Just realized I was wrong about using the old school test weights

I was talking to a retired inspector at a supply house in Cincinnati last week. He said, 'You know, those 100 pound cast iron blocks you guys love to lug around? They're off by at least a pound after a few years of getting banged up.' I always thought digital load cells were a hassle, but his point about consistent calibration hit different. Has anyone else made the switch and noticed a real difference in their annual tests?

4 comments

4 Comments

kelly.charlie12d agoMost Upvoted

Remember when everyone swore by mercury thermometers? My grandpa's old one was off by two whole degrees, but he'd just say "add two to the reading." Then we got a digital one that died mid-winter and the pipes froze. So which was really more reliable? Both ways seem to have a blind spot you don't see until it's too late.

vera_lewis212d ago

That Cincinnati guy sounds a bit dramatic.

seth_singh2012d agoTop Commenter

Hold on, that inspector's story is exactly why I stick with the blocks. A digital readout can drift or glitch without you knowing. My old weights might lose a pound, but I can see the physical wear and chip damage. That's a known error I can account for. A hidden software error in a load cell is way worse.

parkerbrown12d ago

But come on, a hidden software error that bad is pretty rare, right? Most digital stuff has checks built in. A chipped weight seems simple until you forget to add that mental correction. Both methods can fail if you're not paying attention. Maybe the real problem is assuming any tool is perfect forever.