@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.