Digital Scale -Odd Fluctuations

Status
Not open for further replies.
A good digital scale should have a dual point calibration and your standard should test accurately at or near the weight your measurement is. The same applies in mechanical measurements. Your standard or reference should be near what you intend to measure. Guage pins are great for verification. I dont know why standards are not a huge part of our hobby. They are discussed sometimes but as common as I would expect.
 
denton said:
A few years ago, I wrote up some test results for electronic vs. balance scales. Quick summary:

The balance scale I tested was very robust. It worked consistently whether cold or hot, and through being disassembled and re-assembled.

The electronic scale was a real "houseplant". It was very temperature sensitive and very susceptible to radio frequency interference via the power cord. That's simply cheap design. A decent design won't behave that way.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the electronic is really great for the money. However after today (First issue), I'll probably use it to check my powder throw every 5 or 10 9mm rounds. I work in Technology, and get when something has "Bugs", or isn't consistent due to inherent vulnerabilities of concept.

I don't shoot .223 weekly like I do 9mm, so I'll trickle my .223 loads onto the beam. I don't really like the fat lines on my current beam, and the increments on the beam are hard to set, so will likely upgrade it at some point.
 
Last edited:
AJC1 said:
A good digital scale should have a dual point calibration and your standard should test accurately at or near the weight your measurement is. The same applies in mechanical measurements. Your standard or reference should be near what you intend to measure. Guage pins are great for verification. I dont know why standards are not a huge part of our hobby. They are discussed sometimes but as common as I would expect.
Click to expand...
Hey, in your Avatar, is that somewhere on the continental divide? The mountains look familliar.
 
I got a Hornady electronic scale a few years ago and quit useing it because of interferance.
I doubt I will ever buy another one.
 
AJC1 said:
Random hot rifle chick in the nature of things that make me happy.
Click to expand...
Hahahaha. I thought maybe that was your daughter or wife or something, didn't wanna go there due to hotness. Anyway, my guess is the Rockies.
 
I don’t have a bald eagle scale or one of the newer RCBS beam scales but my charge master 1500’s leave me skeptical as far as accuracy and repeatability.



I trust an old 505 with a photoelectric switch that controls a gear motor on a trickler more than them for hundredths repeatability. I say “old” because at some point the Ohaus casting RCBS “USA” scales, on the bottom, came here with made in china stickers next to the cast in aluminum text, they were so bad RCBS dropped the line and started the “M” series. The load cells used in the cheap digitals have their data truncated to the point they just can’t “see” to that level.



I will say this about your conundrum, don’t worry about them being different from one another but note what one is the most consistent over time (keep “standards” in the ranges you intend to measure). That will be the one to trust.
 
Last edited:
jmorris said:
I don’t have a bald eagle scale or one of the newer RCBS beam scales but my charge master 1500’s leave me skeptical as far as accuracy and repeatability.



I trust an old 505 with a photoelectric switch that controls a gear motor on a trickler more than them for hundredths repeatability. The load cells used in the cheap digitals have their data truncated to the point they just can’t “see” to that level.



I will say this about your conundrum, don’t worry about them being different from one another but note what one is the most consistent over time (keep “standards” in the ranges you intend to measure). That will be the one to trust.
Click to expand...

Yeah, after today it's the beam for when I am looking for absolute consistency on top-end loads. A new friend here has also offered a better beam than I have now, because of this post! Thanks Mr Friend!
 
Two comments, one of which might draw flames:

Power cord interference can often be reduced or cured with snap-on ferrite chokes. If the cord is slender, wrap it so it passes though the core twice, to get 4 X the effect. I use them liberally in my workshop to keep my ham transmitters out of my computers, monitors, mice, etc. For example: https://www.ebay.com/itm/10-PCS-Fer...054018?hash=item1a7b2332c2:g:nnMAAOSwRV9cyuyw

Checking every 10th drop and adjusting the powder measure will frequently increase the variation in your loads. Statistically, it's called tampering. A lot of folks have trouble getting their heads around that, because it is contrary to "common sense". Nevertheless, it is so. The correct procedure is to do an Individuals and Moving Range control chart, and only adjust when you start to see chart rule violations. For more info, see Item 5 here:
 
Last edited:
Cellphone was the culprit. Always sending/receiving a least a bit of info from all of the apps and other programs you have loaded.
 
dcloco said:
Cellphone was the culprit. Always sending/receiving a least a bit of info from all of the apps and other programs you have loaded.
Click to expand...
Wow, this would explain why it would start every so often, then go away after a few minutes. UNTIL I moved the phone away, then it was good for the remaining hours I was using it. I am gonna turn it off next time.

As I think about it, every other time I used it since I had it, I would charge the phone behind a wall in the other room, because I wanted no distractions while throwing powder, except this time, as I am now far more comfortable with the process, and my safety checks. More evidence for your theory.

Thanks!
 
dcloco said:
Cellphone was the culprit. Always sending/receiving a least a bit of info from all of the apps and other programs you have loaded.
Click to expand...
Smart phones will do that. They are constantly checking into their wifi connection. At the range, using electronic earmuffs, I very often get a distinctive bzza-bt bzza-bt sound. Decently designed elactronic earmuffs won't do that, so now you know about mine. :)
 
A man with a watch always knows what time it is. A man with two watches never does.

Sorry, no idea what this means.
 
peeplwtchr said:
A man with a watch always knows what time it is. A man with two watches never does.

Sorry, no idea what this means.
Click to expand...

Segal’s law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segal's_law

Means if you only used one or the other, there would be nothing to question vs when two different ones have different readings.

Not exactly the same but the other saying is even a broken clock is right twice a day. Obviously a saying that predates digital clocks...
 
If you have only 1 watch, you have no comparison. If you get 2 results from watches set the same, you know there's a problem. Troubleshooting 101. Not trying to insult, just calling BS on Seger's Law. Wikipedia says my assertion as well.

"The mood of the saying is ironic. While at a surface level it appears to be advocating the simplicity and self-consistency obtained by relying on information from only a single source, the underlying message is to gently question and make fun of such apparent certainty – a man with one watch can't really be sure he knows the right time, he merely has no way to identify error or uncertainty."

But as always, thanks for the post.
 
peeplwtchr said:
If you have only 1 watch, you have no comparison. If you get 2 results from watches set the same, you know there's a problem. Troubleshooting 101. Not trying to insult, just calling BS on Seger's Law. Wikipedia says my assertion as well.

"The mood of the saying is ironic. While at a surface level it appears to be advocating the simplicity and self-consistency obtained by relying on information from only a single source, the underlying message is to gently question and make fun of such apparent certainty – a man with one watch can't really be sure he knows the right time, he merely has no way to identify error or uncertainty."

But as always, thanks for the post.
Click to expand...
It ignores what happens when calibration standards are not only available but used properly.

In our modern world, a man with any number of watches, from one to infinity, all constantly in synch with our national atomic clock signal, knows what time it is.

Likewise, a man with calibration weight standards certified to the level prudent for the activity the scales are involved with, and using such standards in an appropriate manner, knows within the necessary degree of detail what weight(s) are being measured.

Remember, even using the atomic clock a leap second is necessary every so often.
 
Hmmmmm. But a single source will not indicate whether or not the variables are eliminated. For instance are the calibration weights trustworthy? I have learned verify first, trust second in my field. It's a checksum of old vs. new technological theory. I am leaning towards old, based on what I have learned here, from responders to this thread, and you in PMs Mr. Zorg. :)

Good topic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

H
  • Locked
lee scale issues
2
Replies
27
Views
1K
Sport45
S
LiveLife
  • Locked
THR myth confirmation/busting - digital scale accuracy
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
134
Views
23K
Jesse Heywood
Jesse Heywood
C
  • Locked
Recommendations for Digital Scale
Replies
9
Views
900
Toprudder
Toprudder
Glock702
  • Locked
what's the best digital caliper and digital scale for the money?
2
Replies
38
Views
3K
Walkalong
Walkalong
R
  • Locked
Digital Scale Info Needed
Replies
18
Views
1K
twice barrel
T
Back
Top