---

	FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
		Digest Janitor: pbabcock at hbd.org


***************************************************************
        TODAY'S HOME BREW DIGEST BROUGHT TO YOU BY: 

        Logic, Inc. - Makers of Straight A Cleanser
		   www.ecologiccleansers.com

    Support those who support you! Visit our sponsor's site!
********** Also visit http://hbd.org/hbdsponsors.html *********

DONATE to the Home Brew Digest. Home Brew Digest, Inc. is a 
501(c)3 not-for-profit organization under IRS rules (see the
FAQ at http://hbd.org for details of this status). Donations
can be made by check to Home Brew Digest mailed to:

HBD Server Fund
PO Box 871309
Canton Township, MI 48187-6309

or by paypal to address serverfund@hbd.org. DONATIONS of $250 
or more will be provided with receipts. SPONSORSHIPS of any 
amount are considered paid advertisement, and may be deductible
under IRS rules as a business expense. Please consult with your 
tax professional, then see http://hbd.org for available 
sponsorship opportunities.
***************************************************************


Contents:
  Mash water treatment ("Mike Maag")
  SRM/Lovibond ("A. J. deLange")
  SRM vs. Lovibond (Fred L Johnson)


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*   Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy!   *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

NOTE: With the economy as it is, the HBD is struggling to 
meet its meager operating expenses of approximately $3500
per year. If less than half of those currently directly
subscribed to the HBD sent in a mere $5.00, the HBD would
be able to easily meet its annual expenses, with room to 
spare for next year. Please consider it.

Financial Projection As of 10 Mar 2011
***      Condition:  Green & Healthy      ***
       Projected 2011 Budget  $3271.04
 Expended against projection  $ 950.64
Projected Excess/(Shortfall)  $1870.50

As always, donors and donations are publicly acknowledged
and accounted for on the HBD web page. Thank you

 
Send articles for __publication_only__ to post@hbd.org

If your e-mail account is being deleted, please unsubscribe first!!

To SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE send an e-mail message with the word
  "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to request@hbd.org FROM THE E-MAIL
  ACCOUNT YOU WISH TO HAVE SUBSCRIBED OR UNSUBSCRIBED!!!**
IF YOU HAVE SPAM-PROOFED your e-mail address, you cannot subscribe to
  the digest as we cannot reach you. We will not correct your address
  for the automation - that's your job.

HAVING TROUBLE posting, subscribing or unsusubscribing? See the HBD FAQ at
http://hbd.org.

LOOKING TO BUY OR SELL USED EQUIPMENT? Please do not post about it here. Go
instead to http://homebrewfleamarket.com and post a free ad there.

The HBD is a copyrighted document. The compilation is copyright 
  HBD.ORG. Individual postings are copyright by their authors. ASK 
  before reproducing and you'll rarely have trouble. Digest content 
  cannot be reproduced by any means for sale or profit.

More information is available by sending the word "info" to 
req@hbd.org or read the HBD FAQ at http://hbd.org.

JANITORs on duty: Pat Babcock (pbabcock at hbd dot org), Jason Henning,
                  Spencer Thomas, and Bill Pierce



----------------------------------------------------------------------


Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2011 13:04:08 -0600
From: "Mike Maag" <mikemaag at comcast.net>
Subject: Mash water treatment

The city water lab guy says the water has 120 ppm Total Alkalinity, and 145 
ppm Total Hardness.   I brewed a Dry Irish Stout last week, and had trouble 
getting the pH right.  It was 4.8 I initially, and took 2 Tablespoons 
calcium carbonate, and 3 teaspoons sodium bicarbonate (in a 10 gallon brew, 
7 gallons mash water, 22 lbs. grist) to get the pH to 5 2.  Just kegged it, 
and it tastes great.
Regarding mash water treatment, would it be good to pre treat with 
phosphoric acid?  Would it be good to boil it first?
Beers with just a little dark grains come to around 5 2 pH. by themselves.
Pale beers need 4 teaspoons of calcium chloride.
What would you do this water for dark, amber, and pale beers?

Cheers!
Mike Maag, Shenandoah Valley



Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2011 22:03:46 -0500
From: "A. J. deLange" <ajdelan at gmail.com>
Subject: SRM/Lovibond

Apparently  430 nm as the wavelength and the scaling by 10 WRT half inch 
absorption were chosen by Miller and Stone when the SRM was proposed in 
order to have it track the Lovibond system. Recall that the work which 
led to the definition of the SRM scale was based on beers no darker than 
7 SRM (IIRC) so that it is is clear that the correspondence wouldn't be 
expected to be very good at colors more intense than this. But that was 
all just after WWII. Today the only path I was able to come up with 
connecting SRM and Lovibond is based on a table on Weyermann's site 
which ties Lovibond to EBC color and as the relationship between EBC and 
SRM is known, that's how I got the SRM to Lovibond conversion. It does 
not, of course, correspond to the SRM at low color intensity and even 
has the interesting feature that 0 deg. L corresponds to -0.76 SRM!  SRM 
and Lovibond are really apples and oranges. One is measured in terms of 
the spectral absorption at 430 nm and the other by visual comparison of 
a sample of the beer with colored glass discs of labeled intensity. In 
fact today Lovibond tintometers use photometry to measure the entire 
absorption spectrum and map that into the Lovibond numbers but I have 
never been able to find the mapping. IOW if I have the absorption 
spectrum I cannot calculate the Lovibond number but as the Lovibond 
company can do I could to if I knew the algorithm

A.J.


Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2011 07:01:28 -0400
From: Fred L Johnson <FLJohnson52 at nc.rr.com>
Subject: SRM vs. Lovibond

The wikipedia site:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Reference_Method#cite_note-2 describes SRM
and relates it to the older Lovibond system. Apparently, the intent of the SRM
system and its measurement was to make the values equivalent. In support of this
notion, there is table on the web site with a column labeled SRM/Lovibond, and
the column has a single value for SRM/Lovibond for each color sample. However,
the web site also states that the relationship between SRM and Lovibond is:

SRM=1.3546 x Lovibond - 0.76

I am completely confused now. How can the two systems be equivalent with such a
formula?

(I'm hoping AJ deLange will shed some light on this--pun intended--since he has
studied this more than anyone I know.)

Fred L Johnson
Apex, North Carolina, USA






Return to table of contents

---