PDA

View Full Version : Accurize a balance beam scale?



DSM
07-01-2011, 03:27 AM
I have an old RCBS 505 scale that I want to accurize. What are the tricks in making a balance beam sensitive to one granual of powder?

jackie schmidt
07-01-2011, 07:35 AM
The only thing keeping any balance beam from being more sensitive is friction. In fact, it is sensitive to a single grain of powder, you just can't detect it.

The knife edges that these small scales ride on offer about as small of a contact area as you can have. But, there is friction envolved. If one grain of powder will not overcome that friction, then you cannot weigh any closer.

Check the knife edges, and see if they have become rounded or blunted. You can restore them by carefully sharpenning them with a wet-stone.

Also, clean the adutments that the knife edges sit in, use a electric contact spray cleaner, something that leaves no residue. Clean is the key here.

There are sufaces that are virtually friction free. For instance, the Mount Polamar Telescope weighs over a hundred tons. It you disconnect the gearing mechanism, a person can move it by hand because it rides, or actually floats, on a true film of oil, supplied by a presurized oiling system............jackie

Just curious. With 133, it takes about five or six of those irregular grains to make a tenth. What's the obsession with a single kernal of powder?

TomD
07-01-2011, 08:41 AM
No way, the theoretical deflection (movement) of a balance scale given a change of weight will be a mathematically determined amount given the ratios of the weight change vs the mass and dimension of the scale. Actually, that's how a balance scale works. So if it were possible to "accurize" a balance scale to give greater deflection to a given weight, it would no longer be calibrated.

mks
07-01-2011, 09:36 AM
No way, the theoretical deflection (movement) of a balance scale given a change of weight will be a mathematically determined amount given the ratios of the weight change vs the mass and dimension of the scale. Actually, that's how a balance scale works. So if it were possible to "accurize" a balance scale to give greater deflection to a given weight, it would no longer be calibrated.

Given that the deflection that we want to measure is small, one approach would be to magnify the pointer, so that we can see smaller deflections. Seems like someone showed a picture of such a system on this forum. Just a magnifying glass in front of the pointer.

Cheers,
Keith

Boyd Allen
07-01-2011, 09:49 AM
I have improved the performance of my RCBS 10-10 by tuning it up. It is a bit complicated, and I will not try to go into all of it here, but I will tell you that touching up the main knife edges, so that there are no shiny spots when viewed straight on, is a great help. Another issue is whether the scale is level, when zeroed. There is a highpower shooter in Bakersfield, that has been mentioned on accurateshooter.com who tunes up scales. After doing some work on mine, I have spoken to him, and believe that he is the best for this job. Evidently, he has done over 300. Also, I believe that when someone is talking about single grain (particle) sensitivity, that he is referring to increasing sensitivity, not the amount of deflection per unit of weight. In other words, changing the scale so that it takes less to make it move. This can be done.

mike in co
07-01-2011, 10:55 AM
i think people have become misinformed in the quest for accuracy.
at this time in our sport, my opinion, is that 0.1 of a grain is accetable accuracy. the problem is that most scales on the market are .1 plus or minus .1...so in fact two charges can be 29.0 and 29.2 and come off the same scale as 29.1. this is what i consider unacceptable. some of us have gone to electronic lab scales to get to the .1 plus or minus .03 or less. this means our loads are 29.13 to 29.07.....significantly closer that plus or minus .1.
i do not need scale that indicates a single grain of n133 nor of 8208, but if i am shooting a large kernel powder like 4895, varget, 4831,,,,,the scale will likely indicate a single grain.
so party A hears that party B is loading to single kernel, and ASSUMES that he too must be able to load to single kernel......WRONG.
party B is a 600/1000 shooter, loading large kernel and thus will see single kernel changes: party A is a short range ppc shooter, shooting n133 and has no need to see single kernel changes. what they BOTH need is to be able to load at 0.1 with something less than plus or minus 0.1.
so we all need accuracy of 0.1, we all need sesitivity better than plus or minus 0.1. we all do not need to see single kernel movement.
getting down from his soap box,

mike in co

Joe Salt
07-01-2011, 11:13 AM
Nicely said Mike we agree! Buy a real SCALE!

Joe Salt

Boyd Allen
07-01-2011, 11:17 AM
To clarify, my particular scale had gotten to the point where it's repeatability (with the same weight) was not satisfactory (Yes, I had sent it back to the factory once.), so I felt that I had little to loose by trying to make it work better....which I did. I would not claim that it is now perfect. I am still working on that. As it turns out, the area that seems to be causing the remaining issues, is the little wire hanger that connects the beam to the pan holder. Very slight changes in its position seem to be the problem. If I orient it for each weighing, the problem goes away. I am amazed that a relatively inexpensive scale, marketed for reloading, can be worked over so as to perform as well as some that I have seen. Do I worry about single particles of powder enlarging my groups...absolutely not, but then I have never shot 600 or 1,000 yard matches, or worried too much about ES or SD for short range (1-200 yd.) work.

4Mesh
07-01-2011, 11:32 AM
i think people have become misinformed in the quest for accuracy.
at this time in our sport, my opinion, is that 0.1 of a grain is accetable accuracy.

so party A hears that party B is loading to single kernel, and ASSUMES that he too must be able to load to single kernel......WRONG.
party B is a 600/1000 shooter, loading large kernel and thus will see single kernel changes: party A is a short range ppc shooter, shooting n133 and has no need to see single kernel changes. what they BOTH need is to be able to load at 0.1 with something less than plus or minus 0.1.

so we all need accuracy of 0.1, we all need sesitivity better than plus or minus 0.1. we all do not need to see single kernel movement.
mike in co
And you say this stuff with a straight face? This is a competition forum, not woodchuck hunting. Now, if I guy wants to make his balance beam scale work as well as it can, and would like it to resolve down to nothing, what is wrong with that. Do you think that weighing closer is going to make the groups worse? Ok then, what's the problem?

Furthermore, you are so far off base with these statements it's ridiculous I think everyone here is capable of determining what resolution they require for accuracy, and, with any luck, they're ignoring you.

DSM
07-01-2011, 01:14 PM
The reason I want to get my scale as accurately as possible is to test and compare my 1K loads to see what works better, the balance beam or the chargemaster. I'm not really obsessed with one kernel sensitivity, but want it as accurate as possible. I keep getting a flyer that opens a 2" group to 6". I know this can be many other things, but this thread is about scales, not mysterious flyers at 1 k.

Boyd Allen
07-01-2011, 01:23 PM
Suggestion:
Shoot over a chronograph until you get one of those fliers. If it is powder charge variation that is the problem, I would think that this would show up as a velocity difference. Of course there could be another cause, like variance in neck tension, that would also cause a velocity difference, but it would be a place to start your investigation.

mike in co
07-01-2011, 01:37 PM
i think you are stuck......both of those scales are plus or minus .1...see my earlier post.
if you rework your beam scale, you may get better, and probably good enough for 1000 yds.
the chargemaster is always plus or minus .1....so not good in my opinion.
get a real scale.....something plus or minus .02 or less if you really want to take powder weight out of the equation.
again when long range with a large kernel powder you may get the beam modified enough to work at 1000yds.....add a pointer, and a fine scale for the pointer, clean up the knife edge, clean everything.
and shoot all shots over a chronograph....all else is guessing.

mike in co

The reason I want to get my scale as accurately as possible is to test and compare my 1K loads to see what works better, the balance beam or the chargemaster. I'm not really obsessed with one kernel sensitivity, but want it as accurate as possible. I keep getting a flyer that opens a 2" group to 6". I know this can be many other things, but this thread is about scales, not mysterious flyers at 1 k.

jackie schmidt
07-01-2011, 04:47 PM
I tested a Chargemaster against my Denver Instruments TP-153, and +- .1 is being generous.

It seemed that the less "trickling" the Chargemaster did, the more consistant.......jackie

skeetlee
07-01-2011, 05:09 PM
Ignition problems in the action can also show flyers at those distances. Most folks dont check for things like this but they are very real. If you dont get anything figured out with Boyds suggestion " And i might add it is a very good suggestion" Then maybe you can have someone look for drag in your firing pin or cocking assembly. Just a thought. Good luck friend! Lee

Boyd Allen
07-01-2011, 05:28 PM
A little story along the line of Lee's post...
Some time back, when I was discussing, with Greg Tannel of Gre-Tan Rifles, what had lead him to bush bolts' firing pin holes, and modify the pins, so that the pin tips stay within their holes for the full travel of the pin, he told me of a rifle (based on a Remington, I believe) that was driving him crazy with an occasional random flier (I believe that it was part of a long range bench rifle.). Finally, he tried bushing the pin, and just to make sure, he made the bushing long enough, and machined the pin tip far enough back, so that the pin would not have to "find" the hole as it moved forward. THAT solved the problem. I'll forward my mailing address so that you can know where to send the check.;)

DSM
07-01-2011, 07:12 PM
I was actually contemplating sending the CM down the road and picking up a lab scale and throwing charges on my harrells and trickling up on the scale. I did this system prior to the CM. What is keeping from doing this is, the CM is working really well.

Andy Cross
07-01-2011, 07:39 PM
My farther had a .243 once. Rem 700, laminated stock, BR trigger, Madco barrel, and could shoot half moa at 200yds if you read the flags well. All of a sudden it began producing flyers. Checked everything including chronographing the loads. Then he had a guy check the lock time with a contraption he devised. Bugger me every 7 to 8 shots something would slow it down. Don't remember how much. Cleaned up that problem and it went back to its good old self.

Andy.

langenc
07-01-2011, 07:49 PM
If you want better accuracy?? the following will help:
1. Clean up the contact areas as noted in the first several posts,

2. Build a rack/shelf/something to get the scale at eye level
so the user can see the index marking and the end of the beam-looking
straight on, may want to set up a magnifier

3. make sure the pan hangs the same each time, as noted in am early post.,

4. make sure the beam is 'zeroed' the same with every use,

5. dont try to weigh small amounts-less than 10-15 gr. if need be
do it by differential weighing.-see below-


Differential weighing involves putting a good sized quantity on the scale and then removing the amt needed. If you need 1.5 gr weigh out exactly 20 gr. Then remove your 1.5 gr-ie that amount that is removed to make the quantity remaining to weigh 18.5 gr. Could be called 'negative weighing'. Esp good for very small quantities-couple grains or less..

twentytwoguy
07-01-2011, 08:25 PM
To my thinking waiting 20 seconds for the Cm to spit out a charge and then taking the added step of reweighing and trickling it on a beam or digital scale is double effort and a slower process since it only takes about 20-25 seconds to throw and trickle a load to sub 2-kernel accuracy on a beam or digital in the first place with little effort. Plus my buddy's CM commonly overthrows Varget stick powder and a buzzer sounds and he has to often dump the charge back in the hopper and start over.
But fellow shooters needing less demanding accuracy for short-range comps and hunting loads think they are the best thing since sliced bread and save them time since they can seat bullets while the machine is spitting out powder.
Repeated 300 yard ladder tests showed that 3/10 th's made a considerable difference in vertical as the groups walked up and nearly over the target and am guessing that at even longer ranges 2 or 3 tenths could make a big difference and with stick powder like Varget that's not too many kernels. Also anecdotally if you put just 3 or 4 kernels of Varget nested together and put a match to them there is noticable energy expended.
When the wind is howling disregard all the above you may never notice a few kernels anyways Lol.

DaveT
07-01-2011, 08:44 PM
Guys, mike in co is the smartest man in any forum in the entire universe. In another thread "he" determined and told us all that our chargemasters are basically bathroom scales disguised as loading scales. And he talked down to us while telling us our tools are just junk. I try to just stay out of this stuff but it's just hard....
Dave T

lefty o
07-01-2011, 10:02 PM
Guys, mike in co is the smartest man in any forum in the entire universe. In another thread "he" determined and told us all that our chargemasters are basically bathroom scales disguised as loading scales. And he talked down to us while telling us our tools are just junk. I try to just stay out of this stuff but it's just hard....
Dave T
it is the internet! LOL

4Mesh
07-02-2011, 01:17 AM
The trouble with this thread's title is, it should really say, "Getting the most out of a balance beam scale". Now, beam scales are capable of being very accurate. The ones we buy for $50 for reloading are extremely accurate, but, in comparison to the ones for $5000, they are not quite so accurate.

A $50 beam scale in absolutely perfect working condition will resolve every bit as close as todays $1000 scales. It will be slower by a margin that will drive folks like me away.

Todays $175 scales, work as well as 2 years ago $1000 scales.

Unless you are overseas, and then, spend more and forget the difference.

Electronic scales are most valued for their speed, not their accuracy. All scales have mechanical limits that we regularly beat our heads against when using high precision scales. Dust, cat hair, static, airflow, vibration, all things that can cause headaches when using any scale, don't just limit this to electronic ones. When you get to where an above mentioned error doesn't bother you, your scale isn't sensitive enough.

At the end of the day, every shooter has to determine if the scale is a determining factor in their group sizes. If it is, then changing scales is mandatory before improving their shooting. If it is not, then perhaps throwing charges is adequate for the shooting platform they use. Unfortunately, nobody here can determine that. Only you know what's best for you.

mike in co
07-02-2011, 09:03 AM
i dissagree with nearly eveything 4mesh said...
with the exception of this one line:

At the end of the day, every shooter has to determine if the scale is a determining factor in their group sizes.

reloading beam scales are advertised at plus or minus 0.1...
br powder throwers with n133 throw at plus or minus 0.2-0.3
reloading electronic scales are plus or minus 0.1 and some will not resolve trickling.
using a electronic lab scale one can easily reload to plus or minus .03.
so yes ACCURACY is a major benefit of A BETTER ELECTRONIC SCALE.

they are 10 times(.03 vs .3) more accurate than thrown charges of n133...think about that on those days were one shot is a little out or the group is just a bit larger than you had hoped for.

mike in co

frwillia
07-02-2011, 11:18 AM
I tested a Chargemaster against my Denver Instruments TP-153, and +- .1 is being generous.

It seemed that the less "trickling" the Chargemaster did, the more consistant.......jackie

Jackie,

I have a Charge Master and I definitely agree, +/- 0.1 is being generous. I use mine to pre-throw charges because it's so fast to set it up. I dump the results on my 10-10 and trickle to weight. I'm seldom waiting for the CM.

The CM does best with the spherical powders, which are the same ones that work great in a measure, so it works best where it's least needed. I'd really like it if it worked well with 4350 or 7828, but it's not good with them at all - they clump and dump giving more like +/- 0.2 or 0.3.

The 10-10 is repeatable enough for my hunting ammo. I try to reduce "accuracy" (hitting a specific charge weight) as a variable by setting it up using check weights to set the pointer at the nearest 0.5g to the charge weight I'm going to be weighing, then adjusting the vernier to the actual weight. I've had the 10-10 for at least 2, maybe 3 , decades, it damps really quickly, and is much more repeatable than the Redding Scale I have.

I'd buy one of those rather expensive digital scales but I don't think it would let me shoot any better than I do now. Power charge accuracy isn't the tall pole in my accuracy tent.

Fitch

mike in co
07-02-2011, 01:53 PM
i have mentioned this before, and still see peoople trickling up without bumping the beam to get a solid movement.

Definition of HYSTERESIS
: a retardation of an effect when the forces acting upon a body are changed (as if from viscosity or internal friction); especially : a lagging in the values of resulting magnetization in a magnetic material (as iron) due to a changing magnetizing force.

in magnetic dampend scales...the beam lags...alot when trickling small kernel powder.....so bump the beam to get it to move and the resettle.

MAY not be as big an issue with large kernel powder......

mike in co

Boyd Allen
07-02-2011, 06:43 PM
Mike,
I think that the damping only exists if there is motion. Obviously, copper is not magnetic. The force, that damps the beam occurs when the conductor moves relative to the magnetic field, and I think in proportion to the beam's rate of swing. This amounts to a variable damping that diminishes to about nothing. I think that this may illustrate what I am referring to. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCs0Y7HH2zA&feature=related

mike in co
07-02-2011, 08:12 PM
boyd....he is using varget a large kernel powder////so yes it will show every change......
try this with one kernel of 8208 or ni33....
two...
it one was to add a sereis of marks...a scale to the area his pointer is at, one might actually be able to calibrate for large kernel....
i have seen my own beam scales not move when adding enought time to know this happens
the copper is a conductor moving thru a magnetic field...it resists movement.

mike in co

mike in co
07-02-2011, 08:21 PM
here is a test you can do at home.
put aprox 30 g of small kernel powder in the pan and weight it.....( n133, 8208...any fine ball powder)
what ever it weighs, move the 1/10 up one , touch the beam and let it settle....
it should be aprox 1 mark low.
once it has settled trickle in powder without touching the pan/beam.
once you have trickled up the one mark and are now at zero(mid mark), touch the beam get it moving and see where it settles.
i can nearly guarantee thet the average beam scale with small kernel powder will now have its pointer ABOVE the middle mark.
your trickled up charge is actually heavier than the scale told it was( if you never bumbed the beam).
mike in co
ps do not come back and tell me how great it works with 4895 or varget or any other large kernel powder.

Boyd Allen
07-02-2011, 08:33 PM
What do you figure a grain of Varget weighs? Perhaps that is a good as it needs to get. While we are at it, how many grains of 133 to a grain of varget?

mike in co
07-03-2011, 12:08 AM
since you asked
varget is aprox 0.017 per kernel,
oem 8208 is aprox 0.004 per kernel.
2001 n133 is aprox 0.01 per kernel...but there are inconsistancies in the kernel size.

what this shows, what i have said since day one...the significance in weight.....
oem 8208 meters very well due it its very small size and consistancy.
n133 does not as it is 2.5 times the size of oem8208....
and the issue with beam scales shows up in the diff of varget and oem8208 or n133.
in the case of oem8208 varget is FOUR times the weight per kernel, and 70% heavier than n133.
mike in co

Boyd Allen
07-03-2011, 12:32 AM
Thanks for the info. I had no clue. It prompts a question. If the better electronic scales, that see reloading use, read to .02 grains, and a tuned up balance will show a single grain of powder (Varget) that weighs slightly less than that, why isn't a tuned up balance good enough for any reloading task? I know that for any given number, an electronic scale is likely to be more correct, when compared to a standard, but since each of us (who load using a scale) is usually working with the same scale for all of our load workups and loading, the main issue, other than gross errors, is consistency, which I believe has been achieved, in the case of tune-ups that have been properly done. (not to be taken for granted, but proven by testing) My scale has not reached my goal for its performance, but it is a whole lot better than when I started working on it, and I have not finished. It has turned into an interesting project.

frwillia
07-03-2011, 07:09 AM
I have an old RCBS 505 scale that I want to accurize. What are the tricks in making a balance beam sensitive to one granual of powder?

Meanwhile, back to the original posters question: Does anybody have an addition to list of things that langnc and Jackie posted that can be done to turn up a balance beam scale?

Thanks
Fitch

Boyd Allen
07-03-2011, 11:46 AM
Clean and don't oil the agates that the knife edges sit on. Sharpen the knife edges so that when you look straight at the edge there are no visible shiny spots, and then burnish the edge with the side of a mechanical pencil lead. Spread the wire bail that supports the pan holder so that it can not shift from side to side on its knife edges, but does not press against the abutments at their ends. Level the base of the scale by pulling material from the cavity in the pan hanger and then adding small bits to the pan till the beam pointer is perfectly aligned with the center mark of the scale (with the base level), and then add the material to the hanger cavity. Borrow or buy a set of check weights, and check the accuracy of the scale at several weights. Consider if the main sliding weight needs adjustment. If it needs to be increased, this can be done with paint, and fine adjusted by scraping. (An easier way is with Scotch tape. leaving a tab sticking out to trim for fine adjustments, buy cutting off small pieces, and then sticking it down.) If your scale has a built-in plastic cover, consider not using it to avoid a static charge. I now store my 10-10 in the cardboard box that it came in, with a sample of "Formica" in one end, so that I can leave the leveling screw down, without punching a hole in the box, over time. Practice with a fixed weight to learn the tricks of using the scale so that it does a better job of repeating. (electronic scales have their own set of tricks, so this is not unique to balance scales.) Another thing that I have not done, is to mount a needle on the pointer scale (doesn't affect the balance of the beam) to make the scale easier to read. I have an inexpensive USB webcam that I use to project the image of the end of the pointer and its reference scale onto my computer monitor. If I remember correctly,it cost about $35. I have also figured out how to throw charges into the scale pain, with it on the scale, without powder bouncing out. With this setup I can shave a little off the time that it takes to throw and trickle a charge. The last frontier is the pan hanger hanger (the bent wire piece) if I can make it more stable on the knife edges, I will truly be finished.

I might point out that like fellows that have opinions on tuners, that have never used one, those who have never attempted a full tune-up on a balance are only speaking from assumption and conjecture...which is of course their right.:)

Dan Conzo
07-03-2011, 01:41 PM
Thanks Boyd--Very helpful info.

mike in co
07-03-2011, 03:43 PM
i did h4831 today....
0.044.....
even heavier than varget...close to 1/2 a tenth.....so one would expect a scale that was plus or minus .1 to notice it...
like i said big diff depending on powders kernel size.
mike in co


since you asked
varget is aprox 0.017 per kernel,
oem 8208 is aprox 0.004 per kernel.
2001 n133 is aprox 0.01 per kernel...but there are inconsistancies in the kernel size.

what this shows, what i have said since day one...the significance in weight.....
oem 8208 meters very well due it its very small size and consistancy.
n133 does not as it is 2.5 times the size of oem8208....
and the issue with beam scales shows up in the diff of varget and oem8208 or n133.
in the case of oem8208 varget is FOUR times the weight per kernel, and 70% heavier than n133.
mike in co

John Kielly
07-03-2011, 05:30 PM
I recall hearing that the scale arm should be dismounted when not used so that the metal damper isn't kept in the field of the magnets.

mike in co
07-03-2011, 07:45 PM
john,
the metal is copper...nonmagnetic, but will conduct a flow.
so in the field of the magnets is not an issue...it is movement within the field that is dampened by the magnet.....
but there is still the resitance to change. the beam is in a happy state when not moving..it likes it there...it is when you add a kernel of powder and try to move the beam( and the copper dampener) that one is fighting the magnetic flux that is in a happy state with the copper dampener....movement in the field is work, and the beam resists changing(hysterisis) in small increments.
mike in co


I recall hearing that the scale arm should be dismounted when not used so that the metal damper isn't kept in the field of the magnets.

frwillia
07-03-2011, 08:33 PM
I recall hearing that the scale arm should be dismounted when not used so that the metal damper isn't kept in the field of the magnets.

Like many things one hears, that happens to be not true. The damper is a piece of copper. It is totally non-magnetic and can't be altered by static magnetic fields. It can sit there motionless forever (in practical terms) and not be degraded in any way by the magnetic field.

The damper works because it is a conductor of electricity being moved through a magnetic field. When the conductor moves in the magnetic field of the damper magnet it generates internal currents that flow within the piece of copper and are dissipated in the coppers internal resistance as heat energy - i.e. it warms up the piece of copper. (Not to worry, the energy involved is miniscule, the mass and heat radiating surface of the copper large - it not only won't melt, it's such a small temperature change it would be a challange to measure it). The damper works by taking taking energy out of the beam and dissipating it as heat in the copper.

The damping effect occurrs because generating the currents requires work which is manifested as a force opposite to the direction of beam movement. It is this force that performs the damping action because it is always opposite to the direction of motion of the balance arm.

The currents, and therefore the damping, are proportional to the velocity of the conductor in the magnetic field (v X B), which means porportional to the speed of balance beam movement. No motion means there is no force. Very slow motion means very little damping force. In theory, if the bearings are perfect, the damper being friction free will have no effect on the steady state accuracy of the scale. It will have an effect on how long it takes the scale to come to equilibrium (balance).

So if the bearings are either perfect or really really good, the scale will respond to one kernel of powder being added, but it may take some time for it to move to that new balance point - one has a very small imbalance force (the weight of the powder kernel) trying to move the beam which has mass and inertia that are quite large by comparison to a powder kernel, and a damper that will resist the movement with a very small force since the velocity of the beam is really really slow in response to this tiny imbalance force.

The tiny force and mass of the beam determine how long it will take to respond. It will take longer with a magnetic damper, but it should give the same reading as it would without the damper, if one waits long enough. The mass of the beam will also have an effect. A heavier beam will have more inertia and thus take longer to move.

Fitch

Boyd Allen
07-03-2011, 08:45 PM
Fitch,
Such well done and comprehensive explanations are rare, and it matches perfectly with my observations.
Boyd

mike in co
07-03-2011, 09:30 PM
small grains of powder...very small force to try and move the beam........
i see no one has responded to my balance beam challenge.
the force is so small and the knife edges are not perfect...the beam does not move...not enough force to over come the resistance to change....
the world is not perfect....
go look at my list of powder weights by kernel.......how long for the real wworld beam to respond to single kernel of oem 8208 ??


mike in co

mike in co
07-03-2011, 11:35 PM
my point was that his description was great, but most will casually miss the statement he made.
he inferes the beam scale will indicate any grain of powder put in the scale...it just aint so...his cavet was"perfect".
they are not perfect.....the ratio of mass of the beam to a single grain of oem 8208 coupled with the resistance to change, that it( a typical reloading beam scale) will infact NOT indicate a single grain change of oem8208.....
a single grain of h4831 maybe...
he put forth a great idea...but the world is not perfect, so his statement has no bearing in the real world.
go read my opening statement on this thread.
simple
it is about perspective......

mike in co

mike in co
07-03-2011, 11:39 PM
DSM.....
you never posted what powder/s you are using, please do so...it will allow us to move on....we are going in circles at this time.

mike in co

Al Nyhus
07-04-2011, 07:36 AM
The damper works because it is a conductor of electricity being moved through a magnetic field. When the conductor moves in the magnetic field of the damper magnet it generates internal currents that flow within the piece of copper and are dissipated in the coppers internal resistance as heat energy - i.e. it warms up the piece of copper. Fitch

Yep.........Faraday's Law of Induction. :) -Al

John Kielly
07-04-2011, 08:40 AM
Thanks, Fitch.

An elegantly explained answer in all respects.

John

Vern
07-04-2011, 09:21 AM
MIke he may have you on ignore so it may never get posted.

Pete Wass
07-04-2011, 10:13 AM
Jackie,

I have a Charge Master and I definitely agree, +/- 0.1 is being generous. I use mine to pre-throw charges because it's so fast to set it up. I dump the results on my 10-10 and trickle to weight. I'm seldom waiting for the CM.

The CM does best with the spherical powders, which are the same ones that work great in a measure, so it works best where it's least needed. I'd really like it if it worked well with 4350 or 7828, but it's not good with them at all - they clump and dump giving more like +/- 0.2 or 0.3.

The 10-10 is repeatable enough for my hunting ammo. I try to reduce "accuracy" (hitting a specific charge weight) as a variable by setting it up using check weights to set the pointer at the nearest 0.5g to the charge weight I'm going to be weighing, then adjusting the vernier to the actual weight. I've had the 10-10 for at least 2, maybe 3 , decades, it damps really quickly, and is much more repeatable than the Redding Scale I have.

I'd buy one of those rather expensive digital scales but I don't think it would let me shoot any better than I do now. Power charge accuracy isn't the tall pole in my accuracy tent.

Fitch

I am in my 12th year of IBS SCORE Competition. Over those years I have seen scores constantly go up in the VFS side of things. I have also seen more and more people weighing their charges be it either in pre-loads or Vials of powder pre-weighed.

I have read here that more and more people are taking Electronic Scales and using them at Group Shoots. Group sizes seem to have decreased in size as well; just from casual observation.

There is a lot of luck involved in sports, including this one. One may be lucky most of the time by haphazard practices but giving one's best to an effort can't be beat, long term. It is not possible to make Ammo that is too good and it is not possible to keep a rifle in too good a shape either.

I guess it pretty much comes down to how much time does one want to put into their effort to win. If throwing charges and seating bullet haphazrdly is good enough then so be it. It isn't all about winning.

sicero
07-04-2011, 11:04 AM
Here is something you might get some enjoyment from.
Someone elses words. Not mine. Copy from another forum. Kenny--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gunpowder "burns" by volume. Not weight. Weight is only used because it is easily interpreted and most folks can undertsand it.

A few years ago I did exhaustive tests on the subject for an article that I neveer finished writing. In every test, volume was more accurate than weight.

BUT......You need a good powder measure and a perfect cadance to get the poder to drop consistantly. For most folks, they will have more "consistancy" by weight.

Vern
07-04-2011, 11:48 AM
Kenny can you copy the link to your source?

lefty o
07-04-2011, 01:40 PM
Here is something you might get some enjoyment from.
Someone elses words. Not mine. Copy from another forum. Kenny--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gunpowder "burns" by volume. Not weight. Weight is only used because it is easily interpreted and most folks can undertsand it.

A few years ago I did exhaustive tests on the subject for an article that I neveer finished writing. In every test, volume was more accurate than weight.

BUT......You need a good powder measure and a perfect cadance to get the poder to drop consistantly. For most folks, they will have more "consistancy" by weight.

my own theory on this resides with stick powders primarily. powder may burn by volume, but it is very difficult due to the shape of the powder to get it to measure out by volume consistantly, where as going by weight you can be more consistant. the only way i can figure to measure powder by volume would be to figure out some way to measure how much it displaces, and i dont see that as being practical.

mike in co
07-04-2011, 02:08 PM
the probelm with this theroy is that it 100% contrary to all commercial/comsumer published data.
powder we buy is spec'd to perform the same for a given WEIGHT.
if one takes two significantly different lots of powder X, you often discover thast to get to the same weight of lot A, you need more or less VOLUME of lot B, but both give the same performance.
second...there are mo good powder measure that work with all powders. we here on teh bechrest forum have tested several of the best powder measures with typical br powders and the results are not "good"......n133 thru a harrells with experienced br shooters throws plus or minus 0.02 with some .03's.

you may have found some powders that are close to what you claim...but it is not true across the board for all consumer powders.

mike in co

Trevor60
07-04-2011, 03:38 PM
Here is my question how do i make the magnets weaker. Can i sand them down so they are farther apart? Can i cover them with some material without interfering with the beam? If i remove them do i screw up the scale?
I have a parker tuned scale and it still (sometimes) gives me fits. The beam freezes in place either high or low until I bump it so i am trying to figure out a way to lighten the magnetic field so the beam is more responsive

Thanks
Trevor

Boyd Allen
07-04-2011, 04:35 PM
I don't think that your magnets are your problem. When the beam freezes, give it a real good looking over to see if you can spot any points of interference. The magnets only make the eddy currents that damp the beam when it is moving.There is no force exerted by them when it is not moving, and the force is in proportion to its speed.

mike in co
07-04-2011, 04:50 PM
lightening the field will just cause more cycles up and down...undampened scales cycle a lot before settling down.
i would be looking at various pivot points as has been mentioned by others..........
when is this "freeze"...is this while trickling or in normal settling ??
mike in co

DSM
07-04-2011, 06:36 PM
Thanks for the good info on scale tuning.

Mike, I mainly use R15, 8208 and Varget.

Pete Wass
07-04-2011, 06:42 PM
back when weighing powder started to become popular a scientist stated on here that fuel produced BTU's according to it's given weight. Sounded true enough to me.

mike in co
07-04-2011, 07:12 PM
i think it is mostly true, BUT in smokelss powder the release of energy is controlled by burn rate, which is related to shape, size and coating.

mike in co

back when weighing powder started to become popular a scientist stated on here that fuel produced BTU's according to it's given weight. Sounded true enough to me.

mike in co
07-04-2011, 07:14 PM
ok , for long range, the varget and rl15 "should" work well on an upgraded beam scale with good technique.

what you using the 8208 for ?? and is it imr 8208, oem 8208 or some of the later pulldown stuff ??
mike in co


Thanks for the good info on scale tuning.

Mike, I mainly use R15, 8208 and Varget.

DSM
07-04-2011, 07:28 PM
I use the 8208 for my 6br XP.

mike in co
07-04-2011, 08:59 PM
I use the 8208 for my 6br XP.

an xp pistol...shoot use a scoop .....lol

mike in co

Trevor60
07-05-2011, 02:30 PM
lightening the field will just cause more cycles up and down...undampened scales cycle a lot before settling down.
i would be looking at various pivot points as has been mentioned by others..........
when is this "freeze"...is this while trickling or in normal settling ??
mike in co

The pan freezes at various points sometimes it will not move even after removing and replacing the pan with a charge of powder other times it will stall near the middle and finally at the top when I initially place the pan on the scale.

Trevor

mike in co
07-05-2011, 02:42 PM
what happens when you just touch the beam to make it swing and re settle....
i would reccommend not removing the pan..just touch the beam.
the others have noted pivot point issues....changing things on the pan holder may change these pivots....

just 2 cents worth ...not worth much more

mike in co

mike in co
07-05-2011, 02:44 PM
what was the scale used to determine weight ???
a typical beam scale is not accurate enought for this type of comparison.
mike in co


Here is something you might get some enjoyment from.
Someone elses words. Not mine. Copy from another forum. Kenny--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gunpowder "burns" by volume. Not weight. Weight is only used because it is easily interpreted and most folks can undertsand it.

A few years ago I did exhaustive tests on the subject for an article that I neveer finished writing. In every test, volume was more accurate than weight.

BUT......You need a good powder measure and a perfect cadance to get the poder to drop consistantly. For most folks, they will have more "consistancy" by weight.

DaveT
07-05-2011, 03:30 PM
Now Vern, who would do such a thing....
Dave T

DSM
07-05-2011, 08:13 PM
an xp pistol...shoot use a scoop .....lol

mike in co
LOL...not a SP fan I take it? Believe it or not, but it sure does shoot! I wouldn't have it if it didn't! Its a blast to shoot and challenging to shoot well with it.

twentytwoguy
07-05-2011, 08:49 PM
Trevor,
it sounds like your scale has a problem for sure. The only time my Scott tuned scale gets stuck is if it moves too far in the down position if I am clumsy and bump it and a gentle nudge get's it moving again but otherwise it's smooth as silk and the pointer detects each grain of powder hitting the pan even from a static position it 's just amazingly precise and smooth.
I just loaded it's initial thousand rounds on it and can say after careful study using a magnifier to enlarge the pointer/graduation marks (really helps alot when your blind like me) that it's never failed to detect a kernel of powder and when it's off by 2 or 3 kernels it's clearly evident by the amount of deflection shown on the hash marks and almost goes to the next graduation.
You should call/email Scott first to see if there is any user or equipment error and he will get it right for you. Make sure the pivot points are fully engaged in the V-blocks when you set the scale up and that it's not rubbing on the arm. Also it helps alot with a beam to dump fairly light and then trickle up which stops the pan from gyrating up and down excessively adding time waiting for it to settle plus it won't hang in the magnets from excessive movement. After dumping light stay on the trickler slow but sure to keep the pan falling smoothly and not bouncing and when you get near the correct weight just tap in the last couple kernels. Once you get the rythm it becomes fast since your not waiting constantly for the scale to gyrate then settle and you keep it on track going in the right direction instead of dump-wait-dump-wait etc which can get ugly fast at first till you get a little practice with the trickler. 20 to 25 seconds for single kernel accuracy is about as good as weighing powder gets even with an Acculab scale (drives me nuts drifting around) and you can use a cheap $20. Lee powder thrower to boot and save money there (it's a great measure especially at the price).
Let us know what Scott says.

mike in co
07-05-2011, 10:41 PM
since you are making cliams that your beam scale is as good as an acculab lab scale, might you bless us with some more information.
you claim you can see each grain of powder change as it is added...well i say prove it...
send us a vidieo of you adding single grains of 4227 or oem 8202 to your scale and show us the movement .
open ended, no data statements are just plain bs....add some facts to your claims.
what powder were you using ??/
mike in co


Trevor,
it sounds like your scale has a problem for sure. The only time my Scott tuned scale gets stuck is if it moves too far in the down position if I am clumsy and bump it and a gentle nudge get's it moving again but otherwise it's smooth as silk and the pointer detects each grain of powder hitting the pan even from a static position it 's just amazingly precise and smooth.
I just loaded it's initial thousand rounds on it and can say after careful study using a magnifier to enlarge the pointer/graduation marks (really helps alot when your blind like me) that it's never failed to detect a kernel of powder and when it's off by 2 or 3 kernels it's clearly evident by the amount of deflection shown on the hash marks and almost goes to the next graduation.
You should call/email Scott first to see if there is any user or equipment error and he will get it right for you. Make sure the pivot points are fully engaged in the V-blocks when you set the scale up and that it's not rubbing on the arm. Also it helps alot with a beam to dump fairly light and then trickle up which stops the pan from gyrating up and down excessively adding time waiting for it to settle plus it won't hang in the magnets from excessive movement. After dumping light stay on the trickler slow but sure to keep the pan falling smoothly and not bouncing and when you get near the correct weight just tap in the last couple kernels. Once you get the rythm it becomes fast since your not waiting constantly for the scale to gyrate then settle and you keep it on track going in the right direction instead of dump-wait-dump-wait etc which can get ugly fast at first till you get a little practice with the trickler. 20 to 25 seconds for single kernel accuracy is about as good as weighing powder gets even with an Acculab scale (drives me nuts drifting around) and you can use a cheap $20. Lee powder thrower to boot and save money there (it's a great measure especially at the price).
Let us know what Scott says.

DaveT
07-05-2011, 11:11 PM
Hands up and up against the wall twentytwoguy, how dare you act like you know more then someone in here....
Dave T

frwillia
07-05-2011, 11:20 PM
Hands up and up against the wall twentytwoguy, how dare you act like you know more then someone in here....
Dave T

Thanks. I needed a good laugh.

Fitch

mike in co
07-06-2011, 12:02 AM
well you got the words right
he ACTED like he knew something, but he provided no data.
i asked for data.
for a guy that could not get an aqcculab scale work , to turn around and claim his beam scale is as accurate as an acculab scale leves a little room for questions.
( of course, if what he was acttually saying was that he could not get the acculab to work , well then maybe his bathroom scale would be more accurate, so it would be easy to claim HIS beam scale is more accurate than HIS acculab.....lol)

glad to see you are still adding positive comments to the threads
mike in co

anyrange
07-06-2011, 06:55 AM
Back in the early sixties I was taught how to use a balance beam type scale in high school chemistry class. We were taught not to wait for the scale to come to rest or use the zero on the scale. We were taught that when the indicator is swinging equal amounts in both directions the scale is balanced. I was told that using this method is more consistent, more accurate, and much faster. I have an old Pacific oil damped balance beam scale. The oil damping pot is empty so it is only air damped and very free to swing. I have sharpened all the knife edges and polished all the places the knife edges rock on. I added a bubble level to be sure things are the same each time. I position a magnifying glass so I can more easily see the numbers on the scale. I have a calibration weight (filed down washer) for my standard powder charge which I check each time I use the scale. The normal household air currents affect the balance swing just like the very sensitive digital scales. In the winter I had to place shields to block cold air drafts. Now as for measuring or seeing the difference in one kernel of DuPont 4064 now IMR 4064 that was easy. I have removed short kernels and replaced with long kernels or vice versa to get the weight correct. However I got lazy and now use a digital scale good to the 0.1 grain, so I am plus or minus about two kernels of 4064 now days.

XBBR Shooter
07-06-2011, 11:47 AM
Here is something you might get some enjoyment from.
Someone elses words. Not mine. Copy from another forum. Kenny



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Gunpowder "burns" by volume. Not weight. Weight is only used because it is easily interpreted and most folks can understand it.

A few years ago I did exhaustive tests on the subject for an article that I never finished writing. In every test, volume was more accurate than weight.

BUT......You need a good powder measure and a perfect cadence to get the powder to drop consistently. For most folks, they will have more "consistency" by weight."




I took two years of college chemistry and three years of college physics, and the person that thought this up should document all of it and present it to the Nobel Science Committee, cuz it truly revolutionizes the laws of Chemistry, thermodynamics, and Physics - there is at least one Nobel prize in it and they can probably get a university named after them...

----------------------------

This thread caused me to go look at my scale - a Lyman (Ohaus) M5, which makes it at least a century old. :)

Instead of removing magnets when I first got it, I took out the wimpy magnets and replaced them with monster magnets. It has agate bearings, and hardened knife edges for the pan support.

The scale now does two sweeps before stopping.

It always stops in the same place - ie, there is "0" drag. If it stops and you tap the beam, it comes back and stops in the same place, and it is readable to a tenth of a tenth of a grain.

Sensitivity - I just checked it and it will respond to one particle of commercial 8208 XBR - it doesn't "jump", but after a 1/2 a second, you can see the pointer is a tiny bit higher. A second particle will do the same, and move it a tiny bit more.

I once bought a Redding scale for a second loading bench, and threw it away, cuz it was so bad, I didn't have the heart to dump it on someone else.

Boyd Allen
07-06-2011, 12:17 PM
Good post, and it speaks to one of the major issues for balance beam reloading scales, the fact that small weight changes make very small pointer position changes. I find that a cheap webcam helps with this a lot, and because it is in a fixed position, it eliminates parallax, which is a significant issue when dealing with very small weight differences.

I have read at least one (possibly more) published test of thrown charges VS weighed charges. The results came out in favor of thrown. I believe that accuracy was tested at 100 yd. Obviously there must be other things at work here. Perhaps differences in the the way that the powder was dropped into the case, directly from the measure as compared to using a funnel and scale pan, and the resultant difference in grain orientation, may have made a difference in how the powder burned. I don't know, but the results were published, and I don not believe that there was any reason for them to have been falsified. One thing that is generally ignored is the variations in volume (not weight) within a given set of cases. It is also possible that the fellow was exceptionally good with his measure, and had a reloading scale that was not up to par.

One of the tests that I keep putting off is to compare the velocities of charges that weigh the same but which fill to different levels in a case, because of how fast and far they were dropped into cases. If it turns out that this makes a difference, I will have opened a real can of worms. I sincerely hope that it makes no difference.

mike in co
07-06-2011, 12:56 PM
boyd,
i to have read several articles on thron vs weighed charges. the failure of all them, in the benchrest world, was the scale was just a std realoding beam scale...plus or minus 0.1 on a good day.
now if we could get a good shooter to do the same test with a lab scale vs thrown....hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....

well actually we have, it just isnt published as an article, its published as results.....shooters who have gone from thrown to lab scale weighed.....

mike in co
ps
xbr...i am glad your scale responds to a single grain of 8208, but now you will have every tom dick and harry claiming THIER scale is better or as good as a lab electronic scale....ohhh we already have that too....lol
so how much does a single grain od 8208 weigh on your m5 ??

Vern
07-06-2011, 01:07 PM
I have a question and I know that there is a reason why not its just that I have no idea as to why.

Instead of knife edges why couldnt a bearing of high quality be used?

lefty o
07-06-2011, 02:53 PM
the cheaper scales will measure individual kernels of the bigger stick powders 4064/4895 etc. the problem is the scale your reading on the side of the balance beam is very small, you need very good eyes to see the movement. last eye test i had, i could still read the bottom line, and i have to strain to see that small of a movement.

XBBR Shooter
07-06-2011, 03:06 PM
I have a question and I know that there is a reason why not its just that I have no idea as to why.

Instead of knife edges why couldn't a bearing of high quality be used?

Cuz knife edges have less friction than the highest quality bearings...

XBBR Shooter
07-06-2011, 03:18 PM
"....

ps
xbbr...i am glad your scale responds to a single grain of 8208, but now you will have every tom dick and harry claiming THEIR scale is better or as good as a lab electronic scale....ohhh we already havet at too....lol
so how much does a single grain od 8208 weigh on your m5 ??

"so how much does a single grain od 8208 weigh on your m5 ??"

1/17th of a tenth of a grain...

... Ok, just so we are speaking the same language, please understand that it does NOT read/resolve to a 1/17th of a tenth of a grain. I can't put a single particle in the pan and know it's weight - I do what all lab type people do - I set the scale so the pointer is exactly even with a graduation, then put the powder in until the beam pointer points at the next graduation, and count the particles.

There is a big difference between sensitivity (movement with the smallest amount of "stuff" in the pan) and "resolution" on a scale.

I think that the practical resolution of a scale with 1/10th graduations on the plate, is around 1/3rd to 1/4th of a tenth, if the scale is real good and working to it's limits.

And I doubt that resolution that fine is necessary for benchrest shooting... even 1,000 yard shooting.

mike in co
07-06-2011, 03:32 PM
re do your count....
zero the beam
move the tenths to the next figher tenth,
add powder till it zeros and count again....
let me know
(if you look back up the thread, you will see my wieght of oem 8208)

mike in co



"so how much does a single grain od 8208 weigh on your m5 ??"

1/17th of a tenth of a grain...

... Ok, just so we are speaking the same language, please understand that it does NOT read/resolve to a 1/17th of a tenth of a grain. I can't put a single particle in the pan and know it's weight - I do what all lab type people do - I set the scale so the pointer is exactly even with a graduation, then put the powder in until the beam pointer points at the next graduation, and count the particles.

There is a big difference between sensitivity (movement with the smallest amount of "stuff" in the pan) and "resolution" on a scale.

I think that the practical resolution of a scale with 1/10th graduations on the plate, is around 1/3rd to 1/4th of a tenth, if the scale is real good and working to it's limits.

And I doubt that resolution that fine is necessary for benchrest shooting... even 1,000 yard shooting.

twentytwoguy
07-06-2011, 03:37 PM
This is another one of those "all things being equal" disagreements and is because some folks have a beam scale that is capable of reading kernels and some don't and some folks have good luck with electronic and others cuss at them.
Some day Comike will get to use a set of good beam scales and see the light like others have and maybe some day my Acculab scales will quit wandering all over the place.
I recently moved and they work much better at the new house due to lots of stuff out of my control like how the house is wired, power company, solar flares lol etc. but they still wander and can add as many as 90 grains even when your not using them which doesn't sound too good for accuracy and many others have attested to the same kind of issues and there are always many fixes discussed for these common problems like using APC backup units, magnetic line filters over the power cord (these really do help), unplugging everything else on the circuit and not using fluorescent lights etc.... but if they work so good why are there so many fixes anyways Lol???
The beam scale repeats no matter where it is thanks to gravity which must be pretty consistent in my neighborhood otherwise the Lee dippers would be the second choice lol.
If your beam won't show a log of Varget dropped in the pan you got problems.

mike in co
07-06-2011, 03:41 PM
sorry you are way too late. i have done lab work with good scales.......
i know what a good scale is...the typical relaoding scale is just good....not great....0.1 on a good day.
see below...then i'm off to a match...pistols
mike in co

This is another one of those "all things being equal" disagreements and is because some folks have a beam scale that is capable of reading kernels and some don't and some folks have good luck with electronic and others cuss at them.
Some day Comike will get to use a set of good beam scales and see the light like others have and maybe some day my Acculab scales will quit wandering all over the place.
I recently moved and they work much better at the new house due to lots of stuff out of my control like how the house is wired, power company, solar flares lol etc. but they still wander and can add as many as 90 grains even when your not using them which doesn't sound too good for accuracy and many others have attested to the same kind of issues and there are always many fixes discussed for these common problems like using APC backup units, magnetic line filters over the power cord (these really do help), unplugging everything else on the circuit and not using fluorescent lights etc.... but if they work so good why are there so many fixes anyways Lol???
The beam scale repeats no matter where it is thanks to gravity which must be pretty consistent in my neighborhood otherwise the Lee dippers would be the second choice lol.
If your beam won't show a log of Varget dropped in the pan you got problems.

XBBR Shooter
07-06-2011, 03:48 PM
re do your count....
zero the beam
move the tenths to the next figher tenth,
add powder till it zeros and count again....
let me know
(if you look back up the thread, you will see my wieght of oem 8208)

mike in co

I came up with 0.0058, and you came up with 0.004 - I can live with the differences.

mike in co
07-06-2011, 04:01 PM
except that is not correct...my number is oem 8202..you used imr8208.
imr 8208 is larger than oem 8208.
i get .008 for imr( that is twice that of oem) and makes your .0058 aprox 25% in error.....
your beam is not moving a 10th between pointer graduations.....
did you redo the test as described ??
( the math does not support your claim of accuracy of your m5)
be back later
mike in co
I came up with 0.0058, and you came up with 0.004 - I can live with the differences.

XBBR Shooter
07-06-2011, 05:03 PM
except that is not correct...my number is oem 8202..you used imr8208.
imr 8208 is larger than oem 8208.
i get .008 for imr( that is twice that of oem) and makes your .0058 aprox 25% in error.....
your beam is not moving a 10th between pointer graduations.....
did you redo the test as described ??
( the math does not support your claim of accuracy of your m5)
be back later
mike in co

I'm not going to get into an argument over it - you are right and I am wrong.

mike in co
07-06-2011, 10:04 PM
gentlemen and ladies,
if a poster was to come on here and claim his winchester 338 short mag shot as well as a competitive 6ppc benchrest rifle, everyone would question his claim, most all would doubt it.
it just aint so, right ??
but guys come on here and claim thier reloading quality beam scales are as good as a lab electronic scale that is .02 in accuracy and .03 in sensitivity.......and half of you( beam scale owners i assume) see nothing wrong with the claim, others say yes why not......
it just aint logical.
and in the last example, the math of his own data did not support his calimed accuracy.
honestly, just think about what is being claimed.....

mike in co

XBBR Shooter
07-06-2011, 10:10 PM
Sorry... but I posted what I have. IF you don't like it, so be it, but if you are calling me a liar, then you have a problem.

I NEVER claimed that my scale was as good as your electronic scale - I just posted what I found. If that makes you insecure, then you maybe need some therapy.

You cannot compare what you weigh in Colorado, with what I weigh in Connecticut, and claim any comparison.

If you want to send me some of your "Whatever" powder and have me weigh it, then you have something to talk about - otherwise, you are just blowing smoke.

The weights I posted are what I have. What you have is not my responsibility.

I think you have too much time on your hands.

mike in co
07-06-2011, 11:09 PM
you claimed your scale was accurate to within 0.1, i do not dispute that.
what i do dispute is that one graduation on the scale of the pointer being 1/10 of a grain.
the math just does not support your claim....
no company sells powder under one name and have the wieght vary by 25%...actually more.....they sell performance by weight.
which is why i asked you redo the weight the way i described.
what lot number is on the container...

mike in co

Boyd Allen
07-07-2011, 12:23 AM
If this works, what you will see below are three pictures taken with an inexpensive web cam, of my RCBS 10-10 scale's beam pointers alignments at three different settings, with the same weight (a quarter) in the pan. the first shows the scale balanced, reading 87.5 gr. ; the second, with it unbalanced, set to 87.6 gr.; and the last, with the scale unbalanced, set to 87.7 grains. To give an idea of the size of what you are looking at, I measured, I measured the width of the tip of the beam at .104". This scale has had some work done on it, to perform its performance. The pictures were manipulated to make the width of the end of the beam easier to see. Why argue about what you are seeing, when pictures are so easy to post? I have nothing to say about anyone else's scale or what it can or can't do. We each have our own story, and point of view.
http://i1021.photobucket.com/albums/af340/fresburgflash/balanced875.jpg
http://i1021.photobucket.com/albums/af340/fresburgflash/scaleat876.jpg
http://i1021.photobucket.com/albums/af340/fresburgflash/scalesetat877.jpg

4Mesh
07-07-2011, 12:31 AM
Very cool photos Boyd. The only problem I have with them is that Mike says this isn't possible. Not on a plane, not on a train, not in the air, not with a snare. Not in a car, not on a bus, this isn't on par, with our scales set up thus. Powder won't stand still for a beam, no maam. It just won't do it Sam I Am. :D

DaveT
07-07-2011, 12:47 AM
Very good 4Mesh, you're a poet and didn't know it. Be careful now Mike will just try to out do your poetry....
Dave T

mike in co
07-07-2011, 01:15 AM
boyd...did i ever say that a beam would not indicate a 1/10 ??? i think not....

now take a fine pen and mark those tenths......out where the pointer indicates......do it for several tenths....
then repeat and see how it works....
this is the mod i suggested beam scale users do when they have "accurizied" thier scales....

mike in co

Boyd Allen
07-07-2011, 10:33 AM
Mike,
I know that, I can read. Not every post is about what you said, or did not...or suggest, or not. We can do what we do without supervision. This thread started with a request about how to make a beam scale work better. I am simply showing the degree of deflection that mine has per unit of weight change, on a one time basis, nothing more. Perhaps you should start your own thread about the validity of claims about accurized scales, and their merits, or lack thereof relative to electronic scales of a given cost.

Added later: My purpose was to illustrate the inherent difficulties in using a balance scale for measuring differences in weight less than .1. If one postulates that the beam deflection for .02 is somewhere around one fifth that of .1, then it may be easily seen that changes to the pointer and or what it points to may be needed, and that improvements to how results are viewed (webcam or magnifier) may be important, as well as greater than normal attention to parallax. with regard to the latter, I have slightly bent the aluminum piece on my scale, that has the black reference line, so that its face is in the same approximate plane as the front of the pointer, making sure that there is enough clearance.
Boyd

Flouncer
07-07-2011, 10:39 AM
I am keeping my $20 Lee Safety Powder Measure which came with my $99 Anniversary kit in 6.5x55, circa 1996. It will deflect with a single grain (edit - a single kernel or granule) of H4831. That's all I know and want to to know. I can't split grains, and I am blissfully ignorant of any perceived deficiencies.

Shall we enter a poetry contest ?

In days of old
when loads were bold
and electronics weren't invented
we shot our loads
upon the roads
and went away contented.

)chill(

pmcallan
07-07-2011, 11:25 AM
This forum has actually gotten funny... Who can jerk whos chain the hardest......

I actually own all the scales yall are talking about, not tricked out, they all function well. I am also trying to find the best. Ain't found it yet. I actually found a cheap Hornaday electronic, $40.00 pocket size,works just as well. I'm new to benchrest ( a little over a year), so for I have found a few kernals is not going to make a difference. I have build my own personal 100-200 yard range on my farm. I try to spend 1 to 2 days a week burning powder.

Boyd Allen
07-07-2011, 11:49 AM
In the past, I have found that I get more from seating depth changes, if the powder is close. Does this agree with your experience?

4Mesh
07-07-2011, 12:31 PM
Hidden in all this text ... is a great example of how marketing bs will convince the masses that something easier is actually better. (when in fact it may not be).

"Digital" is not somehow better than "Analog", just cause you've been reading as much for decades. Digital music sucks. Digital movies have way less info on a Blu-Ray than there used to be on a VHS tape. Digital monitors are a joke, by comparison to their CRT analog counterparts.

How many people here had Cell phones before the "Digital Age" came? Remember back when you could make a call from anywhere, anytime. Nowadays, I can literally sit on my boat, LOOKING AT THE CELL TOWER and have no or little service. Back in the analog days, my phone worked like a charm, and I could actually TALK to the person on the other end. Now today, digital cell phones are just a worthless P.O.S.

This whole thing of accuracy of scales and what can be achieved misses the points. Electronic scales primarily purchase you speed. Accuracy can be had with a balance. Go look up Analytical Balances from Ohous or Citizen and you'll see them with a damn site more accuracy than milligrams. More like, .01mg. These are really nice balances. I have a brother who owns one (not for reloading). He uses his for testing air samples for particulate matter. It's real ak-er-ut. Unfortunately, they are not $1000. Something like that is useless for reloading anyway, because as things become more accurate, they loose speed. Not that the scale isn't faster, but the environment needs to be controlled. My milligram scale will weigh a bullet while it is rolling around on the tray, and it has already settled while it's almost still bouncing. Almost defies what I think I know about scales. Every time I put a bullet on and it topples over, I sit in amazement how it settles.

But for all that, electronic scales have weakeness, most of all is their rounding errors. In the scales we purchase for reloading, even the nice ones, there is friction involved. Somewhere. Static is an issue. Airborne items, like fine hairs, or spider webs, or dust, all contribute to the scale being innacurate. The specs are just like any other specs, you need to qualify them by sayin, "this scale will do what we say when it is clean, level, no air movement, actively de-ionized, free of emf, operating in purified air, etc." When you are talking about milligram resolution, it is not difficult for the user to remove all accuracy or repeatability.

And, specifically to 22guy above, if your scale gives 90 grain discrepancies, you really need to open in and see there is no hair, spider webs, dirt or other foreign matter in the works. You may need a magnifier and lights to see the crap thats in there, but almost certainly it is there. Static on my scale has been shown to alter its results by iirc, 28 milligrams. But, even that is way way less than you're talking.

I could easily go back to using my beam if I was forced to. I don't want to because it is slow. I own several, they all still work fine and act similar to Boyds. 2 of mine have the graduations on the scale already, and I recall being amazed how accurate they are. They are indespensible for double checking your digital scale when you want to travel 1000 miles to a big match and are not interested in having a flier cost you any chance in the match. While, we might see easily when our beam scale is not right, virtually nobody knows when their digital one has a small malfunction. How would you? I'm not talking about a test weight, I'm talking about 1 powder charge out of 100, just somewhere in the mix.

DaveT
07-07-2011, 12:54 PM
What scale do you do most of your weighing powder on 4mesh?
Dave T

4Mesh
07-07-2011, 01:02 PM
MyWeigh GemPro 150, and a Redding beam. I've never known the beam model, (not that it matters). It's a beam scale that works.

DaveT
07-07-2011, 01:08 PM
So you feel a $75.00 MyWeigh GemPro 150 is accurate enough for you applications?
Dave T
I appoligize for the price I stated above, I googled that scale and I mistakenly got the price for a MyWeigh GemPro 50 instead of a 150. I thought I did an edit on my mistake but must have done it wrong. What would a 150 cost? Sorry for the mistake guys....
Dave T

mike in co
07-07-2011, 01:13 PM
4mesh....mostly well said( you know i will never agree 100%...lol)

on the electronic being wrong....well keep it in a safe/clean enviroment.
i have no dogs nor cats, it is on its own granite surface plate, solidly supported.
pretty well isolated.
the scale i s.02 in accuracy and .03 in sensitivity....
say i want a 28.4 gr load....... i load to 28.38-28.42....which means due to sensitivity, i maybe at 28.37-28.43.......................that is plus or minus 0.03..well under the std beam at 0.1
this is much better than thrown charges, and std .1 beam scales....
thats all i am after.

the issue that is a problem with beams...is no, you do not always know when it is off.
yes in a perfect world, you would see the pionter off, but as has been pointed out, the various pivot points can change the readings when they shift...and you have no clue.
hysreious is an issue, and like all else, air currents, dirt, dust, etc....
you tricle up , look at it as it hits the mark and dump the charge....just it had not stopped moving......
not one person reported on doing the test i posted.....
i have a beam, i can use it...heck i do use it...but not for match ammo.

mike in co

same question as in the past......what works for you ??

mike in co
07-07-2011, 01:21 PM
maybe
the scale is listed at .015/.03 grians, two modes ...but no listing for sensitivity and that would effect trickling.
notice it says to place all items on at once.....tends to make me worry about the trickle issue and sensitivity.
your best buddy
mike in co

So you feel a $75.00 MyWeigh GemPro 150 is accurate enough for you applications?
Dave T

DaveT
07-07-2011, 02:21 PM
So you feel a $75.00 MyWeigh GemPro 150 is accurate enough for you applications?
Dave T
I appoligize for the price I stated above, I googled that scale and I mistakenly got the price for a MyWeigh GemPro 50 instead of a 150. I thought I did an edit on my mistake but must have done it wrong. What would a 150 cost? Sorry for the mistake guys....
Dave T

4Mesh
07-07-2011, 02:43 PM
So you feel a $75.00 MyWeigh GemPro 150 is accurate enough for you applications?
Dave T
I appoligize for the price I stated above, I googled that scale and I mistakenly got the price for a MyWeigh GemPro 50 instead of a 150. I thought I did an edit on my mistake but must have done it wrong. What would a 150 cost? Sorry for the mistake guys....
Dave T

Today the same scale is a Gem Pro 250 (just a capacity increase). I've owned mine for a number of years. It is still dead on accurate as it ever was. Tested items of various weights weigh to the milligram just as close as they did when they were put in the boxes that identified them years ago. Some have weights written right on the items. As for cost, probably just under $200 (as shown several times above in the thread where this very scale was linked by multiple posters).
Suffice to say, yes it is entirely accurate enough. But, stick a cat hair under the platter and all bets are off.

4Mesh
07-07-2011, 03:42 PM
As to the above question of trickling, it works perfectly. Mine came with no warnings about place all weight at once. And in my 5 or so years of trickling powder on it, I'd say it's a non issue.
/edit
I also just saw 2 brand new ones that work just as nice as mine. The new are 250s of course.

Bob Kingsbury
07-07-2011, 04:46 PM
4Mesh, I am not familiar with gempro scales, would be interested if I could find one. Both of my electronics have given me questions.
Now I am relying on an old redding which has the oil paddle. The V has been lapped and knife edge refinished. It will show
one kernal of 4895. It is still slow. The somewhat long beam having a capacity of only 300 gr should have a pretty good
ratio in responce. I use very light synthetic oil,and never move this scale, but it does migrate up to the V's for some reason.
that does slow movement so it must be kept clean. Not the best, but I can live with it

Andy Cross
07-10-2011, 05:21 AM
[QUOTE=frwillia;634326]Jackie,

I have a Charge Master and I definitely agree, +/- 0.1 is being generous. I use mine to pre-throw charges because it's so fast to set it up. I dump the results on my 10-10 and trickle to weight. I'm seldom waiting for the CM.


I use both a PSECO powder measure which I have tested to be consistant in throwing charges + or - half a tenth. I just use that when loading cartridges for the field varminters. For BR I throw a slightly light charge onto a digital scale ( $4000 lab balance resolution 0.01 grains) and trickle to the correct weight. I didn't buy that scale for BR shooting but for another purpose entirely. But I figure I might as well use it for BR as well.
Andy.

Boyd Allen
07-10-2011, 08:15 AM
Did you mean SAECO powder measure? I looked up PESCO and they looked to be an unlikely powder measure source.

John Kielly
07-10-2011, 08:17 AM
http://members.optushome.com.au/johnhgiles/index.htm

Boyd Allen
07-10-2011, 08:30 AM
Thanks John,
I managed to find one image on Google, but nothing on the web site. It looks like it might work something like a Belding and Mull. Does it have a fixed volume chamber between the powder bottle and the measuring tube, or does the powder feed straight into the tube?
Boyd

John Kielly
07-10-2011, 05:52 PM
Boyd,

If it's still the same as originally produced by Neville Madden when he owned the business, it uses a fixed volume chamber rotating off a central pivot between two cover plates - essentially the same as the B & M, except the transfer from hopper to measuring tube is radial rather than linear.

John

sbindy
07-16-2011, 03:07 PM
I worked on my Redding scale to make it more consistent. The main problem with it was repeatability, even when the same charge was placed back on the hangar. It would have a different reading. No matter where the pan was placed on the hangar platform, the weight would change, so obviously, this area needed alot of work.

In addition to the suggestions Boyd made about leveling and the other tricks he used, the mods I made to the hangar assembly should make your scale work much better.

First, remove the hangar from the scale, then remove the platform from the wire arm. There are small weights inside the platform holder, so make sure not to lose them.

Secondly, take the hangar platform and make sure it is flat. Mine was bowl shaped. Turn it upside down, and using a rubber deadblow mallet, plastic, or rawhide mallet, lightly strike the pan on a flat surface until it sits flat. The soft aluminum will flatten easily.

Third, take the bare wire arm and lay it on a flat surface to see if it's twisted, and tweak until it lays flat.

Next, reinstall the platform to the hangar, and place it on the scale arm. Using a small circular bubble level, make sure that the platform sits level. You will have to tweak the arm a little to achieve this. Make sure that the center of the platform is directly below the attachment wire on the arm when viewed from above so that the weight is placed directly under the fulcrum of the hangar itself.

To check the results, put some weight in the pan and move it around on the platform. It should weight the same no matter where its located.

Its also important to keep the sharp beam angles clean, as well as the contact grooves. I use isopropyl alchohol on the blades, and a hair brush to remove dust from the contacts. Also, make sure the blades are centered in the groove. If they touch one side, it dulls the response significantly. I found that these mods also made my scale much more sensitive to slight changes, such as an individual kernel of powder.

Hope this helps, and Good Luck!

langenc
07-16-2011, 04:14 PM
Next, reinstall the platform to the hangar, and place it on the scale arm. Using a small circular bubble level, make sure that the platform sits level. You will have to tweak the arm a little to achieve this. Make sure that the center of the platform is directly below the attachment wire on the arm when viewed from above so that the weight is placed directly under the fulcrum of the hangar itself. quoted from first page!

I guess the working surface should be level. I assumed muine were. I used the scales leveling screw to get the arm indicator to rest on 0 (zero)!!

sbindy
07-16-2011, 11:26 PM
I should have explained that my scale is on its own leveled surface before I zero the scale. Sorry about that!

Pete Wass
07-22-2011, 07:32 AM
look at the labratory balances. One of my shooting buddies has a friend who works in the State bureau of weights and measures. That lad told my friend to find a good used Mettler. He found one with a nice self-contained cage around it. Yes, they are pricey but it's best to buy the best and cry once.

glp
07-22-2011, 08:37 AM
look at the labratory balances. One of my shooting buddies has a friend who works in the State bureau of weights and measures. That lad told my friend to find a good used Mettler. He found one with a nice self-contained cage around it. Yes, they are pricey but it's best to buy the best and cry once.

OMG, an epiphany!

DSM
11-23-2011, 07:45 PM
Bump for great info in this thread. I just picked up an Ohaus 10-0-5 in great shape. Seems to be balanced fairly well. I will follow some of the tune tricks in this thread to see if I can make it better.

Joe Maisto
11-23-2011, 10:16 PM
I remember something Wilbur wrote on this topic a while back. It went something like this:

"You can measure to a millionth of a guzillionth ( or something like that ) and it won't make any differance. The man is right again.
Some of this stuff simply gets out of hand, and I suspect this is already going in that direction.
Does anyone really believe that a kernal or two of powder is going to make a differance in your score ?
Get the bags right, read the flags, and gun handling. Is there any more ?

Boyd Allen
11-23-2011, 11:50 PM
I hope that no one really thinks that having accurate measuring tools is a waste of time. tuning a scale is like using the small adjustment screws to adjust the jaws of a pair of calipers so that they are parallel, or adjusting a micrometer so that it reads correctly. Having an accurate mic. that reads to .0001 does not mean that everything that I measure has to be done to that degree of precision, but I would like my tools to give me the same reading every time, all other things being equal. The reason that I worked on my scale is that I could reweigh the same thing and get a variation in the reading that was significant, and after reading that someone was tuning scales for money, I thought that I would give it a try, and if I failed, I would send it off to be professionally adjusted. In the process I have learned a lot, enjoyed the challenge, and, room this thread gotten some more good ideas to try. Thanks for that. I throw 133..very carefully, and I like to check the EX of my thrown charges from time to time. That I why I want may scale to work better than it did. For a long time I believed what it told me, then I got the chance to play with a pretty good electronic scale, and compare its results with my 10-10. At that point, I knew that I needed to either spend over $300 on a new scale, or make mine work a lot better, which I have. I guess the root of this is being too tight and stubborn to upgrade my equipment, that, and enjoying a challenge.
Boyd

mike in co
11-24-2011, 12:28 AM
as the shooters get better, and the equiptment gets better...you better start looking at the small things....the current method of dropping powder is inaccurate....go get a lab scale, and some n133..and start throwing charges...plus ot minus .2...that aint a kernal or two......
wake up or settle fornot first place.
mike in co

I remember something Wilbur wrote on this topic a while back. It went something like this:

"You can measure to a millionth of a guzillionth ( or something like that ) and it won't make any differance. The man is right again.
Some of this stuff simply gets out of hand, and I suspect this is already going in that direction.
Does anyone really believe that a kernal or two of powder is going to make a differance in your score ?
Get the bags right, read the flags, and gun handling. Is there any more ?

Boyd Allen
11-24-2011, 12:46 AM
Mike...buddy...first place is often won with thrown charges. The Chargemasters are still in the minority, and many the short range shooter has discovered that his most accurate load was not he one with the smallest ES. I like Chargmasters, but they are a long way from a requirement for winning. Now at the longer ranges, where most of the ammo is preloaded, and velocity generated difference in vertical are proportionally magnified...I see no reason not to weigh charges.

mike in co
11-24-2011, 04:53 AM
i agree..but as i was saying as things get better and more competitive..look for the little things to improve your game...
a chargemaster is better than thrown, but a lab scale is even better....i think we are working our way there.
mike in co

Mike...buddy...first place is often won with thrown charges. The Chargemasters are still in the minority, and many the short range shooter has discovered that his most accurate load was not he one with the smallest ES. I like Chargmasters, but they are a long way from a requirement for winning. Now at the longer ranges, where most of the ammo is preloaded, and velocity generated difference in vertical are proportionally magnified...I see no reason not to weigh charges.

1066
12-21-2011, 03:11 PM
Hi - I'm new to this forum but not new to shooting so I thought I would just bump this thread to the top and throw in my 2 cents worth.

I have around 25 sets of beam scales, un-damped, oil-damped, and magnetically damped and have "accurized" a few.

Here are a couple of videos of how I improved my scales etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=gTElTMWgc3Q

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=dnVOoGd1bDU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=HOKJxe0FUTk