Statistical significance of mash pH estimates?

[Silver_Is_Money]

Silver_Is_Money just a thought. But over a year ago after reading AJ's paper it was determined the benchmark for drawing cooled mash pH samples was at the 20 minute mark. Why the sudden shift who determined 30 minutes and how was this communicated to anyone?

Just yesterday (in another thread) A.J. agreed with 30 minutes, and then he further said that one might get him to buy into 25 minutes if they twist his arm.

I initially came up with 30 minutes due simply to the general acceptance that for most mashes the saccharification will be found to be mostly completed (as verified by the iodine/starch test) at the 30 minute juncture of the mash.

One problem here is that within the span of only a day or two the OP has started several threads all in essence asking a similar question, and for the rest of us that means reading each thread in detail in order to get the larger overall picture.

 

[ScrewyBrewer]

I think we should all be on the same page if there is ever going to be any hope of standardizing mash measurements here.

 

[Blazinlow86]

I think we are all on the same page and have a standardized method of calculating ph. Silver is money and the op are the only people I've really seen questioning that. The standardized method is taking a ph reading and adjusting after 10 mins. Silver is money disagrees with this because he is the creator of Mme and if you follow the standardized way most have been using to check ph since it was a thing your readings will be off. I only did a quick test but the results were very similar to my beersmith results. Recommended too much acid.


Maybe the question should be. Which software programs work using the standardized method of checking/adjusting ph. My answer would be brunwater is the only one that's worked consistently well for me. Beersmith might be ok but you need to adjust the acid strength from 88% to 125% otherwise your actual reading will be quite low and below the acceptable range. Cheers

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

I think we are all on the same page and have a standardized method of calculating ph. Silver is money and the op are the only people I've really seen questioning that. The standardized method is taking a ph reading and adjusting after 10 mins. Silver is money disagrees with this because he is the creator of Mme and if you follow the standardized way most have been using to check ph since it was a thing your readings will be off. I only did a quick test but the results were very similar to my beersmith results. Recommended too much acid.

This poster has had a chip on his shoulder against any software other than Bru'n Water from the onset and should not be trusted, as he is clearly not attempting to be objective. He is essentially shilling for Bru'n Water, which to him is always correct (despite easy to verify serious flaws which would make a statement to that effect impossible for that software). And he is not above providing false data or statements (as I easily demonstrated on another thread) for MME and likely also for other software packages. This should be obvious to anyone who has been following his posts across various threads.

 

[ScrewyBrewer]

The standardized method is taking a ph reading and adjusting after 10 mins.

@Blazinlow86 put me in the camp of testing at 20 minutes into the mash. The same time it takes brewing water additions and mash wort pH to stabilize and reach equilibrium. With that said I also think attempts at making pH corrections to the mash after that point in time are useless. Pretty much like attempting to throw a Hail Mary pass in the last ditch effort to save the day.

 

[Blazinlow86]

@Blazinlow86 put me in the camp of testing at 20 minutes into the mash. The same time it takes brewing water additions and mash wort pH to stabilze and reach equilibrium. With that said since I also think attempts at making pH corrections to the mash after that point in time are useless. Pretty much like attempting to throw a hail Mary pass in a last ditch effort to save the day.

Perfect do what works for you. i should add i also check mine thru out the mash i just start at 10mins. i generally dont have to add acid as its always very close to start with fwiw. im willing to bet if you gathered all the tutorials or whatever majority will say check the mash ph after 10 mins and adjust. that was more so my point. not everone. just the majority. doesnt make it right or wrong. just it seems the most standard. Cheers

 

[ScrewyBrewer]

Perfect do what works for you. Cheers

I always do thanks.

 

[Blazinlow86]

This poster has had a chip on his shoulder against any software other than Bru'n Water from the onset and should not be trusted, as he is clearly not attempting to be objective. He is essentially shilling for Bru'n Water, which to him is always correct (despite easy to verify serious flaws which would make a statement to that effect impossible for that software). And he is not above providing false data or statements (as I easily demonstrated on another thread) for MME and likely also for other software packages. This should be obvious to anyone who has been following his posts across various threads.

So to recap. i purchased beersmith 3 specifcally because i liked the water tools upgrades. the first brew i tried using the new tools turned out with a mash ph of much lower than the target. after doing some research it turned out that seemed to be happening for majority. hoping i was using the software incorrectly i creating a post asking if anyone HAD luck with the bs3 ph tool. after 1800 views unforunatly not one person chimed in to say it WAS working for them. most that replied said the same thing. its recommending double the amont required to reach there targets and they continued using brunwater. suspiciously one user names silver is money was very persistant that brunwater is incorrect and that bs3 is correct. eventually once said member posted that he indeed hadnt even used bs3 or brunwater for that matter it clicked. he was the author of another obscure program which uses the same method as bs3 to calculate and admitting bs3 as incorrect would also mean his software is incorrect. at that point i i made a new thread based on silver is moneys program mme so he could continue to debate his software and keep the bs3 ph tool thread on track. again said user probably typed 10000 word in a thread in his own words defending bs3 (that hes never tried). it was a yes or no question which he never answered.

the tread made on mme is basically the same as the bs3. nobody can confirm its worked for them or even uses it.


now there is this tread. all ive said is i thought that the ph measurement process is standard and didnt really understand what op was trying to figure out. ive had great luck using brunwater and i check my ph thru the process and have no reason to believe theres anything wrong with it. now silver is money claims im obviously a shill with a chip on my shoulder because i use brunwater with good results.

so a few questions for silver is money.

is anyone that makes the claims i do that they have had better luck with brunwater than bs3s ph tool a shill/incorrect or just me?

when did it become a FACT that brunwater doesnt work? if anyone disagrees are they incorrect?

you said i provided false data which you easily demonstrated was false. can you copy and paste just one instance of that as i think your getting your users confused

you say despite easy to verify serious flaws which would make a statement to that effect impossible for that software. when did this become fact ? seems strange that so many of us are clearly doing it wrong with good results dont you think?

what software do you believe is used/recommended the most?

do you think your know it all / my way or the highway attitude will help get you new users of your software?

you say "This poster has had a chip on his shoulder against any software other than Bru'n Water from the onset and should not be trusted, as he is clearly not attempting to be objective". would you trust someone who defended bs3 to death to have a valid opinion ?YOU HAVENT EVEN USED BS3 but its correct?

i think when you look at the facts its you thats suspect of everything you accuse me of being. clear as day . i have nothing to loose here. you MADE software that uses the same model as bs3 that nobody uses and have ever reason to argue to the death that its correct

i await your answers to these specific questions however fully expect you wont be able to answer then directly. it will be another 10000 word essay on some off topic thing with no answer to the specifc 6 questions asked. just like the bs3 thread. prove me right. please. cheers

 

[doug293cz]

Ok folks, stick to technical discussions, and stop questioning the motives, character, etc. of other posters. If you can't follow the rules, this thread will get heavily moderated, and possibly locked. This will be the only warning.

doug293cz
HBT Moderator

 

[Blazinlow86]

Ok folks, stick to technical discussions, and stop questioning the motives, character, etc. of other posters. If you can't follow the rules, this thread will get heavily moderated, and possibly locked. This will be the only warning.

doug293cz
HBT Moderator

please just lock it now lol. cheers

 

[CodeSection]

@doug293cz , thank you.

FWIW, I found MME 3.10 very close to Brewer's Friend's lactic addition on a recipe I will be brewing next week (2.20ml vs 2.47ml). BeerSmith3 suggested I add 6.3ml latic acid. I never could figure out how to use Bru'nWater and after repeated rereading its instructions and attempts to get it to calculate, I deleted it from my computer. I know another member had problems with it to. It just wasn't for me....

 

[Blazinlow86]

@doug293cz , thank you.

FWIW, I found MME 3.10 very close to Brewer's Friend's lactic addition on a recipe I will be brewing next week (2.20ml vs 2.47ml). BeerSmith3 suggested I add 6.3ml latic acid. I never could figure out how to use Bru'nWater and after repeated rereading its instructions and attempts to get it to calculate, I deleted it from my computer. I know another member had problems with it to. It just wasn't for me....

please post back after your brew day. i am curious as to whether mash made easy or bs3 is correct. there was a debate previously with another member that swears to the moon bs3 is correct........ to make it even more interesting the member that swears bs3 is correct is also the creator of mme. might have some explaining to do lol. sounds like you experience matches most others in regards to the bs3 ph tool. i also agree brunwater can be a pain in the ass to use. thats why i was so happy then sad when bs3 came out. i hoped to never need another program and be able to do it all on bs3. next brew ill try the 125% acid workaround. fingers crossed. cheers

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

Here are some things to consider when attempting to fathom the difficulty of achieving statistical correlation specifically as it relates to multiple home brewers with a broad range of experiences, procedures, pH meters, grains being used, etc...

1) Some data indicates that breweries take mash pH readings at mash temperature. The difference in readings between room temperature and mash temperature vary from source to source, and generally span a range from 0.2 to 0.35 pH. This span indicates that trusted sources can't even seem to come to a consensus as to how much impact to compensate for when taking room temperature pH readings.

2) I've seen declassified 1950's era data that indicates the ideal mash target to be 5.0 pH, but it was not mentioned as to being at mash temperature or room, though it was a peer review level paper, and as such I believe it was probably discussing a target mash temperature pH of 5.0. Yet this is merely my opinion of what I've read.

2) Weyermann data (for their Sauermalz and its impact) indicates and charts (side by side as more and more acid malt is added) "mash pH" and "wort pH" and a review of this data indicates that there is a continual spread of roughly 0.2 pH points between the two, with "wort pH" being at the higher end and mash pH at the lower end. At least one highly trusted forum member (who is involved in cutting edge mash pH software development) believes the two terms to be exactly the same, and originally I agreed with his assessment, but then I looked at the Weyermann Sauermalz data again, and now I have doubts. So among and betwixt us we can't even derive a consensus as to what is a mash pH and what is a wort pH (and how can Weyermann track them simultaneously and note their differences).

3) Some argue for early sampling in order to chase and adjust the mash pH, and some argue for later sampling when more of a static equilibrium has been achieved, and when all of the grain starches in the deep confines of the most difficult to liberate malted grain kernels have been reached by the mash water (in its progression toward becoming wort) and through enzymatic action been cleaved and converted into sugars. Thus we can't as a group even decide when to sample. But there is general evidence available for most brews (on an SRM basis) that points to later sampling indicating higher pH than earlier sampling, with this sometimes approaching or even slightly exceeding a rise of 0.2 pH points as the mash trends from not being complete to being complete. Effectively the mash is fully over when reactions are perceived (if not also measured) to have cease. But we can't as a group decide if we should measure pH later, when reactions have primarily ceased, or when they are still actively in process and the mash is nowhere near complete.

4) Some of us are chemists or engineers, or at least have had formal training and/or work experience to that end (with some of us old timers for multiple decades), and some admit they are outright confused by such science, and may have had none of such professional training, yet all of us here have equal rights to opinions. But one must be careful to mention when they are expressing an opinion. Otherwise those unawares can easily misconstrue opinion as fact derived from hard science.

I believe the OP has expressed valid opinions of concern, and I have added a few more to the mix. Until opinions are erased by standardization, it is my opinion that we are not even speaking the same language when we say that we brewed a batch and measured its mash pH to be x.xx.

 

[ajdelange]

To establish whether or not there actually can ever be any hope for statistical relevance in regard to any of the extant gen 1 mash pH assistant software solutions, I place a call to A.J. deLange for his gen 2 software solution to this, a hypothetical SMaSH:

A.J., given this hypothetical and simple SMaSH recipe case, how much 88% lactic acid is actually required to achieve an honest mash pH of 5.4 on a proton basis?

Case:
5 Kg. (11 lbs.) of Maris Otter, measured to have a DI_pH of 5.73 (as was recently done by member 'cire')
17 liters (4.5 gal.) of RO mash water with 50 ppm Ca++, zero Mg++ ppm, and zero alkalinity ppm

That depends on how much of the calcium phytin reaction we think takes place in the mash tun and how much in the kettle. Here are the amounts for Kolbach factors of 3.5 (complete reaction in mash tun) and 7 (half in the mash tun)

Crisp MO
pHDI 5.69
Lactic @ 3.5: 5.1 mL
Lactic @ 7: 5.6 mL

Muntons MO
pHDI 5.84
Lactic at 3.5: 7.0
Lactic at 7: 9.11

Hypothetical MO
pHDI 5.79
Lactic at 3.5: 5.9
Lactic at 7: 6.4

As while the pHDI's for the Crisp and Muntons offering are dramatically different their buffering parameters, all 3, are remarkably similar so I used them for the buffering characteristics of the hypothetical MO. Of course I have no right to do that but I have to get buffering numbers from somewhere.

This will establish the gen 1 vs. gen 2 software baseline for validity only for the range of light colored brews.

Taking Gen 1 to mean a program that assumes lactic acid releases 1 mEq of protons per mmol irrespective of target pH, that uses the Riffe equation to solve for pH and always uses 3.5 for the Kolbach factor the difference between Gen 1 and Gen 2 are going to be solely based on the Kolbach factor as no malts with pHDI distant from mash pH are involved and the water is free of alkalinity. Where you will get impressive differences is if your Gen1 program uses color to determine pHDI and decides that as all three of these malts have the same color they have the same pHDI. Then you are going to have, for Kf = 3.5 a range of 5.1 - 7 mL in the estimated acid requirement. Thus in this case (pale beer) the difference between the Gen I and Gen II computations is small. The focus needs to be on the malt models.

Now going back to a Gen I spreadsheet that takes pHDI and ask me how much chocolate malt would be needed to get to pH 5.4 the answer is 24%. In this case the Gen II computation tells us that the pH is 5.40 but a Gen I computation as described above says its 5.48. That's an appreciable difference between Gen I and Gen II.

Here I am talking about the best Gen I spreadsheets i.e. the ones that accept pHDI input. The most popular ones don't AFAIK and this are subject to errors of this magnitude from computational shortcomings AND the errors from trying to model based on color.

The interesting thing is that anyone can now have the Gen II capability in his spreadsheet or calculator.

 

[Blazinlow86]

isnt brewers friend gen 1? i found it surprising its calculating similar results as mme and no were near bs3 which are both gen 2.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

For the record, Mash Made Easy shares absolutely no code (that I'm aware of) with Beersmith. RPIScotty, another poster of high esteem (at least in my opinion) on this forum stated within only the past few days (and in its defense) that Beersmith uses formulas sourced from D. M. Riffe, and Mash Made Easy uses none of D.M. Riffe's formulas to my knowledge either (and as an aside RPIScotty has , with my permission, and due to my trust of his character, seen the coding of my spreadsheet, and he personally uses D.M. Riffe's formulas, so he can assuredly vouch that I do not). But since D. M. Riffe is in my opinion a giant in this field beneath only perhaps A.J. deLange among those who frequent this forum, if Beersmith is utilizing his formulas correctly, there seems to be at least some likelihood that Beersmith's output has at least the potential to be seriously considered as valid. To Beersmith's defense, I've seen a number of cases where A.J. has instructed posters to add what in my opinion seem to be rather high lactic acid addition mL's, with my observation of this phenomenon witnessed for a number of cases involving low SRM recipes. The case may be that those typically utilizing more acidic base malts witness an associated need for noticeably less lactic acid, wherein those who typically use less acidic base malts witness a need for noticeably well more lactic acid, with both targeting 5.4 pH. Another issue that requires standardization in direct relevance to this thread.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

A.J., in regard to your post above which is answering my Maris Otter SMaSH scenario query, your answer (given the malt variabilities which you mentioned) would most likely fall within the range of 5.1 to 7.0 mL of 88% lactic acid addition required to achieve a mash pH of 5.4. Did I interpret the core answer as regards lactic acid mL's required here correctly?

If I am seeing this correctly, it speaks directly to my post immediately above which mentions that your science and mathematics derived solutions often require what at first appearance are noticeably higher than (some popular gen 1 software derived) typical lactic acid additions.

 

[Blazinlow86]

Yea not so much anything to do with the code. Just that two gen 2 programs were so vastly different would say one must be broken or its just not as accurate as suggested. if gen 2 is what makes the .27ml acid differance how come the other gen 2 software is calling for a additional 4.10ml was more my point. Obviously we won't know which is closer until he measures his ph on brewday. Cheers

i should add this is based on codesections above post

FWIW, I found MME 3.10 very close to Brewer's Friend's lactic addition on a recipe I will be brewing next week (2.20ml vs 2.47ml). BeerSmith3 suggested I add 6.3ml latic acid. I never could figure out how to use Bru'nWater and after repeated rereading its instructions and attempts to get it to calculate, I deleted it from my computer. I know another member had problems with it to. It just wasn't for me....

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

The only gen 2 software that I'm aware of utilizes A.J.'s proton based code. To date, the only private to semi-public releases utilizing A.J.'s proton code have been made by A.J. and RPIScotty, with (I believe) ScrewyBrewer perhaps also working to this end, but not having made an official announcement of it, let alone a release. To my knowledge, gen 2 software has never been fully publicly released yet (to date). I have thankfully been privy to receive both A.J.'s and RPIScotty's pre-release spreadsheet editions, and I thank both of them for this.

 

[Blazinlow86]

The only gen 2 software that I'm aware of utilizes A.J.'s proton based code. To date, the only private to semi-public releases utilizing A.J.'s proton code have been made by A.J. and RPIScotty, with (I believe) ScrewyBrewer perhaps also working to this end, but not having made an official announcement of it, let alone a release. To my knowledge, gen 2 software has never been fully publicly released yet (to date). I have thankfully been privy to receive both A.J.'s and RPIScotty's pre-release spreadsheet editions, and I thank both of them for this.

is bs3 considered 1 or 2? any insight into why bs3 suggests so much more acid than mme? cheers

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

is bs3 considered 1 or 2? any insight into why bs3 suggests so much more acid than mme? cheers

1) BS3 is gen 1, but as stated above, if it is using Riffe's highly respected formulas (as RPIScotty attests), it has an undeniably high pedigree in that regard.

2) Since merely selecting a very high base malt DI_pH range for MME (from among the 6 default ranges provided via drop-down selection, with this not requiring manual override) allows MME to require as much lactic acid as I speculate may be seen for BS3 (based upon your insight), and with the flip side of this being that if you select within MME a different and much lower DI_pH range for the base malt you can potentially go lower in lactic acid requirement than than even BW (also from your insight), I can only surmise (I.E., it is merely my opinion) that the BW3 model is perhaps fixated upon the intent of higher DI_pH low Lovibond base malts being utilized by the homebrewer, and likewise surmise that BW is fixated upon the intent that lower DI_pH low Lovibond base malts be utilized by the homebrewer.

I must inject here that it is my personal opinion that A.J. should not be de-Facto lumping all software other than his quite new proton balance based software into a single (and thus restrictively limiting) category as "gen 1". The range of math models between software of this type is broad, and should not be lumped together as one in quite the way that he is doing. If all gen 1 software was gen 1, then it would all give the same output advice, but the (A.J. defined) gen 1's offer broadly varying output advice, to sometimes a quite high degree. Witness my recent discussions regarding a posters high in deep roasted malts recipe, where the gen 1's spanned from solutions requiring mash water acidification, to those requiring 16.5 grams of baking soda, and a range of in-betweens.

 

[Blazinlow86]

1) BS3 is gen 1, but as stated above, if it is using Riffe's highly respected formulas (as RPIScotty attests), it has an undeniably high pedigree in that regard.

2) Since merely selecting a very high base malt DI_pH range for MME (from among the 6 default ranges provided via drop-down selection, with this not requiring manual override) allows MME to require as much lactic acid as I speculate may be seen for BS3 (based upon your insight), and with the flip side of this being that if you select within MME a different and much lower DI_pH range for the base malt you can potentially go lower in lactic acid requirement than than even BW (also from your insight), I can only surmise (I.E., it is merely my opinion) that the BW3 model is perhaps fixated upon the intent of higher DI_pH low Lovibond base malts being utilized by the homebrewer, and likewise surmise that BW is fixated upon the intent that lower DI_pH low Lovibond base malts be utilized by the homebrewer.

wanna guess which ends up closer in the end? brewers friend/mme or bs3? my money is on brewers friend/mme. cheers

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

wanna guess which ends up closer in the end? brewers friend/mme or bs3? my money is on brewers friend/mme. cheers

You must at some juncture come to realize that some base malts are clearly much more basic (with respect to a mash pH target of 5.4) than others. It simply isn't possible to speculate as to which software may come closest, without first knowing the inherent nature of the base malt being used (unless the software permits a range of choices to the end user in regard to base malt DIpH).

And for the record, MME does not to my knowledge utilize any Brewer's Friend code to determine mash pH.

 

[Blazinlow86]

You must at some juncture come to realize that some base malts are clearly much more basic (with respect to a mash pH target of 5.4) than others. It simply isn't possible to state which software will come closest, without first knowing the inherent nature of the base malt being used.

And for the record, MME does not to my knowledge utilize any Brewer's Friend code to determine mash pH.

wanna " GUESS" which ends up closer in the end? brewers friend/mme or bs3? my money is on brewers friend/mme. theres no way to word it that they are both correct in some way if theres that much a diffearance. one will either be closer or not closer. cheers

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

I'm honored to hear independent reports that MME often comes close to providing similar output to Brewer's Friend, as Brewer's Friend is among the elite selections that one can make with regard to mash pH assistant software. I believe much of BF's development was assisted by Kai Troester.

 

[ajdelange]

1)
I must inject here that it is my personal opinion that A.J. should not be de-Facto lumping all software other than his quite new proton balance based software into a single (and thus restrictively limiting) category as "gen 1". The range of math models between software of this type is broad, and should not be lumped together as one in quite the way that he is doing. If all gen 1 software was gen 1, then it would all give the same output advice, but the (A.J. defined) gen 1's offer broadly varying output advice, to sometimes a quite high degree.

Let me clarify what I mean by Gen I vs Gen II. Of course Gen I's differ and when the first Gen II spreadsheets get written they will differ too. In the broadest sense Gen I means just what the name suggests - a Gen I spreadsheet/calculator is one that has been prepared up to this point in time.

A Gen I program has one or more of the following characteristics:

1)Algorithm based on a combination of chemistry and empirical observations. If a result doesn't match an observation the algorithm is modified to produce a result that better matches the observation.
2)Tries to treat the problem as one in which the pH is a linear function of malt and water and addition parameters
3)Ignores malt pHDI - attempts to chacterize malt "acidity" based on color or malt type but does not accept malt pHDI or other titration data input.
4)Assumes that the effect of alkalinity on pH is independent of water sample pH
5)Uses bicarbonate as a proxy for alkalinity
6)Ignores the fact that the effect of alkalinity depends on the pH used in determining alkalinity
7)Assumes that the ability of lactic and phosphoric acids to deliver protons and that the ability of bicarbonate/carbonate to absorb them are independent of mash pH.
8)Ignores the alkalinity of the water molecules themselves.
9)Ignores the fact that acid released by the reaction of calcium and magnesium with malt phosphate does not complete in the mash tun but continues in the kettle.

A Gen II program is, broadly, any program that handles each of the above in the following way

1)Algorithm is based on the chemistry alone. Empirical observations are not included. No changes are made to the algorithm if a result does not match an observation. The explanation is found by examination of input malt or water data.
2)Recognizes that the problem is non linear as the chemistry clearly shows. Uses techniques that solve non linear equations.
3)Requires input malt data that accurately reproduces the malts' titration curves including pHDI and 3 buffering coefficients
4)Computes the proton deficit attributable to bicarbonate in the water from reported alkalinity, sample pH and titration end point as dictated by the chemistry.
5)Doesn't even calculate bicarbonate as no knowledge of it is needed. Computes the effects of water as indicated in 4).
6)See 4)
7) Computes the normality of added acids and/or bases based on the target pH as required by the chemistry
8) Computes the proton deficit of the water molecules themselves.
9) Requires an estimate of the portion of the calcium/magnesium/phosphate protons are released in the mash tun.

Note that no mention of malt models is mentioned. A Gen II program is guaranteed to give a good answer if it is fed good malt and water data. If fed bad data it will produce bad answers just as a Gen I program will. The Gen I programs tended to require broad input characterizations of malts such as their color which results in at best fair representation of malts. A Gen II program demands malt titration data as input but as there is not much of that available it will, in many cases, have to be generated from broad characterizations. Feeding Gen II algorithms with malt data deduced from color or malt type is subject to the same difficulties as when this is done in a Gen I program.

There are no Gen II programs out there. What is out there is a whole bunch of Excel functions which make preparing a Gen II based spreadsheet really easy. The user of such a spreadsheet is guaranteed freedom from any of the problems enumerated above but not from the modeling problem. The functions themselves are, as they are intended for use with Excel, written in Microsoft VBA. Each is quite small and simple and a port to any modern (or archaic) programming language should be quite simple. So, in summary, Gen II to me means
1)Computational accuracy
2)Great simplification in spreadsheet preparation

 

[ajdelange]

I've seen a number of cases where A.J. has instructed posters to add what in my opinion seem to be rather high lactic acid addition mL's, with my observation of this phenomenon witnessed for a number of cases involving low SRM recipes. The case may be that those typically utilizing more acidic base malts witness an associated need for noticeably less lactic acid, wherein those who typically use less acidic base malts witness a need for noticeably well more lactic acid, with both targeting 5.4 pH. Another issue that requires standardization in direct relevance to this thread.

The amount of acid requires depends on the properties of the malts. As seen in No. 44 the amount can vary quite a bit even for the same malt type as titration characteristics vary between maltsters, lot numbers, seasons. Also, my recommendations will be higher because, as indicated in No. 56, the Gen II algorithms recognize that the strength of lactic acid varies with pH. At pH 5.4 88% is 11.45 N. A Gen I program probably assumes it to be 11.77 N. That's not much but it does represent the need for 2.7% more of this acid. Other than that it depends on the malts and the water. If you think I've recommended too much acid question me about the malt and water - not about the Gen II algorithms (though, of course, I am still looking for coding goofs etc.)

A.J., in regard to your post above which is answering my Maris Otter SMaSH scenario query, your answer (given the malt variabilities which you mentioned) would most likely fall within the range of 5.1 to 7.0 mL of 88% lactic acid addition required to achieve a mash pH of 5.4. Did I interpret the core answer as regards lactic acid mL's required here correctly?

Yep. That's what I was trying to say. In interpreting lactic (or any other) addition you have to be aware of the implications. Taking the hypothesized malt case we found an addition of 5.9 mL required if the phytin reaction completes in the mash tun and 6.4 if it only half completes. Being the conservative sort I would assume that only half takes place and would use 6.4 mL. That would bring my pH to 5.4 (if the malt model is accurate). But suppose I'm wrong in my assumption. Suppose in fact it fully completes in the mash tun. What's the impact of using 0.5 mL too much acid? The pH drops by 0.024. And that's the worst case.

If I am seeing this correctly, it speaks directly to my post immediately above which mentions that your science and mathematics derived solutions often require what at first appearance are noticeably higher than (some popular gen 1 software derived) typical lactic acid additions.

Again you seem to be questioning the science and the mathematics used to describe it. As I am, I hope, a good scientist (engineer really) I question everything. Everything here is based on proton conservation and Henderson - Hasselbalch. Anyone can look up Henderson - Hasselbalch on Wikipedia. program it into a spreadsheet or other programming environment, look up, also on Wikipedia, the pKs for carbonic acid and be off and running. But does that represent the real world? Are those pK's wrong (you or I can go into Wikipedia and change them anytime we like). What about the escape of CO2 when we add acid to water etc. So we want confirmation that our science/math is right and we experiment to confirm that. In No. 128 of the thread at https://www.homebrewtalk.com/forum/...ded-to-a-dark-beer-recipes-mash.652804/page-4 I posted some data obtained from titration of my well water. The science/math let me calculate the shape of the curve that should fit through the data and that's what's plotted on that chart and it does fit the data quite well. The science/math is vindicated. Thus I repeat again that if you find something fishy don't question the science. Question the data. In any case tell me about it.

[Edit]Actually, do question the science. We may all be amateur scientists here but amateur or professional a scientist questions everything!

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

Again you seem to be questioning the science and the mathematics used to describe it.

Actually (via your confirmation indicating what a precise gen 2 model predicts based upon hard science) I was merely attempting to emphasize a point in an effort to educate the many among us who do not believe that a broad number of gen 1 software packages can ever possibly be correct (in a relative and gen 1 exclusive comparative sense) for any recipe fed to them, merely because one particularly popular of such spreadsheets consistently seems to indicate that much less acid is required than for the others for recipes such as my specific test case scenario.

That said, wherein you compute that ~5.9 mL's of 88% lactic acid are required for my strictly scenario delimited grist and water conditions and quantities to mash at pH 5.4 based strictly upon hard science, my Mash Made Easy 3.10 Metric program *** only indicates (for 5 Kg's of a Maris Otter class base malt at EBC color 6.0) a need for 3.51 mL's of the same acid (or 3.57 mL's when I manually override the softwares internally selected 5.73 pH (internally software rounded) and insert 5.73 pH (actual) to hit the test scenario requirement here square on the nose). So my quasi-empirical (gen 1 if you must) approach is in the end not really close to adding sufficient acid for this specific recipe scenario to mash at pH 5.4, yet to those who measure pH earlier rather than later in the mash it may outwardly appear to be more correct, while in fact being less correct. (this I presume to be because mash pH rises continually during the mash for light colored beers)

**** Mash Made Easy 3.10 standard calls for 3.50 mL's of 88% lactic acid for inputs of 11 lbs. Maris Otter, the recommended base malt DI_pH selector range choice made for same, and 4.5 gallons of water with 50 ppm of calcium. And 3.56 mL's for the case where the internally rounded (and therefore apparent) ~5.73 DI_pH is manually overridden with precisely 5.73 DI_pH***

Edit: A.J., if you were to limit your gen 2 software to the addition of only 3.51 mL of 88% lactic acid (as opposed to ~5.9 mL to hit pH 5.4) for my SMaSH grist and water scenario what mash pH is then predicted via gen 2? This will indicate how far off I am with MME for this secnario. And also by inference lend guidance as to potentially how much more far off any gen 1 software forecasting less lactic acid than MME for this scenario must be.

 

[Blazinlow86]

Actually (via your confirmation indicating what a precise gen 2 model predicts based upon hard science) I was merely attempting to emphasize a point in an effort to educate the many among us who do not believe that a broad number of gen 1 software packages can ever possibly be correct (in a relative and gen 1 exclusive comparative sense) for any recipe fed to them, merely because one particularly popular of such spreadsheets consistently seems to indicate that much less acid is required than for the others for recipes such as my specific test case scenario.

That said, wherein you compute that ~5.9 mL's of 88% lactic acid are required for my strictly scenario delimited grist and water conditions and quantities to mash at pH 5.4 based strictly upon hard science, my Mash Made Easy 3.10 Metric program *** only indicates (for 5 Kg's of a Maris Otter class base malt at EBC color 6.0) a need for 3.51 mL's of the same acid (or 3.57 mL's when I manually override the softwares internally selected 5.73 pH (internally software rounded) and insert 5.73 pH (actual) to hit the test scenario requirement here square on the nose). So my quasi-empirical (gen 1 if you must) approach is in the end not really close to adding sufficient acid for this specific recipe scenario to mash at pH 5.4, yet to those who measure pH earlier rather than later in the mash it may outwardly appear to be more correct, while in fact being less correct. (this I presume to be because mash pH rises continually during the mash for light colored beers)

**** Mash Made Easy 3.10 standard calls for 3.50 mL's of 88% lactic acid for inputs of 11 lbs. Maris Otter, the recommended base malt DI_pH selector range choice made for same, and 4.5 gallons of water with 50 ppm of calcium. And 3.56 mL's for the case where the internally rounded (and therefore apparent) ~5.73 DI_pH is manually overridden with precisely 5.73 DI_pH***

Edit: A.J., if you were to limit your gen 2 software to the addition of only 3.51 mL of 88% lactic acid (as opposed to ~5.9 mL to hit pH 5.4) for my SMaSH grist and water scenario what mash pH is then predicted via gen 2? This will indicate how far off I am with MME for this secnario. And also by inference lend guidance as to potentially how much more far off any gen 1 software forecasting less lactic acid than MME for this scenario must be.

It now seems all these recent posts regarding ph are more directed at the fact people are taking readings at 10-20 mins and it's matching what there software is suggesting. So is you argument that the ph needs to be taken at 30 mins if using newer software and the old method is incorrect? If so we have all wasted alot of bandwidth debating seemingly the same thing over and over and I think rewording the question would have prevent the ongoing debate. That being said these threads in the last few days are the first time I've heard of doing it that late. Ive never noticed a significant change in the ph from 10-30 mins but I've also only been concerned about staying in range. I also use a herms system and run it at full speed recirculation so it might help with how much time it takes to get a accurate reading as the liquid is turned over much faster than just letting it sit. Cheers

 

[ajdelange]

That said, wherein you compute that ~5.9 mL's of 88% lactic acid are required for my strictly scenario delimited grist and water conditions and quantities to mash at pH 5.4 based strictly upon hard science, my Mash Made Easy 3.10 Metric program *** only indicates (for 5 Kg's of a Maris Otter class base malt at EBC color 6.0) a need for 3.51 mL's of the same acid (or 3.57 mL's when I manually override the softwares internally selected 5.73 pH (internally software rounded) and insert 5.73 pH (actual) to hit the test scenario requirement here square on the nose). So my quasi-empirical (gen 1 if you must) approach is in the end not really close to adding sufficient acid for this specific recipe scenario to mash at pH 5.4,

How correct any of these answers are depends on the malt. If cire's measurement of pHDI is accurate and if the malt has the same buffering as what I modeled (based on measurements of 2 MO samples with astoundingly close buffering characteristics) then 5.9 mL is going to be the right answer. I'm going to say it again in the hope that eventually it will sink in. I need 2 measurements. One with just DI water and one with DI water with a pinch of bicarb added.

...yet to those who measure pH earlier rather than later in the mash it may outwardly appear to be more correct, while in fact being less correct. (this I presume to be because mash pH rises continually during the mash for light colored beers)

The situation that demonstrates the most dramatic change in pH over time is the one in which acid is added to the mash water. After 20 - 30 minutes (with lots of stirring) things should be stable enough to measure.

Edit: A.J., if you were to limit your gen 2 software to the addition of only 3.51 mL of 88% lactic acid (as opposed to ~5.9 mL to hit pH 5.4) for my SMaSH grist and water scenario what mash pH is then predicted via gen 2?

5.51