59 replies to this topic

[BlKtRe]

Some of us with a RIMS and PID setup could possibly be fairly accurate with the mashes by eliminating temp fluctuations.

[denny]

Some of us with a RIMS and PID setup could possibly be fairly accurate with the mashes by eliminating temp fluctuations.

 

My single infusions in a cooler are dead on temp.

[djinkc]

What I have read from Brulosophy has not inspired a lot of confidence in their conclusions.  Test it right.  Maybe they are doing it better now but they lost me early.

[dmtaylor]

What I have read from Brulosophy has not inspired a lot of confidence in their conclusions.  Test it right.  Maybe they are doing it better now but they lost me early.

 

I don't agree with their selected p value for significance of 0.05.  I have reviewed all their conclusions assuming a p value of 0.15 and the results then are far more eye opening.

Edited by dmtaylor, 20 August 2016 - 07:10 AM.

[denny]

You guys are looking at Brulosophy (and probably Experimental Brewing) wrong.  None of us are saying that our results are anything more than a data point to use as you please.  None of us intend for them to be taken as absolute scientific results.  Dave, we've talked to statisticians about this and a p value of .15 would be pretty worthless according to them.  The also point out that a p value does not represent an absolute conclusion, but rather that something is worthy of more study.  Check this out...https://www.stats.or...c-significance/

[Genesee Ted]

I guess I'm not understanding the aversion to trying to get to a point where the experiments produce scientific results...

[denny]

I guess I'm not understanding the aversion to trying to get to a point where the experiments produce scientific results...

 

In general, it takes time and resources beyond what the average homebrewer has.

[Genesee Ted]

I get that, but you guys are going above and beyond what an average homebrewer would do in general. Have you thought about linking up with some university research folks? Shagaroo is a chemistry chair at Oswego, maybe he could help you link up with professional nerds and get some real science done! IMO, there's not a much better person to push these kind of queries than you Denny!

[denny]

I get that, but you guys are going above and beyond what an average homebrewer would do in general. Have you thought about linking up with some university research folks? Shagaroo is a chemistry chair at Oswego, maybe he could help you link up with professional nerds and get some real science done! IMO, there's not a much better person to push these kind of queries than you Denny!

 

I'm not sure how interested we are in that.  Maybe someday.  But I think Marshall, Drew and I are pretty satisfied to remain "citizen science" for now.  I mean, none of us are trying to convince anyone of anything.  We simply put out our observations for others to use as they like.

[Genesee Ted]

Take it to the next level. I implore you!

[Brauer]

p values of ≤0.1 are sometimes used as a crude screen to justify further analysis, but wouldn't usually be considered to be truly "significant" on their own. While p≤0.05 is considered "significant" it is usually treated as the lowest level that would be treated as scientific evidence; we really prefer values like p≤0.01. I can't think of a situation where one would run the statistics for a p≤0.15.

As to chemical analysis making something "scientific", there is nothing less scientific about a human measurement, especially when that is the primary concern. Consider the situation where a new drug allows people to stand up out of their wheelchair. If a chemical measure shows that the person still has the disease protein in their blood, it doesn't discount the observation that people are being given the power to stand up. Conversely, if we see that we remove the protein, but people don't get better, we don't place much weight on the measure of the protein. Seeing the person stand up would be considered the appropriately scientific measurement.

I have no doubt that a chemical analysis of the beers Brülosophy has produced would show some differences (like the FG measurement did, here). However, if the beers are indistinguishable by humans, the chemical measurement is supplying information that is too sensitive to be meaningful for this application. Similar to waters that only differ by 1 ppm Calcium being measurably different, but functionally identical for brewing.

Edited by Brauer, 20 August 2016 - 01:22 PM.

[neddles]

p values of ≤0.1 are sometimes used as a crude screen to justify further analysis, but wouldn't usually be considered to be truly "significant" on their own. While p≤0.05 is considered "significant" it is usually treated as the lowest level that would be treated as scientific evidence; we really prefer values like p≤0.01. I can't think of a situation where one would run the statistics for a p≤0.15.

As to chemical analysis making something "scientific", there is nothing less scientific about a human measurement, especially when that is the primary concern. Consider the situation where a new drug allows people to stand up out of their wheelchair. If a chemical measure shows that the person still has the disease protein in their blood, it doesn't discount the observation that people are being given the power to stand up. Conversely, if we see that we remove the protein, but people don't get better, we don't place much weight on the measure of the protein. Seeing the person stand up would be considered the appropriately scientific measurement.

I have no doubt that a chemical analysis of the beers Brülosophy has produced would show some differences (like the FG measurement did, here). However, if the beers are indistinguishable by humans, the chemical measurement is supplying information that is too sensitive to be meaningful for this application. Similar to waters that only differ by 1 ppm Calcium being measurably different, but functionally identical for brewing.

Well put. I like the analogy and especially the bolded comment. Ultimately we are drinking beers and not FGs.

Edited by neddles, 20 August 2016 - 01:37 PM.

[Big Nake]

I'm mildly paying attention here and I understand all of this scientific precision but it would seem to me that if someone were interested in this, they could make two identical beers and mash one at 152 and the other at 168, ferment them the same way and as closely as possible and then see if the difference is noticeable or not. One being 1.008 and one being 1.009 is not really the issue as much as the fact that two beers mashed 16° apart basically make the same beer. I think that fact alone is enough to blow someone's [MINE!] mind. I know there are precise measurements to take into consideration but I think that this more basic test would go along way by itself.

[Brauer]

I'm mildly paying attention here and I understand all of this scientific precision but it would seem to me that if someone were interested in this, they could make two identical beers and mash one at 152 and the other at 168, ferment them the same way and as closely as possible and then see if the difference is noticeable or not. One being 1.008 and one being 1.009 is not really the issue as much as the fact that two beers mashed 16° apart basically make the same beer. I think that fact alone is enough to blow someone's [MINE!] mind. I know there are precise measurements to take into consideration but I think that this more basic test would go along way by itself.

For some brewers, widely different mash temperatures apparently finish at the same FG, but for others they finish at very different FGs. I'd like to know why that is happening. Is it grist selection? Mash-in method? Brewing on the wrong coast? You could determine if there is an intermediate result in the Mid-West.

[neddles]

Damn, I just measured an unexpected 91% AA on a 1.055 beer with Denny's 1450. Mash was 149F/50min. and 160F/15min. As an aside, the sample was fan-freaking-tastic!

[Big Nake]

For some brewers, widely different mash temperatures apparently finish at the same FG, but for others they finish at very different FGs. I'd like to know why that is happening. Is it grist selection? Mash-in method? Brewing on the wrong coast? You could determine if there is an intermediate result in the Mid-West.

I get that part and I know that science-minded people are going to want to lift the hood and get their hands dirty. But the initial test could be easily done (it seems) and then further poking and pawing at the ground could be conducted too. Personally I would be concerned about mashing a beer at 168 because I (like many others) want a relatively dry beer and I dislike clunky, sweet or overly complex finishes in beer.

[neddles]

I think the dogma of high FG= sweet/cloying is not entirely correct, at least IME. 

[Big Nake]

I think the dogma of high FG= sweet/cloying is not entirely correct, at least IME.

That's possible and I'm trying to keep open-minded when it comes to all of the rules and guidelines that have been battered into my brain and the fact that they may have been inaccurate all along. I have gotten my beers to a point where I really like them and I have also been unfortunate enough to have sampled quite a few really poor commercial beers and I don't want to waste a single brewing session on a beer that may not come out how I want... so I stick to what I know works. When some amount of tangible information comes out on this topic, I'll keep it in my toolbox for later since many other "rules" have been debunked and this one could be too. Cheers.

[denny]

p values of ≤0.1 are sometimes used as a crude screen to justify further analysis, but wouldn't usually be considered to be truly "significant" on their own. While p≤0.05 is considered "significant" it is usually treated as the lowest level that would be treated as scientific evidence; we really prefer values like p≤0.01. I can't think of a situation where one would run the statistics for a p≤0.15.

As to chemical analysis making something "scientific", there is nothing less scientific about a human measurement, especially when that is the primary concern. Consider the situation where a new drug allows people to stand up out of their wheelchair. If a chemical measure shows that the person still has the disease protein in their blood, it doesn't discount the observation that people are being given the power to stand up. Conversely, if we see that we remove the protein, but people don't get better, we don't place much weight on the measure of the protein. Seeing the person stand up would be considered the appropriately scientific measurement.

I have no doubt that a chemical analysis of the beers Brülosophy has produced would show some differences (like the FG measurement did, here). However, if the beers are indistinguishable by humans, the chemical measurement is supplying information that is too sensitive to be meaningful for this application. Similar to waters that only differ by 1 ppm Calcium being measurably different, but functionally identical for brewing.

 

Right on!  When you sit down with a beer, you judge it organoleptically...you don't measure it!

I'm mildly paying attention here and I understand all of this scientific precision but it would seem to me that if someone were interested in this, they could make two identical beers and mash one at 152 and the other at 168, ferment them the same way and as closely as possible and then see if the difference is noticeable or not. One being 1.008 and one being 1.009 is not really the issue as much as the fact that two beers mashed 16° apart basically make the same beer. I think that fact alone is enough to blow someone's [MINE!] mind. I know there are precise measurements to take into consideration but I think that this more basic test would go along way by itself.

 

Which is exactly what I did.

I think the dogma of high FG= sweet/cloying is not entirely correct, at least IME. 

 

Completely agree.

[HVB]

Mash Temp Part 2

 

https://brulosophy.c...riment-results/