Distilled Water
Louise Gagnon
"equivalent to distilled water" and checked the PH and got .73 It was
de-mineralized water...
Nobody has the real thing. Can I make this myself, if so, how?...
I need it for my acid test, maybe it's at the wrong temp, does this make a
difference?
Louise:o)
Ray
distill other things but we will not go into that. They are not cheap.
Maybe someone knows of a cheap system.
Ray
"Louise Gagnon" <weez...@nospam.videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:eqncb.85308$dp6.1...@weber.videotron.net...
Ray
consider buying a pH meter and then you do not need the distilled water to
titrate. By the way I hope you meant that you got a pH of 7.3 not .73. ;o)
Ray
"Ray" <ray...@geminisi.com> wrote in message
news:A8ocb.689$6U7.94...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
Louise Gagnon
would that do the trick? Is that distilled water?
Louise:o)
Louise Gagnon
what's the story on the PH meter?
Louise:o)
"Ray" <ray...@geminisi.com> wrote in message
news:Gcocb.690$Lg.945...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
Negodki
> Where do you get the real thing, I got one bottle at a pharmacy marked
> "equivalent to distilled water" and checked the PH and got .73 It was
> de-mineralized water...
Louise,
You need to look a bit further. Distilled water is readily available
in most supermarkets and pharmacies, right next to the mineral water.
I'm guessing from your email address that you are in Quebec, but it
should be available there too. Cost is about $1.00 per gallon (or
less).
> If I boiled water and vented the steam into a container on the counter,
> would that do the trick? Is that distilled water?
You have the right idea. Distilled water can be made by boiling,
collecting the steam, and condensing it into a container. The easiest
way is to buy a small pressure cooker, unscrew the pressure gauge, and
hook a coil of copper or stainless steel tubing to the opening.
(Plastic might work as well, but it might melt, and it won't stay
coiled.) The other end of the tubing should be placed in your
collection jar. You will get more liquid (and less steam escaping) if
you wrap the tubing with some ice. If the tubing isn't coiled, you
will get virtually nothing but steam coming out the other end. You can
get coiled tubing at a refrigerator or air-conditioner parts outlet.
Don't use used tubing that has contained Freon. It is highly toxic.
This is called a "pot still". Please do not try to distill alcohol
with this procedure. It is both illegal, and dangerous. (Pure alcohol
is very flammable, and the flame from your stove can cause it to
explode; also the initial distillate is highly toxic. There are
methods to reduce these risks, but we are discussing the distillation
of water now.)
Greg Mortensen
>They are not cheap. Maybe someone knows of a cheap system.
Kenmore Water Purifier[1]: On sale at Sears for $109.99
Kenmore Deluxe Water Purifier[2]: On sale at Sears for $139.99
Seems cheap enough.
Regards,
Greg
[1] http://www.kenmorewater.com/productlist/no-plumbing-drinking-water-systems/34480.html
[2] http://www.kenmorewater.com/productlist/no-plumbing-drinking-water-systems/34481.html
--
\|/ ___ \|/ thev...@pobox.com +----- 2048/83C90191 -----+
@~./'O o`\.~@ | 0B 65 E0 58 F3 F9 81 F5 |
/__( \___/ )__\ Crypto, Security, and Phrack: | F0 72 75 FA 1E BD C9 66 |
`\__`U_/' http://pobox.com/~thevision +-------- via WWW --------+
Negodki
> Yes, sorry, dot in the wrong place, I have a PH meter, I feel like a bobo,
> what's the story on the PH meter?
I just realized --- of course, you have a pH meter! Otherwise how
would you know the pH of the water? So, I feel like a bobo too.
To test and adjust acid with a pH meter: Take a small (measured)
sample of must. Stick the probes in the sample. The pH should read
around 3.2 for a white wine, and about 3.4 for a red.
If the pH is too high, add a measured amount of tartaric acid (or acid
blend) until the sample reaches the pH you require. Then add the
proportional (weight/volume) amount to the main must.
Acid reductions are a bit more tricky, but I believe you can do the
same thing with H20, CaCO3 or K2CO3, i.e. add a measured amount of the
water or carbonate until the target pH is reached.
You can also test TA and titrate with a pH meter. The end-point is
reached when the pH is 8.2. Thus you don't need to add distilled water
to make the endpoint more visible.
The pH meter must be accurate to at least +/- 0.1 pH or the test will
not be very meaningful.
Louise Gagnon
Louise
"Greg Mortensen" <thev...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:bkthpa$2lr$1...@reader2.panix.com...
Charles
> This is called a "pot still". Please do not try to distill alcohol
> with this procedure. It is both illegal, and dangerous. (Pure alcohol
> is very flammable, and the flame from your stove can cause it to
> explode; also the initial distillate is highly toxic. There are
> methods to reduce these risks, but we are discussing the distillation
> of water now.)
With the method you describe it's dangerous but distilling by itself
won't produce an intial highly toxic distillate... that would assume
having highly toxic compounds in your wine/mash to begin with this...
distillation only concentrates what is there, and from what I read there
isn't much methanol in homemade wine to begin with. In home distillation
it's always suggested to throw out the heads and tails since they most
likely contain concentrations of the unwanted compounds. Again, I don't
recommend trying to distill alcohol, especially with this setup, but in
general, since it's illegal. *cough*
--
charles
"Once ... in the wilds of Afghanistan, I lost my corkscrew, and we were
forced to live on nothing but food and water for days."
- W.C. Fields
Charles
> Jeez , I May as well keep checking different pharmacies :oP
> Louise
Check the grocery store as well... our office, for reasons beyond my
comprehension, has distilled water in the water cooler...
Rene
practically the same: no salts. Water purifiers from the shop leave
the salt, but remove organic compounds.
Second. I believe that you want to use it for acid titrations. Then,
the quality of water hardly matters, unless it contains a lot of salt
which can influence pH, not like ordinary table salt. It then can be
said the solution acts like a buffer. Anyway, tapwater is fine.
If measurement is very critical, add the indicator to the water and
add tiny bit of alkaline sol. until the water just about turns pink.
Dilution of the wine with this water will then have absolutely no
effect on the acid titration measurement. Anyway, I believe this is
over the top.
What can be important is to drive off carbondioxide from the wine
before doing the test, I usually do that by putting 10 ml of wine in a
beaker and microwave till it boils, before titration.
Last remarks, pH meter readings from demineralized or tap water cannot
be trusted unless you have a specialized pH electrode for this kind of
measurements. Unlike wine, the amount of acid particles (H-ions, or
protons) is so low that a reliable measurement is difficult to
achieve.
For titrations pH +/- 0.2 is fine. For pH measurements of wines,
accuracy within 0.1 is needed. Also calibration becomes important.
Hope this helps,
Rene.
Negodki
> With the method you describe it's dangerous but distilling by itself
> won't produce an intial highly toxic distillate... that would assume
> having highly toxic compounds in your wine/mash to begin with this...
> distillation only concentrates what is there, and from what I read there
> isn't much methanol in homemade wine to begin with.
ALL alcohol distillation methods are dangerous.
All fermented beverages contain insignificant amounts of methanol.
They remain insignificant until they are concentrated by distillation,
at which stage they become highly toxic unless separated out. Methanol
has a lower boiling point than ethanol, and is thus the first thing to
come out of the still. That distillate is highly toxic, and must be
separated out. You can discard the "heads and tails", or you can use a
slobber box, or you can build a refractor, but --- as I specifically
stated earlier ---"There are methods to reduce these risks, but we are
discussing the distillation of water now."
> In home distillation it's always suggested to throw out the heads and tails
> since they most likely contain concentrations of the unwanted compounds.
Yep, but we were discussing the distillation of water --- not alcohol.
If you wish to learn how to distill alcohol, I suggest you go to
rec.crafts.distillation or Tennessee.
>Again, I don't recommend trying to distill alcohol, especially with
this
> setup, but in general, since it's illegal. *cough*
Especially with this setup"??? This is as safe and efficient a still
as the $300 Connelly design that is sold at homebrew shops "for the
purification of water only". But I've purposely left out the
additional details related to alcohol distillation, since we were
discussing the distillation of water.
Because alcohol has a very low flash-point EVERY still is dangerous.
Because every alcoholic beverage contains methanol, and every
distillation process (incuding freeze distilling) will concentrate the
methanol to toxic levels, EVER distillation process is dangerous.
Because most governments ban the distillation of alcohol and the sale
of homemade beer and wine (allegedly to protect the you for danger,
but actually to gain tax revenues and control of your lives), every
unlicensed distillation and every illegal sale is dangerous --- your
produce, equipment, personal property, and the real property at which
it is discovered will be confiscated and distributed amongst the
Treasury agents who partipated in the raid.
But we were discussing the distillation of water. Or so I thought.
Negodki
> Second. I believe that you want to use it for acid titrations. Then,
> the quality of water hardly matters, unless it contains a lot of salt
> which can influence pH, not like ordinary table salt. It then can be
> said the solution acts like a buffer. Anyway, tapwater is fine.
Even the pH of RAIN water varies immensely:
http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/isopleths/maps2000/phfield.gif
Tap water can vary from pH 5.0 to more than 8.0. This wide-range will
surely render the results of acid titrations (where a diluent is used)
meaningless, unless distilled water is used as a diluent.
> If measurement is very critical, add the indicator to the water and
> add tiny bit of alkaline sol. until the water just about turns pink.
> Dilution of the wine with this water will then have absolutely no
> effect on the acid titration measurement. Anyway, I believe this is
> over the top.
Yes, it is totally unnecessary to use water of a neutral pH for
dilution --- unless one wishes to obtain meaningful test results.
> What can be important is to drive off carbondioxide from the wine
> before doing the test, I usually do that by putting 10 ml of wine in a
> beaker and microwave till it boils, before titration.
The CO2 will have a far smaller affect on the test results than a
diluent of unknown or unexpected pH.
> For titrations pH +/- 0.2 is fine. For pH measurements of wines,
> accuracy within 0.1 is needed. Also calibration becomes important.
Why is +/- 0.2 "fine" for titrations? One titrates until one reaches
the endpoint of 8.2 pH. If there is a +/- 0.2 inaccuracy in the
reading, an indicated 8.2 can be anywhere from 8.0-8.4. If this
accuracy were sufficient, one could simply use litmus paper.
Even +/- 0.1 is borderline, since an indicated reading of 3.2 could be
anywhere from 3.1 - 3.3.
Again, calibration prior to taking a reading is only necessary if
meaningful results are needed.
Charles
> ALL alcohol distillation methods are dangerous.
I would say they are, but it is a relatively safe procedure... so much
so that the people of New Zealand can do it in their homes. With a
proper still and by using even a small does of common sense, one can
distill without injury.
> Yep, but we were discussing the distillation of water --- not alcohol.
> If you wish to learn how to distill alcohol, I suggest you go to
> rec.crafts.distillation or Tennessee.
You mentioned distilling alcohol first :^) Everything I've learned about
distillation has come from r.c.d.
> Because alcohol has a very low flash-point EVERY still is dangerous.
> Because every alcoholic beverage contains methanol, and every
> distillation process (incuding freeze distilling) will concentrate the
> methanol to toxic levels, EVER distillation process is dangerous.
> Because most governments ban the distillation of alcohol and the sale
> of homemade beer and wine (allegedly to protect the you for danger,
> but actually to gain tax revenues and control of your lives), every
> unlicensed distillation and every illegal sale is dangerous --- your
> produce, equipment, personal property, and the real property at which
> it is discovered will be confiscated and distributed amongst the
> Treasury agents who partipated in the raid.
"A healthy person metabolises 1500 mg methanol/hr without any
physiological problems" "wine which already contains an average of about
140 mg/L from natural sources"
<http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/scf/out96_en.pdf>
I will clarify what I was trying to say in my original post. If one were
to research distilling and attempt it, I would wager than one would die
from drinking too much ethanol before they ever poised themselves from
methanol. Granted one could ferment high pectin fruit which is supposed
to produce more ethanol, but again, by researching you could avoid these
pitfalls. The process is safe enough that the gov't of New Zealand
decided that people could do it home.
I agree that one shouldn't attempt it if you're not willing to pay the
price, esp. in the U.S. where the ATF types are more zealous about it.
Even so, it is not something I see myself doing, but I do find it
interesting.
> But we were discussing the distillation of water. Or so I thought.
We were, but as I pointed out above, you mentioned the distillation of
alcohol first.
Louise Gagnon
Thanks for the info, I will use my demineralised water...
Louise:o)
"Rene" <reneva...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fc41d9d1.03092...@posting.google.com...
Clyde Gill
>
> Yes, it is totally unnecessary to use water of a neutral pH for
> dilution --- unless one wishes to obtain meaningful test results.
>
I was taught to simply correct the waters pH with some dilute base or acid,
as the case may be.
clyde
Negodki
> > Yes, it is totally unnecessary to use water of a neutral pH for
> > dilution --- unless one wishes to obtain meaningful test results.
"Clyde Gill" <vi...@misn.com> wrote:
> I was taught to simply correct the waters pH with some dilute base or acid,
> as the case may be.
By correcting the water's pH, you are creating "a water of neutral
pH". That is perfectly acceptable, although I would prefer to start
with pure water to begin with, and save a step.
The implication of the post to which I was replying, is that the pH of
the water is irrelevant to titration results. It is not.
David C Breeden
>clyde
Yep, me too. I simply add enough NaOH to get the water to pH 8.2,
add the wine, and then titrate with base back to 8.2. That way I
know that all I'm titrating is the wine acids, and all of the wine
acids, and not anything else.
And for what it's worth, all that talk earlier about being + or -
0.2 being a signifcant error is just silly. You want to remember,
you're talking about the endpoint of a titration of weak acids with
a strong base. A couple of drops of 0.1 N NaOH will take you from
pH 7.9 to 8.2 or 8.3, and not make any real difference in TA. Put
another way, small changes in NaOH additions near the endpoint make
LARGE differences in pH, but only tiny (even smaller-- times 0.75 using
the 0.1 N NaOH) changes in TA. There is no real difference in TA
between pH 8 and pH 8.2 .
Dave
****************************************************************************
Dave Breeden bre...@lightlink.com
Negodki
Charles <spam.c...@uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
> I would say they are, but it is a relatively safe procedure... so much
> so that the people of New Zealand can do it in their homes. With a
> proper still and by using even a small does of common sense, one can
> distill without injury.
Would you agree if I rephrased, "All methods of distillation are
POTENTIALLY dangerous, but the pot-still I mentioned is no more
dangerous than any other --- if proper precautions are taken and
common sense is used?
As I mentioned, although various governments claim to have outlawed
distillation because of the inherent dangers, the real reason is tax
and bribery revenue, and (especially in Saudi Arabia) control of the
life style of the general populace.
"I have a friend" who has been distilling sour-mash since he was 8
years old, and has yet to experience a still-fire, or die from the
effects of methanol or ethanol or overzealous revenuers. :)
> You mentioned distilling alcohol first :^) Everything I've learned about
> distillation has come from r.c.d.
I did not neither either! See below. :P Everything "my friend" has
learned about distillation came from enterprising Tennessee
backwoodsmen, and a locked chemistry lab at UCLA.
> "A healthy person metabolises 1500 mg methanol/hr without any
> physiological problems" "wine which already contains an average of about
> 140 mg/L from natural sources"
> <http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/scf/out96_en.pdf>
How many cans of sterno is that? :)
Ethanol, Methanol, which is best?
Finding out requires a test!
You go first, at my behest
Hope you enjoy your permanent rest. :)
> We were, but as I pointed out above, you mentioned the distillation of
> alcohol first.
Grrr. I did not! The following is excerpted (in chronological order)
from my original post.
Louise: If I boiled water and vented the steam into a container on the
counter, would that do the trick? Is that distilled water?
Negodki: You have the right idea. Distilled water can be made by
boiling,
collecting the steam, and condensing it into a container. The easiest
way is to buy a small pressure cooker, unscrew the pressure gauge, and
hook a coil of copper or stainless steel tubing to the opening....This
is called a "pot still". Please do not try to distill alcohol with
this procedure. It is both illegal, and dangerous. (Pure alcohol is
very flammable, and the flame from your stove can cause it to explode;
also the initial distillate is highly toxic. There are methods to
reduce these risks, but we are discussing the distillation of water
now.)
QED?
In days of old
I have been told
When alcohol was uninvented;
They fought and maimed
And killed and lamed
And in general, stayed discontented!
Fred Williams
to nuetrlize distilled water prior to beginning titration. This is done to
neutralize the carbonic acid that results from the disolving of atmospheric
CO2.in distiled water.
I would have never believed it until I took a Must and Wine Analysis class a
couple of semesters ago. We always had to use more than one drop to get the
indicator color change in distilled water. If you continued stiring, the
color rapidly faded indicating the reabsorbsion of more CO2.
Fred
"Negodki" <neg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8003ada.03092...@posting.google.com...
Fred Williams
"David C Breeden" <bre...@adore.lightlink.com> wrote in message
news:3f739684$1...@news2.lightlink.com...
Don't let a chemist hear you spouting such blasphemy! :-)
If your cheeks pucker like you been sucking on a green persimmon or a lemon
and your lips catch fire, you acid may be just a bit high. If you have
tasted better "Kool Aid", might want to kick the acid up a notch.
Fred
Negodki
> Yep, me too. I simply add enough NaOH to get the water to pH 8.2,
> add the wine, and then titrate with base back to 8.2. That way I
> know that all I'm titrating is the wine acids, and all of the wine
> acids, and not anything else.
>
> And for what it's worth, all that talk earlier about being + or -
> 0.2 being a signifcant error is just silly. You want to remember,
> you're talking about the endpoint of a titration of weak acids with
> a strong base. A couple of drops of 0.1 N NaOH will take you from
> pH 7.9 to 8.2 or 8.3, and not make any real difference in TA. Put
> another way, small changes in NaOH additions near the endpoint make
> LARGE differences in pH, but only tiny (even smaller-- times 0.75 using
> the 0.1 N NaOH) changes in TA. There is no real difference in TA
> between pH 8 and pH 8.2 .
It seems to me that we are talking about entirely different things
here.
Are we measuring pH or TA? Because I thought we established in
another thread that there was no reason whatsoever to measure TA when
when have a magical meter with which to measure pH.
Since the difference between a pH of 3.0 and 3.4 is quite significant,
with respect to the taste of the wine, and with respect to it's
ability to sustain malic fermentation, a meter with a +/- 0.2 error is
NOT providing a meaningful result. [A reading of 3.2 on such a meter
only indicates a value *somewhere* between 3.0 and 3.4!]
With respect to determining the pH of water, you cannot do it with the
inexpensive meter being discussed. You need a meter with a special
electrode, which is very expensive. And you need to use special
laboratory procedures, such as the addition of a tiny amount of (pure)
KCl, which will increase ionic strength to the sample and improve
response time.
But the pH of pure water is 7.0, so I'm not following why you wish to
raise it to 8.2, or why you want to add NaOH in the first place. I
thought the preferred procedure was to simply (and I quote) "hit it
with tartaric until the target pH is reached"?
Furthermore, if there is "no real difference in TA between pH 8 and pH
8.2" [except with a +/- 0.2 error, there would also have to be no
difference between pH 8 and pH 8.4, because an indicated 8.2 could
mean either!] why not use a more conclusive titration method?
What am I missing here?
Negodki
> Humm, "pure" water? Standard lab procedure is to use the alkline solution
> to nuetrlize distilled water prior to beginning titration. This is done to
> neutralize the carbonic acid that results from the disolving of atmospheric
> CO2.in distiled water.
Hmmm, once again, I believe we are talking about entirely different
things.
Didn't the originally poster want to use distilled water to dilute his
red-wine sample, so that he could better detect the end-point with a
phenothalen and NaOH test?
If so, what earthly good would bringing the pH of the diluent up to
8.2 do?
And, if he has access to a pH meter, why do a hydroxide titration? Why
not just measure the pH and "hit it with tartaric until the target pH
is reached" as stated in the other thread as though it were so obvious
it didn't require mention?
Furthermore, if an error of +/- 0.2 is acceptable, why not just use
low-cost no-calibration-or-special-storage-required litmus papers?
I seem to recall using distilled and de-ionized water directly out of
the bottle when I studied chemistry 40 years ago. I don't recall
carbonic acid be a problem. But that was a long time ago.
Fred Williams
Guess the disolving of CO2 in water is a recent discovery :-)
BTW, about 35 years ago I don't even remember the Chemistry instructor's
name, just his habit of leaving the SO2 generator running.
I think we somewhat drifted off of the orginal thread, and this has degraded
into a distillation thread with distilled water under tones.
Doesn't change the fact that one should neutralize distilled water before
doing a titration.
Clyde Gill
>
> > > Yes, it is totally unnecessary to use water of a neutral pH for
> > > dilution --- unless one wishes to obtain meaningful test results.
>
>
> > I was taught to simply correct the waters pH with some dilute base or
acid,
> > as the case may be.
>
> By correcting the water's pH, you are creating "a water of neutral
> pH". That is perfectly acceptable, although I would prefer to start
> with pure water to begin with, and save a step.
>
> The implication of the post to which I was replying, is that the pH of
> the water is irrelevant to titration results. It is not.
Sure.
My point was concerning the whole thread which centered around starting with
water at pH 7, which is unnecessary if you adjust to phenopthalein and
titrate to a color endpoint, which is much faster and simpler for me to do
it that using a pH meter, which is much more accuracy than I need.
For the record, I do TAs for the record only so I can communicate a little
better with my growers. Every once in a long while I'll run one past
harvest just out of curiososity, but as Fred has pointed out in a most
eloquent way, what matters most with TA is whether it taste alright.
clyde
David C Breeden
The claim of yours that I was responding to is the following:
"Why is +/- 0.2 "fine" for titrations? One titrates until one reaches
the endpoint of 8.2 pH. If there is a +/- 0.2 inaccuracy in the
reading, an indicated 8.2 can be anywhere from 8.0-8.4. If this
accuracy were sufficient, one could simply use litmus paper.
Even +/- 0.1 is borderline, since an indicated reading of 3.2 could be
anywhere from 3.1 - 3.3."
My claim above is that in titrating wine or musts, +/- 0.2 pH is just
fine, for all the reasons I gave above. Tiny changes in additions of
NaOH give LARGE changes in pH near the endpoint of a titration of
weak acids with strong base. Those tiny changes in additon of NaOH
are further minimized by the math (mulitplication by 0.75).
Louise Gagnon
will have the right acidity?
Louise:o)
"Louise Gagnon" <weez...@nospam.videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:ZtHcb.12762$ev5....@wagner.videotron.net...
Charles
> I don't want to quibble Charles, but... Oh, heck, sure I do. :)
>
> Grrr. I did not! The following is excerpted (in chronological order)
> from my original post.
>
> Louise: If I boiled water and vented the steam into a container on the
> counter, would that do the trick? Is that distilled water?
>
> Negodki: You have the right idea. Distilled water can be made by
> boiling,
> collecting the steam, and condensing it into a container. The easiest
> way is to buy a small pressure cooker, unscrew the pressure gauge, and
> hook a coil of copper or stainless steel tubing to the opening....This
> is called a "pot still". Please do not try to distill alcohol with
> this procedure. It is both illegal, and dangerous. (Pure alcohol is
> very flammable, and the flame from your stove can cause it to explode;
> also the initial distillate is highly toxic. There are methods to
> reduce these risks, but we are discussing the distillation of water
> now.)
Well Louise certainly didn't mention it first! :p So there. Now if
you'll excuse me there is a can of sterno that is calling my name. :D
Negodki
> Guess the disolving of CO2 in water is a recent discovery :-)
I said I didn't remember, not that it wasn't a factor. Some days I
don't remember my name. Good thing it's written on my driver's
license. :)
> Doesn't change the fact that one should neutralize distilled water before
> doing a titration.
Ok. Will do. [Couldn't I just degassify it, instead?]
Mark Willstatter
> Where do you get the real thing, I got one bottle at a pharmacy marked
> "equivalent to distilled water" and checked the PH and got .73 It was
> de-mineralized water...
> I need it for my acid test, maybe it's at the wrong temp, does this make a
> difference?
> Louise:o)
Louise - As others have written, if you have a pH meter you don't need
distilled water to dilute the juice in order to find the titration
endpoint. Just for the record, though, in order to be technically
accurate the water you add to the juice would have to first itself
titrated to the endpoint - i.e., pH 8.2. But just about nobody does
that, in fact many claim you don't need to! So the error they are
introducing is much larger than you would be using purified water at
pH 7.3. In short, your water is fine for the purpose.
- Mark W.
Negodki
> Are you guys saying that if I bring my PH to 3.4 by adding Tartaric acid, I
> will have the right acidity?
3.4 is the target pH for a red wine. I believe that 3.2 is the target
for white wines. The precise amount may vary depending on individual
tastes, opinions, type of grape, etc. But those are the normal
targets. A variation of +/- .2 will still keep you within the outside
limits of the "acceptable" range.
This may or may not bring your TA to it's "target", but the consensus
seems to be that the pH is a much more important figure. Conversely,
bringing the TA to the correct range will probably (but not
necessarily) bring the pH into the correct range. But if pH is the
more important value, it makes sense to adjust it directly.
Assuming the preceding discussion to be correct, if you take a
measured sample of must, and measure the pH, you can add Tartaric acid
to LOWER the pH, and Calcium or Potassium Carbonate to INCREASE the
pH, until your target pH is met. Then, if you kept track of how many
grams of acid or carbonate were added, you can add the proportional
weight/volume amount to the main must.
This procedure seems to be much simpler and less error prone than
titrating to determine the TA, computing the adjustment to be made,
and then testing again to see how accurate your calculations were.
frederick ploegman
> Are you guys saying that if I bring my PH to 3.4 by adding Tartaric acid,
I
> will have the right acidity?
> Louise:o)
>
Hi Louise
Yup - That's about it. You can tinker with the TA all you like so long
as you don't allow the pH to drift outside the "acceptable" range.
Which is why Clyde (et al - including myself) seldom take TA readings
and rely on taste instead. HTH
Frederick
South Central PA ;o)
Rene
Hmm, I tend to respectfully disagree with this too general statement.
It might be allright if you stick to grapes only but when making
fruitwines, or worse flower wines, the lack of buffer will greatly
affect pH.
Just one example: Pear wine, following Lum's recipe. TA is adjusted to
0.65% . It's dry and the pH of this wine after a year still is (don't
jump) 2.7 . Taste is fabulous! And yes, the meter was properly
calibrated. In addition I can say that I have put batches aside with
lower acidity (TA 0.45%), pH also below 3 but clearly without bite.
So oversimplicity like saying pH is perceived acidity, therefore EQUAL
to your tastebuds is plainly wrong!
As a winemaker with only 5 years experience I think TA readings and
adjustments are an important reference tool to follow up recipes and
train your tastebuds for the right amount of acid, considering the
differences in base material. In that respect I think it's more
important than pH.
Rene.
Negodki
> Hmm, I tend to respectfully disagree with this too general statement.
> It might be allright if you stick to grapes only but when making
> fruitwines, or worse flower wines, the lack of buffer will greatly
> affect pH.
1) I really don't know to which "too general" statement you are referring.
2) This subject was discussed extensively in a recent thread titled: "Value
of a pH meter", which you can read at
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=8003ada.0309161004.730dd78e%40posting.google.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dvalue%2Bof%2Bph%2Bgroup:rec.crafts.winemaking%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26group%3Drec.crafts.winemaking%26selm%3D8003ada.0309161004.730dd78e%2540posting.google.com%26rnum%3D1.
3) The strong consensus of opinion in that thread, which convinced me and
reversed my previously held opinion on the subject, was "that the pH is a
much more important figure" as I stated above in this thread.
4) I don't recall you objecting to that opinion when it was presented by a
number of other individuals in that thread. Your participation and
contrasting opinion would have been appreciated (and still are).
5) I thought we WERE discussing grapes in this thread, a logical assumption,
since I don't recall another fruit being mentioned. In fact, I thought we
were discussing RED grapes, and thus the need for a diluent for the
titration.
6) I presented both opinions --- that adjusting pH alone would probably be
sufficient, and that adjusting TA alone would probably be sufficient. Is
there another method?
7) I qualified all my "general statements" by such prefixes as "the
consensus SEEMS to be...", " But if...", "Assuming the preceding discussion
to be correct...", "This procedure SEEMS to be much simpler...".
8) The entire discussion was in respect to pre-fermentation adjustments,
which (I believe) was the original poster's situation. In respect to post
fermentation, the consensus SEEMS to be that taste tests are of more value
than empirical data. I didn't mention this in _this_ thread, because I as
trying to respond to my perception of the poster's situation, and not go off
on a tangent as I so often do.
> Just one example: Pear wine, following Lum's recipe. TA is adjusted to
> 0.65% . It's dry and the pH of this wine after a year still is (don't
> jump) 2.7 . Taste is fabulous! And yes, the meter was properly
> calibrated. In addition I can say that I have put batches aside with
> lower acidity (TA 0.45%), pH also below 3 but clearly without bite.
Personally, I have to date been measuring and adjusting only the TA, and
assuming that the pH would be in the correct range (as it "usually" is, at
least with the fruit which which I'm dealing). This method and assumption
was based primarily on that stated in Jon Iverson's book, which didn't seem
to be contradicted in any other publication in my small library. And I
haven't had cause to regret the technique --- yet. Again, for
post-fermentation adjustments, I use taste testing AND measurement of TA.
The proponents of pH measurement in the aforementioned thread presented
compelling arguments to measure and adjust the pH and ignore TA, and made a
believer of me. Examples were given in that thread of acid being within
"acceptable" range, and pH being outside (albeit high pH, not low). The
consensus was that the acid should be adjusted until the target pH was
reached, and there was no reason to know the TA to do so. Again the
arguments were quite convincing.
If you disagree with this conclusion, I would appreciate a bit more detail
before I "waste" my money on a pH meter. In the above example, I'm assuming
you measured both values, but adjusted based on TA alone? Do you always do
so, in which case your pH measurements are (presumably) only to determine
the amount of sulfites required? Or do you sometimes adjust based on TA,
and sometimes based on pH, in which case when and why? Or do you somehow use
a combination of methods.
Or are you trying to make an entirely different point, which I have missed
completely.
> So oversimplicity like saying pH is perceived acidity, therefore EQUAL to
your tastebuds is plainly wrong!
I made no such statement.
> As a winemaker with only 5 years experience I think TA readings and
> adjustments are an important reference tool to follow up recipes and
> train your tastebuds for the right amount of acid, considering the
> differences in base material. In that respect I think it's more
> important than pH.
Thank you. It really seems that we are in substantial agreement, at least in
respect to post-fermentation adjustments.
Meanwhile, I think we are confusing the heck out of poor Louise. So, in
conclusion:
Louise,
1) you can use your mineral water for a diluent and proceed with your
titration as you originally intended, or
2) you can perform your titration with a pH meter accurate to at least +/-
.2%, by titrating to an endpoint of 8.2, and you won't need the diluent.
3) you can adjust the pH to 3.2 (for a white grape wine) or 3.4 (for a red
grape wine) or some other value(s) (for other wines), with a pH meter
accurate to at least +/- .1%, and you won't need the diluent or
sodium-hydroxide reagent.
Do whichever you prefer. :)
Joe Sallustio
have both tools, so use both.
Taste is alway the reality check, I measure out whatever I decide to
add, add 1/2 and taste, then the other half if necessary.
Meads are whacky, the pH can really drop and the TA usually rises post
fermentation on mine.
If I were making 10 gallons or less, I might get someone to measure pH
for me, like the high school science teacher, rather than buy a pH
meter.
That said;
Titration kits are under $10, that's preety cheap insurance.
If buying a meter, consider the cost of the meter and buffers. A good
meter that has ATC and is accurate to 0.1 pH units costs around $50
(US); buffers for a few years around $30.
I have servicable meter probe combinations like this that are 5 years
old, so the cost per year to me was minimal.
I usually make over 50 gallons of various types, so the cost per
bottle is pretty low.
> 3) The strong consensus of opinion in that thread, which convinced me and
> reversed my previously held opinion on the subject, was "that the pH is a
> much more important figure" as I stated above in this thread.
I have bottled reds with pH in excess of 3.6 that were fine 6 years
later, none of mine sit around much longer than that.
In that respect I disagree. I really do not want to bottle a red with
TA over 6.0 g/l; I just think that is too tart. Once I get to 6.0, the
pH is more for information for me, I never use more tha 70 ppm SO2,
usually stop at 50. Those wines I sample more often since the pH
would indicate they are under protected. So far so good on that.
6.5 is the limit on dry whites for me. If I use a little sugar to
balance, I will go as high as 8.5 g/l. At that point pH is never an
issue.
Just another thought on the subject.
Regards,
Joe
Rene
directed against the whole thread saying: just get it io the accepted
TA and pH, and than it should be fine.
"Negodki" <neg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<vnm0skf...@corp.supernews.com>...
> "Rene" <reneva...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hmm, I tend to respectfully disagree with this too general statement.
> > It might be allright if you stick to grapes only but when making
> > fruitwines, or worse flower wines, the lack of buffer will greatly
> > affect pH.
>
> 1) I really don't know to which "too general" statement you are referring.
The general statement to add tartaric acid until the right pH of 3.4
> 2) This subject was discussed extensively in a recent thread titled: "Value
> of a pH meter", which you can read at
> http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=8003ada.0309161004.730dd78e%40posting.google.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dvalue%2Bof%2Bph%2Bgroup:rec.crafts.winemaking%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26group%3Drec.crafts.winemaking%26selm%3D8003ada.0309161004.730dd78e%2540posting.google.com%26rnum%3D1.
>
> 3) The strong consensus of opinion in that thread, which convinced me and
> reversed my previously held opinion on the subject, was "that the pH is a
> much more important figure" as I stated above in this thread.
>
> 4) I don't recall you objecting to that opinion when it was presented by a
> number of other individuals in that thread. Your participation and
> contrasting opinion would have been appreciated (and still are).
Probably had other things to do at the time...
>
> 5) I thought we WERE discussing grapes in this thread, a logical assumption,
> since I don't recall another fruit being mentioned. In fact, I thought we
> were discussing RED grapes, and thus the need for a diluent for the
> titration.
>
I didn't recall ANY fruit being mentioned.
> 6) I presented both opinions --- that adjusting pH alone would probably be
> sufficient, and that adjusting TA alone would probably be sufficient. Is
> there another method?
Well they go together so it's strange to try and separate them. My
point is that there's a compromise which is (fruit) base and taste
dependant.
>
> 7) I qualified all my "general statements" by such prefixes as "the
> consensus SEEMS to be...", " But if...", "Assuming the preceding discussion
> to be correct...", "This procedure SEEMS to be much simpler...".
Yeahyeah, again, it wasn't ment personally.
I do make wine from different fruit every year, then it's difficult to
judge what the right acid level should be for my personal taste. Yes,
I adjust with the TA in mind, but make a note of the pH. Next year
they are merely reference points to get it further in balance.
> Or are you trying to make an entirely different point, which I have missed
> completely.
>
> > So oversimplicity like saying pH is perceived acidity, therefore EQUAL to
> your tastebuds is plainly wrong!
>
> I made no such statement.
Just the saying 'perceived acidity' implies so, and I've read that
many times. Not by you? Sorrie!
> > As a winemaker with only 5 years experience I think TA readings and
> > adjustments are an important reference tool to follow up recipes and
> > train your tastebuds for the right amount of acid, considering the
> > differences in base material. In that respect I think it's more
> > important than pH.
>
> Thank you. It really seems that we are in substantial agreement, at least in
> respect to post-fermentation adjustments.
>
> Meanwhile, I think we are confusing the heck out of poor Louise. So, in
> conclusion:
>
> Louise,
>
> 1) you can use your mineral water for a diluent and proceed with your
> titration as you originally intended, or
>
> 2) you can perform your titration with a pH meter accurate to at least +/-
> .2%, by titrating to an endpoint of 8.2, and you won't need the diluent.
>
> 3) you can adjust the pH to 3.2 (for a white grape wine) or 3.4 (for a red
> grape wine) or some other value(s) (for other wines), with a pH meter
> accurate to at least +/- .1%, and you won't need the diluent or
> sodium-hydroxide reagent.
>
> Do whichever you prefer. :)
Get on with this discussion in the pub ;)
Denis Marier
purchased at the pharmacy for medical reason
The word distilled water is interesting. Why use distilled water to make
wine or beer?
Unless the distilled water is reconstituted its value is next to nothing.
The distilled water sold in store is of unknown origin. So adding some
chemical to it without knowing what in it at the first place is not a good
practice. In recent market survey it was learned that bottle water is not
controlled and may contain anything from treated municipal water to mineral
water. Should the water supply be contaminated one will be better served by
buying certified reconstituted water recommended by the local wine kit store
or club.
"frederick ploegman" <ploe...@innernet.net> wrote in message
news:bl4df...@enews3.newsguy.com...
J Dixon
They are not talking about using the water to add to wine such as in a
kit. The thread is referring to test samples being diluted with distilled
water so as to not alter the PH level. The point was made that you could
adjust the ph on any water to the standard before testing.... HTH
John Dixon
"Denis Marier" <mari...@nb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:Xx3fb.338$M71....@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
Negodki
> I have missed all of this tread.
You may view the entire thread by clicking:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=8003ada.0309241751.710e49a9%40posting.google.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fhl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DISO-8859-1%26q%3Ddistilled%2Bwater%26btnG%3DGoogle%2BSearch%26meta%3Dgroup%253Drec.crafts.winemaking
> Why use distilled water to make wine or beer?
To insure that there is nothing in the water that will contaminate or
adversely affect the wine or beer, or adversely affect the fermentation
process, or (in the case under discussion) that would throw off the accuracy
of the acid test being performed.
> Unless the distilled water is reconstituted its value is next to nothing.
What is the "reconstitution" of water, and how will this process increase
the value of (what is by definition) pure water?
> The distilled water sold in store is of unknown origin.
Not so. Every bottle (at least every bottle sold in this country) shows the
place of manufacture.
> So adding some chemical to it without knowing what in it at the first
place is not a good practice.
Distilled water, by legal definition, contains H20 and no other chemicals.
> In recent market survey it was learned that bottle water is not controlled
and may contain anything from treated municipal water to mineral water.
You are referring to a "survey" dealing with a completely different product,
not "distilled water", but rather "purified" or "ionized" or "filtered"
water, sold with the implicit or explicit claim that it is healthier than
tap water. Some brands are little more than municipal tap water. Others are
from mineral springs that have then been in a network of plumbing at the
bottling plant, and thus are not much different than tap water. And others
are decidely purer and free of contaminants and better tasting. None of them
are distilled.
> Should the water supply be contaminated one will be better served by
buying certified reconstituted water recommended by the local wine kit store
or club.
I would be very surprised if any distilled water sold in the US, Canada, or
the UK is contaminated. If it were, one would be better served by using
ordinary tap water, especially if one first ran it through a Brita filter to
remove the chlorine, flourine, and other undesireables that charcoal
filtering can remove.
I can't imagine what "reconstituted water" might be. Reconstituted fruit
juice is juice which was concentrated by removing a large portion of the
water, and then later "reconstituted" by adding water in the original
proportions. How that could be done with water, or why anyone would do so,
is a mystery to me. I look forward to your explanation.
Denis Marier
Something must be wrong because I can not access all the postings from my
server (Sympatico).
"J Dixon" <jdix...@nospamadelphia.net> wrote in message
news:oN4fb.1240$qj6.1...@news1.news.adelphia.net...