Beersmith 3 ph tool

HomeBrewTalk.com - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Community.

Help Support Homebrew Talk:

OP
B

Blazinlow86

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2016
Messages
1,680
Reaction score
735
Yes, that is what I am doing with the lactic acid setting. I have not been on the BS forum to inquire about this. Maybe over time this will get more attention. Most homebrewers are going to get lactic acid in the liquid 88% "Carlson" brand etc... form from their LHBS. I can't see how there would be much of a difference of opinion on how it interacts with mashes. Either the calculations are right or they are wrong.
Im still genuinely interested to hear if anyone does NOT have issues using the tool. Maybe it's only certain setups mine included having thr problem. If that's the case the people NOT having issues appear to be keeping it to themselves making it hard to rule it out. Cheers
 

Silver_Is_Money

Larry Sayre, Developer of 'Mash Made Easy'
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
5,712
Reaction score
1,740
Location
N/E Ohio
12 lbs. of low Lovibond 2-Row barley base malt utilized within something along the lines of a SMaSH recipe may require anywhere from about 1.5 mL to 5.0 mL of 88% lactic acid to bring it to 5.4 pH in the mash, given that there is also ~50 ppm of Ca++ added to RO or distilled mash water. It all depends upon the type and manufacturer and regional growth location of the barley base malt. With barley malts like Rahr and Breiss 2-Row brewers types at the low end of additional acid need, and various of premium European Pilsner malts at the high end of lactic acid need, and Pale malts falling somewhere inbetween. So in order to know which software is telling you the truth, you need to know specifically which base malt you are using, and not simply its Lovibond color only. That there is only one "lactic acid" truth and therefore only one software which is right and one which is wrong is clearly a complete falsehood. And if your software doesn't provide a means that goes beyond Lovibond color by which to distinguish one barley base malt from another, then the software is deficient and incapable of assisting you in finding the truth in regard to this matter.
 
Last edited:

Bassman2003

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2013
Messages
990
Reaction score
310
Location
Arlington
12 lbs. of low Lovibond 2-Row barley base malt utilized within something along the lines of a SMaSH recipe may require anywhere from about 1.5 mL to 5.0 mL of 88% lactic acid to bring it to 5.4 pH in the mash, given that there is also ~50 ppm of Ca++ added to RO or distilled mash water. It all depends upon the type and manufacturer and regional growth location of the barley base malt. With barley malts like Rahr and Breiss 2-Row brewers types at the low end of additional acid need, and various of premium European Pilsner malts at the high end of lactic acid need, and Pale malts falling somewhere inbetween. So in order to know which software is telling you the truth, you need to know specifically which base malt you are using, and not simply its Lovibond color only. That there is only one "lactic acid" truth and therefore only one software which is right and one which is wrong is clearly a complete falsehood. And if your software doesn't provide a means that goes beyond Lovibond color by which to distinguish one barley base malt from another, then the software is deficient and incapable of assisting you in finding the truth in regard to this matter.
True. This is not as exact as we would want it to be. Especially with the lower priced pH meters many homebrewers (including me) use. The comparison to the existing Brun Water is the main reason for people seeing a difference. Or just readings from your own pH meter being off with the software. This 125% adjustment gets BS3 closer to the ballpark on my system. So I am happy enough.
 
OP
B

Blazinlow86

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2016
Messages
1,680
Reaction score
735
12 lbs. of low Lovibond 2-Row barley base malt utilized within something along the lines of a SMaSH recipe may require anywhere from about 1.5 mL to 5.0 mL of 88% lactic acid to bring it to 5.4 pH in the mash, given that there is also ~50 ppm of Ca++ added to RO or distilled mash water. It all depends upon the type and manufacturer and regional growth location of the barley base malt. With barley malts like Rahr and Breiss 2-Row brewers types at the low end of additional acid need, and various of premium European Pilsner malts at the high end of lactic acid need, and Pale malts falling somewhere inbetween. So in order to know which software is telling you the truth, you need to know specifically which base malt you are using, and not simply its Lovibond color only. That there is only one "lactic acid" truth and therefore only one software which is right and one which is wrong is clearly a complete falsehood. And if your software doesn't provide a means that goes beyond Lovibond color by which to distinguish one barley base malt from another, then the software is deficient and incapable of assisting you in finding the truth in regard to this matter.


your reply shows your somehow missing the issue entirely so ill retype it in caps to get the point across...... WHEN USING THE BRUNWATER RECOMMENDED AMOUNT OF 88% LACTIC ACID OUR MASH PH COMES OUT IN THE PREDICTED RANGE ALL THE TIME. WHEN USING THE BS2/3s RECOMMENDED AMOUNT OF LACTIC ACID OUR MASH PH COMES OUT ( at least in my case ) IN THE LOWER THAN PREDICTED RANGE. its not that hard to understand. no amount of debate will change that.... we all have meters...... its not working
 

Silver_Is_Money

Larry Sayre, Developer of 'Mash Made Easy'
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
5,712
Reaction score
1,740
Location
N/E Ohio
Common everyday Rahr and Briess 2-Row (not their malts designated as Pale or Pilsner or Vienna) brewing malts at give or take 2L color mash straight up in distilled water with no minerals added at about 5.53 to 5.58 pH. Some individual lots mash in distilled as low as 5.48 pH. These malts require very little acid to bring them to 5.4 pH since they are almost there already.

OTOH, Pilsner malt mashes straight up in distilled water at about 5.8 to 5.9 pH (variety, source, growth region, and seasonal dependent, but most typically within this range to perhaps potentially a bit higher). This class of base malt requires a lot of acid to bring it to 5.4 pH.

And various of the other available base malts such as Vienna and Pale fall in-between these two extremes. Some Maris Otter has been measured at 5.77 pH when mashed straight up in distilled water and at that pH it requires a lot of acid to bring it to 5.4.

Wheat base malt (white or red) mashes in distilled water with no minerals added at between 5.9 and 6.1 pH, and it requires a whopper load of acid to bring it to 5.4 pH.

And lastly oats mash in distilled water with no minerals at 6.2 pH.

pH is based upon a log base 10 scale. So (all else being equal) pH 6 is 10 times less acidic than pH 5, and pH 4 is 10 times more acidic than pH 5.

If your software only offers as selection choices for base malts as described above the words "base" and "Lovibond color", how do you handle this so as to hit your mash pH target every time?
 
Last edited:
OP
B

Blazinlow86

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2016
Messages
1,680
Reaction score
735
Common everyday Rahr and Briess 2-Row (not their malts designated as Pale or Pilsner or Vienna) brewing malts at give or take 2L color mash straight up in distilled water with no minerals added at about 5.53 to 5.58 pH. Some individual lots mash in distilled as low as 5.48 pH. These malts require very little acid to bring them to 5.4 pH since they are almost there already.

OTOH, Pilsner malt mashes straight up in distilled water at about 5.8 to 5.9 pH (variety, source, growth region, and seasonal dependent, but most typically within this range to perhaps potentially a bit higher). This class of base malt requires a lot of acid to bring it to 5.4 pH.

And various of the other available base malts such as Vienna and Pale fall in-between these two extremes. Some Maris Otter has been measured at 5.77 pH when mashed straight up in distilled water and at that pH it requires a lot of acid to bring it to 5.4.

Wheat base malt (white or red) mashes in distilled water with no minerals added at between 5.9 and 6.1 pH, and it requires a whopper load of acid to bring it to 5.4 pH.

And lastly oats mash in distilled water with no minerals at 6.2 pH.

pH is based upon a log base 10 scale. So (all else being equal) pH 6 is 10 times less acidic than pH 5, and pH 4 is 10 times more acidic than pH 5.

If your software only offers as selection choices for base malts as described above the words "base" and "Lovibond color", how do you handle this so as to hit your mash pH target every time?
You answered your question with your question. My software offers base and lovibond color. I input those and the ph I'm shooting for. It gives me the amount of acid to add. After adding the acid to my mash I check with my ph meter. It's always in range. How/Why the software works is not my concern. Email the creator and ask all your random questions. My concern and this thread specifically is in regards to bs3 recommend 30-40% more acid than required in all MY uses. If all you want to do is debate about brunwater create your own new thread about that. You haven't added anything to this one in regards to the question. Just keep saying the same thing over and over.
 

Silver_Is_Money

Larry Sayre, Developer of 'Mash Made Easy'
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
5,712
Reaction score
1,740
Location
N/E Ohio
Given that the mash pH assistant component of his software appears to be being presented by some in a rather negative light, and presuming the likelihood that he uses his own software, does anyone suspect that as a consequence, Brad Smith, the creator of Beersmith, brews inferior beers?
 

ScrewyBrewer

ezRecipe - Beer Recipe Design Made Easy!
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Jun 5, 2010
Messages
1,821
Reaction score
436
Location
New Jersey
Given that the mash pH assistant component of his software appears to be being presented by some in a rather negative light, and presuming the likelihood that he uses his own software, does anyone suspect that as a consequence, Brad Smith, the creator of Beersmith, brews inferior beers?
You bring up a good point and I could never think that. In my mind its the brewing purists that chase mash pH and if I were to take a guess that includes less than 1% of homebrewers. I say if you're using a mash prediction formula that provides you with the results you expect that's great. I think the best way to find the strengths and weaknesses of any pH prediction software is to use it. Record the pH predictions against actual pH values for the styles of beer you brew.

Then make adjustments where needed when brewing those recipes the next time and record those too. If you're using the same brewing water and grain bill each time you should be able to zero in closer to your actual mash pH after each time you brew it.
 
Last edited:

Metzen

Supporting Member
HBT Supporter
Joined
Sep 9, 2016
Messages
183
Reaction score
116
Location
Chicago
You bring up a good point and I could never think that. In my mind its the brewing purists that chase mash pH and if I were to take a guess that includes less than 1% of homebrewers. I say if you're using a mash prediction formula that provides you with the results you expect that's great. I think the best way to find the strengths and weaknesses of any pH prediction software is to use it. Record the pH predictions against actual pH values for the styles of beer you brew.

Then make adjustments where needed when brewing those recipes the next time and record those too. If you're using the same brewing water and grain bill each time you should be able to zero in closer to your actual mash pH after each time you brew it.
Yes. This.
 
OP
B

Blazinlow86

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2016
Messages
1,680
Reaction score
735
You bring up a good point and I could never think that. In my mind its the brewing purists that chase mash pH and if I were to take a guess that includes less than 1% of homebrewers. I say if you're using a mash prediction formula that provides you with the results you expect that's great. I think the best way to find the strengths and weaknesses of any pH prediction software is to use it. Record the pH predictions against actual pH values for the styles of beer you brew.

Then make adjustments where needed when brewing those recipes the next time and record those too. If you're using the same brewing water and grain bill each time you should be able to zero in closer to your actual mash pH after each time you brew it.
It now appears that the amount the ph tool is over shooting is the same for every one having the issue. It's possible there are people not having the issue however not one have replied on this thread to confirm. I haven't tried the acid strength workaround yet but am hopeful it will work. It's still frustrating that Brad doesn't seem interested in the slightest to even look into it. Seems all products have to have one thing keeping them from being perfect these days.
 
OP
B

Blazinlow86

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2016
Messages
1,680
Reaction score
735
Given that the mash pH assistant component of his software appears to be being presented by some in a rather negative light, and presuming the likelihood that he uses his own software, does anyone suspect that as a consequence, Brad Smith, the creator of Beersmith, brews inferior beers?
He is a member of this forum pm him and ask him to reply. he could be the first confirmation that the tool is working for someone. Even then some would argue that it's only a estimate and it's normal to be off which is somewhat true. Kinda like a car GPS not getting you exactly in front of the address you were looking for. The issue is one brand gps gets you within 2 houses every time and the other brand gets you 2 blocks away which alot of people feel is too far off when compared to the other to be accepted as anything other than a glitch that won't be fixed
 
Last edited:

Silver_Is_Money

Larry Sayre, Developer of 'Mash Made Easy'
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
5,712
Reaction score
1,740
Location
N/E Ohio
It now appears that the amount the ph tool is over shooting is the same for every one having the issue.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Neither is cherry picking your evidence a valid means of evidence validation. Evidence cherry picking is a symptom of confirmation bias.

For millennia the earth was perceived to be the center of the universe and there was a dearth of evidence to the contrary. Did this absence of contrary evidence in and of itself prove that the earth was indeed the center of the universe?
 
Last edited:
OP
B

Blazinlow86

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2016
Messages
1,680
Reaction score
735
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Neither is cherry picking your evidence a valid means of evidence validation. Evidence cherry picking is a symptom of confirmation bias.

For millennia the earth was perceived to be the center of the universe and there was a dearth of evidence to the contrary. Did this absence of contrary evidence in and of itself prove that the earth was indeed the center of the universe?
Fwiw I generally understand about 20% of what you reply and just skip till the last sentence at this point. This one however stumped me 100% lol. No idea were your going or what your even talking about anymore. Please stop replying as this is getting way off track or just stop beating around the bush and say brunwater is incorrect and only your mash easy program is correct. It's obvious you're trying to troll brunwater without directly doing so because youve created a similar product. You haven't even used the software in question but seem to have all the answers. Why don't you install the free trial and report back on the actual questions here? Does the acid tool work for you?



to keep this on track i made a new thread to discuss YOUR not mentioned in this post software and keep this one on the topic of BEERSMITH 3. cheers


https://www.homebrewtalk.com/forum/threads/mashmadeeasy-feedback.654384/
 
Last edited:

Silver_Is_Money

Larry Sayre, Developer of 'Mash Made Easy'
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
5,712
Reaction score
1,740
Location
N/E Ohio
Fwiw I generally understand about 20% of what you reply and just skip till the last sentence at this point. This one however stumped me 100% lol. No idea were your going or what your even talking about anymore. Please stop replying as this is getting way off track or just stop beating around the bush and say brunwater is incorrect and only your mash easy program is correct. It's obvious you're trying to troll brunwater without directly doing so because youve created a similar product. You haven't even used the software in question but seem to have all the answers. Why don't you install the free trial and report back on the actual questions here? Does the acid tool work for you?
In case you haven't noticed, I have been defending BS3 from the perspective of logic and facts. If BS3 is calling for more lactic acid than your chosen software, it is likely going to be correct for certain types of base malts, wherein your chosen software will be correct for other classifications of base malts. This is the point I have been making.
 
OP
B

Blazinlow86

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2016
Messages
1,680
Reaction score
735
In case you haven't noticed, I have been defending BS3 from the perspective of logic and facts. If BS3 is calling for more lactic acid than your chosen software, it is likely going to be correct for certain types of base malts, wherein your chosen software will be correct for other classifications of base malts. This is the point I have been making.
And for the last time logic and facts have nothing to do with the question at hand. If I do 100 batches using BEERSMITHS recommended amount of acid and everytime it comes out way lower than predicted and out of range how does your science correct that? Are you suggesting we ignore our meters now because of your facts and logic? You haven't used the software. Install it and then answer the question on the first page. Otherwise your opinion is useless

furthermore based on logic and facts dont you think ***if*** it was true that depending on the grains bs3 may be more accurate that out of 15000 views at least ***ONE*** person would report having that outcome? the ONLY person in the thead "defending bs3" is also coincidentally the only person that has never used it? making sense yet?

i believe your software uses the same math whatever as bs3 hence why your so adamant that the software youve never tried is correct. im gonna give it a try and see if its also broken in the same way. ill report in the new thread and not reply to you here anymore. cheers
 
Last edited:

Silver_Is_Money

Larry Sayre, Developer of 'Mash Made Easy'
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
5,712
Reaction score
1,740
Location
N/E Ohio
BTW, thanks for opening up a thread regarding Mash Made Easy. I will only add to this (since it is off topic on this thread) that Bru'n Water has been available for more than a decade, whereas MME has been publicly available for only about 2 weeks more than a single year at this juncture. And I will also add that MME is essentially only known through my announcement made in regard to it on this very HBT forum, whereas Bru'n Water has had far more public access via far more and also far more diverse public outlets going well beyond merely HBT over its vast tenure, so to expect there to have been a lot of real world comparisons of MME vs. Bru'n Water at this quite early stage in the game for MME is perhaps a bit of a stretch. And since MME has greatly evolved right here on this forum over its first year to be a far better product than when first released, comparisons should validly be considered only for the latest release of MME. But I welcome the challenge.
 
OP
B

Blazinlow86

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2016
Messages
1,680
Reaction score
735
BTW, thanks for opening up a thread regarding Mash Made Easy. I will only add to this (since it is off topic on this thread) that Bru'n Water has been available for more than a decade, whereas MME has been publicly available for only about 2 weeks more than a single year at this juncture. And I will also add that MME is essentially only known through my announcement made in regard to it on this very HBT forum, whereas Bru'n Water has had far more public access via far more and also far more diverse public outlets going well beyond merely HBT over its vast tenure, so to expect there to have been a lot of real world comparisons of MME vs. Bru'n Water at this quite early stage in the game for MME is perhaps a bit of a stretch. And since MME has greatly evolved right here on this forum over its first year to be a far better product than when first released, comparisons should validly be considered only for the latest release of MME. But I welcome the challenge.

i agree 100% brunwater works great and not to bother fixing something thats not broken. see you in the other thread. cheers
 

Silver_Is_Money

Larry Sayre, Developer of 'Mash Made Easy'
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
5,712
Reaction score
1,740
Location
N/E Ohio
i believe your software uses the same math whatever as bs3 hence why your so adamant that the software youve never tried is correct. im gonna give it a try and see if its also broken in the same way. ill report in the new thread and not reply to you here anymore. cheers
Beliefs and intuition make for very poor science.

Please be sure to select your base malts proper DI_pH range before attempting to compare MME to any programs that lack this vital feature.
 

Silver_Is_Money

Larry Sayre, Developer of 'Mash Made Easy'
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
5,712
Reaction score
1,740
Location
N/E Ohio
i agree 100% brunwater works great and not to bother fixing something thats not broken. see you in the other thread. cheers
Martin has just recently reported having fixed it due to its having previously been broken. And he has modified it over the years, so just as for MME, the current release does not give quite the same output as for previous releases (as someone else is currently actively discussing on another thread). For you to presume that it has never been broken is rather naive.

OTOH, I see MME as a product in need of constant improvement, and I have been responding to improving it on a regular basis, but I would never imply that it may not similarly be discovered to be broken in some way within any of its releases. I will only work to make it better in regard to such feedback. But valid feedback must clearly be objective and unbiased, and not tainted with confirmation bias, or given from the perspective of one who bears a chip on his shoulder.
 
Last edited:
OP
B

Blazinlow86

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2016
Messages
1,680
Reaction score
735
Martin has just recently reported having fixed it due to its having previously been broken. And he has modified it over the years, so just as for MME, the current release does not give quite the same output as for previous releases (as someone else is currently actively discussing on another thread). For you to presume that it has never been broken is rather naive.

i agree 100% brunwater works great and its even better to hear there still making improvments to this day. see you in the other thread. cheers
 
OP
B

Blazinlow86

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2016
Messages
1,680
Reaction score
735
can a mod lock this now with the conclusion being **if** your having bs3 recommending too much acid that changing it 125% seems to be working for now. we are (myself included) beating a dead horse lol. cheers
 

Silver_Is_Money

Larry Sayre, Developer of 'Mash Made Easy'
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
5,712
Reaction score
1,740
Location
N/E Ohio
For the record. most of my APA talked about on this thread was with Rahr pale malt.
It would be interesting to see if BS3's accuracy increases greatly (minus the application of the 125% lactic acid strength kludge) with a switch to Munton's Maris Otter pale malt from Rahr pale malt. Rahr malt is often suspect of being rather on the acidic (low DI_pH) side. A.J. deLange has measured Munton's Maris Otter at as high as 5.84 DI_pH, and Kai Troester once measured it at 5.77 DI_pH.

Note: Per A.J., the Crisp brand of Maris Otter pale malt is more acidic than the Munton's brand.
 

Big Monk

Trappist Please! 🍷
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
2,193
Reaction score
1,125
Any discussion about Beersmith's pH tool should really be a discussion about Riffe's MpH calculator. That's what is being used behind the scenes.
 

Silver_Is_Money

Larry Sayre, Developer of 'Mash Made Easy'
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
5,712
Reaction score
1,740
Location
N/E Ohio
Any discussion about Beersmith's pH tool should really be a discussion about Riffe's MpH calculator. That's what is being used behind the scenes.
And given the source, that should make it about as accurate as they come. But does it allow for the handling of differences in base malt DI_pH values?
 

ajdelange

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Aug 5, 2010
Messages
11,959
Reaction score
2,725
Location
McLean/Ogden
Yes, and buffering values too but, if I understand what he is doing based on his description of it in his paper it won't accept data on the non-linearity of malt nor account for the non linearities of added acids nor that of bicarbonate (added or from alkalinity). It is simple to improve it so that it does and still not require an iterative solution. How to do that is described in a post in https://www.homebrewtalk.com/forum/...gnificance-of-mash-ph-estimates.654492/page-2
 
OP
B

Blazinlow86

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2016
Messages
1,680
Reaction score
735
I asked this in another ph thread. I'm wondering if the reason so many have issues with bs3s tool is possibly the timing there taking there ph readings? It sounds like the model used is well recognized and should be pretty accurate. If brunwater/brewers friend/Mme etc all recommend within say .5ml of acid of each other there HAS to be a simple answer why beersmith recommends appx 3.5ml more than all the other software. Is anyone aware of a step by step tutorial on how the beersmith tool should be used? The threads I've read in regards to inaccurate ph with Brad responding have only stated why the ph tool software was chosen and he suggests that it's only a estimate (which I agree) and to add acid during the mash if it's off. It's just so far off from all the others that there has to be something we're missing and arguably having to add acid during the mash isn't really ideal (for that matter if bs is the odd man out the ph would be too low ) please understand. This is not a troll post. I really want to figure this out so I can use beersmith 3 exclusively. Cheers


P.s sorry for all the bad press Brad. I love your software but can't get the ph sorted out. I'm not trying to be a ass.
 

dmr

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2013
Messages
69
Reaction score
33
I asked this in another ph thread. I'm wondering if the reason so many have issues with bs3s tool is possibly the timing there taking there ph readings? It sounds like the model used is well recognized and should be pretty accurate. If brunwater/brewers friend/Mme etc all recommend within say .5ml of acid of each other there HAS to be a simple answer why beersmith recommends appx 3.5ml more than all the other software. Is anyone aware of a step by step tutorial on how the beersmith tool should be used? The threads I've read in regards to inaccurate ph with Brad responding have only stated why the ph tool software was chosen and he suggests that it's only a estimate (which I agree) and to add acid during the mash if it's off. It's just so far off from all the others that there has to be something we're missing and arguably having to add acid during the mash isn't really ideal (for that matter if bs is the odd man out the ph would be too low ) please understand. This is not a troll post. I really want to figure this out so I can use beersmith 3 exclusively. Cheers


P.s sorry for all the bad press Brad. I love your software but can't get the ph sorted out. I'm not trying to be a ass.
@Blazinlow86, I just found this thread. I believe I can shed some light on your observations.

The mash pH estimates used in Beer Smith (at least v2, if not also v3) are based on a couple of papers I wrote in 2013, which can be found on my blog (listed below in my signature). The papers report on my analysis of Kai Troesters work that he wrote up in his 2009 paper "The Effect of Brewing Water and Grist Composition on the pH of the Mash." I wrote these papers mostly for myself in an attempt to understand mash chemistry, which I was beginning to study at the time.

While I believe my analysis of Kai's data to be accurate, it did not go far enough in that I never tested it against real-world homebrewer mashes.

Personally, I used these equations to come up with my own pH calculator, MpH (v. 3.0 at present). Sometime in the past Brad Smith contacted me to ask if he could use my work to incorporate such calculations in bs. I said yes, and so that is where we are with all of that.

Here is the bottom line on the errors in acid additions: equation (6) in my second paper (... Mash pH II...) appears to overestimate the buffering capacity of a typical grist. Hence, the amount of acid required to hit a target pH is overestimated.

Consistent with your (and others) observations, recent preliminary analysis (of actual mash pH measurements) by me indicates the buffering capacity is overestimated by a factor of about 1.65. Thus the observation that changing concentration from 88% to about 140% -- 150% in the bs software (more-or-less) fixes this issue when working with bs.

Towards the end of nailing all of this down, I urge you to add your own data to the thread I recently started -- https://www.homebrewtalk.com/forum/threads/wanted-mash-ph-measurements.661544/ . As you can see there, I have asked that actual mash pH data be posted so that anyone interested in mash pH developing software has a chance of making it accurate.

Just in case you might be interested, I am currently updating MpH (although I have no idea when it will be ready for prime time). The underlying mathematical model will be entirely new (for MpH); it will be based on the water-chemistry ideas that A.J. deLange has discusses at length on this forum.

Cheers!
 
Last edited:
OP
B

Blazinlow86

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2016
Messages
1,680
Reaction score
735
Thanks for the input. I've found using 70% of bs3 recommations seems to work pretty well. Cheers
 
  • Like
Reactions: dmr

dmr

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2013
Messages
69
Reaction score
33
After correcting for this what sort of buffering numbers are you coming up with?
A question that gets right to the heart of things. Good!

Let me explain my overall procedure before I throw out any numbers. Anyone that has read my recent paper (with Mick Spencer -- ... Mash pH III ...) will know that we (i) made some measurements on distilled-water mash pH values and relative buffering capacities of a number of malts and flaked grains and (ii) we collated all the data we could find on these two quantities. Perhaps the most important thing we found was that there are significant systematic differences (I won't call them errors, as I do not think these differences exactly rise to the level of errors) among each researcher when it came to the buffering capacities of Briess Caramel Malts. In the paper we discuss various possibilities for the differences, but that is not important here. What is important is that we were able to do a good job of normalizing the buffering capacities of these malts by applying a single multiplicative factor to the data from each researcher. Confirmation that such systematic difference existed was the result that the adjusted buffering capacities of dark roasted malts fell much more in line among the researchers, even though the data from these malts were not used in the normalization process. BTW, we assumed a normalizing factor of 1.00 for the A.J. deLange data. The other multiplicative factors varied substantially -- from 0.86 (Walts data) to 1.62 (data of Kai Troester).

The importance of these findings are twofold. First, it is difficult, if not impossible, to assign an absolute buffering-capacity to a given malt, as the measured value appears to depend upon (as of yet unknown) differences in measuring techniques. Second, one cannot really know what the appropriate multiplicative factor is in a homebrew setting unless one has actual homebrew-setting data (thus the thread I recently started). Indeed, the exact multiplicative factor might very well be somewhat different from homebrewer to homebrewer.

Along these lines I'll mention that Kai Troester's data in his (in)famous 2009 paper show that crushed grains have an effective buffering capacity that is significantly less that that of pulverized grains.

With all that said, I currently find (based on the homebrewing data that has been posted on the recent thread) that a multiplicative factor of about 0.6 applied to the normalized values in the tables in my recent paper give the overall best agreement with the measured data. So for example, this would give an average buffering capacity of 27.3 for malt in the Pils/Lager/2-Row category. [BTW, my current comparison uses all of the water-chemistry science that you, Mr. deLange, have been arguing for in the forums for quite sometime. Charge must be conserved! I do choose, though, to assume a linear model of buffering (as described in my paper).]

I will say that I have identified one potential pitfall to assuming that a normalization factor is the whole story: perhaps there is a significant difference in distilled-water pH between pulverized and crush grain. I hope that Mick Spencer and I can experimentally address this.

Lastly, I'll say that all science is based on observation (clearly this is the physicist in me speaking here). To argue the benefits of any one mash-pH calculator over another without comparison to actual data (as is rife in this beer science forum) is folly at best. It can be amusing, though.

So there we go. A.J., if you have issue or questions with any of this, I'd certainly like to hear your thoughts. I'm more than happy to engage in a scientific discussion. Cheers!
 

Big Monk

Trappist Please! 🍷
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
2,193
Reaction score
1,125
Lastly, I'll say that all science is based on observation (clearly this is the physicist in me speaking here). To argue the benefits of any one mash-pH calculator over another without comparison to actual data (as is rife in this beer science forum) is folly at best. It can be amusing, though.
This is the key takeaway.

One of the reasons I’ve latched onto the charge conservation method is because the basis is very sound. Finding the right way to apply it in a user interface is a work in progress but I’m putting my chips down on the model I believe in.
 

Silver_Is_Money

Larry Sayre, Developer of 'Mash Made Easy'
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
5,712
Reaction score
1,740
Location
N/E Ohio
A question that gets right to the heart of things. Good!

Let me explain my overall procedure before I throw out any numbers. Anyone that has read my recent paper (with Mick Spencer -- ... Mash pH III ...) will know that we (i) made some measurements on distilled-water mash pH values and relative buffering capacities of a number of malts and flaked grains and (ii) we collated all the data we could find on these two quantities. Perhaps the most important thing we found was that there are significant systematic differences (I won't call them errors, as I do not think these differences exactly rise to the level of errors) among each researcher when it came to the buffering capacities of Briess Caramel Malts. In the paper we discuss various possibilities for the differences, but that is not important here. What is important is that we were able to do a good job of normalizing the buffering capacities of these malts by applying a single multiplicative factor to the data from each researcher. Confirmation that such systematic difference existed was the result that the adjusted buffering capacities of dark roasted malts fell much more in line among the researchers, even though the data from these malts were not used in the normalization process. BTW, we assumed a normalizing factor of 1.00 for the A.J. deLange data. The other multiplicative factors varied substantially -- from 0.86 (Walts data) to 1.62 (data of Kai Troester).

The importance of these findings are twofold. First, it is difficult, if not impossible, to assign an absolute buffering-capacity to a given malt, as the measured value appears to depend upon (as of yet unknown) differences in measuring techniques. Second, one cannot really know what the appropriate multiplicative factor is in a homebrew setting unless one has actual homebrew-setting data (thus the thread I recently started). Indeed, the exact multiplicative factor might very well be somewhat different from homebrewer to homebrewer.

Along these lines I'll mention that Kai Troester's data in his (in)famous 2009 paper show that crushed grains have an effective buffering capacity that is significantly less that that of pulverized grains.

With all that said, I currently find (based on the homebrewing data that has been posted on the recent thread) that a multiplicative factor of about 0.6 applied to the normalized values in the tables in my recent paper give the overall best agreement with the measured data. So for example, this would give an average buffering capacity of 27.3 for malt in the Pils/Lager/2-Row category. [BTW, my current comparison uses all of the water-chemistry science that you, Mr. deLange, have been arguing for in the forums for quite sometime. Charge must be conserved! I do choose, though, to assume a linear model of buffering (as described in my paper).]

I will say that I have identified one potential pitfall to assuming that a normalization factor is the whole story: perhaps there is a significant difference in distilled-water pH between pulverized and crush grain. I hope that Mick Spencer and I can experimentally address this.

Lastly, I'll say that all science is based on observation (clearly this is the physicist in me speaking here). To argue the benefits of any one mash-pH calculator over another without comparison to actual data (as is rife in this beer science forum) is folly at best. It can be amusing, though.

So there we go. A.J., if you have issue or questions with any of this, I'd certainly like to hear your thoughts. I'm more than happy to engage in a scientific discussion. Cheers!
If a multiplicative factor of 0.60 is now recommended to be applied to averaged buffering values derived from titrations, and titration data derived from one source to another require admittedly wild swings in multiplicative factors since they "vary substantially", and if the AJ data is merely "assumed" to be the correct data, and the entire premise of Gen II is that mash pH prediction error is to be eliminated by careful titration and DI pH measurement, yet a clearly data normalizing fudge factor altering the average of actual measured values by 40% is called for, what does that say for the validity of the foundational premise of Gen II, and the promise of a precision in mash pH prediction that will be unquestionably better than Gen I and/or quasi-empirical models (which can be similarly massaged via fudge factors if/as needed in order to bring them in line with real world mash pH measurement)?

Edit: I applaud you for your honesty in this matter of uncertainty. Your statement that "it is difficult, if not impossible, to assign an absolute buffering-capacity to a given malt, as the measured value appears to depend upon (as of yet unknown) differences in measuring techniques." should serve as a brief synopsis of what I'm saying above. As should "The other multiplicative factors varied substantially -- from 0.86 (Walts data) to 1.62 (data of Kai Troester)." Substantially indeed!!! What sort of R squared correlation might be seen in such massively uncorrelating data sets (before they are heavily massaged post arbitrarily merely presuming that AJ is chosen to be the only one among them who is correct)?
 
Last edited:

eric19312

Supporting Member
HBT Supporter
Joined
Dec 5, 2012
Messages
3,541
Reaction score
2,038
Location
Long Island
Cool stuff here. Sounds like we need to add crush detail to the real world mash pH data thread. I’m amazed you guys can’t get agreement on the DI pH results and makes me wonder if universal predictive model is even possible in real world homebrew setting. Maybe we need a pretty good model and a way to determine a system based correction factor.
 

Big Monk

Trappist Please! 🍷
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
2,193
Reaction score
1,125
If a multiplicative factor of 0.60 is now recommended to be applied to averaged buffering values derived from titrations, and titration data derived from one source to another require admittedly wild swings in multiplicative factors since they "vary substantially", and if the AJ data is merely "assumed" to be the correct data, and the entire premise of Gen II is that mash pH prediction error is to be eliminated by careful titration and DI pH measurement, yet a clearly data normalizing fudge factor altering the average of actual measured values by 40% is called for, what does that say for the validity of the foundational premise of Gen II, and the promise of a precision in mash pH prediction that will be unquestionably better than Gen I and/or quasi-empirical models (which can be similarly massaged via fudge factors if/as needed in order to bring them in line with real world mash pH measurement)?

Edit: I applaud you for your honesty in this matter of uncertainty. Your statement that "it is difficult, if not impossible, to assign an absolute buffering-capacity to a given malt, as the measured value appears to depend upon (as of yet unknown) differences in measuring techniques." should serve as a brief synopsis of what I'm saying above. As should "The other multiplicative factors varied substantially -- from 0.86 (Walts data) to 1.62 (data of Kai Troester)." Substantially indeed!!! What sort of R squared correlation might be seen in such massively uncorrelating data sets (before they are heavily massaged post arbitrarily merely presuming that AJ is chosen to be the only one among them who is correct)?
In my opinion, it isn't about who is right or who is wrong. It's about understanding how the science translates to the brewery and how we can apply that chemistry so everyone can use it.

Titration co-efficiencts are currently the stick in the mud. We can get good DI pH data very easily. We have a good amount of data for a1, a little less for a2, and a little less still for a3. We may not be entirely sure of the veracity of all the measured data or how we can apply it so peoples eyes don't glaze over.

We need more data to understand how to improve things. If we understand more about how these things work, we all win.
 
Top