Bru'n Water - Strange results in ver. 2.12

[Dave S]

Using a calculator I got mine to 5.46M, which I have rounded up to 5.5. I have used that value in two different water calculators and got exactly the same result, which I used in my brewing water on Monday. Jiggling the numbers as percentages in the same calculators I found that 46% gave me the same outputs, (couldn't find a simple conversion formula). WallyBrew's calculations come to 43.6, so close enough. This gave me the predicted alkalinity for my Mash water of 30.7 (target 31) ppm. Using the figure of 25% the previous week gave me an indeterminate alkalinity value which turned the Salifert sample pink with the first drop of Indicator fluid, so zero effectively. Pity I didn't measure the pH, though I still could. I'm prepared to bet it'll be around 3.

[GrowlingDogBeer]

Mine works out at 4.39M , what that is as a percentage I'm not sure but it does show it's not consistent as Daves is higher.

[Eric]

I've written 4.5 M on my bottle, but that was about a year since after raising the matter with Murphy's and it might be a bit different now due to its age. I'll go and do a test now and see how long that takes.

[Dave S]

I've written 4.5 M on my bottle, but that was about a year since after raising the matter with Murphy's and it might be a bit different now due to its age. I'll go and do a test now and see how long that takes.

That would be really useful, Eric. I think I'll re-test mine as well, as although the alkalinity of my mash water was correct, my sparge water came out a little high, so another test might be worthwhile.

[FUBAR]

My bottle using 1ml will remove 480 in 1 litre .

[Eric]

Sorry for the delay, got started then son arrived and I'd promised my better half a walk along the beach at low tide, possibly the lowest of the year, at 12 noon.
Anyway, to the point 4.66 Mol meaning 1ml will neutralise 466mg of CaCO3.

[barneey]

So why doesn't everyone use the a standard "Molarity" unit instead of all these % V & W`s ? would that not be a good place to start to standardise the brewing water treatment scene?

[Graham]

Since Murphys are accredited by
http://www.ukas.com/
I'm sure that they will confirm both SO4 and Alkalinity reports are within the tolerances required of their accreditation!

If that were true, it is of no comfort to the end user if those tolerances are not specified on the data sheet so that he or she can adjust his or her process to minimise the effects of the inevitable tolerance spread; these things do not have zero per cent error, but, in my mind, the above statement is not true anyway.

Product tolerances have nothing to do with UKAS accreditation. It is the manufacturer's job to decide the tolerance or the accuracy to which he can (or is prepared to) make something. The necessary degree of accuracy required is market dependent. The accreditor has no business to interfere with such commercial decisions. The UKAS accreditation is for laboratory testing services. It is not a manufacturing standard; it is a traceability standard. It should ensure that their facilities are fit for the purpose of the services that they are accredited for, and that their equipment calibration is up to date and traceable to national standards. Indeed, looking at Murphy's UKAS accreditation schedule, the only laboratory service for which they are accredited (to recognised standards) is for "Resistance to mould growth" on such things as electronic equipment; rather different to mixing a bit of acid with water and getting the sums right.

Inadequate or incomplete product specifications are one of my vexations, home brewing is a particularly strong example of this, but it happens in other areas, particularly on-line shopping.

As it happens, Murphy's do (sort of) provide a tolerance band for their sulphuric acid solution, but that is a rarity in my observation. Furthermore, they do state that the assay is based upon specific gravity and look-up tables. If those tables were compiled by a reputable authority, it is likely that Murphy's could be right and everyone else wrong, including Bru'n Water. Indeed, Bru'n Water would have been my first suspect in this case, because there was a step change from one version to another without explanation, indicating that at least one version was wrong. If one version was wrong, there is a good probability that both versions are wrong.

We will have to wait developments and see what transpires.

[Heron1952]

Since Murphys are accredited by
http://www.ukas.com/
I'm sure that they will confirm both SO4 and Alkalinity reports are within the tolerances required of their accreditation!

If that were true, it is of no comfort to the end user if those tolerances are not specified on the data sheet so that he or she can adjust his or her process to minimise the effects of the inevitable tolerance spread; these things do not have zero per cent error, but, in my mind, the above statement is not true anyway.

Product tolerances have nothing to do with UKAS accreditation. It is the manufacturer's job to decide the tolerance or the accuracy to which he can (or is prepared to) make something. The necessary degree of accuracy required is market dependent. The accreditor has no business to interfere with such commercial decisions. The UKAS accreditation is for laboratory testing services. It is not a manufacturing standard; it is a traceability standard. It should ensure that their facilities are fit for the purpose of the services that they are accredited for, and that their equipment calibration is up to date and traceable to national standards. Indeed, looking at Murphy's UKAS accreditation schedule, the only laboratory service for which they are accredited (to recognised standards) is for "Resistance to mould growth" on such things as electronic equipment; rather different to mixing a bit of acid with water and getting the sums right.

Inadequate or incomplete product specifications are one of my vexations, home brewing is a particularly strong example of this, but it happens in other areas, particularly on-line shopping.

As it happens, Murphy's do (sort of) provide a tolerance band for their sulphuric acid solution, but that is a rarity in my observation. Furthermore, they do state that the assay is based upon specific gravity and look-up tables. If those tables were compiled by a reputable authority, it is likely that Murphy's could be right and everyone else wrong, including Bru'n Water. Indeed, Bru'n Water would have been my first suspect in this case, because there was a step change from one version to another without explanation, indicating that at least one version was wrong. If one version was wrong, there is a good probability that both versions are wrong.

We will have to wait developments and see what transpires.

Quite I was being ironic!!!
There are many companies using QA eg ISO 9001 to mean accurate and good when all it means is consistent, and possibly innaccurate !!

[Graham]

Quite I was being ironic!!!
There are many companies using QA eg ISO 9001 to mean accurate and good when all it means is consistent, and possibly innaccurate !!

Sorry, I missed the irony. You hit another of my soapbox subjects there: Standards; straight cucumbers and all that jazz. My blinkered outlook on life causes me to sometimes take things too seriously.

[boingy]

Quite I was being ironic!!!
There are many companies using QA eg ISO 9001 to mean accurate and good when all it means is consistent, and possibly innaccurate !!

Sorry, I missed the irony. You hit another of my soapbox subjects there: Standards; straight cucumbers and all that jazz. My blinkered outlook on life causes me to sometimes take things too seriously.

Straight bananas? Next they'll be telling us our hoovers are too powerful....

[Eric]

Using a calculator I got mine to 5.46M, which I have rounded up to 5.5. I have used that value in two different water calculators and got exactly the same result, which I used in my brewing water on Monday. Jiggling the numbers as percentages in the same calculators I found that 46% gave me the same outputs, (couldn't find a simple conversion formula). WallyBrew's calculations come to 43.6, so close enough. This gave me the predicted alkalinity for my Mash water of 30.7 (target 31) ppm. Using the figure of 25% the previous week gave me an indeterminate alkalinity value which turned the Salifert sample pink with the first drop of Indicator fluid, so zero effectively. Pity I didn't measure the pH, though I still could. I'm prepared to bet it'll be around 3.

2 litres of water with alkalinity measured to be 154mg/l CaCO3 treated using the dosage rates in the data sheet to reduce alkalinity to 30mg/l resulted in a liquor with a pH measured to be 2.8.

[Dave S]

Using a calculator I got mine to 5.46M, which I have rounded up to 5.5. I have used that value in two different water calculators and got exactly the same result, which I used in my brewing water on Monday. Jiggling the numbers as percentages in the same calculators I found that 46% gave me the same outputs, (couldn't find a simple conversion formula). WallyBrew's calculations come to 43.6, so close enough. This gave me the predicted alkalinity for my Mash water of 30.7 (target 31) ppm. Using the figure of 25% the previous week gave me an indeterminate alkalinity value which turned the Salifert sample pink with the first drop of Indicator fluid, so zero effectively. Pity I didn't measure the pH, though I still could. I'm prepared to bet it'll be around 3.

2 litres of water with alkalinity measured to be 154mg/l CaCO3 treated using the dosage rates in the data sheet to reduce alkalinity to 30mg/l resulted in a liquor with a pH measured to be 2.8.

Why doesn't Paul simply admit what is by now hitting him on the head with a sledge hammer and simply change the label to what it should be?

[Graham]

Why doesn't Paul simply admit what is by now hitting him on the head with a sledge hammer and simply change the label to what it should be?

Possibly because it will be treading on the toes of someone higher up the seniority ladder. It would better to tighten up their quality control procedures or the formulation so that the product is what it says on the tin.

Otherwise they will be going round the loop again this time next year.

[Dave S]

Why doesn't Paul simply admit what is by now hitting him on the head with a sledge hammer and simply change the label to what it should be?

Possibly because it will be treading on the toes of someone higher up the seniority ladder. It would better to tighten up their quality control procedures or the formulation so that the product is what it says on the tin.

Otherwise they will be going round the loop again this time next year.

Exactly! All they need to do is re-label the same product, which is believed to be 25% v/v, not w/v or w/w, then all would be fine, (apart, that is from tightening up their internal QA processes).