Should I get a ph meter?

Tinkering with the idea of getting a meter. I've been using water calculators but not sure how close in getting with the ph. The other thing is my beers are descent but not great so I'm wondering if this might be my missing link. I was thinking about the mw101.

You will never understand what is going on in the mash tun unless you do (that's a yes). See https://www.homebrewtalk.com/showthread.php?t=302256. The MW102 is on the list but the 101 isn't (analogue or perhaps 'hybrid' is a better word).

I was right there with you and just decided to do it. I ordered a HMD PH-200. I think it will do all I need. I tried the plastic test strips on my last beer and got a reading that I know is off...besides the fact that they only have color matches for like 4.6, 5, 5.4, 5.8...way too far apart. If you can afford it, I say get the meter.

If tackling the water chemistry in the mash is something you want to do a pH meter is really a prerequisite.

I have been using a Hach Pro+ and find the predicted pH in Bru'n water to be close to the measured pH.

Over successive brews I have been able to take the predicted requirements of acid malt/lactic acid and make the adjustments based on prior brews. Easier to hit the target pH this way.

Without one I was working blind.

You will also need calibration solutions, a cleaner and a storage solution for all meters with the exception of the Hach Pro+ (stores with water drops in measuring cup around probe)

One of the best decisions I've made is to get a good one. Buy the calibration fluid in larger sizes than the smaller packs.

Yes. Okay, next question...

I have a mw102. I get great stability. I calibrate it every time I brew. I love it.

Yes, you should buy a pH meter if it works in your budget. Mash pH is not the only place where your meter can be useful. On a tip from a pro brewer, I started measuring finished (post-fermentation) pH, which lead to improvement in my APA's and IPAs.

The MW102 is a very good, reasonably priced meter. I had the pH56 before that. It was a far inferior tool and ended up being more expensive than the MW102 after several premature probe failures.

Here is a good source for buffer solutions: http://www.testequipmentdepot.com/h...n-solutions/ph-buffer/ph-buffer-solutions.htm. Notice the price on the 1L bottles compared to the .46L bottles.

I have the Omega PH7011 and really like it so far (though ive only used it a couple times.)

Mirilis said:

I have the Omega PH7011 and really like it so far (though ive only used it a couple times.)

Click to expand...

Doesn't that one come with the buffer solutions?

most of them will come with a little vial of it.. but I bought a pint of 4.0 and 7.0 as well. Omega recommends i store mine in 4.0 buffer solution.

Mirilis said:

most of them will come with a little vial of it.. but I bought a pint of 4.0 and 7.0 as well. Omega recommends i store mine in 4.0 buffer solution.

Click to expand...

Be careful. Omega recommends that you put a couple of drops of 4 buffer solution in the cap to keep the probe moist. You don't want to allow the buffer solution to be contact with the glass membrane or it can cause the electrolyte to leach out of the junction. Distilled water is the same way...only a few drops in that hermetically-sealed cap to keep the probe moist.

Martin,
You are still confused about the anatomy of a pH electrode. The glass bulb is the glass bulb and that is obvious. The juction is either a frit or frit-like cylinder which passes through the bulkhead of the electrode with axis parallel to that of the tube on the end of which the bulb is found. Today there is a tendency to use what I call a 'rag' juction because its physical appearance is like a bit or rag wedged between the wall of the electrode and the bulkhead. If the meter has but a couple of drops of buffer or water in a covering cap it is unlikely that either the junction or the bulb will be exposed. Only if the meter is stored upside down with a fair amout of liquid is it likely that the juction would be under water. In a Hach meter (similar design) 3 mm of water in the cap just touches the bulb. This does not matter. In fact it is a good thing as it keeps the bulb hyrated with the leached layer leached. 3 mm of water does not touch the junction. In fact there is no position in which I can store the meter in which it does (the cap extends far enough beyond the bulkhead that if I put it upside down the bulkhead is over a cm above the water line). But you don't need 3mm of water. A couple of drops, enough to keep the hydrated layer from drying out, is sufficient. In fact with these new glass formulas apparently you don't even need to prevent dryout. They rehydrate very quickly.

Mirilis,

I've described the Hach meter. The Omega is doubtless of slightly different construction. Do, in this regard, whatever the manufacturer instructs.

I just never put much thought into it and fill it with the suggested liquid to the line that says fill here on the cap.

Now I remember the details on this one. It comes with a 'soaker bottle' and a tiny supply of solution to put into that bottle. A previous owner had questioned what to do when that tiny supply is exhausted as Omega doesn't seem to have a P/N for it. Nor, apparently, was Omega terribly helpful when he contacted them for advice. This was fairly recently.

The fact that there is a storage cap and that some solution is supplied suggests that both junction and bulb are to be soaked and this strongly suggests that the solution is 3M KCl saturated with AgCl because that's what's in the reference cell but it does not prove that this is what it is. Again the manufacturer is the one to tell you what to do but the manual is completely unhelpful in this regard. Try to conserve what they gave you and hope that the manual is updated or that Omega becomes more forthcoming in the future.

+1 I love my 102. Easy, works great.

On the other hand, I found that I have great water for brewing. With base or lightly kilned malts, my pH comes in right on target. I guess when the guys at the LHBS said you don't really need a pH meter here, I ought to have listened. (Or maybe I was right and am still to ignorant to know so).

I add dark malts late in the mash, for the final 15 minutes, my understanding is this makes mash pH more predictable. I also fly sparge, don't know if that matters.

So, once I knew the results of base malts with my water, I guess a pH meter is less necessary.

A meter is a great tool and will definitely help dial your process in along side a water spreadsheet. Do be aware they are high maintenance, electrodes do not last long (1-2 years), and require a significant investment in buffers/cleaners/storage solutions. That said, my last meter was used exclusively for comparing the accuracy of the spreadsheets and I was quite surprised how well they performed. IMO BNW was spot on and EZ just a bit higher. BNW worked so well I have not replaced my electrode in my current meter. That said, the period of time I had the meter (my 3rd) I measured EVERYTHING, including my favorite commerical beers and final pH of my own and the amount of knowledge I gained was invaluable. Meters are a love/hate relationship with me.

I've been using a meter for a couple years, and am not certain they're more useful than the ColorpHast test strips, which get me within 0.1 (as long as you add 0.3 to your reading). That's probably close enough. The range of pH targets (e.g. 5.2-5.6) is much greater than the precision of the cheap ColorpHast strips, which suggests that finding the right TARGET is more important than the measurement tool. Once you've identified your ideal target pH, it seems the ColorpHast would be good enough in my experience.

Some folks have identified an exact target pH for their beer (e.g. 5.6 for a stout), and for them, yes a meter might make sense. But I've seen nothing but anecdotal evidence supporting an exact target. So you should be able to hit the general target of 5.4-5.6 with ColorpHast strips.

zwiller said:

A meter is a great tool and will definitely help dial your process in along side a water spreadsheet. Do be aware they are high maintenance, electrodes do not last long (1-2 years),

Click to expand...

I'm just about to replace one whose slope dropped to 94.8% (so the meter refuses to cal) after a bit over 4 years. I can still use it, of course, but have to put buffer and sample mV and temperature readings into a spreadsheet to get a pH result. I've had other electrodes go over 5 years. Now to be fair these electrodes alone cost more than the pH meters we are talking about here but I can remember when we thought we were doing well if an electrode lasted a year.

zwiller said:

...and require a significant investment in buffers/cleaners/storage solutions.

Click to expand...

I suppose that 'significant' depends on the individual's perception but a few cents for a set of fresh buffers and a liter of storage solution that lasts 10 years isn't 'significant' to my way of thinking.

zwiller said:

That said, my last meter was used exclusively for comparing the accuracy of the spreadsheets and I was quite surprised how well they performed. IMO BNW was spot on and EZ just a bit higher.

Click to expand...

The spreadsheets work amazingly well except when they don't. I would never trust a spreadsheet (even my own which is appreciably more accurate than the others when it is fed good malt data) to give me a mash pH prediction better than ±0.1 (0.2 pH spread) but that's me and I am very interested in this whole subject of mash pH prediction so I'm probably more interested in accuracy than most.

zwiller said:

Meters are a love/hate relationship with me.

Click to expand...

You are not alone there. Having to calibrate before every brew is a PITA and sometimes pH meters still do funny things. More love now than earlier because things are really so much better.

This is encouraging AJ. I agree, they are getting better. I did not know the storage solution lasts that long. I recall the liquid buffers are good for a year so thought it was the same thing.

May I ask what in your opinion encourages longer electrode life? I think I got a lot more life the less I was measuring mash pH.

I think what you do is much less significant than what the manufacturers have done. The state of the art has advanced a lot in the 40 yrs or so I've been fiddling with pH meters. Back in those early days a conversation might have gone like this

You: "I've got a pH meter problem in the lab"
Me: "What is it?"
You: "It's the room on the 4th floor where the scientists sit but that's not important."
Me: "No, actually it isn't. Your junction is fouled."

IOW most pH electrode problems were junction fouling. For brewing (and similar tough applications - brewing is tough because of proteins and sugars) one practically had to have a double junction design. This doesn't seem to be the case any more - none of my current electrodes have double junctions. The 'rag' junction I mentioned in an earlier post seems to be becoming quite popular, simple as it is, and it seems immune from fouling somehow.

The glass recipes have also, of course, improved. It doesn't seem necessary to keep the new bulbs hydrated as was necessary in the past.

Clearly the more you use the meter the more quickly it becomes coated with sugars and proteins which slow response. But you should be able to clean a modern electrode of sugars and proteins with an enzyme cleaner such as Zymit. The other thing you as a user can do is protect from extreme and sudden temperature variations by doing all measurements at room temperature.