Bob Thompson on laboratory scales


MAKE_science_room_banner_600px.gif

Bob Thompson, our resident Make: Science Room lab geek, answered a question in the comments for the "Setting Up a Home Science Laboratory Part II - Gearing Up" topic, about buying digital scales. I thought it was worth posting here for the benefit of others.

Cynthia asked:
What would you recommend in the way of a digital scale for intermediate/high school science? I was thinking of purchasing one that was a 1000 g capacity with a 0.1 sensitivity. Could this both serve chemistry and physics, etc.?

Bob's reply:
Good question. The two big trade-offs in buying a balance are capacity and resolution. Ideally, we'd all like an inexpensive balance with 0.0001 gram resolution, but unfortunately, there aren't any such animals.

scale201_1.jpg

The balance I chose two or three years ago for my own home lab is the desktop MyWeigh iBalance 201, which has 200 gram capacity and 0.01 gram (centigram) resolution. That's still a current model, and is available in Maker Shed and elsewhere. However, it's also a $100+ balance.

scale201_2.jpg

If you're looking for something a bit less pricey, Maker Shed also carries a portable $33 electronic balance (on sale through 10/31 for $29) that has the same 200 gram capacity and 0.01 gram resolution. I have one of those as well, and it's a very nice little scale. I suspect it probably isn't quite as durable as the i201, but OTOH, it's less than a third the price. (It's also useful around the house. My wife just used it yesterday to see if she needed to put a second stamp on an envelope.)

My take on this is that 200 g is sufficient capacity. Almost any experiment you do that would use the 1000 g capacity of the balance you're considering can be scaled down to work within the 200 g capacity of these balances. OTOH, having 0.01 g resolution instead of 0.1 g resolution is very nice, particularly for chemistry.

It'll also save you money on chemicals. For example, if you need to make up a solution to a particular accuracy, being able to weigh out (say) 7.87 g of the chemical and making up 100 mL of solution is cheaper than having to weigh out 78.7 g of the chemical and make up 1,000 mL of the solution.

This way to the Make: Science Room >>


Recent Entries

Comments

Oldest comments listed first.

Posted by: Chris W on October 26, 2009 at 3:31 AM

Resolution is meaningless without accuracy. I wonder how accurate the inexpensive scales are, especially at low readings.


Posted by: Alan S. Blue on October 26, 2009 at 8:01 AM

Accuracy is actually not crucial. Precision is crucial.

But you can deal with a scale that always reads 1.203g higher than it should. (Or whatever the error in accuracy is.)

But precision would mean the reading on the scale is fluctuating, and the statistics to begin to counter that can be fairy.

What I would like to hear about is a mechanism that can be enhanced in a home environment though. There was a post somewhere recently about an excellent knife balance with a pretty astounding precision.

That is: is there some method to extend the available accuracy of a -digital- scale? The only method that comes to my mind would require a "hook scale" or "inline scale" operated in the inverted position - where the scale is hooked to one end of an unequal-arm pan balance.


Posted by: Alan S. Blue on October 26, 2009 at 8:03 AM

"Fairly Hairy" doesn't use the contraction fairy. What. the. heck.


Posted by: japroach on October 26, 2009 at 11:25 PM

A digital scale would never read 1.2g high, as it is zeroed out each time it is turned on.

There is gain error, ie the scale always reads 1.1x what it should. This can be calibrated using an accurate weight (usually at full scale).

But there is also linearity error (10g might read 10g, while 20 reads 21g), temperature drift, etc.


Posted by: Wilson! on October 27, 2009 at 7:49 AM

Sigh

Too bad an accurate balance is probably illegal in Texas, along with laboratory glassware, hot/stir plates, bunsen burners, anything else that a Mad Scientist might have in their home lair.

You know, because those things are used for making illegal drugs. Thanks for saving me from myself.


Leave a comment


Subscribe to MAKE!Subscribe to MAKE Magazine!

Subscribe today, save 42% and get web access to MAKE free. MAKE Digital Edition is available only to subscribers.

$34.95 / 1 year
(4 Quarterly Issues)

Subscribe now


Void your warranty, violate a user agreement, fry a circuit, blow a fuse, poke an eye out. Make: The risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things... Welcome to Make: Online!


CRAFT Maker Shed Maker Faire MAKE television
Holiday Gift Guides from MAKE
Gifts for Dads
Science and Chemistry
Gifts Under $20
More guides: Santa Claus Machines, Geek Toys for Grown Up Girls & Boys


Check out all of the episodes of Make: television

Alex Rider Dream Gadget Contest
Make: Science Room

Connect with MAKE

Be a MAKE fan on Facebook MAKE on Facebook
Visit our Facebook page and become a fan of MAKE!
MAKE on Twitter MAKE on Twitter
Follow our MAKE tweets!
MAKE Flickr Pool MAKE on Flickr
Join our MAKE Flickr Pool!
    make_tips on Twitter




    Maker SHED

    Advertise here with FM.

    Why advertise on MAKE?
    Read what folks are saying about us!

    Click here to advertise on MAKE!



    Subscribe to MAKE Magazine!

    Make: Online authors!

    Gareth BranwynGareth Branwyn
    Senior Editor


    Phillip TorronePhillip Torrone
    Senior Editor
    | AIM | Twitter


    Becky SternBecky Stern
    Associate Editor
    | AIM | Twitter


    Marc de VinckMarc de Vinck
    Contributing Writer
    | AIM | Twitter


    John ParkJohn Park
    Contributing Writer
    | Twitter


    Sean RaganSean Ragan
    Contributing Writer
    | Twitter


    Matt MetsMatt Mets
    Contributing Writer
    | AIM | Twitter


    Dale DoughertyDale Dougherty
    Editor & Publisher
    | Twitter


    Shawn ConnallyShawn Connally
    Managing Editor
    | Twitter


    Goli MohammadiGoli Mohammadi
    Associate Managing Editor

    Kip KayKip Kay
    Weekend Projects
    | AIM | Twitter


    Collin CunninghamCollin Cunningham
    Contributing Writer
    | AIM | Twitter

    Adam FlahertyAdam Flaherty
    Contributing Writer
    | AIM | Twitter



    More contributors: Mark Frauenfelder (Editor-in-Chief, MAKE magazine), Kipp Bradford (Technical Consultant/Writer), Chris Connors (Education), Diana Eng (Guest Author), Peter Horvath (Intern), Brian Jepson (O'Reilly Media), Robert Bruce Thompson (Science Room)

    Suggest a Site!

    Current Podcast

    itunesdl.gif Weekend Project: Beetlebot Simple robot from your parts bin that avoids obstacles. Thanks go to Jerome Demers for the original article in MAKE, Volume 12. To download the Beetlebot video, click here or subscribe in iTunes. Check out the complete Beetlebot article... More...

    Get the Make: Online sent via email
    Enter your email to receive Make: Online each day:



    MAKE Fascination video series brought to you by Dow

    Make: Education
    MAKE: en EspaƱol MAKE: Japan
    Important please read


    Subscribe to MAKE Magazine!

    Recent Posts from the Craft: Blog