Palmer's Nomograph VS. EZ Water: Which to use?

[cherbhy]

Hi all,

So, I'm brewing a Winter Warmer tomorrow and I'm chiefly concerned with getting my mash PH in the optimal range, as I normally brew lighter colored beers and simply use a little acid malt with my flavoring/profile additions. Using EZWater XLS spreadsheet and inputting my grain bill gives me a PH of about 5.6, or 5.52 using 3 oz of acid malt (my grain bill contains about a lb of crystal malts (40l and 180l) and a 1/4 lb of chocolate(350l), so it's a bit unclear why I would need acid to put the pH in the proper range?). Meanwhile, Palmer's nomograph suggests that I need to add ~112 ppm of HCO3 to reach optimal mash ph, yet when I add NaHCO3 in EZWater it gives me a PH out of range (as it raises it). Unfortunately I do not yet own a PH Meter. I know Palmer's graph is for base-malt only, but I'm a bit confused about what I should make of the information I'm getting from these awesome tools. Please advise, I'm pretty new to this.

I'm targeting about 18 SRM, and here's my water report:

pH: 6.6

Ca: 13
Mg: 8
Na: 10
SO4: 1
Cl: 32
Carbonate: <1
Bicarbonate: 16
Alkalinity as CaCO3: 13
Total Hardness CaCO3: 66
Nitrate, NO3-N: 5.6 (SAFE)

 

[ajdelange]

What you should conclude from the conflicting information is that time has passed and people have become wiser. The nomograph is based on the hypothesis that there is a tight correlation between beer color and the RA of the water from which it was brewed. This is a pretty tenuous hypothesis. The spreadsheet is based on the theory that you can predict the pH by knowing something about the water chemistry and the acid/base chemistry of the malts which, in this case, is deduced from the malt type. Other spreadsheets takes this still further assuming that the acid/base properties of the malts can be deduced from their color. Finally, there is a pretty robust algorithm that bases its predictions on the actual measured properties of the malts. Sounds good, you may be thinking but the problem is that there is no data set to go with it i.e. no one has measured more than a couple of the malts using proper technique. Others have made rough measurements which seem to work pretty well if interpolated into the robust form but even there the 'library' of measured malts is limited.

Given the data you posted I can't give you an estimate because I don't know how much base malt you are using, or how much of the two crystal malts. If I had that info I could give you an estimate which would probably be lower than the EZ water estimate but would not be terribly accurate. It would probably be close to the estimate you would get from the Brewer's Friend calculator (because I use that author's data for malts I haven't measured). You might try that. Just to give you an idea of the variability in model you might also try Bru'n water. It will probably give a lower estimate than Brewer's Friend.

Your intuition is quite correct. You will not need any bicarbonate with two crystals. chocolate and sauermalz.

 

[cherbhy]

What you should conclude from the conflicting information is that time has passed and people have become wiser. The nomograph is based on the hypothesis that there is a tight correlation between beer color and the RA of the water from which it was brewed. This is a pretty tenuous hypothesis. The spreadsheet is based on the theory that you can predict the pH by knowing something about the water chemistry and the acid/base chemistry of the malts which, in this case, is deduced from the malt type. Other spreadsheets takes this still further assuming that the acid/base properties of the malts can be deduced from their color. Finally, there is a pretty robust algorithm that bases its predictions on the actual measured properties of the malts. Sounds good, you may be thinking but the problem is that there is no data set to go with it i.e. no one has measured more than a couple of the malts using proper technique. Others have made rough measurements which seem to work pretty well if interpolated into the robust form but even there the 'library' of measured malts is limited.

Given the data you posted I can't give you an estimate because I don't know how much base malt you are using, or how much of the two crystal malts. If I had that info I could give you an estimate which would probably be lower than the EZ water estimate but would not be terribly accurate. It would probably close to the estimate you would get from the Brewer's Friend calculator (because I use that author's data for malts I haven't measured). You might try that.

Your intuition is quite correct. You will not need any bicarbonate with two crystals. chocolate and sauermalz.

I really appreciate you taking the time to reply.

The grist bill is as follows:
13.5 lbs Maris otter (3l)
1lb 6 oz flaked oats (2l)
4 oz red wheat
8 oz crystal 40
8 oz special b (180 l)
.21 lbs chocolate malt (350 l)


I suppose it's time for me to get a proper ph meter and stop the guesswork.


Sent from my iPhone using Home Brew

 

[ajdelange]

Matching those malts up as best I can to what I have data on I'd estimate 5.55 without the sauermalz and 5.54 with. Your dark malts contribute 21 mEq of protons and the sauermalz only 1.