• This Forum is for adults 18 years of age or over. By continuing to use this Forum you are confirming that you are 18 or older. No content shall be viewed by any person under 18 in California.

Correcting non linearity of a milligram scale at low weights

Most digital scales calibrate at a FULL SCALE value of 50 or 100 grams. With a stable zero, good environmental conditions, and repeatable readings at normal charge weights of a few grams, this is usually GOOD ENOUGH.
Unless you have some check weights close to your target charge you may have undetected linearity errors. The nice thing about scale linearity error is it's normally fairly constant over the life of the scale. About the same error today as next week, next year.
Got errors at small weights? CHEAT

HUH?

Calibrate @ 100 grams with a cal weight good to a few mg (ASTM Class 4). Check scale after cal and verify correct weight.
Now, test linearity at several points from a very low weight to full scale. Don't have all the weights to do that? Try one check weight that matters to your loads. Maybe a 5 gram test (ASTM Class 4 or better)? If you don't get 5.000g indicated you could have some linearity error where you use it the most. If it's constant and repeatable, no big deal. Get a couple (or few) counts of error at low weights, CHEAT with your full scale calibration.

HUH?

Two cases for cheating are presented.
You will need an accurate check weight near your most common load.
5 grams (about 77.16 grains) should work, and a small CHEAT weight of just a few mg (accuracy not needed).

5 gram reading is HIGH
Zero with no weight on the pan.
Add a few milligrams when you place the 100 gram cal weight on the pan. The scale will cal and read 100.000 grams with 100.010 grams on the pan. Remove all weights. After cal the 100 gram weight, by itself, will read light by 10 milligrams.
Smaller weights will read proportionally lower.

5 gram reading is LOW.
Zero with a small CHEAT weight (try 10 mg) on the pan.
Remove as you place the 100 gram cal weight on the pan. The scale will cal and read 100.000 gram. Remove the Cal weight but add the Cheat weight to complete the ZERO CAL . Use without the cheat weight (check your Zero). After cal the 100 gram weight, by itself, will read heavy by 10 milligrams.
Smaller weights will read proportionally higher.

Don't have a bunch of mg check weights? To cheat, just use a small piece of paper cut to about 10mg.
 
Thanks.
Linearity error is likely one of the largest errors in weighing (once you eliminate drift) even with the notorious FX-120i (+/- 0.002g). How many check (or even care)?
 
Not that I doubt a word you’re saying, I just wonder why not use a scale that is linear? Cheater weights seem like you’re adding a layer of complexity. Maybe I’m not following closely
 
Last edited:
Not that I doubt a word you’re saying, I just wonder why not use a scale that is linear? Cheater weights seem like you’re adding a layer of complexity. Maybe I’m not following closely
He's talking more about quantifying the error rate for the normal charge weights we tend to use.

One could also use a heavy powder pan with a tare weight of something like 10g to get you higher up the scale to a lower error.

Lengths of solid core wire can be cut to make check weights close to intended charge for checking your scale too.
 
Some scales are very linear. It's mostly due to scaling electronics whether it's a Force Restoration or Load Cell scale.
Here's my EJ-54D2 on the High Range, Fast/Narrow/NO autozero.
Linearity-EJ54D2.jpg
I do have scales that do have a couple few counts of non-linearity though.
Unless you check, how do you know?
 
Last edited:
With a ChargeMaster I noticed it read heavier test weights more accurately.
So, I added an aluminum weight bias to the scale, sacrificing overall range, but giving me better charge accuracy (as verified with a better scale). It also made the scale less flaky/jumpy, easier to calibrate.
In a sense, a mechanical filter.
CMmodsSM.jpg
a
 
Thanks.
Linearity error is likely one of the largest errors in weighing (once you eliminate drift) even with the notorious FX-120i (+/- 0.002g). How many check (or even care)?
I have a check weight that’s right in the range of my typical loads. I occasionally confirm my scale is accurate there because the calibration weights are not representative. I’ve never had either my Sartorius or Rcbs Chargemaster Lite fail the test so I’m a sense I don’t have any idea why this matters.
 
If there are speed nodes, does this really matter? Maybe I should post this in its own thread. I'm just a guy who uses a beam scale and a powder trickler.
The real question is *if* speed modes actually exist, or if they are statistical anomalies.

A good beam scale can work at least as well as a basic automatic trickler. It take a pretty fancy digital scale to solidly outperform a good beam when speed is not important.
 
He's talking more about quantifying the error rate for the normal charge weights we tend to use.

One could also use a heavy powder pan with a tare weight of something like 10g to get you higher up the scale to a lower error.

Lengths of solid core wire can be cut to make check weights close to intended charge for checking your scale too.
Yes thx,I thought I understood what he was saying, I just needed you to translate into farm boy speak,my question was why ? I find absolutely no reason to compensate for a hundredth of a grain of linear error, that’s just silly.
 
Last edited:
This was intended for those using CHEAP scales. Many THINK they have an accurate milligram scale when there could be a FEW counts of error where they use it most. At a bare minimum check at some reasonable value in addition to FULL SCALE.
I'll leave just how much error is important to those that think it matters.
 
I think most serious reloaders have and use checkweights that are relatively close to the charge window they’re working with to verify a balances linearity, but once we identify a preverbal bad spot that we can’t just build a load to, it’s time to move on. With a beam scale one could replace the beam but with a milligram balance we have a display and is the error a weight error or a display error and will it be the same tomorrow ?
 
I think most serious reloaders have and use checkweights that are relatively close to the charge window they’re working with to verify a balances linearity, but once we identify a preverbal bad spot that we can’t just build a load to, it’s time to move on. With a beam scale one could replace the beam but with a milligram balance we have a display and is the error a weight error or a display error and will it be the same tomorrow ?

I'm actually currently going through this, I have been using an inexpensive Gem20 milligram scale for the past several years. Its done great. Well, a couple weeks ago, right in the middle of a loading session I noticed over 2gr of drift. I thought that was weird, I know how much my powder pan weighs (100.18gr) as its been weighed on several scales beam and electronic. So I calibrate the scale, put my pan on and its reading 102.32gr now. I keep a tuned Redding beam scale on my bench, I verify my loads for the previous few charges and all are correct, so I finished loading with a "new target weight" that actually measured what I wanted it to and double checked every charge.

I did order another scale already, but will investigate this one to see if I can find the issue. New scale is measuring just fine, btw.
 
I also bought a new scale. An old A&D ER-182A dual range 30g/0.01mg, 180g/0.1mg.
Just for fun, not for reloading. The EJ-54D2 is more than good enough for that.
Cleaned 5 combinations of my standards (mostly out of date) to ID 3 50g closely matched weights to perform the linearity cal. Repeatability is surprising.
U50a U50b S50 S30/20 U30/S20
-0.1mg -0.1 +.02 +0.2 -0.1
-0.1 -0.1 +0.2 +0.2 -0.1
0.0 -0.1 +0.3 +0.3 -0.1
-0.1 0.0 +0.2 +0.2 0.0
-0.1 -0.1 +0.2 +0.3 +0.1
-0.1 -0.1 +0.3 +0.2 0.0
0.0 -0.1 +0.2 +0.2 -0.1
-0.1 -0.1 +0.2 +0.3 0.0
-0.1 -0.1 +0.2 +0.2 +0.1
-0.1 -0.1 +0.2 +0.3 -0.1
Avg
-0.07 -0.09 +0.22 +0.24 -0.02

The 2 best 50g (Troemner Ultra Class) indicated -0.1mg each but +0.2mg combined for 100g.
Maybe another linearity cal with the 3 closest will reduce the difference.
Once done with the 180g range I'll test the 30g range.
U50-b.jpg

Class-U.jpg

Performed the 50/100/150 linearity cal. Maybe better?

Linearity-Cal.jpg
 
Last edited:

Upgrades & Donations

This Forum's expenses are primarily paid by member contributions. You can upgrade your Forum membership in seconds. Gold and Silver members get unlimited FREE classifieds for one year. Gold members can upload custom avatars.


Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.

You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.


To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.

Forum statistics

Threads
165,788
Messages
2,203,382
Members
79,110
Latest member
miles813
Back
Top