Alkalinity, Testing Your Tap Water

[Seveneer]

In response to comments regarding Graham's recent posts on this thread....

I think Graham has a duty to investigate the possble flaws with anything that he puts in his books. If we can discuss the pro's and cons sensibly then homebrewers the world over will benefit when Graham publishes his next book.

Personally, I believe the method outlined here to be the best one we will have for testing our liquor but it doesn't hurt to discuss it further.

/Phil.

[prolix]

If ideas aren't sounded out fully with pros and cons we could end up with the emporers new clothes.

[Aleman]

Given teh length of time that books hang about for I think it is important that Authors make sure that what goes in them is likely to withstand the test of time . . . . Having said that even a rough titration like this is going to provide us with better information that, guessing an appropriate quantity. Yeah If I was in the lab then I would be able to titrate against known standards, and repeat it 4 or 5 times. . . . And to be honest, titration in the lab is pretty much the way accurate determinations are made, its rare that you get to play with the flame/mass spectrophotometers . . .

When I brew with my In laws water, I titrate to the Palintest end point with phosphoric acid to determine the amount to treat the main batch with. I have so much confidence with my method now that I don't get the pH meter out. When I was training in the lab, we spent a year doing titrations and spectrophotometer work, really boring stuff but it instilled in us the required 'rigor' to have confidence in our methods and subsequently the results.

I am sure that the method worked out by Daab and others will be more than adequate for most brewers, and a lot more accurate than some ( I know of one brewer that adds an indicator to a sample of water, if there is a colour change then they add 1/2 a pint of acid to the water, no change no acid . . . its accurate enough for that brewery, but has probably been determined over several months/brwes/beers)

[Graham]

My last word on the subject. Firstly, my comments should have no reflection upon the contribution made the by the person previously referred to here as "The Man". His method only differs in detail to what I was going to propose anyway; it is essentially the same, so any apparent or perceived slurs would apply equally to me.

You can imagine my astonishment though, when I mention this in passing in an unrelated thread, and 24-hours later a full-blown web-page appears outlining something similar.

I suppose I objected to Daab's repeated use of the word accurate and I continually responded by saying that it ruddy well isn't. Repeatability is what Daab is seeing, but it is just semantics after all.

I can hardly say that "here is an accurate method of determining how much of that nasty corrosive stuff to throw into something you are subsequently going to drink." Explaining the limitations of the method and the possible pitfalls has always been my approach.

Only home brewers and fish-keepers titrate any more; the labs use sophisticated electronic methods these days; even the water board can afford better equipment than a bottle of methyl-orange, so getting good information on potential accuracy is quite difficult. I've found only one reference so far, and that dates from the 1960s.

[Graham]

( I know of one brewer that adds an indicator to a sample of water, if there is a colour change then they add 1/2 a pint of acid to the water, no change no acid . . . its accurate enough for that brewery, but has probably been determined over several months/brwes/beers)

Alkalinity indicator solutions do exist. Perhaps that is what they were using. Alkalinity test strips exist, also, a bit like pH papers. Fairly coarse steps with these though. Not good enough.

[delboy]

Reminds me of the playing darts analogy about the differerence between accuaracy and precision, you could be aiming for the treble twenty and instead hit three bullyesyes, fantastic precision to hit the bull each time but piss poor accuracy all the same

[Jim]

........You can imagine my astonishment though, when I mention this in passing in an unrelated thread, and 24-hours later a full-blown web-page appears outlining something similar..........

Graham, if it makes you feel any better, Daab posted this method on the admin forum for discussion on the 28th March, so you weren't pipped at the post, as it were.

And as he said, it was someone else's idea anyway (the person who's identity we are all pretending not to know! )

[Graham]

JIM
It matters not, to me whether or not I was pipped at the post, it is still a good idea no matter what or who. In fact, I was fairly and squarely pipped at the post; there is no way that a procedure can suddenly appear within 24 hours unless there was a lot of preparation going on in the background beforehand. I only hope that my mention caused a lot of back-room hurrying and scurrying, but they needn't of rushed, my major contribution to water safety would only have hit an unsuspecting world, if and when, probably sometime never that my later books are published. I wish I hadn't mentioned it now.

Another major contribution to brewerkind is Daab himself, and the fact that I have pissed him off, really pisses me off; I didn't mean to do that.
Okay, I may have written a couple of books, which in the old days, did make a big difference, but times have changed. You can not ask a book a question when things go wrong - but you can ask Daab a question and it is always a good answer.

It bothered me so much that I had made the decision that I would PM you (Jim) and get you to just unsubscribe me, but when I came onto JBK to do exactly that, someone asked me a direct question, so that screwed up the idea that I was never going to post on JBK again.

However, it is apparent to me that I must step back a bit, and not get so involved. If what Daab has hinted at, and WallyBrew has said outright, if what I say influences opinion, then I really have no business being here. Forums like this are for freedom of opinion, not domination of it. If I am not careful, or not expelled, .... Well.

[Graham]

Accuracy is a subjective word and very much depends on the context it is used in. When used in in the context of brewing beer, I am satisfied that this test is accurate enough.

After all of my previous post, and my grovelling. the only answer I have to that comment is:
Oh Shit!
I'm out of here.

[Graham]

[The test kit is available free of charge for any authors to try out for themselves in the name of research, sadly so far none have come forward.

When will you get it Daab?
I don't need your bloody test kit.
I don't need your bloody methods.
I have done it, been there and got the tee-shirt.

Unlike you, however, I know exactly how accurate my methods are, because I have a full, highly accurate, water analysis, just a few weeks old, courtesy of an acquaintance in a pub.

This man, kindly, did a dozen or more samples for me.
I now know exactly how much carbonate is in my water before I boil.
Exactly how much carbonate is in my water after a thirty-minute boil.
Exactly how much carbonate is left after a sixty-minute boil.
Exactly how much carbonate is left after boiling for thirty-minutes in the presence of additional calcium.
And exactly the water composition after a prescribed water treatment.
Because I happen to live on top of one of the biggest lumps of chalk in Britain, and our water comes from boreholes, I assume that our water doesn't change much and an eight-week-old analysis still represents the water issuing from my tap today.

This chap is willing to do as many analyses as I want, but I am not going to burden him every five minutes because the novelty might soon wear off, and besides, an expensive lump of tax-payer's equipment is undoubtedly being used to do these analyses, and that, of course, pricks my conscience just a bit.

Oh! The sooner Jim locks me out, the better! I've asked him to do so.

[Graham]

Accuracy is a subjective word and very much depends on the context it is used in. When used in in the context of brewing beer, I am satisfied that this test is accurate enough.

If I actually wrote what is going through my mind at the moment it would only continue this, but to put things back into perspective, the <25ppm of bicarbonate that Murphy's themselves advocate on their website (and it is a good target), is only 110 micro-litres/l of CRS. People don't / can't measure the stuff to that accuracy anyway, so people are still likely to overshoot no matter how accurate the test is. Brewers also have the habit of adding "one for the pot", which doesn't help in this case.

I have no idea by how much one needs to overshoot before it can be tasted (or indeed if it actually can), but, assuming mash pH is still okay, I guess not by a busting lot.

After me expressing this as my own personal opinion now! Come on, like you it takes more than a few well phrased words to get me to change my opinion on something. I'd like something a little more compelling.

Hardly a well-chosen phrase.

I know you don't need this kit, the point of my persistence is someone other than my self can review this test, who else here is going to be able to do so other than you, particularly as you hold a completely different view on it? I've gone as far as I can with, i've seen it work repeatedly, I can no longer be subjective about it. It's time for someone else to step up to the mark and take a look, who better than someone who is sceptical about it, with experience in brewing and testing water.

That is where you are wrong. I do not have a different view on it. I am not sceptical about it. I know it works. It has worked for a hundred years, at a guess. I'm as enthusiastic as you. It was semantics I was getting jumpy about, not the test itself. Absolute accuracy might not be important, but knowing the accuracy, or precision, probably is, with all the additional kitchen-sink-method variables taken into account, and then probably not if overshooting by a significant amount doesn't really matter anyway, which it might not.

We have no control over the accuracy of the scales - that is up to Salter, Hanson, or whoever. We have no control over the accuracy of the syringes purchased locally. The only variable within our control that can affect things is the accuracy of diluting the reagent. All that can be done there is to ensure that the methods, ratios, volume of sample are such, that any errors have the smallest impact. After that, it is all over to the person doing the test.

This has got silly, isn't making and drinking beer something we are supposed to enjoy.

Yep.

[Jim]

I feel sad to see anyone leaving the forum over a technical disagreement, but especially someone like Graham, who has contributed so much.

However, the bottom line is that nobody has to participate here if they don't want to.

[Jim]

OK, I've re-read this thread now that I'm fully awake.

Graham,

You're absolutely right that people will take more notice of what you say because of your reputation. Is that a good reason to stop posting on a public forum, though?

I personally have been fascinated to read your posts - they're interesting and informative. If (I hope when) you republish your book, obviously people will expect it be fully researched and as accurate as possible (though god knows I've read some books by other authors that are anything but).

When you post your thoughts on an internet forum, though, surely no reasonable person would expect that level of thoroughness to be applied.

Anyway, I did pm you this morning re your unsubscribing request, but it's not neccessary to be locked out - if you don't want to post, just don't post (but please do if you feel the urge).

Jim

[eskimobob]

Blimey I don't log on to the forum for a few days and it all kicks off

I don't see any reason for anyone to leave the forum though. If I see something I disagree strongly with, I usually try to sit on my hands until the urge to comment has mellowed and I can give it considered comment after reflection.

[Wez]

It would be a shame........CLICKY