Looks as though some good suggestions have already been offered.  I just=20
wanted to mention that at a former job, we needed to test that some=20
bathroom scales worked at the specified 400 lbs.  We had a human test=20
weight, Curtis, but he frequently telecommuted, so was not always=20
available, and we came up with a similar multiplier for nominal sized=20
people.    ;)

Joe W


On 5/26/2013 1:41 AM, YES NOPE9 wrote:
> I was weighing pills and tried this setup to improve the scale sensitivit=
y.
> See photos here =3D=3D> https://plus.google.com/u/0/photos/10239617624728=
0453443/albums/5882154251101853345?hl=3Den
> Max is 5000g says the scale legend.
> I put a hinge at one end of a bar and clamped it to a book.
> I put a styrofoam cup at the other end of the bar.
> I used a marker as a pivot point.   The bar does not touch anything else.
>
> #1  I used the tare function to zero the scale while the cup was at the e=
nd.
> #2  I measured in 9 pills and weighed them. ( 97 grams )
> #3  I added all the pills ( 90 ) and weighed them.  ( 969 grams )
>
> 969 /97 * 10 =3D .999   That was the best result I had.  My worst was 1.2=
8 when I was measuring smaller pills.
>
> What would be sources of error ?
> #1       the scale     I did not use the calibrate function since I was d=
oing ratio-metric comparisons.  Maybe cal would have improved things.
> #2      pressing on the hinge where it was clamped to the book changed th=
e amount measured.  I do not understand this.  I waited for the scale to se=
ttle down and it was still showing a reading as much as 5% off.
>
> As Napoleon Dynamite would say...... * You idiot*
>
> Gus                         keywords  99centech  99scale   99pills
>
>
>

--=20
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.