"Present tense" so I'm assuming you still cannot see how increasing nitrates reduces anions? It would confuse me too. But I'm not increasing, I'm decreasing. 1 and 3 year olds have obviously mashed your head entirely. (I think my head has an automatic safety switch-off when faced with those situations).
Some extra points:The summary page from Dwr Cymru has got pretty useful recently. Just about all you need and without having to trawl through the analysis lists. But you can cut it down a wee bit more (I've recently been going through my report and found some useful shortcuts):
Let's start with "Hardness", the traditional arcane method of describing water and the one many UK old hands at brewing relied on. It takes up a block of six squares in your report.
"Hardness [Calcium] (mg/l)" at "39.00". It's actually a figure "as CaCO3" (this will be fun because there is no CaCO3 in your water). Take your "Calcium (mg/l)" and multiply it by the "magic number" of 2.5 ... 15.5 x 2.5 = 38.75. Cor, that's close to "39.00"!
"Hardness [Magnesium] (mg/l)". Heck, it's blank! Never mind, take your "Magnesium (mg/l)" figure and multiply it by the magic number for Magnesium (4.1) ... 1.31 x 4.1 = 5.37. That'll do (I hate blank boxes!).
Add those two together ... 38.75 + 5.37 = 44.12. Isn't that similar to "Hardness [Total] (mg/l)" at "45.08"? The proper figure is a tiny bit higher because it's counting metals (cations) that are pretty insignificant in tap water.
These are an example of how the "as CaCO3" nonsense can be useful (if you've only got a pencil and paper to work with).
The other three (e.g. "Hardness [English] (°eH)") are just variations on displaying the "Hardness [Total]" figure.
Eee, that was fun. Now, forget all of it ... you don't need any of it! You've got all you need in the remaining nine boxes, the "Bicarbonate (mg/l)" and "Alkalinity [blah, blah] (mg/l as CaCO3)" covers all you might have gleaned from arcane "Hardness".
So, "Halve it" to account for that valancy blather! ... 50/61 = 0.82 (magic number for Bicarbonate). (Note: "50" here, not "100"!)Silver_Is_Money (Brewer)
****
Re: CaCO3 * 1.22 = HC03?
« Reply #2 on: February 23, 2021, 02:03:51 pm »
It is a ratio of equivalent weights (EQ Wt).
MW of CaCO3 = 100.0869 g./mole
Valence of Ca++ = 2
Therefore EQ Wt = 100.0869/2 = 50.04345 g./Eq
MW of HCO3- = 61.01684 g./mole
Valence = 1
Therefore Eq Wt = 61.01684 g./Eq
61.01684/50.04345 = 1.21928
I would suggest replacing the word "imaginary", by "equivalent". Such can be real, just as can be the square root of -1 when there is a particular type of mathematical problem to resolve. The difficulty is only in the way our minds have been instructed thus far.Some extra points:
If you see "as CaCO3", or even just "CaCO3", the amounts are imaginary, they are not real, don't use them as if they are! If using a water calculator (you should!) it may require "Alkalinity" to be entered "as CaCO3"; so be it if that's what it wants.
The Dwr Cymru report doesn't even mention their "Hardness" values are "as CaCO3" (eg - "Hardness [Total] (mg/l)" ... but they are"). Perhaps Dwr Cymru are embarrassed to admit they are using an imaginary unit?
Indeed it is. An experienced brewer won't bothered with hardness, rather a full analysis of major ion content. For a rough comparison there is need to know hardness, if only for the inevitable question about hardness by others."Hardness" is useful to get an idea of the water at a glance, but don't use it at all for any detail and in-depth analysis.
I'm trying to follow your comment and get things back to a more simplistic view. But at the same time encompass some of the good shown us by the crazed, over-enthusiastic rabbiting about "water".
Some hope for others currently starting to struggle with this water lark? Yes, as it once did me. But it's a hurdle that has to be understood and overcome before progressing, just as Becher's Brook and The Chair must be cleared to finish The Grand National.But it's confusing to a lot of people.
Well, not always.I'm very correct to say "Alkalinity" = "Temporary Hardness" = "Bicarbonate".
I've chopped this in two, my head doesn't do more than one subject at a time very well anymore! First the easy bit: Alkalinity:Eric wrote: ↑Tue May 09, 2023 10:56 pm...
[Well, not always.I'm very correct to say "Alkalinity" = "Temporary Hardness" = "Bicarbonate".
Please could you put my alkalinity (250 ppm as CaCO3 with pH 9.0) into that calculator you showed a snip in an earlier post to see what that shows.
Also if you were to add alkalinity in the form of potassium bicarbonate, sodium bicarbonate, those would be bicarbonate, but that addition wouldn't be temporary. Boil the water and it would remain in solution. Using sodium carbonate (which is highly soluble in water) adds no bicarbonate and that alkalinity will be permanent, but no hardness. Softening water by ion exchange replaces calcium and magnesium by sodium, so the water becomes soft, but alkalinity remains the same and becomes permanent. So permanent alkalinity, but no hardness.
Yes, it appears to be crazy, or bewildering, but sodium and potassium salts and carbonates are highly soluble and in bicarbonate form exist as a solid, while calcium salts are more difficult to dissolve, calcium carbonate even more difficult, and calcium bicarbonate cannot exist in solid form. Magnesium is somewhere between those.
Part II ...Eric wrote: ↑Tue May 09, 2023 10:56 pmYes, as it once did me. But it's a hurdle that has to be understood and overcome before progressing, just as Becher's Brook and The Chair must be cleared to finish The Grand National.But it's confusing to a lot of people.
What on God's good earth is wrong with measuring hardness in terms of CaCO3? The water used for my last brew was determined to contain 86.2 mg/L calcium and 40.8 mg/L magnesium which provides a total hardness of 383 mg/L as CaCO3. Alternatively it could be said the hardness of that water was 215.5 mg/L as CaCO3 plus 141.6 mg/L as MgCO3. Of course, that was ridiculous, and why would a brewer want to delve into such territory for any merit worthy reason? But transpose this to alkalinity.
As seen, my water has a high magnesium content because it is sourced from an aquifer in magnesian limestone [dolomite CaMg(CO3)2] formed at the rim of the Zechstein Sea as it dried. It can be traced where it surfaces in parts of Northern England as well as by the line of towns famous for their brewing and beers through history. 1 ml of CRS will neutralise 183 mg of CaCO3, so while the alkalinity in my water is high, it is from an even mix of calcium and magnesium, carbonate. Therefore if by titration we measure that alkalinity in terms of mg/L of CaCO3, even though it isn't all that, then it is possible to calculate the amount of CRS required to eliminate whatever proportion of alkalinity we might desire. ...
You could say the same thing about pH as a unit, or many other units. On their own they mean very little, but as a way of providing equivalence and comparison between measures they're very useful.PeeBee wrote: ↑Thu May 11, 2023 12:35 pmI'm not arguing that "as CaCO3" does or doesn't do the job. I'm griping because it's thrust on the general public as if they should understand it. And most of the time we don't! We naturally try and use the figures where they won't work and were never intended to work. Not helped by water supply professionals "abbreviating" (even omitting) the term so there's no hint it's referring to an "equivalence".
It's a common flaw with many "professional" workers, "IT" is perhaps the most extreme example, the clever dicks write instructions for their colleagues to understand (and be impressed with?) and completely fail to realise they are talking to the General Public.
It would have been much better if they'd chosen a fictitious name instead of insoluble Calcium Carbonate, like "Unobtanium Illudate" ("UnIlO3", or perhaps "HaRdO3"?), molar mass (weight) exactly 100, and then we (the "uneducated" masses) won't be tempted to use it in daft ways. But it is too late for that.
Not really. pH is pH. People who confuse it with anything else are probably beyond help. CaCO3 is ... well, an insoluble lump of rock, a means of expressing something as something else, and ... anything else? One hopes not. People who confuse what is being meant by CaCO3 certainly get my sympathy.
That's another sore point. "Equivalence". Very grand sounding ... but if I was to change that to "pretending it's something it's not" it doesn't sound so grand. Trouble is, Joe Public out there forgets to do the pretending, probably because no-one told him he was supposed to. Pretending multiple things are the same thing is great for working things out, if done correctly, it really simplifies things (provides a "common denominator") but forgetting to do the "pretending" creates enormous confusion, inaccuracy, misinformation ... down-right fantasy!
