Beersmith 3 ph tool

[Silver_Is_Money]

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

You made the claim, so the burden of proof lies with you. I use my own software. I merely asked by what standard of criteria did you assess that BW is always spot on. Still asking....

 

[Blazinlow86]

No "Burdon of proof" required. i dont have anything to prove to you do i?i could take it a step further and say if you claim im incorrect the burdon of proof would lay with you correct? I own a ph meter and already know its not working for myself and others. I'd guess it's not working for you either or you'd be using it. It's not rocket science. Punch all the numbers in brunwater and add the recommended acid. Take a ph reading and done. Do the same using bs3 and I'm way off. you can find all the science in the world to tell it different but that wont change that in MY real world testing its not working for ME and really thats all that matters. Anyway to stay on track do you have anything useful to add to the bs3 acid tool thread in regards to the software you don't use?cheers

 

[jppsav]

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.

That is my experience as well. BnW always a little low but closer than bs3. For now I add what BnW says to, wait a few minutes after stirring then take another sample. Documenting my findings. I’ll probably adjust my acid strength in bs3 to dial it in after I find it is consistent in the error.

 

[Bassman2003]

I am brewing tomorrow and will be eager to check my pH as I am going with the 125% lactic acid approach in BS3 for an APA. I will report back with the results against my pH meter. We can dial in the lactic percentage to match the meter reading if it is still off. Then at least we will be consistent within our own setups. That is really all I care about since it is all "close" using lower level pH meters anyway. I like having the opportunity to have all of this stuff in one program and will try to make it work.

 

[Blazinlow86]

I am brewing tomorrow and will be eager to check my pH as I am going with the 125% lactic acid approach in BS3 for an APA. I will report back with the results against my pH meter. We can dial in the lactic percentage to match the meter reading if it is still off. Then at least we will be consistent within our own setups. That is really all I care about since it is all "close" using lower level pH meters anyway. I like having the opportunity to have all of this stuff in one program and will try to make it work.

Hopefully that works as you say I'd also be happy to just have some sort of workaround to be able to solely use bs3.looking forward to your results. Cheers

 

[Bassman2003]

Ok, here is an update. For my APA, Beersmith 3 stated I should use 3.4 ml of Lactic acid for my mash to reach a pH of 5.3 This was WITH the lactic acid percentage changed to 125%

I decided to go for 4 ml. I took a reading 30min into the mash (cooled it down to 75f). The reading came in at 5.24 With the difference of me adding 4 ml as opposed to BS3 suggesting 3.4 it does seem pretty close. So I will be keeping the 125% setting until something else changes.

 

[Blazinlow86]

Awesome I'm ok with doing that if it gets me close. Thanks for the info I'll give it a try next time I brew. Cheers

 

[ScrewyBrewer]

Ok, here is an update. For my APA, Beersmith 3 stated I should use 3.4 ml of Lactic acid for my mash to reach a pH of 5.3 This was WITH the lactic acid percentage changed to 125%

I decided to go for 4 ml. I took a reading 30min into the mash (cooled it down to 75f). The reading came in at 5.24 With the difference of me adding 4 ml as opposed to BS3 suggesting 3.4 it does seem pretty close. So I will be keeping the 125% setting until something else changes.

I may have missed this but are you adding 88% lactic acid to your brewing water but using 125% as an input strength in BS to compensate?

 

[Blazinlow86]

I may have missed this but are you adding 88% lactic to your brewing water acid but using 125% as an input strength in BS to compensate?

Yup. Bs2/3 recommends too much acid for alot of people myself included. This workaround hopefully works for everyone. There's a thread on the the bs forum about it were Brad responded saying there using a better newer method to calculate and that if you disagree with it "your welcome to keep using your old software"...... Unfortunately due to the response it doesn't sound like it will be corrected

 

[Bassman2003]

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.

 

[Blazinlow86]

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]

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.

 

[ScrewyBrewer]

It’s true (125% - 88%) = 37% seems a lot to be off by. But logically it seems to be a good workaround you’ve come up with.

 

[murphyslaw]

Good idea! I'm going to try the same thing

 

[Bassman2003]

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.

 

[Blazinlow86]

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]

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?

 

[Blazinlow86]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Metzen]

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.

 

[Blazinlow86]

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.

 

[Blazinlow86]

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

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

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?

 

[Blazinlow86]

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/

 

[Morrey]

I use my own software.

Are you sharing your software yet? I have been anxious to hear.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

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.

 

[Blazinlow86]

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

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

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.

 

[Blazinlow86]

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