I have a refractometer with Plato scale.

May I input the value I got from the refractometer directly in your calculator as Brix?

Plato and Brix Refractometer readings are quite the same aren’t they?

cheers

luis

Your experiment seems to show that the step mash really provides more efficiency and attenuability! I was also semi-surprised to see the longer mash provide so much more efficiency. Lately I am working across styles with a mash step process of 148F for 40min and then 155 for 20 min. Have you read anything to suggest how the length of time at each temperature may affect the outcome? Is there reason to believe I should be mashing longer or is it not worth the time investment? What If I split the steps up 30-30? Thoughts?

Thanks,

J in NYC

A question…. Is the chart in the link below correct as differs from your results e.g. 13 brix has a SG of 1.055. But in your calc with a OG of 13 and a FG of 7, the OG calculates to 1.051.

Thanks.

http://braukaiser.com/documents/Kaiser_Brix_Plato_SG_table.pdf

]]>Original Brix: 25

Final Brix: 16

WCF: 1.04

Output FG with your formula: 14.9*P

I was shocked how huge the result is and I was sure something is wrong with the beer, but then I took the reading with a hydrometer and it showed 9*P, which is in line with popular formula from there:

http://primetab.com/formulas.html

The difference of 6*P is huge. What could be the reason of so big difference? I ultimately trusted the hydrometer and my taste – the beer turned out just fine. But the difference between results of your formula and popular software (Beersmith, Brewtarget and Northern Brewers calculator) got me really thinking and I have no clue what’s going on.

Thanks for your opinion!

]]>