5.2 Ph Stabilizer In Mash

[zebba]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

the estimated final volume of the boil kettle?

this

 

[bignath]

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]

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]

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]

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]

<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 **** 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]

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.