surely We can put our collective heads together and provide something more substantial than SRM based pH.
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.
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.
Ask for it to be a sticky if you think it's worth it.
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.
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 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?
Throw in a guesstimate of acid and at some point in time all mashes match the target pH.
Thanks so much for doing this and I look forward to applying it to my program. I'll let you know how it goes. Any recommendation on a PH for dummies book. One other question regarding the Munich and biscuit malts. While they have lovibond numbers similar to some of the crystal malts, they are much less acidic. Does a similar adjustment like the roast malts need to made to the Munichs, just a bit lower like raise step 4 ph .005 for every 1% of grist? Given their often large percentage of the grist, they can have significant upward impact on SRM without the corresponding impact to Ph.For the SRM method I quickly cobbled this together to bring it under a single post as you requested:
Step 1: Pick pH_T (your desired Target mash pH, this is often 5.4 or 5.5)
Step 2: Guess your beers final SRM color (whereby: EBC/1.97 = SRM)
Step 3: Determine your grists weight in Kg. (whereby: Lbs./2.20462 = Kg.)
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: Calculate the grists mEq's of acid or base with respect to your desired mash pH target
mEq's = (pH_M - pH_T)*34*Kg_grist
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)
Step #6,calculate alkalinity mEq's:
(Mash Water Volume in Liters)*(mg/L Alkalinity)/50 = Alkalinity mEq's
Step #7, calculate mineral mEq's:
(Mash Water Volume in Liters)*[(mg/L_Ca)/20/3.5 +(mg/L_Mg)/12.15/7)] = mEq's from Ca and Mg
Step #8, calculate total or overall mEq's:
Total_mEq's = Step#5.5 + Step#6 - Step#7
Step #9: Calculate adjustment to hit target mash pH:
Adjustment = Total_mEq's / mEq/ml (or mEq/gram) for adjusting acid or baking soda. Pick mEq/ml or mEq/gram value from below (these values are specific to pH 5.4 as the target, but are close enough for nearby targeted mash pH's):
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
Test it against 'SRM Made Easy' version 1.03 and if it gives the same adjustment advice I did this correctly.
Thanks so much for doing this and I look forward to applying it to my program. I'll let you know how it goes. Any recommendation on a PH for dummies book. One other question regarding the Munich and biscuit malts. While they have lovibond numbers similar to some of the crystal malts, they are much less acidic. Does a similar adjustment like the roast malts need to made to the Munichs, just a bit lower like raise step 4 ph .005 for every 1% of grist? Given their often large percentage of the grist, they can have significant upward impact on SRM without the corresponding impact to Ph.
After seeing your table on mEqs for the different malts, I was amazed on how correlated lovibond is to mEqs at least within malt types. That said, there should be no reason SRM can't be used as a proxy and a reasonable estimate for PH to be made based on SRM.
Enter your email address to join: