|
Inexpensive electronic scale
The USPS has a 10 lb electronic scale for sale at $44, including
shipping. The 5 lb version is $39, including shipping. That's way cheaper than the commercial versions I have seen. And it is a functioning postal scale which could be handy if you mail packages. http://shop.usps.com/cgi-bin/vsbv/po...roducts/Scales |
Inexpensive electronic scale
Osiris wrote: > The USPS has a 10 lb electronic scale for sale at $44, including > shipping. The 5 lb version is $39, including shipping. > > That's way cheaper than the commercial versions I have seen. And it is > a functioning postal scale which could be handy if you mail packages. > > http://shop.usps.com/cgi-bin/vsbv/po...roducts/Scales > > I followed your link to check out the details. The 10 lb scale is the same size as the 5 lb scale--roughly the same small footprint as any other electronic postal scale you see. Either model takes an "unlimited" tare. I'm not sure what they mean by that, exactly, but you could certainly use a large stainless steel pot or mixing bowl and possibly even a large glass or ceramic bowl. The resolution is to the tenth of an ounce on both models, which compares favorably to most of the scales I've seen (usually two tenths of an ounce). The platform folds out, so you can weigh awkwardly shaped items and still read the display. That's something I've not seen on other scales, and I've definitely run into that problem weighing packages and large flats at work. The only two negatives I noticed were the (apparent) lack of a metric toggle--at least it's not mentioned in the specs, and the USPS doesn't do metric--and the USPS graphics, which might not go with your kitchen decor very well ;-) Overall, this is definitely a bargain for anyone in the market for a scale. Great find, Osiris! |
Inexpensive electronic scale
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 13:17:26 -0400, Dick Margulis
> wrote: >Either model takes an "unlimited" >tare. I'm not sure what they mean by that, exactly, but you could >certainly use a large stainless steel pot or mixing bowl and possibly >even a large glass or ceramic bowl. Howdy, I'd be a bit more cautious about the "unlimited" tare. Every electronic scale I have seen has a maximum that it will weigh. Suppose that the limit is 10#. If you put a ceramic bowl on the scale that weighs 8#, tare it, and then start adding ingredients, you will soon go over the limit. That is not to say that you could not add more than 2# (8# + 2# being the limit) but, on every such scale I have seen, you can't go way over the scales limit after you tare it. All the best, -- Kenneth If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS." |
Inexpensive electronic scale
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004, Kenneth wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 13:17:26 -0400, Dick Margulis > > wrote: > > >Either model takes an "unlimited" > >tare. I'm not sure what they mean by that, exactly, but you could > >certainly use a large stainless steel pot or mixing bowl and possibly > >even a large glass or ceramic bowl. > > Howdy, > > I'd be a bit more cautious about the "unlimited" tare. > > Every electronic scale I have seen has a maximum that it will weigh. > Suppose that the limit is 10#. If you put a ceramic bowl on the scale > that weighs 8#, tare it, and then start adding ingredients, you will > soon go over the limit. That is not to say that you could not add more > than 2# (8# + 2# being the limit) but, on every such scale I have > seen, you can't go way over the scales limit after you tare it. > > All the best, > Kenneth "Allow tare up to max tare upon turn on, but this will not extend the measuring range on the scale." Also, currently showing "Backorder" instead of "Buy"... Dave |
Inexpensive electronic scale
Dave Bell wrote: > On Wed, 30 Jun 2004, Kenneth wrote: > > >>On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 13:17:26 -0400, Dick Margulis > wrote: >> >> >>>Either model takes an "unlimited" >>>tare. I'm not sure what they mean by that, exactly, but you could >>>certainly use a large stainless steel pot or mixing bowl and possibly >>>even a large glass or ceramic bowl. >> >>Howdy, >> >>I'd be a bit more cautious about the "unlimited" tare. >> >>Every electronic scale I have seen has a maximum that it will weigh. >>Suppose that the limit is 10#. If you put a ceramic bowl on the scale >>that weighs 8#, tare it, and then start adding ingredients, you will >>soon go over the limit. That is not to say that you could not add more >>than 2# (8# + 2# being the limit) but, on every such scale I have >>seen, you can't go way over the scales limit after you tare it. >> >>All the best, >>Kenneth > > > "Allow tare up to max tare upon turn on, but this will not extend the > measuring range on the scale." Yes, but that's a highly ambiguous sentence. Can you guess what it actually means? |
Inexpensive electronic scale
On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 17:53:30 -0400, Dick Margulis
> wrote: > > >Dave Bell wrote: > >> On Wed, 30 Jun 2004, Kenneth wrote: >> >> >>>On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 13:17:26 -0400, Dick Margulis > wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Either model takes an "unlimited" >>>>tare. I'm not sure what they mean by that, exactly, but you could >>>>certainly use a large stainless steel pot or mixing bowl and possibly >>>>even a large glass or ceramic bowl. >>> >>>Howdy, >>> >>>I'd be a bit more cautious about the "unlimited" tare. >>> >>>Every electronic scale I have seen has a maximum that it will weigh. >>>Suppose that the limit is 10#. If you put a ceramic bowl on the scale >>>that weighs 8#, tare it, and then start adding ingredients, you will >>>soon go over the limit. That is not to say that you could not add more >>>than 2# (8# + 2# being the limit) but, on every such scale I have >>>seen, you can't go way over the scales limit after you tare it. >>> >>>All the best, >>>Kenneth >> >> >> "Allow tare up to max tare upon turn on, but this will not extend the >> measuring range on the scale." > >Yes, but that's a highly ambiguous sentence. Can you guess what it >actually means? > > Hello again, I suspect it means that I was right when I suggested caution...<g> Suppose that the scale has a limit of 10 pounds, and you place on the scale a ceramic bowl that weighs 6 pounds, then press the tare button. I read the "ambiguous" sentence to tell us that such an arrangement will not "extend the range", that is, we can add to the ceramic bowl no more than 4 pounds of ingredients before going over the original 10 pound limit. All the best, -- Kenneth If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS." |
Inexpensive electronic scale
I got mine at Walmart for $20.00 a few years ago. It measures grams,
pounds, and ounces. The grams only show measures in even numbers, so you can be up to a gram off in your measurements, but it works great. It is small and the scale actually stores in the tray. It is about a three inch deep tray. However the scale will still reset to zero even if I put my large glass mixing bowl on it. -- Melodie Bond "Osiris" > wrote in message ... > The USPS has a 10 lb electronic scale for sale at $44, including > shipping. The 5 lb version is $39, including shipping. > > That's way cheaper than the commercial versions I have seen. And it is > a functioning postal scale which could be handy if you mail packages. > > http://shop.usps.com/cgi-bin/vsbv/po..._products/prod uctCategory.jsp?prodCat=/Mailing+Products/Scales > > |
Inexpensive electronic scale
On Thu, 8 Jul 2004, Melodie Bond wrote:
> I got mine at Walmart for $20.00 a few years ago. It measures grams, > pounds, and ounces. The grams only show measures in even numbers, so you > can be up to a gram off in your measurements, but it works great. The postal scale recently mentioned only resolves to 0.1 ounce, or 3g, so you're still ahead! > It is small and the scale actually stores in the tray. It is about a > three inch deep tray. However the scale will still reset to zero even > if I put my large glass mixing bowl on it. > > Melodie Bond I can't find it on the walmart site; too bad... Dave |
Inexpensive electronic scale
On Thu, 8 Jul 2004, Melodie Bond wrote:
> I got mine at Walmart for $20.00 a few years ago. It measures grams, > pounds, and ounces. The grams only show measures in even numbers, so you > can be up to a gram off in your measurements, but it works great. The postal scale recently mentioned only resolves to 0.1 ounce, or 3g, so you're still ahead! > It is small and the scale actually stores in the tray. It is about a > three inch deep tray. However the scale will still reset to zero even > if I put my large glass mixing bowl on it. > > Melodie Bond I can't find it on the walmart site; too bad... Dave |
Inexpensive electronic scale
Are you not near a wal-mart? I found it in the gadget section on the bottom
shelf. Fry's Electronics store sells a very similar one for $29.95. You may try Kohl's as well. They have quite a few cool kitchen items. More than I would have expected. -- Melodie Bond "Dave Bell" > wrote in message rea.net... > On Thu, 8 Jul 2004, Melodie Bond wrote: > > > I got mine at Walmart for $20.00 a few years ago. It measures grams, > > pounds, and ounces. The grams only show measures in even numbers, so you > > can be up to a gram off in your measurements, but it works great. > > The postal scale recently mentioned only resolves to 0.1 ounce, or 3g, so > you're still ahead! > > > It is small and the scale actually stores in the tray. It is about a > > three inch deep tray. However the scale will still reset to zero even > > if I put my large glass mixing bowl on it. > > > > Melodie Bond > > I can't find it on the walmart site; too bad... > > Dave |
Inexpensive electronic scale
Are you not near a wal-mart? I found it in the gadget section on the bottom
shelf. Fry's Electronics store sells a very similar one for $29.95. You may try Kohl's as well. They have quite a few cool kitchen items. More than I would have expected. -- Melodie Bond "Dave Bell" > wrote in message rea.net... > On Thu, 8 Jul 2004, Melodie Bond wrote: > > > I got mine at Walmart for $20.00 a few years ago. It measures grams, > > pounds, and ounces. The grams only show measures in even numbers, so you > > can be up to a gram off in your measurements, but it works great. > > The postal scale recently mentioned only resolves to 0.1 ounce, or 3g, so > you're still ahead! > > > It is small and the scale actually stores in the tray. It is about a > > three inch deep tray. However the scale will still reset to zero even > > if I put my large glass mixing bowl on it. > > > > Melodie Bond > > I can't find it on the walmart site; too bad... > > Dave |
These scales are available in the lobby of any Post Office that has a
postal store. The office I work in has them for $35 and $45. I don't think they are real good for baking though due to the small size of the scales. Once you got a bowl on the scale you wouldn't be able to see the digital readout. Daddio Osiris wrote: > The USPS has a 10 lb electronic scale for sale at $44, including > shipping. The 5 lb version is $39, including shipping. > > That's way cheaper than the commercial versions I have seen. And it is > a functioning postal scale which could be handy if you mail packages. > > http://shop.usps.com/cgi-bin/vsbv/po...roducts/Scales > > |
fedup wrote: > These scales are available in the lobby of any Post Office that has a > postal store. The office I work in has them for $35 and $45. I don't > think they are real good for baking though due to the small size of the > scales. Once you got a bowl on the scale you wouldn't be able to see > the digital readout. > Daddio > Where's your imagination, Daddio? You use a polished stainless steel bowl and you read the weight in the reflection. No, seriously, are these scales configured any differently from any other postal-type scale? Is the readout more horizontal and less oblique? Is the platform smaller? If not, then I think most of us have gotten used to reading them, one way or another. However, you're right that it is a design problem on this type of scale in general. On some models of large parcel scale, the readout is a separate unit, connected by a cord to the platform, that you can mount on a wall at a convenient height. Someone should design a small postal/kitchen scale with a detachable readout, too. |
fedup wrote: > These scales are available in the lobby of any Post Office that has a > postal store. The office I work in has them for $35 and $45. I don't > think they are real good for baking though due to the small size of the > scales. Once you got a bowl on the scale you wouldn't be able to see > the digital readout. > Daddio > Where's your imagination, Daddio? You use a polished stainless steel bowl and you read the weight in the reflection. No, seriously, are these scales configured any differently from any other postal-type scale? Is the readout more horizontal and less oblique? Is the platform smaller? If not, then I think most of us have gotten used to reading them, one way or another. However, you're right that it is a design problem on this type of scale in general. On some models of large parcel scale, the readout is a separate unit, connected by a cord to the platform, that you can mount on a wall at a convenient height. Someone should design a small postal/kitchen scale with a detachable readout, too. |
Staples and Office Depot - and possibly others have scales, the one I
bought has a "hold" button. This is good for weighing 'static' weights, not weighing while adding ingredients. It also has a 'set-zero' function so you can set to zero with the (empty) bowl on the platform. mike Dick Margulis wrote: > > > fedup wrote: > >> These scales are available in the lobby of any Post Office that has a >> postal store. The office I work in has them for $35 and $45. I don't >> think they are real good for baking though due to the small size of >> the scales. Once you got a bowl on the scale you wouldn't be able to >> see the digital readout. >> Daddio >> > > Where's your imagination, Daddio? You use a polished stainless steel > bowl and you read the weight in the reflection. > > No, seriously, are these scales configured any differently from any > other postal-type scale? Is the readout more horizontal and less > oblique? Is the platform smaller? If not, then I think most of us have > gotten used to reading them, one way or another. However, you're right > that it is a design problem on this type of scale in general. On some > models of large parcel scale, the readout is a separate unit, connected > by a cord to the platform, that you can mount on a wall at a convenient > height. Someone should design a small postal/kitchen scale with a > detachable readout, too. > |
Walmart carries a great digital scale for twenty dollars. It is with the
kitchen gadgets. I have been using mine for several years. I can read the readout fine with large bowls on it. -- Melodie Bond "Mike" > wrote in message ink.net... > Staples and Office Depot - and possibly others have scales, the one I > bought has a "hold" button. This is good for weighing 'static' weights, > not weighing while adding ingredients. It also has a 'set-zero' function > so you can set to zero with the (empty) bowl on the platform. > > mike > > Dick Margulis wrote: > > > > > > fedup wrote: > > > >> These scales are available in the lobby of any Post Office that has a > >> postal store. The office I work in has them for $35 and $45. I don't > >> think they are real good for baking though due to the small size of > >> the scales. Once you got a bowl on the scale you wouldn't be able to > >> see the digital readout. > >> Daddio > >> > > > > Where's your imagination, Daddio? You use a polished stainless steel > > bowl and you read the weight in the reflection. > > > > No, seriously, are these scales configured any differently from any > > other postal-type scale? Is the readout more horizontal and less > > oblique? Is the platform smaller? If not, then I think most of us have > > gotten used to reading them, one way or another. However, you're right > > that it is a design problem on this type of scale in general. On some > > models of large parcel scale, the readout is a separate unit, connected > > by a cord to the platform, that you can mount on a wall at a convenient > > height. Someone should design a small postal/kitchen scale with a > > detachable readout, too. > > --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.727 / Virus Database: 482 - Release Date: 7/26/2004 |
Walmart carries a great digital scale for twenty dollars. It is with the
kitchen gadgets. I have been using mine for several years. I can read the readout fine with large bowls on it. -- Melodie Bond "Mike" > wrote in message ink.net... > Staples and Office Depot - and possibly others have scales, the one I > bought has a "hold" button. This is good for weighing 'static' weights, > not weighing while adding ingredients. It also has a 'set-zero' function > so you can set to zero with the (empty) bowl on the platform. > > mike > > Dick Margulis wrote: > > > > > > fedup wrote: > > > >> These scales are available in the lobby of any Post Office that has a > >> postal store. The office I work in has them for $35 and $45. I don't > >> think they are real good for baking though due to the small size of > >> the scales. Once you got a bowl on the scale you wouldn't be able to > >> see the digital readout. > >> Daddio > >> > > > > Where's your imagination, Daddio? You use a polished stainless steel > > bowl and you read the weight in the reflection. > > > > No, seriously, are these scales configured any differently from any > > other postal-type scale? Is the readout more horizontal and less > > oblique? Is the platform smaller? If not, then I think most of us have > > gotten used to reading them, one way or another. However, you're right > > that it is a design problem on this type of scale in general. On some > > models of large parcel scale, the readout is a separate unit, connected > > by a cord to the platform, that you can mount on a wall at a convenient > > height. Someone should design a small postal/kitchen scale with a > > detachable readout, too. > > --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.727 / Virus Database: 482 - Release Date: 7/26/2004 |
"fedup" > wrote in message = ... > These scales are available in the lobby of any Post Office that has a=20 > postal store. The office I work in has them for $35 and $45. I don't = > think they are real good for baking though due to the small size of = the=20 > scales. Once you got a bowl on the scale you wouldn't be able to see=20 > the digital readout. It is nice to have a scale so you can know how much of your particular flour your particular cup (or other volume measure) contains. You may = be=20 interested to know that a fluid ounce of water weighs 1.04 ounces. An=20 Imperial Ounce is better, but Imperialism, these days, is a bad idea. http://www.fact-index.com/f/fl/fluid%5Founce.html I don't think you need to pay even $35 to weigh several ounces. Hint: these days cops are confiscating hundreds of OHaus triple beam=20 balances from dope dealers every week. So if you know a cop, you might get lucky. Nobody really knows what to do with all of those confiscated balances. They are too big for paper weights. Well, they are in grams (grammes). Not everybody knows what to do with those. --- DickA |
The platform is only about 4 1/2 inches square and the readout is at an
angle and reads across the top of the platform directly under where a bowl would sit, unless of course the bowl has a very small bottom. Dick Margulis wrote: > > > fedup wrote: > >> These scales are available in the lobby of any Post Office that has a >> postal store. The office I work in has them for $35 and $45. I don't >> think they are real good for baking though due to the small size of >> the scales. Once you got a bowl on the scale you wouldn't be able to >> see the digital readout. >> Daddio >> > > Where's your imagination, Daddio? You use a polished stainless steel > bowl and you read the weight in the reflection. > > No, seriously, are these scales configured any differently from any > other postal-type scale? Is the readout more horizontal and less > oblique? Is the platform smaller? If not, then I think most of us have > gotten used to reading them, one way or another. However, you're right > that it is a design problem on this type of scale in general. On some > models of large parcel scale, the readout is a separate unit, connected > by a cord to the platform, that you can mount on a wall at a convenient > height. Someone should design a small postal/kitchen scale with a > detachable readout, too. > |
Not meaning to hijack this thread or anything, but I bought some
mid-price digital scales a few weeks ago (made by Kenwood, max 3kg in 1g increments, on sale for AU$50) and have seens some strange behaviour with them. In general the scales seem quite accurate when compared with commercially measured quantities, but when measuring dynamic loads they behave rather strangely. Here's what I did... I put a little bowl on the scales, zeroed them, and then started pouring salt into the bowl until they read 10g. I thought the quantity looked a bit much, so I took the bowl off the scales and put it back on, and the scales read 14g. I poured the salt out of the bowl and put the bowl back on the scales, and they read 0g. I dumped the salt back into the bowl all in one go and the scales read 14g again! I tried the whole procedure several times and got the same behaviour. Is this a phenomenon common to all cheaper digital scales? It certainly makes it difficult to measure dynamic loads - I find I'm always taking the bowl off and putting it back on just to verify that they're reading accurately. james |
James wrote:
> Not meaning to hijack this thread or anything, but I bought some > mid-price digital scales a few weeks ago (made by Kenwood, max 3kg in 1g > increments, on sale for AU$50) and have seens some strange behaviour > with them. In general the scales seem quite accurate when compared with > commercially measured quantities, but when measuring dynamic loads they > behave rather strangely. Here's what I did... > > I put a little bowl on the scales, zeroed them, and then started pouring > salt into the bowl until they read 10g. I thought the quantity looked a > bit much, so I took the bowl off the scales and put it back on, and the > scales read 14g. I poured the salt out of the bowl and put the bowl back > on the scales, and they read 0g. I dumped the salt back into the bowl > all in one go and the scales read 14g again! I tried the whole procedure > several times and got the same behaviour. > > Is this a phenomenon common to all cheaper digital scales? It certainly > makes it difficult to measure dynamic loads - I find I'm always taking > the bowl off and putting it back on just to verify that they're reading > accurately. > That's probably due to a phenomena known in some circles as "Sticktion". It's greater than Friction, but is the force to break loose from a static position. I'm not sure I'm clear on that, but think of it as what is happening when you start to shove a large object, it resists till it starts to move, then slides with only it's normal friction. This is happening at all the bearings in the scale. mike |
Mike wrote:
> James wrote: > >> Not meaning to hijack this thread or anything, but I bought some >> mid-price digital scales a few weeks ago (made by Kenwood, max 3kg in >> 1g increments, on sale for AU$50) and have seens some strange >> behaviour with them. In general the scales seem quite accurate when >> compared with commercially measured quantities, but when measuring >> dynamic loads they behave rather strangely. Here's what I did... >> >> I put a little bowl on the scales, zeroed them, and then started >> pouring salt into the bowl until they read 10g. I thought the quantity >> looked a bit much, so I took the bowl off the scales and put it back >> on, and the scales read 14g. I poured the salt out of the bowl and put >> the bowl back on the scales, and they read 0g. I dumped the salt back >> into the bowl all in one go and the scales read 14g again! I tried the >> whole procedure several times and got the same behaviour. >> >> Is this a phenomenon common to all cheaper digital scales? It >> certainly makes it difficult to measure dynamic loads - I find I'm >> always taking the bowl off and putting it back on just to verify that >> they're reading accurately. >> > > That's probably due to a phenomena known in some circles as "Sticktion". > It's greater than Friction, but is the force to break loose from a static > position. I'm not sure I'm clear on that, but think of it as what is > happening when you start to shove a large object, it resists till it > starts to move, then slides with only it's normal friction. This is > happening at all the bearings in the scale. > > mike I agree with Mike here, and have seen the same effect, to a small extent. I have never had to remove and replace the bowl, though: Try tapping, or applying slight pressure to the deck with a fingertip, and reading after it settles back to "normal". This phenomenon is likely one of the details that separates the cheap scales from the dear... Dave |
At 09:33 AM 8/23/2004, you wrote:
>Mike wrote: >>That's probably due to a phenomena known in some circles as "Sticktion". >>It's greater than Friction, but is the force to break loose from a static >>position. I'm not sure I'm clear on that, but think of it as what is >>happening when you start to shove a large object, it resists till it >>starts to move, then slides with only it's normal friction. This is >>happening at all the bearings in the scale. >>mike > Same here - Escali scale, going up to 6000 g when measuring small amounts of seeds/salt etc. in range below/around 10 g hangs at times and is inaccurate in that stage. Solution: for those amounts/weights a smaller scale sensitive to 1/10 g, max 500 g works fine. Samartha remove "-nospam" when replying, and it's in my email address |
At 09:33 AM 8/23/2004, you wrote:
>Mike wrote: >>That's probably due to a phenomena known in some circles as "Sticktion". >>It's greater than Friction, but is the force to break loose from a static >>position. I'm not sure I'm clear on that, but think of it as what is >>happening when you start to shove a large object, it resists till it >>starts to move, then slides with only it's normal friction. This is >>happening at all the bearings in the scale. >>mike > Same here - Escali scale, going up to 6000 g when measuring small amounts of seeds/salt etc. in range below/around 10 g hangs at times and is inaccurate in that stage. Solution: for those amounts/weights a smaller scale sensitive to 1/10 g, max 500 g works fine. Samartha remove "-nospam" when replying, and it's in my email address |
James wrote: > I put a little bowl on the scales, zeroed them, and then started > pouring salt into the bowl until they read 10g. I thought the quantity > looked a bit much, so I took the bowl off the scales and put it back > on, and the scales read 14g. I poured the salt out of the bowl and put > the bowl back on the scales, and they read 0g. I dumped the salt back > into the bowl all in one go and the scales read 14g again! I tried the > whole procedure several times and got the same behaviour. Dave wrote: > I agree with Mike here, and have seen the same effect, to a small > extent. I have never had to remove and replace the bowl, though: Try > tapping, or applying slight pressure to the deck with a fingertip, and > reading after it settles back to "normal". This phenomenon is likely > one of the details that separates the cheap scales from the dear... There was a recent thread about this that you can read on Google: <http://www.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=8g5710dtfmirt9hupk5s247ofktfvpvgd 1%404ax.com> or <http://tinyurl.com/65oh4> Someone posted with the same problem about a Salter scale and basically everyone blasted him and said he didn't know what he was talking about. I have a 5-lb. Pelouze scale that works fine. I wanted a 10-lb. one, so I bought a Salter because it was very plain and simple and had a large platform. As I used it, though, it seemed to me that when I was adding things like non-fat milk powder, or potato flour -- things that I use about an ounce of, and sprinkle into the bowl -- that I was sprinkling far longer than I used to. I remembered the thread about Salter scales and ran some experiments, and found that the original poster was entirely correct. If you add an ingredient slowly, the scale will not register it properly. Weigh a bowl of oat flakes. Then, empty the bowl and slowly add that same amount of oat flakes back in. It will not register the correct weight. Some people have suggested that this is due to some kind of "sticking" problem with the scale's mechanism, but this is not true. When you're finished with the experiment and take the bowl off the scale, it returns not to zero but to a negative value. Stickiness can't account for that. I returned the Salter and bought another Pelouze, the 10-lb. capacity. These scales are available in the USA at some of the large office-supply stores, such as Staples, Office Depot, or Office Max. Sandy |
James wrote: > I put a little bowl on the scales, zeroed them, and then started > pouring salt into the bowl until they read 10g. I thought the quantity > looked a bit much, so I took the bowl off the scales and put it back > on, and the scales read 14g. I poured the salt out of the bowl and put > the bowl back on the scales, and they read 0g. I dumped the salt back > into the bowl all in one go and the scales read 14g again! I tried the > whole procedure several times and got the same behaviour. Dave wrote: > I agree with Mike here, and have seen the same effect, to a small > extent. I have never had to remove and replace the bowl, though: Try > tapping, or applying slight pressure to the deck with a fingertip, and > reading after it settles back to "normal". This phenomenon is likely > one of the details that separates the cheap scales from the dear... There was a recent thread about this that you can read on Google: <http://www.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=8g5710dtfmirt9hupk5s247ofktfvpvgd 1%404ax.com> or <http://tinyurl.com/65oh4> Someone posted with the same problem about a Salter scale and basically everyone blasted him and said he didn't know what he was talking about. I have a 5-lb. Pelouze scale that works fine. I wanted a 10-lb. one, so I bought a Salter because it was very plain and simple and had a large platform. As I used it, though, it seemed to me that when I was adding things like non-fat milk powder, or potato flour -- things that I use about an ounce of, and sprinkle into the bowl -- that I was sprinkling far longer than I used to. I remembered the thread about Salter scales and ran some experiments, and found that the original poster was entirely correct. If you add an ingredient slowly, the scale will not register it properly. Weigh a bowl of oat flakes. Then, empty the bowl and slowly add that same amount of oat flakes back in. It will not register the correct weight. Some people have suggested that this is due to some kind of "sticking" problem with the scale's mechanism, but this is not true. When you're finished with the experiment and take the bowl off the scale, it returns not to zero but to a negative value. Stickiness can't account for that. I returned the Salter and bought another Pelouze, the 10-lb. capacity. These scales are available in the USA at some of the large office-supply stores, such as Staples, Office Depot, or Office Max. Sandy |
At 11:05 PM 8/27/2004, Sandy wrote:
.... >Some people have suggested that this is due to some kind of "sticking" >problem with the scale's mechanism, but this is not true. When you're >finished with the experiment and take the bowl off the scale, it returns >not to zero but to a negative value. Stickiness can't account for that. Just FYI - mine returns to zero, IMO it _is_ a friction overcome latency with small weight changes and my solution to use a different scale for small weights works. Samartha remove "-nospam" when replying, and it's in my email address |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:30 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FoodBanter