Spotless water

[cc986]

I did a test mash today to test the Spotless water and the RO water profile in Brewfather, so I thought I would give a quick update in case anyone else is thinking of using Spotless. I also used DWB for the first time, so I was interested in seeing how Brewfather would cope with that.

I didn't do a full brew - just the mash part (I had some grains that were never going to be used before their use by date, so I thought I would sacrifice them).

I filled some 5 litre plastic bottles at the Spotless dispenser (which was very easy and fast). The dispenser said the TDS of the water at the time was 0.00.
When I got home I used my Inkbird TDS meter and got a reading of 0.004.
I did a Salifert Calcium test and a single drop of the reagent turned the solution blue, which I think suggests the calcium was less than 5.
I also did the Salifert Carbonate/Alkalinity test and a single drop of the reagent turned the solution pink, indicating zero.

I used the Brewfather RO profile as the source water:
Ca = 1, Mg = 0, Na = 8, Cl = 4, SO4 = 1, HCO3 = 16.

I selected the following target profile in Brewfather:
Ca = 75, Mg = 15, Na = 50, Cl = 75, SO4 = 150, HCO3 = 40.

Using DWB and baking soda only, Brewfather came up with this as a match for the target profile:
Ca = 76, Mg 0, Na = 18, Cl = 78, SO4 = 156, HCO3 = 42

Brewfather predicted the mash pH would be 6.5 at this stage, so I told it to add lactic acid to get the pH down to 5.3.

My 20 minute mash pH reading was spot on at 5.3. I must admit, I was expecting it to be way off the mark having never used DWB before and not understanding how Brewfather knows what the composition is (I guess they must have asked Murphy and Sons).

My end of mash pH was 5.2 though. This drop of 0.1 often happens to me - I'm not sure if that is normal. I normally record the end of mash pH as the actual pH.

I was pretty happy with that and got better results than I have been getting with Ashbeck water recently, so I think I will be sticking with Spotless.

Thanks for PeeBee and Guy's help. I have been following your discussion but I think it's a little beyond me!

[PeeBee]

You wouldn't be the first to discover those Salifert kits start failing you at low concentrations. The relief is: The quantities are so small it doesn't really matter. "TDS" meters are excellent for alerting you to big changes in dissolved solids, which is useful if the water company is apt to switch the source of the water (whereupon the water profile changes). But the devices don't actually measure "Total Dissolved Solids" ... they measure electrical conductivity and apply a "correlation factor". Trouble is, the "correlation factor" isn't a "constant", it's a figure that'll do roughly for many occasions. So, they are not to be solely relied on.

The only one I find I could really do with is "Alkalinity" (and then only for confirmation ... I'm much happier calculating the alkalinity, which is a piece-of-cake). You can increase the size of sample, increase the amount of indicator solution (so you can still see a colour change), maybe increase the "conditioning" solution (the Salifert Calcium kit has one ... 5% NaOH ... or at least the working kits do; they went through a stage of not including a "conditioner" and those kit don't work!) and divide your result by the same factor as you increased the sample size. I've used factors of x8 and x16 and managed to get reliable results of 7-8mg/L as CaCO3, but I've heard of people using x50! You may need to get some special glassware (flask, burette, clamps and stands) at which point you might locate the reagents and indicator dyes and do the titration "properly"!

Doing your own more precise measurements is particularly useful for low alkalinity water that has probably been "dosed" with Lime (calcium hydroxide) because alkalinity at the tap can be much lower than measured (and published) by the water company at the water treatment works.


I'm glad your venture into "RO Water" (Spotless) has been a success. I wouldn't want to put much faith in what they scribble on those bottles of water.

[PeeBee]

This is a water report from Wallybrew on here. Dated 16/02/2021. On brewday I measure the alkalinity using a Hanna meter. The new value goes into the spreadsheet a friend set up for me and the revised numbers appear.

There may not be a directly proportional correlation between the alkalinity and the ions, but what else can I do?!

Hope this helps.

Okay. Additions done.

It was a bit traumatic: "yeah, I can do that" I tell myself, which was fine to start with. Then it starts breaking ... the heads flips in-and-out of reality, it's all going wrong! Still, by taking copious breaks, the spreadsheet is clawed back from the brink:

Water Defuddler - Guy I.jpg (243.8 KiB) Viewed 7122 times

That's the data "as-is" from Phoenix Analytical. I've moved the Potassium and Nitrate up my spreadsheet to reflect their usefulness as bit more (they are often at high enough levels to have an impact on "brewing water"). The original philosophy remains; only those top six boxes is what you need along with a few lines of "reference data" and "Alkalinity" pointers (notice I've added in "as CO3" to help with filling in Graham's spreadsheet). As you get deeper into the spreadsheet it gets gloomier. Hopefully you don't need to descend this deep, though some figures not supplied in the original report can be constructed from the stuff down there. At the bottom you rely on "Water Hardness" data ... the "Foetid Mire"!

I do have it in for "Water Hardness"! But it's only because so very few people can use it effectively; understand its limitations and how to avoid them. Most importantly, how not to mix it up with ions and Alkalinity. Once we all relied entirely on "Water Hardness" even though few of us understood it then either! Ahh ... simpler days. But "then" is not "now"!

Water Defuddler - Guy II.jpg (227.56 KiB) Viewed 7122 times

The above is the same data, but with the Potassium and Nitrate "converted" to elements in the top six boxes. The conversions are done with "equivalences" to retain chemical properties expected in the actual water, especially "Alkalinity". The changes to elements and compounds recorded in the water are very small and the ratio of sulphates to chlorides (recorded) is kept the same.

Making these changes allows entry of the results directly into Graham's calculator which doesn't support Potassium and Nitrates (as may be expected from some other calculators too).

Water Defuddler - Guy III.jpg (262.74 KiB) Viewed 7122 times

Finally, the report can be "adapted" to match a measured "Alkalinity" value. The Alkalinity box is changed to be sourced from "ADAPTED" rather than "CALCULATED". Minor changes are made (automatically!) to the "anions" to allow the alkalinity to change. The changes are again calculated using "equivalences" to retain chemical properties expected in the actual water. Cations are not changed! This is not to say they don't, but there is nothing to suggest they will so there be no good reason to change them. Maintaining original value for cations is unlikely to make differences to brewing parameters so this is not considered important.

This "function" is a reworking of a function intended to deal with lowering levels of alkalinity at greater distances from the water treatment premises (for water with very low alkalinity treated with Lime). The amount of "adaption" is set by a slider deeper in the spreadsheet entitled "adapted water" (also described earlier in this thread).

[PeeBee]

A couple of things I managed to miss out:

Merging the Potassium and Nitrates into the top boxes causes lots of red dots to appear in the spreadsheet. These are so I (and anyone else) can keep track of what's being modified (especially important for me! What day is it anyway?). The option also puts a line through the values that were used (so you know they aren't now used!).

I'll update the "water defuddler - development.xlxs" file at my download link (below, in signature) shortly. The modified date will change when I do it.

I've probably modified that sheet as far as I'd dare now (it is getting very difficult to make changes). Future updates may appear in separate sheets linked to the original. I would particularly like to extend into "additions" in the hope of making my low alkalinity water easier to change (it is very difficult to alter alkalinity when existing alkalinity is so low yet uncertain too - getting reliable measures of low alkalinity water is notoriously difficult; just try doing an alkalinity titration on distilled water!).

And with "additions" dealt with, it's just a step away from a full-on Water Calculator. But that "step" will involve pH predictions, etc., ... I'll probably need some help with that!

[EDIT: I haven't checked the modifications in Excel much yet ... For the time-being, I can't make any claims it works in "Calc" or "Sheets". Hence, I'll only update the "development" download copy.]

[EDIT2: And ... I've still to update the instructions to include the changes ... better get on with that! And ... lurking about somewhere I've got an anion mixed up with a cation (or visa-versa). I'm always doing that ... stupid words for it, stupid me for not getting the hand of it. Stay alert! Prize for rediscovering it (wherever it is?).]

[PeeBee]

... Finally, the report can be "adapted" to match a measured "Alkalinity" value. The Alkalinity box is changed to be sourced from "ADAPTED" rather than "CALCULATED". Minor changes are made (automatically!) to the "anions" to allow the alkalinity to change. The changes are again calculated using "equivalences" to retain chemical properties expected in the actual water. Cations are not changed! This is not to say they don't, but there is nothing to suggest they will so there be no good reason to change them. Maintaining original value for cations is unlikely to make differences to brewing parameters so this is not considered important. ...

One of my brain storms: Switching the meaning of anions and cations. I think I've figured why I do (and I guess plenty of others do it?). Anions are -ve and attracted to cathodes. Cations are +ve and attracted to anodes. My head doesn't want to go along with that little twist. Perhaps it will now?

Finally, the report can be "adapted" to match a measured "Alkalinity" value. The Alkalinity box is changed to be sourced from "ADAPTED" rather than "CALCULATED". Minor changes are made (automatically!) to the "cations" to allow the alkalinity to change. The changes are again calculated using "equivalences" to retain chemical properties expected in the actual water. Anions are not changed! This is not to say they don't, but there is nothing to suggest they will so there be no good reason to change them. Maintaining original value for anions is unlikely to make differences to brewing parameters so this is not considered important.

It's been too long to edit the original text.



Download ("Water Defuddler - Development.xlxs") uploaded again with most of the narrative checked and corrected. Still needs a bit of new documentation. The "demo water profile" has reverted to that water from the town of Battle again.

[PeeBee]

This is a water report from Wallybrew on here. Dated 16/02/2021. On brewday I measure the alkalinity using a Hanna meter. The new value goes into the spreadsheet a friend set up for me and the revised numbers appear. ...

... Download ("Water Defuddler - Development.xlxs") uploaded again with most of the narrative checked and corrected. Still needs a bit of new documentation. The "demo water profile" has reverted to that water from the town of Battle again.

Updates uploaded to the download link again. It polishes up some of the documentation and narration in both sheets. Still needs a bit to explain those dappled "adapted" boxes and the appearance of all those red dots. But that's all covered in this thread above. So, I may not be so quick to come up with next update.

Guy ... Is this working out okay for you? I may start working on a partnering sheet that will handle additions, but that will be a while away. (The "Water PropHiler"?). The "Defuddler" only works on original water reports, it's not for creating water for specific brews (I have a lot of trouble getting that across!).

[MashBag]

Using DWB and baking soda only, Brewfather came up with this as a match for the target profile:
Ca = 76, Mg 0, Na = 18, Cl = 78, SO4 = 156, HCO3 = 42

What amounts please?

[WallyBrew]

Using DWB and baking soda only, Brewfather came up with this as a match for the target profile:
Ca = 76, Mg 0, Na = 18, Cl = 78, SO4 = 156, HCO3 = 42

What amounts please?

Anything you like because that just does not balance.

Subtract the RO profile from the target and you get
Ca = 75, Na = 10, Cl = 74, SO4 = 155, HCO3 = 26

Divide HCO3 quantity by 61 and multiply by 23 to get the sodium to combine with HCO3 = 10 - so NaHCO3 = 10 + 16 = 26

Now divide calcium (75) by 20 to get milli-equivalents = 3.75
Now divide chloride (74) by 35.5 to get milli-equivalents = 2.08
Now divide sulphate (155) by 48 to get milli-equivalents = 3.23

The milli-equivalents of the chloride plus sulphate should equal the milli-equivalents of calcium.
The don't the differ by 1.56

So something is wrong

They may have got their information from "Document TECH/LT3 Revision 1.0, February 2006" which was available from Murphy & Son but has presumably been superseded and herein lies the problem with document control on the web that should a document be superseded for whatever reason it should still be able to be referenced on the website to provide a link to the new document or to state it is no longer valid.

Part of this document relating to DWB is given below but do not use this information as it does seem to be completely correct
.

DWB Document February 2006.jpg (91.99 KiB) Viewed 6561 times

If we perform the same calculations of equivalents as above and using the figures in the 100g/hl column we get

Ca = 8.82
Cl = 4.89
SO4 = 7.72

and a difference of 3.79

If the ratios of these with respect to calcium are calculated they are the same for the treated water and the rates of addition in the above table. So presumably Brewfather got their information from this sheet.

Now if we calculate the amounts of calcium sulphate dihydrate and calcium chloride dihydrate are available from the table we get
CaCl2.2H2O - 357
CaSO4.2H2O - 664

These should total 1000 but they total 1021. Near enough for brewing purposes.
But the calcium from these should be 98 from the calcium chloride dihydrate and 151 from the calcium sulphate dihydrate giving total calcium as 249 not the 176.3 as given in the table.

I hope that makes sense and if anyone can find any errors in the above calculations please let me know and I'm not talking about using more accurate figures such as 35.45 instead of 35.5 for chloride

[Eric]

The likely problem with the DWB document is the absence of magnesium and sodium, both found in Burton Waters and presumably integral ingredients of Murphy and Son's Dry Water Burtonisation.
Their latest offering doesn't include either sodium or magnesium either. Might that be because American brewers advise up to 100ppm sodium is relatively inconsequential in brewing liquor while even low levels of magnesium are to be deprecated.

[PeeBee]

Wowie, wowie! I've got to have a go at this. Tap, tap, tapperty, tap ...

091808082022.jpg (63.26 KiB) Viewed 6449 times

There! Balances!

Soooo, I had to bump the Calcium up a bit ... plus 31.3ppm to be (near) exact. And turn that into milliequivalents (31.3 x 0.0499 ... Eee, I do like magic numbers) is 1.56mEq/l. 1.56? Now where have I seen that number before ...

Okay, so I hate to miss an opportunity to wheel out my "Defuddler". But I don't 'arf attract a lot of hatred with it! Don't know why? And who can answer: "Why do brewers turn their noses up at calculating Alkalinity with the dead simple, widely recorded, equation": Total Alkalinity = <conservative_cations> - <conservative_anions>? There must be a reason? Not even Brewfather can be bothered to use it (see above). Okay, any errors are plonked on just one side of the equation, but how is it better to have them (unknown) errors smeared across both sides?


("Conservative" = "Not alkalinity"! And valence of Calcium divided by its atomic weight equals the magic number 0.0499 ... for anyone wondering).

[EDIT: Just noticed ... while I'm harping-on I get "1.56" just like "WallyBrew" (who's a flippin' sight cleverer at this water caper than I pretend to be), I neglected to point out how I get the same result without all that "Sodium" mucking about? Because I'm a fraud perhaps? No, no, no ... of course not! It's because the spreadsheet does all that as a matter of course. The "Defuddler" is a "Water Hardness" decoder so doesn't ignore the role Sodium (or Potassium if there's any) plays in water. Good job I can remember doing that and that WallyBrew doesn't ignore it, or I'd be puzzling for days why my results were so different!]

[PeeBee]

Wanna see some "hatred" aimed at me an' me "Defuddler"?

Slow dive into water - THBF

So venomous is the hatred, I didn't even need to mention "Defuddler" to kick this one off!

[cc986]

Hello everyone, thanks for the replies and sorry for not posting my own reply but I have just returned from holiday and will have a closer look at this later. Just quickly though, all those calculations above are well beyond my knowledge, so I used Brewfather to work it out. I think I did say in an earlier postthat I wondered how they knew what the composition of DWB is because it doesn't mention anything on the packet. I might send Brewfather an email to find out.

[PeeBee]

Hello everyone, thanks for the replies and sorry for not posting my own reply but I have just returned from holiday and will have a closer look at this later. Just quickly though, all those calculations above are well beyond my knowledge, so I used Brewfather to work it out. I think I did say in an earlier postthat I wondered how they knew what the composition of DWB is because it doesn't mention anything on the packet. I might send Brewfather an email to find out.

"DWB". I Know "Mashbag" is a fan, but when you've got "Wallybrew" wading in to cast doubt on it you need to take note (he provides a pay-for water analysis service). And "Eric" close on his heels with comments to backup DWB's dubious record, it becomes harder to offer support for DWB.

I shifted my blabbering to start another thread (viewtopic.php?f=9&t=84359) as that might get "technical" although the outcome is intended to be straight-forward.

Moved my blabbering, but not before "Chthon" (a user on a different forum) pointed me towards work by Colin Colby who provides a very easy and interesting approach to water adapting:

read://https_beerandgardeningjournal.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbeerandgardeningjournal.com%2Feasy-aqua%2F

That's a reader option which might only work with MS Edge (skips the invasive junk "Google" insist on adding now) ... a more ordinary link (with junk) would be: Easy Water Treatment Guide

There's four more articles, all from June 2016 in his Blog archive, and don't skip past the link in the colour section of his article!

[cc986]

Thanks PeeBee, I'll look through all that.

I have known about DWB for quite a few years but never used it until recently because I never understood what was in it. What got me interested in trying it was finding out that one of the local breweries to here (Derby Brewing Company) use it in their beers and they have produced a booklet called "8 Secrets to what makes great beer" (I can hear a collective groan already!). The book itself is fairly basic, but at the end of it they provide some example recipes for different beer styles. One of them (Best Bitter), I suspect is very close to one of their own beers which I enjoy very much, so I thought I would give it a go.

They provide the percentages for the malts and amount in grams for hops, then for each menu they provide the 'Salts and Copper finings' which consists only of DWB and copper finings. The only problem is, the recipes are "based on a 10 brewers barrel or 1640 litres" and I'm doing 23 ish litres. That's ok for the malts because they have provided percentages, but for the DWB they have only provided grams (1250).

I'm sure there is a way of scaling that DWB amount down to a 23 litre batch, but I still don't think it would work because reading between the lines, I think the book is saying that they got Murphy & Sons to test their water and then create a bespoke DWB recipe that matched their exact requirements. And that might be quite different to the DWB that I bought from Malt Miller for which I have absolutely no idea what's in it. Even so, for my test brew it did get my ph pretty close, although I did have to add baking soda to get it near.

Now, when I did a proper brew of that recipe just before I went on holiday, I used the exact malt recipe from the book (which is very different to the test brew I did earlier) and I could not get the mash ph close using DWB and baking soda. From memory, the problem seemed to be the magnesium, so along with the DWB I ended up adding epsom salts (but no soda) and even then the magnesium level was too low because the epsom was pushing the sulphate too high for the target water profile. This is probably the problem Eric picked up on. Again, on brew day, the mash ph was pretty close but I do feel that I could have got it closer using seperate minerals.

I have sent BrewFather an email - it will be interesting to hear what they say.

[PeeBee]

DWB ... Dry, Water Burtonisation salts (my comma, I don't like typing "Dry Water"!). I'm not a fan ("Mashbag" is!) because I remember "Burtonisation" salts from my early brewing days (widely available then) and they were targeted at Bitter and the like, not stouts, milds, etc. (they contain a lot of calcium sulphate, gypsum). I've never heard of "customised" DWB. But things/opinions change ...

"Derby Brewing Company" ... I used to live near Derby ... I was born in Derby! I'm only "Welsh" 'cos of me Welsh Mum (a Kellett! Born near where I now live). I wrote some on water in Derby a while back (viewtopic.php?f=9&t=83703) ... hang-on ... it was you! Well, that saves me going on about the Carsington "topup" Reservoir (disaster project, though I guess it's not considered such no more).

So, you've chosen "Spotless Water". I still think you'd be better off driving a few (five or ten?) miles Ilkeston way to a mate's house where the water is piped direct from the High Peak Derwent Reservoirs (the water wont switch about so much). I wouldn't worry about Magnesium (there's not much in High Peak water BTW) ... those setting the trends and fads are now declaring Magnesium the next "must have" in-place of Calcium ... and carefully sweeping the "Magnesium is bad" idea under the carpet.

There's not a lot in the water about there (be it High Peak, or potentially Carsington modified Dewent valley extraction) so it will need something added, be that DWB or the Colby stuff I was suggesting (beware the Colby stuff ... he's suggesting distilled water as a base, but "Spotless" is perfect to replace distilled, as is High Peak water, though that might need mild adaption to have the alkalinity perfect).

You can see Derbyshire picked out on this "Hardness" map because there's not a lot in Derbyshire water:

Hard Water Map of Uk.jpg (1.14 MiB) Viewed 5371 times