Digital Scales

[Paul Whiteing]

Thanks guys, I think I'll try T-cut

 

[Richard Isaacs]

T cut is ok for very small swirls and fine scratches but there is far better stuff for a proper mint job.
a good polishing compound Will take out Slightly deeper Scratches that T cut wouldn’t touch.
that plastic on the Avon’s is horrible stuff and notorious for cracking and easily scratching. A proper job would be to do away with it and replace it with a nice piece of Perspex. I’m sure something could be done to make it nicely fit and well sealed.

 

[Paul Richardson]

I carry two head torches, but wouldn't carry two sets of scales.

But just a question for anyone. Is there a way of polishing scratches (not deep ones, just general usage ones) from the lens of a set of Avons? I might get mine back into useable condition.

Hi Paul
I used a small amount of t- cut and a micro fibre cloth and the dial is certainly clear enough to read in daylight. Prior to this it was very very cloudy after 20 years of use
Could be a challenge in lamp light - will soon find out.

 

[Richard Gardiner-Smith]

Hi Paul
I used a small amount of t- cut and a micro fibre cloth and the dial is certainly clear enough to read in daylight. Prior to this it was very very cloudy after 20 years of use
Could be a challenge in lamp light - will soon find out.

If you wanted to improve it even further, you could try one of those headlight restoration kits for cars with plastic lenses - polycarbonate I think? They contain a range of grades of polishing compound. First run over it with the coarsest you’ll think “I’ve ruined it” but repeating it with increasingly fine grades polishes out anything but deepish gouges.

 

[Rob Hilton]

Interesting thread this and having owned a set of Fox Digitals for around 15 years that have never been calibrated and bounced around in the bottom of my rucksack on countless sessions, it certainly got me thinking.

I've access to a laboratory at work which has an analytical balance that is calibrated every 6 months. So, I decided to do a little experiment during my lunch hour.

I put together some packs of a product that I have access to in quantity and that I thought should be a consistent weight. I weighed ten of these packs individually on the analytical balance. They ranged from 364.3 grams to 375.8 (less than half an oz between the heaviest and lightest). The average of all ten packs was 370.04g (a fraction over 13 oz).

I weighed the packs in multiples of 2 to test the Fox Digitals over a decent range. Batteries were on 2 bars, so not new. Results are shown below.

Number of packs	Expected Weight	Fox Digital Reading
2	1 lb 10 oz	1 lb 10oz
4	3lb 4 oz	3lb 4oz
6	4 lb 14 oz	4lb 14oz
8	6lb 8 oz	6lb 8 oz
10	8lb 2 oz	8lb 2 oz
12	9 lb 12 oz	9lb 12 oz
14	11lb 6 oz	11lb 6 oz
16	13lb	13lb
18	14lb 10 oz	14lb 11 oz
20	16lb 4 oz	16lb 4 oz

Pretty conclusive to me. Even the one reading that was an ounce over was bouncing between 14.10 and 14.11.

 

[Alex Warren]

I put together some packs of a product that I have access to

How’s the weather in Columbia, Rob?

Seriously though, great post. Well tested and conclusive results indeed!

 

[Paul Whiteing]

Following email conversations with Reuben Heaton I am sending my RH9000s back for them to have a check (under warranty).

I'll report back

Meanwhile the T-cut has been out

 

[Ady Brayshaw]

Interesting thread this and having owned a set of Fox Digitals for around 15 years that have never been calibrated and bounced around in the bottom of my rucksack on countless sessions, it certainly got me thinking.

I've access to a laboratory at work which has an analytical balance that is calibrated every 6 months. So, I decided to do a little experiment during my lunch hour.

I put together some packs of a product that I have access to in quantity and that I thought should be a consistent weight. I weighed ten of these packs individually on the analytical balance. They ranged from 364.3 grams to 375.8 (less than half an oz between the heaviest and lightest). The average of all ten packs was 370.04g (a fraction over 13 oz).

I weighed the packs in multiples of 2 to test the Fox Digitals over a decent range. Batteries were on 2 bars, so not new. Results are shown below.

Number of packs	Expected Weight	Fox Digital Reading
2	1 lb 10 oz	1 lb 10oz
4	3lb 4 oz	3lb 4oz
6	4 lb 14 oz	4lb 14oz
8	6lb 8 oz	6lb 8 oz
10	8lb 2 oz	8lb 2 oz
12	9 lb 12 oz	9lb 12 oz
14	11lb 6 oz	11lb 6 oz
16	13lb	13lb
18	14lb 10 oz	14lb 11 oz
20	16lb 4 oz	16lb 4 oz

Pretty conclusive to me. Even the one reading that was an ounce over was bouncing between 14.10 and 14.11.

A nice post Rob and good to hear of their reliability.

 

[Richard Isaacs]

Interesting thread this and having owned a set of Fox Digitals for around 15 years that have never been calibrated and bounced around in the bottom of my rucksack on countless sessions, it certainly got me thinking.

I've access to a laboratory at work which has an analytical balance that is calibrated every 6 months. So, I decided to do a little experiment during my lunch hour.

I put together some packs of a product that I have access to in quantity and that I thought should be a consistent weight. I weighed ten of these packs individually on the analytical balance. They ranged from 364.3 grams to 375.8 (less than half an oz between the heaviest and lightest). The average of all ten packs was 370.04g (a fraction over 13 oz).

I weighed the packs in multiples of 2 to test the Fox Digitals over a decent range. Batteries were on 2 bars, so not new. Results are shown below.

Number of packs	Expected Weight	Fox Digital Reading
2	1 lb 10 oz	1 lb 10oz
4	3lb 4 oz	3lb 4oz
6	4 lb 14 oz	4lb 14oz
8	6lb 8 oz	6lb 8 oz
10	8lb 2 oz	8lb 2 oz
12	9 lb 12 oz	9lb 12 oz
14	11lb 6 oz	11lb 6 oz
16	13lb	13lb
18	14lb 10 oz	14lb 11 oz
20	16lb 4 oz	16lb 4 oz

Pretty conclusive to me. Even the one reading that was an ounce over was bouncing between 14.10 and 14.11.

Nice. Can’t argue with that.
best thing to do now is keep your catches under 16lb 4oz

 

[Paul Richardson]

Interesting thread this and having owned a set of Fox Digitals for around 15 years that have never been calibrated and bounced around in the bottom of my rucksack on countless sessions, it certainly got me thinking.

I've access to a laboratory at work which has an analytical balance that is calibrated every 6 months. So, I decided to do a little experiment during my lunch hour.

I put together some packs of a product that I have access to in quantity and that I thought should be a consistent weight. I weighed ten of these packs individually on the analytical balance. They ranged from 364.3 grams to 375.8 (less than half an oz between the heaviest and lightest). The average of all ten packs was 370.04g (a fraction over 13 oz).

I weighed the packs in multiples of 2 to test the Fox Digitals over a decent range. Batteries were on 2 bars, so not new. Results are shown below.

Number of packs	Expected Weight	Fox Digital Reading
2	1 lb 10 oz	1 lb 10oz
4	3lb 4 oz	3lb 4oz
6	4 lb 14 oz	4lb 14oz
8	6lb 8 oz	6lb 8 oz
10	8lb 2 oz	8lb 2 oz
12	9 lb 12 oz	9lb 12 oz
14	11lb 6 oz	11lb 6 oz
16	13lb	13lb
18	14lb 10 oz	14lb 11 oz
20	16lb 4 oz	16lb 4 oz

Pretty conclusive to me. Even the one reading that was an ounce over was bouncing between 14.10 and 14.11.

Very interesting - I'm going to test the ones I got.They might get a run out next week.

 

[Terry Simner]

After reading through this thread in its entirety, and after careful consideration of recommendations, I decide to buy a set of RH9000 for 'back-up'.

You mean lot ........ they're bleedin' well unavailable innit !!

 

[Paul Whiteing]

Following email conversations with Reuben Heaton I am sending my RH9000s back for them to have a check (under warranty).

I'll report back

I received a replacement set this morning, the paperwork stated "draining battery, replacement scales"