First Time BIAB - City Water Analysis

[thomer]

I just fired up BrunWater 1.25. I put in a grist of 10 lbs of 3L base malt.

Here are the predicted pH values for some different conditions. Is this what you see @TestTickle ?

Water profile of all 0s, no additions:

Mash with 7.5 gallons of water (3qt/lb) the pH = 5.71. Mash with 5 gallons of water (2 qt/lb) the pH = 5.68. Mash with 2.5 gallons (1 qt/lb) the pH = 5.61.
So the predicted changes are fairly small until you get to thick mashes.


With 1g gypsum and 0.5 g CaCl2/gallon the changes are as follows:

3qt/lb pH = 5.18
2qt/lb pH = 5.33
1qt/lb pH =5.43

This trend would be expected as described in @Silver_Is_Money 's post #30 above. How close these predictions are to real measured values for different brands of 2-row I don't know.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When I first started measuring mash pH I did a timecourse and noticed the change over time. Now I measure at the end because it is consistent (i.e. no longer changing, so I'm not going to catch it at a intermediate pH) and is representative of the mash pH once everything is dissolved/hydrated/at equilibrium (is there a more correct term for this?).

Does anyone know if the timecourse of the mash pH change is related to the water to grist ratio?

Thanks to everyone for your input. @marc1 I have also just used BrunWater as an experiment. I think I have found my way around it using your references and got the same figures as you, so I know I am on the right track. I will also now experiment with Mash Made Easy @Silver_Is_Money .

I must admit moving from extract to all grain has surprised me how much water chemistry plays a part. However here is the good news. My wife has a BSc Degree in BioChemistry. She worked for a water treatment company for 10 years, so knows (or used to) water chemistry inside out. So while she has not actively helped with the brewing so far (apart from drinking copious amounts of my homebrew) it time she stepped up to the plate.....

So I/we may well make some videos about our RO adventures. Also, if you want me to experiment with anything RO let me know, I can post the results on the forum.

I have always felt like it should be easier for a new brewer that is using RO water and brewing a 5 gallon batch of Czech Pils/Belgian Dubbel/German Wheat/Dark Mild/etc. to look up a recommendation for salt additions and pH adjustments.

Hopefully I may be able to achieve just that and share it.
Tim

 

[TestTickle]

OK - we're all on the same page now!

In this software, the mineralized water differences are trending as expected, and the RO water doesn't change much until thick mashes. Since real life use generally shouldn't use RO only, then it doesn't seem to be a big problem for practical applications.

Like all software, it's for getting an estimate of mash pH, and can't know the differences between malts that aren't part of its calculations (for BrunWater these are things like: different maltsters, lots, varieties of barley, etc.). It uses broad grain type and color values to make its estimates, along with water information. If you find that it is helpful in planning mineral and acid additions overall, then it serves your purposes.

I do understand that software only provides an estimate based off of the SRM of the grain used. I'm not personally too concerned with any of this since I don't completely rely on estimates but rather use them as a starting point. I am just trying to make sense of what seems to be odd (to me) predictions when using 100% RO or distilled water and adding minerals.

You and I obviously have seen the same results in estimates using strictly RO. I should note that I mostly brew with tap water (well water through a carbon filter), but for more delicate styles I will often dilute with distilled (~50/50). There have only been a couple of times I have ever brewed with 100% RO or distilled, which was when I first noticed the results you posted above.

So, with 100% RO water (as you noted above and as I have also seen):

• With no minerals added, pH goes up as the water to grain ratio goes up. I expect this.
• With minerals added, pH goes down as the water to grain ratio goes up. This I did not expect based on my experiences with tap water.

Now, let's consider the exact same grain bill and target water profile using tap water:

• With no minerals added, pH goes up as the water to grain ratio goes up. I expect this.
• With minerals added, pH goes up as the water to grain ratio goes up. I expect this.

So basically, the RO water with minerals added and the tap water with minerals added along with an identical grain bill in both mashes, based on these calculators, SHOULD (in my simple mind) have a very similar mash profile. I know that it's more complicated than that, and again, I'm no chemist...anything past basic water adjustments and pH is over my head.

This doesn't affect my brew day at all, since I mostly achieve the end result that I am expecting with regards to water profiles, mash pH and finished product. I am mostly just curious to know if what I am seeing is correct since it doesn't make sense to me. If it is correct, that is fine...I at least know that the software is doing what it's supposed to do if i ever do need to go with 100% RO. If it's not correct, then I can make adjustments if needed, although it doesn't appear to be enough of a discrepancy to worry about in most cases.

I know we are getting way more into this topic than we should on this thread, so I apologize to the OP.

 

[thomer]

I know we are getting way more into this topic than we should on this thread, so I apologize to the OP.

No apology necessary. All the information provided/discussed so far has been very useful as I am purely RO or distilled at the moment.

 

[marc1]

I do understand that software only provides an estimate based off of the SRM of the grain used. I'm not personally too concerned with any of this since I don't completely rely on estimates but rather use them as a starting point. I am just trying to make sense of what seems to be odd (to me) predictions when using 100% RO or distilled water and adding minerals.

You and I obviously have seen the same results in estimates using strictly RO. I should note that I mostly brew with tap water (well water through a carbon filter), but for more delicate styles I will often dilute with distilled (~50/50). There have only been a couple of times I have ever brewed with 100% RO or distilled, which was when I first noticed the results you posted above.

So, with 100% RO water (as you noted above and as I have also seen):

• With no minerals added, pH goes up as the water to grain ratio goes up. I expect this.
• With minerals added, pH goes down as the water to grain ratio goes up. This I did not expect based on my experiences with tap water.

Now, let's consider the exact same grain bill and target water profile using tap water:

• With no minerals added, pH goes up as the water to grain ratio goes up. I expect this.
• With minerals added, pH goes up as the water to grain ratio goes up. I expect this.

So basically, the RO water with minerals added and the tap water with minerals added along with an identical grain bill in both mashes, based on these calculators, SHOULD (in my simple mind) have a very similar mash profile. I know that it's more complicated than that, and again, I'm no chemist...anything past basic water adjustments and pH is over my head.

This doesn't affect my brew day at all, since I mostly achieve the end result that I am expecting with regards to water profiles, mash pH and finished product. I am mostly just curious to know if what I am seeing is correct since it doesn't make sense to me. If it is correct, that is fine...I at least know that the software is doing what it's supposed to do if i ever do need to go with 100% RO. If it's not correct, then I can make adjustments if needed, although it doesn't appear to be enough of a discrepancy to worry about in most cases.

I know we are getting way more into this topic than we should on this thread, so I apologize to the OP.

I think the issue maybe that your tap water contains alkalinity, while the simplified example above does not. Do you know what's in your water?

Alkalinity will raise the mash pH, so if you have more absolute amounts of alkalinity in the mash with a thinner mash, it can raise the pH.

The Ca from CaCl2 and CaSO4 is what lowers pH in the mash from mineral additions (but only through reactions with the mash; they aren't a good way to lower pH otherwise in, say, plain water). Adding NaCl won't affect the mash pH, for example.

So my guess is that you have enough alkalinity in your water such that its effect is greater than the other mineral additions that you are putting in.

 

[TestTickle]

I think the issue maybe that your tap water contains alkalinity, while the simplified example above does not. Do you know what's in your water?

Alkalinity will raise the mash pH, so if you have more absolute amounts of alkalinity in the mash with a thinner mash, it can raise the pH.

The Ca from CaCl2 and CaSO4 is what lowers pH in the mash from mineral additions (but only through reactions with the mash; they aren't a good way to lower pH otherwise in, say, plain water). Adding NaCl won't affect the mash pH, for example.

So my guess is that you have enough alkalinity in your water such that its effect is greater than the other mineral additions that you are putting in.

Aha....we may be getting somewhere. I do get my water tested every year and it is a bit high in alkalinity. I think I just went from really confused to just a little.

Good to know it's me and not the software (which I assumed anyway). Thanks for the replies.

 

[marc1]

Aha....we may be getting somewhere. I do get my water tested every year and it is a bit high in alkalinity. I think I just went from really confused to just a little.

Good to know it's me and not the software (which I assumed anyway). Thanks for the replies.

OK, lets put two more test cases through the software.

Same setup as the earlier post, I'll recap the earlier results here too for ease of viewing, and add to them too. The starting water will be unmineralized, so it's good RO or distilled water.

Case 1 - No additions:
4qt/lb pH = 5.72
3qt/lb pH = 5.71
2qt/lb pH = 5.68
1qt/lb pH = 5.61
0.5qt/lb pH = 5.46

Case 2 - Add 1g/gallon Baking soda to RO/distilled to simulate water with alkalinity (104ppm bicarbonate according to the spreadsheet):
4qt/lb pH = (error - it appears the spreadsheet can't handle this condition, pH probably too high; addition of lactic acid allows for a value to show)
3qt/lb pH = (error)
2qt/lb pH = 6.07
1qt/lb pH = 5.86
0.5qt/lb pH = 5.61

Case 3 - With 1g gypsum and 0.5 g CaCl2/gallon to RO/distilled:

4qt/lb pH = 5.02
3qt/lb pH = 5.18
2qt/lb pH = 5.33
1qt/lb pH = 5.43
0.5qt/lb pH = 5.37

Case 4 - With 1g gypsum, 0.5 g CaCl2, and 1g baking soda (to simulate water with alkalinity) /gallon to RO/distilled:
4qt/lb pH = (error)
3qt/lb pH = 5.90
2qt/lb pH = 5.84
1qt/lb pH = 5.71
0.5qt/lb pH = 5.52

So Case 4 may be like your water, with alkalinity and added CaCl2 and gypsum. Case 3 is the same but without the alkalinity, so you can see how the Ca from the salts is affecting the mash pH, as long as it isn't being countered by the alkalinity.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just to play with the spreadsheet more:
Going back to the no additions water, it seems that the calculations going on in the background plateau the pH at 5.76 with thin mashes, and the pH falls off once you start to get to unrealistically thick mashes. This has no bearing on what happens in the real world, but was amusing to play with:

640qt/lb pH = 5.76
64qt/lb pH = 5.76
16qt/lb pH = 5.75
8qt/lb pH = 5.74
4qt/lb pH = 5.72
3qt/lb pH = 5.71
2qt/lb pH = 5.68
1qt/lb pH = 5.61
0.5qt/lb pH = 5.46
0.25qt/lb pH = 5.16
0.125qt/lb pH = 4.55
0.0625qt/lb pH = 3.35
0.004qt/lb pH = 0.10

But within real world conditions, the spreadsheet seems OK. Using RO water without any additions doesn't seem to be a good idea anyway.

 

[TestTickle]

Case 4 may be like your water, with alkalinity and added CaCl2 and gypsum. Case 3 is the same but without the alkalinity, so you can see how the Ca from the salts is affecting the mash pH, as long as it isn't being countered by the alkalinity.

Bingo. Case 2 is a logical simulation. Nice work.

Using RO water without any additions doesn't seem to be a good idea anyway.

Completely agree.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

Just to play with the spreadsheet more:
Going back to the no additions water, it seems that the calculations going on in the background plateau the pH at 5.76 with thin mashes, and the pH falls off once you start to get to unrealistically thick mashes. This has no bearing on what happens in the real world, but was amusing to play with:

640qt/lb pH = 5.76
64qt/lb pH = 5.76
16qt/lb pH = 5.75
8qt/lb pH = 5.74
4qt/lb pH = 5.72
3qt/lb pH = 5.71
2qt/lb pH = 5.68
1qt/lb pH = 5.61
0.5qt/lb pH = 5.46
0.25qt/lb pH = 5.16
0.125qt/lb pH = 4.55
0.0625qt/lb pH = 3.35
0.004qt/lb pH = 0.10

But within real world conditions, the spreadsheet seems OK. Using RO water without any additions doesn't seem to be a good idea anyway.

Am I correct in presuming the recorded outputs which I quoted above to be for the case of mineral and alkalinity free water? If so, then 0.10 pH is utterly insane. That's a bit over 398,000 times more acidic than pH 5.70. Something seems highly amiss. Where did all of that extra acid come from? The grist is the same for each thickness, and therefore (for the case of mineral and alkalinity free water) the acidity is a completely fixed commodity. How can you simply excuse this as if it is inconsequential by apologetically stating that it has no bearing upon what happens in the real world? Whatever math model error is present "in the background", it is present for all of your example thicknesses.

10^−0.10÷10^−5.70 = 398,107

Even 5.46 pH for the case of 0.50 qt/lb thickness is nearly 74% more acidic than 5.70 pH. And there are people who claim to have actually mashed at that thickness in the real world. Again, the grist is what it is. It can't magically generate more acid. The acid bound within the grist is a completely fixed commodity.

10^−5.46÷10^−5.70 = 1.738 (or 73.8% more acidic)

And by a thickness of 0.125 qt/lb the acid is 14 times as much.

10^-4.55÷10^−5.70 = 14.125 (or 14-fold more acidic)

Hearken back to your own post #31 within this thread. I believe you have just answered your own question.

 

[TestTickle]

0.10 pH is utterly insane.

Well, 0.004 qt/lb is pretty insane as well, lol. But the software doesn't know that.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

Well, 0.004 qt/lb is pretty insane as well, lol. But the software doesn't know that.

Software is never intended to know anything (at least until computer self awareness is achieved, which is left for the future). But someone knows.

Why does the diluted pH oddly plateau after a relatively inconsequential Mash pH prediction rise of about 0.06 pH points at one end of the water volume dilution/concentration spectrum, while going insanely exponential at the other end of the very same spectrum? It seems to me that the way out of this anomaly, which exhibits error at both ends of the spectrum, is to ignore buffered pH change with dilution/concentration and accept that (as supported by the titration work of D.M. Riffe and Mick Spencer) the simple answer is to not show any pH change with dilution/concentration changes.

 

[marc1]

Software is never intended to know anything (at least until computer self awareness is achieved, which is left for the future). But someone knows.

Why does the diluted pH oddly plateau after a relatively inconsequential Mash pH prediction rise of about 0.06 pH points at one end of the water volume dilution/concentration spectrum, while going insanely exponential at the other end of the very same spectrum? It seems to me that the way out of this anomaly, which exhibits error at both ends of the spectrum, is to ignore buffered pH change with dilution/concentration an accept that (as supported by the work of D.M. Riffe and Mick Spencer) the simple answer is to not show any pH change with dilution/concentration.

I did amuse myself thinking about spritzing some grain with a squirt bottle of distilled water to create a pile of deadly acid.

I agree that it would be better to have the underpinnings reflect reality even outside of normal mash conditions; however, it appears to work well enough for lots of people. If they frequently got bad results with it they could easily move on to something else.

The pH did still vary some within realistic mash volume scenarios, though, so perhaps Martin will work it into an update?

I use your Mash Made Easy for my brews. Trying a similar setup in it (version 11.10) shows that changing mash water volume does not change pH for RO/distilled water, which is more in line with an expected real world result, although I think that adding 160 gallons of RO water to a 10 pound mash probably would change the pH some. At one of these ridiculous scenarios the dilution would have to overcome the buffering ability of the mash, wouldn't it?

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

I use your Mash Made Easy for my brews. Trying a similar setup in it (version 11.10) shows that changing mash water volume does not change pH for RO/distilled water, which is more in line with an expected real world result, although I think that adding 160 gallons of RO water to a 10 pound mash probably would change the pH some. At one of these ridiculous scenarios the dilution would have to overcome the buffering ability of the mash, wouldn't it?

Yes indeed, but I believe that I've chosen the path which represents the lesser of two evils, and by a wide margin. And in doing so I'm not exponentially fabricating grist acidity (malt acidity) that doesn't exist out of thin air.

If I may digress:
A philosopher whom I admire once said "We can evade reality, but we cannot evade the consequences of evading reality.”. I worry about this in relation to the governments of the world fabricating money exponentially (as a consequence of choosing to target 2% annualized inflation, which is an exponential function) out of thin air far more than I do about someones chosen math logic resulting in the fabrication of non existent acid within the mash.

The USA's inflation target is 2% annually, but the historical inflation reality has been closer overall to roughly about 3.25% annually over the 108 year lifetime of 'fiat' money in the USA.

Therefore:
1) Current Price × 1.0325^years_into_the_future ~= Future Price Prediction

2) Current Purchasing Power × (1 ÷ 1.0325^years_into_the_past) ~= Past Purchasing Power Equivalent

Example:
100 cents (or $1) today × (1 ÷ 1.0325^108) ~= 3.16 cents (or $0.0316) 108 years ago (at the dawn of fiat)

And thus the 'real world' consequence of institutionalized and legalized monetary reality evasion has been that $1 today has the purchasing power equivalent of ~3.16 cents back in 1913. And therefore what could be acquired with the expenditure of only ~3 US Cents back in 1913 now requires the expenditure of ~$1 US Dollar.

 

[BeerAndTele]

Good thread guys. Been enjoying this one. To the OP, FWIW, I also think going with RO/distilled is the way to go. The water chemistry stuff seems daunting at first, but if you learn about it in small doses, it becomes more digestible.

When I was an extract brewer, I used spring water, as I figured the mineral content was relatively low and I didn’t know the composition of my tap water. The mash was effectively done for me, so I wasn’t concerned with pH. If I was making a WC IPA, I’d add a little gypsum, but to be honest, I didn’t know what I was doing, aiming at a target blind … but the beer turned out alright so I didn’t care.

When I switched to all-grain and found myself concerned about pH, I looked into my tap water and found that they source it from 4 different sources at various times of the year. Seemed like a crap-shoot to me, so I didn’t bother testing; I went with distilled water and began using a calculator to help me determine what salts I needed. The Anvil PDF is a decent place to start, but as @marc1 noted earlier, it doesn’t mention any additional acidification, which is surprising. If you’re making a pale beer like a pilsner with soft water, you’re going to need some help - I use a couple ounces of acidulated malt - to get down into the preferred pH range.

I prefer Brewer’s Friend over Bru’n Water (sorry Martin!), but that’s just me. Plenty of good options … just depends on personal preference. I take a less-is-more approach with mineralization. I started with the “balanced profile”, and adjusted slightly from there on subsequent brews, depending on what I was making and what I’d learned on previous batches. I do BIAB and leave a gallon on the side for a dunk sparge (I do small batches), and the calculators help me determine whether I treat mash water only or all water … just depends on the composition of the grain bill, the estimated resulting mash pH, my target water profile, etc. Also, don’t worry about those city-specific profiles; keep it simple.

It’s really not that complicated if you learn a little bit at a time and keep it simple.

 

[thomer]

Good thread guys. Been enjoying this one. To the OP, FWIW, I also think going with RO/distilled is the way to go. The water chemistry stuff seems daunting at first, but if you learn about it in small doses, it becomes more digestible.

I used the Bru'n Water calculator as well for my first BIAB yesterday. pH of the mash came out at 5.4. OG was targeted at 1.065 and I hit 1.069. So all went well and a good learning experience.