4 ms·
When you cheap out on flextures, it's not the accuracy under ideal perpendicular loads that goes, and cheap housings struggle to provide ideal perpendicular loa
by jjoonathan 3y ago
When you cheap out on flextures, it's not the accuracy under ideal perpendicular loads that goes, and cheap housings struggle to provide ideal perpendicular loads. These are not particularly difficult things to get right, but the construction of even relatively expensive ($150) scales is so cheap that it screws this up and results in >1% deviation over the surface of the scale if you bypass the digital cheating mechanism.
Is it a big problem? No, but there's a fake decimal and an attempt to hide that the decimal is fake. Not cool.
- riskable 3y agoWhat the heck are you talking about? The only flexure to speak of is within the load cell itself and... Can you even call that a flexure? It's a teeny tiny strain gauge mounted on a piece of steel that's going to bend ever so slightly when a weight is put on it. Even the cheapest load cells are precision-manufactured well within the tolerances necessary for the strain gauge to give you damned accurate results. I've never seen a human weight scale that went beyond a single decimal place and in all honestly they're going to be very accurate. If you get on the scale and it says 201.2lbs that measurement is going to be accurate within ±0.1lbs (actually, more than that but you only get one decimal point of precision). If you put the scale next to something that's emitting a ton of electrical noise then maybe it'll be off by 0.2lbs but I doubt it.
- mrguyorama 3y agoMeanwhile, a precision of +-0.1lbs to measure humans is entirely superfluous. You can fluctuate an entire pound over the course of a day and your weight is not normally stable day to day. Analog scales only gave you about 2 sig figs, and that was probably a better outcome.