Silver_Is_Money
Larry Sayre, Developer of 'Mash Made Easy'
Meaning here hard values for pHDI and BC, leading (via computation) to hard mEq/Kg_pH acidity valuations.
1) Mainly because "HARD" data for 99+% of these "specific" grains and flakes, and adjuncts, etc... simply and factually doesn't exist.
2) What scant data does exist, when plotted, looks much like a scatter chart, with "inherently" low valuation as to statistical confidence.
3) Even if a pHDI is given by the maltster, it is 100% absolutely useless unless the BC (buffering capacity) is also given, and "specific" BC's are never provided by the maltsters.
4) Annual, seasonal and regional differences within even the very same grain varietal mean that "HARD" valuations are an utter impossibility.
5) Those providing the "HARD" data don't even come close to each other as to their derived critical values when looking at the very same brand and type of malt, grain, or adjunct.
What has been laughed at recently is the use of color whereby to assign the critical values (nominally, via the plotted values 'data regression') is in fact all that one can really go by. When the seemingly as if scatter charts are evaluated mathematically, plotted, and then statistically regressed to 'nominal' math model (equation or formula) values, (as opposed to "HARD") values, these charted values have (surprise) "color" as one chart axis. So to laugh at color as a participant in pHDI, BC, and mEQ/Kg_pH is 'ahem' laughable.
Those who are laughing propose to provide (as a superior method to that of merely deriving 'nominals' from color) highly "specific" (or "HARD") values for pHDI, BC, and mEq/Kg_pH acidity for every last brand name and malt or grain or adjunct type on this planet. One might ask: If such data for the most part simply doesn't exist, and what data does exist looks like a scatter chart with low math model (or curve matching equation) statistical confidence, then how is this possible?
Answer, it isn't! And thus such programs that offer specific item selections right down to malt, grain, etc's brand name for the many hundreds of beer making ingredients are merely blowing smoke. And they are blowing it at you. And for a reason. The real intent of such software is to sell the sizzle as opposed to the steak (or meat) of the programming, and to dazzle the unaware end user.
You are no longer unaware.
1) Mainly because "HARD" data for 99+% of these "specific" grains and flakes, and adjuncts, etc... simply and factually doesn't exist.
2) What scant data does exist, when plotted, looks much like a scatter chart, with "inherently" low valuation as to statistical confidence.
3) Even if a pHDI is given by the maltster, it is 100% absolutely useless unless the BC (buffering capacity) is also given, and "specific" BC's are never provided by the maltsters.
4) Annual, seasonal and regional differences within even the very same grain varietal mean that "HARD" valuations are an utter impossibility.
5) Those providing the "HARD" data don't even come close to each other as to their derived critical values when looking at the very same brand and type of malt, grain, or adjunct.
What has been laughed at recently is the use of color whereby to assign the critical values (nominally, via the plotted values 'data regression') is in fact all that one can really go by. When the seemingly as if scatter charts are evaluated mathematically, plotted, and then statistically regressed to 'nominal' math model (equation or formula) values, (as opposed to "HARD") values, these charted values have (surprise) "color" as one chart axis. So to laugh at color as a participant in pHDI, BC, and mEQ/Kg_pH is 'ahem' laughable.
Those who are laughing propose to provide (as a superior method to that of merely deriving 'nominals' from color) highly "specific" (or "HARD") values for pHDI, BC, and mEq/Kg_pH acidity for every last brand name and malt or grain or adjunct type on this planet. One might ask: If such data for the most part simply doesn't exist, and what data does exist looks like a scatter chart with low math model (or curve matching equation) statistical confidence, then how is this possible?
Answer, it isn't! And thus such programs that offer specific item selections right down to malt, grain, etc's brand name for the many hundreds of beer making ingredients are merely blowing smoke. And they are blowing it at you. And for a reason. The real intent of such software is to sell the sizzle as opposed to the steak (or meat) of the programming, and to dazzle the unaware end user.
You are no longer unaware.