D. L. Engle on tue 29 may 07
Hi everyone,
Just got a sale notice, $80 (if any one happens to be looking for one)
http://sargentwelch.com/default.asp?sid=may29ohaus
Best Wishes, Debbie
dwichman@frontiernet.net on tue 29 may 07
I received the same notice and saw the scale has 650 gram capacity.
I am thinking of beginning to experiment with making glazes and was
wondering what sort of size batches would this scale be appropriate
for? For instance, 1, 5, or 10 lb batches? I am not familiar with
the different capacity of scales available.
Thanks!
Debi Wichman
Cookeville, TN
http:\\www.elementterra.com
.......................................
"Hi everyone,
Just got a sale notice, $80 (if any one happens to be looking for one)
http://sargentwelch.com/default.asp?sid=may29ohaus
Best Wishes, Debbie
Marcia Selsor on tue 29 may 07
Most triple beam scales that potters use have a capacity of 2110
grams with the extra weights that can be hung on the end of the balance.
..along with the counter weight for a scoop, should that be the model
you're using. That is what I am using anyway.
Marcia Selsor
http://marciaselsor.com
WJ Seidl on tue 29 may 07
Debi:
Most Ohaus scales will do (with the proper weight kit) a LOT larger than 650
grams. When you begin to ramp up, you will need the larger capacity.
Don't limit yourself by buying equipment that is too small for future needs.
Just a thought,
Wayne Seidl
dwichman@frontiernet.net wrote:
> I received the same notice and saw the scale has 650 gram capacity.
> I am thinking of beginning to experiment with making glazes and was
> wondering what sort of size batches would this scale be appropriate
> for? For instance, 1, 5, or 10 lb batches? I am not familiar with
> the different capacity of scales available.
>
> Thanks!
> Debi Wichman
> Cookeville, TN
> http:\\www.elementterra.com
Vince Pitelka on tue 29 may 07
That Ohaus seems to be the standard model #710 balance. As it comes, it has
a capacity of 610 grams (so why is it called the #710?). If you look below
and to the left of the scale on the Sargent-Welch page, you will see the
clickable link for the auxilliary weight set, which costs $35 and increases
the capacity of the scale to 2610 grams, and is obviously a necessity with
this balance. There's one 500 gram compensator weight and two 1000-gram
compensator weights, and in combination with the slide weights on the
balance beams, you can weigh any amount up to 2610 grams.
HOWEVER, this scale does not have the adjustable tare beam which is designed
to compensate for different weighing containers. I checked on line, and you
can find the Ohaus model #710-TO for about $125. It's the identical scale,
but has the tare beam. Sargent-Welch doesn't seem to carry that one.
But obviously, that's $45 bucks more. Personally, I wouldn't buy one with
the tare beam, but there is another option if you are buying this for your
own use. At the opposite end of the beam from the weighing tray, beyond the
section with the moveable weights, there is a black extension, and the
pointer is on the end of that extension. You can fabricate some small
weights that hang over that black extension and will compensate for the
various weighing containers you use. Make the weights from copper wire,
solder, or any other heavy, maleable material. There are two little pegs on
the end of the triple-beam section, and that's where the auxiliary weights
hang, so your additional compensation weights could not interfere with those
pegs. But you can make this work. I did when I had a balance without the
tare beam.
But you do need the auxiliary weight set, so you're looking at a minimum
investment of $115.
- Vince
Vince Pitelka
Appalachian Center for Craft, Tennessee Technological University
Smithville TN 37166, 615/597-6801 x111
vpitelka@dtccom.net, wpitelka@tntech.edu
http://iweb.tntech.edu/wpitelka/
http://www.tntech.edu/craftcenter/
Patrick Cross on wed 30 may 07
I suppose one question might be...Will *you* be working in a hundred years?
(I feel the same way about scales by the way. I think the tendency would be
to make fewer mistakes as well... when you can actually see how it all
works.)
Patrick Cross (cone10soda)
On 5/30/07, Paul Herman wrote:
>
> This scale
> is probably a hundred years old and still working fine. Will the
> digital scale work for a hundred years? I think not.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Paul Herman
>
> Great Basin Pottery
> Doyle, California US
> http://greatbasinpottery.com
>
>
>
John Sankey on wed 30 may 07
Why on earth would anyone put up with fiddling around with
weights in this digital age? Ohaus makes superb digital scales -
I have their 2kg by 1g model. Many are similar in price to the
beam scales and they're a treat to use. You see exactly how much
you have added as you go, so can slow down at the end. Touch the
tare button, add the next glaze ingredient with no errors from
adding or subtracting ...
I spent many years using beam scales when they were the only
accurate ones available. I'll never go back!
John Rodgers on wed 30 may 07
John,
Therre are many digital scales - the really good ones anyway - that have
a button to automatically set the tare weight into the calculations,
thus "zeroing" the scale. Very handy feature. Provides the same service
as the tare bar on the Ohaus scale. However, I actually prefer the
triple beam scale - mad scientist image and all that - but it allows me
to do things I can't very well do with a digital scale. So I stick with
the Balance beam design.
There are advantages to both.
Regards,
John Rodgers
Chelsea, AL
John Sankey wrote:
> Why on earth would anyone put up with fiddling around with
> weights in this digital age? Ohaus makes superb digital scales -
> I have their 2kg by 1g model. Many are similar in price to the
> beam scales and they're a treat to use. You see exactly how much
> you have added as you go, so can slow down at the end. Touch the
> tare button, add the next glaze ingredient with no errors from
> adding or subtracting ...
>
> I spent many years using beam scales when they were the only
> accurate ones available. I'll never go back!
>
> ______________________________________________________________________________
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at melpots@pclink.com.
>
>
>
Paul Herman on wed 30 may 07
John,
You ask: Why on earth would anyone put up with fiddling around with
> weights in this digital age?
>
I've always used balance type scales. Their advantages are that I
already have them, they are simple to understand or repair, and they
don't need batteries. Metal and weights is just so much more pleasing
than plastic and hidden electronics. I suspect the old style Ohaus is
more dependable than an electronic scale, but have never used one.
For glaze materials, I have two Ohaus scales, one 'regular' small one
that has a 610 gram capacity. For larger amounts up to 20 kilos I use
an Ohaus solution balance, which is configured just like the little
one, but costs about $500 new. I bought it at the local Army base, at
the auction for $15. It was broken and in a pile in a box, but I was
able to fix it with pieces of metal shaped crudely in my shop. The
solution balance is great if you are making buckets of glaze, only
one "weighing" per material.
So I like these balances because I can fix them, and see how they
work. A plastic electronic scale just doesn't compare at all, IMHO.
Old style balances have integrity, and style.
For clay mixing and weighing out balls of clay for throwing, I use an
old platform balance that has a capacity up to 240 pounds. This scale
is probably a hundred years old and still working fine. Will the
digital scale work for a hundred years? I think not.
Best wishes,
Paul Herman
Great Basin Pottery
Doyle, California US
http://greatbasinpottery.com
On May 30, 2007, at 4:41 AM, John Sankey wrote:
> Why on earth would anyone put up with fiddling around with
> weights in this digital age?
>
WJ Seidl on wed 30 may 07
Paul:
You are absolutely correct! Get ready!
You are about to have women everywhere falling at your feet!
Ladies! No more dieting! No more fiddling around with weight!!!
You're fine just as you are!
Paul said so.
GETE (grinning ear to ear),
Wayne Seidl
getting ready to step out of the path of the stampede to Paul's door
Paul Herman wrote:
> John,
>
> You ask: Why on earth would anyone put up with fiddling around with
>
>> weights in this digital age?
Maurice Weitman on thu 31 may 07
Hello, John, and others interested in weighty issues...
At 13:21 -0500 on 5/30/07, John Rodgers wrote:
>[...] However, I actually prefer the
>triple beam scale - mad scientist image and all that - but it allows me
>to do things I can't very well do with a digital scale.
Okay, I'll bite... what things?
>There are advantages to both.
Aside from freedom from power or batteries (and possible electronic
breakdown), what are the advantages to using a balance-beam scale?
Thanks.
Regards,
Maurice, in Fairfax, California, where it's nine days and ten minutes
from the beginning of the 30th annual Fairfax Festival Parade, which
I've run for the last eight years
. Very much looking
forward to it actually happening... kind of like a kiln opening with
a thousand happy people watching.
John Sankey on thu 31 may 07
Would the proponents of beam balances be willing to be specific
as to their advantages?
e.g., "the triple beam scale ... allows me to do things I can't
very well do with a digital scale."
I started by mentioning:
1. the ease of setting tare repeatedly with digital,
2. the rate-of-approach indication, large or small differences,
3. the increased speed ofr measurement, no weight twiddling.
As for batteries: I've had mine over 3 years, have used it
extensively to weigh everything I eat for nutrition studies
(http://sankey.ws/nutrition.html), am now using it for glaze
measurements, and am still on the original battery. If you use it
all day and changing a battery once a month (200 hours operation)
is too onerous, a 110V supply is about $10.
As for reliability, I've seen many more beam balances with
damaged knife edges than inoperative quality electronic ones like
Ohaus'.
Electronic balances are tiny compared to beams, so take less
storage space.
As for 'style', I say form follows function. If it works better,
it is better. Of course, others differ.
John
| |
|
