Automatic salt additions calculator

Meaulnes

Meaulnes

Member
Trial Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2021
Messages
32
Reaction score
19
Points
8
Location
FRANCE Bayonne
Hello,
I don't know if this question has already been asked but I find that the search for the best salt additions to reach a target profile starting from a source profile is done by trial and error and is not always obvious.

However, I happen to already know of an online tool that allows you to make these adjustments automatically. This tool, taking into account the salts available, offers the solution closest to the target profile.

Is there any hope that such a tool will one day be integrated into Brewer's friend?

Here is the link to the tool I am talking about. I'm not sure it's the best, but it's above all the approach and the philosophy that seem interesting to me.
 
Have used ezwater for years. Works really well
 
Meaulnes said:
Yes I do.
My main point is the fact that the user has to try various additions manually. What I am looking for is a tool that finds the right (best) combination automatically taking into account the salts you have at hand.
Click to expand...
I've never seen a water calculator like that before
 
I think @Yooper has explained in the past why they don't use something like that. Maybe she has some insights here
 
The calculator will have to follow some kind of algorithm, particularly since a lot of water reports don't "add up" when you sum the ions. Everyone's algorithm is different: I start by dialing in magnesium using magnesium sulfate, then finish off the sulfate using calcium sulfate, then work on the chloride until I reach the desired calcium level, then finish off the chloride using table salt. I generally don't pay any attention to bicarbonate unless I'm brewing a dark beer, then I want it. Then there's acidification: If your water doesn't hit the pH you want, you will have to acidify with something, many use lactic acid 88%, some phosphoric 10%, other acids can be used as well....

Bottom line, it's not a simple problem. It can be viewed as an optimization problem, what are the least amount of salts necessary to hit targets but everyone's optimization routine will be different.

Yooper, chime in here if I missed anything.
 
I just set the target water profile and adjust the minerals and salts to get me in the ballpark or on the pitch. After that it is unfortunately trial-and-error. In the beginning, I felt exactly as you do. So I just spent time adjusting this and that to see what impact it had on the numbers. It also helps not to drive yourself crazy trying to hit the proposed targets exactly. Get close and brew it.

(Edited for grammer)
 
Last edited:
BarbarianBrewer said:
I just set the target water profile and adjust the minerals and salts to get me in the ballpark or on the pitch. After that it is unfortunately trial-and-error. In the beginning, I felt exactly as you do. So I just time adjusting this and that to see what impact it had on the numbers. It also helps not to drive yourself crazy trying to hit the proposed targets exactly. Get close and brew it.
Click to expand...
That is my approach.
 
At this point, salt calculations are indeed a trial and error process. One can reach the goal in several ways, thus there is no easy way to specify the needed additions. Automating it is fraught with significant pitfalls.
 
BarbarianBrewer said:
I just set the target water profile and adjust the minerals and salts to get me in the ballpark or on the pitch. After that it is unfortunately trial-and-error. In the beginning, I felt exactly as you do. So I just spent time adjusting this and that to see what impact it had on the numbers. It also helps not to drive yourself crazy trying to hit the proposed targets exactly. Get close and brew it.

(Edited for grammer)
Click to expand...
Agreed. As long as you control your mash pH, water is generally a low-order contributor to beer outcome. That said, I've done tests where tasters dose beer with sulfate, chloride, bicarbonate and acid and the difference is perceptible. The problem with an "automatic" calculator is it does not know what you are optimizing for.
 
832 / 5 000
Résultats de traduction
Thanks guys for your replies and sorry for being jet lagged on you.

Apparently you all seem to be happy with a trial and error approach. As I understand it, salt composition would be second order of priority while PH would be first order. I can understand that, but I remain convinced that all of that can be automated as long as the automation is able to take into account different objectives — depending on the type of beer or whatever — and that the target values do not are not strict values but rather tolerance ranges.

In any case, my intervention was mainly intended to launch the debate. From this point of view it is successful. I also understand that this problem is certainly not easy to solve, but I would like to keep the debate open.
 
The beauty of the calculator here on Brewer’s Friend is that it makes you, the brewer, participate in the process.
Then, if you the brewer have made a mistake, you can adjust on the next brew.
After a while, figuring the amounts of brewing salts becomes pretty easy, where you spend a few minutes on tweaking the amounts, and voila, you are in the range of your target.
 
Meaulnes said:
832 / 5 000
Résultats de traduction
Thanks guys for your replies and sorry for being jet lagged on you.

Apparently you all seem to be happy with a trial and error approach. As I understand it, salt composition would be second order of priority while PH would be first order. I can understand that, but I remain convinced that all of that can be automated as long as the automation is able to take into account different objectives — depending on the type of beer or whatever — and that the target values do not are not strict values but rather tolerance ranges.

In any case, my intervention was mainly intended to launch the debate. From this point of view it is successful. I also understand that this problem is certainly not easy to solve, but I would like to keep the debate open.
Click to expand...
I certainly can respect that.
 
Meaulnes said:
832 / 5 000
Résultats de traduction
Thanks guys for your replies and sorry for being jet lagged on you.

Apparently you all seem to be happy with a trial and error approach. As I understand it, salt composition would be second order of priority while PH would be first order. I can understand that, but I remain convinced that all of that can be automated as long as the automation is able to take into account different objectives — depending on the type of beer or whatever — and that the target values do not are not strict values but rather tolerance ranges.

In any case, my intervention was mainly intended to launch the debate. From this point of view it is successful. I also understand that this problem is certainly not easy to solve, but I would like to keep the debate open.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say we are "happy" with trial and error approach. I think it's more accurate to say we simply accept it. And I hope it didn't feel like we were saying that you were wrong for your desire for an automatic brewing salt calculator. We just love to share our opinions and have a strong desire to help each other. I think if we had any rules they would be:
1) It's your beer. If it tastes good to you and you had fun making it, then you did it right.
2) There are many ways to brew beer and very few of them are the wrong way.​
 
Meaulnes said:
832 / 5 000
Résultats de traduction
Thanks guys for your replies and sorry for being jet lagged on you.

Apparently you all seem to be happy with a trial and error approach. As I understand it, salt composition would be second order of priority while PH would be first order. I can understand that, but I remain convinced that all of that can be automated as long as the automation is able to take into account different objectives — depending on the type of beer or whatever — and that the target values do not are not strict values but rather tolerance ranges.

In any case, my intervention was mainly intended to launch the debate. From this point of view it is successful. I also understand that this problem is certainly not easy to solve, but I would like to keep the debate open.
Click to expand...

One of the issues with the automatic matching of profiles is my biggest complaint.

In at least two of the most popular apps, they will "match" a profile, but it's a ridiculous match. Here's what I mean.
To get calcium, and carbonate, it may say to add chalk. Well, chalk doesn't dissolve properly without extraneous measures, but let's ignore that for the purposes of this discussion.

So you add chalk. But now the pH is too high, so you add lactic acid to lower the pH. Those two counteract each other, leaving no net result except for this imaginary water profile which isn't accurate, since the chalk precipitated out, and the acid was added to it.

Or, if you want to increase sodium you have to add sodium chloride or baking soda. Well, baking soda increases the pH, so adding that means adding acid to lower the pH. so, again, in meeting some profile, you've cancelled out the addition. So you could add sodium chloride, but that lower the pH, so you might have to add chalk (see above) to raise the pH where it should be.

Not only that, but some of these profiles that have you adding salts to meet the ionic content of a water may be impossible due to precipitation of the salts, ingredients like chalk being insoluble without bubbling c02 through the water, etc.

While using those auto calculators is definitely easy, it's not accurate and it's like chasing your tail when you are adding things to counteract the additions.
 
Yooper said:
One of the issues with the automatic matching of profiles is my biggest complaint.

In at least two of the most popular apps, they will "match" a profile, but it's a ridiculous match. Here's what I mean.
To get calcium, and carbonate, it may say to add chalk. Well, chalk doesn't dissolve properly without extraneous measures, but let's ignore that for the purposes of this discussion.

So you add chalk. But now the pH is too high, so you add lactic acid to lower the pH. Those two counteract each other, leaving no net result except for this imaginary water profile which isn't accurate, since the chalk precipitated out, and the acid was added to it.

Or, if you want to increase sodium you have to add sodium chloride or baking soda. Well, baking soda increases the pH, so adding that means adding acid to lower the pH. so, again, in meeting some profile, you've cancelled out the addition. So you could add sodium chloride, but that lower the pH, so you might have to add chalk (see above) to raise the pH where it should be.

Not only that, but some of these profiles that have you adding salts to meet the ionic content of a water may be impossible due to precipitation of the salts, ingredients like chalk being insoluble without bubbling c02 through the water, etc.

While using those auto calculators is definitely easy, it's not accurate and it's like chasing your tail when you are adding things to counteract the additions.
Click to expand...

Thank you @Yooper for taking time for these explanations. I am not a chemist and I trust you on this point.

However, if what you say is true — which I repeat I admit — is it any different when the additions are evaluated by hand? If we cannot rely on the calculated ionic contents and on the PH because of parasitic phenomena such as precipitation, what goal are we pursuing in this case?

I hope you understand my questioning which is totally innocent and in which no malice should be seen.
 
Meaulnes said:
Thank you @Yooper for taking time for these explanations. I am not a chemist and I trust you on this point.

However, if what you say is true — which I repeat I admit — is it any different when the additions are evaluated by hand? If we cannot rely on the calculated ionic contents and on the PH because of parasitic phenomena such as precipitation, what goal are we pursuing in this case?

I hope you understand my questioning which is totally innocent and in which no malice should be seen.
Click to expand...

Well, you can definitely screw it up by hand too! But you are "smarter" than the auto calculator, which has a set of data points to match, which can be unobtainable. By just doing a tiny bit of thinking (why am I adding alkalinity and then acid to neutralize that?), and a tiny bit of reading on the subject, a brewer can make great decisions for brewing water, far better than any autocalculator can.

Really, think of those additions as seasonings- after all they are salts. Just like when you make spaghetti sauce, you can make it without any seasoning at all (like using distilled water in brewing). It won't be bad, just bland maybe. But adding a little onion, garlic, salt, you can get a great sauce. Consider that as using reverse osmosis or distilled water, with a few additions like calcium chloride and gypsum.
The additions aren't magic- but they can and do have a flavor impact, although subtle in small amounts. They can also affect the mash pH.

For some simple explanations of what these salts do (and don't do), we have a three part article on Brewing Water for Beginners that you may find helpful:
https://www.brewersfriend.com/2017/11/19/brewing-water-basics-part-1/
https://www.brewersfriend.com/2017/11/19/brewing-water-basics-part-2/
https://www.brewersfriend.com/2018/02/13/brewing-water-basics-putting-it-all-together/

I'm not totally opposed to adding an auto help calculator to Brewer's Friend, as long as it's one that actually works. Too many newer brewers rely on unrealistic calculations and the beer is not better for it. Most often, "less is more" works for all beers. For special cases, like a big IPA where you want a super firm bitterness, more sulfate is a great idea. But really, I can only think of a couple cases where large additions to RO water make that much of a difference in the final beer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Copyright © 2007-2024 Brewer's Friend, Inc. - Send Feedback - Terms - RSS Feed - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Back
Top