Water Calculator: Episode 4, A New Hope?

[PeeBee]

From my earlier thread ...

... On "PPM": Percent has the symbol "%" ("0/0" ... if that displays right?), "parts-per-thousand" (or whatever they call it) has "0/00". I wonder if you can have "PPM" as "0/00000"? Anyway, "PPM" often assumes "water" has a density of "1.00 grams-per-millilitre" (not strictly true), so a millilitre, and any solutes have a density of one gram-per-millilitre (or cubic centimeter) ... (not at-all true!). But it is close enough. ...

Cor! Look what I came across wasting time today: Wikipedia: Parts-per Notation

Seems I can't have PPM = 0/00000 'cos it only goes up to 0/000 (per-myriad) (‱). So, I'll try again, how about Parts-Per-Million = Per-Cent-Myriad? That must surely win me top spot for ultimate time waster?

[EDIT: You can have (according to that Wiki-article) Per-Cent-Millie (part-per-100,000) so why not Per-Cent-Myriad for an extra zero?]

Why do they drop a "zero" off the percent (permille, etc.) divisor? "Percent" would make more sense if "0/00" (‰).Wouldn't it? Anyway ... just babbling.

I kept spelling "mille" with an additional "i"! "Mille" is the correct spelling, not "millie". [EDIT: Pronounced "mil" or the full word is "puhmil" ... that's for the "permille" spelling, it also appears as "promile" too ... "additional 'i'", phah, well, I'm bound t'make screwups, I aint "klassikaly" edukated y'no (dowt show th'lo, do it?)].

"Myriad" was Greek, not Latin (Roman). Although the Romans borrowed it occasionally for really big numbers. The Romans weren't so "mathematical" as the Greeks, they were too busy killing other people to be bothered with numbers (unless trying to impress with a really big killing spree). "M" was already nabbed for a thousand, so having "myriad" was awkward.

So, "Per-Cent-Myriad" is out and I suggest "Per-Mille-Mille" (Per-Mille-Per-Mille) replaces it in "PeeBee's List of Ancient Numbers Catalogue". The same as "Per Million" for "the even more ignorant than a Roman" lifeforms.

[PeeBee]

… The same as "Per Million" for "the even more ignorant than a Roman" lifeforms.

Sorry, that could have been taken "offensively" (Wasn't it supposed to be? … Shut up you, you now what I mean).

I've not long been given a slapped wrist for "denigrating language" on the "Home Brew Talk" forum. I had to Google "denigrating"! But, apparently it applies even if I'm trying to create a joke. So, "Sorry"!

[PeeBee]

Right. Time to get this show on the move again. The "Christmas Outage" is a couple of weeks past (I'm a traditionalist and have never had demanding kids, so Christmas was 24th Dec ... a few days earlier 'cos I'm not so quick getting things together now ... and ended 6th Jan), but I haven't done nothing to this project. I've been able to consolidate what I was doing and what I think I should be doing next.

The project started because I was getting very low Mash pHs (under 5.0) and no-one could tell me why. That's now behind me. I'd switched to brewing entirely on a Grainfather ("AIO" brewing) 'cos big 3V system was out of commission. And to me, "AIO" means "Full-Boil-Volume-Mash" (No-Sparge). I did not appreciate the impact this would have! And I never accepted the enormous increase in "alkalinity salts" I was being instructed to add (I have very low alkalinity tap water ... 7-8mg/L "as CaCO3", testing repeatedly at the tap). So I only added enough alkalinity salts to stay in-line with what I was used to (using "mash-sparge" and my 3V systems).

Bad me!

All history now. But along the way I'm better appreciating the distortions working with concentrations (like "mg/L", and, it's near equivalent, but much murkier sibling, "parts-per-million" ("ppm"). I'm better appreciating why I need to be very careful taking advice from the "hard-water" majority, or even those using "RO Water" (who more than likely are "ex-Hard Water" users). I have been accused of having a "conspiracy theorist's" attitude towards "ppm", but if you are not squeaky clean careful with it, "ppm" will lead you astray!


So, "my" project has moved from a "why are my mash pHs so low?" to a "change of approach to water manipulation".

Firstly: Treat the mash water for what the Mash needs. Secondly: When mashing is done, treat the wort for what the Beer will need. Brewing beer nicely splits the two water treatment processes. The first (mash) is about the available ions (Calcium and Magnesium), alkalinity (and therefore pH), and the quantity of grain being mashed (i.e. is not to do with water quantity!). The second (post-mash?) is about the beer and the cocktail of ions, including sulphates and chlorides (i.e. is to do with water quantity and final batch size).

You can only use such an approach if you have low "total-dissolved-solids" ("TDS"), say 100-150mg/L, but I haven't tested beyond these limits yet; there may still be benefits in going much higher.

I'm testing by coercing the output from Bru'N Water, but I'm also looking at "Brewfather" and "Brewer's Friend" on-line calculators as being a means to deploy this approach. "Brewer's Friend" works, but comes with a lot of excess "baggage". "Brewfather" is prettier and customisable (so I can remove some of the "baggage"), but may not be flexible enough and might fail me ... I'll see. First off: Bru'N Water, the stand-alone stalwart ...

[PeeBee]

Before Christmas I'd begun exploring this "methodology" using "Bru'N Water". I'd created a "Parasitic Spreadsheet" to assist me remembering the sequence of steps to take (Bun'N Water wasn't going to help me directly out-of-the-box, but it's flexible enough for me to "modify" how it goes about it's job). Here's a throw-back to Christmas with the beer ("Bru'N Dry Stout") in hand:

20260104_200728_clip.jpg (1 MiB) Viewed 2944 times

The recipe lent itself excellently to the procedures I wanted to take. So my job wasn't a leap-leap-in-the-dark. A low mineralised water, brewed "no-sparge" in a Grainfather G30, mashed at 65C for 75 minutes before ramping up to 70-72C, roast barley added and steeped for 25 minute. Only Calcium Chloride (33% solution) added to the mash, no adjustments post-mash. Mashed at pH5.4 - 5.5 (the first time I've mashed above pH5.0 for over two years ... so that worked!), and the roast turned the pH down to 5.3 for the Steep/Mash-Out. Served from hand-pump through a decent sparkler at about 16C (I despite frigid, cold beers!). And if anyone says "nitrogen", I will find you, and I will ... <beep>

The Stout is carbonated at 300mbar (4-an-a-bit psi CO2). So I'm slightly cheating (100-150mbar is more "normal"). Just look at that jumper ... what else would you expect of me!

The "Parasitic Spreadsheet" has been updated ... and that means cut back in complexity! I'll show that next, But I'm not repeating the recipe just yet; I've some more mineralised brews to try the methodology on.

[PeeBee]

The following is for a 1968 Fuller's "London Pride" clone, recipe from Ron Pattinson's grubbing about in library archives. The water profile is one of Graham Wheeler's (i.e. well mineralised). First step is establishing a "fantasy baseline"; what would have been "normal" home-brewing practice 30 or 40 years ago with a mash followed by a sparge.

This is done to try and establish a "normal" amount of Calcium ions in the mash water. But we know now that Calcium applies to the malt quantity, not the water quantity. But no-ones seems to have done the research work to link the Calcium quantity directly with the grain quantity? Hence, this "fantay baseline step!

The screenshots are of my "Bru'N Water Parasitic Spreadsheet" which I used to develop the method. So, it still looks very much like Martin Brungard's well-known "Bru'N Water" calculator, and I still haven't sought permission to release the spreadsheet. But anyone interested should be able to follow the screenshots.

Screenshot 2026-01-23 093635.jpg (364.73 KiB) Viewed 2869 times

The results of that "fantasy baseline" are fed into a step that reflects the actual water quantities to be used (which could include "BIAB no-sparge"). This step was tricky! The "PPM" concentration measurements being the culprit. "PPM" has been switched for the near equivalent "mg/L", not because it is immune to the confusions, but because it seems less likely to make the same mistakes using "mg/L".

Screenshot 2026-01-23 094512 plus.jpg (1000.48 KiB) Viewed 2869 times

Next up, the finalised "water profile" ...

[PeeBee]

Okay. So this post isn't the previously mentioned "Next up", but it's an "interlude" to explain a bit more.

All that bubble-gum pink stuff above is because no-one appears to have published the amount of Calcium ion a mash requires. Understandable (-ish) if viewing it from a pre-21st Century stand-point; unless you had very "soft" water, or inexplicable used distilled or deionised water, you had to put up with the Calcium ion given you in the tap water. The 21st Century bought with it easy (and cheap) to obtain reverse-osmosis ("RO") water (and, in my case at least, more mouthy "soft" water users!), so you may now have the water (mineral content) you desire, and, if I have my way, be able to have a more mineralised finishing mineral content in your beer than you mashed in.

Getting there has used what was "normal" in the past and extending it to meet the present. It's a common process known as (with amazing imagination) "normalisation". But has been made tricky due to well ingrained and distorting measurement in things like "PPM". It's purging that ingrained stuff that makes my "parasitic spreadsheet" so "intense"; numbers with a ludicrous four decimal places (zero should do, perhaps 1 or 2 for "litres", acids, and some choice "mash only" additions?). I only keep the excruciating detail (and otherwise un-necessary "ppm" tables) to assist with recognising when things have gone wrong during these development stages.

...

Talking of which: In the piccies above why is the sum of Calcium ions greater than the "Total Calcium"? The latter is a contrived replacement for the "medieval" "Hardness" figure which includes Magnesium (at least) and is "properly" measured in exaggerating "as CaCO3" units? I'll look into that! ... Before I post the finalised "water profile"!

[EDIT: Eek! Better watch that; it was me adding the "Magnesium", in response to some suggestion Magnesium was to be given more credit ... I was "future proofing" my work! So forget the "Hardness" stuff (good riddance!), it was a contrived replacement in another "water" subject. I'm still left with the sum of Calcium ions greater than the "Total Calcium" (which includes a fraction - half - of Magnesium measured "as Calcium") ... I still need to sort that out!]

[PeeBee]

The suspicious figure was quickly tracked down, it was a hang-over from earlier work. As my work parallels Bru'N Water, I had hoped it would rapidly trap such errors, but in adding a trick to add the more versatile additions to the mash (a "Baseline") I'd hid that area from Bru'N Water (I edit source water profiles directly) so Bru'N Water saw nothing suspicious. Not the first time, so it's taken a while ensuring I wont do it again. Increasing the "Baselines" target "Calcium" level (from 55 to 75) pretty much covered up the changes begun by the error.

Needless to say, it was connected to calculations involving "ppm". I'm completely baffled as to why some brewers defend it and loudly proclaim the benefits of "ppm". It's an awful measuring unit (a "concentration") that ties the brewer to lengthy and baffling calculations, but at the same time offers an easy way to avoid it's excesses ... stop using it! It offers no advantages (but offers plenty of pain!) when working with fractions of a "bucket-full" (or ... what home-brewers are doing all the time).

[nallum]

PPM isn't a recognised international standard but it clearly works well enough in brewing and other areas of 'water' science. I'm really not sure what you're actually chasing. A personal 'academic' challenge? You can tell a difference in the end product? An improvement?

[PeeBee]

For example (using very basic measures for the sake of clarity):

PPM is a "concentration". Very useful (for example) for undetermined volumes of water containing tiny amounts of solute as ions. PPM is, like all concentrations, independent of volume.

You have one litre of tap water containing 50mg of Calcium ion (50ppm).

You add 50mg more of Calcium ion as calcium chloride (a calculator tells you how much). You have 1L with 100ppm of calcium ion.

You add one litre more tap water. You have two litres of water containing 100ppm calcium ...


It's obvious put like that that you have two litres containing 75ppm. But ppm is volume independent! When digging deep, it's so easy to forget you are abusing "PPM". I've had errors with it turning up for weeks, including the one yesterday (mentioned in earlier post). The misuse is pandemic. It needs cutting out. "PPM" should go no further than the tap you fill your brewing kit with (may be okay to return for the finished wort/beer ... if you can think of a reason).

Doesn't cause you a problem. Doesn't cause many people a problem. But I guarantee there are people reading this post and scratching their heads over "where did I get 75ppm from?". And you get text books from "clever" people with "the right amount of Calcium ion in a mash is 50-150ppm". No other reference! ... Its just complete bol*****! I've had one forum goer say to me "PPM is his favourite "metric"! 'Cos everyone uses it? Tell a BIABer he needs 50-150ppm of Calcium ion in his (no-sparge) mash. He might not be able to taste the difference. But he might be a bit worried about why he's adding so much "chalk" or the like. What is clear to me is that for many home-brewers "PPM" does NOT work at-all well!


So ... YES! I can tell the difference. To the point I'm now perfectly confident I can brew Stouts well. Something I've been unable to do in 45 years of home-brewing (I didn't like the results). And so I'll continue pushing on with the methods I'm developing. There's an army of "RO Water" users out their who don't even know yet why they need these methods. You might even find yourself using them (I do know the water you're using!).

Hey ... But thanks very much for handing me this pedestal to preach from!

[nallum]

That's great. Really. If it keeps you busy and you believe it works, for you. But PPM has been working well enough for brewing, over and over for so long, it clearly works well enough. There's 'science', then there's science. It's only beer. And I mean that sincerely - it's only beer. It's not a potentially lethal pharmaceutical.

[PeeBee]

No ... you're right, it's not a potentially lethal pharmaceutical. But for me, it was never Stout either! And this all came about because I was recently mashing at below pH5.0 (for two years past!). Only with hindsight have I been able to connect that with taking up an exclusively "no-sparge" methodology. No-one is interested in the problems of very low alkalinity brewers (as you know too!). My water comes in at about 7.5mg/L as CaCO3 by-the-way.

The stuff I've uncovered just to be able to brew consistently again is eyewatering.

PPM works well ... for a select few! Are you telling me "the right amount of Calcium ion in a mash is 50-150ppm"? It's cr&p, and you know it. Yet hundreds are following cr&p advice like that and just pretend their beer is good.

Some people will show you how much 1000ppm is by weighing it out and sticking it in your hand. Eh?

It is remarkable that people make sound beer with a most fascinating kaleidoscope of twisted knowledge. I find it equally remarkable that I could brew decent beer with that knowledge.

All that "science" means nothing to me. As long as you've known me (getting on ten years) I've been brain-damaged (that eyepatch in the photo above isn't a fashion accessory) and the NHS describe me as "SMI" (look it up). Yet what it has done is clarified how much complete and utter garbage concerning beer making we are being subjected to. I'll do what I can to straighten that out.


Next up ... I need to get that "example" out. Looks complicated, but it's working towards a frighteningly simple methodology. No weighing hundredths of a gram of anything, no trying to perfecting mind-control using a pH meter ... no chalk! (Or lime, or baking soda, etc.).



Eeee! I do like these inspiring forum jousting matches! But I must go make me tea.

[nallum]

It's called 'pseudoscience'.

[PeeBee]

The cumulation of all that bubble-gum coloured stuff from the parasitic spreadsheet:

Screenshot 2026-01-25 133051 plus.jpg (1.05 MiB) Viewed 2703 times

Do note there is no chalk (lime, baking soda) to add. This scheme has no need for it. Some acid, but that shouldn't normally be necessary (only for brewing with low mineralised finished water profiles). Chalk, etc. puts an appearance in later ("late alkalinity"), but it won't be doing so in this example.

This would be how it appears in an unadulterated Bru'N Water:

Screenshot 2026-01-25 134744.jpg (599.28 KiB) Viewed 2703 times

A bit more compact (it's obviously missing all my sidenotes!) and obviously something different about how I'm handling the "Total Water Additions" block. But otherwise an obvious resemblance. The resemblance helps me recognise errors in my work, but also ensures I can't post the spreadsheet unless I gain permission from Martin (which I haven't asked for yet) because it will infringe copyright. The procedures would be awkward without the "parasitic spreadsheet addon", but not impossible (using a second/third iteration of "Bru'N Water" ... or any other calculator for that matter), so I bombard you all with the waffle anyway.

The "parasitic spreadsheet" is using a spreadsheet tweaked "Dilution Water Profile" to effectively inject another "Mash" water additions column into Bru'N Water, along with enabling the "Remove Crystal/Roast Malt from Main Mash" options ("Grain Bill Input" page), so, I can manipulate salt additions in both the "Main Mash" and "Post Mash" ("Sparge" got renamed "Post Mash" because, as in this case, you are not going to dissolve 20 grams of salts in six litres of "sparge" water!). It is a bit OTT calling it a "parasitic spreadsheet" as it's only taking away some information to assist trouble shooting, but it does steal the calculated "pH" (that bit's hard!).

[PeeBee]

Unfortunately for you lot … I've been continued developing my "water treatment" ideas over the past few weeks, and they're resolving into something even simpler (yet still more accurate than the current dumber way of doing it). And I'm going to use it to bore the the pants of you some more. (Well, some are going to be thankful for it … though they might be as weird as me?).

I'm putting aside my "bubble-gum pink Bru'N Water Addon" for a moment because it coalesced into something applicable to most "water calculators", the result of trying to get the modern online "Brewfather" app to work with it (I rather like how "Brewfather" works, although the name is unfortunate).

I developed the idea further on the "Home Brew Talk" forum Website using a "slide" a member called "Vikeman" had published (it was a slide he created for a presentation). I realised I could adapt it to forward my ideas:

Slide by Vikeman.jpg (91.62 KiB) Viewed 1740 times

Step One could be extended to include low "TDS" tap water (though I haven't explored the upper limits yet … my water is <30ppm Calcium ion, <10ppm "Alkalinity" "as Bicarbonate" or "as CaCO3"), Step Two removed (that's dealt with after the mash), and Steps Three and Four modified to remove any instruction to add "Alkalinity" (Sodium Bicarbonate or Calcium Hydroxide … or "Chalk"!).

I'll post it all over the coming days …

[PeeBee]

I stumbled on this grain mashing methodology while trying to remedy a string of very low pH mashes (<5.0). I eventually traced it (took over two years) to having switched to "AIO"s, using them in "no-sparge" mode and having very low "alkalinity" tap water (low TDS too). This method should interest those in a similar position (those numbers won't be high! Mainly Scottish Highland and extreme West of UK), to which can be added the hoards that are now using "RO Water" and questioning why they use loads of alkalinity salts, especially if performing BIAB mashes, no-sparge mashes, or any other method that uses high water to grain ratios.

I haven't attempted to extend this methodology into high alkalinity, high TDS water users yet.

There's a few changes that must be got used to:

1. Alkalinity salts (chalk, lime, bicarbonate, etc) is NOT used in the main mash.
2. A small amount of Calcium salt is added to the main mash to keep the "pH" in the right area.
3. The majority of water treatment salts are moved from the main mash (where they are not needed) and added to the sparge/boil.
4. Any large amounts of roast grains or dark crystal malts are moved from the main mash to a later "steep" or secondary mash.

The first three points will require a fairly significant change in how the water treatment is arranged. It means all mashes start as if brewing a low mineralised beer. It needs an appreciation that most minerals were never necessary in the mash (sodium, chlorides, sulphates, magnesium, extra calcium). They were only added to the mash because the water used for brewing had them in, and there was no way to get them out. Those additional minerals would have their place later in the brewing process. But not the mash!

What may become apparent is that low alkalinity, low TDS, water brewers always had this option available to them. Mashing in "soft" water was the preferred method a few hundred years ago (late 17th C., early 18th C.). But soon the majority had to make do with the water available to them, and their ideas trumped those of the minority "soft" water users. But recent years (this Century) has seen the uptake of "RO Water". "Water Treatment" still follows the "18-20th C. old ways" … this article might be a step to correcting that, and become a more inclusive methodology for low TDS water users.