The infamous "6 Gallon Batch"

[Draconian41]

I've actually taken to set my brewing software at 6.5 gallons. I always have a tough time racking 5.5 gallons of clean wort into the fermenter. Going to 6.5 has allowed me some freedom!

[IAmRight]

To me this is a serious flaw in the BeerSmith2 program. If you adjust the trub to zero the water volumes are off as are the OG and the pre-boil SG calculations. If you leave the trub in the efficiency is off by the amount of the trub. That makes the grain bill be light by the the percentage of trub to total water. I can manipulate the batch size by the amount of the trub to get the correct OG and pre-boil SG but that throws off other need calculation. The bottom line is when I make the calculation by hand they should match BeerSmith2 and they do NOT. This is either a bug or the reasoning is flawed. I may look at another program. Now I have to either go back and forth with the batch size or calculate by hand.

I noticed the improper handling of the trub loss field on my first batch with BeerSmith. I posted to an existing bug report thread where several previous posters had already been berated for blaming BeerSmith for them not knowing how to use the software, not knowing what efficiency is, and trying to play tricks on the software.

I posted a more detailed explaination of what was happening, and again it was like I had insulted the grand poobah of a cult. There are some serious fanboys over there. I chose to fight fire with fire. The double speak and diversionary tactics they employ are impressive, but I did my best to throw it right back at them.

I resorted to not using the trub loss field also (set to 0) as a workaround, but if you are saying this messes up the calcs as well, that is even more disappointing. The way BeerSmith is architected seemed strange right from the start, and my suspicions were confirmed soon thereafter. If it gave correct numbers, I could deal with the oddities, but apparently it has issues even with simple equipment setups.

[5StarDog]

I know what you are saying. I was told I was not accounting for my losses correctly. I put together a spreadsheet and proved the calculations. Then I was told my equipment profile was not correct. That is total crap. I don't think they looked at my hand calculations.

You can force the calculations by manipulating the trub losses and batch size. It is a very convoluted approach. If you set the trub loss to zero and put those losses in the fermentation losses field the grain bill and IBU calculations are correct for a 5 gallon batch. The problem is to make it work you have to make the batch size 5 gal plus your trub loss. To me this is silly. I should be able to use the trub loss field as it was intended to be used and my batch size should be the volume in the fermenter. I should not have to manipulate my actual volumes to make the program work correctly.

They can say whatever they want. The simple fact is when you do the calculations by hand they do not match BS2. To me this is a bug plain and simple. There is a work around but that does not change the fact the program does not work as intended.

[IAmRight]

I think it all has to do with BeerSmith's choice to redefine "brewhouse eff" as 'to the fermenter' instead of 'to the kettle'.

I found that if I increased a trub loss, I had to also reduce my efficiency, since it is 'to the fermenter'. The amount to decrease eff isn't just the simple percentage of post boil loss to trub, though. Since BeerSmith factors in trub loss twice, one when it adds water for trub loss, and again when figuring mash effeciency from brewhouse eff, it is an almost unknowable amount. The amount is small, since it is usually a small percentage, but it is wrong all the same. It is even worse when trying to share recipes, since there is no way of knowing where the losses really are between two sets of equip.

When BeerSmith tries to adjust a recipe, whether importing from another user, or to a new equip profile, it is impossible to know where the losses are to account for them properly because there is a loss of information. Using only a single efficiency number that includes all losses is the cause of the loss of information. The BeerSmith designers, and the fanboys, take the stance that after a few repetitions of a recipe, you will home in on the correct numbers. I take the stance that if I make a known change to my system, or switch from the equip profile in the original recipe, I should be able to update the equip profile and have the software modify the recipe, or batch size, correctly. The first time.

If you want to see BeerSmith really get things wrong, try building a simple extract recipe on two different equip profiles- one with a larger post boil top up and trub loss than the other. The SG stays the same for both, even though more sugars are being left in the kettle. There is no 'brewhouse efficiency' for the user to guess at and enter, so there is no user for them to blame on this. It is all BeerSmith's fault. I surmise it is part of the same problem as with all grain recipes. It is just more apparent since BeerSmith can't make 'mash efficiency' 150%, and blame it on the user's equipment profile.

[atomicpunk]

As with any software program, crap in = crap out. You need to know the theory and basics behind what the program is trying to do for you so you can check the output.

I will be the first to admit the way BS does it calcs based on losses is very confusing and I really screwed up my first batch of beer when trying to account for the fact that my keggle output is high and I leave behind almost 2 gallons of wort. I now set all my losses to zero and simply scale "up" the 6 gallon recipes to 7.5 knowing I will leave behind 2 gallons (7.5-2=5.5 to fermentor as JZ intends). The extra money spent on additional grains is negligible for this homebrewer.

Keep in mind that BS is a very robust program that has features and a design that allows for the hard core brewer to go nuts with, as it should for a paid program. If the features are not for you (say you are only an 8th level nerd) then simply learn how to program without them.

[spiderwrangler]

If the features are not for you (say you are only an 8th level nerd)

BURN!

[IAmRight]

As with any software program, crap in = crap out.

You have missed the point entirely. BeerSmith has several issues with both faulty design and faulty logic. Faulty design just makes it suck to use, faulty logic gives 'correct in = crap out'.

You need to know the theory and basics behind what the program is trying to do for you so you can check the output.

The only way I found out that BeerSmith had a defect is because I know the theory. If you are so knowledgeable, why don't you also know about these defects? Additionally, the purpose of brew software is so you don't have to redo the calcs to check the software's results. That is even in the marketing tag lines for BeerSmith- "Why do the calcs yourself", and "Why buy a stack of brewing science books, we did that for you".

I will be the first to admit the way BS does it calcs based on losses is very confusing and I really screwed up my first batch of beer when trying to account for the fact that my keggle output is high and I leave behind almost 2 gallons of wort.

Not only is it confusing, it is also a PITA to deal with, and 'to the fermenter' brewhouse efficiency BeerSmith uses provides no meaningful/useful information (unless you set the 'trub loss' field to '0' (always) as has been suggested, and you repeat below).

I now set all my losses to zero and simply scale "up" the 6 gallon recipes to 7.5 knowing I will leave behind 2 gallons (7.5-2=5.5 to fermentor as JZ intends). The extra money spent on additional grains is negligible for this homebrewer.

I don't care how high/low my efficiency is, or what my costs are, I just want the software to give me correct numbers. Apparently, that is asking too much, given the grief fanboys dole out if BeerSmith is ever criticized.

Keep in mind that BS is a very robust program that has features and a design that allows for the hard core brewer to go nuts with, as it should for a paid program.

If the features actually worked, that would be great. I have found that the more of them you use, the more incorrectly the software performs. Not to mention the design flaws that result in the package being a complete cluster fork to use.

If the features are not for you (say you are only an 8th level nerd) then simply learn how to program without them.

It is obvious that you are not yet a Jedi. I can easily design features that go above what BeerSmith can do, or ever do, at least until it drops the idiotic 'to the fermenter' based efficiency it uses.

[IAmRight]

If the features are not for you (say you are only an 8th level nerd)

BURN!

I thought you had to be at least 21 to join the forum, not just in 3rd grade.