Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Lovibond as color unit option #428

Closed
pricelessbrewing opened this issue Sep 30, 2018 · 4 comments
Closed

Lovibond as color unit option #428

pricelessbrewing opened this issue Sep 30, 2018 · 4 comments

Comments

@pricelessbrewing
Copy link
Contributor

Lovibond, or Lovi for short, is the industry standard in the US for malt color specification. Should be an option for unit type.

Of note is that SRM is defined by how much light is absorbed when passing through a specific distance of beer/liquid (1 cm IIRC), so it shouldn't be applicable to fermentables.

Although you could make the argument that they're analogous if a beer is the same color as a malt then the malt also has the same SRM value.

@jmichalicek
Copy link

I would love to see this. I just asked a related question about this on the google group for Brewtarget. When talking srm and lovibond in the range of actual beer, there's not a ton of difference, but possibly noticeable as the numbers get much above 20.

With dark grains the difference between srm and lovibond is pretty high but I had noticed that Brewtarget seems to assume they are the same. For example Briess Caramel 80 is in the database as 80 srm when it's actually 80 lovibond which is about 108 srm. The darker the grain, the more off that is going to be.

@jmichalicek
Copy link

Just read over #366 which I missed before. So it looks like the correct units are being used and all is calculated correctly. The label is just incorrect. That's good to know.

@matty0ung
Copy link
Contributor

FYI I have added support for Lovibond to Brewken as part of the work to support BeerJSON. At some point this will get merged in to Brewtarget code. (I'm trying to avoid cluttering up Brewtarget with too much work-in-progress. There's still a fair way to go on BeerJSON because it's such a big change from the status quo. I have code reading & validating the files just fine but there are a lot of changes required to the DB schema to support all the fields that aren't present in BeerXML.)

@matty0ung
Copy link
Contributor

Code changes are in develop, so will be included in the 4.0 release.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants