Cant get my head around water treatment

[Agentgonzo]

How many instances of "magic number" appears in the "Defuddler"?

Well, if I'm using the grainfather app to calculate additions, it wants the alkalinity. So I need to get it from somewhere, and if it's from the defuddler, then there is at least one magic value.

Another brief question. How do you determine the amount of ... gypsum say ... to add to a "hoppy" pale ale using the "Defuddler"?

No idea. It's your tool... shouldn't you know?

You tell me you've read the instructions but fail to understand some of it. But you should be able to quickly arrive at answers for the above.

I could... but those aren't the answers to the questions I had!

 

[Sadfield]

Has anyone ever made two identical brews using untreated and treated water to compare the end result.

Kind of, years apart. A Saison with Saaz and pilsner malt. I had to change the recipe to account for dramatic increased efficiency and better fermentation in the treated brew. Not brewing pales with high alkalinity makes a massive difference to quality, that surpasses changes in ingredients. Process is far more important than recipe.

 

[peebee]

I could... but those aren't the answers to the questions I had!

They are questions now? I remember them as statements (or rhetorical questions):

So your advice is "discard some magic numbers from one source. Then use another entirely different magic number from a completely different source instead. But without understanding what it does.". Ta.

So. I ask:

How many instances of "magic number" appears in the "Defuddler"?

Nil! They would not be relevant to what the "Defuddler" does.

How do you determine the amount of ... gypsum say ... to add to a "hoppy" pale ale using the "Defuddler"?

Best answered with an extract from the "Defuddler's" instructions? The very first few sentences will do it:

First off; what this calculator isn't! It will not calculate the salts to add according to the style of beer you wish to make. Instead, it's a "pre-processor" that prepares the data to be entered into such a calculator.

I've seen other forumite(s) do this to you what you were trying to do to me (invent non-existent material on which to make negative comment), and you don't like it either.

A simple "sorry" here will suffice.


Anyway ... moving on. Could be I'll create water profile calculator in the near future? (It'll be very different to what passes as such today; and simpler!). And in recognition of @MashBag, I'll be planning to support AMS/DWB (I may label him a "scratched record", but I used to treat my records abysmally ... I want top slot for repeating myself round here!).

You (@Agentgonzo) was not my intended target for any negative comment in my posts here. Nor is any active member on this forum a target. I've bigger fish to fry. And everyone here should benefit ... if they want to. But I'm still very much in the "data collection" phase and it might yet just fizzle away (and most can continue with the hopeless swimming in pools of treacle that they're currently engaged in).

 

[Agentgonzo]

They are questions now? I remember them as statements (or rhetorical questions):

These are questions I had:

So what chemicals exactly are the non conservative anions? For me, when the local geology means that the water primarily filters through limestone and chalk?

HCO3 ions? Something else?

We appear to be talking at cross purposes. I'm trying to understand the chemistry of alkalinity, and you're trying to explain the defuddler (which doesn't explain alkalinity to me).

But the inferred question in this post is "does alkalinity [for me] differ enough from the hardness that I should worry about it, or are they close-enough to be equivalent for me to use the value of hardness in place of alkalinity in all the calculators [except the defuddler]?"

A simple "sorry" here will suffice.

Apology accepted.

You (@Agentgonzo) was not my intended target for any negative comment in my posts here. Nor is any active member on this forum a target.

I didn't treat them as negative. I think we just got our wires crossed. No problem

 

[peebee]

For anyone who thinks I'm mad using RO or Spotless water. ...

Not at all! Is that your local "Spotless" station? In which case do you have a mains water report for that locality? The newer updates of the "Defuddler" (tagged "development") will mess about with RO, but it's impossible to get anything from "Spotless" ... they just say there's nowt in it. Your report looks like the water is "remineralised" (it isn't 'cos Spotless don't do such things) and could be a good candidate for testing a feature in the updated "Defuddler".

Thanks.

 

[Agentgonzo]

but it's impossible to get anything from "Spotless" ... they just say there's nowt in it.

My window cleaner uses Spotless. He had it tested and it didn't come out as zero, but the total dissolved solids were in the very low single digits for everything on the report. It is "close enough to zero" to just be used as "zero"

 

[peebee]

These are questions I had: ...

You are twisting the meanings. I assume some of the readers here can see that too ... that won't improve your standing here. Surely doesn't improve it with me ... and I was offering a hand to get out of this pointless bickering (we're on the same blasted side!).

Stick to reacting to the post #103.

Apology accepted.

And that wasn't funny. As I said above, there will be readers here who can see straight through it.

 

[Agentgonzo]

And that wasn't funny. As I said above, there will be readers here who can see straight through it.

I'm sorry Peebee. It seems like we've been having two different conversations with eachother.

 

[Davegase]

Not at all! Is that your local "Spotless" station? In which case do you have a mains water report for that locality? The newer updates of the "Defuddler" (tagged "development") will mess about with RO, but it's impossible to get anything from "Spotless" ... they just say there's nowt in it. Your report looks like the water is "remineralised" (it isn't 'cos Spotless don't do such things) and could be a good candidate for testing a feature in the updated "Defuddler".

Thanks.

That station is 4.5 miles from my tap. The numbers in that report we're tiny, so virtually nowt.
I did get a report for my tap water at the same time as I said in an earlier post.
As you say that is only a snapshot in time.
I wouldn't bother trying to get a report from Thames water. I did check the website a couple of days ago they show maximum minimum and mean values, but it was for 2023 .
Good luck with your development.

 

[peebee]

My window cleaner uses Spotless. He had it tested and it didn't come out as zero, but the total dissolved solids were in the very low single digits for everything on the report. It is "close enough to zero" to just be used as "zero"

Thanks. That would be more like I'd expect. But @Davegase had a more "interesting" one that I could compare with. In particular: "Total Hardness (as CaCO3)" (7ppm) and "Alkalinity (as CaCO3)" (4ppm) ... yeap, I can work in all this "Hardness" twaddle, how else could I recommend to homebrewers here, "don't!".

For (a confusing!) example: 40% of "Total Hardness (as CaCO3)" equals "Calcium" at 3ppm (as in the report; actually 2.8, but allow for rounding). "CaCO3" is being used as an "equivalent", so "Total Hardness (as CaCO3)" is 7ppm as is "Calcium (as CaCO3)" (i.e. 7ppm also). Remove the superfluous "CO3" and you get "Calcium" at 3ppm. Daft i'n'it. Oh aye, an' "Alkalinity (as CO3)" is 4ppm but is reported as "Alkalinity (as CaCO3)" so "Permanent Hardness (as CaCO3)" must be 3ppm, "Temporary Hardness (as CaCO3)" is 4ppm, multiply by 1.22 and "Alkalinity (as HCO3)" is 5ppm ... dafter and dafter! Shall I go on ... I can't hear you screaming yet.

 

[peebee]

That station is 4.5 miles from my tap. The numbers in that report we're tiny, so virtually nowt.

No' honestly, the 2023 Thames report will be very handy to have. I'll show you when I've done it. All being rounded to nearest unit (not fraction) so much variance will be swallowed by that. I'm not trying to produce anything to change your mind about RO, it's more an illustrator for others considering a move to RO.

Sorry, just noticed I'm calculating "Alkalinity (as HCO3)" as were you in your original post but each coming from a different angle. No problem, we're using a different name for the same thing (they're not the same thing when things get bigger; or "not RO Water")

 

[Davegase]

No' honestly, the 2023 Thames report will be very handy to have. I'll show you when I've done it. All being rounded to nearest unit (not fraction) so much variance will be swallowed by that. I'm not trying to produce anything to change your mind about RO, it's more an illustrator for others considering a move to RO.

Sorry, just noticed I'm calculating "Alkalinity (as HCO3)" as were you in your original post but each coming from a different angle. No problem, we're using a different name for the same thing (they're not the same thing when things get bigger; or "not RO Water")

I've got a Murphy's report for my tap water done at the same time last January. When I get home I'll post it.

 

[Davegase]

No' honestly, the 2023 Thames report will be very handy to have. I'll show you when I've done it. All being rounded to nearest unit (not fraction) so much variance will be swallowed by that. I'm not trying to produce anything to change your mind about RO, it's more an illustrator for others considering a move to RO.

Sorry, just noticed I'm calculating "Alkalinity (as HCO3)" as were you in your original post but each coming from a different angle. No problem, we're using a different name for the same thing (they're not the same thing when things get bigger; or "not RO Water")

Postcode for Spotless water station DA26HH
Postcode for my tap water
DA81JA

 

[Dark Arts]

Has anyone ever made two identical brews using untreated and treated water to compare the end result?

Sort of, I was having issues with mouth feel on porters/stouts etc everything was tasting like a dark beer, tried short brewing kits to up the FG did seem to make a difference, then I stumbled across the the sulphate to chloride ratio and thats been a game changer for me.

 

[MashBag]

Has anyone ever made two identical brews using untreated and treated water to compare the end result?

Yes. Stunning difference. Brighter. Clearer, clearer quicker & no beer rock.

Getting the water right when 80% right, makes a difference.

 

[peebee]

Postcode for Spotless water station DA26HH
Postcode for my tap water

Thanks very much Dave. My plans with it didn't go that well:

I'm applying a universal "exclusion rate" (98%, quite high as Spotless only claim 96% ... don't know where I saw that now) and setting it so Calcium and Alkalinity (the ones I'm interested in) drop to where they match your earlier posted report (for Spotless water), rounded values that is. But the Chloride and Sulphate are a quarter of what they are reported as (and I've spread the "nitrate", as equivalents, across the sulphate and chloride in a lame attempt to make them add up).

I knew RO Membranes are a bit "selective" about "how much of what" they exclude, but thought I'd get away with it, losing it amongst the "low resolution".

But the numbers are minuscule. If I just concentrate on Calcium and Alkalinity, a 96% exclusion, and blank off the other stuff, I reckon I'll still have useable figures.

All from the one analysis pair. Eee, what you can get away with if you stick yer neck out! For a paltry 4ppm (as CaCO3) of Alkalinity? I only have 8ppm out my tap and the trouble that's been causing me is completely out of proportion! (It's had me revising pH measurements and ionic buffers ... Yikes! Well bad for your "mental health", especially if you are considered "mentally impaired" to start with ... err, like me! ).

 

[Brew_DD2]

It's threads like this that puts people off trying to treat their water. Talk about unnecessary overcomplicating a subject.

 

[Davegase]

Thanks very much Dave. My plans with it didn't go that well:
View attachment 107736
I'm applying a universal "exclusion rate" (98%, quite high as Spotless only claim 96% ... don't know where I saw that now), and setting it so Calcium and Alkalinity (the ones I'm inerested in) drop to where they match the your earlier posted report (for Spotless water), rounded values that is. But the Chloride and Sulphate are a quarter of what they are reported as (and I've spread the "nitrate", as equivalents, across the sulphate and chloride in a lame attempt to make them add up).

I knew RO Membranes are a bit "selective" about "how much of what" they exclude, but thought I'd get away with it, loosing it amongst the "low resilution".

But, the numbers are miniscle. If I just concentrate on Calcium and Alkalinity, a 96% exclusion, and blank off the other stuff, I reckon I'll still have useable figures.

All from the one analysis pair. Eee, what you can get away with if you stick yer neck out! For 4ppm (as CaCO3) of Alkalinity? I only have 8ppm out my tap and the trouble that's been causing me is completely out of proprtion! (It's had me revising pH measurements and ionic buffers... Yikes! Well bad for your "mental health", especially if you are considered "mentally impaired" to start with ... err, like me! ).

Have you downloaded the Thames water report for the postcode of the spotless water station and there's a different source, South Darenth as opposed to bexleyheath?
As I said it is four and a half miles from my tap at home.

 

[peebee]

It's threads like this that puts people off trying to treat their water. Talk about unnecessary overcomplicating a subject.

Ger'off! Kill-joy!

@Libigage (who started this thread) was sorted yonks ago. We're just using the remnants for a bit of amusement/contemplation. If you're not interested, don't look!

 

[Clint]

It's the onions bit that confuses me!