Skip to main content
7 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Jul 26, 2023 at 13:53 comment added David Bailey @Markoul11 Before taking that message home, you may want to consider that the most accurate "balance" in existence – the Kibble or Watt balance – is actually "a double-arm weighing scale".
Jul 25, 2023 at 17:27 comment added Markoul11 So the message to take home is that a good balance is always more accurate and reliable than a scale.
Jul 24, 2023 at 19:02 comment added DKNguyen @Markoul11 Yeah. Chief among which is that it assumes linearity. So technically you would need a series of reference weights and graph out things on a graph. Then you weigh your actual mass and find where it lies along that curve and interpolate. That's the problem with a scale or any device that outputs a reading across a range of values. You don't have linearity problems with differential measurements because there is no range. Your range is literally the single point where your all you reference masses equal your test mass.
Jul 24, 2023 at 16:40 comment added Markoul11 Of course a solution would be to input manually the nominal value of a calibration weight put on the scale even if it reads different in the scale per location latitude you are currently and hope that the nominal value stated for the mass of the callibration weight (possible measured with a balance) is accurate. So for example if a calibration weight says it is 500g, you calibrate your digital scale if there is an option via manual typeset input to 500g even if it reads out for example 498.44 at your location. However, all other possible systematic errors of scales still apply.
Jul 22, 2023 at 9:59 comment added Markoul11 Yes differential measurements are always better since they eliminate systematic errors.
Jul 22, 2023 at 1:31 history edited DKNguyen CC BY-SA 4.0
added 225 characters in body
Jul 22, 2023 at 1:25 history answered DKNguyen CC BY-SA 4.0