[beersk]

Beersmith must still be using another formula. When I compare Bs with the formula mentioned here I get almost 1C difference... (formula gives higher result)

Beersmith's numbers are never even close to what I get on my system. It's damn near worthless, unfortunately.

[RPIScotty]

I'm not really a huge fan of BeerSmith. There is a lot of fluff in there. Personal Excel sheets are the way to go in my opinion. There is nothing in BeerSmith that a person couldn't do in Excel. The Beer Cloud or whatever they call it is not worth the price of admission.

[toby]

Beersmith's numbers are never even close to what I get on my system. It's damn near worthless, unfortunately.

Have you edited your equipment profile to your system specs?  Beersmith is nearly always within a degree of my target.

[homoeccentricus]

Beersmith's numbers are never even close to what I get on my system. It's damn near worthless, unfortunately.

Have you edited your equipment profile to your system specs?  Beersmith is nearly always within a degree of my target.

What could cause the difference? Maybe Beersmith takes into account the mash tun mass as a factor?

[AmandaK]

Beersmith's numbers are never even close to what I get on my system. It's damn near worthless, unfortunately.

Have you edited your equipment profile to your system specs?  Beersmith is nearly always within a degree of my target.

What could cause the difference? Maybe Beersmith takes into account the mash tun mass as a factor?

In order to use BeerSmith, you have to customize it to your system or it will give you tons of incorrect information. And yes, it takes into account mash tun mash as a default. That can be changed, as can nearly any other factor. Spending $21 on BeerSmith saved me from having to build yet another spreadsheet (it's the main part of my day job, which is to say that I don't want to spend more time on it).

[69franx]

After setting up my equipment profile in beersmith, the software has gotten me to within 1° of mash target almost every batch. The only time it is significantly off is if I try to preheat my tun and tell it not to adjust for equipment temp. That usually winds up with temp off by several degrees, but ymmv

[Stevie]

If you preheat, I find it's best to set the tun mass to 0.

[RPIScotty]

To loop back around to the original post:

In summary, strike water temperature calculations are theoretically obedient to the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. Since the energy inputted to the mash tun is conserved, you can estimate the point at which the heat absorbed from the water into the grain reaches equilibrium and use that as your theoretical strike water temperature. This is of course calculated using:

T_strike=((0.2/r)*(T_target-T_initial))+T_target

Empirically all you need to do is brew on your system a few times to observe any heat losses to your surroundings or mash tun and simplify the the equation to the following, where T_compensation is a value in degrees that you "overshoot":

T_strike=T_target+T_compensation

It doesn't matter whether you do it in your head, on paper, in Excel or in BeerSmith.

[HoosierBrew]

Thing is, for my equipment and process, I've learned over time that my strike temp = target mash temp +16F . No software or calculation estimates this exact differential - but it's spot on for me. Just an example of how  software/calculations might not exactly match your own experience.

[Wort-H.O.G.]

Thing is, for my equipment and process, I've learned over time that my strike temp = target mash temp +16F . No software or calculation estimates this exact differential - but it's spot on for me. Just an example of how  software/calculations might not exactly match your own experience.

precisely. and mine is +11F

[Stevie]

Thing is, for my equipment and process, I've learned over time that my strike temp = target mash temp +16F . No software or calculation estimates this exact differential - but it's spot on for me. Just an example of how  software/calculations might not exactly match your own experience.

This doesn't work for me as I keep my equipment in the garage. My tun could be anywhere from 34°-95° at mash-in. This is why I choose to pre-heat.

[RPIScotty]

Thing is, for my equipment and process, I've learned over time that my strike temp = target mash temp +16F . No software or calculation estimates this exact differential - but it's spot on for me. Just an example of how  software/calculations might not exactly match your own experience.

This doesn't work for me as I keep my equipment in the garage. My tun could be anywhere from 34°-95° at mash-in. This is why I choose to pre-heat.

I wouldn't think pre-heating and using the simplified empirical formula are mutually exclusive, i.e. I have a guide value for my T_compensation and still pre-heat my mash tun.

[HoosierBrew]

Thing is, for my equipment and process, I've learned over time that my strike temp = target mash temp +16F . No software or calculation estimates this exact differential - but it's spot on for me. Just an example of how  software/calculations might not exactly match your own experience.

This doesn't work for me as I keep my equipment in the garage. My tun could be anywhere from 34°-95° at mash-in. This is why I choose to pre-heat.

I keep mine in the garage, too. Obviously there's a lot of variance there  - I bring mine in the day before brewing and leave the lid open, to let it equalize to house temp. Since I started doing that, the + 16 (plus/minus a degree) is pretty steady for me. Lots of ways to get there, though.

[denny]

For years, I've used Promash to determine my strike temp with remarkable accuracy.  After all those years, I noticed a pattern...my SOP is to keep grain in the house until I use it and the cooler stays in the garage.  With that scenario, I can just heat my strike water 14F hotter than the mash temp I want and I'm close enough to make beer.  If I ever brewed in any other situaation, I'd have to know calcs, but as long as I do what I normally do, I can dispense with them.

[morticaixavier]

The real problem is with lack of precision in measurement. Same as when you try to use Sean's batch sparge simulator. If you don't have exact volume measurements you can't calculate true conversion efficiency.

if you had exactly accurate measurements of grain temp, water temp, tun materials characteristics and temp, water volume (probably mass actually as volume changes with temp), grain mass, etc. they theoretical equations would be spot on every time.

all of these measurements would have to take into account heat loss while transferring strike water from HLT to MT and so on as well.

This is the problem with the hyper technical approach in homebrewing, it's great if you have millions to spend on analytical equipment like an ABInbev brewery, or even a BJ's Brewpub brewery, but as homebrewers we are introducing such huge uncertainties all along the way that the empirical approach is really the only effective approach to take.

as Denny is wont to say, science is great but real world results are what matters.

Also, 1C delta seems pretty inconsequential to me. I wouldn't start worrying till about 3C.

And, homoeccentricus, I wish I had been raised with the metric system. It makes sooo much more sense than the ridiculous bodged together system that we still limp along with here in the states.