Creating a Brewing Water Calculator - (Part II?)

[PeeBee]

There was something wrong with what I was doing with Graham Wheeler's water calculator. So, I've withdrawn the post while I sort it out.

[EDIT: Explanation in preceding post. The old posts are provided as JPG images 'cos that's what the forum software understands.]

[PeeBee]

Right! ... I'll forget about this Graham Wheeler stuff; it is "heroic" but doing something quite out of line with what I'd imagined. So, it wasn't helping at all. Same goes for D.M. Riffe's "MpH" water calculator ... an earlier version of it is behind the water calculations in the recipe builder I used ("Beersmith") which I'd never got along with before. Though I'd never properly appreciated how calculators differed between each other. "MpH" was developed in USA, has a fairly limited dataset (in the version I have), and I live several thousand miles away using different malts, etc. I'll revisit it later, for now it's not helping me either. I'll stick with Martin Brungard's offering (Bru'n Water) which while not being blindingly accurate for my situation, has fallen in the right area for me in the past.

There's a lot more to this pH caper than people have you believe! Predicting pH to fractions of a pH unit is "cloud-cuckoo-land"!

My advice on pH predictions goes back to what it was ... keep trying calculators until you get one you are broadly agreeing with and stick with it for a while (in a couple of years don't be too disappointed if it's not working for you no longer). One that "learns" and continually "adapts" to local circumstances would be ideal ... perhaps?

On a more positive note: I came across a video featuring John Palmer blabbing on about water; someone I've always considered a "homebrewing hero" (detrimental sense) and "bad-mouthed" in the past! Blimey, it was flippin' interesting! Okay, he still used "ppm" measurements without warnings, but I can let that go. Here was a person I could look up to, even with a bit of awe? Not some clown I could remember from the past spouting garbage that his followers spout (and continue to spout) unthinkingly to wider audiences. Yet it was dated 2018. Quite a while ago. I really do need to keep abreast of my prejudices and dislikes. I'm even beginning to accept another "homebrewing hero" (Gordon Strong) but agreeing with things others criticize him for (I've not changed that much then!).

I'd thoroughly recommend viewing John Palmer's video, just empty your head of what you think you know about water and brewing ... and careful with that "ppm" stuff!

[PeeBee]

As simply descriptive as I can (yeah, that'll be the day coming from me). Using "Bru'n Water" to output a water for an "English" (London) Stout (heavily mineralised, not an "Irish" stout by any stretch of the imagination). And avoiding copious complexity along the way. This will be a "live" demonstration of what I hope can be done with a brewing water calculator taking the path of "Normalization".

A tortuous water "profile" (Graham Wheeler's "Stout" water profile) from a very low mineralized starting water. It's my tap water (<100ppm mineral ions), but "RO" water makes a decent starter, as does some bottled waters. Just the sort of exercise that would have flummoxed me a few months ago. And would have certainly triggered an immensely complex solution that I would fail miserably to pass on. As I've explained earlier, for the time being I'm only concentrating on Low Mineralized source water (including some bottled and "RO" sources). For "highly mineralized" water users, for the time being, you'll have to sit back, spectate, and contemplate how I (and dozens of others with low mineralised water) have had to feel for years on end listening to high mineralised water users.

Firstly, let me sort out those "arbitrary" mash water volumes: There's 1:2, or one half the batch volume (not pre-boil volume 'cos that comes later and is connected to the equipment being used so everyone has a different value). The 1:2 ratio is important because it's what I've chosen as the volume used to calculate all those "concentration" guidelines, like "calcium in the mash should be 50-150ppm". That's right, "ppm" is a "concentration", and the actual amount of calcium depends on the amount of mash water used. Why's this important? ... Well, some of the calcium (a "water hardness" element) reacts with components in the mashed grains. Note! The "mashed grains", which will be a fixed amount in any given recipe, unlike mash water quantity which can change on the whim of the brewer. This is what will be what is subject to "Normalization".

The next "arbitrary" mash water volumes will be ... where the heck have I got 14.4 litres of mash water from? I no doubt had some complicated reason for it. But I've forgotten it. So, I'll change that to a "half way" three quarters the batch volume, or 3:4 ratio (1:1.333 .... yeuck, that's probably why I got 14.4 litres?).

Lastly there's full batch volume or 1:1 ratio. That's not "full-boil-volume-mash" as used by BIABers as that will include water to cover boil evapouration losses, etc. which will make the mash "no sparge", i.e. the full boil volume will simply drain from the mash. 1:1 won't be much used, but was included for BIABers who'll use a "full-boil-volume-mash".

Do notice I'm fixing the mash water volume: I'm not being concerned about "mash thickness": It's a minor variable, best ignored. Or do you think N thousand "no sparge" BIABers have got it wrong? You'd best tell them 'cos I won't (I'm effectively one of them).

Note: A user wanting 50ppm of calcium in their mash may pass the ingredient list to a BIABer who will, with no second thought, be putting "only" 25ppm calcium in their mash. Yet they added the same amount of calcium. Eh? Work it out! It's the reason I keep blagging on about "Normalization".

Enough blabbering, as if I hadn't blabbered on enough. Did I say earlier, "As simply descriptive as I can"? Oops.

Here goes ...

[PeeBee]

Firstly, the water analysis. This will be important because injecting "Normalization" should require two mash calculations, and this is how I'll coerce "Bru'n Water" into giving me two instead of one. These are the main figures, you are not really interested (for brewing) with anything recorded in fractions of a ppm e.g. as ppb. "Nitrate" is useful because it is often in significant quantity and will help balancing. "Phosphate" is often in significant quantity too but will be missing (as here) as it's a component of the "Total Alkalinity" (as are silicates and borates but they are very rarely seen). These figures have been through my own "Defuddler" spreadsheet and will always balance ("Cation/Anion Difference" is 0.00); you may balance your own figures by making slight changes to "Bicarbonate". This will also make "Bicarbonate" effectively "as Bicarbonate" and the same as "Total Alkalinity" (divide by 1.22 to have Total Alkalinity "as CaCO3").

Whitbread 1940 Extra Stout oi.i.jpg (101.01 KiB) Viewed 436 times

Secondly: The following Mash grain components ("Grain Bill Input" page) is the recipe for this "Stout". Note I have "Remove Roast Malts from Main Mash" selected with a "Yes". Stouts (and perhaps Porters) have copious amounts of roast grain and will be difficult to obtain a correct mash acidity with them in the mash. So, they are removed! Worry not, they will go in later. I've not seen an issue with Crystal Malts (then can be even higher in acidity, but are used in smaller amounts) so haven't had to deal with them yet ... but there may be a time in the future?

Of the other settings: "Estimated Room-Temperature Mash pH" will be invalid unless using the lowest mash grain amount amounts. The "Water used for Mash" will remain "Adjusted Water" as I can determine no benefits for using it (but the possibility of using it is clear!).

Whitbread 1940 Extra Stout oii.i.jpg (161.6 KiB) Viewed 436 times

And finally: The "Mash Adjustment". All the "Water Additions" will be zero. Start incrementing the Calcium Chloride until "Calcium (ppm)" in the "Mashing Water Profile" starts to register starts to register "50". "50" is an arbitrary figure, but don't go higher than the maximum amount you are aiming for, I wouldn't go lower than 35ppm (some may disagree) and 70ppm is perhaps the highest. A choice of three, and that should be enough. You chose so the final mash pH shouldn't require any acid or alkalinity additions and still have an estimated pH in the "optimum" zone (5.2 - 5.6).

You might choose to increment Calcium Sulphate instead of Calcium Chloride, or even as well as! Choice is yours; I prefer Calcium Chloride.

Whitbread 1940 Extra Stout oiii.i.jpg (343.22 KiB) Viewed 436 times

The "Estimated Mash pH" at this stage probably isn't valid (the "Water Volume" for the mash may be lower than intended). So, on to the next ...

[PeeBee]

This next bit really defines the "normalization" in this case. "Normalization" defines different things in different environments and is not a specific operation ... Normalization - Wikipedia ... in particular, "'Normalization' refers to a process that makes something more normal or regular". Please be careful with it, "Normalization" (in this way) isn't built into "Bru'n Water", isn't a "feature", and will only work if you follow the instructions closely. It's a "proof of concept" (for now), not necessarily an everyday method to use.

The "baseline" mash thickness I've selected for this "ppm to explicit measurement" conversion is half a batch volume equals mash water volume. For this Stout I want to change to using a mash thickness of three-quarters of a batch volume equals mash water volume. (Note: The "Sparge Volume" includes unrecoverable losses so mash volume plus sparge volume is not equal to batch volume). If you tackle water additions to very high degrees of precision, you really do need to understand why I'm having to estimate this "baseline" for working with "concentrations"!

Having altered the "Mash", "Water Volume" on the "Water Adjustment" page, slowly decrement the "Additions" value for Calcium Chloride until "Total Mineral Additions" returns to its previous value (2.63). Note the "Calcium (ppm)" for the Mashing Water Profile will drop (if you did it right!), in the following illustration it has dropped from 50ppm to 40ppm. "40ppm" is outside the frequently documented "50-150ppm" recommendation; do not worry about this, the "recommendation" is not valid here (it's too dodgy!). The "Estimated Mash pH" is now valid again (for the new "Mash" "Water Volume"; here, the water is my tap water, and the estimated pH 5.43 with no acid or alkalinity additions).

Whitbread 1940 Extra Stout oiii.ii.jpg (97.88 KiB) Viewed 415 times

Take a note of the "Calcium (ppm)" and "Chloride (ppm)" values for "Calcium Chloride" in "Water Additions" ("Calcium" and "Sulphate" if using gypsum). Zero the "Addition" value once you have the values.

Return to the "Water Report Input" page. Add the noted values (last paragraph) to the appropriate entries in the "Water Report Input" tables. This is a spreadsheet, so you can enter spreadsheet style formulars into the boxes and save some brain power (or hunting for a calculator). For example, I've entered "=21.75+18.5" in my "Calcium (Ca)" box (21.75 from my water analysis, 18.5 from the calcium chloride addition).

Whitbread 1940 Extra Stout oi.ii.jpg (96.32 KiB) Viewed 415 times

Back to the "Water Adjustment" page and the "Batch Notes" may be filled in with some guidance of what's changed.

Whitbread 1940 Extra Stout oiii.iii.jpg (20.84 KiB) Viewed 415 times

Job done and ready for detailing other, post-mash, tasks. That'll be next.

[PeeBee]

The main mash step is complete and "Water Additions" in Bru'n Water entirely emptied ready for next mash step thanks to having shifted the main mash mineral additions to the "Water Report Input". Go to the "Grain Bill Input" page and temporarily answer "No" to the "Remove Roast Malts from the Main Mash" option. The "Estimated Room-Temperature Mash pH" indicator falls through the fall (it shows pH 5.06 on mine). It's why holding back large amounts of roast grains from the main mash is a good idea.

There is still undamaged starch in these grains that could be mashed, especially this Chocolate Malt where roasting hasn't had as much time to damage the starch. And there are plenty of enzymes left in the main mash to do this (but much of the beta-amylase will have "burnt-out" so this is a dextrin recovery exercise, not a maltose one).

In actual practice you'd start heating the mash to 70°C (a recirculating mash system, HERMS or RIMS, will be handy for this), stir in the roast grains, and prepare to add the extra mineral salts. If you are only planning to steep grains (maybe you've chosen to add crystal malts?) you may choose to heat to "mash-out" temperatures (75°C?).

When planning mineral salts to add, start with the "Hardness" salts (Calcium and Magnesium) because they will impact pH. Don't be too precise yet because you may have to juggle with some amounts (especially chloride salts). I succeeded just adding Epsom salt (magnesium sulphate) and calcium chloride (Magnesium salt considered first). The pH fell even further ... 4.67! That's why I said Hardness salts first!

Now to get the pH prediction back up. Say to 5.3? Alpha- amylase is much happier in this, more acid, environment than beta-amylase, but don't go mad! Start adding (virtually ... in the calculator) Sodium Bicarbonate (Baking Soda) to get the estimated pH up. Baking Soda is good because it's fairly quick when it is actually altering pH. Lime is very sensitive to having the dose just right and is harmful to you if you're not careful with it. Chalk is too slow for these "on-the-fly" changes.

Add salt (NaCl) last to get the Sodium level up to the chosen "profile".

Whitbread 1940 Extra Stout oiii.iv.jpg (301.78 KiB) Viewed 382 times

Record the alkalinity salt addition details in the "Batch Notes" before: Zero the Alkalinity salt quantity, set the "Add Hardness Minerals to Kettle" to "Yes" (anyway, we're not adding them to the Kettle, they go in the "second" mash) and on the "Grain Bill Input" page set the "Remove Roast Malts from the Main Mash" option back to "Yes". Everything is then back for "first mash" again. Remember these three salt operations.

Whitbread 1940 Extra Stout oiii.v.jpg (70.04 KiB) Viewed 382 times

With "Add Hardness Minerals to Kettle?" enabled the affected entries only change colour (orange background) to indicate that are removed from the main mash and included in the boil. "Salt" isn't removed, but in this case would be better if it was. Optionally add the two "salt" amounts together (physically) and put in boil as it evens out the figures so they don't seem "suspicious".

I don't entirely agree with copying geographic "water profiles" into a water calculator, but it's a good game trying to resolve them. This example here was resolved to within 15ppm of Chloride ions, but the target was 341ppm for Chloride so 15ppm discrepancy was less than 5% (of chlorides ... all other ions counted matched their targets exactly). The highly mineralised profile was picked to purposely make the exercise difficult. The "Normalization" process used in the exercise will remove a lot of Calcium from the finished mashing profile, but as yet I've not attempted to reduce the Calcium over the entire profile. Perhaps I should?

[OldN1ck]

Hi, newbie on the forum here... ref. my post up in the "Introduce Yourself" section I've been keeping myself busy by looking into brewing water chemistry, mash pH and mash pH prediction calculations. Looking around to see who else is currently involved in similar activities I found this forum and, with active topics as irresistible as "Creating a brewing water calculator", thought I'd sign-up and drop in for a chat.

I'd only recently had a first inkling that once I've got a better handle on mash pH then it should open up possibilities regarding also nudging final beer mineral content in the direction desired, but not got as far as looking in to further additions post mash etc, so have been reading through this thread with interest.

One thing I've noticed though - as I see the water volume, and malt mass (due to removal of chocolate malt from the main mash), being varied through the steps you describe... are you aware that Bru'nWater, being based more on the pre-2012 form of K.Troester's model, still has a Mash Thickness ("R") dependency in the distilled water mash element of its pH calculation?

This can be observed by loading the Grain Bill input that you have shown and then setting all Water Input Concentrations to 0 (plus no adjustment additions) so that the Estimated Mash pH is predicting that for distilled water. Now if the water volume is varied between 11.3 and 16.95l the pH will change from 4.83 to 5.14, even though there would not actually be any change if this was done physically with distilled water.

Apologies if this is already being taken into account and I've just missed the point but I felt, given your focus on overcoming the implications of mash thickness (normalising concentrations to absolute amounts, etc.), that this instance of "R" value shouldn't be allowed to cause trouble.

[PeeBee]

Hi OldN1ck, welcome to the forum! I've seen your "Introduce Yourself" post and have been gaining some ideas to make a nuisance of myself (well, it's what I do!).

Thanks for the tip concerning Bru'n Water. I'm aware there will be "boundaries", but I don't know where they are. So, I'm just stabbing in the dark. As you've noticed, I'm fixing certain "variables" to get some rough pH prediction out of a "calculator". And Bru'n Water is being used to roughly model calcium in the main mash. All other salts go in after the main mash where a Wheeler type calculator takes the wheel (it's very good at a numbers game ... there's no "prediction" in it).

For some reason (probably historic?) all calculators are tied into "ppm" and other concentrations. The complexities this creates are mind boggling hence I fix certain volumes and deploy "normalization". It's a downer if you consider "mash thickness" as important (I'm a full-boil-length masher so have no problem with it. It's also a downer in I can't make it work for high TDS waters (150-200ppm TDS probably the most). I'm only interested in creating a mash with the bare minimum of calcium to support mashing. My attitude to pH is have it the right ballpark but don't attempt to influence it (too much), just clear the mash of stuff that might work against you. Put that in later. I'll consider relying on a pH Meter as failure.

Oddly enough I wrote the following post (on another forum) only this morning:

PeeBee

********** wrote:
I have refreshed my understanding of pH from this simple article and if nothing else you have prompted me to consider whether I could improve my own beers by taking more interest in the water chemistry. So thanks for that and welcome to the forum.

Cracking! Not what I'd expect that article from BYO. I do like your "understatement" by-the-way ("simple article"), that's right-up-my-street! The brewers who think they can "hit the pH target of" say, 5.21, should be tied to a chair with their eyelids pinned back, to stare at that article until they can write a credible 5000 word essay on the subject (I wouldn't be able to, it just makes pretty patterns in me 'ead). pH is just a good indicator of what's going on, not something you have precise control over in your kitchen/garage/outside toilet/etc.

But it'll fall on deaf ears.

[PeeBee]

... This can be observed by loading the Grain Bill input that you have shown and then setting all Water Input Concentrations to 0 (plus no adjustment additions) so that the Estimated Mash pH is predicting that for distilled water. Now if the water volume is varied between 11.3 and 16.95l the pH will change from 4.83 to 5.14, even though there would not actually be any change if this was done physically with distilled water. ...

Oops, sorry, I wasn't interpreting what you were saying here when I answered the first time. Funny how things cross you mind when not even thinking about it. The numbers were mine ... half batch and 3/4 batch volumes. I was setting my normalizing to half batch and applying it to a 3/4 batch mash.

Okay, 0.3 of a pH won't be insignificant. But it's nothing compared to why I messing with numbers in this area. It's outside the expected arena for a "traditional mash" hence why I've picked it. So other errors occur outside the expected mash "envelope" ... ho, hum. Except the expected mash envelope has got bigger now (BIAB, "full-boil-mashes", etc) and the havoc misused concentration amounts are playing would dwarf those hiccups caused by using the calculation outside of the original limits.

I'll look a bit closer, but I'm not worried yet, I'm only using Bru'n Water as a rough modelling tool (I've used it for eons and have built-up a trust of sorts with it), and I'll be wanting to stay far away from all that "pH prediction"/"water calculator" stuff. Or as "nallum" has put it (he has a particular way with words) "con artistry? Metaphysics at least".

[OldN1ck]

For some reason (probably historic?) all calculators are tied into "ppm" and other concentrations.

That is an interesting question, now you get me thinking about it...

Perhaps the reason is more historic for all of the "Gen 1" mash pH calculators that are based on K.Troester's 2009 work (KaiserWater > BrewersFriend, EZWater, Bru'nWater, MpHv1-3 > BrewCipher, BrewFather, BeerSmith) as the original model used malt acidity mEq/kg and Residual Alkalinity ppm as CaCO3, with Mash Thickness R litres/kg in the middle to balance the units.

But then I have to wonder why, since from the middle of the last decade A.J.deLange was suggesting his more physically valid model in a 'Total Amounts' form (e.g. https://www.homebrewtalk.com/threads/ho ... st-7679616), by the time D.M.Riffe had released MpH v4 in 2020 he had implemented deLange's equation modifed back to a 'Concentrations' (Malt Acidity mEq/kg, Residual Alkalinity mEq/l and R l/kg to balance the units) form?

Maybe it's just too irresistibly tempting, starting with water properties in ppms and finishing up with beer mineral profile in ppms, to keep to that form throughout. However I'm in agreement with you, preferring to consider the mash in terms of the total amounts of everything in the mash tun, as I'm then finding it easier to conceptualise what is going on in the mash (and relegating "R", given that I do still mash & sparge in my 3-in-1, only to consideration of how hard I want it to be to stir during doughing-in).

[PeeBee]

And ... . I've got to stop. I promised in the very first post of this thread that I wouldn't rant. My previous thread on the subject (Part I?) descended into a one-man rant-fest. I don't mind "ppm" if used carefully. But as a reminder of why I'm doing this:

For other readers: ppm in this context is the same as mg/L. Not identical but close enough. And only when talking water, which weighs about a kilogram per litre (1000 grams) and a few milligrams (mg) of solutes. A milligram is a thousandth of a gram, so 1mg in a litre is roughly same as 1ppm ... but only in this context! I believe 1mg/L is more clearly a concentration than "ppm". Not using "ppm" carefully includes saying "the correct amount of calcium in a mash is 50-150ppm" because it doesn't quantify according to a reason it's there. One reason is to drop the acidity of the mash through reactions with malt components, but the statement does not concern itself with the explicit amounts of malt and therefore "the correct amount of calcium in a mash is 50-150ppm" (an unconnected concentration) must be nonsense. Unfortunately, the nonsense is repeated time-and-again by people who should have more sense.

[PeeBee]

I went looking for ideas on another forum. A lot of what follows is reposted from that forum:


I'd concluded I was approaching it the wrong way around … dealing with the acidity created by extra Calcium additions, then dealing with dark grain. Finishing all mashing without the extra Calcium additions makes things much more simple, like American style "craft beer" brewing with those anaemic water profiles and not full-on, "firm" (in John Palmer's "Water" book sense of "firm"), traditional (pre-keg) British-style water profiles. Though this does mean accepting these additional Calcium (and Magnesium) additions do not play any significant part in the mash (I can't find any suggestion that they do, but it was "nice" not to commit myself to "they do not").

Most assistance came from this thread: Baking Soda to Raise pH - US Home Brewers Association forum. The guy who started the thread was trying to deal with a very extreme RIS recipe … I'll stick to an average British Stout.

A very handy side-line was: "Dutching Beer" - Bru'n Water; (now that's something to misinterpret the meaning of). A bit of controversy attached to it though (see Elevated pH for Brewing with Roasted Grains Confirmed Years Ago - Homebrew Talk forum). The last link starts an avalanche of links on the subject, so I'm not alone! e.g. Mash pH with stouts/porters - Homebrew Talk forum.

I plugged this lot into Bru'n Water:

Screenshot 2025-06-15 111704.jpg (630.23 KiB) Viewed 62 times

No holding back the chocolate malt (and accompanying sodium bicarbonate) until after the main mash … but I could if I want; and I will because it seems to get complicated if I don't? I've fiddled the quantity of bicarbonate so the pH is the same after adding and before adding in this calculator (Bru'n Water); it will be slightly different in other calculators (and reality will be slightly different again!). Though I will delay adding the Chocolate Malt and Bicarbonate for 45-60 minutes as apparently there is a delay before the pH falls back anyway (so I'll take pH reading before and half hour after?). More table salt added to keep the Sodium level up at Graham's levels (sodium from the bicarb has dropped by employing these changes).

All these salts are added after the mash apart from the bicarbonate ("Add Hardness Minerals to Kettle" option). An amount of Calcium salt has already been added for the mash (see notes in diagram above). In line with I was suggesting much earlier in the thread. This addition is responsible for Bru'n Water suggesting a Mash pH of 5.44.

[PeeBee]

For some reason (probably historic?) all calculators are tied into "ppm" and other concentrations.

That is an interesting question, now you get me thinking about it...

Perhaps the reason is ...

I'm not ignoring this! Just sidestepping it to give me more time to assimilate it (my mind is as sharp as a half-brick ), and to avoid the very real risk of me descending into full-scale rant (again). Just now I really must get a brew on ... and then I can return to ranting!