Ro or tap

Make grain beers with the absolute minimum of equipment. Discuss here.
Post Reply
WallyBrew
Hollow Legs
Posts: 473
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 11:30 pm
Location: Surrey

Re: Ro or tap

Post by WallyBrew » Wed Jan 29, 2020 7:55 pm

guypettigrew wrote:
Wed Jan 29, 2020 7:47 pm
guypettigrew wrote:
Wed Jan 29, 2020 9:59 am
Hi BB

To get your water to the right sort of figure of 15-20ppm alkalinity you'll need to add 0.07ml AMS to every litre of raw water you're planning to use.

Guy
Oh dear, I seem to have got this wrong-no idea how! Checking GW's calculator again you'll need to add 0.1ml/litre of AMS to your raw water to get to an alkalinity of 20ppm. Exactly as wallyBrew says. Where the 0.07 I posted earlier came from is a mystery. And a huge embarrassment.

Hang on, just worked it out!!! The 0.1ml/litre changes to 0.07ml/litre when you select 'dry pale ale' as the target liquor, having entered your raw water composition.

Now I'm confused!

So, can anyone explain what's going on? And which is the correct figure for the AMS addition?

Guy
If going for 20 residual from a starting of 38....


(38 - 20) x 21 / 186 = 2.0(3225....) bloody calculators as Eric would say

This assumes CRS/AMS still neutralises 186mg ocalcium carbonate per mL

and yes it does look like it has an issue with the calculation
so go with the manual version

(total alkalinity - required alkalinity) x volume to be treated / 186 ---------- which gives mL to add

Silver_Is_Money
Piss Artist
Posts: 232
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2018 2:35 pm
Location: N/E Ohio, USA
Contact:

Re: Ro or tap

Post by Silver_Is_Money » Wed Jan 29, 2020 8:09 pm

I agree with 0.1 mL of CRS required per Liter if the goal is to have water with ~20 mg/L (ppm) alkalinity.

(38-20)/50.04345 = 0.3597 mEq/L of alkalinity to be removed

0.3597 mEq/L * 33.5 L = 12.05 mEq of alkalinity to be removed

12.05 mEq/3.66 mEq/mL = 3.29235 mL of CRS to be added
(where 3.66 mEq/mL is the acid strength of CRS/AMS)

3.2935 mL CRS / 33.5 L = 0.0983 mL of CRS per Liter
Last edited by Silver_Is_Money on Wed Jan 29, 2020 8:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Developer of 'Mash Made Easy', a free and complete mash pH adjustment assistant spreadsheet

https://mashmadeeasy.yolasite.com/

guypettigrew
Even further under the Table
Posts: 2626
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 7:10 pm
Location: Christchurch, Dorset

Re: Ro or tap

Post by guypettigrew » Wed Jan 29, 2020 8:09 pm

Thanks WB. Manual calculation it will be. What do you think about the calculations in GW's calculator for the salt additions? Are these ok for the 'dry pale ale' style (or any other) and is it just the AMS addition rate which has to be ignored?

Guy

ps this is probably why my AMS additions never match GW's figures when I brew. I always add what I think is about the right amount of AMS for the intended beer style, then use a Salifert kit to fine tune it. Looks like another brewing mystery has been solved!

WallyBrew
Hollow Legs
Posts: 473
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 11:30 pm
Location: Surrey

Re: Ro or tap

Post by WallyBrew » Wed Jan 29, 2020 8:30 pm

I'm not about to go through the workings of a calculator I don't use :D

However, if you select dry pale ale and compare with automatic you will see that the Ca and other figures are the same. At this point you can play with the Cl SO4 balance and see what it does for you. TT Landlord and many other beers are more chloride than sulphate.

User avatar
Eric
Even further under the Table
Posts: 2873
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 1:18 am
Location: Sunderland.

Re: Ro or tap

Post by Eric » Wed Jan 29, 2020 8:39 pm

WallyBrew wrote:
Wed Jan 29, 2020 8:30 pm
I'm not about to go through the workings of a calculator I don't use :D

However, if you select dry pale ale and compare with automatic you will see that the Ca and other figures are the same. At this point you can play with the Cl SO4 balance and see what it does for you. TT Landlord and many other beers are more chloride than sulphate.
Yes, a very good point and I think this wuld be a lot better beer if it were chloride forward. I think it still looks like a mild in my mind and we might come to that yet. Meanwhile to add to the minefield, here's what I did in GW's calculator.
The attachment BBGW.jpg is no longer available
And then taken the liberty of puttin it and other details into MME.
BBGW.jpg
I'll get my head below the parapet for a while.
Without patience, life becomes difficult and the sooner it's finished, the better.

User avatar
Eric
Even further under the Table
Posts: 2873
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 1:18 am
Location: Sunderland.

Re: Ro or tap

Post by Eric » Wed Jan 29, 2020 8:41 pm

BBMME.jpg
I don't know what it did, but not as was intended. Won't mess in case that would make things worse.
Without patience, life becomes difficult and the sooner it's finished, the better.

User avatar
Eric
Even further under the Table
Posts: 2873
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 1:18 am
Location: Sunderland.

Re: Ro or tap

Post by Eric » Wed Jan 29, 2020 9:38 pm

So what difference would using Grham's mild profile? See how JBK reacts to my attempts this time.

Say we accept the alkalinity in the tapwater, there is a reasonable amount of crystal type malt and I'm pro British water treatment.

Fingers crossed, GW's first.
BBGW2.jpg
I might know what I did wrong first time, that is if that worked.

Now for those numbers entered into Mash Made Easy.
BBMME2.jpg
For a pale beer there is, in my opinion, too much salt/sodium, but who knows without brewing one?

James, I'm sorry if this has gone a bit off beam from your original question, but it was a great question, as I think you know.
Last edited by Eric on Wed Jan 29, 2020 9:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Without patience, life becomes difficult and the sooner it's finished, the better.

User avatar
Eric
Even further under the Table
Posts: 2873
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 1:18 am
Location: Sunderland.

Re: Ro or tap

Post by Eric » Wed Jan 29, 2020 9:41 pm

.
Without patience, life becomes difficult and the sooner it's finished, the better.

Silver_Is_Money
Piss Artist
Posts: 232
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2018 2:35 pm
Location: N/E Ohio, USA
Contact:

Re: Ro or tap

Post by Silver_Is_Money » Wed Jan 29, 2020 9:57 pm

Eric's initial attempt at using MME above appears to me to be a great example as to why, in today's world where some sparge and some do not, serious consideration should be given to adding minerals via mEq measurement as opposed to via ppm (mg/L) measurement. For a more traditionally normal mash which includes a sparge, and which would be carried out at a mash thickness of around 3.5 Liters per Kg., such as would invariably have been closer to the nominal case for back when the "beer giants of yore" established the rules for recipes and/or styles nominal "ideal" mineralization levels via ppm, the no-sparge mineralization required to achieve equality with such giants ppm determinations of yore would be far less across the board on a ppm basis, yet (and critically of importance) identical to the giants of yore if measured on a mEq basis. Chemical interactions are carried out strictly on a mEq to mEq basis, and the grist is merely a chemical reactant with a calculable set of mEq's. Flooding a no-sparge batch with calcium and magnesium merely in a vain effort to match the ppm's determined in yore by the giants who did not mash (and would not have considered mashing) via no-sparge is inevitably going to massively overload the mash water with calcium and magnesium far above the mEq levels determined by the giants of yore (whether they thought in terms of mEq's or not when dabbling in far more arbitrary units of ppm).

Example:
100 ppm calcium in 18 Liters of mash water (such as for mash and sparge) is 90 mEq of calcium. To add an equivalent 90 mEq of calcium to 33.7 Liters of water (such as for no-sparge) the ppm of calcium requirement within the mash water as measured in ppm is only 53.4 ppm. The downward shift in pH induced by calcium is determined on a mEq basis, and not on a ppm basis.
Developer of 'Mash Made Easy', a free and complete mash pH adjustment assistant spreadsheet

https://mashmadeeasy.yolasite.com/

Silver_Is_Money
Piss Artist
Posts: 232
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2018 2:35 pm
Location: N/E Ohio, USA
Contact:

Re: Ro or tap

Post by Silver_Is_Money » Wed Jan 29, 2020 10:16 pm

Calcium's molecular weight is 40.078 g/mol. It's "Equivalent Weight" is half of that, due to its valence of +2. Eq_Wt of calcium = 20.039 g/Eq = 20.039 mg/mEq

100 mg/L / 20.039 mg/mEq = 4.9903 mEq/L
18L x 4.9903 mEq/L = 89.83 mEq's of calcium

53.4 mg/L / 20.039 mg/mEq = 2.6648 mEq/L
33.7L x 2.6648 mEq/L = 89.80 mEq's of calcium

Only rounding errors that have been induced all along the way have led to 89.83 mEq's for one case and 89.80 mEq's for the other. Take away all rounding errors in all areas and these mEq values would be fully equal to each other. And the downward pH shift from the calcium would thereby be identical for both cases.
Developer of 'Mash Made Easy', a free and complete mash pH adjustment assistant spreadsheet

https://mashmadeeasy.yolasite.com/

User avatar
Eric
Even further under the Table
Posts: 2873
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 1:18 am
Location: Sunderland.

Re: Ro or tap

Post by Eric » Wed Jan 29, 2020 11:51 pm

Silver_Is_Money wrote:
Wed Jan 29, 2020 9:57 pm
Eric's initial attempt at using MME above appears to me to be a great example as to why, in today's world where some sparge and some do not, serious consideration should be given to adding minerals via mEq measurement as opposed to via ppm (mg/L) measurement. For a more traditionally normal mash which includes a sparge, and which would be carried out at a mash thickness of around 3.5 Liters per Kg., such as would invariably have been closer to the nominal case for back when the "beer giants of yore" established the rules for recipes and/or styles nominal "ideal" mineralization levels via ppm, the no-sparge mineralization required to achieve equality with such giants ppm determinations of yore would be far less across the board on a ppm basis, yet (and critically of importance) identical to the giants of yore if measured on a mEq basis.
Eric was using a couple of tools, neither, nor any other, does he use. In the distant past I mashed using a bag to retain the grain and recently obtained a single pot system for experimenting, but nearly always brew with 3V at circa 2.5 litres per kg as has been the norm in UK.
Silver_Is_Money wrote:
Wed Jan 29, 2020 9:57 pm
Chemical interactions are carried out strictly on a mEq to mEq basis, and the grist is merely a chemical reactant with a calculable set of mEq's. Flooding a no-sparge batch with calcium and magnesium merely in a vain effort to match the ppm's determined in yore by the giants who did not mash (and would not have considered mashing) via no-sparge is inevitably going to massively overload the mash water with calcium and magnesium far above the mEq levels determined by the giants of yore (whether they thought in terms of mEq's or not when dabbling in far more arbitrary units of ppm).
Water treatment can be a matter for choice, if it wasn't there would not be the vast difference between homebrewers either side of the Atlantic. As all who know me are aware, I use no more than pen and paper and an electronic calculator to detemine treatment and as my mashes are at a fixed ratio of liquor to grain, then ppm is directly proportional to grain weight.
Silver_Is_Money wrote:
Wed Jan 29, 2020 9:57 pm
Example:
100 ppm calcium in 18 Liters of mash water (such as for mash and sparge) is 90 mEq of calcium. To add an equivalent 90 mEq of calcium to 33.7 Liters of water (such as for no-sparge) the ppm of calcium requirement within the mash water as measured in ppm is only 53.4 ppm. The downward shift in pH induced by calcium is determined on a mEq basis, and not on a ppm basis.
I'm following this bit. I can but assume you have not accounted for the upward shift in pH due to the additional alkalinity in 37 litres compared to that in 18? Feedback from those brewing frequently with higher liquor to grain ratios advise it is necessary to further reduce alkalinity than with similar water treatment for lower liquor levels.
Without patience, life becomes difficult and the sooner it's finished, the better.

Silver_Is_Money
Piss Artist
Posts: 232
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2018 2:35 pm
Location: N/E Ohio, USA
Contact:

Re: Ro or tap

Post by Silver_Is_Money » Thu Jan 30, 2020 12:40 am

Eric wrote:
Wed Jan 29, 2020 11:51 pm
I'm following this bit. I can but assume you have not accounted for the upward shift in pH due to the additional alkalinity in 37 litres compared to that in 18?
I have accounted for the change in mEq's due to alkalinity, but that is a separate issue from what is going on due to Ca and Mg mineralization, and therefore it must be addressed separately (albeit that just as for minerals, the pH shift caused by alkalinity is weighed in mEq's and not in ppm's).
Developer of 'Mash Made Easy', a free and complete mash pH adjustment assistant spreadsheet

https://mashmadeeasy.yolasite.com/

Silver_Is_Money
Piss Artist
Posts: 232
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2018 2:35 pm
Location: N/E Ohio, USA
Contact:

Re: Ro or tap

Post by Silver_Is_Money » Thu Jan 30, 2020 1:59 am

Eric, you presently have me evaluating the degree of downward shift witnessed for mineralization with Ca and Mg, as it appears that currently the drop witnessed within MME is potentially excessive vs. the defining work of Kolbach and Taylor* in this area. Stay tuned for a correction within Mash Made Easy version 8.45 if I find that this is indeed warranted. Thank you for revealing a potential MME error to me. Is there any means whereby I can get a trial version of 8.45 into your hands for a brief test run?

*Taylor observed that a mash (likely in the mash thickness realm of 3.5 Liters per Kg., and also likely at about 12 Plato as to OG) with 50 ppm of calcium, and which in that 50 ppm of calcium state mashed at a measured 5.51 pH, mashed subsequently at 5.10 pH if the original 50 ppm calcium was bumped up to 350 ppm. I will check to see how well MME complies with Taylor's observation.
Developer of 'Mash Made Easy', a free and complete mash pH adjustment assistant spreadsheet

https://mashmadeeasy.yolasite.com/

User avatar
PeeBee
Under the Table
Posts: 1575
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:50 pm
Location: North Wales

Re: Ro or tap

Post by PeeBee » Thu Jan 30, 2020 10:32 am

Eric wrote:
Wed Jan 29, 2020 8:41 pm
… I don't know what it did, but not as was intended. Won't mess in case that would make things worse.
What I guess you did, because I was grousing about it earlier in this thread, is either "previewed" your post before posting it and with more than one "attachment" in the post. Or, attempted to edit an attachment in a post which contains more than one attachment. The oldest attachment then "evaporates" and the remaining ones move down so the top one disappears from the post (I think it affects multiple posts at the same time, so you can lose more than one attachment in one go).

I've written this out so I can "report" my own post and attract someone's attention who might get it fixed? At least now I know its not just me.



The other explanation is you earlier said you don't fill in spreadsheets. But you've incurred the wraith of a lurking gremlin by doing just that and its teaching you a lesson.
Cask-conditioned style ale out of a keg/Cornie (the "treatise"): https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwzEv5 ... rDKRMjcO1g
Water report demystified (the "Defuddler"; removes the nonsense!): https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/ ... sp=sharing

User avatar
Jim
Site Admin
Posts: 10250
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2004 1:00 pm
Location: Washington, UK

Re: Ro or tap

Post by Jim » Thu Jan 30, 2020 10:59 am

PeeBee wrote:
Thu Jan 30, 2020 10:32 am
Eric wrote:
Wed Jan 29, 2020 8:41 pm
… I don't know what it did, but not as was intended. Won't mess in case that would make things worse.
What I guess you did, because I was grousing about it earlier in this thread, is either "previewed" your post before posting it and with more than one "attachment" in the post. Or, attempted to edit an attachment in a post which contains more than one attachment. The oldest attachment then "evaporates" and the remaining ones move down so the top one disappears from the post (I think it affects multiple posts at the same time, so you can lose more than one attachment in one go).

I've written this out so I can "report" my own post and attract someone's attention who might get it fixed? At least now I know its not just me.



The other explanation is you earlier said you don't fill in spreadsheets. But you've incurred the wraith of a lurking gremlin by doing just that and its teaching you a lesson.
This is a bug in the forum software. It was fixed in the new update, but I haven't got round to implementing the new version on here yet.
NURSE!! He's out of bed again!

JBK on Facebook
JBK on Twitter

Post Reply