Creating a Brewing Water Calculator - (Part II?)

(That's water to the rest of us!) Beer is about 95% water, so if you want to discuss water treatment, filtering etc this is the place to do it!
Post Reply
User avatar
PeeBee
Under the Table
Posts: 1692
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:50 pm
Location: North Wales

Creating a Brewing Water Calculator - (Part II?)

Post by PeeBee » Sat Mar 15, 2025 11:26 am

I began this project in a thread of similar name, but I spent most of it ranting at some surprising nonsense that had crept into some of the brewing water treatment practices. I was losing a grip of the thread (and I was the only one contributing!) so, it needed a reboot:

Many additions of water treatment salts were being described in "concentration units" (e.g. ppm and mg/l). This was fine when everyone used similar "mash thicknesses", but mash calculations started to fall apart when many of us moved over to different brewing systems. I'd chosen to start using "all-in-one" systems and "no-sparge" technique ... not a big move as I had already moved to a relatively thin mash thickness of around one kilo grain in 3.5 litre mash water (it's so much easier than thick mashes). I had noticed the mash pHs had dropped, but the beer was good so didn't unduly worry, even though no-one on the brewing forums could give me a satisfactory reason for the falling pHs. When I moved to "no-sparge" mash thicknesses of one kilo grain in four or five litres were normal ... and mash pH dropped through the floor! A pH4.9 became normal, not the lowest pH I saw! The "anaemic" water profiles for craft beer recipes didn't cause me the pH troubles of my "normal" beers, which are "traditional" British beers (the recipes gleaned by Ron Pattinson had become a favorite).

I had noticed huge amounts of sodium bicarbonate were being recommended by the water calculator (Bru'n Water) but I was not used to such amounts and perhaps chose not to go so mad? Well the "American" style "craft beer" weren't causing me such problems. "Bru'n Water" was still instructing me to add vast amounts of "alkalinity" salts when, after months, years even, of experiencing low mash pHs, I was getting to grips with the role Calcium (as the dominant contributor of co-called "Water Hardness") played in the mash ... and only then did the "penny drop"!

Underestimating the impact of increased Calcium in the mash (and resulting severe drop in pH), inappropriate thin mash for the recipes (to get a full-boil-length-mash), mash thickness completely out-of-step with recommended calcium concentration ("50-150ppm") ... I'd never expected things could get so out-of-kilter. From the advice I was reading, seemingly nobody else could either?

This required one of my infamous "spreadsheets" to keep track of the changes I was going to make. Unfortunately for anyone reading this, I've got something that act as the "base" for this spreadsheet ...

My "Defuddler"! :pink:
Cask-conditioned style ale out of a keg/Cornie (the "treatise"): https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwzEv5 ... rDKRMjcO1g
Water report demystified (the "Defuddler"; removes the nonsense!): https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/ ... sp=sharing

Downloads are not available while they undergo enhancement and modification ... 1/1/2025

User avatar
PeeBee
Under the Table
Posts: 1692
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:50 pm
Location: North Wales

Re: Creating a Brewing Water Calculator - (Part II?)

Post by PeeBee » Sat Mar 15, 2025 11:27 am

Now a plan to implement the changes:

Step 1: Split "Batch Volume to present two "virtual" volumes (starting with volumes free of distractions like "boil-off" percents): "Mash Volume" and "Boil Volume". "Mash Volume" divided into three "fixed" volumes (covering any "sub-volumes" too) to be used as appropriate ... 1/2 Batch Volume, a "half-way" 2/3 (1/1.5) Batch Volume and a "full-boil-length-mash" (1/1, "no-sparge" and for "BIAB"). "1/2" is near to the commonly used "standard" mash thickness (based on creating a 5% ABV beer) and will be used to "convert" the commonly used "concentration units" ("ppm", "mg/l", etc.) to "explicit units" to accommodate the two other, thinner, "fixed mash thicknesses".

Step 2a: (Slight rearrangement of earlier order). Determine "base" water profile for mashing. This might be "RO water", "distilled water" or "deionised water". OR! A suitably low mineralised tap or bottled water (with mineral analysis). OR! A less suitable mineral-rich water (with mineral analysis) that can be diluted to a suitable mash water with "RO water", "distilled water", etc.

Step 2b: Determine the amount of calcium salt (chloride, sulphate, or "other") to add to the mash water to provide (or make up to) the required (fixed) level of calcium for the mash. Repeat for "alkalinity" salt; sodium bicarbonate, calcium hydroxide (Lime), etc. (chalk even!). Any calcium salts will count towards the additions above. NOTE: The calcium and alkalinity salts will be calculated as explicit values! "PPM" and "mg/L" will not be appropriate. Unlike calcium, "alkalinity" may be variable (not "fixed") and might use a simple calculation depending on the type of beer being made.

Step 3: Modify any "Sparge Volume" to account for any losses (e.g. boil-off & hop absorption losses) and additions (i.e. mash recovery, sugar volumes). Wort expansion due to the heat at this stage may also be a calculated addition. Collect all remaining water treatment salts (including additional calcium salts not added earlier) to be added to the boil/sparge water. The salts may be calculated against the "Batch Volume" or the pre-boil volume. Note, at this stage the salts are in relation to the "Batch Volume" and may be calculated from "concentration" values.
Cask-conditioned style ale out of a keg/Cornie (the "treatise"): https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwzEv5 ... rDKRMjcO1g
Water report demystified (the "Defuddler"; removes the nonsense!): https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/ ... sp=sharing

Downloads are not available while they undergo enhancement and modification ... 1/1/2025

User avatar
PeeBee
Under the Table
Posts: 1692
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:50 pm
Location: North Wales

Re: "Step 1"

Post by PeeBee » Fri Mar 21, 2025 1:20 pm

Wow, positively whizzing along with this. :-k (Well, I have a lot of other things to do too ... of which "nothing" consumes most of my free time).

"Mash Volume" and "Boil Volume" (water, liquor, whatever you wanna call it). Starting with "Mash Volume" (it comes first?). To make things blindingly simple, just three amounts. Picked as appropriate. If the amount is going to make too thicker mash, pick the next volume up. No messing about with "mash thickness" because of all the information I've gleaned on the subject I can't find any conclusive reason to use "thick" or "thin" mashes (so I'm using "thin"). Quite a few do say a thinner mash results in better efficiency ... who knows? But, the BIAB brigade use a "full-boil-length-mash" much of the time ... so who's arguing with them?

The three mash water volumes I've chosen are: Half "Batch Volume". Two-thirds "Batch Volume". And Full "Batch Volume". Just that, no additions or subtractions for mash tun losses, grain absorption, this, that, or whatever else; that'll all be allowed for later. True "full-boil-length-mash" ("no-sparge") is going to include "this, that, or whatever else" because that what it means ... but I'll deal with that in a bit (along with "that'll all be allowed for later").

There is a reason for making things so simple. I'll be coming to that! First, having alienated all those that think "mash thickness" is a vital variable, dealing with the choice of base water next which is going to alienate all the "highly mineralised" tap water users (sorry ... wasn't intentional, I just couldn't figure an inclusive route around it, will still be possible to use "highly mineralised" tap water, just in a more restrictive manner).
Cask-conditioned style ale out of a keg/Cornie (the "treatise"): https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwzEv5 ... rDKRMjcO1g
Water report demystified (the "Defuddler"; removes the nonsense!): https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/ ... sp=sharing

Downloads are not available while they undergo enhancement and modification ... 1/1/2025

User avatar
PeeBee
Under the Table
Posts: 1692
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:50 pm
Location: North Wales

Re: "Step 2a"

Post by PeeBee » Fri Mar 21, 2025 1:38 pm

This was dealt with quite comprehensively by the "summary" post earlier:
Determine "base" water profile for mashing. This might be "RO water", "distilled water" or "deionised water". OR! A suitably low mineralised tap or bottled water (with mineral analysis). OR! A less suitable mineral-rich water (with mineral analysis) that can be diluted to a suitable mash water with "RO water", "distilled water", etc.
As I've already said ... many of the "highly mineralised" tap water users are going to fall out with me about this. But I might gain some support from the normally neglected "LOW mineralised" tap water users? (And I'm one of them!).
Cask-conditioned style ale out of a keg/Cornie (the "treatise"): https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwzEv5 ... rDKRMjcO1g
Water report demystified (the "Defuddler"; removes the nonsense!): https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/ ... sp=sharing

Downloads are not available while they undergo enhancement and modification ... 1/1/2025

User avatar
PeeBee
Under the Table
Posts: 1692
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:50 pm
Location: North Wales

Re: "Step 2b"

Post by PeeBee » Fri Mar 21, 2025 2:16 pm

This is where the controversy really begins! I'm most certainly not the first to approach "brewing water" in this manner (or I think it's most unlikely that I am?).

I've to manipulate the Calcium and "Alkalinity" salts in the mash water (just them) to make for a "predictable" (or, should I say; "a more predictable") mash. The Calcium at a fixed low amount (easy!), the "Alkalinity" at a variable amount (far less variable than most expect, but it is "not so easy!" ... is it ever?). The aim will be to make the "alkalinity" fixed too, i.e. "easy"!

Most of us are used to "alkalinity" (and pH) being a pain anyway ... this is attempting to make it less of a pain (I've already got my pH papers ... I don't want to be pharting about with "pH meters" and "calibrating").

I'll need some diagrams for this ... give me a moment (... err, "few days"?).
Cask-conditioned style ale out of a keg/Cornie (the "treatise"): https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwzEv5 ... rDKRMjcO1g
Water report demystified (the "Defuddler"; removes the nonsense!): https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/ ... sp=sharing

Downloads are not available while they undergo enhancement and modification ... 1/1/2025

User avatar
PeeBee
Under the Table
Posts: 1692
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:50 pm
Location: North Wales

Re: A digression! Ignore? Maybe come back to later?

Post by PeeBee » Tue Mar 25, 2025 9:05 pm

Meanwhile ... A digression to help explain the stance I'm taking in the forthcoming posts:

My local reservoir (Alwen, Denbighshire) holds about 14.240 Giga-Litres of water ... it's the biggest man-made pond in Wales! That's 318.75 metric tonnes of Calcium ions. Good grief, now did I do the maths right? ...

Who cares. Doesn't really matter. For convenience Calcium ions are measured as grams per litre, or milligrams per litre (mg/L). And a "mg/L" in water is very nearly one part in a million ("ppm"). Water from Alwen reservoir holds about 22.38mg/L of Calcium ions. 20 litres of Alwen water holds 0.45 grams of Calcium ions.

But we can be just as silly dealing with the small numbers as the large numbers. The concentration of Calcium thought to be ideal for brewing beer is 50-150mg/L (ppm). Okay? So a light "Pale Ale" can be mashed in ten litres of water containing 50mg/L of Calcium ions ... that'll be 10x50mg, or 0.5 grams. Okay? This is wonderful; we can scale up the recipe to double and the twenty litres of mash water now contains 20x50mg, or one gram of Calcium ions ... wonderful, just what's required!

Calcium is very important in brewing water. One of its roles (perhaps the most important) is to react with Phosphates in the malt, which releases hydrogen ions, which lowers the pH ... Calcium plays an important role controlling the optimum mash pH.

Now. Let's say we only want to make twenty litres of beer but want to mash the grains using "full-boil-length-mash" technique (such as using "Brew-in-a-bag" - "BIAB"). We'll use twenty litres of mash water ... hang-on ... the mash now contains 20x50mg, or one gram of Calcium ions? Too much! We'll remove half (0.5 grams) of Calcium ions added as water treatment salts to the mash water. Hang-on ... the mash water now only contains 25ppm of Calcium and the recommendation is a minimum of 50ppm?


You must be very, very, cautious when mixing dissimilar units of measurements (here it was grams and mg/L). All the documented advice relating to brewing expects you to know that.

Don't you? [-o<
Cask-conditioned style ale out of a keg/Cornie (the "treatise"): https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwzEv5 ... rDKRMjcO1g
Water report demystified (the "Defuddler"; removes the nonsense!): https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/ ... sp=sharing

Downloads are not available while they undergo enhancement and modification ... 1/1/2025

User avatar
PeeBee
Under the Table
Posts: 1692
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:50 pm
Location: North Wales

Re: A digression! Ignore? Maybe come back to later?

Post by PeeBee » Sat Mar 29, 2025 2:38 pm

Humm ... another digression! Well, I've a lot of work "back-stage" preparing Calcium/Alkalinity/Mash-water post, so I need to keep some interest up meantime. And I promised some diagrams. The thread needs a bit of colour, so I'll get some for this post:

There is a name for what I'm going to do, which gives it an "official" sounding name to the process (if I just say it most people quickly remove the "official" bit!): "Normalization" (or "Normalisation" if you don't like spiky "Z"s); "In the simplest cases, normalization of ratings means "adjusting values measured on different scales to a notionally common scale" (Wikipedia). This won't be a "simplest case" because I'm applying data from one data set across the board ... I'll deal with that later.

So far, I have: Quantity of mashing water is "fixed" to a choice of three "mash thicknesses"; 1:2 (mash water to batch size ... 1:2 would be about "normal"), 2:3 and 1:1 (the latter representing "full-boil-length-mash" or "no-sparge"). Calcium ions are a "fixed" quantity in the mash; currently 50mg/L in a 1:2 mash thickness (to be reviewed, maybe adding a choice?). The only other component (other than Calcium that is) manipulated in the mash is "Alkalinity"; for now, it is calculated individually for each scenario. All other salt additions are destined for addition after the mash. The water calculator chosen to assist me in this is "Bru'n Water" as it can deal with a wide range of scenarios and isn't handicapped if only using true quantities and not mismatching quantities with "concentrations".

I can build a simple scenario with a basic recipe (only pale malt with tiny amount of steeped black malt for colour; only to keep "colour" in a predefined bracket). Comparing two choices: a "normal" mash thickness and a "no-sparge" one:
Untitled.jpg
Untitled.jpg (631.87 KiB) Viewed 3716 times
The upper part illustrates a 1:2 mash, the lower illustrates a 1:1 mash ("no-sparge", "BIAB", etc.). The mash salt additions (Calcium ions and any anions associated with the Calcium) are plugged directly into the "Water Report Input" page. This leaves the "Sparge" column free for other salt additions with the "add hardness minerals to kettle" option selected (not adding anything more to the mash ... the mash column cells turn orange to indicate "add these to sparge or kettle". This is "Normalization" in practice! Note the 1:1 variant has twice the mash water, but half the Calcium salts added (as a "concentration") ... this means the actual amount of Calcium ion added to the mash is identical in both scenarios. It also means the Calcium concentration in the 1:1 variant will be 25mg/L, not 50mg/L ... this will be too spooky for some, but it's entirely correct!

"Chloride" has turned "red" in the 1:2 variant but only because it has exceeded the "chosen" level. I may have to review using only calcium chloride to alter the mash Calcium levels?

The pH is showing a difference of three hundredths of a pH unit. Remarkable given the calculator is having to arrive at the same value under some duress! Ignore the "three hundredths of a pH unit" difference, it is utterly irrelevant! :D


I've got an example of losing control of salt additions for a mash. It was my last brew, and the driving force behind me starting this project ... Perhaps I'll post that too?
Cask-conditioned style ale out of a keg/Cornie (the "treatise"): https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwzEv5 ... rDKRMjcO1g
Water report demystified (the "Defuddler"; removes the nonsense!): https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/ ... sp=sharing

Downloads are not available while they undergo enhancement and modification ... 1/1/2025

User avatar
PeeBee
Under the Table
Posts: 1692
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:50 pm
Location: North Wales

Re: A digression?

Post by PeeBee » Tue Apr 01, 2025 9:31 am

Getting together the demo of "losing control of salt additions for a mash" started opening other possibilities of this methodology, hence the delay getting this subject finished. The example I'd chosen was a traditional "British" style of water profile ... one scratched up by Graham Wheeler ... a "Mild Ale" Profile. Highly mineralised; it exaggerates the issues I'm trying to deal with. And also exaggerates how the "modern" practice of using very low mineralised water profiles is obscuring the issues (they are still very much there but having a less noticeable effect).

It's changing my own plans; I'll make more of this post to provide a stand-alone methodology for anyone taking up the methods to do so with existing tools and don't need to wait for me to put out another update (which may be delayed).

Quick reminder, the methods behind what I'm employing is: Simplifying and "normalizing" the water and "hardness" (calcium and magnesium) salts in the mash (including fixing the quantity of water used in the mash and ignoring "mash thickness" as an important variable in mashing ... err, I can't find any evidence that it is important).

NOTE: Yes, I really am making things simpler, it's only trying to explain it that makes it appear complicated! This method is mainly involved with treating the mash water. But also reverses the bizarre practice of *not* treating water added after the mash (sparge, top-up, etc.). Some water treatments relate to flavour enhancing in the finished beer, not the mash ... so why calculate their quantity based on only the mash? Oh ... and if you don't like my dropping of "concentration units" in the mash, they're back in water added after the mash!



Firstly, my "out of control" mash that kicked this project off (this from Martin Brungard's "Bru'n Water", the water calculator I've used for years):
Courage 1914 X.jpg
Courage 1914 X.jpg (243.5 KiB) Viewed 3402 times
All that Calcium! 7g gypsum plus 41ml 33% calcium chloride ("Bru'n Water" doesn't say it's "ml" for liquid calcium chloride, but it is). All that "Alkalinity" salt! 5.5g of mixed lime and baking soda. Failure to reach the ion amounts with the other salt additions. Don't worry about the "red" entry for "chloride" ... "Bru'n Water" is a little "anti" some European ("British" especially) water practices. The amounts are also for a double size (40L) of an "average" batch.

A mess! And that took up a lot of time figuring that mess out. The amount of "Alkalinity" that was being suggested was too scary, so I was reluctant to add it all and suffered another mash of around pH5.0.

(To be continued ...)
Cask-conditioned style ale out of a keg/Cornie (the "treatise"): https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwzEv5 ... rDKRMjcO1g
Water report demystified (the "Defuddler"; removes the nonsense!): https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/ ... sp=sharing

Downloads are not available while they undergo enhancement and modification ... 1/1/2025

User avatar
PeeBee
Under the Table
Posts: 1692
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:50 pm
Location: North Wales

Re: A digression?

Post by PeeBee » Thu Apr 17, 2025 12:54 pm

(...Continued!)
Erm ... are you ready for this? It's an excellent example of me documenting stuff to the nth degree because I can't rely on my mangled head to retain very much. So, if I've got the work done anyway, I may as well make it available to all of you! Some are going to find it revealing. Will that include you?

Prologue: ... A what! And can you have a "Prologue" on a post that starts "continued"? I began this "digression" as a proof-of-concept of the water addition calculator I was attempting to build. I knew my next step was to take a while and thought to fill in some stuff to hold any interest meantime. It's turned into a stand-alone post using Bru'n Water anyone can follow (now!), and that can probably be copied on any water calculator. It is using the battle between "alkalinity" and "hardness" to get a suitable mash configuration. It is using the misuse of mixing units (explicit weight, like in grams, and concentration values, like in "mg/L" pr "ppm"). It is using "normalization" to fix this misuse, a posh name for a very straight-forward process (in this case). And it is so simple others must have come across it? But I've never found a description: So here it is! (So simple I am arrogant enough to think I can write a water addition calculator. But it'll take me a little while, so meantime):


Apologies for the time take getting this out. I was convinced I could get Bru'n Water to work with explicit additions of water treatment salts as well as the usual "water profile". And I was getting in a right mess trying to do it. It doesn't, I don't think any water calculator can, But I wasted lots of time trying. I was also doubtful about using two copies of a water calculator to do the working out (or two "iterations"). Too messy? Too complicated? But turns out to be easy enough, and many magnitudes less complicated than trying to get one copy of the calculator doing the job. Water calculators rely heavily on "concentration" values (grams-per-litre, ppm, etc.) ... trying to make them use explicit values was more of a task than I'd anticipated!

I couldn't be bothered trying to modify that last example recipe ... that's been and (not very well) done. I'll use the following example which is to be brewed next (the grain is already weighed out). It too is an "X-Ale", from 1914 (start of WWI), dug out by Ron Pattinson from the Fuller's records (1914 Fullers X Ale from his "Armistice!" book). The Fuller's recipe differs in being a more "traditional recipe" (for that time) using maize and no crystal or roast malts like in the Courage recipe. Both use "No.3 Invert Sugar" to add a bit of colour (but still "light" in colour by late 20th C. "Mild Ale" standards).
.
Fullers 1914 X orig iv.jpg
Fullers 1914 X orig iv.jpg (479.15 KiB) Viewed 1474 times
.
The first illustration is the recipe with water treatment salts calculated in the "usual" manner. As with the earlier Courage recipe the calculated Calcium addition is large and so is the "Alkalinity" addition to compensate. You should be able to take from this illustration that it's quite feasible to mix "grams" with "mg/L" ("ppm") if careful, but significant distortion will be present if not (very!) careful. What the calculator needs to make things a whole lot easier, is a handful of "adaptions". This is my selection of "adaptions" that will do the job. First step is making a copy of the calculator with all the original recipe's bits and bobs intact (most "water calculators" are spreadsheets, so simply copy the file and open that). I'm using "Bru'n Water" in this example, but other calculators may be suitable.

On the copy go to the "Water Adjustment" page (shown in the illustration above) and zero seven (leave the one for "Calcium Chloride") values under "Addition (gram/L)".

Next select "Water Volume" under "Mash", "Total Water Additions", and enter one half of the "Total Batch Volume".

Under "Sparge, "Total Water Additions", enter "zero". We are only calculating Mash additions and want no distractions.

Add together the analysis for Calcium, and Magnesium-divided-by-two, that's in the source water. They will be "concentration values", e.g. "PPM" or "mg/L". Only use half the value given for Magnesium as it less impact than Calcium and "half" is a very common assumption.

Decide on a base "concentration value" for Calcium ions in the Mash. This value probably shouldn't be less than 35PPM (or mg/L). Values of 35, 50 or even 70 should be "safe". The actual value isn't important, but it's best to stay within the limits stated (35-70PPM). I picked 70.

Subtract the value calculated above for Calcium and Magnesium from the "base concentration value" (35, 50, or whatever) for Calcium ions. Under the "Additions" column of "Water Additions" find "Calcium Chloride" and start entering values until that modified "base concentration value" appears in the adjacent "Calcium (ppm)" field. A lot of phaff, but easier than trying to do the sums in your head or on scraps of paper. At this point the displayed pH is not valid. The last point ("... not valid") is important, it's always catching me out, so I'm forever thinking it's wrong!

The "Normalized" base value for Calcium Chloride is displayed under "Mash", "Total Mineral Additions". At this moment, that value along with a note of the "Calcium (ppm)" value (the modified "base concentration value" calculated above) is the only useful information to be taken from the spreadsheet.
.
Fullers 1914 X adap iv.jpg
Fullers 1914 X adap iv.jpg (124.28 KiB) Viewed 1474 times
.
It's a bit of a cheat in that I'm using Martin Brungard's grafting (via his "Bru'n Water" calculator) to do the hard work. This technique is so kookie I had to spend another day or two "rediscovering" what I'd done (so it's "double-checked!), and a few days later, seems I forgot it all and had to repeat the "rediscovery" steps again (so it's "triple-checked!). That was down to not appreciating most values get temporarily invalidated by these actions. Take note! I've mentioned any above where possible. And I'm still expecting to uncover a "killer" mistake I've missed in allowing this all to happen (haven't found it yet!). I make no apology for the contortions; it wasn't me who mixed up all these concentration and explicit measures!

In the following illustration the "Water Volume" for "Mash" is corrected to reflect the real amount. This value is not changed if using the "recommended" 1/2 x "Batch Volume". But the "recommended" 2/3 x "Batch Volume" might be used? Any value one or less used (perhaps not advisable to go below 1/2). Or, as in this case, the "full-boil-volume" ("no-sparge") is used which includes all the non-recoverable losses calculated throughout the remaining brew stages (Grain Absorption, Hop Absorption, Boil-off, etc.). In any case:

The "normalized" amount of Calcium is the temporary "grams per litre" concentration value for a specific amount of water, converted to the actual amount for any amount of water measured out, adding that amount (in grams, or in the examples case, millilitres) directly to the mash water. Note that for any review of usage, the "concentration" amounts remain the same, only the "explicit amount" needs to be recalculated for any change in mash/sparge water quantity, "hardness" (calcium and magnesium) and alkalinity salts.

NOTE: To calculate an "explicit" amount of Calcium salt I've chosen a 33% solution Calcium Chloride, hence the extra-large amounts ... Bru'n Water continues to display grams for liquid CaCl2 instead of remembering to switch to millilitres (but it means millilitres, not grams). Anyhow, I find liquid much easier to deal with. Bru'n Water can be switched between using liquid, anhydrous or dihydrate but won't alter any values entered. "Anhydrous" is the 33% liquid value multiplied by 33/100. "Dihydrate" is the anhydrous number times 1.292.

Lower the "Estimated Mash pH" to match the original with acid (small changes can be made by altering the "base concentration value" for Calcium - see above - but acid alterations are easier). If the pH needed to be raised "alkalinity" salt would be added.
.
Fullers 1914 X norm iv.jpg
Fullers 1914 X norm iv.jpg (124.26 KiB) Viewed 1474 times
.
Returning to the original spreadsheet:

Toggle the "Add Hardness Minerals to Kettle?" option to "Yes". Not obviously necessary for a "no-sparge" recipe but do it anyway or Bru'n Water may miscalculate pH estimate (in this case the estimate may not be correct anyway, but it won't look so bad!).

Amongst the "Water Additions" is "Calcium Chloride". This includes the 28ml of 33% CaCl2 solution added as a "Normalized" amount to the mash. Make sure this amount is subtracted from the calculated amount to be added "post-mash". There is no way to remove this amount in the calculator in such a selective manner. The next best available method was to place a note in the Calculator's "Batch Notes".

A note should also be added to the Calculator's "Batch Notes" reminding the user that the displayed "pH", the "Mashing Water Profile" and the "Finished Water Adjustment" lines are also invalidated by the procedures that allow "normalized" values to be used.

Minor adjustment can be made to the salts to get everything right again.
.
Fullers 1914 X fini iv.jpg
Fullers 1914 X fini iv.jpg (328.78 KiB) Viewed 1474 times
.
Epilogue: ... Well, if I've got a Prologue, I'm not going to miss out on having an "Epilogue".

Trying to follow all that without having an actual example in front of you would be asking too much. This is really "twisting the arm" of Bru'n Water to make it reluctantly comply with "explicit measures. This was a "reference" post. The benefits of working this way are only likely to be obvious in practice. Ironically, the biggest benefit is simplicity! But we are so used to the job as it is, which it has to do that way to work across a complete range of scales (and we are very much at the small end of scale), we overlook the baffling complexity it introduces. So, sure, it's going to be complicated to untangle it.

Trying to get an existing "concentration" biased calculator to do the job has been a nightmare. If you're not keen, don't do it! I'll come up with something easier (one day?)

And subjects this post just touches on but steers you away from: Measuring salts to hundredths of a gram accuracy ... yet only applying the amounts to a random proportion of the beer ("concentration" amounts are often specified to duplicate a certain profile, but unless told otherwise and provided with the necessary additional data. a "concentration amount" must be applied to all water in the process). Salts added to the mash that only affect the mash are targeted at grain amounts, not water, and therefore are best added as "explicit" amounts, or else you add quantities well in excess of the requirement just to ensure you don't underdose. The small volumes used in homebrewing makes "explicit" amounts well within the ability of the brewer. Yet the same small quantities mean the errors induced by imprecise management of "concentration" amounts are magnitudes greater than in commercial practices.
Last edited by PeeBee on Sat Apr 19, 2025 6:33 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Cask-conditioned style ale out of a keg/Cornie (the "treatise"): https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwzEv5 ... rDKRMjcO1g
Water report demystified (the "Defuddler"; removes the nonsense!): https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/ ... sp=sharing

Downloads are not available while they undergo enhancement and modification ... 1/1/2025

User avatar
PeeBee
Under the Table
Posts: 1692
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:50 pm
Location: North Wales

Re: A digression?

Post by PeeBee » Fri Apr 18, 2025 7:02 pm

With that last post, many will be left scratching their heads trying to understand it. This might help? It's how the relevant section of Bru'n Water might look if it was to support it (every thing else stays the same).

Another column is squeezed in to support two separately configurable mash stages (rather than just one). The amounts of liquor to use for mash and sparge is removed from the brewer and replaced with four preset options for mash-thickness (including support for "BIAB"). Finally, to support "BIAB" and other full-boil-length-mash schemes, the calculator needs to know the "non-recoverable losses" from mashing (system dependant):
.
Fullers 1914 X fantasy iv.jpg
Fullers 1914 X fantasy iv.jpg (94.23 KiB) Viewed 1419 times
.
A minor fib ... I haven't imagined how the amount of Calcium to add to the first mash step is to be automatically calculated. So for now, that information would still require the previously described manual "iterations" to get the answer.

The calculator could optionally display the pH for both stages of mashing. It's not important but would help support Guinness-like "roast barley flavour extracts" and steeping of non-mash dependant grains (acidic crystal/caramel malts and acidic roasted-colour adding malts and grains).

To work; required salts for the initial stage of mashing is manually stolen from the final stages of mashing. "Normalization" just "happens" hence it hasn't been mentioned before this sentence.


Pure fantasy! But it might help some people understand why I say this methodology is much easier (less complicated) than we're used to. (Unless you are trying to make it work with an existing calculator ... which you can do ... I'll be having nightmares about it for weeks!).
Last edited by PeeBee on Sat Apr 19, 2025 6:55 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Cask-conditioned style ale out of a keg/Cornie (the "treatise"): https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwzEv5 ... rDKRMjcO1g
Water report demystified (the "Defuddler"; removes the nonsense!): https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/ ... sp=sharing

Downloads are not available while they undergo enhancement and modification ... 1/1/2025

User avatar
PeeBee
Under the Table
Posts: 1692
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:50 pm
Location: North Wales

Re: A digression?

Post by PeeBee » Sat Apr 19, 2025 12:18 am

There's a bug in me numbers ... I'll fix it in the morning, meanwhile, take care with this stuff.

... FIXED! I'd not noted the Calcium ion concentrations I'd based my "normalization" on. I'd documented 35-70ppm, guessed at 35, then carried on regardless ... it was 70. Blimey, what a difference. What a blunder! Took the opportunity to correct a couple of minor mistakes, but some old images are showing as "attachments" .... I'll get them deleted.

... Which I've done; and made a couple of corrections introduced by the previous fixes. Hopefully, this is all up to date now (what a palaver!).
Cask-conditioned style ale out of a keg/Cornie (the "treatise"): https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwzEv5 ... rDKRMjcO1g
Water report demystified (the "Defuddler"; removes the nonsense!): https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/ ... sp=sharing

Downloads are not available while they undergo enhancement and modification ... 1/1/2025

User avatar
PeeBee
Under the Table
Posts: 1692
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:50 pm
Location: North Wales

Re: Creating a Brewing Water Calculator - A Digression?

Post by PeeBee » Thu Apr 24, 2025 9:47 am

Ah. This hasn't been going to plan. It supposed to be easy, which I still imagine it will be, but this digression into existing calculators (as a stopgap while I put some effort into my own "calculator") isn't fooling anyone. It's making some mind-numbing party tricks to come up with the answers.

But, after a bit of a review it appears I'm going about it wrong. This isn't such a challenging task for most calculators. It isn't going to need "tricks" to handle "normalization" It isn't going to require "iterations" to carry out "awkward" calculations. Okay, there's one step I can't completely cover up, though the "trick" to manage it is rather low key. So ...

#################### RESET! ####################

(I'll start again!). ... (Watch out, it's even more detailed! But overall, is more coherent and easier to apply than the first attempt!).

I'll start with that dog's dinner of an example above, the "Fuller's 1914 X-Ale" (from Ron Pattinson's "Armistice!" book) using Graham Wheeler's well mineralised (British!) "Mild" water profile. Bru'n Water calculator is configured with the lightly mineralised water that comes out of my tap, and the very simple grain bill for this recipe (a heritage barley malt with 8.5% flaked maize). There's 7.65 kilograms grain in a 45-litre batch. The brewing "losses" are calculated as 10.1 liters. To start with Bru'n Water is configured to have 22.5-litres of mash water. The 32.6-litres of water shown as "Sparge" is not important, it will not have any influence on the calculations.

The 22.5-litres mash water to 45-litres batch size is important. A 1:2 ratio, what I've judged to be the (approximate) ratio used to determine statements like "the mash water should have a Calcium ion content of 50-150mg/L (ppm)", which on its own provides no explicit information at all (think about it!).
Fullers 1914 X image A.jpg
Fullers 1914 X image A.jpg (545.32 KiB) Viewed 978 times
On the "Water Adjustment" page of the Bru'n Water calculator the "Desired Water Profile" is set to Graham Wheeler's "Mild" profile: Ca 150, Mg 10, Na 50, Sulphate 153, Chloride 229, Bicarbonate 50. For the "Existing Water Profile" the profile of my own tap water goes in: Ca 22, Mg 1, Na 7, Sulphate 46, Chloride 12, Bicarbonate 9. At the moment I'm only supporting waters of about 100mg/L Calcium. This will include bottled "spring water" and "reverse osmosis" water.

Of the first eight "Minerals" (Gypsum to Pickling Lime) in the "Addition (Gram/L)" column, all are set to "0.00". In that list the "Calcium Chloride" entry is increased until the Calcium entry for "Overall Finished Water Profile" is "70" ...

"70" ("mg/L") is entirely arbitrary, but I wouldn't go lower than 35mg/L as there may not be enough Calcium to support important mashing function (note, only "mashing" is being considered, and additional Calcium may be necessary later in the beer making process. Over 70mg/L may encounter issues matching a desired finished water profile? But more Calcium could be used to increase mash acidity (more later). I've chosen 35, 50, and 70 to use, they may change in future, you can choose your own? But a discrete selection is useful because it makes the process more predictable as experience is gathered.

The crucial point to note from these Calcium games is in the "Total Mineral Additions (grams)" ("Mash") row for "Calcium Chloride". It says "9.07" in mine (using "9.1" instead of "9.07" is more than adequate).
Fullers 1914 X image B.jpg
Fullers 1914 X image B.jpg (563.82 KiB) Viewed 978 times
Back in the "Total Water Additions" for "Mash" increase the "Water Volume" as appropriate: 2/3rd of "Batch Volume", The entire "Batch Volume", or the entire "Batch Volume" plus "unrecoverable losses" ("full-boil-volume-mash"). Or else leave it as it is if sticking to 1:2 volume or enter whatever custom volume is in use.

The "Total Mineral Additions (grams)" for "Calcium Chloride" will have crept down, unless the "Water Volume" for "Mash" wasn't changed. Incrementally change "Addition (gram/L)" until "Total Mineral Addition" returns to its former value (9.07 in my case). 9.07ml of calcium chloride (33% solution in this case) provides the "normalized" amount of Calcium for mashing.

Of the remaining seven salts in the "Minerals" list "Canning Salt (NaCl)" is the safest to change next. Sodium doesn't directly impact on the other salts. Incrementally change "Addition (gram/L)" until "Sodium" in "Overall Finished Water Profile" reaches its intended target (70ppm in this case)**. (This method automatically accounts for the Sodium present in the "base" water). Note a "concentration" amount is used ... Sodium is like most additions, a "seasoning" or "flavour" addition and should be applied to all the beer ... only a portion of Calcium salt (representing "hardness" salts in the mash) is subject to "normalization" ... it supposed to react with the explicit amount of grain ingredients in the mash (as those reactions cause the pH to drop, they are best kept under control; especially in small batchs and "thin" mash thicknesses).

Mash pH is predicted to be about 5.5 in this case. Slightly lower pH may be recommended ... say to pH5.4-ish? Phosphoric Acid (81%) would be a decent additive, requiring only 1.5ml to drop the pH of this 55L mash to pH5.4. Do remember; pH prediction in these environments are a guide, the calculations are usually completely lacking the malted barley's creation history, and therefore notoriously imprecise!
Fullers 1914 X image C.jpg
Fullers 1914 X image C.jpg (606.75 KiB) Viewed 978 times
Toggle the "Add Hardness Minerals to Kettle?" option to "Yes". The first four listed salts change from yellow background to orange to indicate this (in Bru'n Water); all four are Calcium or Magnesium salts ... the commonest (in drinking water) so-called "Hardness" salts. The fifth and sixth don't change ... which isn't surprising, they're Sodium salts. NOTE: This process will invalidate the calculated pH! (The carefully portioned "Calcium" amount for the mash is "virtually" added with the other salts after the saccharification is complete ... this is the process, splitting the additions, I couldn't simulate in a "traditional" water calculator).

Add "Magnesium Sulphate" in the same manner as "canning salt" but watching for the required Magnesium concentration (10ppm) this time**.

Add "Gypsum" in the same manner but watching for the required Sulphate concentration (153ppm) this time**.

Add "Calcium Chloride" (again) in the same manner but watching for the required Chloride concentration (229ppm) this time**.

** This process works very well with Graham Wheeler's "Mild" water profile. It accepts a sacrifice in Calcium amount (150ppm desired, 137ppm calculated). It's also Chloride led as Chloride salts are calculated first). There may be circumstances when a Sulphate led policy works better (Gypsum and Calcium Chloride swap places with Epsom Salt and Magnesium Chloride). And a different (i.e. not Calcium) "sacrificial" cation might be used?

Summarise the actions in the "Batch Notes"; in particular that a specific amount of Calcium salt is added at the start of mashing, not after it.
Cask-conditioned style ale out of a keg/Cornie (the "treatise"): https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwzEv5 ... rDKRMjcO1g
Water report demystified (the "Defuddler"; removes the nonsense!): https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/ ... sp=sharing

Downloads are not available while they undergo enhancement and modification ... 1/1/2025

User avatar
PeeBee
Under the Table
Posts: 1692
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:50 pm
Location: North Wales

Re: Creating a Brewing Water Calculator - A Digression?

Post by PeeBee » Fri Apr 25, 2025 11:16 am

A couple of points to note in that last post:

No "alkalinity" salts at all! A little acid to adjust the predicted Mash pH, but 1.5ml in 55 litres? It's not really worth adding any. The whole exercise is to avoid adding loads of Calcium early in the mash and then having to add buckets of "alkalinity" to counteract the acidity induced by loads of Calcium. (Crazy?). Adding the Sodium salt has no impact on mashing and can be added all at once before, during, or after the mash (add to the boil?).

Nothing to worry about pH-wise is what this is all about. No more mashing at pH4.9 as I've been doing for years now. These issues are far less noticeable if using "anaemic" water profiles as has become popular these days. "Anaemic" is meant to be insulting by-the-way, it counters the equally insulting tone of "minerally mess", which few who say it understand what it might mean anyway. Oops; I declared I'd stop ranting in this thread so I'll shut up.

Going back to an early thread on the subject, I'd illustrated a "Courage 1914 X-Ale". it employs some different ingredients in the mash, so I'll rework it like above; first some minor alterations to ingredients and water volumes so both recipes are on the "same playing field", and ... Ah! The point of this "normalization" lark is to smooth out un-necessary water treatments. Which it's done rather well to these two recipes, but it does reduce by over two-thirds the acid addition, and two-thirds of an insignificant amount is ... I think I'll save everyone from those diagrams and move straight on to some mashing features this technique opens up.


The crystal ("caramel) malts and dark roasted malts are more acidic than plain "base" malts. So, a number of brewers hold these back from the main mash as they don't need mashing (apart from some less-than-black roast malts). This can be done while using this "normalization" methodology, but it also allows the dark and crystal those grains to be easily included in a "token" mash. The "token mash" introduced here will only convert residual starch to dextrin and perhaps add flavours expected from a normal mash, very little extra highly fermentable maltose will be produced.

Proceed as before up to completion of the saccharification step. No Black Malt or Crystal malt has been added yet.

Start heating to "Mash Out". which in this case will be 69-70°C (no hotter).

Stir in the withheld roast and crystal grain, along with the withheld water treatment salts. Note the displayed pH will be valid during this "token mash" (but there's no need to adjust it).

Hold "Mash Out" temperature until "steep" complete (no-time if only a steep, 15-30 minutes if a "token" mash).

Run off to boil.
.
Courage 1914 X image C.jpg
Courage 1914 X image C.jpg (610.15 KiB) Viewed 684 times
.
Cask-conditioned style ale out of a keg/Cornie (the "treatise"): https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwzEv5 ... rDKRMjcO1g
Water report demystified (the "Defuddler"; removes the nonsense!): https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/ ... sp=sharing

Downloads are not available while they undergo enhancement and modification ... 1/1/2025

Post Reply