Teaspoon measuring

[phfitz]

"That may be great or may be not good. My virus checker and my OS refuses to verify the program for download. It says that the source is unknown and cannot be verified."

Sourceforge has always been safe for years, just scanned this with Avast and it does come out clean. Installs and runs perfectly with XP Home SP3 and XP Pro x64 SP2. I'm not running Vista, will just jump to Windows 7. It really should be perfectly safe and easy.

 

[Kirk Keyes]

My virus checker and my OS refuses to verify the program for download. It says that the source is unknown and cannot be verified.

It's not surprising that Windos says that. Sourceforge is probably the premier open source repository and has a long and reputable history. It's the antithesis of all Microsoft stands for.

Here's what happens when you mention "open source" to Steve Balmer - Microsoft's #2 Man (So you think you can Dance, Monkeyboy!)

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvsboPUjrGc[/YOUTUBE]

 

[gainer]

I'm attaching the text of "Kitchen Tested Soups" in PDF form. If that works, I'll send the test photos in a couple of days.

 

[Chazzy]

I'm attaching the text of "Kitchen Tested Soups" in PDF form. If that works, I'll send the test photos in a couple of days.

Thanks very much for an enjoyable read and for going to the trouble to post the article.

 

[cmacd123]

That may be great or may be not good. My virus checker and my OS refuses to verify the program for download. It says that the source is unknown and cannot be verified.
PE

There should be an override. Sourceforge has fairly good security so I would not worry to much about any of the "released" files there. Of course you can download the source and just do a "make config" then "make install". at the price they want for windows it MUST come with a great c compiler built in

 

[sanking]

I'm attaching the text of "Kitchen Tested Soups" in PDF form. If that works, I'll send the test photos in a couple of days.

I down loaded it with no problem. Looks, acts and quacks like any .pdf file.

But expect no glory from this. Rather, expect to get whacked firmly around the head by multiple parties and spend the next month defending what you wrote 20 years ago.

Sandy

 

[gainer]

I down loaded it with no problem. Looks, acts and quacks like any .pdf file.

But expect no glory from this. Rather, expect to get whacked firmly around the head by multiple parties and spend the next month defending what you wrote 20 years ago.

Sandy

Actually it was 36 years ago, but who's counting? I'm more than twice as old as I was then, and have defended papers that were much more controversial than this one. It's going to be fun, as photography should be when practised as a hobby. I don't recommend teaspoons for pros, but I'll bet some of them use them sometimes.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Actually it was 36 years ago, but who's counting? I'm more than twice as old as I was then, and have defended papers that were much more controversial than this one. It's going to be fun, as photography should be when practised as a hobby. I don't recommend teaspoons for pros, but I'll bet some of them use them sometimes.

I find that teaspoons work best for eating food and stirring hot drinks, but maybe that is just me.

Steve

 

[gainer]

I find that teaspoons work best for eating food and stirring hot drinks, but maybe that is just me.

Steve

Cold drinks too.
Remember that when I wrote that piece there was no such thing as a cheap digital scale. Even the balances for weighing gunpowder were expensive relative to an average paycheck. Most of those who could afford a good balance were either lab tecnicians or drug dealers, not government employees with a wife and six kids.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Cold drinks too.

Agree.

Remember that when I wrote that piece there was no such thing as a cheap digital scale. Even the balances for weighing gunpowder were expensive relative to an average paycheck. Most of those who could afford a good balance were either lab tecnicians or drug dealers, not government employees with a wife and six kids.

Understood. Even recently I started a thread on APUG about finding a reasonably priced scale and got no responses. Then several month later, under an unrelated topic a poster made an aside comment about having a low cost scale from eBay. I PMed him and he sent me the information that I needed. I ended up get a 100 gm and a 1kg scale. The postage and handling costs rivaled the coast of the purchase.

Steve

 

[Kirk Keyes]

I PMed him and he sent me the information that I needed. I ended up get a 100 gm and a 1kg scale. The postage and handling costs rivaled the coast of the purchase.

I hope they are working well for you. :^)

 

[Sirius Glass]

I hope they are working well for you. :^)

They do.

Steve

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

I'm attaching the text of "Kitchen Tested Soups" in PDF form. If that works, I'll send the test photos in a couple of days.

I have saved a copy of the PDF. Thanks Patrick.

 

[michaelbsc]

I have purchase several analog Ohaus scales used of of epay, never more than $15-20 including shipping. I know the electronic are easier to use but they will not last as long. I also would worry about accuracy with the cheap ones.

I wouldn't worry about them. In a previous life I ran a metrology service lab, and it is astonishing how good the stuff is in the sense of repeatability. While it is true that if you take a calibrated weight and put it on 10 different cheap as dirt scales you'll probably get 3 slightly different weights, but if you put it on the same scale over and over and over it's going to come out the same over and over and over.

In the arena of process control repeatability is significantly more important than measurement accuracy. If you want to "check" your scale, throw a clean coin of known weight on it. A US nickel weighs 5 grams unless it dirty or damaged. Is that traceable to national standards? No. Is it right? Yes. If you aren't in the US, then almost all modern coin currency has pretty precise known weights. Google is your friend. If you're in the US here, http://www.usmint.gov/about_the_mint/index.cfm?flash=yes&action=coin_specifications, is an instant set of calibration standards to put your mind at ease.

If the cheap-o scale stops working, it will probably quit rather than drift. But now that you've got a set of known weights, you can check that yourself.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The cheap digital scales that I got on eBay came with 100g weights to check the calibration.

Who can say how accurate the weights are relate to the "real" 100g? But they all were within 0.1 gram of each other.

Steve

 

[fotch]

What I have observed with electronic measuring tools is that when they render a different reading, its not always apparent. I have two electronic scales. The bathroom scale sometimes will give the same reading repeatedly, other times, the consecutive measurements of the same person give 3 different weights. OK, cheap bathroom scale. I replaced it with a beam scale that is always 100% repeatable.

I have a electronic postal scale (purchased from USPS on line) and it goes up to 10 lbs and weights to the 1/10 ounce. Often, when removing a package, it won't return to absolute zero. Reset it, weigh a couple of items, then again, won't return to zero.

Recently, after paying postage on line, get to the post office, their electronic scale shows I am 1/10 over and I had to pay for 1 more pound. If the scale would of told me that, I would of repackaged it or charge the customer more.

So now, I figure if I am anywhere close, assume the scale is to low and adjust accordingly to the next incremental postal weight and cost.

Now, with the beam scales, I get repeatability every time. To bad I don't have a beam scale for my shipping.

The less variables the better the work. If I start mixing my own, which is why a purchased the scales, I would like to follow a formula the best that I can. I think if I am making large quantities small errors may not show up, smaller quantities, the error may factor in.

All things being equal, I would rather have accuracy even if not needed rather than occasional having errors when I need it. I make enough errors on my own without needing any help from some digital device.

 

[gainer]

The problem is that many chems are hygroscopic. The gain water weight as the get older. (Sounds familiar ) That means the amounts will be all over the place because you have no real starting point.

Scales are cheap, $50 will get you a great scale. Get one that weighs in .1 or tenth grams. Trust me, you will be very happy you did.

If a chemical is hygroscopic, then the weight of chemical contained in a given sample will depend on the amount of water it contains, so neither volume nor weight will give you the exact amount of chemical contained in your sample.

 

[Kirk Keyes]

Ahhh, this thread reminds me of such good times!

 

[cmacd123]

If a chemical is hygroscopic, then the weight of chemical contained in a given sample will depend on the amount of water it contains, so neither volume nor weight will give you the exact amount of chemical contained in your sample.

I would guess that for many chemicals, that the volume would actually change LESS than the weight.

 

[BetterSense]

I used to use the fancy expensive lab balance at work to mix my D23, but last time I took teaspoons and measured them against the scale. It was easily with in +-5%, and considering how robust the D23 formula is, I'm using the spoons from now on.

 

[SchwinnParamount]

I agree with Bruce. Why measure with a teaspoon when the cost of accurate scales is so inexpensive.

Have a look here, for example. http://www.balances.com/

Sandy King

Hi Sandy,

The balances.com page had zillions of scales in all categories. If I had say... $25.00 to spend on a scale, is there one on that site for me? The scale would have to be accurate enough for photographic purposes.

 

[alanrockwood]

It's worth pointing out that some kits for reloading ammunition use volume measurement rather than mass measurement, and reloading ammunition is a more critical operation than mixing photographic chemicals.

 

[SchwinnParamount]

It's worth pointing out that some kits for reloading ammunition use volume measurement rather than mass measurement, and reloading ammunition is a more critical operation than mixing photographic chemicals.

It's only critical if you care about ballistics.

 

[hrst]

Get this one, it costs $14.75 with free worldwide shipping:
http://www.dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.15004

I have two of these. They can be calibrated. I've calibrated them and they give the same reading every time to +/- 0.02 g. Usually to 0.01 g. Really good for its price.

So, if you measure only, say, 3.0 grams of developing agent, it's nice to have a scale with 0.01g display instead of 0.1g display. They are still very cheap when bought directly from Hong Kong.

 

[Photo Engineer]

It's only critical if you care about ballistics.

This measuring equipment cuts grains to assure accuracy and repeatability. This is the defining element in using volume for reloading accuracy.

A teasponfull of sodium chloride is not "cuttable" to achieve a precise quantity.

PE