Quantcast

The worlds easiest mash pH adjustment assistant method?

HomeBrewTalk.com - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Community.

Help Support Homebrew Talk:

Big Monk

Trappist Please! 🍷
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
2,183
Reaction score
1,106
I would like to see what a 3 point titration curve for a malt with a pHDI of less than the 5.4 target pH looks like. It may prove to be the case that for the single titration buffer calculating method, any malt that is acidic with respect to target pH gets over corrected for as well, but this time in the opposite 'sign' direction, negating some of the acid over-addition error induced by a grists base malt(s) and other of malts with > 5.4 pHDI. This potentially beneficial error in the opposite direction would happen for those grists which contain acidic malts such as Melanoidin, Caramel/Crystal, or Deep Roasted, etc.... So for many grists the error may well be less than the calculated 0.08 pH points witnessed for the charted example seen above.
This has been troubling to me for some time. In reality, it really depends on the a2 and a3 value of the malt. In most base malts, the a2 and a3 values will be small enough that what I showed above will hold true.

Frankly, even some roasted malts and Cara malts with lower a2 and a3 will give mEq results in linear form that won’t throw major errors in required acid. A.J. has a three term Crisp 600L Chocolate malt with smaller a2 and a3 values that works quite well linearly but a three term a Briess Caramel 80L with a large a2 and small a3 that simply doesn’t quite scale to linear.
 
OP
Silver_Is_Money

Silver_Is_Money

Larry Sayre, Developer of 'Mash Made Easy'
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
4,989
Reaction score
1,435
Location
N/E Ohio
I started perusing peer reviewed brewing literature late yesterday and again early this morning and I finally came up with this equation as an industry accepted method for determining the buffering capacity for wort:

Buffer Determination Method.png

And I also found this quite similar one:

Buffer2.png


Does anyone know how to derive our 33.33 mEq/Kg.pH buffering capacity factor from either or both of the above equations for the example of our hypothetical Congress Mash whereby for a 50 gram base malt sample mashed in 200 mL of DI water we moved from pH initial 5.75 to pH final 5.15 via the addition of 10 mL of 0.1N acid (or 1 mEq of acid)?

My thinking here is that there may actually be multiple means whereby to determine a malts buffering factor, and if the various means can not be respectfully unified as to emergent unit and valuation output, then this brings up the question regarding which of our buffering capacity sources may have used a variant method to compute BC, as opposed to applying either the method as seen in my hypothetical titration, or AJ's 3 point titration method? And if none of the known methods agree, where does that leave us other than to do the titration(s) ourselves?
 
Last edited:

Big Monk

Trappist Please! 🍷
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
2,183
Reaction score
1,106
I started perusing peer reviewed brewing literature late yesterday and again early this morning and I finally came up with this equation as an industry accepted method for determining the buffering capacity for wort:

View attachment 693715
And I also found this quite similar one:

View attachment 693718

Does anyone know how to derive our 33.33 mEq/Kg.pH buffering capacity factor from either or both of the above equations for the example of our hypothetical Congress Mash whereby for a 50 gram base malt sample mashed in 200 mL of DI water we moved from pH initial 5.75 to pH final 5.15 via the addition of 10 mL of 0.1N acid (or 1 mEq of acid)?

My thinking here is that there may actually be multiple means whereby to determine a malts buffering factor, and if the various means can not be respectfully unified as to emergent unit and valuation output, then this brings up the question regarding which of our buffering capacity sources may have used a variant method to compute BC, as opposed to applying either the method as seen in my hypothetical titration, or AJ's 3 point titration method? And if none of the known methods agree, where does that leave us other than to do the titration(s) ourselves?
The only problem here is that the buffering capacity of the wort says nothing, in the individual sense, about the constituent parts of the mash. The mash is a system of components. I don't know how knowing the total buffering capacity of the mash would supplant knowing the titration co-efficients for the malt, the mEq contributions of source water, acid content, etc.

Ultimately, if you want accurate buffering data for a specific malt, you have to measure it. There is really no way around this.
 
OP
Silver_Is_Money

Silver_Is_Money

Larry Sayre, Developer of 'Mash Made Easy'
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
4,989
Reaction score
1,435
Location
N/E Ohio
I tossed this attempt at it for my hypothetical titration:

BC = log (1×10^−3÷(200×10^−3×(10^−5.15−10^−5.75)))
BC = 2.9746

Since this is a log derived value, I fathom it is an exponent.
 
OP
Silver_Is_Money

Silver_Is_Money

Larry Sayre, Developer of 'Mash Made Easy'
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
4,989
Reaction score
1,435
Location
N/E Ohio
10^1.52285 ~= 33.33

So it seems as if we may actually be looking for a log_10 based BC ~= 1.52285

????????
 

Big Monk

Trappist Please! 🍷
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
2,183
Reaction score
1,106
10^1.52285 ~= 33.33

So it seems as if we may actually be looking for a log_10 based BC ~= 1.52285

????????
Again, I echo my previous statement: While mash buffering may be a useful term in back of the envelope calcs, it does not give the complete picture.

For instance, pre-acid/base mash buffering would include the constituent parts: malt, source water Ca and Mg, and Source water alkalinity. How do you isolate those components from a single buffering value?
 

Big Monk

Trappist Please! 🍷
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
2,183
Reaction score
1,106
By starting with DI water.
I'd certainly be curious as to the results if you find anything interesting. It still does not solve the issue of a linear equation for malt mEq possibly not capturing the full effect of cara and roasted malts, assuming that your method of estimating buffering in DI water with a single malt will yield a single "titration" co-efficient (a1).
 
OP
Silver_Is_Money

Silver_Is_Money

Larry Sayre, Developer of 'Mash Made Easy'
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
4,989
Reaction score
1,435
Location
N/E Ohio
One interesting thing about the BC calculation method which I culled from peer reviewed brewing literature is that it is definitively a single point titration.

Buffer2.png
 

Big Monk

Trappist Please! 🍷
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
2,183
Reaction score
1,106
I put a quick table together with A.J.'s raw data for malts with 3 titration points. Given what we know about A.J.'s methods for conducting these, I have always placed a good deal of faith in at least the measurements, if not their applicability to all malts in these classes.

I basically just ran his data as 3 term, 2 term and linear into his equation to determine what dQ (mEq/kg) would be for each malt:

1597333316250.png


You can see that for some malts in this list, a linear assumption severely overstates the acidity of the malt.
 
Last edited:
OP
Silver_Is_Money

Silver_Is_Money

Larry Sayre, Developer of 'Mash Made Easy'
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
4,989
Reaction score
1,435
Location
N/E Ohio
OK, at least something interesting has finally emerged from my playing around here:

1) Case for 1 mEq moving 50 grams from 5.75 to 5.15 pH

1 mEq/1000 = 0.001 Eq
50 grams/1000 g/Kg = 0.05 Kg
BC = log (0.001 Eq÷(0.050 Kg*(10^−5.15−10^−5.75)))
BC = 3.57666

2) Case for 20 mEq moving 1000 grams (1 Kg.) from 5.75 to 5.15 pH (as verified via and taken directly from AJ's BC chart)

20 mEq/1000 = 0.02 Eq
1000 grams/1000 grams/ Kg= 1 Kg
BC = log (0.02 Eq÷(1 Kg*(10^−5.15−10^−5.75))
BC = 3.57666

3.57666= 3.57666

Note that in the above I replaced the 200 mL from my initial stab at this equation with 50 grams, as there is 'effectively' no titratable acid present within DI water to speak of, so 'effectively' all of it has to be coming from the 50 grams of malt only. The water is merely a carrier for the malt, and its volume is highly irrelevant. But the weight of the malt is critical.
 
OP
Silver_Is_Money

Silver_Is_Money

Larry Sayre, Developer of 'Mash Made Easy'
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
4,989
Reaction score
1,435
Location
N/E Ohio
I just checked and Mash Made Easy 9.30 says 300L Roast Barley has a DI_pH of 4.70 and 47.24 mEq/Kg acidity be removed whereby to move 1 Kg to pH 5.4.

Also in MME I simply assume acidulated malt at 323.69 mEq/Kg acidity to be removed whereby to move 1 Kg. to pH 5.4, and I also assume 3% by weight equivalent as 88% lactic acid. But I permit the latitude to vary this acidity strength/quantity presumption by the end user. I just checked and in MME 9.30 it requires 30.24 grams of Baking Soda (after allowance for poor dissociation) to neutralize 323.69 mEq, of acidity, or alternately 15.92 grams of Calcium Hydroxide (whereby Ca(OH)2 brings a lot of calcium on board and it also needs to be addressed, and is (thus the computed 15.92 grams required vs. ~11.99 grams if there was no added calcium simultaneously releasing H+ ions from the grist).

1,000 g. acidulated malt x 3% presumed to be lactic acid = 30 grams of pure lactic acid.
88% x 1.206 g/mL density = 1.06128g of Lactic Acid per mL of 88% Lactic Acid.
30 g. / 1.06128 = 28.26775 mL of 88% Lactic Acid required
28.26775 mL x 11.451 mEq/mL @ pH 5.4 = 323.69 mEq of acid

Of course 3% lactic acid is sprayed upon 97% base malt to sum to 100%, so 0.97 Kg is likely a Pilsner type base malt, and that malt is basic to the tune of about a ballpark of around 14 mEq/mL, so in reality acid malt must have closer to 323.7 mEq/Kg + (0.97 x 14) = ~337.28 mEq/Kg as acid (specifically to a target of pH 5.4).
 
Last edited:
OP
Silver_Is_Money

Silver_Is_Money

Larry Sayre, Developer of 'Mash Made Easy'
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
4,989
Reaction score
1,435
Location
N/E Ohio
OK, at least something interesting has finally emerged from my playing around here:

1) Case for 1 mEq moving 50 grams from 5.75 to 5.15 pH

1 mEq/1000 = 0.001 Eq
50 grams/1000 g/Kg = 0.05 Kg
BC = log (0.001 Eq÷(0.050 Kg*(10^−5.15−10^−5.75)))
BC = 3.57666

2) Case for 20 mEq moving 1000 grams (1 Kg.) from 5.75 to 5.15 pH (as verified via and taken directly from AJ's BC chart)

20 mEq/1000 = 0.02 Eq
1000 grams/1000 grams/ Kg= 1 Kg
BC = log (0.02 Eq÷(1 Kg*(10^−5.15−10^−5.75))
BC = 3.57666

3.57666= 3.57666

Note that in the above I replaced the 200 mL from my initial stab at this equation with 50 grams, as there is 'effectively' no titratable acid present within DI water to speak of, so 'effectively' all of it has to be coming from the 50 grams of malt only. The water is merely a carrier for the malt, and its volume is highly irrelevant. But the weight of the malt is critical.
Since I'm purely stabbing wildly at what this 3.5766 BC factor might be, might it mean that this hypothetical base malt requires the addition of 3.5766 times more acid mEq's to move it from 5.75 pH to 5.15 pH than it would have required if no buffering at all was present within this malt? Might this be what the log derived BC is telling us? Purely a wild stab, so go easy on my ignorance here.

I'm also aware that 10^−5.15/10^−5.75 = 3.98107, meaning nearly 4 times more H+ ions are present in solution when at pH 5.15 than are present at pH 5.75.
 

Big Monk

Trappist Please! 🍷
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
2,183
Reaction score
1,106
I just checked and Mash Made Easy 9.30 says 300L Roast Barley has a DI_pH of 4.70 and 47.24 mEq/Kg acidity be removed whereby to move 1 Kg to pH 5.4.

Also in MME I simply assume acidulated malt at 323.69 mEq/Kg acidity to be removed whereby to move 1 Kg. to pH 5.4, and I also assume 3% by weight equivalent as 88% lactic acid. But I permit the latitude to vary this acidity strength/quantity presumption by the end user. I just checked and in MME 9.30 it requires 30.24 grams of Baking Soda (after allowance for poor dissociation) to neutralize 323.69 mEq, of acidity, or alternately 15.92 grams of Calcium Hydroxide (whereby Ca(OH)2 brings a lot of calcium on board and it also needs to be addressed, and is (thus the computed 15.92 grams required vs. ~11.99 grams if there was no added calcium simultaneously releasing H+ ions from the grist).

1,000 g. acidulated malt x 3% presumed to be lactic acid = 30 grams of pure lactic acid.
88% x 1.206 g/mL density = 1.06128g of Lactic Acid per mL of 88% Lactic Acid.
30 g. / 1.06128 = 28.26775 mL of 88% Lactic Acid required
28.26775 mL x 11.451 mEq/mL @ pH 5.4 = 323.69 mEq of acid

Of course 3% lactic acid is sprayed upon 97% base malt to sum to 100%, so 0.97 Kg is likely a Pilsner type base malt, and that malt is basic to the tune of about a ballpark of around 14 mEq/mL, so in reality acid malt must have closer to 323.7 mEq/Kg + (0.97 x 14) = ~337.28 mEq/Kg as acid.
This has essentially become a one on one dialogue, so in the interest of open discussion, let me give a few of my thoughts:

1.) I trust A.J.'s measurements of the malts listed but make no claims about their general application to malts of similar categorization. What i tried to do was take all of the available data, use Riffe's normalizations from his paper, and apply A.J.'s values to craft what I thought we decent generalizations, i.e. malt classes:

1597342888342.png

2.) Sauermalz is tricky. There is some debate as to its production, with people like myself thinking it's actually produced with Sauergut rather than Lactic Acid, others thinking Lactic Acid is sprayed on it, and others still believing the old process of allowing Lactic Acid to naturally occur on the malt then halting it is the culprit. I'm inclined to think the 3rd option (Naturally occurring lactic acid) is too unwieldy and that spraying with lactic acid too expensive. Regardless, Sauermalz is a malt. This means that strictly speaking, it does not behave like a malt or a straight lactic acid, except for a specific case at a specific pH:

1597343191896.png


To my point earlier in this thread about thinking and adapting on the fly, my "New Sauermalz" malt class was a response to my working with @Robert65 over at our forum to try and apply what he was witnessing in his brewery to a new set of 2 term titration data.

What we did first was correct Rob's assumption about the general acid content of Sauermalz. He had been assuming 3% for sometime and the actual correlation point on the graph is 3.13%. Then I took 3-4 brew sessions worth of dat from Rob (who, like me, is an avid Sauermalz user) and we were able to tweak the "New Sauermalz" class until it match histgorical data for him. The ultimate test came from actual use in his brewery with a simple Pils grain bill with just Pilsner malt and Sauermalz, which gave very good results in my sheet.
 
OP
Silver_Is_Money

Silver_Is_Money

Larry Sayre, Developer of 'Mash Made Easy'
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
4,989
Reaction score
1,435
Location
N/E Ohio
Acidulated malt would indeed be tricky, being a hybrid mix of a base malt (which is basic with respect to typical mash pH targets) and a Lactobacillus derived acid, which is likely to be good old lactic acid regardless of source. Fortunately for us, the lines cross right near the most common mash pH target. And therefore error derived from a presumption of lactic acid at a percentage of 3.0 to 3.2% isn't going to be much from 5.4 to 5.55 pH as the mash target. The biggest problem for acidulated is likely to be noticeable lot to lot mEq/Kg acidity swings, which may be pronounced.
 

Big Monk

Trappist Please! 🍷
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
2,183
Reaction score
1,106
Acidulated malt would indeed be tricky, being a hybrid mix of a base malt (which is basic with respect to typical mash pH targets) and a Lactobacillus derived acid, which is likely to be good old lactic acid regardless of source. Fortunately for us, the lines cross right near the most common mash pH target. And therefore error derived from a presumption of lactic acid at a percentage of 3.0 to 3.2% isn't going to be much from 5.4 to 5.55 pH as the mash target. The biggest problem for acidulated is likely to be noticeable lot to lot mEq/Kg acidity swings, which may be pronounced.
At least with respect to Weyermann, it varies very little. No more than their base malt does, which is very little from lot to lot.
 
OP
Silver_Is_Money

Silver_Is_Money

Larry Sayre, Developer of 'Mash Made Easy'
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
4,989
Reaction score
1,435
Location
N/E Ohio
When computing pHDI and then titrating to determine a specific malts acidity and computing the buffering factor, it would be interesting to do multiple Congress mashes of 50 grams of malt mashed in 200 mL of DI or distilled water, and undertake titrations whereby to look for any noticeable differences.

1st: The 50 g. of malt crushed with a mill gap of 0.2 mm whereby to effectively pulverize the grist. Measure pHDI and titrate with grist present.
2nd: The 50 g. of malt crushed with a mill gap of 0.2 mm whereby to effectively pulverize the grist. Measure pHDI and titrate wort which has been decanted off of the grist.
3rd: The 50 g. of malt crushed with a mill gap of 0,8 mm whereby to represent the home mill crush. Measure pHDI and titrate with grist present.
4th: The 50 g. of malt crushed with a mill gap of 0.8 mm whereby to represent the home mill crush. Measure pHDI and titrate wort which has been decanted off of the grist.
5th: The 50 g. of malt crushed with a mill gap of 1.0 mm whereby to represent a typical LHBS crush. Measure pHDI and titrate with grist present.
6th: The 50 g. of malt crushed with a mill gap of 1.0 mm whereby to represent a typical LHBS crush. Measure pHDI and titrate wort which has been decanted off of the grist.

When decanting Wort from grist place in a small bag (or doubled cheese cloth) and squeeze out as much Wort as is possible.

My initial presumption is that a quantitative measure of the multiplicative buffering coefficient compensation factor (kludge) may emerge from this form of experimentation, as titrant quantities required may vary measurably. I presume that the pHDI should remain constant across all 6 samples, but it would seriously rock the boat if pHDI exhibits change. This would also test the commonly held presumption that Wort and grist buffer valuations are one and the same (whereby when grist is still present one is measuring grist, and when it is not present one is measuring Wort).

To make it real interesting perform two sets of the above. One with the 6 samples at 20 degree C. room temperature for pH measurement and titration, and the other with all of them at mash temperature.
 
Last edited:

ScrewyBrewer

ezRecipe - Beer Recipe Design Made Easy!
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Jun 5, 2010
Messages
1,748
Reaction score
391
Location
New Jersey
Catch me up on this again. Does 'the kludge' refer to what Mark calls Malt buffering factor, and what Larry calls Grist Buffer Multiplier? I ask because AJ's titrations were done using pulverized grain, whereas brewers use a coarser crush. When last contacted Mark had settled on .65 being a good average setting for most homebrewers.
 

Big Monk

Trappist Please! 🍷
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
2,183
Reaction score
1,106
Catch me up on this again. Does 'the kludge' refer to what Mark calls Malt buffering factor, and what Larry calls Grist Buffer Multiplier? I ask because AJ's titrations were done using pulverized grain, whereas brewers use a coarser crush. When last contacted Mark had settled on .65 being a good average setting for most homebrewers.
My opinion is that the “kludge” is not a universally required. It treats a symptom rather than the problem. It stands to reason that it could be an important lever for some, but is not required for all.
 
OP
Silver_Is_Money

Silver_Is_Money

Larry Sayre, Developer of 'Mash Made Easy'
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
4,989
Reaction score
1,435
Location
N/E Ohio
Catch me up on this again. Does 'the kludge' refer to what Mark calls Malt buffering factor, and what Larry calls Grist Buffer Multiplier? I ask because AJ's titrations were done using pulverized grain, whereas brewers use a coarser crush. When last contacted Mark had settled on .65 being a good average setting for most homebrewers.
Yes, that is it.
 
OP
Silver_Is_Money

Silver_Is_Money

Larry Sayre, Developer of 'Mash Made Easy'
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
4,989
Reaction score
1,435
Location
N/E Ohio
My opinion is that the “kludge” is not a universally required. It treats a symptom rather than the problem. It stands to reason that it could be an important lever for some, but is not required for all.
If the symptom is poor efficiency due primarily to crush, and there is indeed correlation thereby as my proposed test seen in post #137 would reveal, then it is a major problem for most of us. Needs tested for confirmation.
 

Big Monk

Trappist Please! 🍷
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
2,183
Reaction score
1,106
If the symptom is poor efficiency due primarily to crush, and there is indeed correlation thereby as my proposed test seen in post #137 would reveal, then it is a major problem for most of us. Needs tested for confirmation.
It's an easily rectified problem. Poor efficiency due to crush is a problem in and of itself, not one related directed to, and only to, pH estimation. Therefore, you should not address it in pH estimation, i.e. fix the underlying issue, not code in a kludge in another part of the process.

We have a number of cooler brewers at the LOB forum who crush coarsely and don't recirculate who have zero issues with this.
 
OP
Silver_Is_Money

Silver_Is_Money

Larry Sayre, Developer of 'Mash Made Easy'
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
4,989
Reaction score
1,435
Location
N/E Ohio
I just added Acid Malt to my upcoming 'Mash Made Easy' 9.30 testing version as a standard grist addition, using a single point titration, pHDI 3.622, an acid strength of 323.69 mEq/Kg_ph5.4, and a buffer value of 180. When compensated to 3% lactic acid this buffer value becomes 180/0.03 = 6,000. The buffer is then user adjustable as to acid strength (same as before), and it also responds/adjusts to minerals added mEq's. Its implied lactic acid even adjusts itself as to relative acid strength with regard to the targeted mash pH (I.E., in step with its changing dissociation). Seems to work perfectly (so far in testing) at 5.4 as the mash pH target, and is only slightly off at other mash pH targets (likely due to the deviation seen within the AJ chart which Big Monk posted above), whereby it is hardly a concern for up to 5.6 pH as the target, and the most error is seen for setting a mash target of 5.1 or 5.2 (which personally I see as a mistake, favoring 5.5 or 5.55 as I do). But even at pH 5.2 as the target it should be acceptably tolerable. The best method of course is to let MME pick the acidulated malt addition quantity as it has always done, but a number of users have made this request of me. And if you leave the mash pH target at 5.4, the results are nigh on mirror images.
 
Last edited:
OP
Silver_Is_Money

Silver_Is_Money

Larry Sayre, Developer of 'Mash Made Easy'
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
4,989
Reaction score
1,435
Location
N/E Ohio
Actually it is still unknown as to what is driving the need for the multiplier. And as to whether its addition is justified or warranted in any way. The best solution in my opinion seems to be to add it and let the user set it whereby to bring prediction in line with user/local reality. It may be unnecessary for some (set it at 1 for this), necessary at some unknown value for others, and necessary at a range of wholly differing values for others (all spanning from 0.60 to 1.00). In my opinion it is a mistake in "fixing" its magnitude internally and not allowing for it to vary.
 
Last edited:
OP
Silver_Is_Money

Silver_Is_Money

Larry Sayre, Developer of 'Mash Made Easy'
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
4,989
Reaction score
1,435
Location
N/E Ohio
I just did some more minor tweaking. Now I get these values in MME_9.30_Testing for 1 Kg. of Acid Malt:

For pH 5.4 and DI Water
320.03 mEq/Kg with Lattic Acid % set to 3.00
330.69 mEq/Kg with Lattic Acid % set to 3.10
341.36 mEq/Kg with Lattic Acid % set to 3.20

For pH 5.6 and DI Water
352.34 mEq/Kg with Lattic Acid % set to 3.00
364.09 mEq/Kg with Lattic Acid % set to 3.10
375.83 mEq/Kg with Lattic Acid % set to 3.20

For pH 5.2 and DI Water
288.68 mEq/Kg with Lattic Acid % set to 3.00
298.31 mEq/Kg with Lattic Acid % set to 3.10
307.93 mEq/Kg with Lattic Acid % set to 3.20

Unless I'm looking at AJ's chart incorectly, MME at 3% lactic acid for acidulated is tracking Sauermalz and not lactic acid. And it is doing so without a 3 point titration method.

Version 9.30 will display all of this directly on the main screen for stand alone acid malt (or any other stand alone malt) set to a weight of 1 Kg (2.20462 Lbs.) and for mineralization set to zero. When malts are not stand alone, the display is for their combined aggregate impact with respect to weight(s).
 
Last edited:

Big Monk

Trappist Please! 🍷
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
2,183
Reaction score
1,106
I just did some more minor tweaking. Now I get these values in MME_9.30_Testing for 1 Kg. of Acid Malt:

For pH 5.4 and DI Water
320.03 mEq/Kg with Lattic Acid % set to 3.00
330.69 mEq/Kg with Lattic Acid % set to 3.10
341.36 mEq/Kg with Lattic Acid % set to 3.20

For pH 5.6 and DI Water
352.34 mEq/Kg with Lattic Acid % set to 3.00
364.09 mEq/Kg with Lattic Acid % set to 3.10
375.83 mEq/Kg with Lattic Acid % set to 3.20

For pH 5.2 and DI Water
288.68 mEq/Kg with Lattic Acid % set to 3.00
298.31 mEq/Kg with Lattic Acid % set to 3.10
307.93 mEq/Kg with Lattic Acid % set to 3.20

Unless I'm looking at AJ's chart incorectly, MME at 3% lactic acid for acidulated is tracking Sauermalz and not lactic acid. And it is doing so without a 3 point titration method.

Version 9.30 will display all of this directly on the main screen for stand alone acid malt (or any other stand alone malt) set to a weight of 1 Kg (2.20462 Lbs.) and for mineralization set to zero. When malts are not stand alone, the display is for their combined aggregate impact with respect to weight(s).
I believe you are interpreting the chart incorrectly. Note that A.J.'s chart tracks the crossover point between the curves as 3.13%. Your 5.4 values are in the wheelhouse, 5.6 are closer, but your 5.2 values are off a bit.

When I was revising my Sauermalz malt class, I had to ditch a3 and revise a2. Mine tracks pretty closely across the spectrum, but then again, I targeted the values associated with A.J.'s graph and assume 3.13% Lactic Acid.
 
OP
Silver_Is_Money

Silver_Is_Money

Larry Sayre, Developer of 'Mash Made Easy'
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
4,989
Reaction score
1,435
Location
N/E Ohio
I wonder if the red line was supposed to be the one marked 31.1 grams of lactic acid, and the blue line was supposed to be the one representing 1 Kg. of acid malt? The blue line certainly appears to bear the smoothing impact of the base malt carrier upon the sprayed on acid (whereby the carrier is likely a base malt of about pHDI 5.63 and buffer value of 34.4 as my first guess).
 

Big Monk

Trappist Please! 🍷
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
2,183
Reaction score
1,106
I wonder if the red line was supposed to be the one marked 31.1 grams of lactic acid, and the blue line was supposed to be the one representing 1 Kg. of acid malt?
I don;t think so. If you crunch the dQ numbers for A.J.'s unaltered 3 term Sauermalz titration, it matches the red line exactly.
 
OP
Silver_Is_Money

Silver_Is_Money

Larry Sayre, Developer of 'Mash Made Easy'
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
4,989
Reaction score
1,435
Location
N/E Ohio
Not that it matters, because a 3 point titration should technically (by its exponential "fit" nature) yield a better fit than will a single point titration, but the audience reading this should be aware that titration curves are generally wavy and not smooth, due to such things as dissociation constants and their pesky Ka and pKa values deflecting the curve. So any smooth curve "fit" to a wavy titration curve is merely a "fit", and not a representation of the actual titrations reality at each point.

Short version: All of AJ's curves are very highly idealized and hypothetical in nature thereby, and they are not point by point representations of real titration curves.

Shorter version: The 3 titration points hit the curve, but the curve is not as he depicts it, and no other math modeled points are likely to actually hit the curve, precisely as for a single point titration.

At the extreme ends of the curve the error may be radically obvious. But fortunately, just as for linear representations, we play on a field which is restricted to either side of a pH target point and not at the extreme ends.
 
Last edited:

Big Monk

Trappist Please! 🍷
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
2,183
Reaction score
1,106
Not that it matters, because a 3 point titration should technically (by its exponential "fit" nature) yield a better fit than will a single point titration, but the audience reading this should be aware that titration curves are generally wavy and not smooth, due to such things as dissociation constants and their pesky Ka and pKa values deflecting the curve. So any smooth curve "fit" to a wavy titration curve is merely a "fit", and not a representation of the actual titrations reality at each point.

Short version: All of AJ's curves are very highly idealized and hypothetical in nature thereby, and they are not point by point representations of real titration curves.

Shorter version: The 3 titration points hit the curve, but the curve is not as he depicts it, and no other math modeled points are likely to actually hit the curve, precisely as for a single point titration.

At the extreme ends of the curve the error may be radically obvious. But fortunately, just as for linear representations, we play on a field which is restricted to either side of a pH target point and not at the extreme ends.
I agree with you on this. I was just trying to clarify your question about which curve was which.

Also worth noting are the differences between the known titration sets for Sauermalz, my original European Sauermalz malt class, and my "New Sauermalz" malt class:

Originator pH DIa1a2a3
deLange (Titration)3.65-292.0968.44-5.39
Walts (Titration)3.41-345.9369.430.00
Troester 1 (Titration)3.43-138.860.000.00
Troester 2 (Titration)3.44-158.500.000.00
Scott 1 (Original Euro Sauermalz)(Adaption/Generalization)3.50-319.0168.94-5.40
Scott 2 (New Sauermalz)(Adaption/Generalization)3.50-319.0174.490.00

I arrived at my values pretty quickly. I abandoned Kai's a1 values as outliers, as they did not seem to jive with A.J. and Joe's values. pH DI was a toss up, as the Weyermann data and the straight up average of all 4 sets were nearly the same:

1597423926922.png

a1 and a2 was simply an average of the deLange\Walts sets, and a3 is simply A.J.'s a3.

When doing the revision, I worked with @Robert65 and tweaked it to match the curves from A.J., such that it followed, roughly of course, the crossover point in mEq for Lactic and Sauermalz across the usual band of pH.
 
OP
Silver_Is_Money

Silver_Is_Money

Larry Sayre, Developer of 'Mash Made Easy'
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
4,989
Reaction score
1,435
Location
N/E Ohio
I've seen rather nice looking auto-titrators for as little as $2,880. :coff4:

As stated earlier, if malt titrations are carried out from pHDI directly to the desired target mash pH the error is zero even for the single titration method. I inquired a month or two ago as to whether anyone would have interest in paying to have their malts titrated (whereby to justify buying such an instrument, such as I was considering), and no one had interest.
 
OP
Silver_Is_Money

Silver_Is_Money

Larry Sayre, Developer of 'Mash Made Easy'
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
4,989
Reaction score
1,435
Location
N/E Ohio
It's amazing that so many seem to dwell long and hard and even seem to nigh on panic over water profiles and then seem to care less about the inner workings of their malts. As if there is pure mystical beer making magic which resides only within water, but malts are just malts, so who cares. Their faith in water is such that they are willing to pay for a water analysis, but then they wouldn't give a whiff of a thought of cough up a dime as to having their malts analyzed such that when combined they will play nice together.
 
Last edited:

Big Monk

Trappist Please! 🍷
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
2,183
Reaction score
1,106
It's amazing that so many seem to dwell long and hard and even seem to nigh on panic over water profiles and then seem to care less about the inner workings of their malts. As if there is pure mystical beer making magic which resides only within water, but malts are just malts, so who cares. Their faith in water is such that they are willing to pay for a water analysis, but then they wouldn't give a whiff of a thought of cough up a dime as to having their malts analyzed such that when combined they will play nice together.
Frankly, this stuff has been floating around for years. It's not terribly difficult to understand, but harder to implement from a calculation standpoint.

What's interesting is that you can get really great results with the color based method a la Bru'n Water when you correct for pH DI. And yet, no one has even done that. So asking people to consider titration, etc. is sometimes too heavy a lift. Some of the easiest tweaks to the Troester/BW/Original Riffe MpH models are:

1.) Use pH DI for the specific base malts;
2.) Model Munich malt as crystal malt;
3.) Model Sauermalz as 3.13% equivalent Lactic acid.

Those tweaks alone vastly improve that model.
 
OP
Silver_Is_Money

Silver_Is_Money

Larry Sayre, Developer of 'Mash Made Easy'
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
4,989
Reaction score
1,435
Location
N/E Ohio
EZ Water seems to permit such changes, but to my knowledge the others do not. MME certainly does.
 

Big Monk

Trappist Please! 🍷
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
2,183
Reaction score
1,106
EZ Water seems to permit such changes, but to my knowledge the others do not. MME certainly does.
What I meant was that sheets using that general color based malt model benefit greatly from those tweaks. You obviously can't edit those things directly in Bru'n Water but you can easily construct it's underlying algorithm from Riffe's early papers.
 
OP
Silver_Is_Money

Silver_Is_Money

Larry Sayre, Developer of 'Mash Made Easy'
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
4,989
Reaction score
1,435
Location
N/E Ohio
In all of this, the initial discussion of a new SRM based method and stemming from it, 'SRM Made Easy', seems to have taken a 'way' back seat. Mash Made Easy 9.30 is not far from public release. Should I toss 'SRM Made Easy' (SME) into MME as a tab/sheet to go along with all of the other bundled tools and aids that come standard with MME? Sometimes you simply want a snappy assessment, and entering everything just seems to take too long, and that's where SME comes to the rescue. Or if you would rather just make a single adjustment pre-boil or midway during the boil, that's where 'Kettle pH Made Easy' comes in handy.
 

Big Monk

Trappist Please! 🍷
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
2,183
Reaction score
1,106
In all of this, the initial discussion of a new SRM based method and stemming from it, 'SRM Made Easy', seems to have taken a 'way' back seat. Mash Made Easy 9.30 is not far from public release. Should I toss 'SRM Made Easy' (SME) into MME as a tab/sheet to go along with all of the other bundled tools and aids that come standard with MME? Sometimes you simply want a snappy assessment, and entering everything just seems to take too long, and that's where SME comes to the rescue. Or if you would rather just make a single adjustment pre-boil or midway during the boil, that's where 'Kettle pH Made Easy' comes in handy.
I think it's just you and I Larry. ;)
 
OP
Silver_Is_Money

Silver_Is_Money

Larry Sayre, Developer of 'Mash Made Easy'
Joined
Dec 31, 2016
Messages
4,989
Reaction score
1,435
Location
N/E Ohio
Perhaps! Thanks for the point/counterpoint.

More than 3,000 hits though. A tough crowd.
 
Last edited:

IceChisel

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2020
Messages
65
Reaction score
4
These things have been discussed ad nauseam. The chemistry and related calculations are well above and beyond most visiting the forum. Mash pH calculators and prediction algorithms are useful tools but not necessities. Even this simplistic calculator grew complex. Kaiser's original paper was easy to follow and so we're some of AJ's work.

Useful work from here on out would encompass:

1. Better user interfaces than a spreadsheet.
2. A well written paper that summarises all of the algorithms and calculations put into these spreadsheets.
 

Big Monk

Trappist Please! 🍷
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
2,183
Reaction score
1,106
These things have been discussed ad nauseam. The chemistry and related calculations are well above and beyond most visiting the forum. Mash pH calculators and prediction algorithms are useful tools but not necessities. Even this simplistic calculator grew complex. Kaiser's original paper was easy to follow and so we're some of AJ's work.

Useful work from here on out would encompass:

1. Better user interfaces than a spreadsheet.
2. A well written paper that summarises all of the algorithms and calculations put into these spreadsheets.
1.) Spreadsheets allow developers to deliver powerful algorithms for free. User interfaces are only limited by the creativity of the developer. Coding is time consuming and true software based programs for Windows, etc. would require a user base willing to pay, which sadly, homebrewers aren’t known to be fond of.

2.) Why? I’m not against the idea but what purpose would that serve? All these calcs are common knowledge. A.J.’s stuff is well documented, Riffe has documented very well, etc.
 
Top