~Buffering Coefficient via Malt Color

[Silver_Is_Money]

How about applying logarithms to barley malts colors whereby to derive an approximation for their Buffering Coefficients? If pHDI was controversial, this one will assuredly be appreciably more controversial. For both, the constants likely need some degree of tweaking for best nominal fit precision, and more than 2 malt categories may prove better, but it's early in the game for this methodology, and I simply have not applied the time to it whereby to eek out the best overall compromises.

Download at the Google Drive link seen below (by pressing the "down arrow" seen next to the printer icon in the upper right hand corner) and then launch and run in Excel or LibreOffice Calc.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UI5CElndMnqdkmIjiNzzt-fPJIMCcogR/view?usp=sharing

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

I might add that this one utilizes natural logs of malt color whereas the pHDI spreadsheet utilizes ordinary base 10 logs of malt color. I must also add that all of this is purely empirical in nature.

 

[IslandLizard]

this one utilizes natural logs

Reminds me of my math teacher at the Atheneum: "If I had a daughter I'd named her 'Ellen,' naturally."

 

[VikeMan]

Out of curiosity, I correlated the 79 measured grain buffering capacities from MpH with their Lovibond colors and got a correlation coefficient of 44.9, a "moderate" correlation.

This was weaker than the correlation between Lovibond and pHi, which was 60.8.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

Out of curiosity, I correlated the 79 measured grain buffering capacities from MpH with their Lovibond colors and got a correlation coefficient of 44.9, a "moderate" correlation.

This was weaker than the correlation between Lovibond and pHi, which was 60.8.

The data averaged within the published 'Grist pH and Buffering Capacity' paper all has down right horrible (perhaps embarrasing is a better term here) correlation to begin with, so it's a data reliability problem of "garbage in = garbage out" from the very onset. Not much I can do about terrible data. But then you should know that....

 

[VikeMan]

The data averaged within the published 'Grist pH and Buffering Capacity' paper all has down right horrible (perhaps embarrasing is a better term here) correlation to begin with, so it's a data reliability problem of "garbage in = garbage out" from the very onset. Not much I can do about terrible data. But then you should know that....

I look forward to reading your better data.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

I look forward to reading your better data.

I once asked everyone on this forum if they would be willing send me samples of their malts and pay me to have me generate it for their specific lots of malts, and no one would. Here is the link:

https://www.homebrewtalk.com/thread...and-titration-derived-buffering-value.679590/

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

Head to the 'Brewing Science' forum for a practical application of the combined 'pHDI via Malt Color' and 'Buffering Coefficient via Malt Color' spreadsheet outputs.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

I must duly amend that the paper titled 'Grist pH and Buffering Capacity' is an excellent and very well thought out and executed dissertation that is a worthy addition to anyone's library of source works. I value it and refer to it often. The methodology and math modeling of this paper are both highly sound. My only complaint is with the poor data from the past as to DI pH's and Buffering Capacities. And the authors of this paper could not do much of anything with statistical validity whereby to rectify or improve upon the poor data that is available in the public domain. And nor could anyone else.