[brewme_slc]

Martin, let me first say what a wonderfully helpful calculator this is.  Unfortunately, I cannot seem to get past the Ion balance test.  Per your instructions, I tried adjusting the Ca level to closer match my water report in hopes it gets the ion levels within tolerance.  Currently, I am showing 5.65 Cations and 50 Anions, a ratio of .11.  

I used the "reported total alkalinity" calculator to determine the bicarb. and est. CO3 concentration.  Calculator said 125.7 HCO3 and .2 CO3.

Can someone tell me what I'm doing wrong?  Below is what my water report says (Salt Lake City, UT):

Fluoride: 876
Nitrate: .3
Nitrite: 0
Calcium: 71.34
Magnesium: 132.2
Potassium: .2
Sodium: 24.54
Iron: 0
Sulfate: 35.6
Chloride: 38.6

PH: 7.6
Alkalinity as CaCO3: 103.4
Hardness as CoCO3: 142.4

Is it possible that the following minerals are causing the ion count to be off?  These are on my report, but not in the calculator:

Antimony, Arsenic, Barium, Nickel,and  Selenium

I really would appreciate any help!

Cheers,

Eric

It appears you are misreading the concentrations.  If I'm not mistaken, that water would be poisonous if the fluoride concentration was that high.  In addition, that level of magnesium would mean that your water would make an instant laxative.  

Be sure that the units are in parts per million (ppm) or they may also be listed as mg/L.  You would need to divide the concentration number by 1000 if the ions are reported as parts per billion (ppb) or ug/L.  That u is actually a mu symbol and it means micrograms instead of the mg (milligrams).  You need to look closer at the reporting units and probably divide some of those values by 1000.   So if the report said 200 ppb (or 200 ug/L), that would convert to 0.2 ppm for input into the Water Report Input sheet.

The report shows most figures as ur-ppm.  Does that mean I should divide by 100?  Dividing by 1000 doesn't seem right (everything rounds to zero).

[Pawtucket Patriot]

I've experienced the same Er::509 issue when I save the .xls file as an .ods file (using open office). It works fine when I save it in its native .xls format.

[mabrungard]

The report shows most figures as ur-ppm.  Does that mean I should divide by 100?  Dividing by 1000 doesn't seem right (everything rounds to zero).

The only concentrations that need to be converted are those that are reported in parts per billion (ppb).  If the report says everything is in ppm, then don't convert the values. 

Based on the high concentrations, there has to be some of the data that is mis-entered or mis-reported.

[Pawtucket Patriot]

Martin:

Is there any chance the estimated pH on the mash acidification sheet could include hundredths too?  The reason I ask is because when adding salts in g/gal on the water adjustment sheet, there can be quite a significant rate range between a pH of, say, 5.3 and 5.4 on the mash acidification sheet (forgive me if I'm not articulating this well).  E.g., for one of my recipes, adding Ca(OH)2 at a rate of .15 g/gal will yield an estimated pH of 5.3.  But to hit an estimated pH of 5.4, Bru'n Water tells me to more than double that addition rate.  It would be helpful to be able to see just how various rate points in between affect the estimated pH.

[nateo]

Martin:

Is there any chance the estimated pH on the mash acidification sheet could include hundredths too?  The reason I ask is because when adding salts in g/gal on the water adjustment sheet, there can be quite a significant rate range between a pH of, say, 5.3 and 5.4 on the mash acidification sheet (forgive me if I'm not articulating this well).  E.g., for one of my recipes, adding Ca(OH)2 at a rate of .15 g/gal will yield an estimated pH of 5.3.  But to hit an estimated pH of 5.4, Bru'n Water tells me to more than double that addition rate.  It would be helpful to be able to see just how various rate points in between affect the estimated pH.

I think the issue is the significant digits (maybe I'm wrong). If the calculation formula is based on one decimal place, you can't accurately estimate to two decimals. The formula, as is, is making a guess. It's a pretty good guess, from my experience, but still just a guess. The spreadsheet is like a map, you still have to use your experience to drive to your destination. It won't drive the car for you.

[mabrungard]

I see Matt's point in wanting to see that the changes he makes to either water or mash are having an effect.  But as Nate points out, its difficult to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.  We just don't have the accuracy with the methodology to predict to the hundreths.  There are too many variables.  I wouldn't want to imply that its possible to achieve that sort of accuracy by showing pH predictions with hundreths shown.  Right now, it appears that Bru'n Water can only predict to the tenth or two tenths of a pH unit accuracy. 

   

[gandelf]

I see Matt's point in wanting to see that the changes he makes to either water or mash are having an effect.  But as Nate points out, its difficult to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.  We just don't have the accuracy with the methodology to predict to the hundreths.  There are too many variables.  I wouldn't want to imply that its possible to achieve that sort of accuracy by showing pH predictions with hundreths shown.  Right now, it appears that Bru'n Water can only predict to the tenth or two tenths of a pH unit accuracy.  
  

FWIW, I have increased my target pH accuracy by first adding an appropriate amount of acid to achieve my target pH, then add more acid until the pH changes to the next lower point, then divide the difference in half. That puts my target pH in the middle of the acid quantity range, versus the lowest amount. Since I have started doing this, my mash pH has not been off by more than 0.1 pH and typically within .05 pH. I have also calibrated my Milwaukee SM102 meter before each brew to check this.

[gandelf]

Martin, would it be possible to include a dilution qty/strike liquor qty and dilution qty/sparge liquor qty
on the Water Adjustment and Adjustment Summary sheets? Thanks for your work.

[Pawtucket Patriot]

Resurrecting this thread to ask a question about how melanoidin malt should be classified on the Bru'n Water mash acidification sheet.

According to the Weyermann spec sheet for melanoidin, this malt is "highly acidic."  The spec sheet doesn't indicate the pH of the malt and I haven't done any of my own testing.  Does anyone have any data on how melanoidin malt affects mash pH?  How should melanoidin be classified on Bru'n Water's mash acidification sheet?

[mabrungard]

Resurrecting this thread to ask a question about how melanoidin malt should be classified on the Bru'n Water mash acidification sheet.

The Crystal Malt selection on the Mash Acidification sheet is the most 'acidic' of the normal malts.  If you hover your cursor over the Grain Type header on the Mash Acidification sheet, you'll see that Melanoidin Malt is called out as a Crystal Malt. 

Grain summary: 

Any grain with a color rating of over 200L is a Roasted Malt
Any stewed or otherwise processed, non-Base malt is a Crystal Malt
Any Pilsner, Lager, 2-row, 6-row, Pale, Munich, Vienna, Mild, Wheat, Oat, or flaked grain is a Base Malt.

Enjoy..

[Pawtucket Patriot]

Resurrecting this thread to ask a question about how melanoidin malt should be classified on the Bru'n Water mash acidification sheet.

The Crystal Malt selection on the Mash Acidification sheet is the most 'acidic' of the normal malts.  If you hover your cursor over the Grain Type header on the Mash Acidification sheet, you'll see that Melanoidin Malt is called out as a Crystal Malt. 

Grain summary: 

Any grain with a color rating of over 200L is a Roasted Malt
Any stewed or otherwise processed, non-Base malt is a Crystal Malt
Any Pilsner, Lager, 2-row, 6-row, Pale, Munich, Vienna, Mild, Wheat, Oat, or flaked grain is a Base Malt.

Enjoy..

Great, thanks!