OT: accurately weighing objects

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by Steve Freides, Jan 15, 2004.

  1. Not computer-related.

    I want to be able to accurately weigh weights (as in the kind you lift). I
    need most to weigh kettlebells (see http://www.kbnj.com for a picture) but
    would also like to be able to weigh such things as a barbell that's 7' long
    and about 2" in diameter.

    Anyone got any suggestions? Obviously there will be a price/performance
    continuum here but I don't even know where to start. The kettlebell sizes I
    need to weigh specifically are between 16 and 32 kg, or about 35 and 70 lbs.
    Heavier than 100 lbs. wouldn't be of much use (although it would be fun) and
    lighter isn't necessary.

    Thanks much in advance.

    -S-
    Steve Freides, Jan 15, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Steve Freides

    -= Hawk =- Guest

    On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 09:53:56 -0500, "Steve Freides"
    <> scribbled:

    >Not computer-related.
    >
    >I want to be able to accurately weigh weights (as in the kind you lift). I
    >need most to weigh kettlebells (see http://www.kbnj.com for a picture) but
    >would also like to be able to weigh such things as a barbell that's 7' long
    >and about 2" in diameter.
    >
    >Anyone got any suggestions? Obviously there will be a price/performance
    >continuum here but I don't even know where to start. The kettlebell sizes I
    >need to weigh specifically are between 16 and 32 kg, or about 35 and 70 lbs.
    >Heavier than 100 lbs. wouldn't be of much use (although it would be fun) and
    >lighter isn't necessary.


    You could probably find something here: http://www.scalesgalore.com/
    or search google for digital scale like I did.

    >


    --
    'What Profiteth It A Kingdom If The Oxen Be Deflated?'
    Riddles II, v3
    - T. Pratchett
    -= Hawk =-, Jan 15, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. "-= Hawk =-" <> wrote in message
    news:3vad00tm1skdmpfffhqrc4t8p3n7kejjac@news-server...
    > On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 09:53:56 -0500, "Steve Freides"
    > <> scribbled:
    >
    > >Not computer-related.
    > >
    > >I want to be able to accurately weigh weights (as in the kind you lift).

    I
    > >need most to weigh kettlebells (see http://www.kbnj.com for a picture)

    but
    > >would also like to be able to weigh such things as a barbell that's 7'

    long
    > >and about 2" in diameter.
    > >
    > >Anyone got any suggestions? Obviously there will be a price/performance
    > >continuum here but I don't even know where to start. The kettlebell

    sizes I
    > >need to weigh specifically are between 16 and 32 kg, or about 35 and 70

    lbs.
    > >Heavier than 100 lbs. wouldn't be of much use (although it would be fun)

    and
    > >lighter isn't necessary.

    >
    > You could probably find something here: http://www.scalesgalore.com/
    > or search google for digital scale like I did.


    Nothing says that digital is best for this application, and even the sight
    you point out has a myriad of choices. I'm well acquainted with Google but
    was wondering if anyone had any particular expertise or experience in this
    area.

    -S-


    > >

    >
    > --
    > 'What Profiteth It A Kingdom If The Oxen Be Deflated?'
    > Riddles II, v3
    > - T. Pratchett
    Steve Freides, Jan 15, 2004
    #3
  4. Steve Freides

    -= Hawk =- Guest

    On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 11:31:04 -0500, "Steve Freides"
    <> scribbled:

    >"-= Hawk =-" <> wrote in message
    >news:3vad00tm1skdmpfffhqrc4t8p3n7kejjac@news-server...
    >> On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 09:53:56 -0500, "Steve Freides"
    >> <> scribbled:
    >>
    >> >Not computer-related.
    >> >
    >> >I want to be able to accurately weigh weights (as in the kind you lift).

    >I
    >> >need most to weigh kettlebells (see http://www.kbnj.com for a picture)

    >but
    >> >would also like to be able to weigh such things as a barbell that's 7'

    >long
    >> >and about 2" in diameter.
    >> >
    >> >Anyone got any suggestions? Obviously there will be a price/performance
    >> >continuum here but I don't even know where to start. The kettlebell

    >sizes I
    >> >need to weigh specifically are between 16 and 32 kg, or about 35 and 70

    >lbs.
    >> >Heavier than 100 lbs. wouldn't be of much use (although it would be fun)

    >and
    >> >lighter isn't necessary.

    >>
    >> You could probably find something here: http://www.scalesgalore.com/
    >> or search google for digital scale like I did.

    >
    >Nothing says that digital is best for this application, and even the sight


    "accurately weighing objects" if you want true accuracy, you want
    a digital scale.

    >you point out has a myriad of choices. I'm well acquainted with Google but
    >was wondering if anyone had any particular expertise or experience in this
    >area.


    No, you asked "Anyone got any suggestions?", I did. You're
    free to take them or not.


    --
    'What Profiteth It A Kingdom If The Oxen Be Deflated?'
    Riddles II, v3
    - T. Pratchett
    -= Hawk =-, Jan 15, 2004
    #4
  5. Steve Freides

    Mark Guest

    Re: accurately weighing objects

    "Steve Freides" <> wrote in message
    news:bu69j3$e4291$-berlin.de...
    > Not computer-related.
    >
    > I want to be able to accurately weigh weights (as in the kind you lift).

    I
    > need most to weigh kettlebells (see http://www.kbnj.com for a picture) but
    > would also like to be able to weigh such things as a barbell that's 7'

    long
    > and about 2" in diameter.
    >
    > Anyone got any suggestions? Obviously there will be a price/performance
    > continuum here but I don't even know where to start. The kettlebell sizes

    I
    > need to weigh specifically are between 16 and 32 kg, or about 35 and 70

    lbs.
    > Heavier than 100 lbs. wouldn't be of much use (although it would be fun)

    and
    > lighter isn't necessary.
    >
    > Thanks much in advance.
    >
    > -S-
    >
    >

    ..
    This scale works great for all my needs
    http://www.tanita.com/ElectronicBenchPortion.shtml
    Mark, Jan 15, 2004
    #5
  6. Steve Freides

    philo Guest

    Re: accurately weighing objects

    "Steve Freides" <> wrote in message
    news:bu69j3$e4291$-berlin.de...
    > Not computer-related.
    >
    > I want to be able to accurately weigh weights (as in the kind you lift).

    I
    > need most to weigh kettlebells (see http://www.kbnj.com for a picture) but
    > would also like to be able to weigh such things as a barbell that's 7'

    long
    > and about 2" in diameter.
    >
    > Anyone got any suggestions? Obviously there will be a price/performance
    > continuum here but I don't even know where to start. The kettlebell sizes

    I
    > need to weigh specifically are between 16 and 32 kg, or about 35 and 70

    lbs.
    > Heavier than 100 lbs. wouldn't be of much use (although it would be fun)

    and
    > lighter isn't necessary.
    >
    > Thanks much in advance.
    >
    > -S-
    >
    >


    If you want *cheap* ...any inexpensive 'bathroom' scale will
    work. You can even roughly calibrate it if you have a *known* weight.
    As to the 7' long bar...
    if you put the entire scale on a small, rigid ...elevated platform it should
    balance...
    if not, you can always make a bracket and then simply subtract the weight
    of it.


    If you want real accuracy you will of course need a digital scale,
    they have the ability to "tare" out anything such the weight of a bracket.
    philo, Jan 15, 2004
    #6
  7. Steve Freides

    Bay0Wulf Guest

    Re: accurately weighing objects

    <SNIP>
    I
    > > need to weigh specifically are between 16 and 32 kg, or about 35 and 70

    > lbs.
    > > Heavier than 100 lbs. wouldn't be of much use (although it would be fun)

    > and
    > > lighter isn't necessary.
    > >
    > > Thanks much in advance.
    > >
    > > -S-
    > >
    > >

    >
    > If you want *cheap* ...any inexpensive 'bathroom' scale will
    > work.


    The old-fashioned way to do this in the construction hardware trade is to
    use as good a bathroom scale as you can afford (a dual beam doctor's type
    would be best) ... step on the scale ... weigh yourself ... step off and
    pick up the item ... step back on ... subtract Item #1 from Item #2 and ...
    voila! You have a Net Weight ... this has worked for my UPS shipments
    whenever I don't want to guess and it can use something you probably already
    have (Price vs. Performance)

    - Bay0Wulf
    Bay0Wulf, Jan 15, 2004
    #7
  8. Steve Freides

    CJ Guest

    Re: accurately weighing objects

    Hi,

    you say accurately, how accurate as that is the main cost factor in
    choosing a weighing scale.

    If the true weight was 32Kg then is a meausured weight of 31.75Kg to
    32.25Kg acceptable? what do you need?

    Do you really want accuracy or do you just want reproducibility ie. if
    you weigh the same weight 10 times do you get the same result within a
    certain percentage error?

    I think we could be more help if you state the level of accuracy you
    require and what your ultimate goal is.

    A good set of digital bathroom scales from a reputable manufacturer will
    easily weigh to within 200g and will be reproducible.


    To weigh the barbell you weigh yoursef and then weigh yourself again
    holding it on the scales. Do this a few times to gain a good average
    result.


    CJ


    "Steve Freides" <> wrote in message
    news:bu69j3$e4291$-berlin.de...
    > Not computer-related.
    >
    > I want to be able to accurately weigh weights (as in the kind you

    lift). I
    > need most to weigh kettlebells (see http://www.kbnj.com for a picture)

    but
    > would also like to be able to weigh such things as a barbell that's 7'

    long
    > and about 2" in diameter.
    >
    > Anyone got any suggestions? Obviously there will be a

    price/performance
    > continuum here but I don't even know where to start. The kettlebell

    sizes I
    > need to weigh specifically are between 16 and 32 kg, or about 35 and

    70 lbs.
    > Heavier than 100 lbs. wouldn't be of much use (although it would be

    fun) and
    > lighter isn't necessary.
    >
    > Thanks much in advance.
    >
    > -S-
    >
    >
    CJ, Jan 15, 2004
    #8
  9. Steve Freides

    Unwashed Guest

    Re: accurately weighing objects

    Steve Freides wrote:

    > Not computer-related.
    >
    > I want to be able to accurately weigh weights (as in the kind you
    > lift). I need most to weigh kettlebells (see http://www.kbnj.com for
    > a picture) but would also like to be able to weigh such things as a
    > barbell that's 7' long and about 2" in diameter.
    >
    > Anyone got any suggestions? Obviously there will be a
    > price/performance continuum here but I don't even know where to
    > start. The kettlebell sizes I need to weigh specifically are between
    > 16 and 32 kg, or about 35 and 70 lbs. Heavier than 100 lbs. wouldn't
    > be of much use (although it would be fun) and lighter isn't necessary.


    Go to just about any local department store and purchase a digital bathroom
    scale.

    Weigh yourself.

    Record weight.

    Pick up a kettlebell, barbell, or whatever, and weigh yourself again.
    Record weight.

    Do math.

    Repeat as needed.
    Unwashed, Jan 15, 2004
    #9
  10. Steve Freides

    CJ Guest

    "-= Hawk =-" <> wrote in message
    news:crgd00p09vblt4vpfdntbcfgi19ucmen8g@news-server...
    > "accurately weighing objects" if you want true accuracy, you want
    > a digital scale.



    Hi,

    accuracy does not come from it being digital. Accuracy comes from it
    being correctly calibrated with traceable weights. I think you need to
    distinguish between acuuracy and reproduciblity. A digital scale could
    give you a result of 10.250Kg over and over again but it doesn't mean it
    is accurate as the calibration may be incorrect. An old mechanical
    balance that you can read to 10.2Kg may be the more accurate result
    because it has a correct and newer calibration.


    CJ
    CJ, Jan 15, 2004
    #10
  11. Re: accurately weighing objects

    "CJ" <> wrote in message
    news:bu6m9v$71v$...
    > Hi,
    >
    > you say accurately, how accurate as that is the main cost factor in
    > choosing a weighing scale.
    >
    > If the true weight was 32Kg then is a meausured weight of 31.75Kg to
    > 32.25Kg acceptable? what do you need?
    >
    > Do you really want accuracy or do you just want reproducibility ie. if
    > you weigh the same weight 10 times do you get the same result within a
    > certain percentage error?
    >
    > I think we could be more help if you state the level of accuracy you
    > require and what your ultimate goal is.
    >
    > A good set of digital bathroom scales from a reputable manufacturer will
    > easily weigh to within 200g and will be reproducible.
    >
    >
    > To weigh the barbell you weigh yoursef and then weigh yourself again
    > holding it on the scales. Do this a few times to gain a good average
    > result.


    I just found out that one weightlifting federation specifies that each plate
    must be within 0.25% or 10 grams of its stated weight. A bathroom scale
    won't do.

    It's clear that some people aren't up on the issues of reproduceabiltiy vs.
    accuracy of calibration and, frankly, neither am I. This thread has been
    educational and what I need to now know is just how accurate that
    specification is considered to be? Am I into the realm of
    multi-thousand-dollar scales designed for research facilities or can I find
    what I need for $75 somewhere (and, if so, what and where, please.)

    Thanks.

    -S-
    http://www.kbnj.com


    >
    > CJ
    >
    >
    > "Steve Freides" <> wrote in message
    > news:bu69j3$e4291$-berlin.de...
    > > Not computer-related.
    > >
    > > I want to be able to accurately weigh weights (as in the kind you

    > lift). I
    > > need most to weigh kettlebells (see http://www.kbnj.com for a picture)

    > but
    > > would also like to be able to weigh such things as a barbell that's 7'

    > long
    > > and about 2" in diameter.
    > >
    > > Anyone got any suggestions? Obviously there will be a

    > price/performance
    > > continuum here but I don't even know where to start. The kettlebell

    > sizes I
    > > need to weigh specifically are between 16 and 32 kg, or about 35 and

    > 70 lbs.
    > > Heavier than 100 lbs. wouldn't be of much use (although it would be

    > fun) and
    > > lighter isn't necessary.
    > >
    > > Thanks much in advance.
    > >
    > > -S-
    > >
    > >

    >
    >
    Steve Freides, Jan 15, 2004
    #11
  12. Steve Freides

    philo Guest

    Re: accurately weighing objects


    > Weigh yourself.
    >
    > Record weight.
    >
    > Pick up a kettlebell, barbell, or whatever, and weigh yourself again.
    > Record weight.
    >
    > Do math.
    >
    > Repeat as needed.
    >
    >
    >


    be sure to re-weight yourself often...
    you will loose a lot of weight lifting all those weights and doing all that
    math !<G>
    philo, Jan 15, 2004
    #12
  13. Steve Freides

    Unwashed Guest

    Re: accurately weighing objects

    Steve Freides wrote:

    > I just found out that one weightlifting federation specifies that
    > each plate must be within 0.25% or 10 grams of its stated weight.


    One weightlifting federation? Perhaps it might help if you could tell the
    fine folks in this group just EXACTLY what it is you're trying to
    accomplish.

    > A
    > bathroom scale won't do.


    Not even a decent digital scale? Why not?

    > It's clear that some people aren't up on the issues of
    > reproduceabiltiy vs. accuracy of calibration and, frankly, neither am
    > I. This thread has been educational and what I need to now know is
    > just how accurate that specification is considered to be?


    WHAT "specification"? If you're talking about the unnamed "one
    weightlifting federation" above, they've already told you. The answer is
    within +/- 10 grams.

    > Am I into
    > the realm of multi-thousand-dollar scales designed for research
    > facilities or can I find what I need for $75 somewhere (and, if so,
    > what and where, please.)


    I should think a moderately priced DIGITAL bathroom scale would get you
    accurate results within +/- 10 grams, but I could be wrong.

    Good luck.
    Unwashed, Jan 15, 2004
    #13
  14. Steve Freides

    CJ Guest

    Re: accurately weighing objects

    Hi again,

    the following website has all you ever wanted in scales

    http://www.scalesontheweb.com

    This is for UK delivery as I'm not sure what country you are in.

    For the accuracy you need you are talking of laboratory balances.
    They do a 32Kg balance with 1g accuracy for £845 ~$1300.

    For the 10g accuracy at the 32Kg level you will not get something for
    $75 I'm afraid! The best digital bathroom or similar scales will give
    you only 100g accuracy.

    Question - Do you need your own scales? If all you want is an accurate
    weight of your kettlebells then why not pay a public service laboratory
    to weigh and certify them for you, a possibility.

    CJ


    "Steve Freides" <> wrote in message
    news:bu6q87$ef7du$-berlin.de...
    >
    > I just found out that one weightlifting federation specifies that each

    plate
    > must be within 0.25% or 10 grams of its stated weight. A bathroom

    scale
    > won't do.
    >
    > It's clear that some people aren't up on the issues of

    reproduceabiltiy vs.
    > accuracy of calibration and, frankly, neither am I. This thread has

    been
    > educational and what I need to now know is just how accurate that
    > specification is considered to be? Am I into the realm of
    > multi-thousand-dollar scales designed for research facilities or can I

    find
    > what I need for $75 somewhere (and, if so, what and where, please.)
    >
    > Thanks.
    >
    > -S-
    > http://www.kbnj.com
    CJ, Jan 15, 2004
    #14
  15. Re: accurately weighing objects

    "Unwashed" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Steve Freides wrote:
    >
    > > I just found out that one weightlifting federation specifies that
    > > each plate must be within 0.25% or 10 grams of its stated weight.

    >
    > One weightlifting federation? Perhaps it might help if you could tell the
    > fine folks in this group just EXACTLY what it is you're trying to
    > accomplish.


    I participate in a sport, popular in Russia and other countries in that part
    of the world, known as Girevoy Sport.
    (http://www.google.com/search?q=girevoy sport will give more detailed
    explanations.) The sport uses weights called kettlebells in a few, fixed
    sizes - .75 kg, 1 kg, 1.5 kg, 2 kg. (Other sizes exist but are not used in
    competition.) The second National Championships will be held in May of this
    year and, as the sport grows, we are trying to tighten up a few things,
    including exactly how much variation will be allowed in the
    weights/kettlebells used. Kettlebell are cast iron and even high quality
    kettlebells can vary significantly in weight.

    This is why I am trying to educate myself about scales. There are no
    companies producing "official", certified weights for use in Girevoy Sport
    at this time, unlike in more traditional powerlifitng and weightlifting, so
    we need to have a scale on which to weigh kettlebells owned by individual
    participants in order to decide if those kettlebells are within whatever
    specification we agree to - and we have not agreed on one just yet but I
    anticipate we'll agree to be +/- a few tenths of a kilogram. Such a scale
    must be both accurate, likely to the 1/10th of a kilogram, and have a high
    degree of repeatability as well.

    Make more sense now? Until such time as certified kettlebells are
    available, the best solution for us is to bring a proper scale to a meet and
    weigh the kettlebells owned by the participants. Any that do not meet the
    weight specification will be excluded from use at that competition.

    -S-
    http://www.kbnj.com - where there is also much information for beginning
    kettlebell users


    > > A
    > > bathroom scale won't do.

    >
    > Not even a decent digital scale? Why not?
    >
    > > It's clear that some people aren't up on the issues of
    > > reproduceabiltiy vs. accuracy of calibration and, frankly, neither am
    > > I. This thread has been educational and what I need to now know is
    > > just how accurate that specification is considered to be?

    >
    > WHAT "specification"? If you're talking about the unnamed "one
    > weightlifting federation" above, they've already told you. The answer is
    > within +/- 10 grams.
    >
    > > Am I into
    > > the realm of multi-thousand-dollar scales designed for research
    > > facilities or can I find what I need for $75 somewhere (and, if so,
    > > what and where, please.)

    >
    > I should think a moderately priced DIGITAL bathroom scale would get you
    > accurate results within +/- 10 grams, but I could be wrong.
    >
    > Good luck.
    >
    >
    Steve Freides, Jan 16, 2004
    #15
  16. Re: accurately weighing objects

    "Steve Freides" <> wrote in message
    news:bu8tlo$f7plb$-berlin.de...
    > "Unwashed" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > Steve Freides wrote:
    > >
    > > > I just found out that one weightlifting federation specifies that
    > > > each plate must be within 0.25% or 10 grams of its stated weight.

    > >
    > > One weightlifting federation? Perhaps it might help if you could tell

    the
    > > fine folks in this group just EXACTLY what it is you're trying to
    > > accomplish.

    >
    > I participate in a sport, popular in Russia and other countries in that

    part
    > of the world, known as Girevoy Sport.
    > (http://www.google.com/search?q=girevoy sport will give more detailed
    > explanations.) The sport uses weights called kettlebells in a few, fixed
    > sizes - .75 kg, 1 kg, 1.5 kg, 2 kg. (Other sizes exist but are not used

    in
    > competition.) The second National Championships will be held in May of

    this
    > year and, as the sport grows, we are trying to tighten up a few things,
    > including exactly how much variation will be allowed in the
    > weights/kettlebells used. Kettlebell are cast iron and even high quality
    > kettlebells can vary significantly in weight.


    Excuse me, I mistaked the weights we use. They are based on an
    approximation of the old Russian Pood, which equals 16.38 kg but, in modern
    useage, is treated as 16.00 kg. We use .75 pood, 1 pood, 1.5 pood, and 2
    pood weights, corresponding to 12, 16, 24, and 32 kg, respectively. Anyone
    wishing to see the pood conversion should be careful which sites on the web
    they visit - several erroneously report 1 pood = 16.00 kg.
    http://www.convert-me.com/en/convert/weight does it correctly.

    -S-
    http://www.kbnj.com


    > This is why I am trying to educate myself about scales. There are no
    > companies producing "official", certified weights for use in Girevoy Sport
    > at this time, unlike in more traditional powerlifitng and weightlifting,

    so
    > we need to have a scale on which to weigh kettlebells owned by individual
    > participants in order to decide if those kettlebells are within whatever
    > specification we agree to - and we have not agreed on one just yet but I
    > anticipate we'll agree to be +/- a few tenths of a kilogram. Such a scale
    > must be both accurate, likely to the 1/10th of a kilogram, and have a high
    > degree of repeatability as well.
    >
    > Make more sense now? Until such time as certified kettlebells are
    > available, the best solution for us is to bring a proper scale to a meet

    and
    > weigh the kettlebells owned by the participants. Any that do not meet the
    > weight specification will be excluded from use at that competition.
    >
    > -S-
    > http://www.kbnj.com - where there is also much information for beginning
    > kettlebell users
    >
    >
    > > > A
    > > > bathroom scale won't do.

    > >
    > > Not even a decent digital scale? Why not?
    > >
    > > > It's clear that some people aren't up on the issues of
    > > > reproduceabiltiy vs. accuracy of calibration and, frankly, neither am
    > > > I. This thread has been educational and what I need to now know is
    > > > just how accurate that specification is considered to be?

    > >
    > > WHAT "specification"? If you're talking about the unnamed "one
    > > weightlifting federation" above, they've already told you. The answer

    is
    > > within +/- 10 grams.
    > >
    > > > Am I into
    > > > the realm of multi-thousand-dollar scales designed for research
    > > > facilities or can I find what I need for $75 somewhere (and, if so,
    > > > what and where, please.)

    > >
    > > I should think a moderately priced DIGITAL bathroom scale would get you
    > > accurate results within +/- 10 grams, but I could be wrong.
    > >
    > > Good luck.
    > >
    > >

    >
    >
    Steve Freides, Jan 16, 2004
    #16
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Greg
    Replies:
    32
    Views:
    1,797
    Daniel Joskovski
    Jul 18, 2004
  2. Greg
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    1,085
    The Poster Formerly Known as Kline Sphere
    Jul 21, 2004
  3. per
    Replies:
    21
    Views:
    567
  4. Ernie Werbel

    Weighing my options about Vista

    Ernie Werbel, Mar 26, 2007, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    400
    Wizard
    Mar 29, 2007
  5. Sony a100 - accurately setting the time

    , Jul 10, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    330
    Brian
    Jul 14, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page