Announcing the release of 'Mash Made Easy' version 8.30 in US and Metric formats

[Silver_Is_Money]

Changes include:

1) Retains all of the improvements made in version 8.20

2) Restores end user selectability of the percentage by which 'MME' computes via logarithmic and linear slope functions. In keeping with dark/robust grists which are rich in deep roasted and caramel/crystal malts, and for which many home brewers have observed the need to add lots of baking soda or calcium hydroxide to hit their mash pH target, the 100% logarithmic setting generally seems to work best here, but to more closely mirror the output of a number of other well known mash pH assistant calculators, setting this selectors percentage to 40% log based ( give or take a bit) brings MME's output at the deep roasted end (and all across the color or grist scale) well in line with the others. The option is there to dial in MME to best fit with your personal findings and experience, as well as to more closely mirror some other popular calculators output advice if this is your desire. There are merits to both approaches, and the jury is still out, but if/when a verdict is reached, MME will comply with a number of the collective others at a setting of around 40%.

3) Fixes a nagging issue whereby for all earlier releases the computed need for an addition of baking soda or calcium hydroxide automatically inserted baking soda's sodium into the ppm (mg/L) output display. This version does not update the sodium mineralization and/or calcium mineralization boost from these two pH raising minerals until after the user adds the requested pH raising quantity to the mash water "Mineral Additions" section in the upper right of the main page. This allows one to better see what is happening to mineralization, as well as to allow for split additions of baking soda and calcium hydroxide, or to not add these minerals at all, or to add more or less of them than MME has computed (at your choice). The former way in which MME handled this was a hold-over from before calcium hydroxide was an option, leaving only baking soda as a choice, and thus the automatic sodium boost seen from it.

 

[RPh_Guy]

I'm going to take this for a spin.

What's a good concentration for a calcium chloride solution?

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

I'm going to take this for a spin.

What's a good concentration for a calcium chloride solution?

If it's new, purity is likely 94-96%. Some of this is due to moisture, and some from calcium carbonate contamination. After that it depends upon how old it is, how much exposure to air it has had, and to the humidity levels which it has been exposed to. 85% would be roughly midway between fresh and dihydrate. If forced to guess, 85% might be a fair guess. But it would only be a guess. I believe that the free version of BW is fixed to anhydrous, and several others are fixed at dihydrate (which is right close to 75.5%).

It can apparently be oven dried back to anhydrous, but the temperatures and oven times required elude me at present. The melting point changes with moisture content as I recall, as does the temperature required to push it from one hydration state to another (lower, dryer) one via ovening.

 

[RPh_Guy]

I can dissolve it myself and measure the s.g. to determine the actual CaCl2 content, right?
I wondering how much to try to dissolve.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

I can dissolve it myself and measure the s.g. to determine the actual CaCl2 content, right?
I wondering how much to try to dissolve.

98.89 grams of 100% pure anhydrous made up to 1 Liter in distilled water should give you 1 liter with a specific gravity of 1.0800 at room temperature. 104.09 grams at 95% pure should do likewise. For the dihydrate it would require 131 grams.

 

[RPh_Guy]

Thanks

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

I should have thought of this earlier:

If you make up 100 grams of anhydrous CaCl2 (or 132.5 grams of the dihydrate form) to 1 Liter in distilled water, then its as easy as knowing that every 10 mL of your calcium chloride solution will deliver 1 gram of anhydrous CaCl2.

When you are at the level of 100 grams of calcium chloride dissolved in 1 Liter of distilled water the room temperature specific gravity falls extremely close to 1.081. If you initially come up a bit shy of 1.081 SG just add CaCl2 in small amounts until you come up to 1.081 SG at room temperature. If your SG initially winds up greater than 1.081, then cut with distilled water incrementally until you hit 1.081 SG.

Expect the water to get right hot after adding CaCL2 and stirring it to dissolve. Let it cool before taking a SG reading.

 

[RPh_Guy]

Sounds like a plan!

The guesswork with solid calcium chloride has always bothered me.

Another question: Is CaraHell (13L) considered a crystal malt?

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

Another question: Is CaraHell (13L) considered a crystal malt?

Yes, for all practical purposes. By process it may actually be a caramel malt, but caramel and crystal malts are generally lumped together as interchangeable for mash pH calculation purposes.

 

[Robert65]

Tangential question, but you guys started it: Know a good source for anhydrous calcium chloride? And what's the best procedure for baking it out to be dead certain it's anhydrous?

 

[RPh_Guy]

I get it here:
https://www.morebeer.com/products/calcium-chloride.html
$5/lb

My understanding is that baking the water out of it is impractical since it will just pick up more H2O as it cools (it picks up water VERY rapidly).
If you want to accurately measure it, you need to make a solution. Otherwise you're just estimating.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

Tangential question, but you guys started it: Know a good source for anhydrous calcium chloride? And what's the best procedure for baking it out to be dead certain it's anhydrous?

The two lots that I computed to be 94% to 96% pure came from LD Carlson. I determined their purity by dissolving them in distilled water (straight from the previously unopened packages) and checking the SG. I don't know the drying temperature answer(s).

Wikipedia lists the density of the anhydride at 2.15 grams/CC, but that may be for a pulverized powder state, or for tiny flakes, and it is sold as prills. I never attempted weighing a volume of it to find out. But this may prove to be an indicator, as the dihydrate is listed at a density of 1.85 g/CC.

Edit: Oddly enough, the monohydrate state has a density of 2.24 g/CC, so that probably kabashes trying to go by density.

 

[Robert65]

The two lots that I computed to be 94% to 96% pure came from LD Carlson. I determined their purity by dissolving them in distilled water (straight from the previously unopened packages) and checking the SG. I don't know the drying temperature answer(s).

Thanks. Like @RPh_Guy, I'm thinking I'd like the certainty of a solution. I test my dihydrate every so often to make sure it's still giving me the expected contribution, but there is a better way. I'll try asking Prof Google about the baking question. If I learn something I'll report it. I'm thinking if you're going to make the solution, that extra step might save tinkering with sp. gr. adjustment afterwards.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

If I'm reading it correctly, Wikipedia indicates that the dihydrate melts at 347 degrees F. I don't know if this melting correlates to the liberation of the complexed water though.

The melt points for higher purity than the dihydrate are much higher. If you get to 350 degrees F. and it hasn't melted yet, it is better than dihydrate. But you still don't quantitatively know what you have.

 

[RPh_Guy]

IMO, dissolving it in water and checking the s.g. seems waaaay easier then baking it and then still being uncertain anyway.

The MME "CaCl2 Selector" sheet tab makes incorporating a calcium chloride solution (at any s.g.) extremely easy.

I added my own tab for some other stuff too.

 

[Robert65]

IMO, dissolving it in water and checking the s.g. seems waaaay easier then baking it and then still being uncertain anyway.

The MME "CaCl2 Selector" sheet tab makes incorporating a calcium chloride solution (at any s.g.) extremely easy.

I added my own tab for some other stuff too.

Yeah the more I think about it... and I can make up the solution with dihydrate I still have in good supply. Somewhere around here I should have a narrow range hydrometer in that range...

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

In light of the relational charts presented within the excellent publication titled "A Homebrewing Perspective on Mash pH III: Distilled Water pH and Buffering Capacity of the Grist*", by D. Mark Riffe and Mick Spencer, I decided to see how 'Mash Made Easy' version 8.30 compares to the charts seen within their published document for various settings of the MME drop-down selector switch titled "% Log Base 10 Mash pH (Balance Linear)". From this comparison it is apparent that somewhere around 40% (give or take) as the setting on the "%Log Base 10" switch brings MME into relatively decent correlation with their charted data. Some of the difference is clearly due to initial differences between MME's default pHDI (or DI_pH) choices for the various charted malts, vs. the same pHDi values as determined by D.M. Riffe and Mick Spencer for their analyzed lots of malts.

Here is a link whereby to access their dissertation: https://www.dropbox.com/s/48x5z49wvsmlkxu/GristpHBuff.pdf?dl=0

And here is what MME outputs similarly for 0% Log Based, 40% Log Based, 50% Log Based, and 100% Log Based setting selections. 0% Log Base 10, and 100% Log Base 10 output are clearly way out of line with their analytical hard data findings. 40% and 50% are a much better overall fit, albeit with MME's data for Flaked Corn appearing to be particularly way off. For now it appears that a setting of 40% seems to offer the best fit to the dissertations observations and data.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

Oops, it appears I have my 'X' axis labeled backwards on the above MME relational output charts. What appears as 100% Caramel 120L Fraction is actually 0%, and what appears as 0% Caramel 120L Fraction is actually 100%. The data is correct, only the X axis labeling is off. Silly me!!!

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

Based upon the above, I've settled upon 0.70 as the Grist Buffer multiplier setting, and 40% as the %Log Base 10 setting for MME. The current 8.30 version on my website is pre-set to these values. If you downloaded 8.30 and see other values simply change them to these.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

I discovered a problem in the metric version which led to fixes in both versions, and to the release of version 8.35.

Changes made in version 8.35:

1) Fixes a problem in the Metric version with changing the percent concentration of Lactic Acid.

2) Fixes a problem in both versions with Acid Malt quantity, which only occurred if the percent Concentration of Lactic Acid was changed from the default.

 

[RPh_Guy]

First run today. Some data points:
Predicted mash pH: 5.54 (with the original defaults)
Predicted mash pH: 5.57 (with the changes above)
Actual mash pH: 5.49

Also used the kettle pH tool
Target 5.10
Actual 5.18

Seems reasonable.

 

[beervoid]

Based upon the above, I've settled upon 0.70 as the Grist Buffer multiplier setting, and 40% as the %Log Base 10 setting for MME. The current 8.30 version on my website is pre-set to these values. If you downloaded 8.30 and see other values simply change them to these.

View attachment 662581

I downloaded the newest 9.55, is it still correct to adjust the nrs to the above?
Why not set that as a default in the sheet when you download it?
Thank you

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

A) The issue for the grist buffer multiplier is that "if" the need for a multiplier is linked to efficiency, then:

1) I don't know your efficiency.
2) Efficiency is a recipe and method dependent variable.
3) The precise way in which buffering varies with respect to efficiency (if it even does) has yet to be scientifically established.

B) Since with the '9' series, MME has abandoned it's former logarithmic math model approach to the establishment of aggregate grist pH and buffering, and moved to a conventional math model approach, there is no longer a log% multiplier requirement for MME.

 

[beervoid]

A) The issue for the grist buffer multiplier is that "if" the need for a multiplier is linked to efficiency, then:

1) I don't know your efficiency.
2) Efficiency is a recipe and method dependent variable.
3) The precise way in which buffering varies with respect to efficiency (if it even does) has yet to be scientifically established.

B) Since with the '9' series, MME has abandoned it's former logarithmic math model approach to the establishment of aggregate grist pH and buffering, and moved to a conventional math model approach, there is no longer a log% multiplier requirement for MME.

MME 7.0 has always been pretty close to the predicted PH for me. When adjusting the grist buffer multiplier to 0.7 in v9.55 it comes out the same as the older versions so I will be sticking with that for now. My mash efficiency is usually around 75%