Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Big Monk

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 17
1
Equipment and Software / Re: Improved Refractometer Correction calculator
« on: February 18, 2018, 01:10:32 AM »
Hydrometer: 1.012.  Refractometer WRIf: 6.  OG: 12.4°P.  Correction factor: 0.97. New Cubic wins again: sg1.0119.

I find new Cubic to be the most accurate for me. I typically have Attenuation in the upper 80s and new Cubic seems to favor high Attenuation. New linear seems to work well for Attenuation in the low 80s.

Checking back through my numbers, Novotny would overshoot on every batch.
Derek, it's looking pretty clear to me that new cubic is most accurate for FG.  But do you have any insight yet into whether Novotný is closer on partially fermented beer, or is that jury still out?

Honestly I don’t. I have to question whether there is even any utility in knowing mid fermentation gravity. When we spund, we are typically doing it with 4 points or so remaining and that’s close enough to final gravity that Terrill’s equation are bang on for me and most of the rest of the LOB crowd.

Maybe I’m being a bit short sighted? Is there a reason why we would even care about mid fermantion gravity? If not, then that gets rid of one of the major selling points for the Novotny equations. Add that to the fact that, for my beers at least, it’s wildly innacurate (estimated a correlation far lower than actual).

I do plan on entering data into my modified sheet over the next 10 batches or so and seeing how it turns out.

I check mid fermentation because, fermenting lagers with 34/70, I let the temperature start to free rise at about 50% apparent attenuation.  But honestly, I don't use a gravity reading as my cue.  With countless batches behind me, I know by the number of hours from pitching when to cut attemperation.  But I do take a sample and check gravity just because if it were much higher or lower than expected at that point in time, that would indicate a problem with yeast, and I wouldn't repitch.  But for that purpose I can easily live with an error of +/- 0.5°P.  Or a bit more.

The good thing is, if you track across a number of batches at different points and check with a hydrometer, you will then have a data set that are let’s you tell yourself which correlation works for which stage in fermentation.

2
Equipment and Software / Re: Improved Refractometer Correction calculator
« on: February 18, 2018, 12:51:03 AM »
Hydrometer: 1.012.  Refractometer WRIf: 6.  OG: 12.4°P.  Correction factor: 0.97. New Cubic wins again: sg1.0119.

I find new Cubic to be the most accurate for me. I typically have Attenuation in the upper 80s and new Cubic seems to favor high Attenuation. New linear seems to work well for Attenuation in the low 80s.

Checking back through my numbers, Novotny would overshoot on every batch.
Derek, it's looking pretty clear to me that new cubic is most accurate for FG.  But do you have any insight yet into whether Novotný is closer on partially fermented beer, or is that jury still out?

Honestly I don’t. I have to question whether there is even any utility in knowing mid fermentation gravity. When we spund, we are typically doing it with 4 points or so remaining and that’s close enough to final gravity that Terrill’s equation are bang on for me and most of the rest of the LOB crowd.

Maybe I’m being a bit short sighted? Is there a reason why we would even care about mid fermantion gravity? If not, then that gets rid of one of the major selling points for the Novotny equations. Add that to the fact that, for my beers at least, it’s wildly innacurate (estimated a correlation far lower than actual).

I do plan on entering data into my modified sheet over the next 10 batches or so and seeing how it turns out.

3
Equipment and Software / Re: Improved Refractometer Correction calculator
« on: February 18, 2018, 12:43:23 AM »
Which Terrill would also be known as "linear"? That's what the Refractometer Calc app uses... Which I use too

My typical attenuation is 75-80%

If you download Sean’s excel sheet, he has them labeled. It’s essentially the Cubic equation with the squared and cubed terms left off.

4
Equipment and Software / Re: Improved Refractometer Correction calculator
« on: February 17, 2018, 11:08:22 PM »
Hydrometer: 1.012.  Refractometer WRIf: 6.  OG: 12.4°P.  Correction factor: 0.97. New Cubic wins again: sg1.0119.

I find new Cubic to be the most accurate for me. I typically have Attenuation in the upper 80s and new Cubic seems to favor high Attenuation. New linear seems to work well for Attenuation in the low 80s.

Checking back through my numbers, Novotny would overshoot on every batch.

5
Yeast and Fermentation / Re: Dry yeast cell count..
« on: February 17, 2018, 06:23:56 PM »
Which is the speculation..I guess I need to do it then?

I don't understand...if they've done it, why do it again?

This is the age old (in homebrew Times) argument though. Manufacturers underestimate somewhat  and calculators way overestimate.

I think the answer is in the 10-14B/g range somewhere.

6
General Homebrew Discussion / Re: Making a Yeast Starter From 2-row
« on: February 16, 2018, 01:37:10 PM »
What about my water profile? No hops though? Minimum on everything?

I would do a mini-mash, no salts, get the pH in line and just do a beta rest for 30 minutes. Boil it briefly and add yeast nutrient then cool and pitch the starter yeast.

7
General Homebrew Discussion / Re: Making a Yeast Starter From 2-row
« on: February 16, 2018, 12:11:51 PM »
I can't find any DME in my city, so I am thinking on making a yeast starter from 2-row. Can I use well water and don't worry about my PH? I don't have a PH meter. Or do what I do when I make beer, Bru'n Water, RO water with brewing salts.

If it were me, I'd make a small batch of beer basically.

You could certainly wing it, but think about the fact that DME is previously prepared wort. You want those yeasties in tip-top for the wild ride they'll be going on and a lovingly prepared wort is a great start.

8
All Grain Brewing / Re: Switching to all grain: krausen and head issues
« on: February 15, 2018, 07:14:14 PM »
Hello,
I am new to this forum, and I was hoping to get feedback regarding an issue I currently have.
I brew mainly belgian beers, and have done many (50+) extracts recipe with a lot of success.
I recently switched to all grain brewing, got a 2 roller mill, and currently do BIAB in a 5.5 gal pot (2.5 gal batch).
I have done about 6 batches with this new All-grain setup (Kwak, Triple Karmeliet, La Chouffe, Orval...), got a consistent efficiency of around 75% (not sure if it's bad or not?) but I always have the same problem: no Krausen formation while the airlock bubbles nicely, and a weak head on the beer at the time of serving.
Similar recipes that I was doing with extract always required a blow off so I'm wondering what is happening.
Fyi, I am always doing yeast starters (I use Beersmith), I have also gotten an airstone recently to aerate my wort better (I thought it could be the problem but no). I also cool down my wort to 25-30C before pitching.
Only thing I can think of, is that when I was doing extract, about half of my water was coming from spring water bottles, while now, 100% of  comes from my filtered tap water. Not sure if that could be the issue as I am not a specialist regarding how to test my water and what to look for in it (I live in Miami if that can help regarding the tap water quality).
Also most of my recipes have Belgian pilsen as a base, and I usually do a full body BIAB mash at 69C for 1h-1h30.
If you have any suggestions on what I can try next to troubleshoot my process, I would really appreciate it.
Thanks a lot for everything.

The single infusion mash temperature looks a little high. How is your attenuation?

9
Equipment and Software / Re: Improved Refractometer Correction calculator
« on: February 15, 2018, 05:08:13 PM »
Thanks, Big Monk, I'm looking at that right now.

I just PM'd you my sheet that I modified. It is expanded to include the Novotny equations as well and reworks some of the Attenuation and Alcohol calcs as well to more accurate versions.

10
Equipment and Software / Re: Improved Refractometer Correction calculator
« on: February 15, 2018, 05:03:22 PM »
^^^^^

Just took a sample of a fully fermented beer. Hydrometer: 1.012. Terill: 1.010. Novotný: 1.008.  Maybe I'll use refractometer on brew day, but maybe neither correction is really accurate on fermenting/fermented beer.  Look forward to more data.

Are you very confident in your correction factor?  Did you check calibration of both the hydro and refract in plain cool water before measuring?
^^^^^

Just took a sample of a fully fermented beer. Hydrometer: 1.012. Terill: 1.010. Novotný: 1.008.  Maybe I'll use refractometer on brew day, but maybe neither correction is really accurate on fermenting/fermented beer.  Look forward to more data.

Terrill New Cubic or New Linear? New cubic tracks a bit higher than New Linear.

What was the O.G.?


OG 12.7°P, whatever Terill is in th OP's calculator, yes, yes, and yes to Dave's questions.  I've had one other sample (fully fermented, different batch of same beer) give identical results.

At this point I have no problem with using a hydrometer at racking if I want a good FG.   I see no inaccuracy on wort, so the refractometer I will use to simplify brew day.  And I'll only have one reading, FG, to convert to (my preferred) Plato.

The OP calculator uses Terrill New Linear. New Cubic actually tracks closer to what you saw @ 1.0116

Thanks, that is probably within the margin-of-eyeballing-hydrometer-in-carbonated-beer error;  what calculator uses that new cubic?

Sean Terrill's Excel sheet uses it.

11
Equipment and Software / Re: Improved Refractometer Correction calculator
« on: February 15, 2018, 04:55:02 PM »
^^^^^

Just took a sample of a fully fermented beer. Hydrometer: 1.012. Terill: 1.010. Novotný: 1.008.  Maybe I'll use refractometer on brew day, but maybe neither correction is really accurate on fermenting/fermented beer.  Look forward to more data.

Are you very confident in your correction factor?  Did you check calibration of both the hydro and refract in plain cool water before measuring?
^^^^^

Just took a sample of a fully fermented beer. Hydrometer: 1.012. Terill: 1.010. Novotný: 1.008.  Maybe I'll use refractometer on brew day, but maybe neither correction is really accurate on fermenting/fermented beer.  Look forward to more data.

Terrill New Cubic or New Linear? New cubic tracks a bit higher than New Linear.

What was the O.G.?


OG 12.7°P, whatever Terill is in th OP's calculator, yes, yes, and yes to Dave's questions.  I've had one other sample (fully fermented, different batch of same beer) give identical results.

At this point I have no problem with using a hydrometer at racking if I want a good FG.   I see no inaccuracy on wort, so the refractometer I will use to simplify brew day.  And I'll only have one reading, FG, to convert to (my preferred) Plato.

The OP calculator uses Terrill New Linear. New Cubic actually tracks closer to what you saw @ 1.0116

12
Equipment and Software / Re: Improved Refractometer Correction calculator
« on: February 15, 2018, 03:25:29 PM »
^^^^^

Just took a sample of a fully fermented beer. Hydrometer: 1.012. Terill: 1.010. Novotný: 1.008.  Maybe I'll use refractometer on brew day, but maybe neither correction is really accurate on fermenting/fermented beer.  Look forward to more data.

Terrill New Cubic or New Linear? New cubic tracks a bit higher than New Linear.

What was the O.G.?

13
Yeast and Fermentation / Re: Dry yeast cell count..
« on: February 15, 2018, 03:19:23 PM »
Hi!

And hello from Finland..joined as " support " to AHA association because the site is just great..

So im using SAFLAGER S-23 11.5 G yeast for my next beer and i found from the Fermentis site, that it consist 6 * 10to9  " Viable cells at packaging: per / g " , so one  g consist 6 billion cells and 11,5g pack contain 69 billion cells,right?
My target is 1.051 and pitch calculators give me need of 300 billion for my 16l ( 4,2gal ) batch, and   recommend
 1 1/2 11,5g packs of dry yeast for the batch..
Where do i go wrong when i calculate that allmost 4 packs is needed for the batch using the Fermentis formula.??

A safe bet may be to "split the middle" so to speak and assume somewhere between 12-14B/gram of dry yeast.

20B/gram seems excessive and 6B/gram is a known conservative value.

14
General Homebrew Discussion / Re: Closed transfer
« on: February 15, 2018, 01:38:43 PM »
Iodophor: Embrace the stain

"Don't Fear the Foam" has a much nicer (and much cleaner sounding) ring to it...

15
Equipment and Software / Re: Improved Refractometer Correction calculator
« on: February 15, 2018, 12:26:03 AM »
Trusting Novotný enough that I'm doing current batch without bothering with hydrometers.  Just checked mid fermentation, and OP's calculator with Novotný shows gravity exactly where it always is at this point with this beer.

I added the novotny equations to the Terrill sheet and will be tracking from now on. I have a suspicion that the Terrill equations are more accurate at higher levels of attenuation.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 17