Making money from Water Calculators

[maisch]

Is it good, right and correct (lawful?) even though these calculators aren't accurate?

The noted accuracy is just coincidence with pH meter measurements at the right time.

Free country (US) and I'm not labeling them snake oil but collecting money for years on something that wasn't, isn't and hasn't been verified as correct doesn't seem right.

 

[Big Monk]

Is it good, right and correct (lawful?) even though these calculators aren't accurate?

The noted accuracy is just coincidence with pH meter measurements at the right time.

Free country (US) and I'm not labeling them snake oil but collecting money for years on something that wasn't, isn't and hasn't been verified as correct doesn't seem right.

Most of us don't but given the amount of time and effort that goes into any software, Excel based or otherwise, it isn't outrageous to have people support the platform in the form of monetary donations.

I can't name one program, other than Brewer's Friend and BeerSmith (and they have a whole suite of other calculations in them so it's unfair to call them a water calculator), that outright charges anyone for it's use.

 

[bracconiere]

i don't use a water calc, just a meter and tap....but i did buy beersmith, mostly for the color estimate, and cost tracking...And it's nice to save old recipes, so i can remember what's in my kegs....

i bought another older one, simpler...damn can't even remember what it was called now...ahh, that was ProMash, also....now defunct...

and in neither case do i regret spending the money on them...

 

[maisch]

The problem is that the platforms are believed to be and are advertised to be correct when in fact they are not (or only partially are).

I guess nothing wrong with soliciting donations as long it's made known that the result isn't known to be factual. (Maybe "for entertainment purposes only.")

 

[Big Monk]

The problem is that the platforms are believed to be and are advertised to be correct when in fact they are not (or only partially are).

Should be nothing new to you to notice every "hammer" manufacturer thinks their product pounds "nails" better than the other guy.

Part of the appeal of discussing why and how they estimate is to hopefully help everyone improve their program. Then it will just be down to someone preferring features rather than the results they give.

I guess nothing wrong with soliciting donations as long it's made known that the result isn't known to be factual. (Maybe "for entertainment purposes only.")

You also have to take into account that it's impossible to track everyone and how they use the inputs to the programs. Saying that estimates not always matching actuals constitutes a knowing misleading of the user is a bit of a stretch.

Garbage in = Garbage out? No argument there from anyone.
Good Data = Garbage out? That's Bad JuJus.

 

[bracconiere]

The problem is that the platforms are believed to be and are advertised to be correct when in fact they are not (or only partially are).

I guess nothing wrong with soliciting donations as long it's made known that the result isn't known to be factual. (Maybe "for entertainment purposes only.")

we are using an agricultural product that isn't the same every time too....

 

[maisch]

Don't people donate to EZWater, Martin Brungard and Brewers Friend because they believe that they are being given facts by the programs for their beer making process, when that is not in fact the case?

 

[Rodent]

Is it good, right and correct (lawful?) even though these calculators aren't accurate?

The noted accuracy is just coincidence with pH meter measurements at the right time.

Free country (US) and I'm not labeling them snake oil but collecting money for years on something that wasn't, isn't and hasn't been verified as correct doesn't seem right.

all software is inaccurate and riddled with bugs - ALL of it. it's simply the nature of the beast.

the real question, then, is whether the value provided by these software tools outweigh the inherent deficiencies, inaccuracies, and bugs when measured against the personal cost invested.


know thy software tools well - the intended use, proper workflows, and current usage limitations. the only fallacy I see is the presumption of scientific accuracy from tools not claiming to deliver such

 

[MaxStout]

The problem is that the platforms are believed to be and are advertised to be correct when in fact they are not (or only partially are).

I guess nothing wrong with soliciting donations as long it's made known that the result isn't known to be factual. (Maybe "for entertainment purposes only.")

There are plenty of paid s/w applications that are inaccurate and/or have bugs. 'Tis the nature of software.

If you develop a program, you can always include a disclaimer stating something to the effect of "accuracy not guaranteed, as there are factors beyond the control of the software developer..." Put in some boilerplate and sell the program. You might make a few bucks.

 

[Big Monk]

Don't people donate to EZWater, Martin Brungard and Brewers Friend because they believe that they are being given facts by the programs for their beer making process, when that is not in fact the case?

Who says? You?

Even the most empirical of the water calculators has an underlying grounding in chemistry.

People support and pay for many things in life. They do the same for brewing stuff, software in particular.

Obviously people find enough parity between estimation and actual to warrant the cost, required or voluntary. I don't think anyone markets a calculator as fact.

You do your best to try and ensure that the underlying science will accept input from the user and spit out an estimation that will match reality. That does not always happen and part of these theoretical discussions are trying to tease out why and to improve them whenever possible.

 

[maisch]

I don't think we're talking about software bugs here. We're talking about scientific ignorance or neglect if you will.

I place an order on Amazon, I get what I ordered.
I design a graphic in Illustrator, I get what I designed.
I want to know my mash pH, we'll get you close.... maybe in certain circumstances?

 

[ajdelange]

Is it legal to take money for software that doesn't work? This must be a joke, right?

Is it morally acceptable? Different question. Brewers have always helped one another. It is one of the things I love about brewing. I therefore willing share anything and everything I know of find out and wouldn't dream of charging for it. It's my contribution to brewing. I am morally comfortable with this as I can always indicate to anyone who complains that they got what they paid for (believe it or not there have been some who have complained that I am obligated to do this or that but it has been rare). Were I offering something that had costs associated with running it (the obvious example in this context would be HBT) then, of course, I would feel justified in charging a fee to cover those costs. But were I to charge money for any thing I would feel strong obligation to make sure that what the users was paying for was worth their money. But how do we define "worth the money". Many of the programs, including those that charge money, aren't that good. But are the users happy with them. In many cases they are. If they weren't word would spread. But rather than seeing posts complaining that SudsenWater is a POS yoy see posts that advise new brewers to use SudsenWater because it always predicts pH to within 0.01 pH. These guys aren't shills. They really think its true. If the consumer is fat dumb and happy, is it immoral to take his money? Clearly this is a question to which there is no simple answer.

 

[bracconiere]

Don't people donate to EZWater, Martin Brungard and Brewers Friend because they believe that they are being given facts by the programs for their beer making process, when that is not in fact the case?

lol, i'm smoking a cig right now...wondering if the tobacco companies have been lying too me?

 

[Big Monk]

I don't think we're talking about software bugs here. We're talking about scientific ignorance or neglect if you will.

I place an order on Amazon, I get what I ordered.
I design a graphic in Illustrator, I get what I designed.
I want to know my mash pH, we'll get you close.... maybe in certain circumstances?

Malt is really the biggest variable here. It's characteristics are not set in stone. If, for instance, maltsters performed titrations on malt leaving the malthouse and put those values on the MA sheets, we would have a much easier time implementing and making charge method the normal and thus make the calculations more accurate.

 

[Rodent]

I design a graphic in Illustrator, I get what I designed.

not quite correct - you simply authored a pixalated representation within defined resolution tolerances of what you designed, not an exact duplication of what you believe to have designed. proof of this is the inability to zoom in beyond the resolution pixel size you defined for the graphic you were working on.

similar scenario for anything designed utilizing even the most scientifically accurate CAD tool. and this then begs the question ...

are you, then, selling your customers snake-oil because you knowingly have resolution limitations inherent with the product you sold them?

 

[thehaze]

Just because you don't pay and don't want to pay, for something you believe to be flawed and generally, not helpful to anyone, that doesn't make it right or however you want to call it. I work in IT and I can tell you that, one way or another, we all pay for software that is flawed and not working as intended. But as someone said above, that's how things are. Of course, if you are unhappy and unsatisfied with it, you can stop using any kind of software, starting with the operating system. Even Windows is not perfect and although it got better along the years, and it's constantly being patched and fixed, it doesn't work flawlessly every damn second.

I use a free water calculator and it works fine. I fine tuned my process and know what to expect, which is why I make further adjustments on top of the water calculator, but fairly minor. ( acid qty )

I don't believ it unlawful, amoral or wrong to take donations or money for something, someone has been working on and still works on, to make it better, and in this case, provide assistance to brewers. You and I are free to pay or not pay for it.

But I suspect your real problem has nothing to do with the morality of selling/asking for donations for a piece of software, that does not give accurate results every time.

 

[balrog]

I used them for water calcs and OG calcs then for keeping track of recipes
Only recently, and very recently, am I interested in pH, and I'm finding that if I buy local malt, I have no idea on DipH or whatever it's called. I realize this. I accept this. But the software is not lying to me. Now if it could keep track of where I set my reading glasses down...

 

[Homergah]

Malt is really the biggest variable here. It's characteristics are not set in stone. If, for instance, maltsters performed titrations on malt leaving the malthouse and put those values on the MA sheets, we would have a much easier time implementing and making charge method the normal and thus make the calculations more accurate.

I recall when I first started AG brewing, the bags of grain had a fair amount of info on them. I'm sure I remember reading FAN, DP, and S/T ratios on the bags back then. I just looked at my new bag and there is no info at all.

 

[schematix]

Don't people donate to EZWater, Martin Brungard and Brewers Friend because they believe that they are being given facts by the programs for their beer making process, when that is not in fact the case?

I donated because I was appreciative of the work someone did, and made freely available, to improve the state of homebrewing. I didn't have any expectations it was perfect or the end-all-be-all. But I could tell right away when i started paying attention to water chemistry my beers got a lot better and to me that was worth rewarding someone.

And i'll donate/purchase again in the future.

 

[Big Monk]

I recall when I first started AG brewing, the bags of grain had a fair amount of info on them. I'm sure I remember reading FAN, DP, and S/T ratios on the bags back then. I just looked at my new bag and there is no info at all.

The only maltster that I know of that really makes an effort to provide MA sheets to EVERYONE for ALL of their malt is Weyermann.

 

[eric19312]

Don't people donate to EZWater, Martin Brungard and Brewers Friend because they believe that they are being given facts by the programs for their beer making process, when that is not in fact the case?

In my brewing I find bru'n water is reasonably accurate. I used the free version for years and then decided to contribute. I contributed in part because I appreciate Martin Brungard's support and participation in HBT same as I like to buy things from @Bobby_M, @Jaybird and just last week @wilserbrewer when they have what I need. I also paid because of a couple nice features added to the paid version .... namely easy way to toggle addition of brewing salts to mash only, kettle only, or split between mash and sparge.

I usually verify results with a pH meter and understand being off by a couple tenths of a point is a real possibility especially when working with a new recipe, a different maltster, or just getting something different than I'm used to out of my water tap (I rely on city water and the annual water report for my area..I can see from the high and low results posted the average is just that...an average of a bunch of numbers that are quite different from average). Really appreciate the water tools in Beersmith when I need to make an in process adjustment, but for most part I find I end up close enough. I've learned over time to spot recipes that are most likely to give trouble...very light colored beers are likely to need a bit more acid than predicted and I'll have it ready. Very dark beers tend in the opposite direction.

Hope you found this summary of why I find the water software I use to be helpful enlightening.

 

[maisch]

not quite correct - you simply authored a pixalated representation within defined resolution tolerances of what you designed, not an exact duplication of what you believe to have designed. proof of this is the inability to zoom in beyond the resolution pixel size you defined for the graphic you were working on.

similar scenario for anything designed utilizing even the most scientifically accurate CAD tool. and this then begs the question ...

are you, then, selling your customers snake-oil because you knowingly have resolution limitations inherent with the product you sold them?

Illustrator makes vector images which are infinitely resizable and which can be rasterized to the resolution of any output device.

 

[maisch]

Just because you don't pay and don't want to pay, for something you believe to be flawed and generally, not helpful to anyone, that doesn't make it right or however you want to call it. I work in IT and I can tell you that, one way or another, we all pay for software that is flawed and not working as intended. But as someone said above, that's how things are. Of course, if you are unhappy and unsatisfied with it, you can stop using any kind of software, starting with the operating system. Even Windows is not perfect and although it got better along the years, and it's constantly being patched and fixed, it doesn't work flawlessly every damn second.

I use a free water calculator and it works fine. I fine tuned my process and know what to expect, which is why I make further adjustments on top of the water calculator, but fairly minor. ( acid qty )

I don't believ it unlawful, amoral or wrong to take donations or money for something, someone has been working on and still works on, to make it better, and in this case, provide assistance to brewers. You and I are free to pay or not pay for it.

But I suspect your real problem has nothing to do with the morality of selling/asking for donations for a piece of software, that does not give accurate results every time.

We're not talking about software though, we're talking about the scientific basis for the software. The algorithms implemented in such packages are not all encompassing. I guess, it's like developing a medicine that works some of the time and only for some people, still has to be funded.

 

[maisch]

It seems most see it as a donation for research.

I wonder if the "I got a water calculator and now my beer is great!" crowd is simply confirmation bias.

Are there any commercial breweries trusting their wares to these software?

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

Don't people donate to EZWater, Martin Brungard and Brewers Friend because they believe that they are being given facts by the programs for their beer making process, when that is not in fact the case?

Just looked at BeerSmith and EZWater, neither claim to be giving out fact by the simple inclusion of the word "Estimator/Estimation".

 

[maisch]

Just looked at BeerSmith and EZWater, neither claim to be giving out fact by the simple inclusion of the word "Estimator/Estimation".

Legally an estimate is a fact. When you call for an estimate on a toilet replacement and they say $50 they're held to that by you and contractually except in extreme extenuating circumstance. Legally you'd have to label it as "entertainment purpose only" or some other legal "release of obligation" statement.

When I say "Your mash estimate is 5.4pH" it's not being fully qualified by a contractual statement (i.e. measurement time, etc... ) it's just a flub statement.

 

[Big Monk]

Are there any commercial breweries trusting their wares to these software?

In this case, larger breweries typically have laboratories. They have the ability to test their own malt or request from the maltster more detailed info about the malt.

In general, i'd say they arent using an Excel based water calculator or a homebrewing program as they probably have people on staff well versed in the mechanics of the mash.

If homebrewers had titration parameters and pH DI for all their malt, we could all be using the charge model put forth by A.J. and used in his sheet and my sheet. Then we could jettison the other models and all feel really confident about our estimations vs. actuals.

As A.J. has said on numerous occasions, this is easier said than done and would have to be driven by the community through the various maltsters. I know he has said before that he pounded that drum on numerous occasions and it seems to not have been considered beneficial from the standpoint of most maltsters.

Malt modelling is really the last frontier in estimating pH at our level. We have a really good handle on the typical acids, on water composition, and to a certain extent, the effects of Ca and Mg mineralization. However, in the case of most sheets, you have to rely on color base acidity proxies that were originally derived empirically from a few malts, or in my case, you have to try and fit the limited amount of titration data at your disposal into neat and tidy "malt classes" for use in the charge model.

Or you can perform titration analysis on the malt you buy. This is obviously the most labor intensive and would have to be done everytime you bought new malt.

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

Legally an estimate is a fact. When you call for an estimate on a toilet replacement and they say $50 they're held to that by you and contractually except in extreme extenuating circumstance. Legally you'd have to label it as "entertainment purpose only" or some other legal "release of obligation" statement.

When I say "Your mash estimate is 5.4pH" it's not being fully qualified by a contractual statement (i.e. measurement time, etc... ) it's just a flub statement.

An estimate is an informal idea based on limited information. And is not legally binding.

By your example the word would be a "Quote". Which is a formal, fixed price for the job being offered and cannot change.

 

[maisch]

Fair enough but most contractors aren't going to give you an estimate it's not worth their time and has little meaning except in passing converstaion. They will give you a quote though as it means something significant.

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

Fair enough but most contractors aren't going to give you an estimate it's not worth their time and has little meaning except in passing converstaion. They will give you a quote though as it means something significant.

So then you acknowledge there is significance in the use of the word.

 

[maisch]

we could all be using the charge model put forth by A.J.

You're labeling the charge model as the final frontier but others claim that not all chemical reactions/charges/etc.. are being accounted for. Hopeful that can get resolved.

 

[maisch]

So then you acknowledge there is significance in the use of the word.

I actually say that the word has little meaning or value even in the real world. Don't ever ask for an estimate, always get a contractually binding quote provided you can uphold your end of the bargain (normally a certain amount of money).

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

I actually say that the word has little meaning or value even in the real world. Don't ever ask for an estimate, always get a contractually binding quote provided you can uphold your end of the bargain (normally a certain amount of money).

Which brings the topic back full circle in that the inclusion of the word estimate does not construe the information given as fact.

 

[schematix]

My new years resolution for 2019 was to ignore people on HBT who attribute everything to confirmation bias.

 

[maisch]

Which brings the topic back full circle in that the inclusion of the word estimate does not construe the information given as fact.

You could interpret it as you've stated it or you could interpret it such that the scientific algorithms and scientific basis used are incomplete and lacking thus making it snake oil.

 

[Big Monk]

You're labeling the charge model as the final frontier but others claim that not all chemical reactions/charges/etc.. are being accounted for. Hopeful that can get resolved.

They are all accounted for. Contribution of source water, mineralization, malt modelling, acids (Lactic, Phosphoric), bases (NaHCO3, Ca(OH)2), etc.

Everything of consequence is being accounted for. It's a good model, rooted firmly in pretty darn bulletproof chemistry.

Per my last post though, getting the titration information for the malt can be a struggle. There is a pretty good lot of info that can be used to generalize and make "malt classes" that can be selected by a user, but ultimately you would like to be able to purchase malt and look at the spec sheet to remove any doubt.

So it's a matter of being able to get the malt info, which unless provided by the maltster, would be a heavy lift for the average brewer. For the discerning brewer, however, who is not averse to some malt testing, I think the charge method would be the way to go.

My implementation tries to classify certain malts based on the titration info we do have, which amounts to about 43 different malts and various combinations of pH DI, a1, a2, and a3. It's not perfect. In fact it's a long way from perfect but it incorporates the right modelling for malt.

It's just the dang input data we need isn't there yet!

 

[maisch]

My new years resolution for 2019 was to ignore people on HBT who attribute everything to confirmation bias.

Thank you for editing your post to the correct year.

 

[vtipsy]

Legally an estimate is a fact. When you call for an estimate on a toilet replacement and they say $50 they're held to that by you and contractually except in extreme extenuating circumstance. Legally you'd have to label it as "entertainment purpose only" or some other legal "release of obligation" statement.

My "estimates" are rarely what I pay ... maybe I look like a sucker.

 

[maisch]

They are all accounted for. Contribution of source water, mineralization, malt modelling, acids (Lactic, Phosphoric), bases (NaHCO3, Ca(OH)2), etc.

Everything of consequence is being accounted for. It's a good model, rooted firmly in pretty darn bulletproof chemistry.

Per my last post though, getting the titration information for the malt can be a struggle. There is a pretty good lot of info that can be used to generalize and make "malt classes" that can be selected by a user, but ultimately you would like to be able to purchase malt and look at the spec sheet to remove any doubt.

So it's a matter of being able to get the malt info, which unless provided by the maltster, would be a heavy lift for the average brewer. For the discerning brewer, however, who is not averse to some malt testing, I think the charge method would be the way to go.

My implementation tries to classify certain malts based on the titration info we do have, which amounts to about 43 different malts and various combinations of pH DI, a1, a2, and a3. It's not perfect. In fact it's a long way from perfect but it incorporates the right modelling for malt.

It's just the dang input data we need isn't there yet!

I guess real test data over time will confirm that

Won't that also put to the curb the likes of every other spreadsheet out their except the so called "Gen II"?

 

[maisch]

My "estimates" are rarely what I pay ... maybe I look like a sucker.

You're not a sucker except when you fall for that old sneezing trick.