BrewCipher 3.5

Discussion in 'Homebrewing' started by VikeMan, Dec 26, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Page 3 of 3
  1. VikeMan

    VikeMan Grand Pooh-Bah (3,067) Jul 12, 2009 Pennsylvania
    Pooh-Bah

    I missed that. I'd say your idea is about right then.
     
    #41 VikeMan, May 2, 2015
  2. AlCaponeJunior

    AlCaponeJunior Grand Pooh-Bah (3,452) May 21, 2010 Texas
    Society Pooh-Bah

    If there's one thing I can appreciate, it's someone whose extreme obsession with spreadsheets and mathematical/scientific dorkiness is as high as Vikeman's. It takes dedication. I shall thoroughly enjoy this version as I have the last couple versions. Ironically, I haven't actually used any of them to brew a beer, because I'm extremely lazy and I already had beersmith II dialed in perfectly for my system. I just like to check out all the stuff you did with the spreadsheet, because a good spreadsheet is truly a work of art. :rolling_eyes:
     
    #42 AlCaponeJunior, May 2, 2015
  3. DVoors

    DVoors Zealot (627) Jan 6, 2014 Indiana

    @VikeMan
    I just downloaded your brewcipher spreadsheet this past week and just used it yesterday for my first all grain beer. The program is amazing! I hit all my numbers on the dot. Thanks so much for taking the time to put this together and sharing your work for free!
     
    #43 DVoors, May 3, 2015
    FeDUBBELFIST and ChrisMyhre like this.
  4. DVoors

    DVoors Zealot (627) Jan 6, 2014 Indiana

    @VikeMan
    I don't currently have any way to oxegenate my wort (other than shaking my carboy), and i also don't have equipment to make a starter at this point. Is there any way to modify the calculations (attenuation) in BrewCipher for these two factors? It seems like both of these would likely reduce my attenuation and increase my FG, but I can't figure out how to make brewcipher reflect this in the brewhouse or recipe sections. Thanks in advance for any suggestions you might have.
     
    #44 DVoors, May 11, 2015
  5. VikeMan

    VikeMan Grand Pooh-Bah (3,067) Jul 12, 2009 Pennsylvania
    Pooh-Bah

    Regarding Oxygenation: I wouldn't change the attenuation model to reflect a shaken O2 (or otherwise under-oxygenated) option, because there's no data that I know of to show that it always affects attenuation in some reliably predictable way. However, there is an Attenuation Power Factor on the Brewhouse tab. If you find that across several batches/recipes, your attenuation is consistently lower (or consistently higher), due to oxygenation method (or due to anything), you can tweak the factor so that the predicted results match (on average) your actual results more closely. The reason for the Attenuation Power Factor is to cover any un-modeled/un-modelable factors that may be unique to (and consistent within) your brewhouse. The nice thing about this brewhouse catch-all factor is that you don't necessarily have to know why your results are consistently higher or lower, just that they are.

    Regarding No Starters: When you say you don't have equipment... do you have a growler? A milk jug? That aside, if you're asking how to determine how many packs/vials of yeast you need without a starter, I can add that to a future version. In the meantime, you can change the number in the Yeast Vials/Packs # cell on the recipe tab until the Yeast Starter recommendation says "No Starter Needed." If you're asking "How will not making a starter affect attenuation?" see the answer about oxygenation above. Same situation and solution.
     
    #45 VikeMan, May 11, 2015
  6. DVoors

    DVoors Zealot (627) Jan 6, 2014 Indiana

    @VikeMan
    Thanks for the thoughts and suggestions. That makes perfect sense. Great idea on using the attenuation power factor to adjust for attenuation issues. I must have overlooked that initially.
    One other quick question. Where did you find the average attenuation data for the yeast strains. I noticed that WLP002 (for example) has an attenuation of 76% in brewcipher, but WLP's website states avg attenuation of 63-70%. Are your numbers based on your own experience or are these numbers theoretical values based on maximum fermentability for each strain under perfect conditions (oxygenation, pitching rate, nutrients, etc.)? Thanks.
     
    #46 DVoors, May 12, 2015
  7. VikeMan

    VikeMan Grand Pooh-Bah (3,067) Jul 12, 2009 Pennsylvania
    Pooh-Bah

    The yeast factors (from the YEASTLOOKUP tab) were derived from Greg Doss' work. They are not average attenuation percentages. They are factors, and are only meaningful in comparison to each other (and to a reference avg value), not as attenuation percentages in and of themselves. The yeast factors were derived from Greg Doss' work.

    There are footnotes on the tab (and in the user's guide IIRC) explaining that. If you add a yeast strain to BrewCipher, copy the factor from a strain with similar attenuation, not necessarily anything from the strain's published range. (That advice is also in the footnotes/guide).
     
    #47 VikeMan, May 12, 2015
    ChrisMyhre likes this.
  8. CurtFromHershey

    CurtFromHershey Initiate (0) Oct 4, 2012 Minnesota

    The percent listed on the yeastlookup tab shouldn't be read as AA%. It's a number relative to other yeast strains. The grist, mash temp, and mash length are also taken into account for the predicted attenuation

    edit: beaten to the punch
     
    #48 CurtFromHershey, May 12, 2015
Page 3 of 3
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.