No Script, No Fear, All Opinion
RSS icon Home icon
  • EEVblog #177 – Baby Scale Calibration

    Posted on June 10th, 2011 EEVblog 17 comments

    What does every 4 week old baby need? A visit to a NATA certified calibration laboratory, that’s what!
    Dave takes his baby scales to a NATA cal lab to check it’s performance, because, well, he can…
    Check out http://www.triosmartcal.com.au

    Be Sociable, Share!
     

    17 responses to “EEVblog #177 – Baby Scale Calibration” RSS icon

    • The accuracy available in cheap digital measuring devices these days is amazing. The self-calibration really works. Another good example is tire pressure gauges. A $5 digital tire pressure gauge will be more consistently accurate than a $50 analog gauge, and will be so even if dropped and abused.

    • Heh, the paranoid guy in me thinks, that the scales is biased towards full kilos. What does it show when putting 1001g on it? :)

      Bye,
      Simon

    • assuming the scale was made (and calibrated) somwhere in china or taiwan
      we can use the local gravity difference between sydney and taipei as an estimate…
      so: (12 * 9,797) / 9,79 equals 12,0086 wich at 10gram resolution makes it pretty much spot on at 12kg as well (from the scales point of wiew at least.) (unless the manufacturer used trim weights when calibrating)

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_of_Earth#Comparative_gravities_in_various_cities_around_the_world

    • This is a nit-pick, especially at this sort of resolution, but the standard weights really shouldn’t be handled with bare hands. Leaving a fingerprint on the standard changes the mass. As I said, it’s nit-pick, but I do this for a living too.

    • Well you really DIDN’T do a calibration just an accuracy check, to calibrate you need to enter calibration mode (with a sequence of key presses or operating a secret switch) Then you set zero and add standard weights as directed to map set points. Save and reboot, done :) .Yep I know I’m being Anal but Sagan needs to be taught Precision in everything if you want to maintain standards Lol.

    • FreeThinker is absolutely correct (and precise!). We performed a verification. And it really wasn’t a valid verification either because we did not have the accuracy specification or count error of the scales to work to. But hey!! It was great fun and when all those zeros appeared who really cares what the specification was!! PLUS.. baby Sagan is a lot better looking than Dave (must take after his mum)…. And to guy with the gloves comments on You Tube – no sticky donuts eaten before the test, it’s obvious why I avoid them ;-) and the weights are a general purpose working set that we use both inside and outside the lab when we do on-site calibrations. They are very shiny though don’t you think!

      • In precise reference standard metrology, yes, you need to wear gloves and take great care with the highest class reference weights.
        http://www.troemner.com/weights_OIML.php
        But the ones we used would be lower class reference weights for field use as Charles said, orders of magnitude better than what we needed!
        Got any data on that set Charles?

    • PS on the resolution topic… If you watch carefully you will see that the resolution is 5g up to 9.995kg and at 10.000kg it went to 10g which is of course less that the weight of a dirty diaper/nappy (whatever part of the world you are reading this from).

    • Sounds like ‘yer man’s from Northern Ireland, (God’s Own Country).

      :-)

      Dave, how much did you pay for the scales?

      Nial.

    • Interesting, you checked to see calibration to see if it was accurate. If I need to calibrate a baby scale or send it back, Should I try a calibration reset myself?

    • This is an awesome video! I love this brand! I found some more info on this website:http://www.medicalexpo.com/medical-manufacturer/baby-scale-465.html

    Leave a reply