Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 41

Thread: Afrimill

  1. #11

    Thatís what BeerSmith told me. But Iím relatively new to brewing and quite new to BeerSmith



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  2. #12
    Hereís my equipment profile. I checked everything now, including brew session data and mash efficiency is given as 96% and overall at 86% as shown above. Whatís strange is that post mash SG and OG after pitching yeast was the same. I would have thought it would come down because I topped up with 2l of water during the boil as per my equipment profile. I donít see a field for sparge water volume. I sparged with 5l and squeezed the bag fairly hard after sparging.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  3. #13
    Senior Member JIGSAW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Cape Town
    Posts
    2,452
    those screenshots don't tell the whole story ?

    Screenshot_3.jpg

    Did you measure that 1.053 OG?

    It's weird that the software would predict 1.039 and you get 14 point more ... that's way off, which tells me somewhere the figures in the software don't match with your equipment ??



    Is there someone else using the mobile version of BS that might know what's cooking here ??
    The Problem With The World Is That Everyone Is A Few Drinks Behind.!


  4. #14

    Afrimill

    Measured post mash after the sample cooled down to 30į and corrected for temp = 1,053
    Then took a sample after pitching the yeast and the OG was 1,053 too. Relatively clear sample without trub, although Iíve read that shouldnít affect SG. The malt I entered in BeerSmith was Belgian pale because it didnít have the Czech pale malt Iím using. Thatís the only variable as far as I can tell. I mashed at 66,7į, could that affect it?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  5. #15
    I use the mobile BS but ive not run into this one before. What it could be is the wrong grain, some of the "custom" grains have really low extraction so the app says 4kg will give you 1039 but a properly modified grain is 1053. Try downloading the BEST malt data pack and rebuild the recipe using them

    Sent from my SM-A515F using Tapatalk

  6. #16
    Probably the different malt then. Pretty happy with my results so far though.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  7. #17
    Senior Member JIGSAW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Cape Town
    Posts
    2,452
    Quote Originally Posted by Mouter View Post
    Probably the different malt then. Pretty happy with my results so far though.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I dont think so.
    You should get Ī 1.045 from 4.4kg malt on a 23L batch.
    Your settings predicted 1.039, yet I do get 0.045 on my side when i select Belgian pale

    I think make a copy of you recipe and update your equipment profile. Start with a 75% BH effiecency and work from there.

    Did you do a "dry-run" with just water on your system to calculate boil-off numbers etc so you could setup BS beforehand ?
    The Problem With The World Is That Everyone Is A Few Drinks Behind.!


  8. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by JIGSAW View Post
    I dont think so.
    You should get Ī 1.045 from 4.4kg malt on a 23L batch.
    Your settings predicted 1.039, yet I do get 0.045 on my side when i select Belgian pale

    I think make a copy of you recipe and update your equipment profile. Start with a 75% BH effiecency and work from there.

    Did you do a "dry-run" with just water on your system to calculate boil-off numbers etc so you could setup BS beforehand ?
    With all due respect; I donít have time or an appetite for dry runs.
    I used Viking malt from Beerplus.
    I changed the BH efficiency in my equipment profile but the results stayed the same. Letís see how the brew comes out. All things being said thatís what matters to me (and why I do this).


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  9. #19

    Afrimill

    Quote Originally Posted by JIGSAW View Post
    I dont think so.
    You should get Ī 1.045 from 4.4kg malt on a 23L batch.
    Your settings predicted 1.039, yet I do get 0.045 on my side when i select Belgian pale
    The diastatic power of Belgian pale is only 60 in BS. I canít find the diastatic power of Viking pale, but wouldnít it yield a higher SG if it had a significantly higher diastatic power? Or does that only influence fermentability?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Last edited by Mouter; 5th October 2020 at 08:12.

  10. #20

    Looks like your BIAB predicted mash eff is set to 66% .. hence 4.4kg of pale ale (ppg 38) will calculate 1.039 (I got 1.040 on my software). If I up the predicted mash eff to 86% then I get 1.052

    As it seems to me, you need to adjust your predicted mash eff to what you think it will come to - then you'll be able to pin point your mashing/brewhouse setup.

    My software mashing eff is set to 75% which is a good average. Sometimes I get a higher OG .. sometimes lower.
    Also make sure your 4.4kg is accurate .. making it say 4.6kg will up your SG readings as well.
    Last edited by AlexBrew; 5th October 2020 at 09:41. Reason: correction in numbers

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •