The worlds easiest mash pH adjustment assistant method?

[Silver_Is_Money]

The best calculator is the one that gives the highest percentage of "close to measured" answers across the spectrum of potential grists and mash methodologies and recipe styles. With all of the unknowns that still haunt this science, who knows, but a purely empirical methodology may even win the prize if tweaked sufficiently enough in the right direction(s). But this thread is about the easiest calculator. I say, build it, test it, then tweak it and if/as necessary feather like layer it whereby to enhance it as you strive for perfection as gauged by careful measurement. I'm not claiming any rights to it, but an acknowledgement within the credits would be well appreciated. Only step 4 is likely to, or potentially likely to uniquely bare the signature of my handiwork, but who knows, perhaps someone out there can even lay claim to having gotten there first. The rest is in the public domain. Oh, and don't forget to make it look nice. I've heard (shamefully and embarrassingly enough) on occasion that "you don't sell the stuff, you sell the fluff", or alternately that "you don't sell the steak, you sell the sizzle". I don't like to hear this, as I strive for accuracy, but plenty have emailed me to inform me that they won't use 'MME' because to them it looks ugly or has an abhorrent color scheme, or both. Apparently, one must have their priorities.

But rest assured that there is absolutely zero correlation between the conception that a program outwardly looks like it is spectacularly amazing and the reality as to whether or not it factually is amazing. And no matter how many fall into the classic "fluff and sizzle" trap, rest assured that softwares accuracy in meeting the intended goal is not measured by taking a head count of users, any more than science is measured as to its validity via a head count of scientists whereby to determine and establish a "scientific consensus". New revelations in science are achieved and advanced via going against the grain of consensus. I like to correlate this to the saying of 19th century philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer:

All (new) truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

The trick here being that software can only model and thereby attempt to mimic "future" truth on the basis of probability. It can not ever in and of itself generate certain truth. Therefore no mash pH predicting software can ever output aforehand actual "future" truth and thereby be accepted as self evident. But that has never stopped home brewers from proclaiming certain of such software (generally via the fallacy of head count consensus) to have transcended to the actual achievement of this goal of self evidence, such that it is worshiped at a level whereby it is passed from current believer to potential future believer that it is no longer necessary to own or even consider owning a pH meter. Is this not yet another example of a "circle jerk"?

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

A few minutes ago I quickly and easily generated a very crude spreadsheet incorporating all of the above, and here is a snapshot. I just copied and pasted the formulas as seen here into a spreadsheet and then replaced names with spreadsheet cell locations via point and click. Input is in black, and output is in red. This one shows the impact of SRM color changing.

.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

This snapshot shows a bunch of potential dark beer outputs with several variables being manipulated (somewhat arbitrarily, as I didn't try to check and have them make 100% logical sense). It gives a flavor of what change brings.

 

[Big Monk]

Does this assume Wort SRM or Batch SRM?

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

Does this assume Wort SRM or Batch SRM?

Batch SRM, same as for the Kaiser Water Calculator and Brewers Friend in SRM mode.

Batch SRM = final beer SRM

 

[Big Monk]

Batch SRM, same as for the Kaiser Water Calculator and Brewers Friend in SRM mode.

Batch SRM = final beer SRM

So in this case, what happens if I use Sinamar, which I, and others, often do?

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

So in this case, what happens if I use Sinamar, which I, and others, often do?

Apply common sense and leave out the color contribution due to the Sinamar.

 

[Big Monk]

Apply common sense and leave out the color contribution due to the Sinamar.

Yes, obviously I know that's the answer but this calculator is not for me. Can we assume that if someone is told that batch SRM is the main input that they will make that distiction?

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

At the ground floor entry level of this software, and given the clear disclaimers that this is merely an outline or sketch in undeniable need of feathering, layering, and tweaking if anything beyond simplistic entry level is expected of it, few home brewers are concerned with Sinamar. This effort is not thereby much different than Brewer's Friend in SRM mode as to its inability to address the obscure. Throw up roadblocks of obscurity if you must, but realize that it is (to my knowledge) the first "published" (if a forum such as this can be properly associated with this word) effort at reaching those with only a hand held calculator or some rudimentary spreadsheet experience and lending them a groundwork wherewith to accomplish on their own the building (via mere copy and paste no less) of what many for years to perhaps decades have likely imagined requires some level of degree certified understanding.

I conjured up a couple later "potential" tweaks as seen in this thread, and these themselves are indeed in need of scrutiny and evaluation as to their ability to elevate this effort from the absolute ground floor, without sending it into the basement by mistake. Due caution is advised as to applying them.

The next logical step would be to reveal how pH_M can and should be simplistically calculated by means other than, and superior to, SRM. Due to this thread the ball is now in play. And all players are welcome to pick it up and run with it.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

It should be stated that the two spreadsheet snapshots seen above include the two controversial tweaks.

It should also be said that a single line is all that is required, and I tossed in multiple lines whereby to better and more easily see the difference in output (the last column of the spreadsheet) as incremental change takes place.

And lastly, black is user input, and red is spreadsheet output.

 

[Big Monk]

surely We can put our collective heads together and provide something more substantial than SRM based pH.

 

[Big Monk]

A good idea might be to present a “pen and paper” version of our respective spreadsheets.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

surely We can put our collective heads together and provide something more substantial than SRM based pH.

This seems to offer a very simple starting point:

~mEq's of acid (if positive) or base (if negative) required to move 1 Kg. of a given malt as listed to specifically pH 5.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
US 2-Row = ~= 4.8
Generic 2-Row ~= 6.4
Pale or Vienna ~= 8
GP or Crisp MO ~= 9.6
Muntons MO ~= 11.2
Pilsner ~= 12.7
Wheat or Rye Malt ~= 12.2
Munich and Biscuit 10L~= 3.8
Munich and Biscuit 20L~= -2.8
Munich and Biscuit 30L~= -9.1
Caramel 10L ~= -11.3
Caramel 20L ~= -14.6
Caramel 40L ~= -21.6
Caramel 60L ~= -28.9
Caramel 80L ~= -36.4
Caramel 120L ~= -51.4
Caramel 140L ~= -58.6
Melanoidin ~= -19.7
Roasted Malt 240L ~= -25.2
Roasted Malt 300L ~= -29.8
Roasted Malt 400L ~= -37.5
Roasted Malt 500L ~= -45.3
Roasted Malt 550L ~= -49.1
Roast Barley 300L ~= -33
Roast Barley 500L ~= -36.6

NOTE: There is a great deal of leeway and variability in each of the above 'ballpark' mEq presumptions, and different lots, different climates, different growing regions, differing year of growth, differing soil conditions, slight genetic varietal variances, etc... can and very likely will to some unknown degree noticeably move these initial presumption values. Don't online_shoot me for these presumptions please. Instead, simply provide better ones.

Sum up (mEq's_to_pH_5.4 * Kg_In_Recipe) for each individual recipe grist component, and this summed value will become your 'mEq_Grist' at step 5. There will be no steps # 1, 2, 3, 3.5 or 5.5 used for this method. Mash water volume (for water with alkalinity) and Ca/Mg mineral induced mEq's still apply as per the SRM method. For the utmost in simplicity, this method defaults the mash pH target (pH_T) to 5.4.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

Example for a mash in distilled water:

Recipe:
5 Kg. of Pilsner malt
0.5 Kg of 120L Caramel/Crystal Malt

(5 * 12.7) + (0.5 * -51.4) = 37.8 mEq_Grist

37.8/11.7 = ~3.2 mL lactic acid (since mEq's are positive)

Answer: Add 3.2 mL of lactic acid to hit ~5.4 pH in the mash.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

It should be noted that the mEq "strengths" for weak acids and bases actually vary with the chosen pH target, and my initial presumptions of 11.7 mEq/mL acid strength for 88% Lactic Acid and -11.7 mEq/gram for Baking Soda were only chosen and conflated for the utmost in simplicity. OK, more bluntly, I initially lied to you in the name of "close enough for government work" or "Ballpark" precision and formula simplicity. And as such I left out the impact of dissociation constants. I confess. There, I feel much better now.

For specifically a target of pH 5.4 in the mash these are better mEq/mL and mEq/gram acid/base strength values:

85% Phosphoric Acid: 14.87 mEq/mL
75% Phosphoric Acid: 12.26 mEq/mL
30% Phosphoric Acid: 3.67 mEq/mL
10% Phosphoric Acid: 1.09 mEq/mL
88% Lactic Acid: 11.45 mEq/mL
80% Lactic Acid: 10.25 mEq/mL
*AMS (CRS): 3.66 mEq/mL
Baking Soda: -10.71 mEq/gram

*Since AMS is a blend of two "strong" acids, it will (uniquely among the above) retain this strength across a broad spectrum of mash pH targets.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

Adding up the first 6 items (the barley base malts) on the malt mEq's list and dividing by 6 gives 8.78 mEq/Kg_pH5.4 as the acid strength of a nominal base malt. The process can thereby be simplified even further by presuming all base malts to be ~8.78 mEq/Kg_pH5.4, albeit at some obvious sacrifice of accuracy. But since no one will know their specific base malts characteristics without titration, this averaged 8.78 value may prove to be a safe bet for a totally generic or unknown as to specifics barley base malt .

Lets try to predict what the DI_pH (or pHDI) of this averaged base malt nominally comes in at:

Kolbach tells us that 32 is a decent 'nominal' buffering value presumption for a base malt.

Delta_pH = mEq/(Buffering_Value * Kg)

Knowns:
Mash pH target = pH_T = 5.4
Buffering Value for a nominal base malt (per Kolbach) = ~32
KG = 1
The specifically pH 5.4 targeted mEq/Kg acid strength value of this averaged malt is 8.78 per the first paragraph.
Delta_pH = (pH_M - pH_T)

Unknown:
pHDI = DI_pH = pH_M

Therefore:
Delta_pH = 8.78/(32*1)
Delta_pH = 0.2744

pHDI = 5.4 + 0.2744
pHDI = 5.6744

Answer: The computed DI water mash pH of this presumed nominal base malt is 5.674

Since many mash pH adjustment assistant programs merely presume 5.7 pHDI for all barley base malts, the calculated 5.674 is not very far off their chosen nominal base malt pHDI mark. So by extension, 8.78 mEq/Kg must not be very far off from their mEq/Kg to a targeted mash pH of 5.4 presumptions either.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

(pH_M - pH_T) = Delta_T = mEq_Malt/(Buffering_Value_ Malt* Kg)

pH_M = pHDI = DI_pH

Rearranging and simplifying this for 1 Kg. of malt and a mask pH target of 5.4 this formula becomes:

Buffering_Value = mEq_Malt/(pH_M-5.4)

We know the ballpark pH 5.4 mEq_Malt values from the provided malt mEq's list above.

Therefore, if we do a test mash whereby to ascertain the pHDI or pH_M value for each malt on the list, we can compute a nominal buffering value for each malt on the list.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

Is this thread worthy of sticky status yet? The essence of both an SRM based and an mEq based mash pH assistant methodology (math model) is all here for public consumption. And none of it requires rocket science. How does a thread acquire the status of stickiness?

 

[Big Monk]

Is this thread worthy of sticky status yet? The essence of both an SRM based and an mEq based mash pH assistant methodology (math model) is all here for public consumption. And none of it requires rocket science. How does a thread acquire the status of stickiness?

I’m not sure something untested should be a sticky.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

I’m not sure something untested should be a sticky.

The formulas found within (sans for step #4 of SRM based, as is recognized within that methodology) are generally found to be solid, and all that seriously matters in this arena is getting a decent pH_M. The second method does rather precisely that (within the bounds of malt variability, and no one is going to get around that issue sans to test each lot for every malt they touch), whereas the first was never intended to achieve ultra-precision without tweaking, but rather to reveal a methodology suitable for simplicity, education, and the aforementioned tweaking, as is clear within the text from the onset. The request was made to improve (and I'll add here, expand) the malt mEq at target pH 5.4 list. Perfection within that list is essentially all that keeps method #2 from approaching the potential of perfection at a level rivaling the best of the breed of mash pH adjustment software. And such perfection without titrating every malt lot on earth now and into the future isn't going to happen. I'll grant that if any of the formulas are to be proven outright incorrect (sans step #4 for SRM which never had such intent) this should not be a sticky.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

I’m not sure something untested should be a sticky.

I doubt that sticky #1 has any means of strict validation, being highly subjective. And several others are contestable as to strict validation of precision as well. One even projects that pH strips deviation from precision is written in stone for past, present, and future, when clearly every lot of such strips was never tested.

 

[Big Monk]

I doubt that sticky #1 has any means of strict validation, being highly subjective. And several others are contestable as to strict validation of precision as well. One even projects that pH strips deviation from precision is written in stone for past, present, and future, when clearly every lot of such strips was never tested.

Ask for it to be a sticky if you think it's worth it.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

Ask for it to be a sticky if you think it's worth it.

What do you think of its worth? Will you be assisting in honing the precision of the malt mEq at target pH 5.4 list?

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

Ask for it to be a sticky if you think it's worth it.

I didn't think a sticky was something that had to be asked for. I was presuming that a mod would eventually be seeing the value in and of it and that would provide the trigger.

 

[Big Monk]

I didn't think a sticky was something that had to be asked for. I was presuming that a mod would eventually be seeing the value in and of it and that would provide the trigger.

YMMV but sticky status invariably involves a bunch of people who are not the OP of the thread asking for the thread to be sticky'd.

I personally don't see anything here that has not been discussed by say, A.J. deLange, You, I, etc. in any number of important threads over the years. I don't believe your SRM thing is worthwhile and we've discussed charge conservation in a number of interesting threads over the last 2 years.

I'm not trying to beat you down but this is like calling a Zebra a Striped Horse and being discouraged when the new moniker does not stick.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

YMMV but sticky status invariably involves a bunch of people who are not the OP of the thread asking for the thread to be sticky'd.

I personally don't see anything here that has not been discussed by say, A.J. deLange, You, I, etc. in any number of important threads over the years. I don't believe your SRM thing is worthwhile and we've discussed charge conservation in a number of interesting threads over the last 2 years.

I'm not trying to beat you down but this is like calling a Zebra a Striped Horse and being discouraged when the new moniker does not stick.

You asked for a better method, and I came up with method #2. Why continue beating on method #1?

One huge difference is that AJ's stuff is spread across hundreds of posts, mainly as snippets and tidbits (bits and pieces), whereas an entire model (or make that, two entire workable models) exist(s) here within this single thread. Another huge difference is that AJ generally caters to those at a level of insight and education simply not achievable or reachable by the average brewer, whereas this threads two methodologies are as simple as I can imagine that such as this can ever come by, while achieving the same goal.

 

[Big Monk]

You asked for a better method, and I came up with method #2. Why continue beating on method #1?

One huge difference is that AJ's stuff is spread across hundreds of posts, mainly as snippets and tidbits (bits and pieces), whereas an entire model (or make that, two entire workable models) exist(s) here within this single thread. Another huge difference is that AJ generally caters to those a level of insight and education simply not achievable or reachable by the average brewer, whereas this threads two methodologies are as simple as I can imagine that such as this can ever come by, while achieving the same goal.

Should we work within this thread? I’ll type up my thoughts on charge conservation and the math here and we can present a more basic version maybe?

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

Should we work within this thread? I’ll type up my thoughts on charge conservation and the math here and we can present a more basic version maybe?

I must note that this thread is intended as one for methodologies which are entry level in simplicity, and to go beyond that seems to violate the spirit of this thread. I would therefore ask that you limit methodology by adherence to the criteria of utmost simplicity, and of relative model completeness in one package. That should work within this thread.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

I managed to find a relatively new 'online' and strictly SRM based calculator in the UK. At first glance it appears as if it may use much of Kai Troester's methodology as seen for the Kaiser Water Calculator and Brewer's Friend when in SRM mode. Here is the link to it:

Simple Water Calculator

 

[Big Monk]

I honestly don’t think I could simplify the math enough to have it be easy to do by hand or calculator, at least for the stuff that A.J. and I worked up.

That was kind of the point of putting it in a spreadsheetbin the first place! I guess I’m out!