Author Topic: RA over SRM simulation  (Read 5002 times)

Online Kaiser

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Brewmaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1797
  • Imperial Brewing Geek
    • View Profile
    • braukaiser.com
Re: RA over SRM simulation
« Reply #15 on: December 03, 2009, 10:18:41 AM »
Looks like the cara malt has the biggest effect on the RA/SRM value.

this is what I expected since the have more acidity per unit of color when compared to roasted malts. And since you need roasted malts to get to the really high SRM values your RA over SRM curve flattens out significantly for really dark beers and there is no need to go above an RA of 200 ppm as CaCO3 for those.

Kai

Offline denny

  • Administrator
  • I must live here
  • *****
  • Posts: 11665
  • Noti OR [1991.4, 287.6deg] AR
    • View Profile
    • Dennybrew
Re: RA over SRM simulation
« Reply #16 on: December 03, 2009, 10:25:23 AM »
Wow....I can only partially grasp all this on first read, but I look forward to getting into it more deeply.  And Kai, I want to say thanks for all the absolutely great work you're doing!
Life begins at 60.....1.060, that is!

www.dennybrew.com

The best, sharpest, funniest, weirdest and most knowledgable minds in home brewing contribute on the AHA forum. - Alewyfe

Offline bluesman

  • Global Moderator
  • I must live here
  • *****
  • Posts: 8678
  • Delaware
    • View Profile
Re: RA over SRM simulation
« Reply #17 on: December 03, 2009, 10:33:54 AM »
And Kai, I want to say thanks for all the absolutely great work you're doing!

+1

Great insight!
Ron Price

Offline akr71

  • Brewmaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 549
  • Beer Ain't Drinkin' - Mojo Nixon
    • View Profile
Re: RA over SRM simulation
« Reply #18 on: December 03, 2009, 11:22:40 AM »
I've said it before, but it needs repeating... Kai, your desire and willingness to experiment and document your findings is an invaluable service to homebrewers!!

I almost feel like I understand mash and water chemistry.  Then I re-read your articles and realize how much I missed the first time around.

If you can make a script to model all this, can you make a spreadsheet or program which allows you to select the % of each type of malt (base, cara, roasted) that will spit out RA and SRM ranges?
Andy

Amherst, NS - Canada

Online Kaiser

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Brewmaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1797
  • Imperial Brewing Geek
    • View Profile
    • braukaiser.com
Re: RA over SRM simulation
« Reply #19 on: December 03, 2009, 11:23:08 AM »
Wow....I can only partially grasp all this on first read, but I look forward to getting into it more deeply.  And Kai, I want to say thanks for all the absolutely great work you're doing!

Thanks. Now that I started going down that road I want to finish the work and feel I should also try to find practical advice and guidelines. And hopefully a model that also explains brewer’s experiences that have not be explained so far. W/o that it would have be waste of time.

Personally, I like playing around with grist and water compositions in a spread sheet that I’m working on which takes into account the malt characteristics that I measured. But I cannot expect that from other brewers. While a bit flawed Parmer’s approach to suggest RA targets based on beer SRM is a very practical one since most of us already calculate and target beer SRM through the use of brewing software/spreadsheets. I stopped calculating beer SRM a long time ago because I was never really interested in the actual value. If, based on previous batches, I compose the grist correctly the beer will have the desired color. Introducing a new metric like mash color, for example, to predict the needed RA would only make the process more complicated.

Only if this mash pH model can be integrated into popular software like Beersmith would I have a shot at reaching a wide audience with a more precise RA estimation. I doubt that there is actually a need for that level of precision. On the other hand, homebrewers like to tinker with things that commercial brewers don’t even worry about, so we will see.

Kai


Online Kaiser

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Brewmaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1797
  • Imperial Brewing Geek
    • View Profile
    • braukaiser.com
Re: RA over SRM simulation
« Reply #20 on: December 03, 2009, 11:29:21 AM »
If you can make a script to model all this, can you make a spreadsheet or program which allows you to select the % of each type of malt (base, cara, roasted) that will spit out RA and SRM ranges?

I have that. In fact that’s how I started and then it got really tedious to run different recipes through that spreadsheet. Having a script allows me to generate a vast amount or random, yet fairly realistic, recipes.

I don’t feel like rolling it out yet since I want to get an idea about the variability that exists for the pH related malt properties. The last thing I can expect brewers to do are mash pH and titration experiments with their malts. But all the smarts of that spreadsheet are documented in my paper.

The spreadsheet has been working fairly well for the past few batches, but I still keep water and malt samples around in case it doesn’t work. They will then allow me to go back and poke around where my model doesn’t work that well.

Kai


« Last Edit: December 03, 2009, 11:31:34 AM by Kaiser »

Offline akr71

  • Brewmaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 549
  • Beer Ain't Drinkin' - Mojo Nixon
    • View Profile
Re: RA over SRM simulation
« Reply #21 on: December 03, 2009, 11:57:13 AM »
The graphs are very cool (& informative) on their own - even the point graphs.  But then again, I spend all day analyzing large volumes of tabular and graphical data...
Andy

Amherst, NS - Canada

Online MDixon

  • Senior Brewmaster
  • ******
  • Posts: 1010
    • View Profile
    • Mike's Homebrewing Page
Re: RA over SRM simulation
« Reply #22 on: December 03, 2009, 05:14:26 PM »
I need to spend a little time with the preceeding posts and rest of the thread, but be aware that RA falls apart for certain water types. Ours (NC) is one of those. If you follow RA you would conclude our water is only good for an SRM above 18. Our water is perfectly fine for the palest of pilsners to the darkest of stouts. So while interesting, no one should conclude it is absolute.

Perhaps the model does not take the base water into account, but to be accurate - it should, unless it is our water, in which case it should not  ;)
It's not a popularity contest, it's beer!

Offline bo_gator

  • Assistant Brewer
  • ***
  • Posts: 124
    • View Profile
Re: RA over SRM simulation
« Reply #23 on: December 03, 2009, 07:45:46 PM »
I need to spend a little time with the preceeding posts and rest of the thread, but be aware that RA falls apart for certain water types. Ours (NC) is one of those. If you follow RA you would conclude our water is only good for an SRM above 18. Our water is perfectly fine for the palest of pilsners to the darkest of stouts. So while interesting, no one should conclude it is absolute.

Perhaps the model does not take the base water into account, but to be accurate - it should, unless it is our water, in which case it should not  ;)

I guess you speak of that chlorine rich triangle water. My Waynesville water (RA=9)  is ≤ Pilsen's, and Asheville's is pretty much the same as mine, even though I have not seen a Ward Lab's report on theirs. I do see where you are going about not taking into account the source water.

When is the '10 Shamrock Open going to be?   
All views expressed in the above post are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of any other member of the AHA, BJCP, or home brew community at large.   


Home Brew’s curmudgeon at large

Online Kaiser

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Brewmaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1797
  • Imperial Brewing Geek
    • View Profile
    • braukaiser.com
Re: RA over SRM simulation
« Reply #24 on: December 03, 2009, 10:03:19 PM »
As I'm digging through the data again, here is another interesting view:



This is the same scatter chart for 3 different mash thicknesses 2, 3 and 4 l/kg (1, 1.5 and 2 qt/lb) and you can see that the spread is the largest for thick mashes. The reason is simple: the thinner the mash the more acid neutralizing alkalinity per unit of malt. Hence thin mashes don't have to done with as alkaline water as thick mashes have to be done.

Another thought: if you mash dark beers thin and you need really alkaline water, calculate the salts for a less alkaline water and throw all your salts (mash and sparge) into the mash and none into the sparge. The mash will have more buffering power against malt acidity and the sparge will then dilute the salts to create a softer water profile in the kettle.

Kai


Offline bo_gator

  • Assistant Brewer
  • ***
  • Posts: 124
    • View Profile
Re: RA over SRM simulation
« Reply #25 on: December 03, 2009, 10:18:40 PM »
Since I have been treating my water I have always calculated/added my treatment salts directly to the mash-tun along with the grain. When I switched over to fly sparging back in August I have checked my last bit/first not wort for gravity and PH (collect a quart out of mash-tun after boil volume is reached), and the lowest I have seen was a gravity of 1.016 and a mash temp PH of 5.6. These lowest numbers we on a 5.2 SRM beer. wtf
All views expressed in the above post are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of any other member of the AHA, BJCP, or home brew community at large.   


Home Brew’s curmudgeon at large

Offline stout_fan

  • Cellarman
  • **
  • Posts: 76
  • Winner: Least original Avatar
    • View Profile
Re: RA over SRM simulation
« Reply #26 on: December 04, 2009, 06:19:52 AM »
I had a shotgun with that pattern... once.
I'd say something witty down here, but I'm at a bit of a disadvantage in that department.

Online MDixon

  • Senior Brewmaster
  • ******
  • Posts: 1010
    • View Profile
    • Mike's Homebrewing Page
Re: RA over SRM simulation
« Reply #27 on: December 04, 2009, 06:53:55 AM »
Bo - NC water tends to be quite soft. That has nothing to do with chlorine. (maybe chloride was what was meant?) Our water in the Triangle is full of chloramine (with the exception of 1 month during the year when they switch to chlorine) and we all carbon filter or some use campden tablets.

If you look at this picture
http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s268/lostshaker_photos/Forums/SuggestedSRMColorGuide.jpg
you can see how John's nomograph falls apart for our water. Well, in truth, you may not readily see it. The proof is in the pudding. Based upon a water report and the RA methodology it would say our beers should be 18-22 SRM. We all know it isn't a problem at all to make the palest pilsner to the darkest stout with our water and turn out excellent beers. Many of us do treat our water, but many do not. Most that treat use the chart in this article:
http://hbd.org/carboy/newslet/ferm0297.html#anchor354367
It's not a popularity contest, it's beer!

Offline ndcube

  • Brewmaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 612
    • View Profile
Re: RA over SRM simulation
« Reply #28 on: December 04, 2009, 07:00:18 AM »
MDixon,

Out of curiosity, what is your water profile?

Online Kaiser

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Brewmaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1797
  • Imperial Brewing Geek
    • View Profile
    • braukaiser.com
Re: RA over SRM simulation
« Reply #29 on: December 04, 2009, 07:25:57 AM »
MDixon,

Thanks for sharing your experiences with the Raleigh water. I used to live and brew in Morrisville and found that the water there was pretty much perfect brewing water. I didn’t look into water chemistry until I moved back to MA.

I’ll have a look at that article and would like to know if you have a few examples for me. I.e. color, rough grist composition and tested pH. I think the concept of RA is still valid, even though I did find differenced to Kolbach’s numbers, but the SRM->RA formulas may not. As I showed, there is a lot of scatter and nothing is really precise.

Kai