BIAB using Bru N Water

[ajdelange]

You have a car and every time you turn left a wheel falls off. You should
1)Work out routes to and from work that don't require left turns
or
2)Put the car in the shop and drive your wife's car until it is fixed.

?

 

[SteveH aka shetc]

2)Put the car in the shop and drive your wife's car until it is fixed.

My wife's car is a 10 year old Civic so not into that idea What car, I mean spreadsheet, do you recommend?

 

[ajdelange]

While I have read the other thread, I’ll say it’s all theory until someone takes enough actual samples from real brews to find out if the mental experiment conclusion is reality. Doing a paper experiment and playing gotcha is a bit premature. Once real data comes in we should react.

You buy your wife a calculator for use in calculating the grocery bill in the store. She enters 10 lbs of pork sausage at 1.20/lb and it tells her the cost is $13.00. That looks a little funny so you have her enter 20 lbs of pork sausage and the calculator tells her the cost is $6.00. You try with the calculator on your cell phone and it says $12.00 for the 10 lbs and $24.00. For the 20 lbs. Do you need to go to the butcher shop to see if there is a problem with the first calculator?

Lest the little story above doesn't make the situation clear the applicable laws of chemistry properly applied would NEVER advocate doubling of the required acid when the volume of DI water is doubled. A high school chemistry student could tell you that. The reasons for this are explained in the other thread. Plus we have the testimony in #29 that in 12 out of 13 brews the predicted acid requirement was twice what the poster needed. How much more real data do you need?

 

[ajdelange]

My wife's car is a 10 year old Civic so not into that idea What car, I mean spreadsheet, do you recommend?

I guess I assume that people here (as it is the Brewing Science Forum) know more chemistry than they often do so let me just say that acid is used to neutralize alkalinity. Malt has alkalinity, water with reported alkalinity of 80 ppm has 80 ppm but RO/DI water has alkalinity of 1.6 ppm or so. IOW it effectively has no alkalinity and, therefore, when its amount is increased the amount of acid required is not (appreciably) increased. Increase the amount of water with alkalinity of 80: yes -more acid. Increase the amount of malt: yes - more acid. Increase the amount of RO/DI: no - no more acid needed.

Thus I recommend (for this particular problem) the use of any spreadsheet which does not indicate that the amount of acid needs to be increased by more than a tiny amount when the amount of malt is held the same while additional DI/RO water is added. This is an elliptical way of saying that I don't recommend particular spreadsheets. The existing ones need to be thought of as first generation. They make lots of assumptions and approximations. The exciting thing about the other thread is that it looks as if people with the required Excel skills are coming to understand the chemistry and a robust, second generation spreadsheet may not be too far off. Maybe the best advice is try several of the others and throw out any with a wild acid recommendation (apparently more than one exhibits this problem).

 

[ScrewyBrewer]

And I have finished the other thread. And I now remember why I got a D in my freshman chemistry class.

So I think the critical item in that other thread in relation to this thread is at https://www.homebrewtalk.com/forum/...e-mash-ph-software.652095/page-3#post-8341815. Specifically,

View attachment 579100

That is, the doubling of water volume (as in full volume BIAB) should not require a doubling of lactic acid. I have brewed 13 times now with Bru'n Water and the acid was double or more than I required in 12/13 cases (the 1 exception was a porter that required no acid additions and BW was spot on).

So do I stick with the following practice?: 1) Use BW to determine mineral additions for given color or city profile, 2) take the acid amount with a pinch of salt (ugh), 3) add a conservative amount of acid to the mash water, 4) mash in, 5) take an early pH reading and 6) add small amounts of acid if req'd to reach desired ph?

@shetc that depends on several things really. Strength of acid, grain bill and mash thickness to name a few.

Springs come to my mind when imagining acid/base and buffering. Reverse osmosis water is a very weak if not nonexistent spring. [zero alkalinity ie. no resistence to pH change up or down].

Mix malted barley with reverse osmosis water and the pH naturally finds an equilibrium at ~5.7 pH. [Phosphate inherent to malted grain absorbs acid]. [absorbing acid ie. increases alkalinity to raise pH].

Add some acid from gypsum and calcium chloride then watch the spring get weaker as acid reduces alkalinity. Or in the words of Colin Kaminski who coauthored the book Water with John Palmer. With the help of @ajdelange doing the heavy water chemistry. “Adds acid to knock out the alkalinity” of his brewing water. [increased acid reduces alkalinity lowering pH to less than ~5.7.

To me the ability to predict mash pH combines the best of art and science. The last frontier of brewing having mastered all others. Maybe it’s the ability to accurately predict the future. To see actual pH values ultimately match predicted pH values. But to say the challenge is anything less than interesting would be misleading.

 

[brewbama]

You buy your wife a calculator for use in calculating the grocery bill in the store. She enters 10 lbs of pork sausage at 1.20/lb and it tells her the cost is $13.00. That looks a little funny so you have her enter 20 lbs of pork sausage and the calculator tells her the cost is $6.00. You try with the calculator on your cell phone and it says $12.00 for the 10 lbs and $24.00. For the 20 lbs. Do you need to go to the butcher shop to see if there is a problem with the first calculator?

Lest the little story above doesn't make the situation clear the applicable laws of chemistry properly applied would NEVER advocate doubling of the required acid when the volume of malt is doubled. A high school chemistry student could tell you that. The reasons for this are explained in the other thread. Plus we have the testimony in #29 that in 12 out of 13 brews the predicted acid requirement was twice what the poster needed. How much more real data do you need?

It’s been just over 110 years since Einstein published his groundbreaking papers in 1905 that revolutionized physics as we know it and ushered in the quantum age. Among these papers were his theories on special relativity (not to be confused with general relativity, which he published 10 years later in 1915). His theories on special relativity discussed such strange things as length contraction and time dilation when an observer moved at speeds approaching the speed of light (3 x 108 meters per second, or c). While Einstein was a brilliant physicist, he by no means developed these theories in a vacuum. All great science comes from collaboration and parallel research. Results from an experiment from 1887 would go on to support Einstein’s theories of special relativity and help drive the quantum age alongside it. The experiment in question, the Michelson-Morley experiment, would become one of the most famous failed experiments in history.

IOW it all worked on paper and when exercised it failed.

Maybe you are right. Not saying you’re not. In fact, you could very well be spot on. ...but maybe, just maybe you, like Einstein, are incorrect. He was a fairly fart smeller and his paper experiment was wrong. Show data from actual experiments.

 

[ScrewyBrewer]

Please step aside exact yeast cell count excuse me precise IBU values welcome pH predictability!

 

[ajdelange]

It’s been just over 110 years since Einstein published ...the Michelson-Morley experiment, would become one of the most famous failed experiments in history.1887 1905

IOW it all worked on paper and when exercised it failed.

I think you are a little confused here. Einstein was motivated to develop the Special theory in part because the previous Michaelson - Morley experiment had shown, quite successfully, that there was no support for the questionable ether theory. It is (M-M) one of the greatest successes of science. Though much of Einstein's reasoning WRT Special Relativity was based on Gedanken experiment as far as I know no laboratory experiment to date has ever shown any part of it to be wrong, in fact quite the contrary, and, to quote the Wikipedia article on it (q.v.) it "...is the generally accepted and experimentally well-confirmed physical theory regarding the relationship between space and time." To cite an example of confirmation that relates to daily life (your smart phone), the clocks on the GPS satellites run slightly faster than 10 mHz in order to deliver a 10 mHz rate at the surface of the earth under 0 doppler conditions, just as predicted, in part (time dilation component), by Special Relativity and in part (offset for gravitational potential) by General Relativity. As further evidence, the Glonass clocks, or at least the early ones, were not so corrected so that a relativity caused clock drift, which had to be corrected for in the receiver, was observed.

All three of these guys were spot on. c, BTW, is 3E8 meters per second - not 324.

IOW it all worked on paper and when exercised it failed.

No! It did not.

Maybe you are right.

Of course I'm right. It's as obvious as a dead baby in the punch bowl. You don't need to know about curvature in space-time in order to know that if you put a ham on a scale, read it, add another ham of similar size and the scale tells you the weight is now half what it was with one, there is something wrong with that scale. An 'intellectually challenged' (hope that's PC enough) person would know that.
'

In fact, you could very well be spot on. ...but maybe, just maybe you, like Einstein, are incorrect. He was a fairly fart smeller and his paper experiment was wrong.

Which part of the Special (or for that matter General) Theory has been shown to be wrong?

Show data from actual experiments.

Oy vey! You want me to do an experiment that shows that RO water has low alkalinity? Doesn't everyone already know that? Do we suggest acidifying the water when we sparge with RO? Do you acidify your RO sparge water? What happens when you do? Asking me to show experimental evidence of this is like asking me to show experimental evidence of what happens if you stick your finger in a fire. It's obvious what will happen and it is, therefore, pointless, a waste of time (and in this case, painful) to do the experiment. I've titrated lots of water samples but never a DI one. I already know the answer and it is such a small number that I would have a problem measuring it without using a large volume of water.

 

[cloudybrewer]

Lest the little story above doesn't make the situation clear the applicable laws of chemistry properly applied would NEVER advocate doubling of the required acid when the volume of malt is doubled.

AJ, I think you meant to finish with "when the volume of distilled water is doubled."

 

[brewbama]

I think you are a little confused here.

No! It did not.

I knew you’d pick me apart so I simply used an exact quote from the Smithsonian. Argue your point with them.

https://ssec.si.edu/stemvisions-blog/most-famous-failed-experiment

Of course I'm right.

I’d venture to say you rarely consider yourself otherwise. I understand your self-image has been threatened (which is not my desire) and you want to be known to be bigger or smarter than most on HBT. ...and you probably are. I am just saying without actual evidence you have a simple math equation that could be erroneous when exercised in real world conditions. My point is — it wouldn’t be the first time.

“Oy vey! You want me to do an experiment that shows that RO water has low alkalinity? “.

Of course not. True, mashing conditions based on the scenarios.

Look, you can continue to pick me apart, write with superiority, and perform math formulas to demonstrate your mental prowess but at the end of the day this is a Homebrew forum. Mash some grain, take some readings, and then tell us what you found.

Sounding the alarm with a ready, fire, aim approach doesn’t do it. You science types ought to appreciate that process more than most. I am amazed I am the one telling you this.

 

[ajdelange]

AJ, I think you meant to finish with "when the volume of distilled water is doubled."

I did indeed. Thanks for picking that up.

 

[ajdelange]

In No. 36 you punched me firmly in the fist with your face and have now come back for more. Here you are.

LOL. I knew you’d pick me apart so I simply used an exact quote from the Smithsonian. Argue your point with them. LOL

Not only did you quote it, you completely misinterpreted its meaning in concluding that it reflected shortcomings in Einstein's theory ("you, like Einstein, are incorrect") and completely missed the ironical tone of the article starting with its title. The M - M experiment stands as a pinnacle of scientific accomplishment. You clearly have little familiarity with the scientific method so as this is the Brewing Science forum I'll sketch just enough of it to illustrate the point. An experiment is conducted to verify a hypothesis - often in the hope that it will be proven true but the real scientist is, or is supposed to be, indifferent. He only seeks a result that is significant. IOW he seeks data that allow him to be confident in his acceptance or rejection of the hypothesis ("significant" and "confident" have special meanings in this context). In the case of the M-M experiment the hypothesis would be "Electromagnetic waves are propagated through a medium (the ether) in a way analogous to the way sound is propagated through air or water". This is the so called "alternative hypothesis". The null hypothesis would be "There is no ether". Often the alternative hypothesis is "proven" by rejecting the null hypothesis. M and M were unable to reject the null hypothesis and so concluded that there is not sufficient support for an ether theory. That they did not succeed (failed) in rejecting the null hypothesis represents one of the most significant successes of 19th century physics. The author of the article knows this. I know this and any physics student knows this. This is a pop sci article and as such it is dumbed down for the lay public. In choosing irony she apparently didn't dumb it down enough as you entirely missed the point. Look at her last sentence "... most notably that when it comes to science there’s really no such thing as failure." And of course this has nothing to do with Einstein's special theory or the validity thereof other than that it served as a motivator for his evolution of that theory.

All this is very interesting, of course, but is distracting from the issue under discussion: that there appears to be a major flaw in a very popular brewing spreadsheet. I say appears because there may yet be an explanation but the author has been silent. People using this software should be aware of this and the developer should be working on a fix or offer an explanation. Therefore, should you wish to hit me again I shall not, unless it sensibly relates to the issue at hand, respond.

 

[brewbama]

All this is very interesting, of course, but is distracting from the issue under discussion: that there appears to be a major flaw in a very popular brewing spreadsheet. I say appears because there may yet be an explanation...

Now we agree.

 

[Big Monk]

This is an elliptical way of saying that I don't recommend particular spreadsheets. The existing ones need to be thought of as first generation. They make lots of assumptions and approximations. The exciting thing about the other thread is that it looks as if people with the required Excel skills are coming to understand the chemistry and a robust, second generation spreadsheet may not be too far off.

[emoji41]

We should hopefully be able to shake up the world by the end of next week.

 

[ajdelange]

I understand your self-image has been threatened

Not in the least. Why would you think that? Hint: it's not because I'm an arrogant SOB (which, BTW, I don't deny I am).

I am just saying without actual evidence you have a simple math equation that could be erroneous when exercised in real world conditions.

The first observer of the problem in question relied on common sense. Nothing more. He asked me to confirm his gut feel and I did run some numbers not to prove that he was right or wrong but to illustrate what would in fact happen under the conditions where the program gave him a bad answer.

True, mashing conditions based on the scenarios.

You REALLY need to understand that if you have a recipe that says "Dissolve a kg of sugar in a half liter of water. If you want to use more sugar be sure to decrease the amount of water." you DO NOT need an experiment to tell you that the recipe is wrong. The science tells you that and if you aren't familiar with the science common sense should tell you the same thing.

Look, you can continue to pick me apart,

You also REALLY need to understand that if you go about with a "Kick Me" sign on your back someone is going to take you up on the offer. It's just too tempting! I promised I wouldn't respond further but am doing so first because I think the stuff I have quoted here must have been edited in - I don't remember seeing it before and second, and this is the important part that I want everyone to take note of:

Martin has found the problem in Bru'n water and fixed it.

perform math formulas to demonstrate your mental prowess

I actually 'perform' math formulas to try to maintain what's left of my mental prowess.

but at the end of the day this is a Homebrew forum.

At the end of the day this is the Brew Science forum. If you don't understand science, or have no interest in it perhaps you should not be reading nor posting here.

Mash some grain, take some readings, and then tell us what you found.

I'm really chuckling over this one. I'm wondering how many thousands, or tens of thousands, of readings I've taken on mashed grains.

Sounding the alarm with a ready, fire, aim approach doesn’t do it.

In this particular case it did do it. In response to the alarm Martin found the problem and fixed it and, in reporting same, thanked the guys for prodding him. Any software developer wants his users to report problems they find with his product.

You science types ought to appreciate that process more than most.

Clearly we do.

I am amazed I am the one telling you this.

I am too.

 

[brewbama]

I knew your overcompensation wouldn’t let you down! It just took a while to stew.

Hint: it's not because I'm an arrogant SOB (which, BTW, I don't deny I am).

What a shame. Arrogance can look like strength and confidence but it’s typically the opposite: a psychological defense mechanism that projects a facade of superiority to hide some serious insecurities. Please seek professional help: you have so much to offer. A message delivered with confident humility is received much easier.

Martin has found the problem in Bru'n water and fixed it.

Outstanding! I look forward to evaluating it in real-world conditions.

I also look forward to evaluating the soon-to-be-released work you and Derek are doing alongside other’s work in real world mash conditions. It may turn out to be fantastic.

 

[SteveH aka shetc]

 

[ajdelange]

I suppose because this has purely been a matter of me responding to what is, upon reflection, clearly flame bait which distracted from the important issues in this thread.

Here's something Jerry Pournelle wrote way back in 1986:

"whereas an open computer conference begins with a small number of well-informed and highly interested participants, it soon attracts others. That's all right; it's supposed to attract others. Where else would you get new ideas? But soon it attracts too many, far too many, and some of them are not only ignorant but aggressively misinformed. Dilution takes place. Arguments replace discussions. Tempers are frayed."

 

[brewbama]

I don’t understand how asking to use a mental experiment on real world conditions to validate a theory before spiking the ball can be considered ‘clearly flame bait’. I understand you’re not used to being questioned by mere mortals but you surely agree paper designs have failed in the past (example provided).

And I’m sorry you feel as if there’s no room for validation of your thoughts in your (and J. Pourelle’s) world — and your vailed threat of physical violence (fist to face, kick me, tempers frayed, etc) is somewhat disturbing — but real-world conditions have a way of humbling us all.

I hope the pH DI method you are collaborating on works without incident. I’ll stand in line to congratulate you all. I simply recommend you test it before uncorking the champagne.

 

[Big Monk]

I hope the pH DI method you are collaborating on works without incident. I’ll stand in line to congratulate you all. I simply recommend you test it before uncorking the champagne.

I think that’s what A.J. is trying to get at: This isn’t untested. He’s been using the charge/proton deficit method for years.

Either way, and differences aside, the thought experiment prompted Martin to fix an issue with Brun Water. That in itself is a major success for BW users.

 

[brewbama]

Either way, and differences aside, the thought experiment prompted Martin to fix an issue with Brun Water. That in itself is a major success for BW users.

Agreed. Great things could come from this. ...but we are saying essentially the same thing:

Hopefully you see where I am going with this.

I admittedly use an algorithm that is a hodge-podge of other people's work. I am an engineer by trade and my main area of expertise is in troubleshooting. I love excel and I love brewing calculations, so conversations like this are right up my alley.

However, we should be very cautious of singling out the work of other's for criticism when your own calculations have such an admittedly low pool of empirical results, as well as a such a narrow pool of malts used for modelling.

My collaborator has hundreds of batches in the bag with pH calcs that I prepared and we still have runs of 4-5 batches at a time where we have to tweak for various real world issues like lot variance, etc. All my water estimation calculations have a BW style backbone. I make certain key changes to the basic algorithm based on the empirical data pool we have and the results have worked for me.

The only way to judge the success of spreadsheet, program, etc. is to actually test it. With that said, and piggybacking on AJ's comments above, if a thought experiment like this points out a glaring error in a program, it should be presented in a way that isn't confrontational so the author has a chance to address it if he/she feels it is warranted.

The only way to judge the success of spreadsheet, program, etc. is to actually test it.

 

[Big Monk]

Agreed. Great things could come from this. ...but we are saying essentially the same thing:



The only way to judge the success of spreadsheet, program, etc. is to actually test it.

Right. No arguments there. Some calculations are more theoretically sound than others though, so we shall see!

 

[brewbama]

Right. No arguments there. Some calculations are more theoretically sound than others though, so we shall see!

Good luck to you all.

 

[Big Monk]

Good luck to you all.

Hopefully you’ll take it for a spin when it’s ready.