Am I doing this right? Check out my procedure.

General discussion on BeerTools Pro Software.

Am I doing this right? Check out my procedure.

Postby camelfilter » Wed Sep 26, 2007 1:19 am

Hey Guys!
I
camelfilter
Light Lager
Light Lager
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 4:37 pm

Batch sparge interface

Postby jeff » Wed Sep 26, 2007 11:02 am

Thanks for all of the detail! :shock: I will be referring to your post over the coming months as I work on improving the schedule interface.

Batch sparge has been a challenge to provide an interface for. There are so many variables that depend on each other that it is hard to find a way to allow the user to change a value while keeping the dependent values in check. As it stands, perhaps there are too many variables accessible in the interface; variables that most users would never need to edit.

The upcoming release of BTP provides inline editing of values in the ingredients list. Clicking on the quantity value highlights it for editing in place. Carrying this feature over to the schedule list would allow the user to edit the steps without opening the editor windows. This solves two problems. One, working with the schedule becomes less cumbersome and more intuitive. Two, the level of detail available in the editors remains hidden unless the user really wants to fine tune the step. I think the changes will really improve the user experience.

In the meantime, some of the volumes that may seem inconsistent likely appear that way because of the temperature at which BTP displays those volumes. I don't really remember, but I think the temperature assumed for each sparge volume is the source water temperature while the runoff volume is displayed as the final temperature of the step. This would account for the supposed discrepancy. The editor window has so much stuff crammed in it, that I ran out of room for displaying the "@ ###
Jeff
BeerTools.com Staff
User avatar
jeff
Imperial Stout
Imperial Stout
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2000 9:16 pm
Location: Hollywood, SC

Re: Batch sparge interface

Postby camelfilter » Wed Sep 26, 2007 10:08 pm

[quote="jeff"]Thanks for all of the detail! :shock: I will be referring to your post over the coming months as I work on improving the schedule interface.

Batch sparge has been a challenge to provide an interface for. There are so many variables that depend on each other that it is hard to find a way to allow the user to change a value while keeping the dependent values in check. As it stands, perhaps there are too many variables accessible in the interface; variables that most users would never need to edit.

The upcoming release of BTP provides inline editing of values in the ingredients list. Clicking on the quantity value highlights it for editing in place. Carrying this feature over to the schedule list would allow the user to edit the steps without opening the editor windows. This solves two problems. One, working with the schedule becomes less cumbersome and more intuitive. Two, the level of detail available in the editors remains hidden unless the user really wants to fine tune the step. I think the changes will really improve the user experience.

In the meantime, some of the volumes that may seem inconsistent likely appear that way because of the temperature at which BTP displays those volumes. I don't really remember, but I think the temperature assumed for each sparge volume is the source water temperature while the runoff volume is displayed as the final temperature of the step. This would account for the supposed discrepancy. The editor window has so much stuff crammed in it, that I ran out of room for displaying the "@ ###
camelfilter
Light Lager
Light Lager
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 4:37 pm

Residual Volume

Postby slothrob » Wed Sep 26, 2007 11:19 pm

Camel,

The major source of your problem is your misinterpretation of the Residual Volume field. The Residual Volume is the amount of liquid you have left in the tun after draining (and accounting for dead space). By allowing a negative value in this space, you're telling BTP that you've drained 0.12 gal more than the amount of liquid available. This would have been okay, but then you make matters worse by adding the 0.12 into your sparge and saying that there is "0" residual volume at the end, indicating that the -0.12 was correct.

Just make sure that ALL the Residual Volume fields are set to 0. This would be a lot easier for batch spargers if the Residual Volume field could be set to 0 and "locked".

Some of the other volume discrepency is temperature related.
BTP v2.0.* Windows XP
User avatar
slothrob
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1769
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 1:36 pm
Location: Greater Boston

Re: Residual Volume

Postby camelfilter » Thu Sep 27, 2007 8:53 am

slothrob wrote:Camel,

The major source of your problem is your misinterpretation of the Residual Volume field. The Residual Volume is the amount of liquid you have left in the tun after draining (and accounting for dead space). By allowing a negative value in this space, you're telling BTP that you've drained 0.12 gal more than the amount of liquid available. This would have been okay, but then you make matters worse by adding the 0.12 into your sparge and saying that there is "0" residual volume at the end, indicating that the -0.12 was correct.


I agree totally. In this example, I was giving BeerTools the benefit of the doubt, knowing that I was building on an unstable foundation - I was trying to highlight some of the quirks within the Scheduler.

slothrob wrote:Just make sure that ALL the Residual Volume fields are set to 0. This would be a lot easier for batch spargers if the Residual Volume field could be set to 0 and "locked".


That's a great idea! If not "locked" than simply being able to hit a button within the Separation Dialogue's Runoff field such as "All Available" that would basically let BeerTools do the math for you and transfer it to the kettle,...Either would work.

slothrob wrote:Some of the other volume discrepency is temperature related.


Yeah. Jeff mentions this in his post, "I don't really remember, but I think the temperature assumed for each sparge volume is the source water temperature while the runoff volume is displayed as the final temperature of the step. This would account for the supposed discrepancy." and this is a significant problem for the batch sparger if it's correct. I'm not sure what contortions Jeff would have to go through to fix this and how it would effect the results of fly-spargers - I would guess that they would have a similar discrepency in their formulations. I think in order to correct it, Jeff will have to deliniate 'Batch' from "Continuous' and maybe even 'No-Sparge' setups in some way in a future version - each setup having its own method (math) of dealing with these variables.

As you mention, from now on, I'll be paying close attention to my first runoff's residual (0.00) before moving on to the next infusion & runoff. However, I'm still not sure if this is even accurate though I guess it will be accurate 'enough' for my beer makin' :D

I did a quick rehash of the Schedule in my example to see what aiming for 0.00 in the residuals and adding in the infusion temps rather than the final temps and the results weren't all that much better (see below):
Image
I found that when I crank the temps up to boiling, the volumes of the runoffs don't match with BeerTool's calculation and in fact get worse (see below):
Image
Only after I dial them all the way down to 32F (BeerTools won't let you go below freezing) do they hit my kettle volume exactly,... although the runoffs don't add up :? ... I'm not sure if this is simply 'chance' that they hit my kettle volumes exactly, or if it's a BeerTool's internal setting that's making it correspond with my desired kettle volume,... I'm not sure. (see below):
ImageImage
In any case, it's wierd and not exactly settling, and I'm not sure which method is more accurate (cranked to 211F, or dropped to 32F) in regard to the 'actual' runoff volumes I'll see in the kettle, but in order to stay sane I think I'll go with 32F in my formulations in an attempt to reduce this variable's affect on my calculations. Am I right in this? Give me your thoughts.

Ryan
camelfilter
Light Lager
Light Lager
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 4:37 pm

Re: Residual Volume

Postby slothrob » Fri Sep 28, 2007 5:16 pm

The temperature issue could be a bit contentious, but here's where I think you are going wrong:

As you know, water changes volume at different temperatures.
Also, the temperature, and therefore volume, changes when the water is heated to mash temperature or cooled as it is transferred out of the tun and into the kettle.
This means that the water in your mash tun, and available to runoff, is a different volume than that same water once collected.

The volume of water available at mash temperrature will never match the volume you end up with in the kettle, because of the laws of physics, so don't try and get them to match. Determine what volume you need in your kettle at the end of mashing to get your desired volume at the end of your boil. BTP will get you VERY close, once you determine your evaporation rate and kettle losses.

At worse, if you simply trust the BTP numbers, you may end up with about 1.5 % more liquid than you intended when you raise your kettle from the temperature of the runnings to boiling. This is less than 2 ounces! Even less when the wort is cooled to fermentation temperature. I'd bet you're ability to measure the volume has closer to 5% error and has a much greater impact than this complication forced by the physical chemistry of water.

One issue that you may not have considerred is the value of getting the expected runoff volume at the temperature in the kettle. This allows you to use a dipstick to measure the volume you get from your first runnings, at the temperature in the collection vessel, to check that you are hitting your volumes mid process. This allows you to correct your sparge volume should your first running come up short.
BTP v2.0.* Windows XP
User avatar
slothrob
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1769
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 1:36 pm
Location: Greater Boston

Re: Residual Volume

Postby camelfilter » Fri Sep 28, 2007 11:50 pm

slothrob wrote:The temperature issue could be a bit contentious, but here's where I think you are going wrong:

As you know, water changes volume at different temperatures.
Also, the temperature, and therefore volume, changes when the water is heated to mash temperature or cooled as it is transferred out of the tun and into the kettle.
This means that the water in your mash tun, and available to runoff, is a different volume than that same water once collected.

The volume of water available at mash temperrature will never match the volume you end up with in the kettle, because of the laws of physics, so don't try and get them to match. Determine what volume you need in your kettle at the end of mashing to get your desired volume at the end of your boil. BTP will get you VERY close, once you determine your evaporation rate and kettle losses.

At worse, if you simply trust the BTP numbers, you may end up with about 1.5 % more liquid than you intended when you raise your kettle from the temperature of the runnings to boiling. This is less than 2 ounces! Even less when the wort is cooled to fermentation temperature. I'd bet you're ability to measure the volume has closer to 5% error and has a much greater impact than this complication forced by the physical chemistry of water.

One issue that you may not have considerred is the value of getting the expected runoff volume at the temperature in the kettle. This allows you to use a dipstick to measure the volume you get from your first runnings, at the temperature in the collection vessel, to check that you are hitting your volumes mid process. This allows you to correct your sparge volume should your first running come up short.


Yeah, but that's really not the issue. I know that the rule of thumb that wort cooled to 68F only occupies about 96% of the space of boiling wort,... and a typical 148-155F mash that cools to say 100F after vorlauf might account for 1-2% (more likely 1%) less volume,...in 5 gallons that's only 4/5 to 1-1/2 cups of wort - I doubt anyone would even notice this and the day I get so anal as to have to account for it is the day I'll ask you to put a bullet through my head :)

No, the whole reason for this post is not to determine the actual brewing volumes, but to find out how to best utilize BeerTools Scheduler as a batch-sparger, which is geared toward the fly-sparger. For the batch-sparger, the runoff volumes generated by BeerTools don't agree with the final volume WITHIN the program, which is a problem,...at least to us batch spargers.

As Jeff mentioned in his reply, I think the temperature assumed for each sparge volume is the source water temperature while the runoff volume is displayed as the final temperature of the step. This would account for the supposed discrepancy. [/i][/b] In other words, as I understand it, the temperature variables Jeff uses in his equasions for determining the final volumes are geared to the fly-sparger - whose sparge water is theoretically constant in both temp and volume. It would seem that the runoff volumes don't even account for their own temperature in their own calculation - they are what they are. Yes I can tweak the temp of the runoffs as they pertain to the final volume, but they, themselves don't adjust accordingly i.e. I can crank the temp of the 2nd runnings to 211F and it will be 4.25gal, or I can drop it down to 32F and it's still 4.25gal...you follow - if it were accounting for the effects of temperature on the runnoff volume it would probably read something just a little over 4.0gal at 32f (assuming it was indeed 4.25gal at 211F). This, and the fact that the batch-sparger's sparge temperature variables are getting 'dirty', so to speak, by the temp of the grain, their volume, the temp of the 1st infusion, it's volume, etc. - it creates a lot-o-math that's not being accounted for in the current edition of BeerTools.

But that's why Jeff is such a great guy :D He's just the fella to figure out how to account for all these variables, so when the batch-sparger plugs in his schedule, all the numbers will match up perfectly,... Right Jeff...? Just kidding,... This is gonna take some serious figurin' to make it work for a variety of batch-sparge scenarios,...but I actually think it can be done - a toast,...to optimism!

Thanks again for your post. As I mentioned, I don't really have a problem with the 'brewing', I just want my numbers to match up, at least within the same software. :) Brewing numbers are pretty much on par with horse-shoes and hand-grenades as far as I'm concerned - close enough is good enough. The numbers can be wrong, I'm fine with that, but at least give me ONE number to account for and make corrections for,...not several :P

Ryan
camelfilter
Light Lager
Light Lager
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 4:37 pm

Re: Residual Volume

Postby slothrob » Sat Sep 29, 2007 1:18 pm

camelfilter wrote:No, the whole reason for this post is not to determine the actual brewing volumes, but to find out how to best utilize BeerTools Scheduler as a batch-sparger, which is geared toward the fly-sparger.

Yes I can tweak the temp of the runoffs as they pertain to the final volume, but they, themselves don't adjust accordingly i.e. I can crank the temp of the 2nd runnings to 211F and it will be 4.25gal, or I can drop it down to 32F and it's still 4.25gal...you follow - if it were accounting for the effects of temperature on the runnoff volume it would probably read something just a little over 4.0gal at 32f (assuming it was indeed 4.25gal at 211F).

On the first point, It's clear that BTP was originally designed with the fly-sparger in mind, and it's taken some work on everyone's part to get it to work better for batch spargers. On this temperature/volume issue, though, fly-spargers will have the same problem because they will add one volume at 168
BTP v2.0.* Windows XP
User avatar
slothrob
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1769
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 1:36 pm
Location: Greater Boston

Re: Residual Volume

Postby camelfilter » Sat Sep 29, 2007 8:51 pm

slothrob wrote:
camelfilter wrote:No, the whole reason for this post is not to determine the actual brewing volumes, but to find out how to best utilize BeerTools Scheduler as a batch-sparger, which is geared toward the fly-sparger.

Yes I can tweak the temp of the runoffs as they pertain to the final volume, but they, themselves don't adjust accordingly i.e. I can crank the temp of the 2nd runnings to 211F and it will be 4.25gal, or I can drop it down to 32F and it's still 4.25gal...you follow - if it were accounting for the effects of temperature on the runnoff volume it would probably read something just a little over 4.0gal at 32f (assuming it was indeed 4.25gal at 211F).

On the first point, It's clear that BTP was originally designed with the fly-sparger in mind, and it's taken some work on everyone's part to get it to work better for batch spargers. On this temperature/volume issue, though, fly-spargers will have the same problem because they will add one volume at 168
camelfilter
Light Lager
Light Lager
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 4:37 pm


Return to BeerTools Pro General Topics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests