Stovetop full volume BIAB method plus calculator

[derek]

My only issue with tools like RAP, and it's because of the consulting work I do on a daily basis, is that "machine" generated code isn't always accessible (to keyboard users, people using assistive technology, etc.) and is often much more convoluted than it needs to be

Now, I'd argue the opposite (not specifically about RAP, which I don't know, but 'machine generated code' in general). One reason I'm doing so much work in Plone these days is that what I produce comes out "accessible" (to US gov. standards), except where I personally do something to break that, and multilingual (where, in my case, all languages are English )

[jeffsmith]

My only issue with tools like RAP, and it's because of the consulting work I do on a daily basis, is that "machine" generated code isn't always accessible (to keyboard users, people using assistive technology, etc.) and is often much more convoluted than it needs to be

Now, I'd argue the opposite (not specifically about RAP, which I don't know, but 'machine generated code' in general). One reason I'm doing so much work in Plone these days is that what I produce comes out "accessible" (to US gov. standards), except where I personally do something to break that, and multilingual (where, in my case, all languages are English )

The difference there though is that RAP is actually generating the front end based on the back end data models and code. Plone is a content management system, in the end, the developer is controlling the front end output via templates.

And accessible to US government standards and what works for those with disabilities are often two different beasts as I've seen far too many times via user testing. But that's a whole different kettle of worms.

[derek]

And accessible to US government standards and what works for those with disabilities are often two different beasts as I've seen far too many times via user testing. But that's a whole different kettle of worms.

Oh, I know that - but "accessible to US government standards" will have to be good enough for most cases, because small business is not going to spend the money to go above and beyond, when, for the most part, they don't even have to meet _those_ standards.

[sleepyjamie]

RAP is uses the Rich Window Toolkit (RWT) to render JFace/SWT components (written in Java) into AJAX. Essentially it brings your thick client code to a thin client environment, without having to write any thin-client code. This is great for business, scientific, engineering and military based apps. It's not all that great if you want full control over how the front end is rendered, such as in cases where you need to control pixel-by-pixel on how the UI looks, feels, and interacts with the user. Of course like jeff said there are limitations, but you have to weigh out the pros/cons depending on what your customer requirements are. There is branding you can apply to RAP applications (which is essentially theming) but it isn't nearly as flexible as developing a web application purely from basic HTML/Javascript/Jquery.

In my case, our customers want benefits of thick client applications but don't want to have the nightmare of deployment issues across hundreds of nodes. They also don't want to add any additional training to their costs, so a desktop application that looks and feels like your traditional windows application, but runs in a browser is good enough.

I certainly wouldn't use RAP for all projects. It has a time and a place, and it works well when you have an existing team of developers who are familiar with thick client development.

RAP also supports plugging in your own Javascript/HTML as well so you can extend it to add additional features that are not available from RWT.

[bluenose]

I like beer!

As for non-flat walled pots, you could average the smallest and largest circumferences

[papercrane]

I probably shouldn't be surprised that this hobby attracts so many programmers....

Back to the code, should the thermal coefficient be different if you're using Fahrenheit? "How To Brew" says it should be 0.2 if you're using all imperial units and 0.41 for all metric. Not sure what it should be if you us metric volumes and mass and imperial temperature.

[RubberToe]

I probably shouldn't be surprised that this hobby attracts so many programmers....

Back to the code, should the thermal coefficient be different if you're using Fahrenheit? "How To Brew" says it should be 0.2 if you're using all imperial units and 0.41 for all metric. Not sure what it should be if you us metric volumes and mass and imperial temperature.

That's a great question, and one I spent a while going through as well. I'm not sure if the wording if false or not but I used to have a case in the code to switch the coefficient between 0.2 and 0.4 when using F or C. The results for F using 0.2 were _always_ wrong. It doesn't make sense to change the coefficient based on the temp units to me... the temp is the temp no matter what unit you convert it to. You can test this yourself by running the script with both F and C values - you should get the same material answer as it is now. In the code there are cases for 3 different temp calculations; I went through each repeatedly with the differing coefficents.

I think it might have something to do with the mash thickness units, L/Kg vs qts/lb.

[papercrane]

Alright, I think I have this figured out. The 0.4 value is the specific heat capacity of malt, measured as (forgive me, I'm not normally this pedantic, but Wolfram Alpha insists..) thermochemical calories per gram degree Celsius difference, this makes it easy for water because the value is exactly 1 by definition and the formula excludes it from the calculations.

Now, when we convert this to thermochemical calories per gram degree Fahrenheit difference, the new value is 0.2 for malt and 0.5 for water (roughly), so our formula is screwed up, but it works out in the end because we assume a value of 1 for water.

Edit:
This article was really helpful for figuring out what was going on:
http://www.byo.com/stories/techniques/a ... -mash-heat" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[RubberToe]

If you look ad method 2 of the strike_calc() function it deals with the specific heat of water, grain (and therefore mash). I think that formula came from another byo article. I'm not convinced the formula is messed up as I proofed all 3 methods against each other in both F and C.

Your description of what the 0.4 constant is though makes sense (per gram degrees celcius). Thinking about this some more... "per gram". Since we're dealing in metric here it's making sense now. Is the 0.2 value a "per gram" or "per ounce" kind of thing I wonder.

[papercrane]

I meant the equation is messed up in a very narrow way, it works out to the same value in the end because 0.4/1 == 0.222../0.5555..

I think when you're using all imperial units the 0.2 value is because the specific heat capacity of malt in BTU/(lb F) is, conveniently, 0.4 and a 1/2lb of water is roughly a quart. So I guess you can think of the specific heat capacity as 0.2 BTU per (quart of water degrees Fahrenheit difference.)

[Jimmy]

Did you guys ever do anything with this?

[RubberToe]

I mostly ported it to javascript but didn't finish it. I still use the original one every brew so maybe I should finish the job. My webserver's back up too so I guess I have no excuse.

[sleepyjamie]

i've been fooling around with developing on android. maybe i can port the source code over to android if anyone is interested.

[derek]

i've been fooling around with developing on android. maybe i can port the source code over to android if anyone is interested.

Definitely. I know I'll never get around to it myself...

[pet lion]

I'm trying to figure out doing thick mash all grain for my set up. I mash in a 11.4 L cooler. I figure I can do this if I use a 1.25 L/kg mash thickness. Should I have any concerns about this thick a mash? Any other tips on doing this thick a mash?

My plan is to do a 14 L imperial stout (I have some 19 L carboys) and then try a full 23 L pale ale using this method.

[RubberToe]

what's your grain bill? Total weight.. are you using any sugar or only if you need to?

Sent from the brew timer.

[pet lion]

I am aiming to do this with no sugar additions. For the imperial stout my grain bill is sitting at 5.5 kg. Plugging in a 1.25 mash thickness in BrewTarget it says I could get an 8.4 ABV beer. I expect my efficiency will be less than it is currently dialed in for though.

[RubberToe]

With that grain bill for a 19l batch I used to get 55% eff. I'll run the numbers in a bit, will let ya know what I come up with.

Sent from the brew timer.

[pet lion]

Doing a 14 L batch if you didn't catch that.

[RubberToe]

Wait a minute... a cooler. You're going to sparge, right? This is slightly different... do you have Beersmith? I'd do this as you normally would but calculate your recipe with lower efficiency in mind.

For what it's worth:

./brew_calc.py --target_temp=66 --grain_temp=18 --grain_mass=5.5 -t C --total_vol=11

The max strike water you can use for 11.00 L with 5.500 Kg of grain: 7.315 L at 1.330 L/Kg
The strike water should be heated to 80.44 C for a target temperature of 66.0

[pet lion]

Yes I sparge. Thanks for the info.

[pet lion]

Those numbers are near what BrewTarget calculated. Haven't tried out Beersmith yet.

[pet lion]

So I've taken my first stab at this. I knew I wouldn't have room for the sparge in my cooler so I tried in the brewing pot but still had to split the sparge in two. I didn't hit the calculated boil gravity but expected that to be off with the loss of efficiency.

If I want to keep doing this technique I'm going to have to get a larger mash cooler and a new bag from Jimmy.