Announcing the release of 'Mash Made Easy' version 10.90

BrewSwag 728
Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Silver_Is_Money

Silver_Is_Money

Larry Sayre, Developer of 'Mash Made Easy'
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
6,452
Reaction score
2,209
Location
N/E Ohio
Mash Made Easy version 10.90 is now available as a free download on my website in both Standard/US and the fully Metric editions.

Changes since version 10.85:

1) Corrects and improves upon internal BC (Buffering Capacity) computation for malts/grains which have pHDI's of less than 5.40, and for the specific case whereby the user selects a Mash pH target of other than 5.40. Since version 10.80, grist components BC's within MME are (individually and collectively) dynamic and variable with respect to the users selected Mash pH target, and the directional magnitude of this dynamic/variable change in BC for specifically what would nominally be considered "acidic" grist components (with respect to the Mash pH target) was discovered to be formerly incorrect. If you have typically mashed at a targeted 5.40 pH, then you were never impacted by this error, which has now been fixed with version 10.90. If you typically brew light colored beers, you were not formerly likely to have been significantly (if at all) impacted, since such 'acidic' malts/grains are minimized or absent. But if/when you brew darker beers you will significantly benefit from this correction.

2) The IBU's module for the Standard/US version now bases Hop weight inputs upon ounces (as opposed to grams) per a user request for this modification.

NOTE: The BC calculation modification for "acidic" malts/grains (as per #1 above) makes this what I would consider to be a "critical fix" edition, and all users are thereby urged to upgrade from earlier editions whereby to benefit from this critical and significant improvement.
 
Within the typical mash pH range the goal of dynamic BC's is to better follow the titration curve whereby to compute the required acidic or basic mEq's so as to hit the Mash pH target. This diagrammed example shows a base malt, with pH increasing from left to right along the 'X' Axis, and mEq's increasing from top to bottom along the 'Y' Axis. The blue line indicates where a static BC would compute mEq's.

Titration.png

If we were instead looking at this chart as if for an acidic malt with a pHDI of 4.9 the 'blue' arrows on the "mEq's of titrant" line (the 'Y' Axis) indicating mEq's of basic titrant to be added (whereby to raise the pH by decreasing the inherent acidity) would be reversed from what is seen here, whereby the mEq's for this case would be increasing from bottom to top.

The difference between the curved line and the blue line within the chart represents the error in presuming linearity. It would be either the case of mEq undershoot or overshoot if linearity was to be presumed. As can be seen, if both the BC was initially computed to a target of pH 5.4, and the users desired mash pH target is 5.4, then linearity predicts the correct mEq's. But for the case of Mashing to a target of 5.6 or 5.2 a presumption of linearity would potentially be significantly off.
 
Some of the public domain available malt titration data indicates that 5.7 pH was the target and at least one set of data was generated for malts which were all titrated to pH 7.0. Such data is effectively useless in my opinion. And attempts whereby to 're-nominalize' any to all of such data to pH 5.4 are highly suspect as to accuracy in achieving the intended goal of 5.4 target pH nominalization.
 
Notice via the diagram that if the math model was static and linear, an attempt to mash at 5.6 pH would yield a mash at 5.5 pH, and an attempt to mash at 5.2 pH would yield a mash at 5.3 pH.
 
NOTE: I just made a couple minor changes and put them up as new version 10.95 on my website. There is no real urgency to transition to version 10.95 from version 10.90 unless you want to keep up with my latest version.

Changes since version 10.90:
1) The former "Crystal/Carapils" grist component entry drop down selection has been broken out into separate entries under the titles of "Caramel/Crystal" and "Carapils/Carafoam". This change is for the end users grist component entry clarity only. The math modeling behind these malts remains unchanged.
2) The pHDI of Wheat and Rye malt has been reduced slightly from 6.1 to 6.0, and for the flaked versions of same the pHDI has been reduced slightly from 6.6 to 6.5. The effect of this change will be slight.
 
As a side note, I've noticed that some data I received upon request from Briess (about 4-5 years ago) indicates that they believe their White Wheat malt to have a pHDI of 5.89 (call it 5.9), and their Red Wheat malt to have a pHDI of 5.8. Most other (primarily UK and European) sources tend to indicate 6.0 or 6.1 pHDI for wheat malts. In general the Briess pHDI data for many of their offerings (with the exception of the Caramel's) seem to often be a smidge lower in pHDI than for similar category overseas malts. If your malted Wheat is sourced from specifically Briess you may want to enter their 5.8 or 5.9 pHDI's as manual DI-pH overrides within MME. But beware that YMMV when taking this step since off shore (to the USA) maltsters data more generally agrees with the 'default' valuations I've used within MME.

The greatest oddity of them all (as gleaned from admittedly scarce Briess provided data) may be for Briess's "run of the mill" (so to speak) 2-Row Brewers Malt, for which their data clusters around ~5.58 as the average pHDI for this particular malt. 5.58 for a 'standard' 1.8-1.9 Lovibond 2-Row base malt definitely stands out as an oddity which is pronouncedly to the low side among such 1.8L-1.9L base malts in general.
 
Of course, now that I've had some time to think about this, when you add the extremes of the deionized water mash pH data for Wheat Malt and divide by 2, the average becomes a pHDI of 5.95.

(5.8 + 6.1)/2 = 5.95

So with that, I've just taken the liberty to make this very slight (and highly averaging) change to MME on my website. No version change was applied....
 
After a couple minor cosmetic relocations intended to aid the end user, plus the elimination of antiquated as useless 'RA' feedback, version 11.00 of MME is now available for download on my website. No computational level changes vs. the previous version 10.95.
 
On opening MME, the colors were all super dark, rendering it unusable. I'm on a Mac with Excel 2008, and assuming this may have something to do with it. I was able to modify the color palette to get it close to what I saw on the website, but not all the cells. There are also a couple instances of text in cells being cut off, can supply screen shots if needed.
 
Komodo said:
On opening MME, the colors were all super dark, rendering it unusable. I'm on a Mac with Excel 2008, and assuming this may have something to do with it. I was able to modify the color palette to get it close to what I saw on the website, but not all the cells. There are also a couple instances of text in cells being cut off, can supply screen shots if needed.
Click to expand...

The MME spreadsheet is intended only to function properly in LibreOffice running on any OS, and later versions of Excel running under Windows.

I believe there is a LibreOffice version for Mac. LibreOffice is free. I would strongly suggest that you download and install it. My latest build utilized LibreOffice 7.2.2, but any version in the 7's should suffice.
 
Last edited:
If you can locate and install the font sets listed in the link within my post above then MME may work properly on a Mac using Excel, but I can offer no guarantee. The far and away better bet is to simply install LibreOffice, plus these fonts for it, if for some reason they are not included in the default install. I hope you find a solution that meets your satisfaction.
 
Komodo said:
Thanks! I appreciate that. BTW - no complaints here, just wanting to help.
Click to expand...

Sorry if my options did not suffice, but I'm a retiree living on a fixed income. Seeking specific MME related cures for the respected Mac OS platform while it is utilizing a well aged 2008 edition of Excel is beyond my meager means.
 
How to install the DejaVu Sans Condensed font set on a Mac:

In Mac OS X/OS X/macOS and Other OS, There are three ways to install .ttf, .otf, .ttc, .dfont fonts:

A. Double click the file and click the "Install".

B. Open "Font" software under "Application" and choose the font you want to install.

C. Copy font file to "/Library/Fonts" and restart your computer. Early days, some software needs to copy the file to "/System/Library/Fonts".

https://en.fontke.com/font/158752996/download/
Edit: The default download on the linked website is for Windows. Click on the button for Mac OS so the check mark moves to Mac before downloading. This button is located just below the orange "Download It Now" button.
 
Last edited:
@Komodo, I'm interested in knowing if adding the requisite font set(s) to your 2008 version of Excel for Mac OS solved your issue with the text within MME not fitting properly into the text cells. Or if you decided to simply install LibreOffice, and if that solved the issue. Or if you had to install the appropriate font set(s) even for LibreOffice...
 
Silver_Is_Money said:
@Komodo, I'm interested in knowing if adding the requisite font set(s) to your 2008 version of Excel for Mac OS solved your issue with the text within MME not fitting properly into the text cells. Or if you decided to simply install LibreOffice, and if that solved the issue. Or if you had to install the appropriate font set(s) even for LibreOffice...
Click to expand...

The font did indeed fix the text being cut off within cells. Thanks again!
 
Komodo said:
The font did indeed fix the text being cut off within cells. Thanks again!
Click to expand...

This is encouraging. If anyone is similarly experiencing the text fit issue in Excel for Windows, or even within LibreOffice, the very same font fix should solve the problem.
 
Ozarks_Mountain_Brew said:
big change from the previous version as far as ph and acids, can you share what changed roughly?
Click to expand...

There should be no changes in output from the previous to the current, as only cosmetic changes were made. What previous and current versions are you referring to, and are you using the US or Metric version? Are you doing any copy and paste from one version to another?
 
Can you provide snapshots? Very little change has occurred at the output end over multiple updates. Certainly nothing 'large'.

If you are copying cells with underlying formulas or drop down links, and you are not properly accounting for this via using 'Paste Special', you may be dragging formulas or altered 'category selectors' across from one version to another, which can indeed be seriously problematic. It is ALWAYS best to copy, and then use 'Paste Special' while permitting only the criteria for allowing the transmission of "numbers" and "text" to occur.

Once I see snapshots I should be better able to assess where things have gone wrong for you.
 
Last edited:
Neither of the download links open for me as I can only use .xls files - any chance of saving as .xls and putting a link on here, please ?
 
bobtheUKbrewer2 said:
Neither of the download links open for me as I can only use .xls files - any chance of saving as .xls and putting a link on here, please ?
Click to expand...

Some functions derived post the older .xls format era would potentially be rendered inoperable upon my saving it in that mode, and it would likely break MME at various junctures to attempt it. Can you use the 'universal' .ods format instead?

Might I suggest that you simply install LibreOffice 7.2.2 instead?
 
thanks Larry. I am 76 and have never heard of .ods or Libre - but I was a metallurgist now I am a brewer so I will go and have a search around.
 
Hi there. I am trying out Mash Made Easy v.11 for an Imperial Stout. I cannot see the Estimated Batch Colour EBC of the beer, due to the fact that the EBC box is completely black.

Is there anything I can do about it? Thanks.
 
Try running MME within a different brand of (or year of) spreadsheet. What are your spreadsheet details/vitals?
 
thehaze said:
Hi there. I am trying out Mash Made Easy v.11 for an Imperial Stout. I cannot see the Estimated Batch Colour EBC of the beer, due to the fact that the EBC box is completely black.

Is there anything I can do about it? Thanks.
Click to expand...

I'd like to reach out to others here for assistance whereby to ask if the final batch color cell is doing both of these two things listed below, and to also ask what type/version of operating system you are running, and which type/version of spreadsheet you are using:
1) Is the Estimated Batch Color cell reflecting a ballpark representation of finished beer color?
2) Within the same cell is the numerical value of this colors SRM or EBC visible?
 
Windows 10 Home 21H1 / OS build 19043.1348
Microsoft Excel 2102 for Microsoft 365 MSO ( 16.0.13801.21002 ) 64-bit
 

Attachments

  • EBC box.PNG
    EBC box.PNG
    71.8 KB · Views: 16
Well that's not supposed to happen! Would you consider running it within LibreOffice 7? I'm currently developing and building MME with LibreOffice 7.2.2.
 
Greetings @Silver_Is_Money . I've been using another spreadsheet for what feels like forever, but it's time to explore new options. It looks like MME 11.00 is the current version but this was the last related post I could find and so it felt like an appropriate place to ask setup questions. I'm guessing if I have them, someone else might as well.

On the initial entry of my water's profile, I'd like to ask about the alkalinity input. I've got a Ward's lab report. I've entered all of my other numbers (Calcium, Magnesium, etc.) and am unsure on the alkalinity entry. My report lists Bicarbonate HCO3 as 45ppm, and Total Alkalinity CaCO3 as 37. I noticed under the Sparge H20 adjustment that the CaCO3 measurement is to be used, and so I'm thinking that would be correct on the Water tab as well. But I get a flag for a bad check. If I enter the HCO3 value of 45 into the water page, it becomes a good check. Could you clarify which one to use there?

And just to be 100% sure, for using the Ward's test results I'd multiply the Sulfate SO4-S result by 3 to obtain PPM of sulfate, and the Nitrate NO3-N result by 4 to obtain PPM of nitrate?

Thank you in advance.
 
tracer bullet said:
Greetings @Silver_Is_Money . I've been using another spreadsheet for what feels like forever, but it's time to explore new options. It looks like MME 11.00 is the current version but this was the last related post I could find and so it felt like an appropriate place to ask setup questions. I'm guessing if I have them, someone else might as well.

On the initial entry of my water's profile, I'd like to ask about the alkalinity input. I've got a Ward's lab report. I've entered all of my other numbers (Calcium, Magnesium, etc.) and am unsure on the alkalinity entry. My report lists Bicarbonate HCO3 as 45ppm, and Total Alkalinity CaCO3 as 37. I noticed under the Sparge H20 adjustment that the CaCO3 measurement is to be used, and so I'm thinking that would be correct on the Water tab as well. But I get a flag for a bad check. If I enter the HCO3 value of 45 into the water page, it becomes a good check. Could you clarify which one to use there?

And just to be 100% sure, for using the Ward's test results I'd multiply the Sulfate SO4-S result by 3 to obtain PPM of sulfate, and the Nitrate NO3-N result by 4 to obtain PPM of nitrate?

Thank you in advance.
Click to expand...

1) MME's Water Sheet/Tab uses Alkalinity as CaCO3 in ppm (mg/L). On the "Water" sheet you will see a Bicarbonate to Alkalinity calculator, which is for use if your water analyticals contain Bicarbonate but do not contain Alkalinity. 37 is the correct entry in your case.

2) For SO4-S multiply by 3 to obtain the ppm SO4 value for entry onto the 'Water' sheet. This is a Ward Labs problem issue, and not a problem issue with MME.

3) For NO3-N multiply by 4.43 to obtain the correct NO3 value for entry onto the 'Water' sheet. This is a Ward Labs problem issue, and not a problem issue with MME.

4) For water to be "real" it must be charge neutral. mEq/L Cations must equal mEq/L Anions.

5) Water Analyticals are unfortunately never perfect. If you are getting a 'Bad Check' it is assuredly not the waters fault, and it is most likely a flaw in the Analytical report values somewhere. If your entries are correct and you are still getting a bad check you can either ask for a redo of the analyticals, or just ignore the Bad Check and move forward. On your Ward Labs report near the top you will see 'Cations, Anions, meL'. If the analyticals you received were 'perfect' these two values would be identical. Consider this Cations/Anions balance discrepancy to be an indicator of how well Ward Labs did their job. MME is telling you how well Ward Labs did their job, but within their very own report they are telling you the exact same thing with regard to how well they did while analyzing your water. I do not know if Ward Labs actually considers that they have gotten a bad check or not via looking at their own reports. If they do, and they consider the water to "Pass" (or have a good check, whereas MME states "Bad Check") then this means their acceptability criteria are more lax than those I built into MME.

6) Bonus info: If you like to fantasize as to various dreamland "Water Profiles", you can tell if they are real enough such as to be actually capable of being made or not by whether or not they get a "Good Check".

7) MME version 11.00 is the current version.
 
Last edited:
I'll show you mine, it almost matches but still had a bad check , your sheet has 3.71/3.36

pH 8.2
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) Est, ppm 206
Electrical Conductivity, mmho/cm 0.34
Cations / Anions, me/L 3.7 / 3.4
ppm
Sodium, Na 5
Potassium, K 2
Calcium, Ca 35.9
Magnesium, Mg 20
Total Hardness, CaCO3 173
Nitrate, NO3-N < 0.1 (SAFE)
Sulfate, SO4-S 5
Chloride, Cl 3
Carbonate, CO3 < 1.0
Bicarbonate, HCO3 181
Total Alkalinity, CaCO3 151
Total Phosphorus, P < 0.01
Total Iron, Fe 0.02
 
A Cation/Anion mEq/L balance discrepancy of roughly 9% is simply not a "Good Check" in my book. YMMV
 

Similar threads

Silver_Is_Money
Announcing the release of 'Mash Made Easy' (MME) version 11.40
Replies
19
Views
2K
beervoid
beervoid
Silver_Is_Money
Announcing the release of 'Mash Made Easy' (MME) version 11.20
Replies
0
Views
515
Silver_Is_Money
Silver_Is_Money
Silver_Is_Money
Announcing the release of 'Mash Made Easy' version 10.85
Replies
2
Views
604
Silver_Is_Money
Silver_Is_Money
Silver_Is_Money
Announcing the release of 'Mash Made Easy' (MME) version 11.30, with a major bug fix!
Replies
20
Views
2K
Silver_Is_Money
Silver_Is_Money
Silver_Is_Money
Announcing the release of 'Mash Made Easy' version 11.10
Replies
0
Views
655
Silver_Is_Money
Silver_Is_Money

Latest posts

Back
Top