Third Wave Water capsules - add to water for better tasting coffee - Page 2

Water analysis, treatment, and mineral recipes for optimum taste and equipment health.
bigdaub
Posts: 22
Joined: 10 years ago

#11: Post by bigdaub »

namelessone wrote:Hi Taylor,

95mg/L of Magensium must be a typo? Do you mean 95mg/L of magensium sulfate? Otherwise it would result in some extremely hard water. On the other hand 45mg/L of Calcium Citrate would mean very little calcium, so I'm not sure what amount relates to which compound.
Those numbers are correct. The ~95mg/L of Magnesium comes from Magnesium Sulfate. The ~45mg/L of Calcium comes from Calcium Citrate.

Yes it is technically hard but the hardness is permanent hardness so as the temperature increases the minerals do not come out of solution and cause scale.

Taylor

User avatar
homeburrero
Team HB
Posts: 4863
Joined: 13 years ago

#12: Post by homeburrero »

bigdaub wrote:Those numbers are correct. The ~95mg/L of Magnesium comes from Magnesium Sulfate. The ~45mg/L of Calcium comes from Calcium Citrate.
Taylor, I'm also less than 100% sure of your meaning, even with this latest wording. Would it be correct to say this?

95 mg/L magnesium sulfate -- (19.2 mg/L Mg++ ion, 75.8 mg/L SO4-- ion)
45 mg/L calcium citrate -- (3.62 mg/L Ca++ ion)
Calcium hardness of 9 mg/l, total hardness of 88 mg/L as CaCO3

Also, the numbers for bicarbonate and alkalinity look interesting. 20 mg/L of potassium bicarbonate (12.2 mg/L HCO3- ion) gives you a bicarbonate alkalinity of 10 mg/L as CaCO3. I know the citrate would contribute to the total alkalinity, but still, 30 mg/L seems high. Is that where it measured in a titration test?

P.S.
I for one really appreciate the fact that you're so responsive and agreeable about sharing your numbers on this forum. Thanks!
Pat
nínádiishʼnahgo gohwééh náshdlį́į́h

bigdaub
Posts: 22
Joined: 10 years ago

#13: Post by bigdaub replying to homeburrero »

No worries on asking difficult questions, I want to be as transparent as possible. Hopefully this will help explain our thought process and philosophy. For reference the tools that we use for measurements are Oakton PC 450 for TDS, Hach Titration kits (Total Hardness, Magnesium Hardness, Alkalinity, Sulfate & Chlorine), Thermo Scientific Orion 2 Star for pH, A&D HR120 Scale for weight and even a Versa Lab grinder for grinding down minerals :D

PREFACE:
Much of the communication difficulty comes in the how most people discuss TDS & mg/L. Before people could add exactly what they wanted to the water they had to rely on less accurate measurements for understanding what is in the water (you could have more specificity but what was available to the average person were simple techniques). TDS meters for measuring calcium and sodium and titration for measuring Alkalinity, Chlorine, Hardness, Sulfates etc...., these were the tools of the trade and simple TDS meters did the vast majority of the measurements.

OUR THOUGHT PROCESS:
We use the less accurate but more widely used form of measuring TDS, the cheap and nearly ubiquitous TDS meter. This is b/c the vast majority of our customers will be able to communicate and understand the product and this is most likely the extent that they currently understand. For example: We aim for a total TDS of 150. If you put one packet in a gallon of distilled water and measure the TDS with a meter it will ready 150. If you were able to remove all of the magnesium sulfate from that packet and add it separately to a gallon of distilled it would read 95. If we talk about TDS in pure chemistry terms it will be too confusing to communicate properly.

OUR PHILOSOPHY:
We think the most important aspect of water chemistry and water profiles are duplicability. We strive to create a product that will easily give people a repeatable and duplicable water experience. By grinding the minerals the same way and mixing everything in a V-blender, we can have a high degree of certainty that each stick will be a statistical representation of the last.

IN CLOSING:
I know this community is much different than the average consumer. Your degree of understanding is much greater, therefore our degree of specificity and transparency should be greater. So for ease of communication I will just give you the measurements of each mineral in the packet. The desired weight of each packet it 1.5 grams, this can vary from packet to packet and we are always trying to reduce our variability bit that is the target. If the weight of one packet is different the overall ratios will still be the same.

Classic 1500mg
Magnesium Sulfate 1100mg
Calcium Citrate 300mg
Sodium Chloride 100mg

Espresso 1500mg
Magnesium Sulfate 1050mg
Calcium Citrate 300mg
Potassium Bicarbonate 150mg

LASTLY:
We have found that the TDS of Magnesium Sulfate can not always be accurately measured (with out also factoring in a TDS meter) as the bound moisture can change over time, throwing off the weight. We are also working on vacuum drying some of the Magnesium Sulfate to create Anhydrous Magnesium Sulfate, this helps for storage and transportation to hotter areas. The anhydrous creates a natural desiccant inside the package and retards the decomposition from creating moisture in the package. This moisture can cause clumping in the Classic and can cause a chemical reaction in Espresso between the citrate and bicarbonate, puffing up the packets (they look like Barbie body pillows). If the anhydrous ever gets implemented I will need to update this above information for you all.

I hope this helps better explain everything and as always if you have more questions please let me know. Feel free to DM me your phone number and I can talk to you over the phone if you want, these long posts can become tiresome.

-Taylor

namelessone
Posts: 453
Joined: 15 years ago

#14: Post by namelessone »

bigdaub wrote:Those numbers are correct. The ~95mg/L of Magnesium comes from Magnesium Sulfate. The ~45mg/L of Calcium comes from Calcium Citrate.

Yes it is technically hard but the hardness is permanent hardness so as the temperature increases the minerals do not come out of solution and cause scale.

Taylor
Thanks for the answer Taylor. I guess the question is if it's 95mg/L MgSO4 or if it's 95mg/L Mg++, but it seems to be the former as 95mg/L of Mg++ would produce very hard water. Is that right? It would be 400ppm just from Mg++. The 1100 MgSO4 you have is I'm assuming heptahydrate? So it includes 7 H2O molecules as well, i.e. epsom salt.

User avatar
Eastsideloco
Posts: 1657
Joined: 13 years ago

#15: Post by Eastsideloco »

MikeTheBlueCow wrote:The espresso formula, by the way, can be used for filter brew with no difference in taste compared to the "original" formula. I have done a direct comparison and it's the same. The only difference is one uses something that is less harmful to metal in espresso machines, which is why it gets it's own formula.
I was going to just let this ride, but apparently I cannot. You can definitely brew with the espresso formulation. I do it on occasion when I run out of distilled water to make more brewing water (classic formulation) but have espresso water on the shelf. While the espresso formula brews a decent coffee, to me the cup tastes noticeably different than coffee brewed using the classic formula.

This morning I accidentally pulled the jug marked "S" (eSpresso) instead of the one marked "TWW" when I filled my Technivorm 1-Cup robot. So then I brewed the same coffee immediately afterwards using the classic formulation. Granted back-to-back is not side-by-side, but my experience is that the classic formulation consistently produces a sweeter and more balanced cup with a silkier mouthfeel. Brewing with the espresso formulation tends to produce a cup with a drier mouthfeel that is a little punchier on some of the acid notes, which can produce a slightly unbalanced cup, at least with the coffees I tend to brew with.

Both TWW formulations are an improvement over filtered tap water or random bottled waters, which is what I used to brew with.

User avatar
homeburrero
Team HB
Posts: 4863
Joined: 13 years ago

#16: Post by homeburrero »

namelessone wrote:I guess the question is if it's 95mg/L MgSO4 or if it's 95mg/L Mg++, but it seems to be the former as 95mg/L of Mg++ would produce very hard water. Is that right?
I'm not Taylor, but my reading of his answer is that the measure is neither MgSO4 nor is it elemental Mg (Mg++ ion). It's his titration measure of the magnesium hardness reported in mg/L CaCO3 equivalent. Note that Taylor said they use the Hach titration kits - those kits use conversions that give you results in mg/L CaCO3 equivalents. And the number makes sense given his recipe - is close enough to what you get if calculating 1100 mg of Epsom in a gallon of water. 1100 mg of Epsom in a gallon of water would be 118 mg/L of magnesium hardness as CaCO3. (The espresso recipe, 1050 mg of Epsom in a gallon of water, works out to 113 mg/L magnesium hardness as CaCO3.)


Same with the 45 mg/L calcium - it also must be the calcium hardness in CaCO3 equivalents. That one agrees nicely with 300 mg of tricalcium dicitrate tetrahydrate in 1 gallon of water.

namelessone wrote:The 1100 MgSO4 you have is I'm assuming heptahydrate? So it include
In an earlier PM from Taylor he told me they are using ground Epsom, and that makes the most sense given the numbers above. If you grind Espom it would tend to lose moisture and you'd end up with a hexahydrate (6 rather than 7 water molecules) but if the 1100 grams were as hexahydrate, the magnesium hardness would be slightly higher - more like 127 mg/L as CaCO3. And if it were 1100 mg of anhydrous the magnesium hardness would be way higher.
Pat
nínádiishʼnahgo gohwééh náshdlį́į́h

namelessone
Posts: 453
Joined: 15 years ago

#17: Post by namelessone »

Yes I think you are right with respect to the calculations. The total hardness seems to be around 150-200ppm perhaps? I measured it with a titration kit and it was 0-18ppm alkalinity and 196-216ppm hardness, however my RO system doesn't remove everything 100%, I have extremely hard water where I live.

I also find the "classic" formula brews very sweet cups. I do sometimes wonder if it would benefit from a slight buffer, as alkalinity is pretty much 0. I tried adding a bit of bicarb (about 40ppm alkalinity), but it didn't seem to make a significant difference.

User avatar
homeburrero
Team HB
Posts: 4863
Joined: 13 years ago

#18: Post by homeburrero »

namelessone wrote:The total hardness seems to be around 150-200ppm perhaps? I measured it with a titration kit and it was 0-18ppm alkalinity and 196-216ppm hardness,
The calculated hardness numbers of the classic formula would be 118 magnesium + 41 calcium = 159 mg/L total hardness as CaCO3 . Taylor's reported numbers are a little lower (95 + 45 = 135) but in the ballpark.

The classic formula has zero bicarbonate, whereas the espresso formula has 150 mg of potassium bicarbonate per gallon, which would give you a bicarbonate alkalinity of 19.8 mg/L as CaCO3. It's interesting to me that folks are reporting a taste difference when brewing filter coffee using the espresso water. The only real difference is that zero bicarbonate and the tiny bit of sodium chloride (table salt) in the classic formula.
Pat
nínádiishʼnahgo gohwééh náshdlį́į́h

User avatar
Eastsideloco
Posts: 1657
Joined: 13 years ago

#19: Post by Eastsideloco »

And a small difference in pH. That could explain why the espresso blend is a little punchier on the acidity.

Fluffeepuff
Posts: 251
Joined: 10 years ago

#20: Post by Fluffeepuff »

I currently use the TWW classic capsules for brewing with my kalita wave. I take my RO water (which has a 6th alkaline stage) that is between 50-60ppm and a pH of approx 8, and then add-in the TWW until my total TDS is around 150ppm. I feel as though I'm keeping with the spirit of TWW; meaning I'm just working towards the TDS value since it's very convenient and I haven't chosen to foray into making my own water.

Here's my question. I noticed the few comments about classic tasting different (and seemingly more favorable) than the espresso profile... I was about to order some more TWW and was thinking about trying the espresso (again, this is for a kalita 185 with a kettle), but feel a bit discouraged. It seems the main difference, from Taylor's breakdown, is NaCl vs KHCO3; I figured there wouldn't be a drastic taste difference, but I appear to be wrong. I was looking for a solution that I could use for both espresso and pour-over applications. I was thinking about just using my 50-60ppm RO water for espresso when I get a machine (I've seen some 'green film' comments on shower screens for the espresso TWW formula), but it would be interesting to maintain the same water composition for both brewing methods.

A bit of a ramble, sorry about that. Thoughts?