Beersmith 3 ph tool

[Blazinlow86]

Has anyone had luck with the ph tool in beersmith 3? It's always suggesting basically double what brunwater does and I've always prev used brunwater and it's always correct. I'm wondering if there's a simple thing I'm missing to correct this. I upgraded from bs2 thinking this was corrected but it appears not. Thanks

 

[Metzen]

Has anyone had luck with the ph tool in beersmith 3? It's always suggesting basically double what brunwater does and I've always prev used brunwater and it's always correct. I'm wondering if there's a simple thing I'm missing to correct this. I upgraded from bs2 thinking this was corrected but it appears not. Thanks

You’re not missing anything. It is generally observed that BS commonly overestimates the acid required to achieve a specific PH. Brad references a paper for his model stating that BnW does not account for acid density, but real world application seems to favor BnW (certainly in all of my brews and for many others who have raised this as an issue). Unfortunately, Brad does not seem willing to accept that BnW’s model may be a better approximation in real world application for many users.

I am not a scientist (by profession but I have written several published academic papers in my day), but I know what I see in my measurements. BnW is always dead on. The one time I tried what BS estimated I was far off.

What concerns me is that I have only seen a single paper referenced to support the model, but I haven’t found any other independent testing to prove it. I’ve only seen complaints on forums.

It is unfortunate as most every other aspect of BS is great (except the UI IMO). I just wish there was some acceptance that the model may not be an effective approximation in many real world scenarios and an option to use the model that many of us want to use (customer
is always right, right?).

Brad’s response to the above has been that you can continue to use another tool if you so choose. But Brad, just include it in yours and let’s all be done with it!!!

Rant over

M

 

[Blazinlow86]

You’re not missing anything. It is generally observed that BS commonly overestimates the acid required to achieve a specific PH. Brad references a paper for his model stating that BnW does not account for acid density, but real world application seems to favor BnW (certainly in all of my brews and for many others who have raised this as an issue). Unfortunately, Brad does not seem willing to accept that BnW’s model may be a better approximation in real world application for many users.

I am not a scientist (by profession but I have written several published academic papers in my day), but I know what I see in my measurements. BnW is always dead on. The one time I tried what BS estimated I was far off.

What concerns me is that I have only seen a single paper referenced to support the model, but I haven’t found any other independent testing to prove it. I’ve only seen complaints on forums.

It is unfortunate as most every other aspect of BS is great (except the UI IMO). I just wish there was some acceptance that the model may not be an effective approximation in many real world scenarios and an option to use the model that many of us want to use (customer
is always right, right?).

Brad’s response to the above has been that you can continue to use another tool if you so choose. But Brad, just include it in yours and let’s all be done with it!!!

Rant over

M

I read the same thing today about the paper. It's unfortunate because brunwater has been spot on basically every time and I brew alot. Bs3 shows 2-3 times the amount of acid required to get the same adjusted ph which obviously is way too much. I'd rate the program 10/10 if this was corrected but the way it is having to use both programs is annoying. Having the option to use the brunwater method would be a great compromise and make me a happy camper. Cheers

 

[Oginme]

I've always used Bru'n water for my water salt additions but have switched to BS3. They are pretty close with the differences being in the hundredths of a pH unit and it is nice having the salts automatically brought into the recipe.

Where they differ is in the amount of acid or acid malt they call for in making a pH adjustment. While I like the integrated nature of BeerSmith 3 and the improvement over BeerSmith 2 in calculating the required acid for an adjustment, it does seem to be off by a greater amount than Bru'n water for my system. I should add, that I typically use Acidulated malt for pH adjustment rather than acid, just a personal preference, and don't make any adjustments post-doughing in. Neither program is nuts on all the time. I also, through years of doing process control work, have learned never to fully trust any program or simulation where you cannot reproduce the equations yourself and arrive at the same answers.

Case in point, I typically use Rahr 2-row for my American styles and neither program predicts the pH well when using that base malt. I was always 0.16 to 0.20 points lower in pH than predicted with either program for those recipes which were built around that base malt. So, I punch in the offset in the target when using that malt and proceed.

 

[Metzen]

I've always used Bru'n water for my water salt additions but have switched to BS3. They are pretty close with the differences being in the hundredths of a pH unit and it is nice having the salts automatically brought into the recipe.

Agree. BS3 does well with the mineral additions. It’s just aggravating that I can’t get the acid addition sorted and have to spend all the extra time in BW for that one number.

 

[Blazinlow86]

Agree. BS3 does well with the mineral additions. It’s just aggravating that I can’t get the acid addition sorted and have to spend all the extra time in BW for that one number.

Which defeats the purpose of the mineral additions because correct me if I'm wrong you have to add all that in brunwater to get the correct ph estimate. I started the post asking for anyone that's had luck with the ph tool to confirm they have. 153 views later and not one person has..... Come on guys don't let this one thing hold back what could be the all in one solution it should be.

 

[day_trippr]

Martin should see if Brad would allow a Bru'n Water plug-in to BS3...

Cheers!

 

[Blazinlow86]

Martin should see if Brad would allow a Bru'n Water plug-in to BS3...

Cheers!

I was thinking the exact same thing. Cheers

 

[brewbama]

I use Bru’n water ahead of times and add the additions in BS (2) to have a brewday solution.

 

[Blazinlow86]

I use Bru’n water ahead of times and add the additions in BS (2) to have a brewday solution.

View attachment 582338

Good solution but still disappointing that a seemingly easy thing to correct isnt being corrected due to arrogance/stubbornness from the creator. Just give your customers the option to choose which way works for them. It's the whole point of the software afterall.

 

[juggabrew]

Which defeats the purpose of the mineral additions because correct me if I'm wrong you have to add all that in brunwater to get the correct ph estimate. I started the post asking for anyone that's had luck with the ph tool to confirm they have. 153 views later and not one person has..... Come on guys don't let this one thing hold back what could be the all in one solution it should be.

I brewed a batch this past Friday after adjusting the lactic acid strength, Increasing to 125%. EST PH of 5.25

BS3 lactic acid at 88%: 7.6ml
BS3 lactic acid at 125%: 5ml
BnW at 88%: 3.7ml

PH at 125% 20 min into mash: 5.23

This is what I have come up with and until it’s fixed I’ll live with it. The only thing you need to watch out for is the sparge acid addition. It will lower this as well, luckily this should never change as I always use 1.8ml at 88% (changes to 1.2ml at 125%).

Hope this helps relieve some frustration

 

[Oginme]

I brewed a batch this past Friday after adjusting the lactic acid strength, Increasing to 125%. EST PH of 5.25

BS3 lactic acid at 88%: 7.6ml
BS3 lactic acid at 125%: 5ml
BnW at 88%: 3.7ml

PH at 125% 20 min into mash: 5.23

This is what I have come up with and until it’s fixed I’ll live with it. The only thing you need to watch out for is the sparge acid addition. It will lower this as well, luckily this should never change as I always use 1.8ml at 88% (changes to 1.2ml at 125%).

Hope this helps relieve some frustration

So, if I am following you correctly, you added 5 ml of 88% lactic acid to bring the actual pH down to 5.23 at 20 minutes into the mash compared to the same volume marked as 125% lactic acid predicting a mash pH of 5.25?

If so, this pretty much matches the same (~40% to 45%) overestimation of acidulated malt which I have documented. So at least the error is consistently off.

It also points out that Bru'n water would have undershot the value by a small margin as well but well within the accuracy of most pH meters used by home brewers.

 

[juggabrew]

So, if I am following you correctly, you added 5 ml of 88% lactic acid to bring the actual pH down to 5.23 at 20 minutes into the mash compared to the same volume marked as 125% lactic acid predicting a mash pH of 5.25?

If so, this pretty much matches the same (~40% to 45%) overestimation of acidulated malt which I have documented. So at least the error is consistently off.

It also points out that Bru'n water would have undershot the value by a small margin as well but well within the accuracy of most pH meters used by home brewers.

Yes Your are correct. I added 5ml of the normal 88% solution from the bottle. I have a medical syringe I use to measure.

That’s funny you mention BnW as est low. That has been my experience with that program with my system.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

Even with its very latest version 1.22 release, BW still has nagging issues with regard to radically changing acid addition forecasting with respect to alterations made to the mashes "water to grist ratio". I just looked at straight DI (OK, let's accept it as good quality distilled) water mashes, while varying the water to grist ratio, and I got the following output for the case of mashing a simple grist consisting of only 10 lbs. of 2-Row Brewers, with color set to 1.8L, and with zero minerals added, wherein I adjusted the acid for each individual case so it would mash at a pH of exactly 5.4, and here is the output that BW delivered to me.

3 gal. DI Mash Water = 1.8 mL 88% Lactic Acid
5 gal. DI Mash Water = 2.4 mL 88% Lactic Acid
8.5 gal. DI Mash Water = 1.4 mL 88% Lactic Acid

3 gal. DI Mash Water = 3.5 oz. Acid Malt
5 gal. DI Mash Water = 4.7 Oz. Acid Malt
8.5 gal. DI Mash Water = 3.0 Oz. Acid Malt

Since DI or distilled water has effectively nigh on zero buffering capacity the results (the acid quantity required to hit a mash pH of 5.4) achieved for one water to grist ratio should quite closely match those of any other reasonable water to grist ratio. So if (for example) 2.4 mL of lactic acid is correct, then 1.4 mL can't possibly also be correct, and if (for example) 4.7 Oz. of Acid Malt is correct, then 3.0 Oz. of acid malt can't possibly also be correct. These are huge deviations, and in the real world they must noticeably impact the final mash pH.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

I don't have access to Beersmith in any of its release versions. Could someone post how it responds to the immediately above posted Bru'n Water scenario? I.E., repeat the above posted rudimentary and simple test case, only using Beersmith.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

Per BW, if you were to mash the above scenario using 10.4 gallons of DI water, you would mash at a pH of 5.4 with zero need for the addition of any acid.

And if you like really thin mashes, you will go below 5.00 pH if you mash this same grist in 19 gallons of DI (or distilled) water.

It's as if at 3 gallons (and below) the DI water itself has magically become rather acidic, and then at somewhere around 5 gallons it loses much to perhaps all of its acidity, and at above 5 gallons the magical acidity returns to the DI water with a vengeance. The more DI water you add (beyond somewhere around 5 gallons), the more acidic it becomes.

 

[North_of_60]

Even with its very latest version 1.22 release, BW still has nagging issues with regard to radically changing acid addition forecasting with respect to alterations made to the mashes "water to grist ratio". I just looked at straight DI (OK, let's accept it as good quality distilled) water mashes, while varying the water to grist ratio, and I got the following output for the case of mashing a simple grist consisting of only 10 lbs. of 2-Row Brewers, with color set to 1.8L, and with zero minerals added, wherein I adjusted the acid for each individual case so it would mash at a pH of exactly 5.4, and here is the output that BW delivered to me.

3 gal. DI Mash Water = 1.8 mL 88% Lactic Acid
5 gal. DI Mash Water = 2.4 mL 88% Lactic Acid
8.5 gal. DI Mash Water = 1.4 mL 88% Lactic Acid

3 gal. DI Mash Water = 3.5 oz. Acid Malt
5 gal. DI Mash Water = 4.7 Oz. Acid Malt
8.5 gal. DI Mash Water = 3.0 Oz. Acid Malt

Since DI or distilled water has effectively nigh on zero buffering capacity the results (the acid quantity required to hit a mash pH of 5.4) achieved for one water to grist ratio should quite closely match those of any other reasonable water to grist ratio. So if (for example) 2.4 mL of lactic acid is correct, then 1.4 mL can't possibly also be correct, and if (for example) 4.7 Oz. of Acid Malt is correct, then 3.0 Oz. of acid malt can't possibly also be correct. These are huge deviations, and in the real world they must noticeably impact the final mash pH.

I'm confused!

I entered the same numbers you did into Bru'n Water 1.22 and got the same results as you did. It does seem odd that the additions increased at 5 gallons and then decreased 8 gallons.

Next I tried this test in Brewers Friend and got 4.35 ml Lactic Acid and it remained the same for 3, 5, and 8 gallons of DI mash water.

I then entered the same numbers into Mash Made Easy 2.50 and got 3.89 ml Lactic Acid which also remained the same for 3, 5, and 8 gallons of DI mash water. The Acid Malt numbers change by only .01%.

This is my confusion: are the acid additions in Brewers Friend and Mash Made Easy ml per gallon or ml per batch? If its per gallon I understand why it remains the same and I used way too little in the beer I brewed on Monday. If its ml per batch, I used the correct amount, but, I don't understand why the numbers remain the same regardless of how many gallons are being treated. Wouldn't you need more lactic acid to treat 8 gallons of mash water than you would to treat 3 gallons of mash water?

Then there are the different values calculated in the various calculators to think about. But that's being discussed in other threads and I appreciate the work that you and other scientific minds here are putting into correcting this.

Disclaimer: I failed chemistry in HS and that was a very long time ago.

 

[North_of_60]

Has anyone had luck with the ph tool in beersmith 3? It's always suggesting basically double what brunwater does and I've always prev used brunwater and it's always correct. I'm wondering if there's a simple thing I'm missing to correct this. I upgraded from bs2 thinking this was corrected but it appears not. Thanks

Oops, it looks like we hijacked your BeerSmith thread.

I still have the 2.3 version and I can’t find any way to do acid additions or calculations in it.

 

[North_of_60]

I just looked at straight DI (OK, let's accept it as good quality distilled) water mashes, while varying the water to grist ratio, and I got the following output for the case of mashing a simple grist consisting of only 10 lbs. of 2-Row Brewers, with color set to 1.8L, and with zero minerals added, wherein I adjusted the acid for each individual case so it would mash at a pH of exactly 5.4, and here is the output that BW delivered to me.
.

OK, I think I understand. The grist to water ratio doesn't change the acid required when using DI water because the water is neutral. I did the same test using my water profile and the acid required increased as the gallons increased. Am I tracking?

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

This is my confusion: are the acid additions in Brewers Friend and Mash Made Easy ml per gallon or ml per batch? If its per gallon I understand why it remains the same and I used way too little in the beer I brewed on Monday. If its ml per batch, I used the correct amount, but, I don't understand why the numbers remain the same regardless of how many gallons are being treated. Wouldn't you need more lactic acid to treat 8 gallons of mash water than you would to treat 3 gallons of mash water?

No, because DI (or distilled) water is merely the innocuous carrier of the malts which are (in this case) being acidified. They are being acidified because (for this case) they lack sufficient acid to bring the mash to the desired pH target (which is generally, though not always, 5.4).

It is the same as for any chemical reaction which would be carried out within a DI water medium, whereby the water does not enter into the reaction equation.

Brewers Friend and Mash Made Easy recommend adjustments by the batch, and not by the liter or the gallon.

Mash Made Easy asks you to choose the type of base malt (via the drop down base malt selector button located in the lower right hand corner), so even though it defaults to an answer of 3.89 mL, it can be adjusted to meet your actual type of (meet the acidity nature of your) chosen base malt, and when that it done it actually spans a range of 6 different answers that go from 2.09 mL to 5.09 mL of 88% lactic acid. If you hover the cursor over this cell it will give general guidelines to help you make the correct setting selection, then when you know which selection you want, click on the cell, and an arrow appears. Click on this arrow, and the selections will appear. Click on one to select it, and you are good to go.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

OK, I think I understand. The grist to water ratio doesn't change the acid required when using DI water because the water is neutral. I did the same test using my water profile and the acid required increased as the gallons increased. Am I tracking?

Yes, you are correct! DI (or distilled) water is to be considered (essentially, and for the most part) neutral.

But your actual source of water likely has (among other things) alkalinity. If you have 4 gallons of water with 50 ppm alkalinity, and you increase the water to 8 gallons, even though you still have before you water with 50 ppm alkalinity, you now have twice as much alkalinity overall to contend with. The twice as much alkalinity found within the 8 gallons requires twice as much alkalinity neutralizing (actually reducing to the mash pH target) acid as does the same ppm of alkalinity carried within 4 gallons. In this case the water is not a neutral partner, as its alkalinity must be properly addressed (which for this case means acidified to counteract the present alkalinity).

If your water report lists ppm bicarbonate instead of ppm alkalinity you can convert bicarbonate to alkalinity by multiplying the bicarb value by 50/61. To simplify this, 50/61 = 0.82

 

[North_of_60]

Even with its very latest version 1.22 release, BW still has nagging issues with regard to radically changing acid addition forecasting with respect to alterations made to the mashes "water to grist ratio". I just looked at straight DI (OK, let's accept it as good quality distilled) water mashes, while varying the water to grist ratio, and I got the following output for the case of mashing a simple grist consisting of only 10 lbs. of 2-Row Brewers, with color set to 1.8L, and with zero minerals added, wherein I adjusted the acid for each individual case so it would mash at a pH of exactly 5.4, and here is the output that BW delivered to me.

3 gal. DI Mash Water = 1.8 mL 88% Lactic Acid
5 gal. DI Mash Water = 2.4 mL 88% Lactic Acid
8.5 gal. DI Mash Water = 1.4 mL 88% Lactic Acid

3 gal. DI Mash Water = 3.5 oz. Acid Malt
5 gal. DI Mash Water = 4.7 Oz. Acid Malt
8.5 gal. DI Mash Water = 3.0 Oz. Acid Malt

Since DI or distilled water has effectively nigh on zero buffering capacity the results (the acid quantity required to hit a mash pH of 5.4) achieved for one water to grist ratio should quite closely match those of any other reasonable water to grist ratio. So if (for example) 2.4 mL of lactic acid is correct, then 1.4 mL can't possibly also be correct, and if (for example) 4.7 Oz. of Acid Malt is correct, then 3.0 Oz. of acid malt can't possibly also be correct. These are huge deviations, and in the real world they must noticeably impact the final mash pH.

I downloaded BeerSmith 3. The Mash pH Adjustment tool doesn’t allow you select a water profile. Instead it has you select the Bicarbonate level and the measured Mash pH. For DI I selected “0” for Bicarbonate and and 5.72 Unadjusted Mash pH form the Recipe page.

for a desired pH of 5.4 I got the following result:

3 gallon DI Mash Water = 4.1 mL 88% Lactic Acid
5 gallon DI Mash Water = 5.0 mL 88% Lactic Acid
8 gallon DI Mash Water = 5.8 mL 88% Lactic Acid

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

Thanks North_of_60! Beersmith appears to have water to grist ratio issues also.

 

[ScrewyBrewer]

Just a bit of a sanity check on my part. I've been coding and reading posts here today as the day wears on and made the following observation.

When dealing with straight distilled or reverse osmosis water and grain only mashes the 'first generational error' described by @North_of_60 witnessed by myself and many others then presents itself. What I mean to say is that under this scenario and lacking mineral additions any changes in mash thickness should not require increases in lactic acid. A situation under which many popular mash prediction formulas simply do not work well.

Why? Because there is zero buffering in the brewing water up to this point. My view is the 'first generational error' is caused by calculating zero buffer water the same way as if magnesium and calcium were added and expected. Those mineral additions when made increase the buffering strength of the water and by doing so increase the accuracy of their pH prediction calculations.

To take this a step further the 'first generational error' becomes less of an error and becomes more accurate in pH prediction once magnesium and calcium additions are added to the water increasing the water's buffering strength.

Feel free to talk me down off this virtual ledge at any time. Trusted friends of mine after following our antics here for several weeks have drawn my attention to the fact that many mash prediction utitlies are challenged when it comes to dark grains used in a recipe. Thoughts anyone?

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

To take this a step further the 'first generational error' becomes less of an error and becomes more accurate in pH prediction once magnesium and calcium additions are added to the water increasing the water's buffering strength.

Are you sure of this? The single time that I checked this on your behalf and at your urging (for a software package other than my own) I got water to grist ratio induced acid quantity fluctuations with what appeared to be likely the same magnitude of oddness whether or not minerals were present.

 

[ScrewyBrewer]

Are you sure of this? The single time that I checked this on your behalf and at your urging (for a software package other than my own) I got water to grist ratio induced acid quantity fluctuations with what appeared to be likely the same magnitude of oddness whether or not minerals were present.

As I remember it is in the case of zero buffer water. Once small amounts of calcium were added to the water the accuracy of the 'first generation' calculations improved.

Revisiting our earlier test scenarios again would refresh both our memories.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

As I remember it is in the case of zero buffer water. Once small amounts of calcium were added to the water the accuracy of the 'first generation' calculations improved.

Revisiting our earlier test scenarios again would refresh both our memories.

I've already done it once. I will leave it up to you to try your theory out on a handful of gen 1 mash pH software products. My only word of cautionary advice is that you must be very careful when juggling with those software packages that make you hunt and peck and add minerals by the liter or gallon as opposed to by the batch, as they must be handled kid glove carefully so the overall mEq's of mineralization remain constant.

 

[hausofstrauss]

I brewed a batch this past Friday after adjusting the lactic acid strength, Increasing to 125%. EST PH of 5.25

BS3 lactic acid at 88%: 7.6ml
BS3 lactic acid at 125%: 5ml
BnW at 88%: 3.7ml

PH at 125% 20 min into mash: 5.23

This is what I have come up with and until it’s fixed I’ll live with it. The only thing you need to watch out for is the sparge acid addition. It will lower this as well, luckily this should never change as I always use 1.8ml at 88% (changes to 1.2ml at 125%).

Hope this helps relieve some frustration

Ok, this is interesting. I'm alternating between Phosphoric and Lactic acids. I'm going to try the 125% scaler for a 4.0 gallon Oktoberfest batch tomorrow night. I'm using the Mash and Boil and doing full volume boils.

I looked back on two batches where I used phosphoric and had taken pH measurements. Curiously, when re-calculating pH adjustments required, if I adjusted the strength of the phosphoric from 85% (actual) to 170% and 175% on the two batches, the "adjusted" pH came in where I measured it. 5.15 and 5.09 respectively. I wasn't getting quite close with BrunWater predictions either. I'm not in either BrunWater or Beersmith camp, just reporting some citizen science here. I'd be curious what others have to use for fudge factors for phosphoric, so PLEASE don't take my fudge factor for fact.

I haven't messed with the volume error in BS3 yet though.

I also have to say that I've got a theory that the inner basket in the Mash and Boil actually creates a smaller volume vessel that doesn't react with the water on the outer ring of the basket and might alter predicted values for mash statistics. I think that might be an advantage of recirculating systems (Robobrew, Grainfather, etc).

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

The first two posters to this thread commented that Beersmith must automatically be wrong because Bru'n Water is always (I presume this means as in 100%) correct. By what standard of analytical criteria and qualified expertise are bold claims such as these being made? What if neither are spot on, but Beersmith is closer to the truth? Or what if the truth lies somewhere closer to the middle, and both are thereby equally incorrect? What if one is better on light colored beer mash pH prediction, and the other is better on dark beer mash pH prediction? And what about midrange SRM beers?

 

[Blazinlow86]

The first two posters to this thread commented that Beersmith must automatically be wrong because Bru'n Water is always (I presume this means as in 100%) correct. By what standard of analytical criteria and qualified expertise are bold claims such as these being made? What if neither are spot on, but Beersmith is closer to the truth? Or what if the truth lies somewhere closer to the middle, and both are thereby equally incorrect? What if one is better on light colored beer mash pH prediction, and the other is better on dark beer mash pH prediction? And what about midrange SRM beers?

Actually the post was created by myself asking if anyone has had luck with the ph tool..... After however many views we are at now nobody has. My hope was at least a few people have had luck and could possibly give suggestions as to how they have it adjusted or whatever to make it work. I can only speak for myself that in my 50+ brews using brunwater it's always been accurate for me. I've never had beersmith be even remotely close and purchase bs3 as I assumed with the new water tools it had been corrected. I would love nothing more than to come back here and say I was wrong and was using it incorrectly. I love the software otherwise. So the question is silver... Does bs3 acid adjustment work for you? also I don't think scientifical data really makes a difference at this point. an overwhelming amount of people that use the software say it's not working for them but brunwater does. what else do you need to know? What else really matters? Cheers