Weighing scales: Is digital better than analogue?

What do people in here think of Hanson weighing scales? I've just bought the cheapest ones I could
find(non-digital) and they suck big time. OK if you pay peanuts..... but I'm really surprised that
scales can be so inaccurate even if they did cost £5. I weigh 163lbs but the Hanson scales gives a
reading of 158-159lbs. I wouldn't mind a one pound difference but 5? I'm considering returning it
and getting the digital version which is exactly the same appearancewise except it has a digital
readout. However if the internal mechanism is still mechanical then the problem could remain hence
the reason that I am crossposting to the misc.fitness groups as I'm sure a lot of peeps in here
must have experience of using both analogue(cheap and expensive) and digital scales. So, are
digital scales better than analogue? or even better anyone used Hanson's digital scales(they cost
about £13)?

Rob Beattie wrote:

> What do people in here think of Hanson weighing scales? I've just bought the cheapest ones I could
> find(non-digital) and they suck big time. OK if you pay peanuts..... but I'm really surprised that
> scales can be so inaccurate even if they did cost £5. I weigh 163lbs but the Hanson scales gives a
> reading of 158-159lbs.

How do you know what you weigh? Seriously. I've weighed myself with NIST-traceable scales and load
cells at work that proved to be way off, a couple of doctor's scales that I could trick into varying
by 3-4 lbs, shipping scales (that I actually tend to believe), and several analog and digital
scales. The worst offender is a balance scale at my gym: on the 150-lb scale, it says I weigh
several lbs over 200. On the 200-lb scale, it says I weigh several lbs under 200. The consensus of
other scales says I weigh about 192. I've decided to live with the uncertainty.

> I wouldn't mind a one pound difference but 5? I'm considering returning it and getting the digital
> version which is exactly the same appearancewise except it has a digital readout. However if the
> internal mechanism is still mechanical then the problem could remain hence the reason that I am
> crossposting to the misc.fitness groups as I'm sure a lot of peeps in here must have experience of
> using both analogue(cheap and expensive) and digital scales. So, are digital scales better than
> analogue? or even better anyone used Hanson's digital scales(they cost about £13)?

Most analog scales are essentially spring scales, and are subject to a variety of errors,
principally due to mechanical friction and backlash (unless overloaded, the springs themselves tend
to stay OK over time). A solid majority of these cannot be trusted to read to 1 lb, simply because
of a lack of repeatability: the zero is different every time you step off the scale. Most electronic
scales are very simple, mechanically, and are more accurate and repeatable. I've had problems with a
Timex digital scale (probably $50) that lost its mind (replaced under warranty), and good luck with
a $15 digital scale from Taylor.

-Wayne

The best scales around are balance scales. But, since they can be hard to read and are ridiculously
expensive, the next best is the digital scale. A digital scale has no moving parts. It measures
weight by applying voltage to a plate [the one you stand on] - and throught some amazing scientific
means [of which I have little idea] calculates your weight based on the deflection of the plate.
Spring scales suck. They do have moving parts - most notably a spring [duh]. The spring will wear
out and isn't the most accurate way to measure to begin with.

In a nutshell: Return the piece of crap and buy a digital scale.

"Rob Beattie" <rob@/remove/ghosh.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3e58d340.1190777@text.news.ntlworld.com...
> What do people in here think of Hanson weighing scales? I've just bought the cheapest ones I could
> find(non-digital) and they suck big time. OK if you pay peanuts..... but I'm really surprised that
> scales can be so inaccurate even if they did cost £5. I weigh 163lbs but the Hanson scales gives a
> reading of 158-159lbs. I wouldn't mind a one pound difference but 5? I'm considering returning it
> and getting the digital version which is exactly the same appearancewise except it has a digital
> readout. However if the internal mechanism is still mechanical then the problem could remain hence
> the reason that I am crossposting to the misc.fitness groups as I'm sure a lot of peeps in here
> must have experience of using both analogue(cheap and expensive) and digital scales. So, are
> digital scales better than analogue? or even better anyone used Hanson's digital scales(they cost
> about £13)?

Scales are complete ****.

They show weight,granted.But they won't tell you if your diet is wrong and you're losing muscle,not
fat. They won't tell you if you've dumped 2lb's of water and you'll find ways to cheat them!

Stand side-on , naked , into a full-length mirror and note the changes , if any.Knowing your weight
isn't knowing your body.Body-fat percentages could be useful though.

My digital scales make the same noise when you step on them as do analogue scales; I suspect only
the display is digital. Self zeroing though, which is an advantage.

I don't think absolute accuracy is so important in scales. What is important is repeatability.
Whether you weigh 82 kgs or 84 kgs is pretty academic; but knowing you weigh 2 kgs less than you did
a week ago is not. If your scales consistently read 5 lbs under your correct weight, then they will
still track pluses and minuses accurately which is really what you probably want (unless you are
competing in a particular weight class).

"Rob Beattie" <rob@/remove/ghosh.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3e58d340.1190777@text.news.ntlworld.com...
> What do people in here think of Hanson weighing scales? I've just bought the cheapest ones I could
> find(non-digital) and they suck big time. OK if you pay peanuts..... but I'm really surprised that
> scales can be so inaccurate even if they did cost £5. I weigh 163lbs but the Hanson scales gives a
> reading of 158-159lbs. I wouldn't mind a one pound difference but 5? I'm considering returning it
> and getting the digital version which is exactly the same appearancewise except it has a digital
> readout. However if the internal mechanism is still mechanical then the problem could remain hence
> the reason that I am crossposting to the misc.fitness groups as I'm sure a lot of peeps in here
> must have experience of using both analogue(cheap and expensive) and digital scales. So, are
> digital scales better than analogue? or even better anyone used Hanson's digital scales(they cost
> about £13)?

"Rob Beattie" <rob@/remove/ghosh.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3e58d340.1190777@text.news.ntlworld.com...
> What do people in here think of Hanson weighing scales? I've just bought the cheapest ones I could
> find(non-digital) and they suck big time. OK if you pay peanuts..... but I'm really surprised that
> scales can be so inaccurate even if they did cost £5. I weigh 163lbs but the Hanson scales gives a
> reading of 158-159lbs. I wouldn't mind a one pound difference but 5? I'm considering returning it
> and getting the digital version which is exactly the same appearancewise except it has a digital
> readout. However if the internal mechanism is still mechanical then the problem could remain hence
> the reason that I am crossposting to the misc.fitness groups as I'm sure a lot of peeps in here
> must have experience of using both analogue(cheap and expensive) and digital scales. So, are
> digital scales better than analogue? or even better anyone used Hanson's digital scales(they cost
> about £13)?

Look for reliability rather than accuracy in a scale. Try before you buy. See how often a given
scale gives the same reading. That way you can track your results better and its just arithmetic to
convert it to the accurate weight.

"Wayne S. Hill" <hillw4@asme.org> wrote
> Rob Beattie wrote:
>
> > What do people in here think of Hanson weighing scales? I've just bought the cheapest ones I
> > could find(non-digital) and they suck big time. OK if you pay peanuts..... but I'm really
> > surprised that scales can be so inaccurate even if they did cost £5. I weigh 163lbs but the
> > Hanson scales gives a reading of 158-159lbs.
>
> How do you know what you weigh? Seriously. I've weighed myself with NIST-traceable scales and load
> cells at work that proved to be way off, a couple of doctor's scales that I could trick into
> varying by 3-4 lbs, shipping scales (that I actually tend to believe), and several analog and
> digital scales. The worst offender is a balance scale at my gym: on the 150-lb scale, it says I
> weigh several lbs over 200. On the 200-lb scale, it says I weigh several lbs under 200. The
> consensus of other scales says I weigh about 192. I've decided to live with the uncertainty.

My favorite what-do-I-weigh story. I, and a few friends, were working one summer during my
youthhoodness at a water treatment plant and reservoir as a groundskeeper. One day, my friends and I
were eating lunch in the chlorine room...a room with enormous tanks of chlorine sitting on scales. I
decided to see what I weighed, so I stood on a chlorine tank scale. The weight went from a few
thousand pounds to a few thousand plus 150. Then I jumped off. Then very loud alarms went off. Then
men in full chemical exposure suits came running in. Then I realized one of the purposes of the
scales. Oops.

David

On 23 Feb 2003 14:49:30 GMT, "Wayne S. Hill" <hillw4@asme.org> wrote:

>Rob Beattie wrote:
>
>> What do people in here think of Hanson weighing scales? I've just bought the cheapest ones I
>> could find(non-digital) and they suck big time. OK if you pay peanuts..... but I'm really
>> surprised that scales can be so inaccurate even if they did cost £5. I weigh 163lbs but the
>> Hanson scales gives a reading of 158-159lbs.
>
>How do you know what you weigh? Seriously. I've weighed myself with NIST-traceable scales and load
>cells at work that proved to be way off, a couple of doctor's scales that I could trick into
>varying by 3-4 lbs, shipping scales (that I actually tend to believe), and several analog and
>digital scales. The worst offender is a balance scale at my gym: on the 150-lb scale, it says I
>weigh several lbs over 200. On the 200-lb scale, it says I weigh several lbs under 200. The
>consensus of other scales says I weigh about 192. I've decided to live with the uncertainty.
>
>> I wouldn't mind a one pound difference but 5? I'm considering returning it and getting the
>> digital version which is exactly the same appearancewise except it has a digital readout. However
>> if the internal mechanism is still mechanical then the problem could remain hence the reason that
>> I am crossposting to the misc.fitness groups as I'm sure a lot of peeps in here must have
>> experience of using both analogue(cheap and expensive) and digital scales. So, are digital scales
>> better than analogue? or even better anyone used Hanson's digital scales(they cost about £13)?
>
>Most analog scales are essentially spring scales, and are subject to a variety of errors,
>principally due to mechanical friction and backlash (unless overloaded, the springs themselves tend
>to stay OK over time). A solid majority of these cannot be trusted to read to 1 lb, simply because
>of a lack of repeatability: the zero is different every time you step off the scale. Most
>electronic scales are very simple, mechanically, and are more accurate and repeatable. I've had
>problems with a Timex digital scale (probably $50) that lost its mind (replaced under warranty),
>and good luck with a $15 digital scale from Taylor.
>
>-Wayne
The zero is different every time you step off the scale but most scales have a knob or something
similar that allows you to adjust for that every time it happens. What I don't like is the fact that
even after zeroing, the readings I get are between 2 to 5 lbs less(always less) than the weight I
get using another pair(much older) scales. I trust the second one as it is very consistent and after
zeroing it gives my weight as 167,168, or 169 lbs. Also when checking with free weights the older
machine was showing around 39-39.5KG for 40KG(100lbs) which is much closer than what the cheap
scales came up with (between 37 and 37.5KG). It is the friction you mentioned that makes me think
that digtal is the way to go so unless someone says different, that is what I'll be getting.

In article <lTa6a.78944$L47.11502261@read2.cgocable.net>, "Piscanthropus Profundus"
<profundus@hotmail.com> wrote:

> The best scales around are balance scales. But, since they can be hard to read and are
> ridiculously expensive, the next best is the digital scale. A digital scale has no moving parts.
> It measures weight by applying voltage to a plate [the one you stand on] - and throught some
> amazing scientific means [of which I have little idea] calculates your weight based on the
> deflection of the plate. Spring scales suck. They do have moving parts - most notably a spring
> [duh]. The spring will wear out and isn't the most accurate way to measure to begin with.
>
> In a nutshell: Return the piece of crap and buy a digital scale.
>

The device you so describe is, in fact, analog. it is usually (but not always) connected though an
A/D convertor to a digital readout.

--
Tom Morley | morley@math.gatech.edu | Same roads, tmorley@bmtc.mindspring.com | Same rights,
http://www.math.gatech.edu/~morley | Same rules.
ICQ: 24798603 AIM: DocTDM |

Peter Webb wrote:

> My digital scales make the same noise when you step on them as do analogue scales; I suspect only
> the display is digital. Self zeroing though, which is an advantage.

There are/were some analog/digital scales that worked this way, but I think most nowadays are
essentially 4-post strain gage load cells (i.e., the direct sensing means is electronic).

> I don't think absolute accuracy is so important in scales. What is important is repeatability.
> Whether you weigh 82 kgs or 84 kgs is pretty academic; but knowing you weigh 2 kgs less than you
> did a week ago is not. If your scales consistently read 5 lbs under your correct weight, then they
> will still track pluses and minuses accurately which is really what you probably want (unless you
> are competing in a particular weight class).

True. And, if you need to weigh in for a competitive weight class, you're stuck with whatever
they're using for a scale (which others here can tell you could be pretty far off).

-Wayne

On Sun, 23 Feb 2003 15:45:23 GMT, "David Cohen" <sammiesdad@earthlink.net> wrote:

>h story. I, and a few friends, were working one summer during my youthhoodness at a water treatment
>plant and reservoir as a groundskeeper. One day, my friends and I were eating lunch in the chlorine
>room...a room with enormous tanks of chlorine sitting on scales. I decided to see what I weighed,
>so I stood on a chlorine tank scale. The weight went from a few thousand pounds to a few thousand
>plus 150. Then I jumped off. Then very loud alarms went off. Then men in full chemical exposure
>suits came running in. Then I realized one of the purposes of the scales. Oops.
>
>David

ROFL!

NOSPAM is antispam

"David Cohen" <sammiesdad@earthlink.net> wrote
>
> My favorite what-do-I-weigh story. I, and a few friends, were working one summer during my
> youthhoodness at a water treatment plant and reservoir as a groundskeeper. One day, my friends and
> I were eating lunch in the chlorine room...a room with enormous tanks of chlorine sitting on
> scales. I decided to see what I weighed, so I stood on a chlorine tank scale. The weight went from
> a few thousand pounds to a few thousand plus 150. Then I jumped off. Then very loud alarms went
> off. Then men in full chemical exposure suits came running in. Then I realized one of the purposes
> of the scales. Oops.
>

I trust that incident did not make it onto your resume.

That's funny.

Maybe we could start another thread.

Stupid Things I Did As A Kid.

"Tom Morley" <tmorley@bmtc.mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:tmorley-2302031940560001@user-v...mindspring.com...
> In article <lTa6a.78944$L47.11502261@read2.cgocable.net>, "Piscanthropus Profundus"
> <profundus@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The best scales around are balance scales. But, since they can be hard
to
> > read and are ridiculously expensive, the next best is the digital scale.
A
> > digital scale has no moving parts. It measures weight by applying
voltage
> > to a plate [the one you stand on] - and throught some amazing scientific means [of which I have
> > little idea] calculates your weight based on the deflection of the plate. Spring scales suck.
> > They do have moving
parts -
> > most notably a spring [duh]. The spring will wear out and isn't the
most
> > accurate way to measure to begin with.
> >
> > In a nutshell: Return the piece of crap and buy a digital scale.
> >
>
> The device you so describe is, in fact, analog. it is usually (but not always) connected though an
> A/D convertor to a digital readout.

analog but not mechanical, so it can be much more precise

the material used is called "piezoelectric" it's a type of material that creates a current when it
is deformed, or is deformed when a current is applied. piezoelectric materials include plastic
(polymer) film or crystal structures (ceramic for example).

"David Cohen" <sammiesdad@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:<n066a.1921$cD5.209616@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
> "Wayne S. Hill" <hillw4@asme.org> wrote
> > Rob Beattie wrote:
> >
> > > What do people in here think of Hanson weighing scales? I've just bought the cheapest ones I
> > > could find(non-digital) and they suck big time. OK if you pay peanuts..... but I'm really
> > > surprised that scales can be so inaccurate even if they did cost £5. I weigh 163lbs but the
> > > Hanson scales gives a reading of 158-159lbs.
> >
> > How do you know what you weigh? Seriously. I've weighed myself with NIST-traceable scales and
> > load cells at work that proved to be way off, a couple of doctor's scales that I could trick
> > into varying by 3-4 lbs, shipping scales (that I actually tend to believe), and several analog
> > and digital scales. The worst offender is a balance scale at my gym: on the 150-lb scale, it
> > says I weigh several lbs over 200. On the 200-lb scale, it says I weigh several lbs under 200.
> > The consensus of other scales says I weigh about 192. I've decided to live with the uncertainty.
>
> My favorite what-do-I-weigh story. I, and a few friends, were working one summer during my
> youthhoodness at a water treatment plant and reservoir as a groundskeeper. One day, my friends and
> I were eating lunch in the chlorine room...a room with enormous tanks of chlorine sitting on
> scales. I decided to see what I weighed, so I stood on a chlorine tank scale. The weight went from
> a few thousand pounds to a few thousand plus 150. Then I jumped off. Then very loud alarms went
> off. Then men in full chemical exposure suits came running in. Then I realized one of the purposes
> of the scales. Oops.
>
> David

.... I dont get it ... what are the scales for in the Chlorine store ?

Anyway in my opinion .. digital scales suk !!! I prefer analog ones. Digital scales are subject to a
lot of parameters, including ambient room temp & humidity. Analog scales seem immune to these. Try
weighing yourself on a digital scale about 10 times, record each reading and observe the
fluctiations. Analog scales hardly fluctuate. So with digital ones, it's really hard to tell whether
you are gaining or losing weight, whereas with analog you have a better indication.

Also, buy the BEST analog scale money can buy. It's really worth it. Sure there are cheap ones, but
the anxiety they cause for giving you inaccurate readings is not worth the lesser price.

Analog scales rule !!

Cheers, Joseph 75

"Tom Morley" <tmorley@bmtc.mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:tmorley-2302031940560001@user-v...mindspring.com...
> In article <lTa6a.78944$L47.11502261@read2.cgocable.net>, "Piscanthropus Profundus"
> <profundus@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The best scales around are balance scales. But, since they can be hard
to
> > read and are ridiculously expensive, the next best is the digital scale.
A
> > digital scale has no moving parts. It measures weight by applying
voltage
> > to a plate [the one you stand on] - and throught some amazing scientific means [of which I have
> > little idea] calculates your weight based on the deflection of the plate. Spring scales suck.
> > They do have moving
parts -
> > most notably a spring [duh]. The spring will wear out and isn't the
most
> > accurate way to measure to begin with.
> >
> > In a nutshell: Return the piece of crap and buy a digital scale.
> >
>
> The device you so describe is, in fact, analog. it is usually (but not always) connected though an
> A/D convertor to a digital readout.

?? My assumption of an analog device [in this case] is that it contains moving parts. A digital
scale has none.

Or are you referring to analog in the electronic sense?