# Old balance scale compared to digital



## Ajmassa (Aug 3, 2017)

Been doing a job at a catholic girls HS all summer. Renovating The chapel, guidance office, bookstore and now the Chemistry/Robotics/Physics lab. 

There's a ton of old equipment they are getting rid of and was told I could grab a few things. I was happy with just a couple beakers and such. But what do you think about one of these scales? I don't even own a digital scale and have just been wingin it with a 1/4 tsp measuring spoon and my eyeball. 

Are these types more or less accurate than digital? I think it'd be pretty cool looking as part of my setup at the very least --but am I wasting my time thinking about using this????


----------



## Kraffty (Aug 3, 2017)

They are Very accurate, we have few floating around here that we used to mix Printing inks. They were very expensive when new.
Great grab.
Mike


----------



## Ajmassa (Aug 3, 2017)

Kraffty said:


> They are Very accurate, we have few floating around here that we used to mix Printing inks. They were very expensive when new.
> Great grab.
> Mike




Thought so. To me, it would be easier to trust a balancing scale. The "hanging" one pictured has measurement to the hundredth. But then second guessed myself thinking nobody ever uses these types. 
Unfortunately there's no old Vinmetricas or destem/crushers or presses laying around the science lab.


----------



## dcbrown73 (Aug 3, 2017)

Agreed, nice grab!


----------



## mikewatkins727 (Aug 3, 2017)

The OHAUS triple beam is what I used when I had my print shop some 25 years ago. I still have it and use it in my wine making. Kraffty is right, pricey when new and that's why I kept it. They are accurate.

The other Mike


----------



## ibglowin (Aug 3, 2017)

Those are sorta like a cassette player from the 70's. Yea it will work OK but for $15 you can now get a digital one that will fit in the palm of your hand and be deadly accurate to 0.01 grams which is where most home winemakers are working these days.

And it sounds better than the cassette tape!


----------



## Ajmassa (Aug 3, 2017)

ibglowin said:


> Those are sorta like a cassette player from the 70's. Yea it will work OK but for $15 you can now get a digital one that will fit in the palm of your hand and be deadly accurate to 0.01 grams which is where most home winemakers are working these days.
> 
> And it sounds better than the cassette tape!



Thanks a lot Debbie Downer! But nobody keeps a cassette deck around for appearance or quality. I'm thinking vinyl would be a more accurate analogy. 

This will work well, and even looks good amongst the equipment, just like turntables! Plus it's free, and right in front of me, which is really the only reason this came up.


----------



## ibglowin (Aug 3, 2017)

The cassette tape was a huge improvement over the vinyl LP in so many ways. Very much like the triple beam balance was a huge leap in technology over old school pan balances.

In the end in this instance its how accurate it weighs. Not how "cool" it looks on your shelf or the fact that it was "free".........



Ajmassa5983 said:


> Thanks a lot Debbie Downer! But nobody keeps a cassette deck around for appearance or quality. I'm thinking vinyl would be a more accurate analogy.
> 
> This will work well, and even looks good amongst the equipment, just like turntables! Plus it's free, and right in front of me, which is really the only reason this came up.


----------



## Kraffty (Aug 3, 2017)

It will weigh a couple of pounds of sugar which would crush the pocket size digital scale though.


----------



## Ajmassa (Aug 3, 2017)

ibglowin said:


> In the end in this instance its how accurate it weighs. Not how "cool" it looks on your shelf or the fact that it was "free".........



For a scale? Cool, free and 'close enough' works for me. For bigger home wine operations I totally agree. But I'm not making wine like some of you are. I'm content with a few kits and 5-15 gal of fresh grapes and juice once or twice a year. So any type of scale isn't even all that necessary for me anyway. 
As much as I enjoy making wine (even obsess sometimes), and strive to get better, this is still very much a hobby for me.


----------



## Boatboy24 (Aug 3, 2017)

Ajmassa5983 said:


> For a scale? Cool, free and 'close enough' works for me. For bigger home wine operations I totally agree. But I'm not making wine like some of you are. I'm content with a few kits and 5-15 gal of fresh grapes and juice once or twice a year. So any type of scale isn't even all that necessary for me anyway.
> As much as I enjoy making wine (even obsess sometimes), and strive to get better, this is still very much a hobby for me.



You have to remember, Mike is a chemist. So he's probably a little anal about precise measurements.


----------



## sour_grapes (Aug 3, 2017)

Well, the modern digital scale is just so _easy._ For ~$10, it nearly instantly reads the weight down to small amounts, in any units you want. I can put some Al foil on it, then hit the tare button to rezero, then add my tannin powder -- easy-peasy. I use mine in grams for winemaking, and then switch it to oz. for cooking (and then troy ounces for melting down stolen gold.... wait, was that last part out loud?). It is so easy and convenient I cannot imagine going to an old triple-beam balance.

PS -- AJ, did you have Mr. Schwartz? He was the one that taught me to use the triple-beam balance in the first place.

He was a great teacher, but I had a funny experience with him. I had had him for both IPS and Physics, and thought he as a fantastic teacher. Years later, I went back to visit Judge, and sought him out, thanked him, and told him that I had gone on to get a PhD in physics. He was like "Oh, that's nice. Well, I gotta go." He seemed very uninterested, which surprised the hell out me!


----------



## ibglowin (Aug 3, 2017)

True story, I rescued one of these from the dumpsters back in the early 90's........







This is a conversation piece for sure for anyone who comes into the winery. 

That said, I use a $15 digital micro scale because it is dead on accurate especially in the region I am weighing in as most amateur winemakers are (100 - 5000 mg)


----------



## Kraffty (Aug 3, 2017)

I'll play devil's advocate here and bet anyone here that if you place a tiny amount of Chems on a 15.00 scale 5 times you'll get at least 3 different numbers


----------



## ibglowin (Aug 3, 2017)

Nope. Guarantee it will read the same 10 times. They are that good.



Kraffty said:


> I'll play devil's advocate here and bet anyone here that if you place a tiny amount of Chems on a 15.00 scale 5 times you'll get at least 3 different numbers


----------



## Kraffty (Aug 3, 2017)

Testing challenge accepted. Results tomorrow on my $22.00 scale. .005 grams fair enough number?


----------



## sour_grapes (Aug 4, 2017)

Oooh, I just realized that I could rescue one like that myself. Do I even WANT to? Conversation piece? Check. Clutter? Also check....


----------



## balatonwine (Aug 4, 2017)

sour_grapes said:


> Well, the modern digital scale is just so _easy._



True.

But it is also easier to simply go down to the store and buy a bottle of wine than to make one. 

Each to their own what parts of the wine making process they find enjoyable and why.


----------



## balatonwine (Aug 4, 2017)

ibglowin said:


> True story, I rescued one of these from the dumpsters back in the early 90's........



I like watching Jay Leno's Garage because he does not simply restore his cars, he *drives them*!

If I had a scale like that I would absolutely use it.


----------



## NorCal (Aug 4, 2017)

I love tools with a story. My garage is full of them. Don't get me started in my vice. I say keep them and enjoy the story every time you use them.


----------



## sour_grapes (Aug 4, 2017)

balatonwine said:


> True.
> 
> But it is also easier to simply go down to the store and buy a bottle of wine than to make one.
> 
> Each to their own what parts of the wine making process they find enjoyable and why.



True. But I will remind you that the actual questions the OP asked were whether this scale was accurate and whether he would be _wasting time_ using it.


----------



## ibglowin (Aug 4, 2017)

Off today and had a few minutes to do this quick experiment. I purchased this AWS Digital Scale from Amazon back in June 2011. Paid $13.99 back then. Same scale is now only $10.99. At the same time I purchased a AWS Calibration Weight Set for $11. IIRC I calibrated the scale when I first got it and have not messed with it since. I am still using the same battery that I installed 6 years ago. I use plastic weigh boats when I measure out my chems but I don't always hit the boat and I don't always wipe it down afterwards. Most of the time I just close the lid and put it back on the shelf.

I did a series of 10 weighings. I did not calibrate the scale today. Just turned it on, tared it and grabbed the 500mg weight from the weight set and placed it on the scale, let it set for 15-30 seconds and recorded the weight. Then picked it up with the included tweezers waited for it to read 0.00 and repeated.

Happy to report I got 10 readings of 0.50gm = 500mg. A couple of times it read 0.49gm at first but then always rolled over to 0.50gm after 20-30 seconds.

Still one of the best purchases I have ever made for the winery. Accurate, lightening fast to set up and use, takes up no space........ 





Kraffty said:


> Testing challenge accepted. Results tomorrow on my $22.00 scale. .005 grams fair enough number?


----------



## Kraffty (Aug 4, 2017)

@ibglowin - 1st off, I stand corrected, I too have the day off and for the life of me couldn't get my digital to give me inconsistent readings. I also have to say thanks for the tutorial on how to use the scale, it never dawned on me that the first number that popped up would have to "settle in". I also didn't consider that my scale reads in increments of .001 and vibrations from the AC and breezes from the ceiling fan would cause the numbers to bounce around.

So...listen up kids....THAT is exactly the reason Graphic Artists don't bet Scientists over technical issues.
Nice call,
Mike


----------



## ibglowin (Aug 4, 2017)

ROTFL.......

Yep, any air movement on an open top balance will mess with your readings big time. Our scales at work are up to 5 decimal places, are all enclosed with doors that open on the sides and the top. And cost close to $5K........ 



Kraffty said:


> I also didn't consider that my scale reads in increments of .001 and vibrations from the AC and breezes from the ceiling fan would cause the numbers to bounce around.
> 
> So...listen up kids....THAT is exactly the reason Graphic Artists don't bet Scientists over technical issues.
> Nice call,
> Mike


----------



## stickman (Aug 4, 2017)

I've been using this one since 1990 and it is a 1980's model, over $1,100 back in the day, only one decimal place on the gram scale, but it is adequate for my purposes. It's been heavily used and left plugged-in months at a time. I've never had any problems, though I'm surprised it still works given the age, very well made in USA. I'm sure it will burn out the moment I post this.


----------



## balatonwine (Aug 5, 2017)

sour_grapes said:


> But I will remind you that the actual questions the OP asked were whether this scale was accurate and whether he would be _wasting time_ using it.



Remind me? What an odd comment. 

For one thing, I did not directly comment on the accuracy of the scales because that I considered settled. That is, manual scales, if functioning withing factory tolerances, are of course indisputably accurate, especially for the scale of accuracy and precision needed for a home winemaker. 

And I certainly did indeed answer the _wasting time_ issue by pointing out the concept is actually a relative issue, not an absolute one and one should be cautious treating it as if it were an absolute issue. 

So to be more specific, if someone *else* enjoys watching grass grow he is *not* _wasting *his* time_ from his position, even if *you* think he is _wasting time_ from your position. 

For a wine making example, I think stirring wine to degas is a complete waste of my time. I just let time itself take care of that on its own, while go do something which I consider a better use of my time, such as watching grass grow. If others want to spend time manually degassing, that is their decision to consider it not a waste of their time regardless of what I think and, most importantly, is none of my business (even if I think they really are missing out on some amazing grass growing moments). 

One might even argue, that in a broader context, considering it takes a lot of work and time to make wine, taking one minute compared to two seconds to weigh something is so insignificant relative to the total time investment as to be a non-issue. But that is also just another relative view (for example, at some scale of production one minute is not just a waste of time, but might become a huge waste of money). Which is why I said, each to their own what each considers time well spent, versus as a waste of time, because while opinions abound, there is no universal right answer for everyone.


----------



## balatonwine (Aug 5, 2017)

Kraffty said:


> my scale reads in increments of .001 and vibrations from the AC and breezes from the ceiling fan would cause the numbers to bounce around.



For what it is worth, the rules of measurement precision and significant figures will help determine which digit beyond the decimal one needs to be concerned about and when. So "bounce" from the AC might not even matter out to 0.00X g.


----------



## Mismost (Aug 5, 2017)

beam or digital, you need a set of check weights...at least one. Trust, after you verify.


----------



## sour_grapes (Aug 5, 2017)

balatonwine said:


> Remind me? What an odd comment.



Sorry -- I must have misinterpreted your earlier comment. It seemed to me that you were criticizing or even rebuking me for giving the OP the advice that he asked for. I am happy to learn that I was mistaken.


----------



## Ajmassa (Aug 6, 2017)

Well this thread got pretty interesting. I've been extremely busy the last few days, so this was nice little gem to come across. 



ibglowin said:


> Nope. Guarantee it will read the same 10 times. They are that good.



I've noticed that When you have a strong strong stance on a topic, whatever the topic might be, it is never without merit. And I completely can empathize the frustration when being told something different than what you know to be true. So in terms of accuracy, space saving, convenience and affordability I agree 100%. It's not really even debatable. 
I can't speak for 70s cassette/vinyl since I don't know much about them. But I can assume that you have plenty of valid reasons. I still like to throw on an old vinyl on in the wine area while I work once in a blue. Just something enjoyable about it that is hard to describe. 'Science, logic & reason' are not factors. I've got some wine with me and some at my parents. Picking through records with my old man to listen to while we tend to wine is something we both appreciate. He gets to reminisce and tell stories and I get to have quality time not spent fighting with him on a jobsite. 




Kraffty said:


> Testing challenge accepted. Results tomorrow on my $22.00 scale. .005 grams fair enough number?



YES! I love a good challenge. Always have. Ya win some ya lose some. That was fun to read through. And you conceded like a man. Respect. As I said, when Mike feels strongly it's always for a damn good reason. Reminded me of an old western movie bar scene. I still like my old chem lab OHAUS though.... for now...maybe. 




sour_grapes said:


> True. But I will remind you that the actual questions the OP asked were whether this scale was accurate and whether he would be _wasting time_ using it.



C'mone Paul, you know better. Convos can evolve. While reading I kinda thought my original questions were answered as well. Reading text without hearing tones and body language often leads to misinterpretations. Tho I always appreciate when someone reels back in a thread if it's gone off the rails. 
So here's what I now know having done ZERO research and just talking to you guys:
-Digital scales are just as accurate if not 
more accurate. For my needs either scale 
would be as precise as I would ever need 
them to be. 
-it does take extra time for balance scale. 
Though time is relative. So "time wasted" is 
different person to person. The extra 
minute(s) is not a worry yet, but the space 
this old lovable clunker takes up might be. 
-and nobody questioned the OHAUS reading 
the same number 10x in a row I noticed. 

And fwiw I didn't intend "waste of time" to be taken literally. What that meant was "is there some reason i am unaware of for why these scales are not used in winemaking situations?" For instance: "hey I was just offered tons free sanitizing solution. It's liquid chlorox bleach. Whatya think?" 
Also, your physics teacher sounds like jerk. Or as my dad would say, "he's a real crumb". Even if I'm having a horrible day, I'll still be polite to anyone who approaches me kindly with good intentions. Schwartz was not there by late 90's. I'll try an dig up a faculty list from 80' and find any shared teachers. Btw, these scales are from up the street at St Huberts. 




balatonwine said:


> Each to their own what parts of the wine making process they find enjoyable and why.



Well said. Each to their own. Different strokes different folks. I actually enjoyed watching my grass grow as a teenager once. I had 'grass' planted in a hidden location in the park, and every day after school I'd go and check the progress and water. Lol 
But seriously sometimes I enjoy making wine or growing herbs and spices and all the TLC involved more than drinking or using the finished product. For me, the journey can be more enjoyable than the destination. 



NorCal said:


> I love tools with a story. My garage is full of them. Don't get me started in my vice. I say keep them and enjoy the story every time you use them.



Most definitely. I can relate. When my grandfather passed, who was also a carpenter by trade, we kept most of his tools. Certain hand tools I use now were his, with his initials carved on em. His stick ruler is old and faded but I still prefer it over any other. 
It's just a matter of whether the 'juice is worth the squeeze' or not. I'm not going to use equipment or tools of importance that have a cool story if it could jeopardize quality. Function over fashion tends to prevail in that case. 
Also, I'm now super curious about that vice. 

So with these scales, I don't feel strongly on either side of the fence. I saw em, thought it was interesting and figured 'why not?' I'll use it. (Only took home the hanging scale that had more precise measurements.) If it ends up being a huge pain I wouldn't think twice to pick up a digital, which I thought even before the entertaining "weigh-off".


----------



## ibglowin (Aug 6, 2017)

Well said Andrew. BTW, nothing wrong with old school. We go old school every weekend around here as well.


----------



## NorCal (Aug 6, 2017)

I placed an ad in Craigslist, wanted Big Vice. Guy responds, his grandfather just passed, he was a machinist. The grandson had no appreciation for what this vice was, nor what it was worth. I gave it a much better home and appreciate the great tool that it is.


----------



## Johny99 (Aug 6, 2017)

I used my triple beam balance yesterday to adjust meta. Yes, lots of good cheap digital out there and I confess to using one during harvest. Maybe it is nostalgia, or knowledge that it was made to do a quality job in the days before everything could be pressed on a microchip. Or just maybe cause when I learned my chemistry with a similar scale were the days when we wondered if we were going to Vietnam Nam and I remember the guys in lab. Just feels right, and really, that is all that matters.


----------

