Minimizing Scale Buildup Without Causing Boiler Leaching - Page 2

Water analysis, treatment, and mineral recipes for optimum taste and equipment health.
User avatar
misterdoggy
Posts: 418
Joined: 15 years ago

#11: Post by misterdoggy »

I had no awareness of the effects of hard water until I basically destroyed my Rancilio S24. This was a fantastic machine and cost 3000 euros in 2000 ($4500) so it was no slouch.

I kept having the repairman back to take the machine, as I did not want to be bothered to fix the appliance, which basically was to descale I later figured out (duhhhh).

The water here is some of the best in the world ie: Evian is right around the corner. Its about 140ppm and tastes great, however, scale can play havoc on everything in the house.

So after informing myself on sites like this, I went to brita and 30ppm. The weld issue threw a wrench in my plan of reduced maintenance. I will call Roberto and ask him once more about the weld issue. He did say it was machines in Israel. However, I think it was Brita water, but would need to confirm. I was told 30ppm and there were problems and he preferred to see it higher. Maybe I will make a trade off and meet half way to 50ppm as I have read many think this is the point where coffee tastes great and less descaling.

Added: I just hung up with the factory and the machines in Israel were after many years. So the effects of using 30ppm will take years. However, who want's to worry.

Ken Fox
Posts: 2447
Joined: 18 years ago

#12: Post by Ken Fox »

Marshall wrote:Yes, you are reviving a 4-year old discussion about the Cirqua show-floor demonstration for the purpose of having an entertaining argument. But it is irrelevant to the question at hand. The gentleman said he is using water in the 30-35 TDS range and has some concern about going higher because of the need to descale. I said it is a worthwhile tradeoff, because of the improvement in the cup. I gave no advice on how to increase his mineral content and have no idea (and don't care) how he reaches his current soft water level.

For myself, I will probably treat my 220 TDS, chlorine-reeking tap water with the adjustable Everpure Claris system. My wife is assembling the test materials to make a definitive decision and to adjust the system in the future, if we buy it.
Marshall,

Actually, it is not irrelevant. The gentleman (or "gentledoggy") said he was using Brita equipment to get his water down to 30-35 ppm, and that out of the tap the water is 140ppm. The question is, what would be the most reasonable way to produce good quality espresso with the water one has available, taking into consideration all factors including potential damage to equipment and required maintenance such as descaling.

If you didn't notice, I'm challenging your earlier statement that people who spend a lot of money on an espresso machine are making a false economy by using water treatment strategies that don't include the need for regular descaling. I regard that statement as unproven.

It is not me who thought up that little circus act to present to cafe owners and others making espresso, to give them the idea that without their type of water treatment, good espresso cannot be made. I don't blame them for having come up with it, as it is good marketing, however the consumer needs to think for him or herself before taking it at face value.

ken
What, me worry?

Alfred E. Neuman, 1955

User avatar
Marshall
Posts: 3444
Joined: 19 years ago

#13: Post by Marshall »

Ken Fox wrote:If you didn't notice, I'm challenging your earlier statement that people who spend a lot of money on an espresso machine are making a false economy by using water treatment strategies that don't include the need for regular descaling. I regard that statement as unproven.
Ken, I don't know what results have come out of the Ken Fox tasting lab that happens to be located in your kitchen, but you seem fixated on the idea that the coffee industry's water treatment standards are based on a myth conjured up at Cirqua's show booths. This is not the case.

The SCAA technical standards people and the primo coffee bars that most of us admire, rely on their own very extensive taste tests. The result is that they go to considerable expense to maintain their water in the 100-150 range, with most at the top end of that range. Since these labs and bars have no small stake in machine maintenance issues, I would take their results seriously and regard it as "proof."

Descaling is just one of the necessary evils of ownership, like changing the oil in your car.
Marshall
Los Angeles

Ken Fox
Posts: 2447
Joined: 18 years ago

#14: Post by Ken Fox replying to Marshall »

Marshall,

Please point me to some published research that compares in a comprehensive and scientific way the impact on espresso of various sorts of water treatments. By necessity this must consider the various sorts of input water, and all the reasonable treatments available. I'd be astonished if you could find any.

There are obvious conflicts of interest (such as paid sponsorships) between the equipment manufacturers such as Cirqua, and an organization such as the SCAA. There is also ample evidence that the SCAA is far from the final word on specialty coffee, if quality of the beverage is the issue being evaluated.

As to the cafe owners, I doubt that very many of them understand the concept of real scientific research, and most of them tend to behave just like home barista, e.g.; like a bunch of lemmings, all doing the same things, all using the same brands of equipment, because, hey, "that is what high end cafes do." Some of these people are quite talented, however a real understanding of this sort of issue is not their biggest strength.

I think that perhaps we have a different standard for what constitutes "proving" an idea. I'd like to see real "proof," and I think you are looking for "consensus." They are two different things.

ken
What, me worry?

Alfred E. Neuman, 1955

User avatar
Marshall
Posts: 3444
Joined: 19 years ago

#15: Post by Marshall »

Ken, I don't know why you would compare expert cuppers doing doing blind taste tests to lemmings corrupted by corporate sponsorships, but I think this discussion has ceased to be productive.
Marshall
Los Angeles

User avatar
GC7
Posts: 1112
Joined: 16 years ago

#16: Post by GC7 »

The idea that a Brita filter treated water at 30-35 ppm tds can cause weld failures makes absolutely no sense to me. The only thing that I can comprehend that would possibly do that is the pH. I am no expert on the chemistry behind metalurgy and weld strength but I'd like to know just how minerals (Calcium Carbonate or others) react to break down a weld?

I fully comprehend the effects of distilled deionized water on leaching from metals but I doubt 35 ppm water does this. My NY water is naturally at that level and our pipes are jsut fine thank you.

Ken Fox
Posts: 2447
Joined: 18 years ago

#17: Post by Ken Fox »

Marshall wrote:I don't know why you would compare expert cuppers doing doing blind taste tests to lemmings corrupted by corporate sponsorships, but I think this discussion has ceased to be productive.
Marshall,

You are asserting that there is a group of people somewhere who have taken a wide range of input waters, treated them with all the common treatment options and compared them, each to each other in some sort of scientifically valid manner?

They have taken soft water and tested the various things that could be added to it (not solely limited to calcium ions), at differing concentrations and compared the results in a blinded fashion with water used to make espresso? Is all soft water the same, or does it differ in ways that could impact the effectiveness of water treatments? They have studied that also?

You are asserting that these same people (or other, similarly gifted people) have taken various sorts of hard water and treated these hard waters with all reasonable options available, then used the water to make espresso and have taste tested these in a blind fashion? Is all hard water the same, or does it differ in constituents and hence in the way it might respond to various treatments? They studied this also?

I assure you that you are mistaken. If anyone had gone to the effort to do this, they would have documented it in some fashion other than simply issuing a set of standards or guidelines.

This is reminiscent of the comments of some well known people about their certainty that rotary pump driven machines make better shots than vibe machines do, and that freezing destroys roasted coffee. You may not want proof, but I do.

ken
What, me worry?

Alfred E. Neuman, 1955

User avatar
Peppersass (original poster)
Posts: 3690
Joined: 15 years ago

#18: Post by Peppersass (original poster) »

misterdoggy wrote:So after informing myself on sites like this, I went to brita and 30ppm.
I started out using a Brita filter, but found the effectiveness dropped off significantly after 2 weeks (i.e., the hardness of the filtered water increased quite a bit.) Jim Schulman also reported this in his extensive water FAQ. The ZeroWater system is better, but requires more work. You use it to produce water that's equivalent to RO, then mix in tap water to achieve a desired hardness.
misterdoggy wrote:Added: I just hung up with the factory and the machines in Israel were after many years. So the effects of using 30ppm will take years. However, who want's to worry.
I had a feeling it took years. Also, we still don't know the alaklinity or pH of the water that was being used in Isreal. When I produce 30-35 ppm hardness water, the alkalinity is in the range of 35-50 ppm. Does anyone know if this is high enough to avoid leaching?

User avatar
misterdoggy
Posts: 418
Joined: 15 years ago

#19: Post by misterdoggy »

I started out using a Brita filter, but found the effectiveness dropped off significantly after 2 weeks (i.e., the hardness of the filtered water increased quite a bit.) Jim Schulman also reported this in his extensive water FAQ. The ZeroWater system is better, but requires more work. You use it to produce water that's equivalent to RO, then mix in tap water to achieve a desired hardness.
Dick,

Brita's effectiveness has Other factors:

(1) what the hardness is "going in" as 300 ppm being filtered will have a greater affect on the brita cartridge than my house which is 140 ppm

and more importantly

(2) the volume of water passing through the cartridge

I found that when testing the brita water, that when my family was using the brita pitcher too and the total water consumption was enormous, that the brita's effectiveness fell off sharply after 3 weeks. But after the family went back to Volvic water and the Brita was only used for 4 to 6 cups of coffee a day, that it was about as effective on the 30th day as it was on the 1st day. so Volume of water used is the MOST important factor at my house.

User avatar
Peppersass (original poster)
Posts: 3690
Joined: 15 years ago

#20: Post by Peppersass (original poster) »

GC7 wrote:I'd like to know just how minerals (Calcium Carbonate or others) react to break down a weld?
I don't think Roberto was claiming that mineral reaction caused the problem. Presumably, the pH of the water in Isreal was low, and the acidity damaged the welds. Low pH water can have minerals in it, though nominally not minerals that raise the alkalinity above 0 pH.

The problem is, we have no idea what the composition of the water was. For all we know, they were using distilled water or RO. In fact, I think the odds favor that. I'm guessing, but I suspect water with alkalinity in the 30 ppm range has a high enough pH to avoid leaching (but I'm guessing.)

As for Roberto's reaction to 30-35 ppm water, he didn't say that the Israelis were using water of that hardness. Remember, his recommendation was based on two things: 1) avoiding damage to the welds, and 2) taste. He claimed that you need hardness above 70 ppm to get optimum taste (we'll leave it to Ken and Marshall to sort that out. :D ) It's not clear how much of his concern about misterdoggy's 30-35 ppm water was about the welds and how much about the taste.

The key question is, how much alkalinity is required to keep the pH at a level where the welds will be safe over the long haul?