# 5.2 Ph Stabilizer In Mash



## dalpets

Hi everyone,

Could you please advise;

If the quantity of stabilizer added to the mash should be based on the mash water volume alone or the mash water + grain volume.

It has been said elsewhere that the stabilizer should also be added to sparge water but also that it has no effect on water by itself. I assume that this means that when the sparge with stabilizer is added to the mash the stabilizer is immediately rendered effective.

Thank you for your comments which are appreciated.


----------



## NickB

Only started using it in a few test batches recently, but if I remember correctly (because I'm too lazy to walk downstairs), the container recommends 1 tablespoon/23L final volume. I suppose you could split this 50/50 with the mash and sparge water, but I just chuck it into the mash.... I've only been using 1/2 teaspoon too. No results yet as the yeast are still at work!

Cheers


----------



## argon

First time I used it and every batch since I've had a jump of over 5% in efficiency based on what I used to get. I always just add it to the hlt with any other salt additions. It all ends up in the may anyway so should 't make a difference.


----------



## dalpets

Actually it says 1 TBL for 5 gallons which equates to 12 grams per 18.93 litres.

I don't know why I think this but I would say the dosage should be the same for both the sparge & the mash. Maybe someone with more knowledge & experience than me could chime in on this question.

Cheers


----------



## bum

I'm not sure it would be necessary for the sparge - this stuff is supposed to help conversion in the mash, isn't it? It has already done the job by sparge o'clock, hasn't it?

This isn't the voice of experience - I just bought some last weekend and am yet to give it a run. Will be watching this thread intently.


----------



## alkos

It says to use 1TBL per 5gal of finished beer. 

To me it meansone should split this amount between mash and sparge.


----------



## Ross

Ph5.2 should be added to the mash only, not the sparge water.

Cheers Ross


----------



## speedie

Firstly what do you mean by stabilizer 

If it is for lowering the Ph of your brew then it should be added after you have doughed in then you can adjust to your target



The malt will have a natural lowering effect on Ph

Bums comment on sparge water Ph is contentious 

Think of it this way if you all ready have a stable 5.5 Ph in your mash then too run off and dilute with a higher Ph solution would suggest that it could raise the final Ph overall

Food for thought

speedie


----------



## Ross

Speedie,

PH 5.2 is a buffering agent - Up or down, it will adjust & hold your mash at the optimum ph

Cheers Ross


----------



## jonocarroll

speedie said:


> Firstly what do you mean by stabilizer
> 
> If it is for lowering the Ph of your brew then it should be added after you have doughed in then you can adjust to your target
> 
> 
> 
> The malt will have a natural lowering effect on Ph
> 
> Bums comment on sparge water Ph is contentious
> 
> Think of it this way if you all ready have a stable 5.5 Ph in your mash then too run off and dilute with a higher Ph solution would suggest that it could raise the final Ph overall
> 
> Food for thought


The word 'stabiliser' means nothing to you, speedie, does it? It doesn't say acidic or alkaline, it's a stabiliser. In other words, a buffer to get the pH to 5.2 - whether that means raising or lower the pH.

EveRyThing Abot Your Posts AnnOys Me

Why start a post with a question indicating that you don't know what this product is, or is for, take a stab in the dark, follow only your own reasoning, then go on to call others wrong if they disagree with you. Argh!


----------



## Bretto77

Ross said:


> Ph5.2 should be added to the mash only, not the sparge water.
> 
> Cheers Ross



Hi Ross,
Wondering if you have any info on Brisbane water specs or any ideas what our rainwater is likely to be so we can have a better idea exactly how much 5.2 we need to add?

Cheers
Brett


----------



## dalpets

alkos said:


> It says to use 1TBL per 5gal of finished beer.
> 
> To me it means one should split this amount between mash and sparge.



Actually the label says;

"use at the rate of approx TBL/5gal of water used in your brew. Calculate the amount of water based on the total volume in the kettle (ex 5gal. Leaving kettle use 1TBL) Place into the mash tun while you are mashing in. If desired dissolve in a small amount of water before adding to the mash."

You appear to be saying add a quantity to the mash based on the final volume in the boil kettle, which should be approx the calculated fermentation volume.

Am I correct in this understanding of your position, because it appears others base the stabilizer quantity solely on the mash volume.

I'm afraid the poor labelling of the stabilizer lends itself to the confusion which appears to be abroad.

Cheers


----------



## Ross

Bretto77 said:


> Hi Ross,
> Wondering if you have any info on Brisbane water specs or any ideas what our rainwater is likely to be so we can have a better idea exactly how much 5.2 we need to add?
> 
> Cheers
> Brett



Trial & error... Though feedback from customers on Brisbane water indicates a heaped teaspoon is all that's required.
Get yourself some cheap ph strips, & you'll soon have it worked out.

cheers Ross


----------



## speedie

Ross what are we talking about chemically 

I dont use acidified malt or good old vitamin c to lower Ph only phosphoric acid

If the stabilizer we are discussing can adjust the Ph of our mash either up or down what is it

Say for instance there is a large amount of black malt in the grain bill which has a large lowering potential 

How does the stabilizer bring an increase to our mash?

Cheers speedie


----------



## Ross

Speedie, I'm not a chemist & don't profess to understand the way that buffering agents work - Just that they do.

*From the manufacturers website*
5.2 is a proprietary blend of food-grade phosphate buffers (similar to brewers salts) that
will lock in your mash and kettle water at a pH of 5.2 regardless of the starting pH of your
water. 52 is safe for your mash and WILL NOT add any flavors to your beer. 52 will
provide consistency of pH in any water conditions, but the most significant gains will be
obtained if you are brewing in hard water.
Repeatability throughout the brewing process is the key to producing consistent high
quality beer. Of all the ingredients in your beer, water is the most misunderstood
component. Water is universal solvent for metals, minerals, cations and anions. The
quality, hardness and subsequent pH of your water will affect enzymatic activity,
solubility of salts, proteins and sugars as well as hop usage and perceived hop
bitterness. In addition, water quality also contributes to scaling and mineral deposited
on your equipment. Now you have the ability to control the pH of your brewing water
under any conditions.


----------



## speedie

Ross I dont doubt that what the manufacture prints on there product has some validity 

What I will ask you though is have you used this product to both raise or lower the Ph of test brews that you have done

This would be a great indictor of its power 

It is either acid or alkaline 

Cheers speedie


----------



## Bribie G

Speedie read and learn


----------



## dalpets

Ross said:


> Ph5.2 should be added to the mash only, not the sparge water.
> 
> Cheers Ross



Hi Ross,

Getting back to my post that started this thread-what volume would you base the addition to the mash on

mash water?
mash water + grain?
estimated final volume of the brew in the boil kettle?

Thanks


----------



## bignath

bum said:


> I'm not sure it would be necessary for the sparge - this stuff is supposed to help conversion in the mash, isn't it? It has already done the job by sparge o'clock, hasn't it?



Absolutely.

Speedie, not too sure what's so "contentious" about bum's posting..

As many have pointed out, it's a buffering agent which will when used correctly, KEEP your mash pH at the optimum point for conversion. 

Take the advice and info from a lot of heavily experienced brewers that are replying to you on this one, and maybe, just maybe this thread won't turn into a shit storm....

EDIT: Sorry for going off topic dalpets. Now back to the OP.


----------



## kieran

A buffer can acts as both a proton acceptor and proton donator, with different buffering agents at different mix ratios targetting particular pH ranges. Their effectiveness is usually targetted around a certain +/- pH range.. so they can both raise, or lower the pH within a certain range. To raise the pH, it will accept a lot of available protons from acids.. to lower it, it will donate protons.. the potential for this to happen is dependent on the concentration of the buffering agents in solution. So by their nature, they can raise a pH, or lower it.. 

The useful thing about using a buffer rather than just directly modifying the pH by using an acid or base, is that as the mash continues and water penetrates the grain bed further, there will be appreciable drift in the pH sans buffer -- even if it has first been "set" to 5.2 by an acid. There won't be a massive change, but perhaps that small change might make the difference to somebody.

This is a handly little tool to calculate your own phosphate buffer target pH's effective at a particular concentration.

http://home.fuse.net/clymer/buffers/phos2.html

I use phosphate, tris, mops and other buffers at work and they are bloody handy little solutions.


----------



## felten

There's a post on whats in 5.2 here from ajdelange http://www.homebrewtalk.com/f128/brewing-w...tml#post2378477

lots of sodium in that stuff. There seems to be a lot of debate on other forums as to whether it actually works.


----------



## Thirsty Boy

I've done a few experiments - they lead me to believe that 5.2 stabiliser has an insignificant impact on mash pH at anything even vaguely approaching the recommended dose.

I used to assume that the manufacturers claims couldn't simply be untrue and I thought that it worked - read AJ's post, started to doubt, did some tests - and now I think it doesn't work at all. And I reckon I can just taste it in my beer at the recommended dose... I can certainly taste it at any dose where it even comes close to doing what it says it does.

In Melbourne water at any rate - what it does or doesn't do in the mineral ridden hell juice you happen to brew with I have no damn idea... But I do suggest you actually do some controlled experiments before you necessarily swallow what's written on the label.

I wanted this product to work - I used to think it did work - I don't anymore.


----------



## alkos

Can you tell us, how did your experiments look like?


----------



## Thirsty Boy

A 25g sample of grain (pale lager malt) mashed in to 65C (IIRC) at an L:G ratio of 3:1, which is what I use. Added to the mash water - various %s of the recommended dose of 5.2. I think I went 0, 50, 100, 200, 300, 500%

Mash for 5mins or so, then filter and measure pH of wort. Repeat a few times to make sure its not just a fluke. Try again with a different base malt.

Using either my handheld pH meter or the desktop one at work, weights measured with my 0.1g resolution scales, volumes in a 100ml and a 1L measuring cylinder.

i dont have my raw data - all on my PC, all gone in a headcrash. But its a very easy experiment to repeat for yourself.

I backed it up with a couple of less controlled experiments in my actual brewery ... mashed with no 5.2 measure pH - add 5.2 measure pH again. Observe change in pH - or in my case, primarily the lack thereof.


----------



## beers

Thirsty Boy said:


> I've done a few experiments - they lead me to believe that 5.2 stabiliser has an insignificant impact on mash pH at anything even vaguely approaching the recommended dose.
> 
> I used to assume that the manufacturers claims couldn't simply be untrue and I thought that it worked - read AJ's post, started to doubt, did some tests - and now I think it doesn't work at all. And I reckon I can just taste it in my beer at the recommended dose... I can certainly taste it at any dose where it even comes close to doing what it says it does.
> 
> In Melbourne water at any rate - what it does or doesn't do in the mineral ridden hell juice you happen to brew with I have no damn idea... But I do suggest you actually do some controlled experiments before you necessarily swallow what's written on the label.
> 
> I wanted this product to work - I used to think it did work - I don't anymore.



Could be due to the fact that it was originally designed for use in areas with hard water problems, not soft water areas.

I bought a tub of it a few years back, used it a handfull of times, & found CaCl & Gypsum to work better for me.

Edit: Sounds like you're not the only one to come to this conclusion Thirsty Boy. Some interesting posts by A J DeLange & Kai Troester -
http://www.thebrewingnetwork.com/forum/vie...317&start=9
http://www.homebrewersassociation.org/foru...hp?topic=1125.0


----------



## bum

Thirsty Boy said:


> I've done a few experiments - they lead me to believe that 5.2 stabiliser has an insignificant impact on mash pH at anything even vaguely approaching the recommended dose.
> [snip]
> In Melbourne water at any rate



Gah! I bought it because I read a brewer say it will be good specifically for Melbourne water. Oh well. I own it now, I'll give it a run anyway and see if my mileage varies (and since my efficiencies are much lower than what I assume yours might be perhaps I'll see an improvement where you didn't?). Thanks for posting your findings though.


----------



## MeLoveBeer

...certainly backs up my own thoughts on ph 5.2. I brought a small container of it about 3 month ago and have used it in 2 brews at the recommended dosage with no noticeable effect. Am now moving to CaCl, Gypsum, Citric acid and a handheld ph meter (any recommendations as to which one to get?).


----------



## unrealeous

I don't use the stuff - I flatly refuse to use any product that doesn't state the ingredients. Food grade phosphate buffers is not an ingredient list.

If you know your water profile - you can control your ph through salt additions. A ph meter doesn't go astray. Just another part of the brewing process.


----------



## Ross

Certainly works on Brisbane water & only approx 1 teaspoon needed
As I said, buy some ph strips & do your own testing to see the quantity required.

Not sure what's going on with Melbourne water, but if someone wants to send me an analysis i'll forward to 5 Star for their advice.


cheers Ross


----------



## Lecterfan

+1 to Argon, I've used it for the last 3 mashes (plus a protein rest) and have gone from hovering around %68 efficiency to %76ish efficency (based on what beersmith tells me anyway).

Cheers all.

edit: although I will concede that I look like a dickhead stating that after the last run of comments from far more experienced brewers than me. Maybe it is the combination of protein rest and getting to know my set up more intimately that has increeased my efficiency? Anyway...


----------



## bignath

My small testing makes me think it works for me.

In my region, (south east corner of SA), we get our town water from a water filled volcano (known as the blue lake if you've passed through mt gambier). The water is quite high pH (8.4 or a tad higher) and it's very hard. EVERY house in town has to have a water softener. 

When i started mashing beers, my pH in the mash was around 7ish as it was naturally lowered from the grains, so i used the correct dosage and measured my pH to be 5.2/5.4

So it works for me, but as others (more experienced) have stated, they have had mixed results...

I will assume i've had a jump in efficiency because of this, but when i started i never bothered to crunch the numbers as i was trying to get processes down first. I usually get medium to high 70%'s...


----------



## argon

Ross said:


> Certainly works on Brisbane water & only approx 1 teaspoon needed
> As I said, buy some ph strips & do your own testing to see the quantity required.




This is my experience anyway... perhaps it is the Brisbane water and for that soft Melbourne water it's rendered useless. I know there's a lot of talk on the brewing network about this stuff not working... i've been flamed for saying it does for me. All i can conclude it's individual to my situation and water profile.

Next batch i'll do without and see how it goes... but definitely a marked improvement in my process when adding it to my strike water. The brew last weekend, i added it straight to the mash 5 mins after i doughed in, cause i forgot... got my usual 75% efficiency. Go figure

I think i'll get some ph strips soon to test and report results.


----------



## speedie

Big nath 

Thanks for your comments on your tests with hard water

Now get some very soft water and redo them and post your results

With the use of a well calibrated temperature adjusting Ph meter

speedie


----------



## bignath

speedie said:


> Big nath
> 
> Thanks for your comments on your tests with hard water
> 
> Now get some very soft water and redo them and post your results
> 
> With the use of a well calibrated temperature adjusting Ph meter
> 
> speedie



calibrated temperature adjusting *pH* meter - tick. (note pH, not Ph) it's not a phone number...

I live 500k's from the nearest source of anything remotely resembling soft water.

You can go get some soft water and post your own results, and take your smart arse attitude somewhere else.


----------



## argon

Big Nath said:


> You can go get some soft water and post your own results, and take your smart arse attitude somewhere else.




I concur


----------



## bum

He's already been told that and he brought it here. h34r:


----------



## Nevalicious

Big Nath said:


> calibrated temperature adjusting *pH* meter - tick. (note pH, not Ph) it's not a phone number...
> 
> I live 500k's from the nearest source of anything remotely resembling soft water.
> 
> You can go get some soft water and post your own results, and take your smart arse attitude somewhere else.



:lol: 

You tell em Nath!!


----------



## brettprevans

Ross said:


> Certainly works on Brisbane water & only approx 1 teaspoon needed
> As I said, buy some ph strips & do your own testing to see the quantity required.
> 
> Not sure what's going on with Melbourne water, but if someone wants to send me an analysis i'll forward to 5 Star for their advice.
> 
> 
> cheers Ross


melb water analysis thread 
love to know what they say as I bought some buffer a few months ago.


----------



## SpillsMostOfIt

I've used the product for several years and am on my second tub of it. I started using it when brewing in Collingwood and just continued using it when I moved to where I am *right this very instant*. After hearing Thirsty Boy's arguments and seeing his results, I thought I would run a few brews through my system without it.

I brew with rainwater collected on a ColourBond roof into a galvanised iron tank, pumped up a hill through black poly pipe into a concrete storage tank, which then falls back down another piece of black poly pipe into my brewery. There's a good mix of eucalypt, dust and birdshit in there which either gets dissolved or falls to the bottom of one of the tanks. I don't currently filter at all and, if memory serves, brew in an aluminum pot.

I've never measured the pH of any water I use - I used to tell myself that buying this product would fix any problems so I don't have to measure the solution before/during/after. I remain happily ignorant of what is actually going on. I use it at a rate of about 3grams per 24litre finished wort; perhaps a little more for big or particularly dark bears... I say this because I measure the water into the mash tun in centimetres and not litres.

What I can say is that for the half-dozen brews where I did not use the product, I found I had (only) slightly lower extraction efficiency, but I was quite unhappy with the general outcome of my beers. I thought they tasted different - perhaps slightly astringent, certainly the flavours I was chasing were less well-defined - and they appeared cloudier than I recalled previous brews.

Since returning to using it, I believe those issues have gone away. I have also made other improvements in my process, but there was enough for the pattern-matching part of my brain to register a correlation.

Note that my description and explanation are completely unscientific. There may be a confusion of cause and effect. But, it's all good enough for me. If it turns out that the good work done by knowledgeable and respected people differs from mine, then it won't be the first time. </Normal_Waffly_Disclaimer>


----------



## speedie

The post was about how this marvelous product can raise and or lower pH pre mashin post mashin 

My response was one of skepticism 

I asked if Ross had done any side by side tests TB comes back and confirms what I was thinking 

The ability to offset pH either side of the mark would be miniscule

Please dont assume that I havent brewed before 

speedie


----------



## zebba

speedie said:


> The post was about how this marvelous product can raise and or lower pH pre mashin post mashin


I'm guessing someone didn't click bribies link. Or they didn't do year 9 chemistry. Either way, previous descriptions have probably been generous...


----------



## bignath

speedie said:


> Please don't assume that I haven't brewed before
> 
> speedie




Go back and read my initial post about my results and you will see you have assumed much more about me than i have assumed about you. 
I never said you haven't brewed before, but you were very quick to assume i don't even have the correct equipment to garner my results with. 

Ever wonder why most of your postings seem to spark seriously negative comments???


----------



## bum

Speedie, brewer or not, you're still talking out of complete ignorance. Look the product up and see how it claims to work for yourself.



SpillsMostOfIt said:


> I thought they tasted different - perhaps slightly astringent [snip] than I recalled previous brews.



Ah. I feel slightly less stupid about my purchase now. I've had a feeling (rather than a certainty) that I've been tasting a slight astringency in the back of some of my beers and this was much of my motivation to test this product out. Cheers, SMOI.


----------



## drsmurto

It's time for a confession.

I was the one who sent Speedie here, he was pissing me and others off on another brewing forum so i suggested this place would be much more welcoming of someone of his brilliance. That and his constant raping of the english language was physically hurting my brain.

I assumed that with all the people with vast amounts of brewing experience, some of which is actual study in the field, he would realise that he wasn't the be all and end all of brewing knowledge and crawl back under his rock.

Watching all the debates that have occurred since he arrived i was convinced all would resolve itself.

Apparently i was wrong, he is a god. 

Either that or retarded.

Humble apologies  
DrSmurto


----------



## Pennywise

DrSmurto said:


> It's time for a confession.
> 
> I was the one who sent Speedie here, he was pissing me and others off on another brewing forum so i suggested this place would be much more welcoming of someone of his brilliance. That and his constant raping of the english language was physically hurting my brain.
> 
> I assumed that with all the people with vast amounts of brewing experience, some of which is actual study in the field, he would realise that he wasn't the be all and end all of brewing knowledge and crawl back under his rock.
> 
> Watching all the debates that have occurred since he arrived i was convinced all would resolve itself.
> 
> Apparently i was wrong, he is a god.
> 
> Either that or retarded.
> 
> Humble apologies
> DrSmurto




It take a big man to admit when he's wrong, bigups Dr





:lol: :lol:


----------



## bignath

DrSmurto said:


> It's time for a confession.
> 
> I was the one who sent Speedie here, he was pissing me and others off on another brewing forum so i suggested this place would be much more welcoming of someone of his brilliance. That and his constant raping of the english language was physically hurting my brain.
> 
> I assumed that with all the people with vast amounts of brewing experience, some of which is actual study in the field, he would realise that he wasn't the be all and end all of brewing knowledge and crawl back under his rock.
> 
> Watching all the debates that have occurred since he arrived i was convinced all would resolve itself.
> 
> Apparently i was wrong, he is a god.
> 
> Either that or retarded.
> 
> Humble apologies
> DrSmurto




Classic! :lol:


----------



## jonocarroll

Thirsty Boy said:


> A 25g sample of grain (pale lager malt) mashed in to 65C (IIRC) at an L:G ratio of 3:1, which is what I use. Added to the mash water - various %s of the recommended dose of 5.2. I think I went 0, 50, 100, 200, 300, 500%
> 
> Mash for 5mins or so, then filter and measure pH of wort. Repeat a few times to make sure its not just a fluke. Try again with a different base malt.
> 
> Using either my handheld pH meter or the desktop one at work, weights measured with my 0.1g resolution scales, volumes in a 100ml and a 1L measuring cylinder.


In the interest of good science, I'll commend you for doing an experiment, but I'll remain skeptical about your conclusions unless you can better explain your results in the context of your experimental errors. I'm a theorist, so part of my job is to make sure the numbers are statistically significant before accepting a conclusion (I hate numerical checks, but I've now got my physics calculations confirming 1 part in 1015 effects... w00t!).

If 12g of 52 is required for say, 5kg of grain, then dividing through you require only 0.06g for your 25g grain test... yet you have 0.1g 'precision' on your scales (i.e. result 0.05g). In that case, there's no way that you did the lower end of your percentages correctly, and I'd guess that you used the 100% measurement as your baseline, which throws all the higher ones off too. 500% done correctly is 0.3g which is only three increments on your scales. Given the lack of actual precision in this measurement, I would query the precision of your pH meter. If you're only measuring a change in the first decimal place, you likely won't see any effect within your errors.

You also did a 5 minute mash. I'm a little fuzzier here, but I think there's two possibilities; first, if the conversion time scales with the mass, then this should be fine. However, if conversion time is a function of the chemical process alone, then less grain doesn't necessarily mean quicker. Cooking a single piece of dry spaghetti doesn't take 1/100th of the time to cook more.

Lab experiments are great, and they can give good agreement of trends or general indications, but a real world test is often not a lab test scaled up. 

For those that don't read thoroughly... tl;dr = I'm not agreeing/disagreeing with your result, or making a conclusion about the product in question. Just analyzing this particular test.

Oh, and <slap> to DrSmurto for bringing evil unto us.


----------



## argon

DrSmurto said:


> It's time for a confession.
> 
> I was the one who sent Speedie here, he was pissing me and others off on another brewing forum so i suggested this place would be much more welcoming of someone of his brilliance. That and his constant raping of the english language was physically hurting my brain.
> 
> I assumed that with all the people with vast amounts of brewing experience, some of which is actual study in the field, he would realise that he wasn't the be all and end all of brewing knowledge and crawl back under his rock.
> 
> Watching all the debates that have occurred since he arrived i was convinced all would resolve itself.
> 
> Apparently i was wrong, he is a god.
> 
> Either that or retarded.
> 
> Humble apologies
> DrSmurto



No need to apologize for others actions Dr S.

I must admit though.. when i scan through a thread and see Times New Roman... I say to myself..."hmmm this could be interesting!... let's see how this develops" C'mon I know there are others out there who do the same


----------



## Mattese

Possibly Wing Dings would be more appropriate for him though...


----------



## Lecterfan

DrSmurto said:


> That and his constant raping of the english language was physically hurting my brain.


 :lol: 

I was enjoying watching silently on the other channel.


----------



## dalpets

Hi all,

I'm the author of the original post,

This thread has digressed far from that post. Again, I ask politely for an answer.

What volume is the addition based on;

The water volume of the mash?

OR

The volume of water + grain in the mash?

OR

the estimated final volume of the boil kettle?

C'mon experienced brewers you must know the answer!

Thanks for your help.


----------



## argon

dalpets said:


> the estimated final volume of the boil kettle?




this


----------



## bignath

dalpets said:


> Hi all,
> 
> I'm the author of the original post,
> 
> This thread has digressed far from that post. Again, I ask politely for an answer.
> 
> What volume is the addition based on;
> 
> The water volume of the mash?
> 
> OR
> 
> The volume of water + grain in the mash?
> 
> OR
> 
> the estimated final volume of the boil kettle?
> 
> C'mon experienced brewers you must know the answer!
> 
> Thanks for your help.



Yep you're right. My apologies as you can most likely blame me for the off topic degradation.

You've got me thinking about which is the correct one, and i am sure it is only the mash volume that you need to worry about. Any water added post mash (sparge water) should stay "corrected" by the buffering agent that is the 5.2 stabilizer. It's the mash pH you want to get right, so add it to the mash. I don't see any point in adding it to the HLT as it will only end up in the mash tun anyway.
Happy to be corrected, but i'm sure this is the intention of the manufacturer....

Once again, sorry for the degradation of your post. 

Cheers mate,
Nath


----------



## Fatgodzilla

dalpets said:


> Hi all, I'm the author of the original post, This thread has digressed far from that post. Again, I ask politely for an answer.
> 
> What volume is the addition based on; The water volume of the mash? OR The volume of water + grain in the mash? OR the estimated final volume of the boil kettle?




Fair dinkum, the hide of you Dalpets, expecting a proper answer when there is so much clearly more important Off Topic debate on matters not relating to your quite important question.  


The problem with what I have read here is that as a user of 5.2, I am now questioning what I thought was a good reason for using it. Damn you science!

I'll stick with the simple answer of adding a heaped teaspoon to the mash until someone proves this a bad thing to do.


Ah, AHB is better when we have fun doing case swaps and pub crawls rather than asking questions which shows I am really inadequate as a brewer.


----------



## SpillsMostOfIt

dalpets said:


> Hi all,
> 
> I'm the author of the original post,
> 
> This thread has digressed far from that post. Again, I ask politely for an answer.
> 
> What volume is the addition based on;
> 
> The water volume of the mash?
> 
> OR
> 
> The volume of water + grain in the mash?
> 
> OR
> 
> the estimated final volume of the boil kettle?
> 
> C'mon experienced brewers you must know the answer!
> 
> Thanks for your help.



Well, if you're going to be like that...

http://www.fivestarchemicals.com/tech/fivetwo.pdf



I still like my answer better. It should work out to about 1/2 to 2/3 of the recommended rate, but I reckon it also depends on the water you're using.


----------



## Thirsty Boy

QuantumBrewer said:


> In the interest of good science, I'll commend you for doing an experiment, but I'll remain skeptical about your conclusions unless you can better explain your results in the context of your experimental errors. I'm a theorist, so part of my job is to make sure the numbers are statistically significant before accepting a conclusion (I hate numerical checks, but I've now got my physics calculations confirming 1 part in 1015 effects... w00t!).
> 
> If 12g of 52 is required for say, 5kg of grain, then dividing through you require only 0.06g for your 25g grain test... yet you have 0.1g 'precision' on your scales (i.e. result 0.05g). In that case, there's no way that you did the lower end of your percentages correctly, and I'd guess that you used the 100% measurement as your baseline, which throws all the higher ones off too. 500% done correctly is 0.3g which is only three increments on your scales. Given the lack of actual precision in this measurement, I would query the precision of your pH meter. If you're only measuring a change in the first decimal place, you likely won't see any effect within your errors.
> 
> You also did a 5 minute mash. I'm a little fuzzier here, but I think there's two possibilities; first, if the conversion time scales with the mass, then this should be fine. However, if conversion time is a function of the chemical process alone, then less grain doesn't necessarily mean quicker. Cooking a single piece of dry spaghetti doesn't take 1/100th of the time to cook more.
> 
> Lab experiments are great, and they can give good agreement of trends or general indications, but a real world test is often not a lab test scaled up.
> 
> For those that don't read thoroughly... tl;dr = I'm not agreeing/disagreeing with your result, or making a conclusion about the product in question. Just analyzing this particular test.
> 
> Oh, and <slap> to DrSmurto for bringing evil unto us.



I made up 5L of water at 500% and used the aforementioned 100ml and 1000ml measuring cylinders to dilute the dosage down to the target levels. It so happens that 5L is one fifth of my end ofnboil kettle volume... So I actually didn't even need to weigh the 5.2 at all. The recommended dose for my brew (its a heaped spoonful) into the 5L gave 500%. Now I did weigh it... But I didn't need to.

Conversion time is irrelevant - the point of a buffer or any other means of changing your mash pH, is so that its at the desired level from the _beginning_, or very close to the beginning of the mash. If the product does its job, its already done it at the 5 min mark, if it takes fifteen minutes to have it's effect, its not doing it's job.

You have to look at the question I was asking too. I wasn't trying tomfind out at what dose the product becomes effective, I wasn't trying to work out the degree to which it influenced the mash pH. I was trying to work out whether it did it's job or not. So a black and white, yes or no answer. Either the product buffers the mash to optimum brewing levels, or it doesn't. And I was working in massive increments of the recommended dose. Not trying to see whether 90% of the dose worked vs 100% trying to see if any dose at all became effective. If it did... Then a more finicky experiment might be needed to see what that level was. But in my experiment, it really didn't matter - Want to include the error range?? OK assume that the closest I could get was +/- a whole 100% of the dose.

I re-state my results as: At any tested dosage rate between 50 and 500% (+/- 100%) of the recommended dose, the product failed to bring the pH of the mash to within the optimum brewing range.

And the newly stated result loses none of its meaning.

But thanks for pointing the possibilities out - i tend to get slack about that sort of stuff if people don't keep me on my toes. And if my response still leaves stuff to be desired, please let me know where, so I can either further explain, or do the experiment again with a solution in place.

Cheers

TB


----------



## SpillsMostOfIt

Fatgodzilla said:


> <snip>
> The problem with what I have read here is that as a user of 5.2, I am now questioning what I thought was a good reason for using it. Damn you science!
> 
> I'll stick with the simple answer of adding a heaped teaspoon to the mash until someone proves this a bad thing to do.
> <snip>



You can do that yourself, as I did. Elide it from a brew or twelve and see if *you* can tell the difference, either through measurement or taste. While I have a huge amount of respect for all the contributors to this forum, they and their half-arsed opinions don't mean shit when I'm in my brewery brewing my beer! 

TB and QB can keep quarreling about the Scientific Method and others about the Compleat Lack Of Understanding Method, but we all know that Actual Results May Vary and it is really up to you to decide what works for you.


----------



## Online Brewing Supplies

Thirsty Boy said:


> I wanted this product to work - I used to think it did work - I don't anymore.


I had a customer using this Buffer, it didnt work. I checked his pH and sure enough it didnt make any difference. Perth water and recipe profile knocked it for a six. He has gone back to acidulated malt adjustments.
GB


----------



## MHB

I will admit to being a bit of a sceptic, had a long hard look at the product a couple of years ago and decided it wasn't for me.
It is I believe a blend of Mono and Tri Sodium Phosphate; I'm not going to say it doesn't work but am concerned that the amount you need to get a guaranteed buffering action is going to contribute a hell of a lot of both Sodium and Phosphate to your wort. Sodium isn't that much of a concern apart from taste; too much can give beer a salty flavour.
Phosphate is present in the malt and largely accounts for the buffering action we already see in a mash. On the surface it would appear that Sodium Phosphate would be the ideal buffer, perhaps it is in fairly neutral water. Where there are already fairly large mineral concentrations, I suspect the recommended doses are going to be vastly inadequate.
I find that doing a bit of basic water chemistry, then tweaking the pH with a bit of Lactic Acid does the job.

I'm going to strongly recommend Lactic over almost any other acid.
I find that in many cases enough Citric Acid to adjust the pH correctly will come through as a classic sour lemony flavour. Citric is Triprotic with pKa's at 3.1, 4.8 and 5.4 there is no way we will get that last dissociations so the acid will come through in the beer. Lactic Acid is Monophonic at a pKa of 3.9 so we are using all of the acid.

I'm using 80% food grade Lactic Acid and taking Kunze at face value: -
60mL (72g) will reduce the pH of a mash made with 100 Kg of malt by 0.1pH.
So 6mL will drop the pH of 1 Kg by the same 1pH.
30mL (36g) will reduce the pH of the kettle wort made with 100 Kg of malt by 0.1pH.
So 3mL will drop the pH wort made from 1 Kg by the same 1pH.
Makes the maths really easy
In the Mash (6ml)*(Kg Malt)*(Desired change in pH) = mL of 80% Lactic Acid
In the Kettle (3ml)*(Kg Malt)*(Desired change in pH) = mL of 80% Lactic Acid
I.e. to drop the pH of a 5Kg mash by 0.4pH
6*5*0.4 = 12mL


Hope I haven't dropped a decimal
MHB


----------



## pk.sax

A buffer solution will correct the Ph only within the range of what amount of the chemical is diluted into solution. If your water is much harder (or even soft), and you use not enough, then it would impact the ph frOm what it was before you added it but might not be able to get it where it's required.

A much better solution pops out here, use your brewing salts as you like to bring out the right characteristics of your brew, THEN add a bit of this 5.2 product to counteract the less extreme changes as the mash and boil go along. it's a buffer, not a water addition. Buffers are used to fine tune and maintain, not to do the entire job. Well, that's my understanding of buffers wrt basic chemistry.

Dear OP, from this, you might've gauged that if your water Ph was correct or close to correct to begin with, then it doesn't really matter where you add it. Buffers are meant to be neutral in excess so any extra added to HLT, mash tun, boil or whatever should just stay neutral. Adding it into the mash tun or HLT seem like reasonable ideas. As for dosage, well, the Ph is most important at mash time as I understand (someone should correct me, this part is actual brewing something I'm learning as I go), so dosing to mash volume with a bit extra should see you through. Just use common sense, it's a buffer, not a water profile building salt. Happy to be corrected.

Edit: too slow, MHB seems to have pointedto the same thing and gone in more detail.


----------



## speedie

Thanks for most positive comments on what was being discussed and to all of the rest of you charlatans suck eggs

If you what to throw stones make sure you hit what you throw at 

You all seem to be a typical bunch of self appointed back slappers

And dont forget * whom *posted off topic first



Cheers speedie

Go the s/a hill tribe


----------



## dalpets

Thanks SpillsMostOflt.

Your referral to the product tech sheet (which I didn't know existed) says;

"Calculate the amount of water based on the total volume in the kettle (ex. 7bbl. Leaving kettle
use 14oz. of 52). Place 52 in the mash tun while you are mashing in. If desired, dissolve
in a small amount of water before adding to the mash."

A couple of others on this thread have said the same thing about the quantity of the addition in the mash.

Nevertheless, it also seems that what people are saying is that ones mileage will vary depending on ones location, particularly with regard to water hardness.

If that is the case it seems that the individual brewer needs, by trial & error, to manipulate the addition to ones locale and as such the product tech sheet only provides a nominal guide.

I have noted the comments made as to the efficacy of the product with interest and the suggested use, for some, of other brewing salts as a better solution to reaching optimum pH.

So I'm happy to rely now on my own experiences to find the best fit.
BTW: excuse my ignorance but what is the "bbl" referred to in the product tech sheet.

Cheers
dalpets


----------



## felten

bbl = barrel unit of measurement


----------



## bignath

I'll make this quick as i don't want to degrade dalpets thread any further. I've already apologised previously, but i cant stand this clown...

If you what to throw stones make sure you hit what you throw at...."
There's nothing wrong with my aim mate...

"You all seem to be a typical bunch of self appointed back slappers..."
No, we just know what were talking about...

"And don't forget whom posted off topic first"
Just because i apologised doesn't mean it was my fault. Just happy to be the one willing, and big enough to do so.

You found a post by "bum" contentious when he was actually correct, i stepped in to point it out...Then it all went down hill from there...

We are all on this forum to learn things about our great hobby we collectively share, and all you do is slap us in the face with your bullshit.. The sooner you **** off the sooner we can go back to learning all things usefull...

There are all sorts of brewers on this forum, some who have no idea of what they are doing, some who have a decent level of knowledge, and then those who are very advanced (winning awards, working in brewerys or with a brewing background as employment etc..) yet you still pick arguments that are clearly often misguided.


Oh, and i like this part:

"Cheers speedie"

Once again, sincere apologies to original poster - I've said my peace, and refuse to take this off topic any further, regardless what this tool comes back with...


EDIT: Formatting...


----------



## Bribie G

speedie said:


> Thanks for most positive comments on what was being discussed and to all of the rest of you charlatans suck eggs
> 
> If you what to throw stones make sure you hit what you throw at
> 
> You all seem to be a typical bunch of self appointed back slappers
> 
> And dont forget * whom *posted off topic first
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers speedie
> 
> Go the s/a hill tribe



_Whom_ is the accusative case of _Who_ - for example "_Who_ did you give that bottle to?" = "To _whom_ did you give that bottle".
So _Whom_ is the person that gets things done to them, whereas _Who_ is the person who initiates the action.


----------



## NickB

Big Nath said:


> There are all sorts of brewers on this forum, some who have no idea of what they are doing, some who have a decent level of knowledge, and then those who are very advanced (winning awards, working in brewerys or with a brewing background as employment etc..) yet you still pick arguments that are clearly often misguided.




Well said mate, however I will add that for the most part, those who have no idea _are_ for the most part willing to listen to those who _do_ know what they're talking about (the obvious exception being one Speedie...)



Now, _who_ thinks Speedie should disappear himself rapidly.......



h34r:


----------



## goomboogo

Don't run Speedie out of town. His knowledge may be negligible. He may lack any discernible intelligence. However, his juvenile, incoherent ramblings on subjects he clearly knows nothing about are hilarious.

Speedie, don't go anywhere. I am a weak person and occasionally like to laugh at people as feeble minded as myself.


----------



## MeLoveBeer

MHB said:


> I'm going to strongly recommend Lactic over almost any other acid.
> I find that in many cases enough Citric Acid to adjust the pH correctly will come through as a classic sour lemony flavour. Citric is Triprotic with pKa's at 3.1, 4.8 and 5.4 there is no way we will get that last dissociations so the acid will come through in the beer. Lactic Acid is Monophonic at a pKa of 3.9 so we are using all of the acid.
> 
> I'm using 80% food grade Lactic Acid and taking Kunze at face value: -
> 60mL (72g) will reduce the pH of a mash made with 100 Kg of malt by 0.1pH.
> So 6mL will drop the pH of 1 Kg by the same 1pH.
> 30mL (36g) will reduce the pH of the kettle wort made with 100 Kg of malt by 0.1pH.
> So 3mL will drop the pH wort made from 1 Kg by the same 1pH.
> Makes the maths really easy
> In the Mash (6ml)*(Kg Malt)*(Desired change in pH) = mL of 80% Lactic Acid
> In the Kettle (3ml)*(Kg Malt)*(Desired change in pH) = mL of 80% Lactic Acid
> I.e. to drop the pH of a 5Kg mash by 0.4pH
> 6*5*0.4 = 12mL
> 
> 
> Hope I haven't dropped a decimal
> MHB



Thanks for the informative post MHB... will be picking up some lactic acid before my next brew on Friday. Where is the best place to source lactic acid? Is it only available from the sponsors/brew shops?


----------



## MHB

I know where I get mine  

I see G&G have it listed; theirs is 88% so you will have to adjust the amount slightly, or dilute it to 80%.

I find it works well and the calculation given hits closer than my ability to measure.

Speedie might be a bit of a twat but he is right a temperature compensating reasonably good pH meter is on my shopping list, I wont be spending $700-800 on one tho, perfectly good ones can be had for a couple of hundred.

MHB


----------



## speedie

Twats that are ignorant of the correct use of the English language dont GAF

what is posted about his knowledge in brewing?

The question was asked about 5.2s use in brewing

 I ask if it was tested in brewing and look at the driddle that comes back

I advocate the use of pH adjusted water in both mash and sparge 

Mash in, rest, check and adjust to 5.5 with phosphoric acid (food grade)

Adjust sparge water to 5.6 heat to 80 then use for rinse

Never used 5.2 and probably never will 

Mhb get your self a good quality temperature compensating meter and watch your results improve

speedie


----------



## Bribie G

Mhb's results may improve so drastically that he may even give up his day job and open a home brew business, and dedicate it to the person who caused the scales to fall from his eyes. Speedibrew - has a great ring to it. :lol:


----------



## bum

speedie said:


> I advocate the use of pH adjusted water in both mash and sparge
> 
> Mash in, rest, check and adjust to 5.5 with phosphoric acid (food grade)
> 
> Adjust sparge water to 5.6 heat to 80 then use for rinse


I want to preface my post with the following: I'm not having a dig here, speedie. I understand that this is much of what you were getting at when you said my post was contentious and I didn't take it as a personal swipe which is I why I didn't address it at the time. This is an issue I've been thinking about ever since I decided I needed to address pH issues in my brewing and the following is based on my thoughts on the matter and not (I repeat NOT) me telling you that you are wrong in what you are saying or doing - it is me trying to work out what is best for me. I understand that you're a vastly more experienced and accomplished brewer than I and I'm not telling you you're doing anything wrong (in this one instance).

Ok, now that that is out of the way (and soon to be swiftly ignored, I'd imagine)...

I've been thinking about pH adjustments in the sparge and am basically of the feeling that it might not be the best idea. Don't we use (well, other brewers anyway) pH of the sparge runnings to tell us when we're oversparging? If we use buffers for our sparge pH aren't we running the risk of getting a "false positive" on this test?


----------



## brettprevans

not getting into the great 'does 5.2 work' or the 'is speedie a wanker' debate, and taking it slightly OT 

im slightly suprised no one (that ive seen) has mentioned any tests regrading types of beers. ie dark v light. i will elaborate. darker grains will have a more acidic effect on the mash than lighter grain, espcially the roasted grains. has anybody done any tests with 5.2 on a dark batch and a light batch top see if it buffers better with the lighter beers and not the darker beers? 

hypothesising based on the supposed ability of 5.2 to do a little but not a lot, then it would stand to reason that it might have a bit more of an easier time buffering against a small pH change in a lighter beer than a bigger pH change in a darker beer. or are we just assuming it either works or doesnt work full stop. no shades of grey?

another thought. I dont actually remember anyone actually ever saying that 5.2 was a replacement for manual water chem adjustments. obviously altering water chem manually and taking into account specific water chem at your location will be more accurate but takes more time.


----------



## bum

citymorgue2 said:


> another thought. I dont actually remember anyone actually ever saying that 5.2 was a replacement for manual water chem adjustments.


This is inferred in the product description (unless I'm misinterpreting how it compares itself to brewing salts). 

There has been some discussion of the effects of different malts but not to the extent you're talking about. In terms of it just working or not working it looks like most people are saying it is dependant on your original water condition more than anything else? I could have that arse backwards.


----------



## argon

bum said:


> In terms of it just working or not working it looks like most people are saying it is dependant on your original water condition more than anything else? I could have that arse backwards.



That's what i'm reading into the discussion at least. Brisbane moderately hard water = 5.2 effective. Melbourne soft water = 5.2 not effective. I think that's what's going on. Which i read 5.2 will buffer a little in the right circumstance, but won't overcome major swings.


----------



## brettprevans

sorry i got distracted and forgot to fully explain that comment. just forget that comment. too hard to explain what i was getting at. 

in regards to the 2nd part of your post. thats my understanding


----------



## speedie

bum me old mate there is hope for us yet
come on dr dont shoulder da blame on ya self
all i am asking is just try it!
pH or not 2 pH
there is a vast amount of head retension to be had by all!
cheers enigma


----------



## kenlock

A bitter tongue makes life bitter: A sweet tongue makes life better. Anonymous


----------



## NickB

speedie said:


> bum me old mate there is hope for us yet
> come on dr dont shoulder da blame on ya self
> all i am asking is just try it!
> pH or not 2 pH
> there is a vast amount of head retension to be had by all!
> cheers enigma



Seriously dude, you're either stoned or drunk, or combination of both.

Honestly, this forum does have its fair share of bullshit written on it, but most of the time it's funny, and remotely related to the topic being discussed.

You sir, are a moron, plain and simple.

Is there an 'ignore' button on here?

Cheers


----------



## NickB

Hmmmm, tempting, although I do enjoy a good laugh and yell at the computer when Speedboat posts...


----------



## speedie

Nick b 

Big phuckin deal 

You hide behind a vile of mystery ,you slander with jay abandoned 

You are probably a good aussie hopefully

But your attitude is phucked

Post positive feed back, feel the vibe

What do you get out of posting wallop

Drunk, stoned, cyco and straight

I know bullshit from clay 

That out of the way whats your take on 5.2 duded!


----------



## bum

speedie said:


> You hide behind a vile of mystery ,you slander with jay abandoned


Poor Jay. 

No wonder his attitude is so bad.


----------



## speedie

maybe one day we will all get to drink together


----------



## jyo

speedie said:


> Nick b
> 
> Big phuckin deal
> 
> You hide behind a vile of mystery ,you slander with jay abandoned
> 
> You are probably a good aussie hopefully
> 
> But your attitude is phucked
> 
> Post positive feed back, feel the vibe
> 
> What do you get out of posting wallop
> 
> Drunk, stoned, cyco and straight
> 
> I know bullshit from clay
> 
> That out of the way whats your take on 5.2 duded!




Is this meant to be a poem?


----------



## JestersDarts

I tried reading it like that - but it didnt rhyme, and it irritated me.

So maybe it is Lyrics to some sort of Hip-Hop.


----------



## NickB

speedie said:


> Nick b
> 
> Big phuckin deal
> 
> You hide behind a vile of mystery ,you slander with jay abandoned
> 
> You are probably a good aussie hopefully
> 
> But your attitude is phucked
> 
> Post positive feed back, feel the vibe
> 
> What do you get out of posting wallop
> 
> Drunk, stoned, cyco and straight
> 
> I know bullshit from clay
> 
> That out of the way whats your take on 5.2 duded!



Mate, if you had a 'phucking' clue, you'd see myself and most others who have posted in this thread post nothing but positive posts and give advice where we can (when we know what we're talking about).

I feel embarrassed that I've been suckered in by such clear Trolling, but cannot stand your attitude, and quite frankly, what you and a few other new members (not saying all new members are doing things like this - far from it) have done to this amazing forum.

Grow up, have a damn hard look at yourself, and (although I'm sure it's hard for you) - think. We're all here to learn, we need people to ask sensible questions, and most importantly we need the people with the knowledge to take the time to share it with us. 

Constant de-railing of posts with your inane comments, ridiculous 'poems' and personal attacks is NOT a way to endear yourself to a new forum. 

I'm not going to say you know nothing, because despite what I suspect, I have no proof. I will say however, you need to change your attitude quick smart.

In short, shape up or 'phuck' off. Mate.


----------



## bignath

speedie said:


> Nick b
> 
> Big phuckin deal
> 
> You hide behind a vile of mystery ,you slander with jay abandoned
> 
> You are probably a good aussie hopefully
> 
> But your attitude is phucked
> 
> Post positive feed back, feel the vibe
> 
> What do you get out of posting wallop
> 
> Drunk, stoned, cyco and straight
> 
> I know bullshit from clay
> 
> That out of the way whats your take on 5.2 duded!




This is kind of like when you get an email from someone in Asian country who is battling to remain in control of our English linguistic system, and you are left staring at the computer screen in disbelief trying to fill in the blanks like it's some kind of cryptic message...

I reckon someone should start a thread titled: "Speedies Greatest Hits"...

Yo Speedie, Peace Out Wigga!


----------



## Bribie G

I prefer the Haiku style:

Furious enzymes
surrendering mash
Storks in the sky at sunset


----------



## RobW

I reckon he puts it through the Google translator into Japanese then back into English


----------



## QldKev

RobW said:


> I reckon he puts it through the Google translator into Japanese then back into English



ROFLMAO


----------



## JestersDarts

speedie said:


> Nick b
> 
> Big phuckin deal
> 
> You hide behind a vile of mystery ,you slander with jay abandoned
> 
> You are probably a good aussie hopefully
> 
> But your attitude is phucked
> 
> Post positive feed back, feel the vibe
> 
> What do you get out of posting wallop
> 
> Drunk, stoned, cyco and straight
> 
> I know bullshit from clay
> 
> That out of the way whats your take on 5.2 duded!



I have copied this to my computer... Ive read it about 10 times now and it still cracks me up!


----------



## bignath

BribieG said:


> I prefer the Haiku style:
> 
> Furious enzymes
> surrendering mash
> Storks in the sky at sunset
> 
> View attachment 42518




Jesus Bribie that's some beautiful stuff right there. You should work for Hallmark! :icon_cheers:


----------



## drsmurto

JestersDarts said:


> I tried reading it like that - but it didnt rhyme, and it irritated me.
> 
> So maybe it is Lyrics to some sort of Hip-Hop.






BribieG said:


> I prefer the Haiku style:
> 
> Furious enzymes
> surrendering mash
> Storks in the sky at sunset
> 
> View attachment 42518



I was going to suggest breaking the fast ones last post down into a series of Haikus. It might make more sense then. 

I did say _might_.


----------



## jonocarroll

speedie said:


> Nick b
> 
> Big phuckin deal
> 
> You hide behind a vile of mystery ,you slander with jay abandoned
> 
> You are probably a good aussie hopefully
> 
> But your attitude is phucked
> 
> Post positive feed back, feel the vibe
> 
> What do you get out of posting wallop
> 
> Drunk, stoned, cyco and straight
> 
> I know bullshit from clay
> 
> That out of the way whats your take on 5.2 duded!


Look speedie, I know you think you're raking everyone's brains here, but low and behold, for all intensive porpoises you're rain of terroir needs to be served its just desserts. You are reeking havoc all over this forum, and we are all waiting on tender hooks for you to tow the line - you don't really have free reign here. Hey, it's a doggie dog world out there, and to be honest, people could care less about what you have to say.

You only have yourself to blamed.


----------



## JestersDarts

DrSmurto said:


> I was going to suggest breaking the fast ones last post down into a series of Haikus. It might make more sense then.
> 
> I did say _might_.



Behind vile mystery,
Drunk, Stoned, cyco, straight.
But your attitude is phucked.


----------



## bum

QuantumBrewer said:


> Look speedie, I know you think you're raking everyone's brains here, but low and behold, for all intensive porpoises you're rain of terroir needs to be served its just desserts. You are reeking havoc all over this forum, and we are all waiting on tender hooks for you to tow the line - you don't really have free reign here. Hey, it's a doggie dog world out there, and to be honest, people could care less about what you have to say.
> 
> You only have yourself to blamed.


This all goes well for lols in my immediate future.


----------



## hoppinmad

speedie said:


> Nick b
> 
> Big phuckin deal
> 
> You hide behind a vile of mystery ,you slander with jay abandoned
> 
> You are probably a good aussie hopefully
> 
> But your attitude is phucked
> 
> Post positive feed back, feel the vibe
> 
> What do you get out of posting wallop
> 
> Drunk, stoned, cyco and straight
> 
> I know bullshit from clay
> 
> That out of the way whats your take on 5.2 duded!




ǝıpǝǝds ooʇ uʍop ǝpısdn ǝʇıɹʍ oʇ ʇoƃɹoɟ noʎ


----------



## earle

I think I may have discovered a correlation between phucked attitude and fermenter size. The more phucked your attitude the bigger fermenter you need to keep your 'friends' around.


----------



## argon

QuantumBrewer said:


> Hey, it's a doggie dog world out there,



oh man this i by far my favourite bit :lol: :lol:


----------



## pcmfisher

Yes, seems like a translation from another language.

I wonder which one..........


----------



## alowen474

Isn't it tow the Lyne?


----------



## NickB

QuantumBrewer said:


> Look speedie, I know you think you're raking everyone's brains here, but low and behold, for all intensive porpoises you're rain of terroir needs to be served its just desserts. You are reeking havoc all over this forum, and we are all waiting on tender hooks for you to tow the line - you don't really have free reign here. Hey, it's a doggie dog world out there, and to be honest, people could care less about what you have to say.
> 
> You only have yourself to blamed.




Gold, pure gold, you've made my phucking day mate


----------



## Nevalicious

QuantumBrewer said:


> Look speedie, I know you think you're raking everyone's brains here, but low and behold, for all intensive porpoises you're rain of terroir needs to be served its just desserts. You are reeking havoc all over this forum, and we are all waiting on tender hooks for you to tow the line - you don't really have free reign here. Hey, it's a doggie dog world out there, and to be honest, people could care less about what you have to say.
> 
> You only have yourself to blamed.



QB for the phuckin win!!!



HoppinMad said:


> ǝıpǝǝds ooʇ uʍop ǝpısdn ǝʇıɹʍ oʇ ʇoƃɹoɟ noʎ



I love it. Nearly fell off my chair... :lol:


----------



## bradsbrew

HoppinMad said:


> ǝıpǝǝds ooʇ uʍop ǝpısdn ǝʇıɹʍ oʇ ʇoƃɹoɟ noʎ



pHuck how da ya do that? I'd like to send a few emails like that


----------



## bum

http://www.fliptext.org/

Then cut and paste.


----------



## dalpets

MHB said:


> I
> ....................I'm using 80% food grade Lactic Acid and taking Kunze at face value: -
> 60mL (72g) will reduce the pH of a mash made with 100 Kg of malt by 0.1pH.
> So 6mL will drop the pH of 1 Kg by the same 1pH.
> 30mL (36g) will reduce the pH of the kettle wort made with 100 Kg of malt by 0.1pH.
> So 3mL will drop the pH wort made from 1 Kg by the same 1pH.
> Makes the maths really easy
> In the Mash (6ml)*(Kg Malt)*(Desired change in pH) = mL of 80% Lactic Acid
> In the Kettle (3ml)*(Kg Malt)*(Desired change in pH) = mL of 80% Lactic Acid
> I.e. to drop the pH of a 5Kg mash by 0.4pH
> 6*5*0.4 = 12mL
> 
> 
> Hope I haven't dropped a decimal
> MHB



Hi MHB,

I'm very interested in your comments about lactic acid use in the mash & in the kettle. Could you please advise how you make allowance for temperature when you are taking your pH readings.

Thanks & cheers
dalpets


----------



## Online Brewing Supplies

dalpets said:


> Hi MHB,
> 
> I'm very interested in your comments about lactic acid use in the mash & in the kettle. Could you please advise how you make allowance for temperature when you are taking your pH readings.
> 
> Thanks & cheers
> dalpets


I hope this is what you are getting at ? If doing a pH readings at mash temps (65c ish) you will be looking at a reading which is approx 5.6 pH which equates to approx 5.3 pH when sample is cooled to 20C.So these readings are pretty close to ideal mash pH depending on your view on ideal. You would need to confirm this with a pH meter as there can be some slight difference between meters. Once you have established this bench mark you are away.
Be aware taking hot pH readings will decrease the life of your pH probe.  
GB


----------



## [email protected]

Gryphon Brewing said:


> I hope this is what you are getting at ? If doing a pH readings at mash temps (65c ish) you will be looking at a reading which is approx 5.6 pH which equates to approx 5.3 pH when sample is cooled to 20C.So these readings are pretty close to ideal mash pH depending on your view on ideal. You would need to confirm this with a pH meter as there can be some slight difference between meters. Once you have established this bench mark you are away.
> Be aware taking hot pH readings will decrease the life of your pH probe.
> GB



GB I think your statement about mash pH is back to front. The H+ ions have greater dissociation at the higher mash temperatures and therefore will give a lower pH than if measured at room temperature. Please see the quote from www.braukaiser.com which refers to Brewing: Science and Practice by Briggs et al.

_"In mashing we tend to target the mash pH to optimize the effectiveness of the most important mash enzymes: the amylases which convert starch into sugar. In room temperature tests the pH optima for alpha amylase has been found at 5.3 and for the beta amylase it is between 5.1 and 5.3 [Briggs, 2004] (see __pH and brewing water in Starch Conversion__). But when their activity is evaluated at mashing temperatures and the pH of a cooled mash sample is measured it shows their pH optima at 5.7 and 5.4-5.6 respectively. This is the result of a pH shift in the mash that takes place when the mash is heated. In addition to that, the pH optimum of the enzyme is likely to shift as well. As a result, at common starch conversion temperatures (65C/150F) the pH of the mash appears 0.35 units lower than that of a room temperature mash sample [Briggs, 2004]. This needs to be taken into account when looking at pH optima for various mash enzymes. Most commonly, however, the pH optima that are reported in the literature were determined by testing cooled mash samples_."


----------



## MHB

Ive been using fairly high end Merck narrow range strips good to probably 0.2 pH, the good thing is they arent affected by temperature; the bad part is when I went to order more they now cost about $4/dip. Hence my comment that Im looking to upgrade to a reasonably good ATC pH meter, I want to get one with ISE (Calcium), conductivity and ATC to about 80oC.

MHB


----------



## Online Brewing Supplies

abc said:


> GB I think your statement about mash pH is back to front. The H+ ions have greater dissociation at the higher mash temperatures and therefore will give a lower pH than if measured at room temperature. Please see the quote from www.braukaiser.com which refers to Brewing: Science and Practice by Briggs et al.
> 
> _"In mashing we tend to target the mash pH to optimize the effectiveness of the most important mash enzymes: the amylases which convert starch into sugar. In room temperature tests the pH optima for alpha amylase has been found at 5.3 and for the beta amylase it is between 5.1 and 5.3 [Briggs, 2004] (see __pH and brewing water in Starch Conversion__). But when their activity is evaluated at mashing temperatures and the pH of a cooled mash sample is measured it shows their pH optima at 5.7 and 5.4-5.6 respectively. This is the result of a pH shift in the mash that takes place when the mash is heated. In addition to that, the pH optimum of the enzyme is likely to shift as well. As a result, at common starch conversion temperatures (65C/150F) the pH of the mash appears 0.35 units lower than that of a room temperature mash sample [Briggs, 2004]. This needs to be taken into account when looking at pH optima for various mash enzymes. Most commonly, however, the pH optima that are reported in the literature were determined by testing cooled mash samples_."


Oop's , I am on morphine from my shoulder operation, could explain my explanation.
GB


----------



## [email protected]

That Morphine is good stuff. Makes you see penguins walking through the ward!


----------



## Online Brewing Supplies

abc said:


> That Morphine is good stuff. Makes you see penguins walking through the ward!



Didnt make the nurses look any better :lol: I was pushing that self administer morphine button so much I got RSI  Now I am on orals.
GB


----------



## QldKev

Gryphon Brewing said:


> Didnt make the nurses look any better :lol: I was pushing that self administer morphine button so much I got RSI  Now I am on orals.
> GB




Nothing like good oral too :lol: 

QldKev


----------



## goomboogo

Maybe Speedie's on morphine. Although I'm now leaning towards troll as an explanation.

QB, fantastic post. Last week, I heard a lawyer use the phrase 'for all intensive purposes'. Not as funny as porpoises but silly nonetheless.


----------



## speedie

Pethidine is more like it

Ether and snuff now you are cooking

Phuckit

speedie :lol:


----------



## Leigh

Thirsty Boy said:


> I made up 5L of water at 500% and used the aforementioned 100ml and 1000ml measuring cylinders to dilute the dosage down to the target levels. It so happens that 5L is one fifth of my end ofnboil kettle volume... So I actually didn't even need to weigh the 5.2 at all. The recommended dose for my brew (its a heaped spoonful) into the 5L gave 500%. Now I did weigh it... But I didn't need to.
> 
> Conversion time is irrelevant - the point of a buffer or any other means of changing your mash pH, is so that its at the desired level from the _beginning_, or very close to the beginning of the mash. If the product does its job, its already done it at the 5 min mark, if it takes fifteen minutes to have it's effect, its not doing it's job.
> 
> You have to look at the question I was asking too. I wasn't trying tomfind out at what dose the product becomes effective, I wasn't trying to work out the degree to which it influenced the mash pH. I was trying to work out whether it did it's job or not. So a black and white, yes or no answer. Either the product buffers the mash to optimum brewing levels, or it doesn't. And I was working in massive increments of the recommended dose. Not trying to see whether 90% of the dose worked vs 100% trying to see if any dose at all became effective. If it did... Then a more finicky experiment might be needed to see what that level was. But in my experiment, it really didn't matter - Want to include the error range?? OK assume that the closest I could get was +/- a whole 100% of the dose.
> 
> I re-state my results as: At any tested dosage rate between 50 and 500% (+/- 100%) of the recommended dose, the product failed to bring the pH of the mash to within the optimum brewing range.
> 
> And the newly stated result loses none of its meaning.
> 
> But thanks for pointing the possibilities out - i tend to get slack about that sort of stuff if people don't keep me on my toes. And if my response still leaves stuff to be desired, please let me know where, so I can either further explain, or do the experiment again with a solution in place.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> TB



IIRC, buffers don't work too well outside of a set buffer concentration. If I am reading your method correct, as QB pointed out, your concentrations may already be outside of the effective buffer concentration range.

More food for thought, scale up is not necessarily linear (as chemistry may imply) due to physics, so doing a "small" batch with scaled down volumes and masses may not be a direct correlation of what may or may not occur at size...I see so many companies caught out by scaling laws every week!

That said, I wouldn't expect anybody on Silvan water to not notice much effect with buffers on light malts, but those of us on Cardinia water may see a difference as it is (in my personal experience) slightly harder water...

I'd also like to read more on CM2's hypothesis...the use of 5.2 with dark malt v light malt with everything else held constant.


----------



## speedie

Straight a way you have introduced a different set of variables dark v light malt 

Forget what is posted and think about what this marvelous 5.2 stuff can do 

Raise or lower the mash pH 

Next it will be sugar is good meter

speedie


----------



## mika

Ok... so now we have another contender for 'requires breathlyser reading before posting' title.

I wondered what all the 'Harsh' was for. I get it now.


----------



## Thirsty Boy

Leigh said:


> IIRC, buffers don't work too well outside of a set buffer concentration. If I am reading your method correct, as QB pointed out, your concentrations may already be outside of the effective buffer concentration range.
> 
> More food for thought, scale up is not necessarily linear (as chemistry may imply) due to physics, so doing a "small" batch with scaled down volumes and masses may not be a direct correlation of what may or may not occur at size...I see so many companies caught out by scaling laws every week!
> 
> That said, I wouldn't expect anybody on Silvan water to not notice much effect with buffers on light malts, but those of us on Cardinia water may see a difference as it is (in my personal experience) slightly harder water...
> 
> I'd also like to read more on CM2's hypothesis...the use of 5.2 with dark malt v light malt with everything else held constant.



Mashes do scale though - most mash and brewing experimentation and analysis is done at small scale. Point taken that for this particular experiment it might not... But i strongly suspect it would. Besides, the more casual experiments i have done at full scale also show 5.2 doing pretty much the same thing- ie, nothing.

My concentrations were in fact decent enough from an error point of view, and the experiment used as at least one of the experimental values - the recommended dose of the product, which presumably is at the set buffer concentration? The reason i mainly tested at higher and significantly higher dose rates, is because the chemists i have heard arguing that 5.2 probably wont work - argued that the dose was way too low and that you'd need massively higher doses to have the stated effect.

At any rate - the stuff didn't work at any concentration i tried - less than recommended, recommended or several versions of 100% increases. It didn't work as it is supposed to work, and adding more didn't make it work either - perhaps it does have a delicate range in which it does work and my crass steps leapfrogged that range... But what use is something so difficult to get right to a homebrewer? As far as i am concerned, you add it at the rate it says on the tub - and if that doesn't make it go, it doesn't do the job.


----------



## alowen474

Gryphon Brewing said:


> Didnt make the nurses look any better :lol: I was pushing that self administer morphine button so much I got RSI  Now I am on orals.
> GB



Nothing like good oral too 

QldKev

Not from that nurse apparently!!


----------



## brettprevans

speedie said:


> Straight a way you have introduced a different set of variables dark v light malt
> 
> Forget what is posted and think about what this marvelous 5.2 stuff can do
> 
> Raise or lower the mash pH
> 
> Next it will be sugar is good meter
> 
> speedie


What fkn shit r u on u knob gobbler?! Light v dark grain is the biggest (almost only variable excl water chem) variable in a mash in pH u dumb arse. Dark grains lower mash much more. Hence the question in whether smaller shifts in pH due to light grain has a notible effect or not because it is less or an impact on pH or whether because there is a bigger movement in pH with dark grains will the stabilizer have a more noticeable impact because the potential differance is greater. 

Write whatever stupid response u want u clearly aren't as cleaver as u think u r.


----------



## beerbog

Have used it twice with Sydney water, didn't make a difference. :beerbang:


----------



## speedie

When the dead runt from the city gets his head around what I posted we will both be better off 

As you indicated no change

So many people get so immersed in what they think they know about brewin

Did I post slander no

Did I post some positive thought about this miracle stuff yes!

Cheers enigma


----------

