32 replies to this topic

[MyaCullen]

Can anyone tell me if there is a link to update the database in Promash to the 2008 BJCP standards?Last year I manually edited the whole thing for myself, but I have had to reinstall Promash and lost everything but my recipes.edit my typing skills are not good.

Edited by mikeinspokane, 05 April 2009 - 11:41 AM.

[Wolfgang]

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.

[MyaCullen]

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.

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 ?

[Stout_fan]

IIRC The numbers didn't change for 2008. Just some of the wording and reference beers.So the 2006 update should work OK.

[MtnBrewer]

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.

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.

[Sidney Porter]

IIRC The numbers didn't change for 2008. Just some of the wording and reference beers.So the 2006 update should work OK.

I think the numbers changed in some of the Belgian Cats. I think they dried them out.

[denny]

I think the numbers changed in some of the Belgian Cats. I think they dried them out.

Yeah, but since Promash wisely avoids FG predictions, it shouldn't matter/

[Wolfgang]

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.

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.

[tag]

The 2008 guidelines were just a little clean-up of the 2006. Here is a synopsis of the changes: https://www.bjcp.org...008_Changes.pdf

[chuck_d]

Yeah, but since Promash wisely avoids FG predictions, it shouldn't matter/

I'm of the opinion that this is a deficiency, not a benefit. Like Stephen Holle writes,

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.

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.

[MtnBrewer]

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.

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.

[Sidney Porter]

FG should be an input to the brewing process, not an output.

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.

[MtnBrewer]

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.

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.

I have pretty good idea based upon grain bill and mash temp how much attenuation I should expect.

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.

[MyaCullen]

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.

[MtnBrewer]

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.

If you want to send it to me, I'll host it for everybody.

[LBG Bill]

in as helpful a way as possible:back upback upback upthen email a copy to yourself

[chuck_d]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[MyaCullen]

Promash does provide FG estimates in the Brewing Session section.

[MtnBrewer]

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 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.

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.

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.

[Sidney Porter]

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.

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 = 163