All water calculators are bunk

[sixhotdogneck]

Both Lovibond and proton surfeit/deficit based calculators are bunk.

Lovibond algorithms are flawed for not being an exact fit for all malts in that "class", and proton models fall short by requiring malt parameters that simply are not available, thus forcing them into an estimating model based on the malts that have been tested.

Neither appears to take into account the full mash chemistry (phytin reactions, etc...).

"Good enough for this church" appears to be the general attitude.

 

[mongoose33]

So let me guess....after a sufficient period of silence you'll offer us a better idea?

I've used both EZWater and BrunWater. Both have been pretty decent in calculating pH of my mash. What more do I need? And fwiw, my beer is pretty good. Some would say outstanding.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

Well, they won't likely get you within 0.01 pH of the target every time.

 

[mabrungard]

Yep, there are limitations when dealing with varying water supplies and grain quality. My hat's off to the folks that are laboring over new proton surfeit/deficit brewing water calculators. But if brewers are going to have to conduct an additional hour or two in testing to get the data that they'll need for their 'higher' accuracy, then I'm not sure that many brewers are going to want to go down that path. While I'm sure there can be some refinement in grain acidity models primarily through adding more classes of grains, there is still plenty of evidence that acidity is highly correlated with grain color.

While I would love to slice the baloney thinner, I believe that most brewers want a reliable answer that doesn't have them pulling out a chemistry book.

PS: Bru'n Water has always been based on a proton surfeit/deficit model. That's why its fairly accurate.

 

[GoeHaarden]

I'm still trying to figure out the purpose of this thread, let alone anything beyond it...Are you asking a question or providing us with useful information? I just don't know...

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

Inevitably, over time, more and also more precise (at averaging, as well as at being highly specific) malt parameters suitable to gen 2 software will become available, and that is when the generation 2 approach will truly begin to shine and begin to show the potential for leaving generation 1 software behind. The end user functionality and workings of the gen 2 software must kept be within the grasp of mainstream home brewers though. If the gen 2 interfaces are made too difficult for the grass roots home brewer to comprehend, or if it takes forever to enter recipes and determine solutions, then there will still be a place for gen 1 software. Actively managed gen 1 software is also improving over time. But the big guns are now focused on gen 2 development, as they should be.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

I'm still trying to figure out the purpose of this thread, let alone anything beyond it...Are you asking a question or providing us with useful information? I just don't know...

It makes for a great platform to discuss why gen 2 will win out in the end (as it inevitably will). It's an open arena, and as mongoose33 implied above, there is room for the OP to hit us with a blockbuster gen 2 release, or even to potentially leapfrog us directly into gen 3.

And since we haven't heard from RPIScotty in awhile, I speculate that he is hard at work on a blockbuster of a new release.

My greatest disappointment is that gen 2 will not run on LibreOffice, and therefore I may never be able to experience its power first hand.

 

[MaxStout]

I'd like to see if something constructive comes from this thread. But given the number of trolls that have come and gone around here, I wouldn't hold out much hope. Too many people are quick to stir the pot, but don't offer anything else.

But then again, does the software NEED to be hyper-accurate? The existing programs do a good job of getting close to the x-ring, but it's the empirical approach (using a well-calibrated pH meter, etc.) that gets us to the mark.

 

[ajdelange]

Don't feed the trolls!

Gen I and Gen II both have limitations.

Malt parameters are available and, given the insight I had today, will, it is hoped be more readily available to brewers willing to do a little work.

Both Gen I and Gen II take into account the calcium phytin reaction.

 

[dmtaylor]

*EDIT: Original statement deleted so as not to detract from the geekiness that ensues below.

 

[sixhotdogneck]

PS: Bru'n Water has always been based on a proton surfeit/deficit model. That's why its fairly accurate.

Would you elaborate further as to how your base, crystal and roast selections along with their Lovibond values are incorporated into a proton surfeit/deficit model?

 

[ajdelange]

... plenty of evidence that acidity is highly correlated with grain color.

There is plenty of evidence that it is correlated but not highly correlated or at least not highly enough that color is a reliable predictor of acidity. But we may have to accept that if no one is willing to make any measurements it's all we've got. Substantial improvement over a color model can be obtained by a single measurement of the distilled water mash pH of the grain in question and making an assumption about the buffering. Measuring buffering too is, of course better still but just pHDI tells us a lot. This is because grains have pretty similar buffering properties.

Bru'n Water has always been based on a proton surfeit/deficit model.

Implicitly or explicitly all mash prediction software is based on the proton deficit/surfeit model. It decribes how acids and bases interact when mixed.

While I would love to slice the baloney thinner, I believe that most brewers want a reliable answer that doesn't have them pulling out a chemistry book.

Given the former (I reversed the order) the latter is quite possible. There is nothing to stop you from inserting the following function into Brun Water. This eliminates the inherent inaccuracy of the linear solution methodology. It returns the pH value that zeroes the total proton deficit. The part that remains for you is to write a function that gathers up the proton deficits from the malts, the water, the water's alkalinity and any added acids or bases and returns the sum. As you are already calculating all these this shouldn't be much of a job.

Function FindpHz_(pH0 As Double, FuncName As String) As Double
'Find pH that zeroes FuncName(pH) starting from an initial guess at pH0

Dim dQdpH As Double
Dim QpH0 As Double
Dim Corr As Double
Corr = 0.1
Dim Count As Integer
Count = 0

Do Until Abs(Corr) < 0.0001
QpH0 = Application.Run(FuncName, pH0)
Count = Count + 1
dQdpH = (Application.Run(FuncName, pH0 + 1E-07) - QpH0) / 1E-07
Corr = -QpH0 / dQdpH
pH0 = pH0 + Corr
Loop

FindpHz_ = pH0

End Function

Of course all the other functions I've developed for the Voltmeter spreadsheet are available to you too. The thing was put together mainly as a diagnostic tool for spreadsheet developers. I'll just say that after years of fiddling with Excel on brewing water problems it is just really nice to be able to type =Qw1L(4.7) rather than =1000*(10^-4.7 - 10^(4.7-14)).

There is also nothing to stop you from using

Function dQWaterCt(pH As Double, Alk As Double, pHs As Double, Optional pHe As Double = 4.5) As Double
'Returns charge deficit on 1L of water with alkalinity of Alk mEq/L (from pHs to pHe) from pHs to pH.
dQWaterCt = Qw1L(pH) - Qw1L(pHs) + Ct(Alk, pHs, pHe) * (QAcid(pH, 6.38, 10.38) - QAcid(pHs, 6.38, 10.38))
End Function

to calculate the deficit on water thus eliminating the errors inherent in the way you treat alkalinity.

By using the QAcid function with the pKs for lactic or phosphoric acid to compute their deficits you can eliminate the errors in the way you treat those acids.

The improvements of Gen II are readily available to Brun Water or any other Excel based spreadsheet.

Chemistry book?

 

[ajdelange]

Would you elaborate further as to how your base, crystal and roast selections along with their Lovibond values are incorporated into a proton surfeit/deficit model?

I can't answer as to how Martin might be doing it but I can answer as to how it might be properly done. One would start out with the basic approach Kai Troester adopted years ago. He measured a bunch of malts and made scatter diagrams of pHDI vs color. He found three broad groups, base malts, black malts and colored malts for which, if individually fit, fairly good correlations ( r = .8 IIRC) were seen. pHDI information was obtained from malts measurement and he also took a second measurement from which a linear buffering term could be derived. With pHDI and buffering proton deficit can be calculated at any pH. In my recent efforts I wrote the Excel function dQm1kg(pH, pHDI, a, b, c) which upon being fed a desired pH and malt data returns the deficit for that malt. A color model would have a function, or really set of functions, that predicted pHDI and at least a based on the color so that a call would look like dQm1kg( pH, pHDIBlack(L), aBlack(L) ). pHDIBlack(L) would estimate pHDI for black malts based upon their color. aBlack would estimate the linear buffering term, a, based on color. For this to give good answers the correlation between pHDI and color would have to be tighter than Kai observed. This implies, at best, that the groupings would have to be smaller than Black Malt. Perhaps Munton Black Malts, Crisp Black Malts, Briess Black Malts etc. I am not hopeful that such groupings can be found.

 

[sixhotdogneck]

In general I agree with your method Mr. Delange. I'm implying (as you seem to be) that because Brunwater has a limited selection of 3 groups (Base, Crystal, Roast) that accuracy is hindered. Perhaps your last two statements sum it up.

 

[mongoose33]

In general I agree with your method Mr. Delange. I'm implying (as you seem to be) that because Brunwater has a limited selection of 3 groups (Base, Crystal, Roast) that accuracy is hindered. Perhaps your last two statements sum it up.

What are you using if Brunwater is inaccurate? And how accurate is what you're using, and how do you know?

 

[sixhotdogneck]

Fortunately, I do not make use of any calculators.

 

[jekeane]

I'm asking this question out of genuine curiosity and not to troll.

What does any of this matter to the average home brewer?

I have used Brun and RO water for years now and I can't recall the last time I was off significantly from my estimated Ph. What does .1 or .2 difference really make for most beers in the opinion of those who are looking for a more precise tool?

 

[sixhotdogneck]

I'm asking this question out of genuine curiosity and not to troll.

What does any of this matter to the average home brewer?

I have used Brun and RO water for years now and I can't recall the last time I was off significantly from my estimated Ph. What does .1 or .2 difference really make for most beers in the opinion of those who are looking for a more precise tool?

.1 or .2 doesn't make much difference but that's the point, that level can be achieved without the use of calculators.

 

[SEndorf]

Does not the sticky in this very forum give advice without the use of a calculator?

No. I see the primer as designed to get you started in the concept of water adjustment.
Nowhere in the primer do I see an assertion that this "replaces" a water calculator as "not needed" as you suggest.

.1 or .2 doesn't make much difference but that's the point, that level can be achieved without the use of calculators.

Please enlighten us on how you achieve this level of accuracy.

 

[RPh_Guy]

The secret is to add double the suggested amount of Five Star 5.2 Mash pH Stabilizer, obviously.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

Nowhere in the primer do I see an assertion that this "replaces" a water calculator as "not needed" as you suggest.

Right up front the primer discusses mash pH goals, and for a baseline it suggests (in addition to calcium chloride) the addition of sauermalz at 2% of grist weight for a basic batch. Then for really light colored brews it informs to up the sauermalz to 3% of grist weight. So, yes, the water chemistry primer does explicitly instruct as to how to move a light colored beer to within the acceptable mash pH window without the use of a calculator. But then it does state that for best results a pH meter is required to hone in the mash pH to 5.3.

Water calculators are not discussed at all within the primer, so there is no guidance within as to whether or not they are needed. This leads me to believe that the primers methods are intended to be sufficient and calculators are in the end not needed. As if they were a requisite, it seems the primer would have mentioned them.

For British type beers and beyond (I.E., higher SRM) the sauermalz addition is no longer mentioned in the primer.

And recently A.J. seems to be of the opinion that for any reasonable Porter or Stout with roasted malts held to no higher than 10% of grist weight, you will most likely hit the mash pH window of acceptability with no baking soda (or other nominally caustic substance) addition required. Although this is latter part is admittedly not part of the primer.

In the end this does not mean that calculators are bunk, but it does show that they are not really necessary.

From my experience in calculator making, it is quite easy to get a calculator to suggest the need for an acid addition for light colored beers, but the truly hard part is getting it right for the really dark colored beers. Much past history and guidance indicating a need for a whopper load of alkalinity for the really dark brews must be overcome if one is to build a calculator that matches with A.J.'s mash pH measurements and experience, which clearly runs counter to this past advice. In another thread, I showed where currently available mash pH assistant calculators forecast everywhere from zero grams of baking soda to 16.5 grams of baking soda as required for the exact same robust stout recipe to hit 5.4 pH during the mash. The results of this observation initially drove me to modify my own software to increase its call for baking soda, but with my next release, I will go noticeably in the opposite direction in order to move MME more in the direction of A.J. deLange's experience (though not exactly matching, with MME being quasi-empirical, and with doubt still remaining on my part due to the impression that all of past history has burned into my thinking). If you can't trust A.J., who can you trust? Yet as much as I desire to trust him in this regard, I admit that I still have doubt...

Putting it all together in relation to the water primer, it may just be that the place where a calculator that is reliable is most needed is for truly robust stouts and other beers with loads of deep roasted grain or malt added, and particularly if such malts/grains exceed 10%. But this is precisely where the existing calculators show their greatest weakness in agreement. And the primer itself does not address this class of beers.

EDIT: From memory, the various calculators baking soda addition advice was roughly as follows for the above mentioned very robust stout recipe:

EZ Water said some acid was actually needed.
Brewer's Friend in grist mode said no baking soda or acid was needed.
MpH said about 4.5 grams baking soda was needed.
Mash Made Easy said about 8.4 grams of baking soda was needed.
Bru'n Water said about 13.5 grams of baking soda was needed.
Kaiser Water Calculator said 16 grams of baking soda was needed.
Brewer's Friend in SRM color mode said 16.5 grams of baking soda was needed.**

** I followed Kaiser Water Calculator instructions to determine the percentage of color from roasted malts when using Brewer's Friend in SRM color mode, as Kai collaborated on the building of this 'mode' of Brewer's Friend, yet (as I recall, at least) Brewers Friend fails to match his "roasted color percent" instructions. I'm fairly certain that if I did not apply Kai's instructions here, BF would have advised an even higher gram quantity of baking soda.

Edit again: If I had to venture a pure guess, my initial guess would be that A.J.'s advice for this highly robust stout recipe would likely fall somewhere roughly between that of Brewer's Friend in grist mode and MpH.

 

[ScrewyBrewer]

I like the extra challenge mash pH prediction adds to a brewday. Much of brewing is, besides cleaning up, recipe formulation and number prediction. OG, FG, IBU, SRM, pre and post-boil volume, kettle and trub loss, yeast pitching rate, ABV, ABW, etc.

Once accurate prediction of those numbers become routine then what? Yeast propagation, hop storage index and mash pH prediction all come to mind. Mash pH prediction provides the biggest challenge and greatest learning opportunity of all. For anyone interested in the brewing science and willing to learn.

Sharing empirical evidence of actual mash pH samples with Gen I and Gen II predictions. Having beer recipes include predicted and actual mash pH numbers. These are things we can do starting today that will help everyone. Why perpetuate a myth that failure of a mash to be within a ~0.01 pH of predicted is too embarrassing to report?

 

[ajdelange]

*EDIT: Original statement deleted so as not to detract from the geekiness that ensues below.

I don't think your original statement detracted at all. The geekiness flowed anyway. I too am weak (obviously) and obviously don't take my own advice (I do feed the trolls - more than most) and I think I benefit from it. I often gain insight in trying come up with a way to respond to what appears to be a troll and a good troll (that is one who is actually trying to do some good) knows this. He will poke a colleague in a way that he thinks will move the colleague to reconsider some aspect of the subject under investigation.

Do you need a spreadsheet? I do. Working on them keeps the bats from moving into the belfry of this old guy (or at least I hope its doing that) and I find Sudoku incredibly boring. Do I use them when i actually brew? Mostly after the fact to see if my latest one matches what I saw in the brewhouse or the lab. An experienced brewer doesn't need one. He will know, based on his experience with the water and other materials he has used many times before where his beer is going to come out. I use them mostly to answer questions here. If someone posts that he has put 5% roast barley and 5% brown malt into a beer with the rest being some pale ale malt and reports measuring pH 5.3 (and I've seen lots of reports like that) my intuition says Whoa! But I can't be of much help to the guy if all I can offer him is a report that my intuition has been pranged. A good spreadsheet lets me look at where the protons are going so that I can answer questions for myself such as "What would the pHDI of that Brown Malt have to be in order to get this mash to pH 5.3?" Or "What would its buffering have to be?" Or "Where would the pH go if all the alkalinity were taken out of the equation?" Or "How many mL of concentrated sulfuric acid would it take to get this mash, assuming nominal properties for each malt, to the reported pH?" This last is equivalent to "How much unexplainable acid is in this mash?" If the calculations show that changing the malt parameters within reasonable bounds could explain things or that a combination of super hard water and a credibly more powerful malt could get us to 5.3 then I can make some comment like "It could be that your brown malt is more acidic than most brown malts" or "Check the hardness and alkalinity of your water." Or measure the DI pH of your brown malt" etc. In one case I remember I was able to get the guy to measure some brown malt and tentatively conclude that its buffering capacity was twice that of most malts. But usually it turns out that the measured pH would require malts as yet unknown to man and that the problem, therefore, was in the pH reading. We've got guys on here of all levels of experiece and some will indicate that 5.3 was obtained with a calibrated pH meter. Further inquiry oft elicits a response like "Yes, the first thing I did when I got it was calibrate it." You'd be surprised.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

The very first beer I brewed after my retirement and my return to brewing (after an extended layoff from brewing) measured in at pH 5.26 vs. a calculated 5.40 from one of the popular calculators (and to be honest, I can't exactly recall which one, though my original fascination was heavily weighted toward the Kaiser Water Calculator at the time, so perhaps that was the one I used). Not quite 0.01 pH precision, which I was actually greatly hoping for at the time (being completely naive and unaware), but clearly good enough (though it left me greatly disappointed). This was right before I went to work on making my own mash pH assistant software.

How much precision is actually required? Can you actually taste mash pH precision at the level of 0.01 pH? 0.1 pH? 0.2 pH? Does early mash pH measurement actually remain stable, or (as I suspect) does it fluctuate noticeably and measurably with respect to the time in the mash that the sample is taken. And if real world mash pH's vary from sample to sample with respect to the time the sample is drawn (as well as with respect to meter stability, sample temperature, and meter user understanding of such matters), is there even any value in suggesting that gen 2 will "prove" to be superior to gen 1? And if so, how will it be determined. My suggestion is that the effort to find better precision in any of such software must shift to robust dark brews at this juncture, since clearly they are all over the board (and then some) at that end of the SRM spectrum, whereas the differences at the light SRM color end are in the end not nearly as different between them (wherein one calculator may be consistently 0.1 to 0.15 pH low, and another 0.1 to 0.15 high of target). The best advice is to target 5.4 and if you are off by 0.15 (or even 0.2) you will still be OK. This generally works with regard to calculators for the light to mid-range SRM beers, but clearly not for truly dark and robust beers.

And lastly, if software advice includes the addition of acidulated malt (such as Sauermalz), wherein their variability in acidity from lot to lot and brand to brand is so dramatic, such a concept as pH precision from any generation of calculator (outside of measured precision via specific lot testing in advance) will prove to be impossible.

 

[Big Monk]

And since we haven't heard from RPIScotty in awhile, I speculate that he is hard at work on a blockbuster of a new release.

Unfortunately, I've stalled and have gotten kind of burned out.

My $0.02? I think a first step to getting this new stuff to the masses is to familiarize them with how important pH DI and at least a guess at a1 is.

I think I stalled because the malt classes I created were too broad and made too many assumptions. Just implementing an actual pH DI value into color based sheets will improve results dramatically, but i think going the extra mile and assuming a value for a1 for base malts and at least a1 and a2 for roasted malts is a good start.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

Unfortunately, I've stalled and have gotten kind of burned out.

RPI, I'm right there with you on the burned out thing. With my release of MME 3.00 I may call it quits on making additional updates or revisions. I don't know how A.J. does it, but this is clearly a younger mans sport, and I'm not getting any younger. I think I've tossed the kitchen sink into 3.00 and I can't imagine how I could make it better without adopting a gen 2 core, or without turning it into a Swiss Army Knife of complexity, or both, but the former will require my breaking of my (and my wife's) strict anti-Microsoft stance, so that won't happen, and the latter would defeat the intuitive easiness and overall end-user simplicity of it, so that likely won't happen either.

I remember when you cautioned (or rather outright warned) me before I ever publicly released V_1.00 that loads of people who wouldn't ever think of donating to the cause in support of it will complain and demand that it needs this or that functionality, or ask why I password protected it and then demand that I not protect it, or make claims (or rather outright boasts with bravado) that it is not precisely 100% matching the output of such and such or so and so's existing spreadsheet(s) that they already use and love and also somehow know to be 100% perfect with regard to adjustment advice for all recipes under all situations, so therefore on that basis alone (which is actually a primary reason for MME's existence) it is de-Facto useless to them, or ask me to explain to them in detail why it differs from so and so as to output, or tell me that they brewed a single batch and my software did not hit within 0.01 pH of the target and then ask me to explain why, etc... and that as a consequence of all of this there will be loads of frustration and minimal to zero reward. You were absolutely right on all counts, and I've pretty much experienced precisely what you warned me of in advance. And as a consequence burn out is the perfect description of it.

 

[jekeane]

Please enlighten us on how you achieve this level of accuracy.

I use Brun. I have found it is rarely more that .10 off in a direction from my Hach ph meter when I use RO.

 

[CodeSection]

@Silver_Is_Money Whew, I hope you took a breath! I, for one, appreciate your efforts! Many, including myself, do not say "thank you" enough. Thank you for your contributions and sincere desire to help others! I hope you will continue contributing!

 

[SEndorf]

I use Brun. I have found it is rarely more that .10 off in a direction from my Hach ph meter when I use RO.

+1
Same here.
Bru'n water & RO water

 

[ScrewyBrewer]

I use Brun. I have found it is rarely more that .10 off in a direction from my Hach ph meter when I use RO.

@jekeane care to share your recipes and actual pH measurements? It would be a benefit to everyone if your results can be duplicated.

 

[jekeane]

@jekeane care to share your recipes and actual pH measurements? It would be a benefit to everyone if your results can be duplicated.

Im brewing a belgian blond this week and can do that.

 

[ScrewyBrewer]

Im brewing a belgian blond this week and can do that.

@jekeane that'll be awesome thank you.

 

[Tribe Fan]

Just wanted to say to Silver$, AJ and dozens of others on these mash pH threads, these have been tremendous in helping me figure out some problems with my beers. As advocates and curators of this stuff, its probably easy to get caught up in the tragedy of the commons, but I can assure you there are lots of visitors who have thoroughly enjoyed a nice day in the park.

At this point in my life, I am not going to spend 6 years studying chemistry. Leveraging people that have spent a lifetime doing it is a pretty good alternative. Thanks for the contributions. Big help.