d milton on thu 8 dec 05
I am looking for some feedback on a triple beam scale vs. a digital scale
for weighing both 300 gram test batches and 3000 gram buckets. Is one a
better choice than the other? What do you typically look for when selecting
a good triple beam or digital scale? I am in the market for a scale for my
glaze pantry and am curious as to what others think. Any thoughts would be
much appreciated! Thanks so much!
Paul Lewing on fri 9 dec 05
I'm a fan of triple beam balances myself. I've used a variety of digital
ones when doing workshops in various places around the country, and I find
them to be slow and awkward. They may be more accurate for weighing very
tiny amounts, but for what you're doing, you can get as precise as you'll
ever need with a good triple beam. I think what may be more important is
using the same scale all the time.
Paul Lewing, Seattle
Mike Juengling on fri 9 dec 05
Hi, I am just a weekend warrior, but I think I will offer my two cents on
this one. I purchased a Sunbeam Digital Postal Scale a few years ago and I
think it was a great purchase. It has a capacity of 5lbs or 2.2kg and is
accurate to .1 oz or 1 gram. It has a zero or tare adjustment to allow for
the container. The capacity is way more than I have needed to weigh out
individual ingredients for mixing glazes in the quantities I prepare (2 1/2
to 5 gal). The best part is that I paid about $45 or $50 for it at one of
the big office supply stores. I just looked in my Staples catalogue and
found a similar scale for $66.15 and a 10 lb model for $73.49. Compared to
the triple beam devices I have seen at twice the price is seems like a no
brainier.
-Mike
Bruce Girrell on fri 9 dec 05
>I am looking for some feedback on a triple beam scale vs. a digital scale
>for weighing both 300 gram test batches and 3000 gram buckets.
1) A triple beam will typically be cheaper for the same accuracy.
2) A digital that weighs 3000g will most likely have an accuracy of 1 gram
whereas a scale built for 300g capacity will have an accuracy of 0.1g. Keep
in mind that while you may need to weigh out 2500g of feldspar, you may need
only 5g of cobalt oxide, maybe even much less for a small test batch. A
digital scale with 1g accuracy will read 4, 5, or 6 grams with no other
indication whatsoever in between. I don't consider 1g accuracy adequate for
small batches. One possible solution is to have two scales, one for the bulk
ingredients and one for the trace ingredients. Don't get too hung up on the
precision, though, because there will always be other sources of
uncertainty, such as losses during screening.
3) The current max for a what I would hazard to say is the most popular
Ohaus triple beam is 2600g with an accuracy of 0.1g.
4) Digital scales can be tared with the touch of a button while taring a
triple beam usually takes several attempts. If you buy a triple beam always
get the tare beam option.
5) Settling time for digital scales is much faster. Settling time represents
a significant fraction of the time that you spend weighing.
6) Quality in either case is going to cost you, but will be worth the cost.
Bruce "hope that helps" Girrell
steve graber on fri 9 dec 05
this discussion went on a rec.crafts.pottery postings years back. i have a triple beam scale, and don't use it because i don't like fussing with it & my glasses aren't too good.
digital is easy enough to use that you WILL use it.
some talk went on that people might buy digital scales from police stations as confiscated material from drug raids. some police stations do sell this equipment, some don't. the policy of those who don't is that they don't want the equipment falling back into the trade they got it from.
still, there are places to get digital equipment for cheaper then full price. many companies use digital scales to measure out parts in inventory. there may be a company around you that have old scales to buy used. ~ or e-bay...
see ya
steve
d milton wrote:
I am looking for some feedback on a triple beam scale vs. a digital scale
for weighing both 300 gram test batches and 3000 gram buckets. Is one a
better choice than the other? What do you typically look for when selecting
a good triple beam or digital scale? I am in the market for a scale for my
glaze pantry and am curious as to what others think. Any thoughts would be
much appreciated! Thanks so much!
______________________________________________________________________________
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.
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Shopping
Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping
Carole Fox on sat 10 dec 05
On Fri, 9 Dec 2005 11:06:21 -0500, Bruce Girrell wrote:
>6) Quality in either case is going to cost you, but will be worth the
cost.
>
I bought a My Weigh brand triple beam balance a couple of years ago for
significantly less than the Ohaus. Have not had any problems with it, and
it is accurate. Think I paid about $79 for the balance and the add-on
weights as a set. You can buy from a number of internet sources - here's
the one I used:
http://www.oldwillknott.com/
Carole Fox
Dayton, OH
Steve Irvine on sat 10 dec 05
If durability is an issue then the triple beam scale is probably the better choice. It's obviously a
much simpler technology with fewer parts to break down, and no batteries to replace. The Ohaus
triple beam scale I was using yesterday is the very same one I was using in 1967, and it still works
like new.
Digital scales have an efficiency advantage if you want to find the weight of an already exisiting
object. For example, a few weeks back I was helping some friends with bird banding at a nature
observatory at the north end of the Bruce Peninsula. Getting an accurate weight for scores of birds
took just 2 or 3 seconds for each bird. This would have been a very tedious job with a triple beam
scale. But, when approaching a job from the other way around, i.e. setting an established weight
and adding material to reach it (as in mixing glazes) the two scale systems are comparable.
A good triple beam scale is a once in a lifetime purchase and worth the extra initial expense.
Steve
http://www.steveirvine.com
Murry Gans on sat 10 dec 05
The answer to your question depends on how much acurracy you require and how
much money you want to spend. Digital scales will allow your to measure to
the 1/10th, 1/100th, or even 1/1000th of a gram. The more acurracy, the
more expensive the scale. I teach science so most of the digital scales we
use have a maximum of 300 grams. With an accuracy of 1/100th of a gram they
cost us about $300 dollars. I suspect a digital scale for 3000 grams (3 kg)
is going to be expensive.
Triple beam scales generally are only going to give you an accuracy of
1/10th of a gram, but are much, much cheaper. You can get extra weights to
increase the range of the scale, but I don't know about 3 kg.
Basically, the mechanical triple beam is going to be less expensive than the
electronic digital scale.
Murry Gans
>From: d milton
>Reply-To: Clayart
>To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
>Subject: triple beam scales vs. digital scales... what do you all think?
>Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 22:51:33 -0500
>
>I am looking for some feedback on a triple beam scale vs. a digital scale
>for weighing both 300 gram test batches and 3000 gram buckets. Is one a
>better choice than the other? What do you typically look for when selecting
>a good triple beam or digital scale? I am in the market for a scale for my
>glaze pantry and am curious as to what others think. Any thoughts would be
>much appreciated! Thanks so much!
>
>______________________________________________________________________________
>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.
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
Chris Schafale on sun 11 dec 05
There's no need to be limited to what will fit in the scoop, either. I
weigh the larger quantities using an ice cream bucket. My Ohaus will go up
to 2610 grams with the extra weights, and I can fit that much of most
anything in the bucket. It does require re-taring when you change
containers, but this is not such a big deal -- much easier than weighing
three pans full of the same material because it won't all fit in the
standard scoop.
Chris
>With denser materials, you can even fit 1500 grams in the Ohaus scoop.
louroess2210 on sun 11 dec 05
On Dec 9, 2005, at 10:07 PM, Paul Lewing wrote:
> I'm a fan of triple beam balances myself. I've used a variety of
> digital
> ones when doing workshops in various places around the country, and
> I find
> them to be slow and awkward. They may be more accurate for
> weighing very
> tiny amounts,
Paul, to the contrary, use the digital to weigh the larger amounts,
because with the tare function you can weigh out 1500 gms,, for
instance, in one operation . With the triple beam it would take three.
Use the balance beam for the small amounts where a "pinch" of
something will move the pointer, often quite a bit..
A digital that weighs to within plus or minus one or two grams will
not cost that much and will be fine for larger amounts.
.If you have a balance beam you don't need a digital that weighs to
tenths or hundredths of a gram. The ideal situation , of course,
would be to have both.
Regards, Lou in Colorado
Celeste Sabel on sun 11 dec 05
I originally purchased a digital scale. What I found was -- once it quit
working, that was it. No repair could be done. Now I have a triple beam
which I like much better. Much more precise measurements and I don't have to
worry that it will just stop working for no apparent reason.
Celeste Sabel, Montgomery, AL
>From: d milton
>Reply-To: Clayart
>To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
>Subject: triple beam scales vs. digital scales... what do you all think?
>Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 22:51:33 -0500
>
>I am looking for some feedback on a triple beam scale vs. a digital scale
>for weighing both 300 gram test batches and 3000 gram buckets. Is one a
>better choice than the other? What do you typically look for when selecting
>a good triple beam or digital scale? I am in the market for a scale for my
>glaze pantry and am curious as to what others think. Any thoughts would be
>much appreciated! Thanks so much!
>
>______________________________________________________________________________
>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.
Maurice Weitman on sun 11 dec 05
Far be it from me to dain to disagree with such clayart luminaries as
Paul Lewing and Steve Irvine.
AND... as a disclaimer, I haven't got near the mileage of many others
with a triple-beam. And some might say something about my being a
digital dude. Well... maybe. But I wear an analog watch, and I love
my LPs and turntable as much as, if not more than CDs. (More on my
iPod later.)
BUT... for the life of me, having used a digital scale for two years,
I cannot imagine why anyone would have any objections to owning and
using one.
Aside from the speed with which one can weigh out material, it's very
beneficial:
- to be able to watch the weight increase in a linear fashion as
opposed to nothing happening until the end with a beam balance.
- to instantly be able to tare an existing load.
- to instantly be able to switch between grams, pounds, pounds and
ounces, and ounces.
Most decent digital scales can be recalibrated with known weights very simply.
Anyone want to buy an Ohaus triple beam scale?
Regards,
Maurice
Ever wonder what 2000 looks like?
ps I was deeply hurt, even outraged, to see the personal attack on
Phil last night. I think there's no reason to EVER see anything like
that on this list. I hope Mel simply missed the message and didn't
condone the message.
Sam Kelly on sun 11 dec 05
triple beam scales for tests is a must, I am a glaze on glaze freak and
have done in excess of 359 test this year, I would not consider anything
else.
Digital scales to 3kg is all you will need to make the glaze batches, one
that measures in gram incraments, some measure in 10gram incraments, this
is not fine enough.
Sam
Jeremy/Bonnie Hellman on sun 11 dec 05
You can also buy a set of weights that allow a triple beam balance to go up
to 1500 grams, if your container can hold that much. About 7 years ago I
bought a set of weights, one at 1,000 grams, and 2 of 500 grams each. These
are counterweights that hang on an Ohaus, much as the little weight that
offsets the weight of their plastic bin that sits on the "input" arm of the
beam.
You can see these at the top of the page at:
http://www.standardceramic.com/tools.html#Ohause%20Balances
Standard Ceramics of Pittsburgh sells the 1,000 gram weight for $16.
With denser materials, you can even fit 1500 grams in the Ohaus scoop.
In addition to my Ohaus, I have a digital scale accurate to 2 grams, good
for larger quantities of materials. I like them both. A friend has a digital
scale that is accurate to 1/10th of a gram only up to a few hundred grams
total, and that was great when using small quantities.
If money were no object, I'd want a digital scale that was accurate to
1/10th to 1/100th of a gram, and could measure up to several thousand grams.
Bonnie
Bonnie Hellman
----- Original Message -----
From: "louroess2210"
To:
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 12:33 PM
Subject: Re: triple beam scales vs. digital scales... what do you all think?
> On Dec 9, 2005, at 10:07 PM, Paul Lewing wrote:
>
>> I'm a fan of triple beam balances myself. I've used a variety of
>> digital
>> ones when doing workshops in various places around the country, and
>> I find
>> them to be slow and awkward. They may be more accurate for
>> weighing very
>> tiny amounts,
>
> Paul, to the contrary, use the digital to weigh the larger amounts,
> because with the tare function you can weigh out 1500 gms,, for
> instance, in one operation . With the triple beam it would take three.
> Use the balance beam for the small amounts where a "pinch" of
> something will move the pointer, often quite a bit..
> A digital that weighs to within plus or minus one or two grams will
> not cost that much and will be fine for larger amounts.
> .If you have a balance beam you don't need a digital that weighs to
> tenths or hundredths of a gram. The ideal situation , of course,
> would be to have both.
> Regards, Lou in Colorado
>
> ______________________________________________________________________________
> 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.
Bonnie Staffel on sun 11 dec 05
In response to this question, thought I would add my 2 cents worth. I
have a triple beam Ohaus scale that I have used for many years. It
never fails me that I know of. However, occasionally I have to mix up a
very large batch of basic glaze and the container that comes with the
Ohaus just isn't sufficient. So in our early days of scrounging for
equipment, a local bakery went out of business and we bought an antique
balance scale with the weights. It had a generous pan and have used
that for a number of years for this big batch of glaze. It has always
been OK too. Then when on a trip to the UP during a fall color trip,
stayed in Ishpeming overnight. Went for a walk through the town and saw
an A&P store was closing and selling their equipment. They had a nice
butcher scale with a large pan and an easily read scale so we bought it
for $50. Didn't have the cash on us and they wouldn't take our credit
card or check. 'First and only time we ever withdrew cash on our credit
card. It also served us well and when I moved to NC I took it with me.
I then gave or sold it to a potter friend down there when I was on the
move again. Still sorry that I did as it was a neat scale. In the
meantime, I have also used a digital scale and really found it to be off
weight especially when doing test glazes with small amounts of color. =20
I still use my antique bakery scale. It is one heavy piece of equipment
and I had to change my recipe to pounds and ounces in order to use it,
same with the A&P scale. My glaze tests are few and far between
nowadays My interests lie mainly on pit firing. =20
My advice is to look around for going-out-of-business sales of food
handlers and you might pick up a nice scale for little money. =20
http://webpages.charter.net/bstaffel/
DVD=A0 Throwing with Coils and Slabs
DVD=A0 Beginning Processes (New potters, you might check this out as =
it
contains many neat easy projects for beginners.)
Charter Member Potters Council
Eric Suchman on sun 11 dec 05
I bought an Ohaus triple beam on eBay for 40 bucks with the tare and
the additional weight set. The digital models I looked at were
considerably more expensive both new and on eBay. I'm very impressed
with the accuracy of the digital models but question just how
accurate we need to be especially in the larger volumes. I had a
balance beam before my triple beam and really love both now. A
balance beam is a really good way to go if you can find a nice one
that weighs large amounts, (used, probably antique).
The digitals are seductive but I think I prefer the mechanical at
this point in my career.
Eric in Oceanside
On Dec 11, 2005, at 1:33 PM, Sam Kelly wrote:
> triple beam scales for tests is a must, I am a glaze on glaze freak
> and
> have done in excess of 359 test this year, I would not consider
> anything
> else.
> Digital scales to 3kg is all you will need to make the glaze
> batches, one
> that measures in gram incraments, some measure in 10gram
> incraments, this
> is not fine enough.
>
> Sam
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> ________
> 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.
| |
|
