I’d like to announce the fruit of a recent collaboration between A.J. deLange and I which I’ve tentatively titled “The deLange-Scott Brewing Engine”.
It is a brewing spreadsheet which incorporates the proton deficit/charge accounting method of pH estimation long lauded by A.J… Essentially it is a second generation pH estimation algorithm that finally leaves behind color based acidity approximations and other assumptions made by readily available water chemistry software and implements a technically and scientifically sound pH estimation method. In addition, it also allows for recipe input, bitterness estimation, color estimation, volume tracking and equipment profile, and extract estimation (including either No-Sparge or Batch Sparge).
It incorporates the common Low Oxygen brewing features such as metabisulfite dosing for mash and sparge water and Morey equation modifier for accounting for the lack of color pickup in the presence of oxygen.
In addition to a rigorously prepared set of calculations it utilizes the embedded Excel Solver and Macro buttons to offer unparalleled user control over the target pH and amounts of acid/base components to be used.
The sheet will be offered for free but protected to safeguard the integrity of the calculations and algorithm.
It should be available sometime next week following peer review by A.J. and the subsequent comment incorporation, error checking, and final formatting.
I am not one to use recipe or brew day and log software, and I do most all my calculations by hand – just been doing it so long, I’ve never automated my process, and it just seems to get in the way of this old dog. BUT. I do sometimes use software to estimate pH. It will be interesting to see how much more accurate your new sheet is. And I know you do excellent work, Derek. I was just a few minutes ago using the refractometer sheet you were so good as to share with me. That’s by far the most useful refractometer tool I’ve found, for its comprehensiveness and transparency. When I do use software, I want it to help me see and work things out myself, not think for me. Clearly you are designing your sheets with the same end in mind. I look forward to it, even if I don’t take full advantage of it.
For me the pleasure and satisfaction is multifaceted:
1.) I get to be in the vanguard of the second generation of pH estimation algorithms. More than that, we will be the tip of the spear;
2.) I get to help A.J. deLange, someone I respect immeasurably, realize something he thought would never be possible: bringing his simple (mathematically) yet difficult (inputs and implementation) algorithm to the masses;
3.) I get to give this robust program to people who can use it to help them make better beer.
One thing jumps out at me: you split out Maris Otter. I see MO malts ranging from ~1.7°-3.7° SRM. Yes, I’m stuck in the mindset of assuming that color is the best indicator of pH buffering, but does this actually suggest that there is a significant variety-specific effect? (That wouldn’t surprise me, it would confirm some suspicions I’ve had.)
It will be interesting to see if all the cypherin’ and ‘guzitas’ equal actual mash conditions and readings. …or, if estimates based on color is within the error factor of pH meters used by the homebrewer (aka good enough). Since factors affected by pH are not neatly divided, do you see a need to take this further than one (or two) decimal place(s) ±.05? IOW, optimum mash pH is 5.2 - 5.4 (depending who you ask), but <5.19 or >5.41 everything doesn’t exactly shut off. It’s a bit less cut and dried in the real world. Biology is messy.
What would you say if a program made a handful of assumptions with only individual errors of 0.01 but that added up to 0.1? IOW, a bunch of small errors adding up to a decent size one.
This model IS what happens in real mashes because by tracking charge we track the exchange of protons. The math is sound, but yes, I’ll be interested to see how it shakes out.
Also, you have to think about users who DO NOT measure pH. They are affected unknowingly by small percentage errors.
Agreed. I look forward to checking it out. …but please divorce yourself from AJ’s arrogance (his words). The [huge turn off by] German Brewing paper’s tone should be all the lesson required to understand we catch more flies with honey than we do with vinegar.
I’ll take a look. The only titration curves for rye were flaked rye, which was pretty close to flaked Wheat.
I bet if I pull my malt analysis tracking sheet and add 2-3 years worth of Rye malt from the Weyermann archives (as well as the American maltsters) I can come up with a very educated generalization for Rye malt as well.
It looks like I’ll be able to model Rye in with wheat. Which shouldn’t be startling as the flaked versions were so similar I made them a combined class.
In this new algorithm, I don’t think so. Here the buffering power of a malt is tied more to its pH DI. Since rye tracks pretty closely to Wheat in pH DI, we can safely assume that it’s buffering co-efficients will be similar as well.
I’ll of course take in any and all empirical data from brewers who use the sheet.
I updated the classes to include Rye malt with the corresponding Light/White Wheat categories, as the research I did, along with the flaked varieties being so similar, suggested that it would perform comparably.
Also, as a general note, this sheet will include the required calculations for a single batch sparge, which is quite the departure for sheets I have created in recent past (namely the LOB software) that only supported No-Sparge. Hopefully that helps people out.
Followed the lengthier thread on another forum (to the extent that I could follow). Some of the posts looked like Matrix code. Looking forward to it Derek.
