Brewcipher and Bru'n Water final profiles

Discussion in 'Homebrewing' started by Curmudgeon, May 14, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Curmudgeon

    Curmudgeon Savant (1,110) May 29, 2014 Massachusetts
    BA4LYFE Society

    Going to brew an NEIPA and I think I have my recipe set. Need to finalize my water (100% distilled).

    Grain bill:
    11lbs - Pearl Malt
    3lbs - White Wheat Malt
    0.5lbs - Carapils

    I'm using M. Brungard's write up in the latest Zymurgy on Water for New England IPA as a guide. I'd prefer to use Brewcipher only and I'm trying to understand why I'm arriving at different final profiles when using the same malt bill, water (100% distilled) and salt additions. I think some of it is due to the two programs using slightly different algorithms based on certain assumptions but I feel like I'm missing something else because my pH and Chloride estimates seem significantly different.

    In the article MB gives a framework for NEIPA water profiles and pH levels.
    Chloride - 100 to 150 mg/L
    Sulfate - 50 to 75 mg/L
    pH - 5.25 - 5.35
    Calcium - article doesn't seem to state anything but I'm going for around 100 mg/L

    The article further states that adding 0.5 grams of gypsum per gallon of water and 0.9 grams of calcium chloride per gallon of water should get us in these chloride/sulfate ranges.
    Bru'n Water results:
    Calcium - 117
    Sulfate - 74
    Chloride - 152
    pH 5.37
    Brewcipher results:
    Calcium - 96
    Sulfate - 74
    Chloride - 115
    pH - 5.62

    Brewcipher has strike, sparge and overall concentrations while Bru'n Water just states "Mashing Water Profile" even though the salt addition recommendations are split between the mash and the sparge. This could be part of my confusion.

    Would anyone know why the Chloride, pH and Calcium results are so different? Thanks for any help!
     
  2. VikeMan

    VikeMan Grand Pooh-Bah (3,067) Jul 12, 2009 Pennsylvania
    Pooh-Bah

    The answer you're attributing to Bru'n Water would be correct for 1.19 grams of CaCl2 rather than 0.9 grams. (And 0.5 grams of gypsum.)

    I'm not too familiar with Bru'n Water, but could it be that your "starting water profile" (or whatever it's called in Bru'n Water) already has some Ca and Cl in it? Or could you have typed 1.19 instead of 0.9?
     
    Curmudgeon likes this.
  3. minderbender

    minderbender Initiate (0) Jan 18, 2009 New York

    I'm not at my computer, but another thing to look at is whether you've checked the box in Bru'n Water for "anhydrous" calcium chloride or whatever on the page for salt additions. Sorry, without it in front of me I can't remember exactly what the box says, but the short story is that calcium chloride comes in different types and they provide different amounts of chloride per unit of weight. Anyway I suggest playing around with that and seeing if it explains the difference.
     
    ChrisMyhre and Curmudgeon like this.
  4. Curmudgeon

    Curmudgeon Savant (1,110) May 29, 2014 Massachusetts
    BA4LYFE Society

    Thanks for the replies guys. I've triple checked my inputs - all values are exactly the same in both programs. Using 100% distilled in both, malts are the same, amounts for strike and sparge water is the same. I did have my starting tap water profile in some locations but I thought when I chose "diluted with 100% distilled" that profile would be overwritten. I've zero'd out all categories to be sure I had a clean slate. I may need to look into this anhydrous factor more because the calcium and chloride levels are the two that disagree while the sulfate levels match at 74. Thanks again!
     
  5. VikeMan

    VikeMan Grand Pooh-Bah (3,067) Jul 12, 2009 Pennsylvania
    Pooh-Bah

    @minderbender good call on the anyhydrous CaCl2. I don't have Bru'nwater on my current computer, but back of the envelope math tells me the Bru'nwater numbers @Curmudgeon posted are consistent with the anhydrous form.

    The thing about anhydrous salts is that they are harder to find, more expensive, and don't stay anhydrous unless you go to lengths to keep them/restore them that way.
     
    Curmudgeon likes this.
  6. Curmudgeon

    Curmudgeon Savant (1,110) May 29, 2014 Massachusetts
    BA4LYFE Society

    Thanks again @minderbender and @VikeMan !

    If I use 100% distilled water, what additions would you add to get around this profile (assuming we're using Brewcipher):
    Calcium 75ppm
    Chloride 150ppm
    Sulfate 100ppm
     
  7. VikeMan

    VikeMan Grand Pooh-Bah (3,067) Jul 12, 2009 Pennsylvania
    Pooh-Bah

    If you want to get 150 ppm Cl and 100 ppm S04, and you want to use just CaCl2 and CaSO4, you'll have to accept more than 75 ppm of Ca.

    Assuming you're treating 8 gallons of distilled water, 9.45 grams of CaCl2 and 5.44 grams of CaSO4 would yield:
    Ca: 127 ppm
    Cl: 150 ppm
    SO4: 100 ppm

    If you don't want that much Ca, the only way I can think of to hit all your targets is to get some of your Cl and/or SO4 from Magnesium salts (Magnesium chloride or Magnesium Sulfate (epsom salts)). For example...

    Assuming 8 gallons of distilled water, 3.7 grams CaCl2, 5.44 grams CaSO4, and 7.9 grams MgCl2 (epsom salts) would yield:

    Ca: 75 ppm
    Mg: 31 ppm
    Cl: 150 ppm
    SO4: 100 ppm

    Personally, I don't particularly like Mg in my beers, so if I wanted the Cl and SO4 concentrations you specified, I'd settle for the higher Ca concentration rather than add Magnesium salts.

    ETA: This discussion brings up something that a lot of people don't realize (or even think about, because it's a little nerdy), which is that while notional profiles are great, some of them are not possible. The anions and cations have to balance.

    ETA more: I suppose you could also limit the Ca and get all the Cl you want by adding some NaCl (table salt) instead of MgCL2. But I wouldn't do that unless I thought the recipe needs some sodium for flavor.
     
    #7 VikeMan, May 15, 2017
    Last edited: May 15, 2017
    ChrisMyhre and Curmudgeon like this.
  8. VikeMan

    VikeMan Grand Pooh-Bah (3,067) Jul 12, 2009 Pennsylvania
    Pooh-Bah

    Dang, too late to edit.

    Note that "7.9 grams MgCl2 (epsom salts) would yield:" should say "7.9 grams MgCl2 (magnesium chloride) would yield:"
     
    ChrisMyhre likes this.
  9. Curmudgeon

    Curmudgeon Savant (1,110) May 29, 2014 Massachusetts
    BA4LYFE Society

    Thanks again @VikeMan . This clarifies a lot for me. I've been confused when comparing Bru'n Water and Brewcipher water profiles. I think my confusion was due to the anhydrous factor (thanks @minderbender )

    But also, I've wondered for a while why my calcium levels would always be higher than I wanted even though I was able to match a recipe's recommended chloride and sulfate levels. I think I did add Epsom salt to an English Pale Ale I did a while back because of this. Your "ETA" concerning notional profiles is enlightening. I had always assumed I could create ANY water profile I wanted. Good to know some are simply not possible.
     
  10. epk

    epk Pundit (849) Jun 10, 2008 New Jersey

    The supporter version of Bru'n Water does actually have an "Overall finished water profile" read out.

    Also, on the anhydrous vs. dihydrate forms of calcium chloride, Martin notes in Bru'n Water: "...selecting dihydrate may overdose the water with calcium and chloride if the mineral has some anhydrous form in it. It may be safer to select anhydrous in order to avoid overdosing." Also came across his response here: https://www.homebrewersassociation.org/forum/index.php?topic=23459.msg299449#msg299449

    Confirming what Vikeman noted, I just plugged in your numbers to Bru'in Water and with dihydrate set the two spreadsheets basically match, going with anhyrdrous, Bru'in Water pops up to the higher concentrations.
     
    #10 epk, May 15, 2017
    Last edited: May 15, 2017
    minderbender and Curmudgeon like this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.