MASH PH (many members stunned, no answer yet)

[kingschiff]

I can only vouch that induction burners throw off electrical measurements rather effectively.

I have gas/flame burners

 

[mabrungard]

I agree with Lawrence that there is little chance for that grist to drive pH down as far as reported. There must be something out of sorts with your pH measuring equipment.

Your mineral additions are healthy, but not crazy. So that shouldn't drive pH down that far.

 

[kingschiff]

I agree with Lawrence that there is little chance for that grist to drive pH down as far as reported. There must be something out of sorts with your pH measuring equipment.

Your mineral additions are healthy, but not crazy. So that shouldn't drive pH down that far.

I just don't get how it'd read normal for the other solutions I tested? That's why I asked about the sugar content maybe throwing it off? or something? idk, it sucks lol

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

GRAINS: 10 LB pale malt, 1 lb flaked oats, 1 lb flaked red wheat

MASH SALTS (5.8g Cal chl, 2.4g gypsum, .4 table, .4 epsom) into 4.25 gallons distilled water

PH (temp of reading)
MASH WATER+SALTS PH- 5.7 (72.8*)
15 MIN AFTER DOUGH: 5.2 (69.6)
30 min after dough: 4.9 (72.3)
end of mash: 4.9 (71.5)

SPARGE WATER+ SALTS PH: 5.8 (71.1) (3.25 gal, 5g cal chl, 2.1g gypsum, .3 table, .3 epsom)
SPARGE RUNOFF PH: 5 (72)

FULL WORT PH: (4.6)


PH meter was checked last week with distilled/baking soda solution, milk, and PH solution. All worked. Checked prior to starting brewing with PH solutions. Now i did have a 73% efficiency which is better than what I've been getting. Also a IPA i was drinking this weeknd had a PH of 4.2 (as i just happened to check as I was brewing)

But this MASH PH thing is confusing the hell out of me. BruN had 5.32, MME 5.69 and Kaiser's sheet at 5.55 (with an avg of 5.52)


I am 100% sure (almost) I am not committing any errors or wrong doings.

What the heck do you guys think the issue is? Is there even an issue here? Thanks again for any comments

Your pH meter is off by more than I originally presumed. I initially misread the two wheats to be malts, but they are actually flaked. Flaked has a much higher DI_pH than does malted. There has been no level of applied kilning to develop acidity.

 

[kingschiff]

Your pH meter is off by more than I originally presumed. I initially misread the two wheats to be malts, but they are actually flaked. Flaked has a much higher DI_pH than does malted. There has been no level of applied kilning to develop acidity.

My worry is shelling out for a new meter and figuring out it's not that.

Although at this point it really seems like the only variable.

 

[ajdelange]

PH meter was checked last week with distilled/baking soda solution, milk, and PH solution. All worked.

These are OK for sanity checks but not for checking the calibration of the meter.

Checked prior to starting brewing with PH solutions.

What is a "pH solution?"

There are protocols for checking on the performance of a pH meter. They are posted here in a Sticky at the top of the forum.

But this MASH PH thing is confusing the hell out of me. BruN had 5.32, MME 5.69 and Kaiser's sheet at 5.55 (with an avg of 5.52)

Those numbers should grant you some perspective on the worth of mash prediction calculators.

I am 100% sure (almost) I am not committing any errors or wrong doings.

Your sin is one of omission. But don't spend the afternoon on Hail Ninkasi's. Learning to use a pH meter properly takes some time, practice and understanding. It is an art. You have not checked your pH meter according to the protocol in the Sticky. It appears to be drifting fast. The pH of your mash should be quite high (5.7 - 5.8 depending on the properties of the grains). The salts you added will have small effect. Using 3.5 as the Kolbach factor the CaCl2 would pull the pH down by 0.058, the gypsum by 0.016 and the epsom salts by 0.001. The actual drops will probably be about half that.

A mash pH of 4.9 with grains like these suggests that someone sneaked in while you weren't looking and dumped about 270 mEq of some acid (18 mL 85% phiosophoric, 25 mL 88% lactic, 21.8 mL concentrated hydrochloric, 7.4 mL concentrated sulfuric, 32.65 g citric...) into your mash. That's a lot of acid! Clearly the pH meter reading is in error.

What the heck do you guys think the issue is? Is there even an issue here? Thanks again for any comments

My worry is shelling out for a new meter and figuring out it's not that.

Although at this point it really seems like the only variable.

The issue is the pH meter. Check it out using the protocol in the Sticky.

 

[kingschiff]

@ajdelange

Really appreciate you taking the time to respond! "ph solution" are the 4.0 and 7.0 buffers I bought.

Seems that is time for a new PH meter.

 

[kingschiff]

UPDATE: My buddy let me borrow his MW102.

Had a mash ph of 5.37 after 15 min, and 5.45 after 30 min.

Glad this saga was figured out, I appreciate everyone's help along the way.

I will most likely grab for a MW 102, unless anyone felt the temperature probe wasn't as necessary and I could opt for a 101.

 

[ajdelange]

There are some who will try to tell you that you don't need ATC but you really do. In fact you can get by without it but having it relieves you of having to do some things and worry about others.

 

[mabrungard]

There are some who will try to tell you that you don't need ATC but you really do. In fact you can get by without it but having it relieves you of having to do some things and worry about others.

If you're worried about pH to the hundreth, then temperature compensation is helpful. If you properly cool your wort sample to somewhere in the 60F to 70F range, then ATC is virtually meaningless.

In other words, most brewers don't need ATC...regardless of what some say.

 

[ajdelange]

See.

Now Martin has never understood this the myriad times it's been explained before so I doubt he will this time but we are not concerned about what he understands here so much as we concerned with trying to prevent kingschiff from making a buying decision he may regret. Limiting discussion to the MW101 and MW102 let's start with the cost difference. $11. So you have to decide whether ATC is worth $11. To my way of thinking it is but ATC isn't, in this case, what the $11 is really buying you. It is a digital rather than an analogue meter. You cannot build an analogue meter with ATC. That's why the MW101 has three potentiometers. The user manually adjusts the gain and offsets of analogue amplifiers. The output of the amplifiers goes to a digital voltmeter. In the MW102 the amplifier is fixed. The gain and offset adjustments are done in a microcomputer which does them arithmetically based on the temperature it measures. The user is relieved of the necessity to record temperature, look up the buffer pH in the tables, adjust the temperature gain knob (which in this case of the MW101 has bizarre tic spacing) and adjust the slope and offset pots. In the digital implementation it's all done automatically. The buffer tables are stored in the instrument (MW102). You can do a cal with buffers at different temperatures and measure samples at a different temperature still. Not that we recommend that you do that and Martin will argue that if we use good practice the corrections are so small it doesn't matter and he is right about that. That's why I say that your additional $11 investment is justified more by the digital implementation than by the actual ATC.

Now there are those that will argue (mostly for the sake of argument I think as the question is, by now, pretty thoroughly settled) that digital designs are in no way superior to analogue and that you are wasting you $11 on components you don't need (I think I remember Martin advancing this argument at one point). These guys are happy listening to their AM radios and vinyl record collections. But if they are happy, then who are we to burst their bubbles? To decide for yourself whether analogue is superior to digital compare some other analogue pH meters to the digital ones. Remember that you can't buy a digital meter without ATC. The algorithm that computes the displayed pH (it's in the Sticky here on pH meter calibration) requires calibration coefficients. The meter needs to know temperature to calculate those. The problem you will have in making the suggested comparison is that other than $10 cheap Chinese knockoffs (don't be tempted by those though there are people who will argue that they are just as good as an MW102) you are going to be hard pressed to find an analogue pH meter today. Milwaukee has retained the MW101 and I guess people are still buying it or they wouldn't continue it but people who understand how pH meters work are not going to chose it when the marginal cost of the digital equivalent is only $11 more.

There are other manufacturers in the near $100 price range that make meters as good or better than the MW102. They are, of course, all digital and all, thus, have ATC. If you buy a modern meter you are getting ATC whether you appreciate its virtues or not!

 

[ajdelange]

Now I do readily admit that the old analogue meters were MUCH cooler looking than the modern digital ones:

This is a Cole Parmer "Economy" meter still available for about $460 (yes, to Cole Parmer $460 is economical). I miss those large D'Arsenval meters, especially the ones with the mirrored scales like this one!

 

[kingschiff]

See.

Now Martin has never understood this the myriad times it's been explained before so I doubt he will this time but we are not concerned about what he understands here so much as we .....If you buy a modern meter you are getting ATC whether you appreciate its virtues or not!

I appreciate all your input AJ. Is there a meter better than the MW102 for the price, or is that the best one in your opinion?

I would like the leisure of just cooling my sample, and taking the PH. The one my buddy let me borrow was a 102 and it was so simple.

 

[ajdelange]

The MW102 is a fine meter for brewing. Milwaukee is in the "hobbyist" class of supplier. You can move up a step to a laboratory/industry level supplier by going with the Hach or Omega pocket meters for around $125. But I cannot point to anything that the extra $20 buys you. Also some people just prefer the probe configuration to the pen configuration. In the former any electrode with a BNC connector can be used to replace the original probe when it (as it eventually will) fails. With the pen types you must go with the manufacturers' replacement electrodes. These often cost half or more of the price of a new meter.

On HomeBrewTalk the MW102, Hach pHPro+ and the Omega are considered vetted. This is a little unfair as over time other manufacturers have developed meters that are as good. As no one uses them here they don't get talked about much.

 

[kingschiff]

The MW102 is a fine meter for brewing. Milwaukee is in the "hobbyist" class of supplier. You can move up a step to a laboratory/industry level supplier by going with the Hach or Omega pocket meters for around $125. But I cannot point to anything that the extra $20 buys you. Also some people just prefer the probe configuration to the pen configuration. In the former any electrode with a BNC connector can be used to replace the original probe when it (as it eventually will) fails. With the pen types you must go with the manufacturers' replacement electrodes. These often cost half or more of the price of a new meter.

On HomeBrewTalk the MW102, Hach pHPro+ and the Omega are considered vetted. This is a little unfair as over time other manufacturers have developed meters that are as good. As no one uses them here they don't get talked about much.

Thanks man!!

 

[bdogg171]

On HomeBrewTalk the MW102, Hach pHPro+ and the Omega are considered vetted. This is a little unfair as over time other manufacturers have developed meters that are as good. As no one uses them here they don't get talked about much.

Which others?, I’m ready to buy a new meter.

 

[kingschiff]

Which others?, I’m ready to buy a new meter.

FWIW, I really love the MW102.

 

[ajdelange]

Which others?

If I knew I'd tell you. From time to time someone will post a "How about the pHisting 117B? Has anyone used that?" The answer is always "Don't know anything about it. Specs look OK. Why don't you get one, do the stability check on it and let us know." No one has ever done that to the extent that we could add another meter to the list and until someone does were stuck with the three that people have done that for.