some of the Belgian Cats. I think they dried them out.
#8
Posted 06 April 2009 - 10:02 AM
Ah, I might be wrong, but wouldn't updates include the new BJCP guidelines? I'm not trying to promote Beer Smith. Just gave my experience.I guess in trying to be helpful, I was unhelpful. Not my goal.Please, this a thread about getting the new BJCP guidelines into ProMash. I'm glad that you like Beer Smith but that really isn't helpful.
#9
Posted 06 April 2009 - 01:16 PM
#10
Posted 07 April 2009 - 10:59 AM
I'm of the opinion that this is a deficiency, not a benefit. Like Stephen Holle writes,Yeah, but since Promash wisely avoids FG predictions, it shouldn't matter/
Of course he's talking about color predictions, which it seems most pro-brewers may not even do, but I believe the point-of-view applies to FG as well. It may be imprecise, but at least it ballparks you. For instance, in my spreadsheet I average the high & low of state attentuation and use that to calculate FG. I know it's not telling me my exact FG, but it usually gives me some idea of where I will be.It is the premise of this book (A Handbook of Basic Brewing Calculations) that imprecise control is better than no control, and if the brewer does not have the time or resources to perform pilot batches or laboratory methods to measure and confirm color standards, then some method of prediction is helpful, even if there are shortcomings.
#11
Posted 07 April 2009 - 12:35 PM
But if the user isn't aware that the FG prediction is nothing more than a wild-ass guess, he might be led to believe that there is some accuracy to the prediction. Many users of brewing software packages still believe that they can calculate IBUs. FG should be an input to the brewing process, not an output.I'm of the opinion that this is a deficiency, not a benefit. Like Stephen Holle writes, Of course he's talking about color predictions, which it seems most pro-brewers may not even do, but I believe the point-of-view applies to FG as well. It may be imprecise, but at least it ballparks you. For instance, in my spreadsheet I average the high & low of state attentuation and use that to calculate FG. I know it's not telling me my exact FG, but it usually gives me some idea of where I will be.
#12
Posted 07 April 2009 - 12:41 PM
not that this should be a my software is better than yours thread. I like how strangebrew does it you input the percentage and it will calculate. I have pretty good idea based upon grain bill and mash temp how much attenuation I should expect.FG should be an input to the brewing process, not an output.
#13
Posted 07 April 2009 - 12:47 PM
Calculate what? FG from attenuation? Heck I don't need brewing software to do that for me; any calculator will do it. The problem is that it's garbage in/garbage out. The brewing software doesn't have any idea what the attenuation should be other than the range published by the yeast manufacturer.not that this should be a my software is better than yours thread. I like how strangebrew does it you input the percentage and it will calculate.
And that's the real bottom line. You need a good bit of experience to predict your FG or better yet, design a particular recipe to achieve a given FG.I have pretty good idea based upon grain bill and mash temp how much attenuation I should expect.
#14
Posted 07 April 2009 - 05:00 PM
#15
Posted 07 April 2009 - 05:03 PM
If you want to send it to me, I'll host it for everybody.well I manually went through and updated what #'s had changed. What a pain albeit slight and reallly not necessary. Some things that did change from the default guide in Promash wer a drop in the OG on several of the bigger styles, and the high end SRM on all the stouts was capped at 40.
#16
Posted 07 April 2009 - 05:14 PM
#17
Posted 08 April 2009 - 06:41 PM
It should be documented as well as possible, but I don't think the fact that there are uneducated brewers out there is a reason to deny yourself a tool. Part of a good tool is good documentation, so I suppose you could judge the quality of a product if they provide insight into how those calculations are made.But if the user isn't aware that the FG prediction is nothing more than a wild-ass guess, he might be led to believe that there is some accuracy to the prediction. Many users of brewing software packages still believe that they can calculate IBUs. FG should be an input to the brewing process, not an output.
Yup, experience will tell you how to use your tools to create what you want. And learning how those equations work in brewing software allows you to tweak it to your system. You can make the FG predictions useful to you. I thought the whole point of brewing software was so I didn't have to pull out a calculator, at least that's part of what I tried to do with the design of my spreadsheet.Calculate what? FG from attenuation? Heck I don't need brewing software to do that for me; any calculator will do it. The problem is that it's garbage in/garbage out. The brewing software doesn't have any idea what the attenuation should be other than the range published by the yeast manufacturer.And that's the real bottom line. You need a good bit of experience to predict your FG or better yet, design a particular recipe to achieve a given FG.
#18
Posted 08 April 2009 - 06:47 PM
#19
Posted 09 April 2009 - 08:01 AM
I don't know that I'd call (OG-FG)/OG a tool and nobody's trying to deny it to anybody. It's just that it's not very useful.It should be documented as well as possible, but I don't think the fact that there are uneducated brewers out there is a reason to deny yourself a tool. Part of a good tool is good documentation, so I suppose you could judge the quality of a product if they provide insight into how those calculations are made.
I suppose but I think the real power of brewing software is making calculations that I don't know how to make. Such as what temperature my strike water should be. But it's a moot point anyway.Yup, experience will tell you how to use your tools to create what you want. And learning how those equations work in brewing software allows you to tweak it to your system. You can make the FG predictions useful to you. I thought the whole point of brewing software was so I didn't have to pull out a calculator, at least that's part of what I tried to do with the design of my spreadsheet.
#20
Posted 09 April 2009 - 06:26 PM
I think this would work, with the .05 being a constant. This assumes 0 thermal loss to the tun. I didn't compare it to any software so it might be off but looks right. I will probably stick to software. ((lb grainx.05)* (grain temp)) +(gallons of water x strike temp) = (gallons of water+(lb grainx.05)* (mash temp)))So say you want 153 mash, 30lbs of grain with 11 gallons of mash water. Grains at 75 degrees30x.05 = 1.51.5 x75 = 112.5112.5 + (11xstrike temp) = (11+1.5)*153112.5 + (11xstrike temp) = 1912.511xstrike temp = 18001800/11 = 163I suppose but I think the real power of brewing software is making calculations that I don't know how to make. Such as what temperature my strike water should be. But it's a moot point anyway.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users