[klickitat jim]

I'm really enjoying my switch to refractometer only. But I think it works so well for me because I only care about 'close enough'. I'm actually considering picking up a Hannah digital next fall, just for fun. I read Marshall's review of it, and saw that when he tested final Plato with it he used Sean's 1.040 correction factor. My first thought was OMG! He should have read this thread. But for kicks I plugged in some arbitrary numbers. If the refractometer read 18 brix starting and 8 brix final, with a correction factor of 1 the actual FG is 1.013. If the correction factor was 1.0126 (mine) it finished at 1.012. If the correction factor was 1.04 the FG is 1.012. The 3 different correction factors end up covering a pretty narrow span between a total of .2% abv. I am so grateful that to me, that is totally close enough. But, I don't spund.

For now, my $12 Chinese refractometer is getting the job done. I have not touched my hydrometer in a couple months. I probably will treat myself to the $180 digital toy in the fall. I won't need to fumble with the tiny screw driver, or trying to line up my bifocals on the eyepiece. Just push a button and enter the number to my correction app.

For folks who don't spund, but still freak out about precision, I have a challenge for you. The next time you drink a commercial beer, one you don't know the numbers on, guess what the FG is. Write it down so you can't cheat. Then measure it. If you can't consistently and accurately taste the FG within +/- 1 gravity point, why does it really matter what your instruments and math says?

[Slowbrew]

Jim is man with my own view of the world.  I too haven't used my hydrometer in years.  My refractometer gets me "close enough" and for me that's good enough.  I don't have to file federal paperwork or worry about audits so if my kegs don't explode, I'm happy.

Everyone's views have been interesting and informative but for me the need for perfection just isn't there.

Thanks Jim!

Paul

[klickitat jim]

The last sentence of my "challenge" is worded as a question, not to be a smartie pants (well, maybe a little) but because it's entirely possible that I'm oblivious to why absolute accuracy is necessary.

[dmtaylor]

I have a challenge for you. The next time you drink a commercial beer, one you don't know the numbers on, guess what the FG is. Write it down so you can't cheat. Then measure it. If you can't consistently and accurately taste the FG within +/- 1 gravity point, why does it really matter what your instruments and math says?

Yeah baby!!   

[Big Monk]

The last sentence of my "challenge" is worded as a question, not to be a smartie pants (well, maybe a little) but because it's entirely possible that I'm oblivious to why absolute accuracy is necessary.

I bottle with extract which is pretty much the only reason I care about accuracy. Unlike my keg Spunding brethren, I can’t bleed pressure once bottled.

I can’t see why anyone else would want to freak out.

[dmtaylor]

The last sentence of my "challenge" is worded as a question, not to be a smartie pants (well, maybe a little) but because it's entirely possible that I'm oblivious to why absolute accuracy is necessary.

I bottle with extract which is pretty much the only reason I care about accuracy. Unlike my keg Spunding brethren, I can’t bleed pressure once bottled.

I can’t see why anyone else would want to freak out.

The only reason I get in this deep is due to my love for math and science.  But the more I sit back and think about it, the more I realize how much of an unnecessary expediture of time it all really is.

That said... ability to match within 0.001 of a hydro now is a mission accomplished, for me, here, using my cheap junk refractometer.  Yay.

[Big Monk]

The last sentence of my "challenge" is worded as a question, not to be a smartie pants (well, maybe a little) but because it's entirely possible that I'm oblivious to why absolute accuracy is necessary.

I bottle with extract which is pretty much the only reason I care about accuracy. Unlike my keg Spunding brethren, I can’t bleed pressure once bottled.

I can’t see why anyone else would want to freak out.

The only reason I get in this deep is due to my love for math and science.  But the more I sit back and think about it, the more I realize how much of an unnecessary expediture of time it all really is.

That said... ability to match within 0.001 of a hydro now is a mission accomplished, for me, here, using my cheap junk refractometer.  Yay.

I’ve actually come up with a really slick way of getting all the info I need in one fell swoop.

Since I test the base malts I buy for DI pH, I can make the test mash to the same gravity as the batch and get my correction factor for the batch at the outset.

[Robert]

I did some deep diving on the interewebs this weekend, mostly threads on other forums (many I never knew existed) and some of the sources they led to.  Turns out there's a good amount of research confirming my suspicions above about many factors confounding corrections.  It seems hops alone can have an effect nearly as significant as alcohol, as can different grists, let alone all the other compounds in beer.  Much more research would be needed if it's even possible to develop reliable corrections, and the pros aren't going to do it, they don't use refractometers. We're just trying to use an instrument to measure something it wasn't designed to measure. (No I don't have all the references, you've got Google if you care.)

This looked good to me on a limited number of samples, but the more I've racked up, it looks like none of these formulas really works, which now doesn't surprise me.  If I have all the formulas in front of me (and thanks to Big Monk, I do!) I can find one of the half dozen that's fairly close.  But that just means that there's a one in six chance I can squint really hard and pretend it looks like something's working, not that it is.

So for my part, I'm back to the position that refractometers are useful pre-boil only, and I establish a correction factor for each individual batch using the saccharometer OG.  Even Terrill has said (referenced somewhere in this thread) that if you actually want to know FG (or for that matter when to spund) you really need a hydrometer.

So finally, if you're of the school of "close enough is close enough, I  don't  really need to know," why do you need any instrument at all?

  When it stops bubbling, its done!

[Petr]

I did some deep diving on the interewebs this weekend, mostly threads on other forums (many I never knew existed) and some of the sources they led to.  Turns out there's a good amount of research confirming my suspicions above about many factors confounding corrections.  It seems hops alone can have an effect nearly as significant as alcohol, as can different grists, let alone all the other compounds in beer.  Much more research would be needed if it's even possible to develop reliable corrections, and the pros aren't going to do it, they don't use refractometers. We're just trying to use an instrument to measure something it wasn't designed to measure. (No I don't have all the references, you've got Google if you care.)

This looked good to me on a limited number of samples, but the more I've racked up, it looks like none of these formulas really works, which now doesn't surprise me.  If I have all the formulas in front of me (and thanks to Big Monk, I do!) I can find one of the half dozen that's fairly close.  But that just means that there's a one in six chance I can squint really hard and pretend it looks like something's working, not that it is.

So for my part, I'm back to the position that refractometers are useful pre-boil only, and I establish a correction factor for each individual batch using the saccharometer OG.  Even Terrill has said (referenced somewhere in this thread) that if you actually want to know FG (or for that matter when to spund) you really need a hydrometer.

So finally, if you're of the school of "close enough is close enough, I  don't  really need to know," why do you need any instrument at all?

  When it stops bubbling, its done!

I highly doubt that hop compounds can have a comparable effect on refractive index as alcohol that is just not possible from the chemistry point of view when hop compounds are there in ppm level and alcohol in a couple of %. Can you provide me with a work that you were referring to? I did my google research but didn't find anything close to that statement.

I'm normally just fine with +- 0.002 accuracy of FG, and for a long time now I use refractometer only. The main reason why I bothered with the new formula wasn't actually FG because for that purpose with reasonable accuracy you can use Terill's formula just fine. The reason was that sometimes I need also a reading during fermentation and don't want to waste about 100 mL of wort every time, especially if it is an experimental brew with total volume 2 litres and often less... The thing is that my formula works for wort during the whole fermentation and that is the main advantage of it. I know that not everyone is in need of measurements during fermentation but the option is there for those who need or/and want.

If you don't care about the FG at all then well no problem with that neither. It's up to every one of us.

[Robert]

Sorry, I didn't save my search results.  I just kept reading until I was assured there really is something going on here to confirm my suspicions.  I think all the non-alcohol factors, in the aggregate, can have enough impact that a formula based on one set of samples will not apply universally.  But if you are only interested in a certain margin of accuracy, I'm sure you can establish a correlation that works for you.  This really doesn't bother me, I just plan my brew length with a spare liter or so to allow for all the samples I might want to pull.  I realize this is not feasible for small batch brewers. I don't really have skin in this game. The amount of discrepancy between formulae,  each of which was empirically derived, just bothered me.  I wanted some insight.  Now everyone should just do what works for them!

[narvin]

On the flipside, what makes us think that density is a good measure of how the beer will taste?  It is well known that different sugars taste vastly different in a finished beer, so one 1.015 beer can taste sweet and another not at all.  Add alcohol into the density equation and you aren't even measuring one thing, but a balance - hence "apparent attenuation".  So, other than knowing when your beer is done, what is it really telling you?

I've been measuring with refractometer only for a while, and it tells me just as much about the final mouthfeel of a beer as density ever did.  It also helps to measure a variety of beer (commercial, other homebrews) and get an idea of what your target is for the style.  It's like going from F to C: you're never going to make the switch if you're constantly doing conversions in your head.  Think native!

[Robert]

I'm only interested in a reasonably accurate reading so I could spot any change in performance that would tell me not to repitch the yeast.  Otherwise, like I said, when it stops bubbling, its done!

[klickitat jim]

I did some deep diving on the interewebs this weekend, mostly threads on other forums (many I never knew existed) and some of the sources they led to.  Turns out there's a good amount of research confirming my suspicions above about many factors confounding corrections.  It seems hops alone can have an effect nearly as significant as alcohol, as can different grists, let alone all the other compounds in beer.  Much more research would be needed if it's even possible to develop reliable corrections, and the pros aren't going to do it, they don't use refractometers. We're just trying to use an instrument to measure something it wasn't designed to measure. (No I don't have all the references, you've got Google if you care.)

This looked good to me on a limited number of samples, but the more I've racked up, it looks like none of these formulas really works, which now doesn't surprise me.  If I have all the formulas in front of me (and thanks to Big Monk, I do!) I can find one of the half dozen that's fairly close.  But that just means that there's a one in six chance I can squint really hard and pretend it looks like something's working, not that it is.

So for my part, I'm back to the position that refractometers are useful pre-boil only, and I establish a correction factor for each individual batch using the saccharometer OG.  Even Terrill has said (referenced somewhere in this thread) that if you actually want to know FG (or for that matter when to spund) you really need a hydrometer.

So finally, if you're of the school of "close enough is close enough, I  don't  really need to know," why do you need any instrument at all?

  When it stops bubbling, its done!

Robert, bubbling or lack of bubbling is not reliable. Getting two readings, days apart, which are the same... much more reliable way to determine it's done. What I'm talking about as "close enough" is whether it's 1.012 SG or 1.013 SG terminal.

[Robert]

Sorry, I was using "bubbling" rather loosely and maybe being a little bit facetious.  What I mean is, when there is no sign of active fermentation, which you can determine any way you like.  I largely rely on time, knowing how long it takes my yeast to do the job.  Guess that's pretty much in the "close enough" school.

EDIT  I'm usually right on using time and temp, always within 0.2°P, which will finish out in lagering.  I'd have to be tighter if I bottled!

[Phil_M]

The last sentence of my "challenge" is worded as a question, not to be a smartie pants (well, maybe a little) but because it's entirely possible that I'm oblivious to why absolute accuracy is necessary.

I bottle with extract which is pretty much the only reason I care about accuracy. Unlike my keg Spunding brethren, I can’t bleed pressure once bottled.

I can’t see why anyone else would want to freak out.

This is back to the typical accuracy vs. precision argument. I certainly don't trust ANY of my homebrewing measuring devices to be accurate, save for perhaps my thermapen. But if they're precise, that won't matter. With multiple batches repeatable measurements will be all that was needed.

After all, mark on a stick units are how most measurements started, from temperature to density. We're getting so down in the weeds of this debate that we're losing sight of the purpose.