Bru'n Water - Strange results in ver. 2.12

[WallyBrew]

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.

Given that this matter was raised over a year ago and no sensible response has been received it would be difficult to just relabel everything and not give some sort of reply. Had the matter been taken seriously at the time it was raised then damage limitation would have been easier. Check and confirm the complainants issues and issue a defence such as "it would appear our supplier has provided us with an out of specification batch. Our QC programme is such that we check batches at random but on this occasion this was obviously a batch that did not fall within the remit. We assure you that we will check every batch in future."

Only need to redo the data sheet for usage and the specification sheet without telling anyone and maybe the problem will go away.

One year on = no chance

[Graham]

Given that this matter was raised over a year ago and no sensible response has been received it would be difficult to just relabel everything and not give some sort of reply. Had the matter been taken seriously at the time it was raised then damage limitation would have been easier. Check and confirm the complainants issues and issue a defence such as "it would appear our supplier has provided us with an out of specification batch. Our QC programme is such that we check batches at random but on this occasion this was obviously a batch that did not fall within the remit. We assure you that we will check every batch in future."

Only need to redo the data sheet for usage and the specification sheet without telling anyone and maybe the problem will go away.

One year on = no chance

It seems to me that this company that has, apparently, been brewing consultants for over a hundred years**, is in dire need of -umm- a consultant.

** even longer if one includes Sutton & Phillips in that history.

With due respect to those on here that know their chemistry, and other obvious exceptions:

I find it strange that it is the people on here, the amateurs - the bucket-brigade (with due respect), that discover and highlight these anomalies. I would have thought it more probable that the professional boys, with their better equipped laboratories and well-qualified staff, would have discovered this stuff and had it sorted long before we became aware of it. It is often said that an enthusiastic amateur has more knowledge on his subject than a professional (Patrick Moore being a classic example). It could be because enthusiasts are more likely to question perceived wisdom, or perhaps they like to get to the bottom of things so look at things more deeply than just taking things for granted. Anyway, it is an unfathomable occurrence.

[Dave S]

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.

Given that this matter was raised over a year ago and no sensible response has been received it would be difficult to just relabel everything and not give some sort of reply. Had the matter been taken seriously at the time it was raised then damage limitation would have been easier. Check and confirm the complainants issues and issue a defence such as "it would appear our supplier has provided us with an out of specification batch. Our QC programme is such that we check batches at random but on this occasion this was obviously a batch that did not fall within the remit. We assure you that we will check every batch in future."

Only need to redo the data sheet for usage and the specification sheet without telling anyone and maybe the problem will go away.

One year on = no chance

I agree that their refusal to address this problem in over a year has made rescuing the situation considerably more difficult. But what's the alternative? continuing the deception? Surely not!

[simple one]

I can't believe there is no response to this yet. It can't be doing their home brew business any good.

[Cpt.Frederickson]

Think i'll have to look for a new supplier for sulphuric in future. Any recommendations?

[barneey]

You could always just buy some concentrated acid & dilute that to a safer level.

There was a good how to on this thread viewtopic.php?f=9&t=56434&hilit=wine+bottle&start=15

[Cpt.Frederickson]

Cheers Clive, that was what I was going to do before buying the Murphy's stuff. Back to the original plan then! At least any mistakes or inaccuracies would then be my fault rather than Murphy's...

[simple one]

I will stick with Murphy's (I am reassured that it is food grade and from a reputable brewing supplier), however I will be cautious with pre and post alkalinity figures. Ensuring that I have margin for error on the more alkaline side.

I can only think that maybe they had a work experience bloke/lass mixing up batches one day and thought we would all be 'happier' with more product!

Today I used my 25% acid at a rate of 0.2ml/litre to knock my 130ppm CaCO3 down to 20ppm CaCO3. From now on I am using it solely to knock out alkalinity, not really concerned about the addition of sulphates.

[Aleman]

If you use it as 25% v/v ( ~= 4.69M ) then the Murphys stuff is fine . . . The problem occurs if you use it as it is labelled (IIRC w/v).

If you can accurately measure alkalinity then it is not to difficult to check the strength of the product as supplied and then use that value for calculations.

Of course anyone with access to a proper QC lab, should be able to make up a standard, titrate an 'unknown' against it, determine the strength of the batch and label the damn thing correctly!! For crying out loud it's basic A Level Chemistry.

And for what it's worth the problem is not exclusive to Murphys. I've had to resolve exactly the same issue with another suppliers clone of CRS. turns out to be 2.5 times stronger than specified on the data sheet.

[Cpt.Frederickson]

If that's the case I guess I'll have to be less lazy on brewdays and test my solution prior. That'll teach me for being slapdash I guess.
Based on my last brew, there is significant difference in the acid I used vs. the projected acid requirement using Aleman's value. While this isn't necessarily the value for my own acid, it highlights for me the degree of difference this could have on my mash pH. Cheers guys.

[WallyBrew]

I will stick with Murphy's (I am reassured that it is food grade and from a reputable brewing supplier)…………..

How do you know it is food grade?
To be food grade it would have to be prepared from acid that meets the following criteria as given in
COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 2008/84/EC

E 513 SULPHURIC ACID
Ash -------------------------------- not more than 0.02%
Reducing matter---------------------- not more than 40mg/kg (as sulphur dioxide)
Nitrate------------------------------ not more than 10mg/kg (on sulphuric acid basis)
Chloride ---------------------------- not more than 50mg/kg
Iron -------------------------------- not more than 29mg/kg
Selenium ---------------------------- not more than 20mg/kg
Arsenic ----------------------------- not more than 3mg/kg
Lead ------------------------------- not more than 5mg/kg
Mercury ---------------------------- not more than 1mg/kg

FCC IV which I believe they currently mention has been superseded and is irrelevant when for European purposes the above legislation should be applied
It should also list E513 as part of its contents

[simple one]

Yes I don't know it is... however they wear white lab coats, and don't sell it from a lock up with loads of car batteries stacked up.

Crap answer, but that's what reasures me.

[barneey]

The trouble I had, nearly 2 years ago & reading back through the thread I linked to, was actually getting someone other than EBay to sell me the acid it was near on impossible to buy it. The EBay sellers will see you something with a photocopied analysis sheet so it would then be down to the trust issue. I was lucky enough to get a bottle of 2M from a trusted source in the end. (before anyone asks they no longer sell it).

[Dave S]

If you use it as 25% v/v ( ~= 4.69M ) then the Murphys stuff is fine . . . The problem occurs if you use it as it is labelled (IIRC w/v).

Mine is labeled as 25% W/W, which leads me to suspect they may have replaced on incorrect label with another

[barneey]

In a properly kept glass bottle, how long does sulphuric acid last for, is the a sale by date?