Making money from Water Calculators

[bob1852]

Yup, their marketing is incorrect and the buffer would have to made according the alkalinity and acidity of the water and the mash.

Never used it myself but might have to pick up a tub and see what it does. Why don't you send me yours?

Their marketing isn't incorrect.....they just are selling a product that doesn't do what it says it'll do. In fact their marketing is brilliant......one Tablespoon of this dust will you make you hit your pH everytime!!!

I threw it in the trash. After blindly trusting that it worked, I started taking pH readings and discussing the product with others more knowledgeable than me. And then my personal experiences matched what the other chemistry experts said would be the results if I actually tested it.

 

[maisch]

.

 

[Jayjay1976]

I'm not reading any further before I reply to this.

I can't figure out why this is a burr under your saddle. I've donated to BrunWater and to EZWater. Not a lot, but as a thank you for having taken the time and effort to make a spreadsheet, and then making it available.

*******

I'm a scientist by training. One thing good scientists know is that measurements are key to studying anything. And sometimes, they're imperfect. I can't believe anyone would think that these spreadsheets would produce perfect results given the limits in measuring everything from the malt to the amount of water additions.

So I put in 3 milliliters of Lactic Acid. Am I perfect in my use of a pipette to do that? No. Measurement error. How does the spreadsheet account for that? It can't. And you can't hold it, or the authors, responsible for what is beyond their control.

How about the malt? Do I know exactly how it will perform, and what's more, does the spreadsheet know that? No. And no. At best I'm going to get an average of what often happens.

How am I doing measuring the salts I add? Or is the water exactly, perfectly, the volume I think it is? How about the quality of the RO water I'm using?

Yeah. You want perfection out of something that cannot be made perfect.

*********

You ask if the "my beer is great" crowd is simply engaging in confirmation bias. I don't know.

What I do know is those spreadsheets give me a level of consistency in my brews, and while I may be off a tenth or even two tenths in pH, it's not enough to matter. I don't expect perfection because the inputs aren't perfect.

And as far as confirmation bias: I have one main criterion for measuring the quality of my beer, besides if I like it. I see if those drinking it have more than one. When they do--and they do a lot--that means they like it. I had two people, literally today, ask to buy my beer.

In fact, I have a local entrepreneur where I live who wants me to brew for that establishment and to sell that beer.

You can call it confirmation bias if you want. I call it excellent beer produced in part by my use of water spreadsheets. And I thank the authors for being part of what I'm able to produce.

I wish there was a "love" button for posts like this.

 

[ajdelange]

This will go further into rambling but it has to do with Brewing Science. A mix of phosphate salts does buffer. Buffering capacity is the measure of a buffer's ability to resist stress and hold pH when stress is applied. It is well known that the capacity of a buffer is highest one of the pK's of the acid on which the buffering system is based which is phosphoric in this case. For phosphoric acid the two relevant pK's are 2.14 and 7.20. There is a rule of thumb that to be effective a buffer should be designed for a pH ± 1 unit from a pK. The pH 7.00 buffer supplied with pH meters is a phosphate buffer and is clearly pretty close to 7 so it represents a good example of this. It is also well known that the buffering ability is worst half way between a pair of pK's which for a phosphate buffer is 4.67. Thus a phosphate buffer designed for 5.2 would be a poor buffer indeed. But the 5.2 product isn't designed to buffer at 5.2. It is designed to buffer at an appreciably higher pH. WTF?

 

[ajdelange]

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

I don't think so. Some of the author's of Gen I spreadsheets understand the chemistry and have prepared their offerings based on it with approximations and short cuts made with eyes wide open because, in their opinions, the benefits of dealing with, for example, the non linearity of the pH equation, don't yield benefit worth the additional complexity that would be required of a spreadsheet that did consider non linearity. Those that are based on sound science give approximate but good answers. All Gen II does is offer to those programmers a way to deal with all the common approximations with the complexity hidden in functions they can't even see because they are hidden in an add-in.

Now the spreadsheets written by people who think mash pH is dependent on water volume or that mash pH can be estimated by a weighted combination of malt's DI pH are basing their products on flawed reasoning and their products are going to give poorer answers though, even they, give reasonable answers sometimes. Like the broken clock that is right twice a day.

 

[ScrewyBrewer]

Simply swap out references to hops with references to mash pH in the quote below to give John's words below new meaning.

"Utilization numbers are really an approximation. Each brew is unique; the variables for individual conditions, i.e. vigor of the boil, wort chemistry, or for losses during fermentation, are just too hard to get a handle on from the meager amount of published data available. Then why do we bother, you ask? Because if we are all working from the same model and using roughly the same numbers, then we will all be in the same ballpark and can compare our beers without too much error. Plus, when the actual IBUs are measured in the lab, these models are shown to be pretty close." ~John Palmer (How To Brew)

And swap out 'entertainment' for 'educational' when referring to today's water chemistry calculators.

 

[Jayjay1976]

Sometimes it pays to look in the mirror. If you are fat dumb and happy then I am too. While writing some of this I realized that I have just spent big bucks on a car rated as second most unreliable car available in the US. But I love it.

I'm curious about the make and model of this fantastically unreliable car? I might be on the brink of buying one myself!

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

I'm amazed that many hundreds of hours of study and effort on our part as developers of this type of software (which we are giving away for free) can be laughed off so easily by those with most likely little capability to research and develop their own.

 

[Big Monk]

I'm amazed that many hundreds of hours of study and effort on our part as developers of this type of software (which we are giving away for free) can be laughed off so easily by those with most likely little capability to research and develop their own.

I think you are taking it too personally.

 

[ScrewyBrewer]

... the spreadsheets written by people who think mash pH is dependent on water volume.... are basing their products on flawed reasoning and their products are going to give poorer answers though, even they, give reasonable answers sometimes.

There is a single spreadsheet that matches this description based on our current testing results.

 

[Big Monk]

What I’ve always wanted was to understand what the hell A.J. was talking about. The light bulb finally went off in August in that important thread where he introduced his “troubleshooter”. For years I had been beating my head against the wall trying to understand the chemistry. Then BAM! It started to make sense.

All I want to do now is edit my sheet to eliminate the solver while preserving all the functionality of the original troubleshooter, add some useful brewday functions, etc. and get it in peoples hands for free.

The goal is always to help people brew bette beer and do that for free. If possible.

I think that is most people’s goal who put these types of things together.

 

[hopjuice_71]

I'm amazed that many hundreds of hours of study and effort on our part as developers of this type of software (which we are giving away for free) can be laughed off so easily by those with most likely little capability to research and develop their own.

This was my thought from reading this thread. The title of the thread is about making money, which to me is about being fairly compensated for a service or product. Somehow I have a feeling when one considers the number of hours and effort you guys put into the development of these tools vs the support of donations that there is no money being made here. In fact, if it weren't a labor of love that benefits the community, I would consider it a horrible net loss. For my part, I appreciate your efforts.

 

[leesmith]

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.

While I admit the predictions can be rough, I find it useful in getting close to where I need to be. Also, Brewersfriend is free, but I don't mind paying for the yearly subscription since it stores my water profiles for me and not to mention all the other calculators that are useful. Supporting this service hopefully will make sure it stays around. I'd actually pay for a software based version of their calculator suite if I knew I could download it.

To quote: "Legal Disclaimer: The Brewer's Friend Water Chemistry Calculator is for entertainment purposes and should not be used for professional brewing. Brew salts, acids, and bases should be handled with care, proper safety equipment, and a full understanding of their properties. No warranty or guarantee of accuracy is provided on the information provided by this calculator."

Also, aren't predictions by nature inaccurate as all they are is an educated guess. People pay tarot card readers all the time and it's not illegal. Anyways...I'll pay for a water calculator before I pay to have my cards read...and it makes me feel good, is close enough to right to get me there, and legal.

 

[MaxStout]

I'm amazed that many hundreds of hours of study and effort on our part as developers of this type of software (which we are giving away for free) can be laughed off so easily by those with most likely little capability to research and develop their own.

It's easy for someone to come into this forum, guns blazing, and criticize the works of others. It's something else entirely for that person to offer a solution, or at least something better. I haven't seen any evidence of anything remotely like that from OP, just a lot of bluster.

Talk is cheap. Let's see if OP can impress us with his acumen and bring us something that reflects what he seems to desire.

 

[Big Monk]

It's easy for someone to come into this forum, guns blazing, and criticize the works of others. It's something else entirely for that person to offer a solution, or at least something better. I haven't seen any evidence of anything remotely like that from OP, just a lot of bluster.

Talk is cheap. Let's see if OP can impress us with his acumen and bring us something that reflects what he seems to desire.

I think everyone is missing the point. Didn’t the OP admit he was trying to rile people up?

No sense in reading into his motives deeper. Probably thought of the question (when you get right down to it it’s not exactly a BAD question), posted it, and antagonized people when he saw it would be fun to mess with them a little.

 

[MaxStout]

I think everyone is missing the point. Didn’t the OP admit he was trying to rile people up?

No sense in reading into his motives deeper. Probably thought of the question (when you get right down to it it’s not exactly a BAD question), posted it, and antagonized people when he saw it would be fun to mess with them a little.

That's the point exactly. A troll thread, like most of his others. I just call him out, knowing that he cannot produce the goods. Everyone here knows he can't/won't do anything constructive. Every online forum has a few of those types.

 

[bracconiere]

http://www.wish.org

i've given them hundreds....am i sucker? probably, but it makes me feel better!

 

[ajdelange]

I'm curious about the make and model of this fantastically unreliable car? I might be on the brink of buying one myself!

Tesla Model X. You'll love it. The sound system volume goes up to 11! But if you do take the plunge do it with eyes open.

 

[SEndorf]

Tesla Model X. You'll love it. The sound system volume goes up to 11! But if you do take the plunge do it with eyes open.

Base price starting at over $100,000.
Pro'lly not afforded by writing a water calculator…..

 

[bracconiere]

Base price starting at over $100,000.
Pro'lly not afforded by writing a water calculator…..

but the volume goes up to 11!! take a mortgage!

edit: and what happened to kegs 2 & 4?

 

[SEndorf]

Read to the right...
I'm considering paring down the production so it can fit properly in the signature space.
BTW.... #2 Dr. Smurto is killed. Replaced by Dorfendunkel. I need to update.

 

[bracconiere]

Read to the right...
I'm considering paring down the production so it can fit properly in the signature space.
BTW.... #2 Dr. Smurto is killed. Replaced by Dorfendunkel. I need to update.

damn...i've been seeing Eye doctor commercials on tv recently too....

 

[Murphys_Law]

I have a serious question:

I’m drinking wine now and not homebrew. Am I allowed to read this thread?

Wait...this isn’t “drunk rambling”? Crap!

 

[Bilsch]

Tesla Model X. You'll love it. The sound system volume goes up to 11! But if you do take the plunge do it with eyes open.

I've had my S for just under a year now and had no issues. Since it requires none of the usual maintenance as a gas car, like oil changes, I'm not sure how you'd compare reliability accurately since either way it's going to be in the shop less over a lifetime. That said It's the most fun car to drive ever and I can't imagine going back to a regular vehicle !

 

[IslandLizard]

Wait...this isn’t “drunk rambling”? Crap!

What makes you think it isn't?

 

[MaxStout]

I have a serious question:

I’m drinking wine now and not homebrew. Am I allowed to read this thread?

Wait...this isn’t “drunk rambling”? Crap!

Drunken Ramblings and Mindless Mumbling is the place where OT threads are sent to be butchered. Have at it.

 

[bracconiere]

I have a serious question:

I’m drinking wine now and not homebrew. Am I allowed to read this thread?

Wait...this isn’t “drunk rambling”? Crap!

my first post was "consistently alcoholic liquid" with the question "am i cool enough"!

 

[Zuljin]

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

They have.

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?

I have various magnifying apparatus.

It's a free market. They can choose to sell an inferior product and you can choose not to buy it. Lots of companies make big money selling junk, just look at Walmart.

I try not to. Been very successful, too.

Don’t even get me started on food advertisements. If there’s anything that’s not right in this world, it’s that.

My hackles are raised.

BOOM. BOOM BOOM

Moderator?

Showtime, mother%#&($*, it's on
Apocalypse now, I'm droppin' this bomb

I'm not reading any further before I reply to this.

I can't figure out why this is a burr under your saddle. I've donated to BrunWater and to EZWater. Not a lot, but as a thank you for having taken the time and effort to make a spreadsheet, and then making it available.

*******

I'm a scientist by training. One thing good scientists know is that measurements are key to studying anything. And sometimes, they're imperfect. I can't believe anyone would think that these spreadsheets would produce perfect results given the limits in measuring everything from the malt to the amount of water additions.

So I put in 3 milliliters of Lactic Acid. Am I perfect in my use of a pipette to do that? No. Measurement error. How does the spreadsheet account for that? It can't. And you can't hold it, or the authors, responsible for what is beyond their control.

How about the malt? Do I know exactly how it will perform, and what's more, does the spreadsheet know that? No. And no. At best I'm going to get an average of what often happens.

How am I doing measuring the salts I add? Or is the water exactly, perfectly, the volume I think it is? How about the quality of the RO water I'm using?

Yeah. You want perfection out of something that cannot be made perfect.

*********

You ask if the "my beer is great" crowd is simply engaging in confirmation bias. I don't know.

What I do know is those spreadsheets give me a level of consistency in my brews, and while I may be off a tenth or even two tenths in pH, it's not enough to matter. I don't expect perfection because the inputs aren't perfect.

And as far as confirmation bias: I have one main criterion for measuring the quality of my beer, besides if I like it. I see if those drinking it have more than one. When they do--and they do a lot--that means they like it. I had two people, literally today, ask to buy my beer.

In fact, I have a local entrepreneur where I live who wants me to brew for that establishment and to sell that beer.

You can call it confirmation bias if you want. I call it excellent beer produced in part by my use of water spreadsheets. And I thank the authors for being part of what I'm able to produce.

And you're probably mouth piping anyway, so...

 

[Jayjay1976]

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?

Try getting a refund for a bible explaining that the information in it is neither accurate nor demonstrably true. Better yet, try it at a christian bookstore. A water calc isn't defective because its not 100% accurate. Maybe you should recalibrate your expectations? The tool is intended to be a low-cost and reasonable substitute for either getting your degree in chemistry and buying your own lab equipment, or hiring a chemist to brew with you. Sounds like a good deal to me. Anyone who has the knowledge to build a tool which allows the layperson to benefit from said knowledge deserves to be paid for their time, effort, and expertise.

 

[ajdelange]

I'm not sure how you'd compare reliability accurately since either way it's going to be in the shop less over a lifetime.

I think they (they being Consumer Reports) has categories like, suspension, drive train, body... and logs the number of repair tickets reported for those. A Tesla has all those systems so I guess it's sort of fair.

That said It's the most fun car to drive ever and I can't imagine going back to a regular vehicle !

I didn't take me a year to figure that out.

 

[Big Monk]

I don't think so. Some of the author's of Gen I spreadsheets understand the chemistry and have prepared their offerings based on it with approximations and short cuts made with eyes wide open because, in their opinions, the benefits of dealing with, for example, the non linearity of the pH equation, don't yield benefit worth the additional complexity that would be required of a spreadsheet that did consider non linearity. Those that are based on sound science give approximate but good answers. All Gen II does is offer to those programmers a way to deal with all the common approximations with the complexity hidden in functions they can't even see because they are hidden in an add-in.

Now the spreadsheets written by people who think mash pH is dependent on water volume or that mash pH can be estimated by a weighted combination of malt's DI pH are basing their products on flawed reasoning and their products are going to give poorer answers though, even they, give reasonable answers sometimes. Like the broken clock that is right twice a day.

I’ve found that dealing with mEq directly, even if that means I have to make some approximations WRT malt titration co-efficients, seems to allow me to understand more intuitively what’s going on in the calculations, and subsequently, in the mash itself.

That seems like another driver for pushing the charge model forward. It allows you to concentrate on what is actually wrong/needed for the model, instead of patching over something that doesn’t give the output required/desired.

 

[ajdelange]

Amen to that! Amazing the vigor with which some argue against their use

 

[brewbama]

Brewed today using free version of Bru’n Water. I was .08 off the predicted pH. Close enough in my brewery.