Another Brulosophy Ex-Beeriment

[Beer-lord]

Straight RO water vs. adjusted RO water.
I've always wondered about this myself and I guess I need wonder no more.

http://brulosophy.com/2018/04/02/water- ... -186252725

[denny]

I need to make the same curmudgeonly point I always make about experiments. The key to science is replication. A single experiment is a data point, not a conclusion. A positive p value only means that it's a subject that needs to be looked into further. I say all this becasue homebrewers want easy answers and there generally aren't any. Brulosophy does single experiments. That makes it easy to decipher the results, but there is no verification of relevance. What I mean is that brewing process is a huge variable, and when you only do a single experiment you don't take that onto account. OTOH, Experimental Brewing uses a pool of brewers, each of which holds their own tasting. We might have 10-15 brewers for a single experiment and 150-200 tasters. That takes the process variability into account, but it also makes it damn hard to get a clear result. So, when you see experiments from either one of us, don't believe the results! Use those results as s jumping off point for your own experimentation.

[Beer-lord]

I bow to your experience and will begin to wonder once again.

[John Sand]

I haven't seen Experimental Brewing, but I'll check it out.
The Brulosophy guys often point out that it is a single data point, or when exbeeriments seem to contradict. The thing that I take away from it is that home brewing is not as precise as modern professional brewing and it doesn't have to be. Which suits me fine. For science geeks who want 1 degree temp control and grain measured to .001 onces, go for it. I like making great beer as simply as I can.

[denny]

I haven't seen Experimental Brewing, but I'll check it out.
The Brulosophy guys often point out that it is a single data point, or when exbeeriments seem to contradict. The thing that I take away from it is that home brewing is not as precise as modern professional brewing and it doesn't have to be. Which suits me fine. For science geeks who want 1 degree temp control and grain measured to .001 onces, go for it. I like making great beer as simply as I can.

www.experimentalbrew.com

[mashani]

I'm not even sure what this experiment was supposed to prove. If they think that making pilsner water (which is about as "plain" as naturally occurring water can be, which is why most of us can't make it without starting from RO) and comparing it to straight RO and find that yes they can tell the difference is somehow surprising, when duh, you can tell the difference by just drinking water samples side by side without it even being beer if it's RO vs. just about anything else, then what would happen if they compared Burton water to RO? Their hair would light on fire, that's what.

[Beer-lord]

As a 100% RO user, I've often thought of trying a batch without adding any salts but even though it's only 1 test, I already knew the answer and to me, this just gives it more credence. But, it does seem at least that plain RO doesn't completely suck.
I find all beer experiments interesting but some groups do a better job than others of testing.

[mashani]

I think it "doesn't suck" or at least "sucks less" because there are minerals in the grains, and water pretty much hates to be pure (highly scientific description LOL) so whatever minerals are available in the grains are going to get ripped out of them during the mash when using water that is tending towards being pure.