Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Final observations/results of my B'N'W experiments...


  • Please log in to reply
32 replies to this topic

#1 Big Nake

Big Nake

    Comptroller of Forum Content

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 53518 posts

Posted 28 April 2014 - 07:47 AM

People: After making a number of beers that were guided by Bru'N'Water, I see that the app is suggesting more acid than is necessary in almost all cases. I have made beers that range from about 3 SRM up to 10-12 SRM and in each of those batches I have entered the grain bill, salt additions, dilution percentage, acid additions, etc. and in every case, the amount of acid required to reach a mash pH of 5.2 was less than BNW calculated. Please know that I am not complaining. I can still use it and adjust from what it tells me is required and I still have a roadmap in my hands before I brew, which is good. I am adding acid and salt additions directly to the mash water as opposed to the mash itself and I'm adding acid to the sparge water before heating it as well... all suggestions from Martin. I'm not sure if this issue is coming from the fact that the pH of my source water is lower than it would typically be but that number is entered into the water tab so it doesn't seem like that would cause it. It's also possible, as I've mentioned before, that I'm just using BNW incorrectly. As an aside, two pale beers that I made awhile back (a pils with 2278 and another with 2308) are both kegged, cold and carbed and I have sampled both of them. They were made with some direction from BNW and both are stellar. That husky, grainy, harshness is gone and the beers are clean, clear and delicious. I posted this more for Martin or anyone else who occasionally gets dicey results from BNW. I have heard from a few other brewers that have reported the same thing but again... they could be using it wrong too. Cheers.

#2 denny

denny

    Living Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9090 posts
  • LocationEugene OR

Posted 28 April 2014 - 10:24 AM

Thanks so much for this, Ken.  I'll try to let Martin know this si here, but if he doesn't see it, please send him your findings.  It could benefit everybody.



#3 positiveContact

positiveContact

    Anti-Brag Queen

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 68886 posts
  • LocationLimbo

Posted 28 April 2014 - 11:41 AM

so far I'm seeing pretty predictable results from bru'n water.  I've made an export style stout, pale ale, oktoberfest and denny's waldo lake amber.

 

now I use colorpHast strips so take my results for what they are worth.  on the stout I added nothing to my water and landed around 5.5.  bru'n water predicted 5.4.  I can't be 100% sure of the accuracy of my water report so I'm not overly concerned with this.  on the pale ale I was shooting for 5.3 and hit it.  I think I just used gypsum to acidify.  On the oktoberfest I was shooting for 5.4 and hit it exactly.  I used a little bit of gypsum, calcium chloride and acid malt.  on the waldo lake amber I can't remember but I'm fairly sure I hit the mark there as well.

 

just another data point.



#4 neddles

neddles

    No Life

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 16523 posts

Posted 28 April 2014 - 09:29 PM

BrunWater, as you know Ken, has worked quite well for me too. However when it has erred, it has erred on the side of telling me to add too much acid just like you. But rarely do I come out more than .05 from where it told me it would. And BTW Martin's suggestion to add 3L (in BrunWater) to the L rating on your sack of Rahr Pale Ale malt was spot on last Thursday. I targeted 5.35 with BrunWater and got 5.36 on my meter.

#5 codemonkey

codemonkey

    Ass. Comptroller of Ferthdays

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 18916 posts
  • LocationMy suburban paradise

Posted 29 April 2014 - 07:31 AM

Did you guys all get the Ward labs water test? My tube arrived last week, just haven't gotten around to filling it yet.



#6 positiveContact

positiveContact

    Anti-Brag Queen

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 68886 posts
  • LocationLimbo

Posted 29 April 2014 - 07:38 AM

Did you guys all get the Ward labs water test? My tube arrived last week, just haven't gotten around to filling it yet.

 

I use the report from water company.  It's a little old at this point but I'm not having any issues.



#7 neddles

neddles

    No Life

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 16523 posts

Posted 29 April 2014 - 07:46 AM

Did you guys all get the Ward labs water test? My tube arrived last week, just haven't gotten around to filling it yet.

Yes. To me it was worth knowing what I was starting with.



#8 denny

denny

    Living Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9090 posts
  • LocationEugene OR

Posted 29 April 2014 - 08:27 AM

Did you guys all get the Ward labs water test? My tube arrived last week, just haven't gotten around to filling it yet.

 

Yep.  I've gotten it several times to test the stability of my water.



#9 HVB

HVB

    No Life

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 18047 posts

Posted 29 April 2014 - 08:29 AM

Did you guys all get the Ward labs water test? My tube arrived last week, just haven't gotten around to filling it yet.

Yes and I need to do it again to see if my water has shifted much.



#10 Big Nake

Big Nake

    Comptroller of Forum Content

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 53518 posts

Posted 29 April 2014 - 01:17 PM

Did you guys all get the Ward labs water test? My tube arrived last week, just haven't gotten around to filling it yet.

Yes. Gotta know what's in the water so you know how to adjust. Gotta.

#11 BarelyBrews

BarelyBrews

    Frequent Member

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1631 posts
  • LocationMichigan

Posted 29 April 2014 - 02:27 PM

Yep.  I've gotten it several times to test the stability of my water.

Argghh..so i should retest someday..LOL..

 

 

 

And keep these water threads going. Info in  layman's terms preferably.  



#12 Big Nake

Big Nake

    Comptroller of Forum Content

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 53518 posts

Posted 29 April 2014 - 02:38 PM

Argghh..so i should retest someday..LOL..And keep these water threads going. Info in  layman's terms preferably.

I am lucky that many, many brewers in Chicago, the burbs and all the way into Milwaukee use Lake Michigan water. We compare notes on the numbers and the water plants keep things so consistent that they're always within a point or two regardless of what time of year it is. But I think getting it checked every so often makes sense if you want the confidence of knowing what's in the water.

#13 denny

denny

    Living Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9090 posts
  • LocationEugene OR

Posted 30 April 2014 - 09:02 AM

Argghh..so i should retest someday..LOL..

 

 

 

And keep these water threads going. Info in  layman's terms preferably.  

 

I'm on a well.  I've gotten the water tested 4-5 times and it's always been really close.  At this point, I won't bother with another test for a while.



#14 Big Nake

Big Nake

    Comptroller of Forum Content

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 53518 posts

Posted 01 May 2014 - 05:10 AM

Another instance: I am making a helles this morning with 100% filtered tap water. About 10lbs of grain that should get me to about 5 SRM and 3.5g of CaCl added to the mash water. BNW suggested 4.4ml of 88% lactic acid to reach a mash pH of 5.2. I was conservative and added 3.0ml to the mash water. My meter was calibrated and performing nicely, reading the 4.0 and 7.0 solutions accurately. I ended up at 5.1 which I'm not worried about but it's another example and consistent with the others.

#15 positiveContact

positiveContact

    Anti-Brag Queen

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 68886 posts
  • LocationLimbo

Posted 01 May 2014 - 05:42 AM

Another instance: I am making a helles this morning with 100% filtered tap water. About 10lbs of grain that should get me to about 5 SRM and 3.5g of CaCl added to the mash water. BNW suggested 4.4ml of 88% lactic acid to reach a mash pH of 5.2. I was conservative and added 3.0ml to the mash water. My meter was calibrated and performing nicely, reading the 4.0 and 7.0 solutions accurately. I ended up at 5.1 which I'm not worried about but it's another example and consistent with the others.

 

Ken, maybe you could post your bru'n water spreadsheet and some of the old hands here could check to make sure you aren't using it incorrectly.  i've caught myself a few times making some errors that might result in a mistake.



#16 Big Nake

Big Nake

    Comptroller of Forum Content

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 53518 posts

Posted 01 May 2014 - 10:04 AM

Ken, maybe you could post your bru'n water spreadsheet and some of the old hands here could check to make sure you aren't using it incorrectly.  i've caught myself a few times making some errors that might result in a mistake.

Some others here have already checked it and said it looked okay and I even emailed a copy over to Martin who also looked at it and said that it did not appear to have any entry errors in it. It's possible that some have taken the accuracy of my meter into question and I wouldn't blame them because my meter got off to a rocky start. But after talking with the Milwaukee people, doing an occasional overnight soak in white distilled vinegar and making certain that the calibration process goes smoothly, my meter has been solid.

#17 positiveContact

positiveContact

    Anti-Brag Queen

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 68886 posts
  • LocationLimbo

Posted 01 May 2014 - 10:08 AM

Some others here have already checked it and said it looked okay and I even emailed a copy over to Martin who also looked at it and said that it did not appear to have any entry errors in it. It's possible that some have taken the accuracy of my meter into question and I wouldn't blame them because my meter got off to a rocky start. But after talking with the Milwaukee people, doing an occasional overnight soak in white distilled vinegar and making certain that the calibration process goes smoothly, my meter has been solid.

 

sounds like all that could be left would be how certain you are of your source water (or as you stated some bias in the spreadsheet calculations).

 

eta: also maybe your scale(s) for grain and salts and/or method of measuring water.


Edited by TheGuv, 01 May 2014 - 10:09 AM.


#18 Big Nake

Big Nake

    Comptroller of Forum Content

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 53518 posts

Posted 01 May 2014 - 10:40 AM

Source water has been analyzed twice over 5 years by Ward Labs... same numbers. Other brewers in my area use the Lake Michigan water and we have compared notes... all the same. My scale for larger amounts of grain (up to 11 pounds) appears to be right on. If I measure out a pound of grain that came in a 1-pound bag, I just dump it into the hopper and it's a pound. Same for a 5-lb bag of something. I have a smaller scale for ounces which seems fine and a small digital gram scale that measured a nickel (5 grams?) properly just a couple weeks ago so I can't see any of that being the issue. I have a few primary buckets that are marked at 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 gallons and I will fill the water up to whatever point I need and assume it's good. When I get about 4 gallons of mash water in the pot I use to heat it, the level aligns perfectly with the handle rivets so the water level is measured out twice at that point (the bucket and then the pot). All of my measuring equipment seems to be okay including the Thermapen for temp and now the Milwaukee meter for pH.

#19 positiveContact

positiveContact

    Anti-Brag Queen

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 68886 posts
  • LocationLimbo

Posted 01 May 2014 - 10:49 AM

I guess what's surprising is I've been surprised by how "not senstive" the results are to what I thought were big differences.  you can be pretty far off on an addition of gypsum and still end up more or less at the same mash pH.  given this it's strange to me that you see a bias towards overestimating the pH value while I have not.

 

i don't see it above so forgive me if it is - but how far off is bru'n water from reality for you?


Edited by TheGuv, 01 May 2014 - 10:50 AM.


#20 neddles

neddles

    No Life

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 16523 posts

Posted 01 May 2014 - 11:04 AM

Some others here have already checked it and said it looked okay and I even emailed a copy over to Martin who also looked at it and said that it did not appear to have any entry errors in it. It's possible that some have taken the accuracy of my meter into question and I wouldn't blame them because my meter got off to a rocky start. But after talking with the Milwaukee people, doing an occasional overnight soak in white distilled vinegar and making certain that the calibration process goes smoothly, my meter has been solid.

How old is that meter now Ken?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users