The worlds easiest mash pH adjustment assistant method?

[Silver_Is_Money]

I've seen rather nice looking auto-titrators for as little as $2,880.

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.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

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.

 

[Big Monk]

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.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

EZ Water seems to permit such changes, but to my knowledge the others do not. MME certainly does.

 

[Big Monk]

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.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

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]

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.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

Perhaps! Thanks for the point/counterpoint.

More than 3,000 hits though. A tough crowd.

 

[IceChisel]

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]

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.

 

[Big Monk]

Perhaps! Thanks for the point/counterpoint.

More than 3,000 hits though. A tough crowd.

That is pretty crazy. Means there is interest but we’re likely scaring them off.

 

[bob1852]

That is pretty crazy. Means there is interest but we’re likely scaring them off.

Still waiting for something that's described as 'the world's easiest..."

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

Still waiting for something that's described as 'the world's easiest..."

Have you tried it? Just click on it in post #69 way back on page 2.

 

[ScrewyBrewer]

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.

I don't see the grain buffer multiplier as a kludge, to me that word is a little too harsh for what it is intended to do. Before beginning his titration testing AJ pulverized his grain into a fine flour and that is something brewers will never do intentionally. He must have done so for a reason probably related to maintaining lab conditions throughout his testing.

The grain buffer multiplier lets brewers compensate for buffer discrepancies between the same grain when milled into a fine powder (100%) or into a coarser crush (65%). Buffer calculations referencing the GBM% can then more closely model the buffering capacity of the same grains whether milled finer or coarser with more accuracy. In my mind utilizing the grain buffer multiplier is a necessary and important feature to include in any brewing software.

Keep in mind that not every brewer is going to get 80%-95% efficiency out of their brewing system. Most are likely to add some additional grain or extract to their recipes to hit their gravity numbers. I know I fall into that category and am satisfied to hit 75%-80% efficiency when brewing on my own brewing system.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

@Big Monk : With regard to your mention of modeling Munich directly as a Caramel/Crystal malt, MME is not presently nearly that radical. Here is how I "currently" have their mEq's stacking up against each other in MME 9.30, for 1 Kg. of malt in DI water being moved to a targeted pH of 5.4. Positive mEq's as seen here mean basic with respect to 5.4 pH (requiring added acid), and negative mEq's mean acidic with respect to 5.4 pH (requiring added caustic):

6L Munich, +9.35 mEq's required to drive it to pH 5.4
6L Caramel, -14.35 mEq's required to drive it to pH 5.4

10L Munich, +5.55 mEq's required to drive it to pH 5.4
10L Caramel, -16.16 mEq's required to drive it to pH 5.4

20L Munich, -3.95 mEq's required to drive it to pH 5.4
20L Caramel, -20.89 mEq's required to drive it to pH 5.4

30L Munich, -13.45 mEq's required to drive it to pH 5.4
30L Caramel, -25.79 mEq's required to drive it to pH 5.4

Big Monk, since you have studied the various Munich's along with the assistance of @Robert65, is it possible for you to compute specifically these same mEq valuations via your math model so we can compare them side by side? I would like to have Munich modeling better before releasing MME 9.30. Perhaps I need to slope them such that all of them require caustic.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

I don't see the grain buffer multiplier as a kludge, to me that word is a little too harsh for what it is intended to do. Before beginning his titration testing AJ pulverized his grain into a fine flour and that is something brewers will never do intentionally. He must have done so for a reason probably related to maintaining lab conditions throughout his testing.

I believe he most likely was merely following standardized EBC procedure for a Congress Mash, and likely it calls for pulverizing. Charles Bamforth often mentions that small Congress Mashes do not scale well to production level. But he never explains why.

Anything for which there is only empirical evidence of functionality without repeatable and thereby verified technical explanation as to the "why" of it is in my book a kludge.

Don't quote me on this mere aside, but for some reason I recall AJ mentioning that Congress Mash procedure calls for measuring pHDI at mash temperature.

 

[ScrewyBrewer]

I believe he most likely was merely following standardized EBC procedure for a Congress Mash, and likely it calls for pulverizing. Charles Bamforth often mentions that small Congress Mashes do not scale well to production level. But he never explains why.

Knowing something about how AJ works over the years I believe you're right. He approaches science in a very disciplined and methodical way.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

Back to Munich malt. I just checked the Riffe publication and it does not equate Munich malt acidity with that of crystal malt. Not even close. Unless I'm misreading his data.

 

[IceChisel]

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.

1. Many coding tools are free. In fact MS Visual Studio is free, not sure about Apple products. You probably have as many hours in your spreadsheets as it would take to make a reasonable program with a decent UI. Why would a program have to be charged for? Your spreadsheets are given away free.

Not arguing though, as this has all been discussed ad nauseam.

2. That means nothing new is being brought to the table save the documentation of various malt parameters. Still a well written easily accessible (to those with limited knowledge) documentation of the algorithms would be welcome by most. I understand AJ, Kai, and Riffe explain in their papers as well but each is a little different.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

1. Many coding tools are free. In fact MS Visual Studio is free, not sure about Apple products. You probably have as many hours in your spreadsheets as it would take to make a reasonable program with a decent UI. Why would a program have to be charged for? Your spreadsheets are given away free.

Not arguing though, as this has all been discussed ad nauseam.

2. That means nothing new is being brought to the table save the documentation of various malt parameters. Still a well written easily accessible (to those with limited knowledge) documentation of the algorithms would be welcome by most. I understand AJ, Kai, and Riffe explain in their papers as well but each is a little different.

SRM based 'Step #4' is radically new. So is normalizing SRM to an OG of 1.050. And so is compensating for these so as to derive a better grist_mEq.

This is what is new:

Step 3.5, normalize SRM to 1.050 OG:
Normalized_SRM = NSRM = Actual_SRM * (-7.5*OG + 8.875)

Step 4: Calculate the anticipated pre-adjustment mash pH (pH_M).
pH_M =(0.001*NSRM+1)*(Base_Malt_DI_pH +0.09)-0.035*NSRM+0.0003*NSRM^2 + %_Deep Roast/100
(whereby for example if deep roast is 15% of grist weight, then 15/100 = 0.15 to be added)

Step 5.5) Calculate the adjusted mEq_Grist (which is required due to normalizing the SRM):
Adjusted_mEq_Grist = Step_5_mEq_Grist/(-2*OG + 3.1)

The rest is common knowledge that is in the public domain.

 

[ScrewyBrewer]

1. Many coding tools are free. In fact MS Visual Studio is free, not sure about Apple products. You probably have as many hours in your spreadsheets as it would take to make a reasonable program with a decent UI. Why would a program have to be charged for? Your spreadsheets are given away free.

Not arguing though, as this has all been discussed ad nauseam.

2. That means nothing new is being brought to the table save the documentation of various malt parameters. Still a well written easily accessible (to those with limited knowledge) documentation of the algorithms would be welcome by most. I understand AJ, Kai, and Riffe explain in their papers as well but each is a little different.

Spreadsheets are a great prototyping tool but my goal has always been to develop a browser-based version and that costs money. Added to the webserver hosting fees, domain name and SSL certificate costs can easily run into the hundreds of dollars believe me I know. At some point it becomes important to know that people appreciate your effort and are willing to help you cover some of those costs.

 

[Big Monk]

@Big Monk : With regard to your mention of modeling Munich directly as a Caramel/Crystal malt, MME is not presently nearly that radical. Here is how I "currently" have their mEq's stacking up against each other in MME 9.30, for 1 Kg. of malt in DI water being moved to a targeted pH of 5.4. Positive mEq's as seen here mean basic with respect to 5.4 pH (requiring added acid), and negative mEq's mean acidic with respect to 5.4 pH (requiring added caustic):

6L Munich, +9.35 mEq's required to drive it to pH 5.4
6L Caramel, -14.35 mEq's required to drive it to pH 5.4

10L Munich, +5.55 mEq's required to drive it to pH 5.4
10L Caramel, -16.16 mEq's required to drive it to pH 5.4

20L Munich, -3.95 mEq's required to drive it to pH 5.4
20L Caramel, -20.89 mEq's required to drive it to pH 5.4

30L Munich, -13.45 mEq's required to drive it to pH 5.4
30L Caramel, -25.79 mEq's required to drive it to pH 5.4

Big Monk, since you have studied the various Munich's along with the assistance of @Robert65, is it possible for you to compute specifically these same mEq valuations via your math model so we can compare them side by side? I would like to have Munich modeling better before releasing MME 9.30. Perhaps I need to slope them such that all of them require caustic.

I meant that in color based (L based) malt models, Munich models better as crystal.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

Spreadsheets are a great prototyping tool but my goal has always been to develop a browser-based version and that costs money. Added to the webserver hosting fees, domain name and SSL certificate costs can easily run into the hundreds of dollars believe me I know. At some point it becomes important to know that people appreciate your effort and are willing to help you cover some of those costs.

The problem I see here is taking what is in the public domain and charging money for it. It goes along with my contention that you don't sell the steak, you sell the sizzle, and that you don't sell the stuff, you sell the fluff.

I attempted to go it alone with my unique logarithm based approach, but when I finally honed it in I quickly realized its output was more and more becoming nigh on a dead ringer to far less complex public domain methods.

My feeling is that if you uniquely develop it, you are justified in charging for it (albeit that I never did). But if it is public domain, then the intent appears to be one whereby to gain profit upon repackaging (fluff and sizzling) the work of others. This is of course only my opinion.

 

[ScrewyBrewer]

The problem I see here is taking what is in the public domain and charging money for it. It goes along with my contention that you don't sell the steak, you sell the sizzle, and that you don't sell the stuff, you sell the fluff.

I attempted to go it alone with my unique logarithm based approach, but when I finally honed it in I quickly realized its output was nigh on a dead ringer to far less complex public domain methods.

My feeling is that if you uniquely develop it, you are justified in charging for it (albeit that I never did). But if it is public domain, then the intent appears to gain profit upon repackaging (fluff and sizzling) the work of others. This is of course only my opinion.

I say it's best to give the people what they want and what they are willing to invest in. People want recipe creation to be something that is easy to do and that makes the process an enjoyable one. It's not just about getting somewhere its also about enjoying the journey.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

I surmise that the best thing that appears to be emerging is the uselessness of cluttering up the 'engine' of mash pH adjustment assistant software via building and evolving it around an 'engine' of RA (Residual Alkalinity). For a good while (years to perhaps decades) it appeared as if every publication was focusing heavily upon RA, and no book or magazine published article touching upon this subject was seen to be complete without at least mentioning (drooling over, fumbling over, contorting, feigning, etc...) understanding and thereby utilizing it. AJ gets credit in my book for first mentioning the uselessness of it.

 

[Big Monk]

Back to Munich malt. I just checked the Riffe publication and it does not equate Munich malt acidity with that of crystal malt. Not even close. Unless I'm misreading his data.

I’m telling you that in practice, Munich malt models as if it were a low L Crystal malt.

I’m not saying anyone explicitly says that, but it is objectively true compared to tons of data between myself and others, particularly from our forum.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

I’m telling you that in practice, Munich malt models as if it were a low L Crystal malt.

I’m not saying anyone explicitly says that, but it is objectively true compared to tons of data between myself and others, particularly from our forum.

Is 10L crystal in the ballpark of Munich? Does it exhibit any color associated mEq variability such as for crystal?

 

[ScrewyBrewer]

I surmise that the best thing that appears to be emerging is the uselessness of cluttering up the 'engine' of mash pH adjustment assistant software via building and evolving it around an 'engine' of RA (Residual Alkalinity). For a good while (years to perhaps decades) it appeared as if every publication was focusing heavily upon RA, and no book or magazine published article touching upon this subject was seen to be complete without at least mentioning (drooling over, fumbling over, etc...) understanding and thereby utilizing it. AJ gets credit in my book for first mentioning the uselessness of it.

You must be talking about RA as proposed by John Palmer's nomograph some years ago correct? As MpH 4 is using Kolbach and Troester RA calculations.

 

[Big Monk]

Is 10L crystal in the ballpark of Munich? Does it exhibit any color associated mEq variability such as for crystal?

In color based calcs, it was typically good enough to just model it as crystal and use the Munich malts color.

 

[Silver_Is_Money]

You must be talking about RA as proposed by John Palmer's nomograph some years ago correct? As MpH 4 is using Kolbach and Troester RA calculations.

Since I've never used RA, and I don't believe Big Monk uses it, and I know that AJ poo-pooed it, I had no idea that MpH ever used it, let alone still requires it, and I merely surmised that it did not. It is one thing to report it (to satisfy public demand), but another to actually use it. I've never looked under the hood of MpH. I know Palmer, Kai, and EZ Water use(d) it, and that Kai discovered that when applied to mash pH it was somewhat off target, whereby I presume that he modified it.

As I understand it (subject to correction) , Kolbach first developed and used RA pre WW2, and since his stuff was destroyed during the war he recreated it sometime post WW2. AJ translated and published some of it. Kai realized that it was all talking about knock-out pH, and had little to nothing to do with mash pH. AJ then acknowledged that Kai had hit upon something he himself had completely missed. Perhaps right around then is when AJ realized that it is unnecessary.