Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Scales\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Scales\s*$/: 12 ]

Total 12 documents matching your query.

1. Scales (score: 1): Author: "Donald R McKenna" <donbarbmckenna@earthlink.net>; Date: Mon, 06 May 2002 13:04:36 -0700; Kirk Meline writes, in part: We should all remember,unless grossly in error, the scales at the event are THE SCALES, period. Since all things have "tolerances' (euphemism for errors), its to be expec; /html/ba-autox/2002-05/msg00036.html (8,550 bytes)
2. Re: Scales (score: 1): Author: "Pat Kelly" <lollipop487@attbi.com>; Date: Mon, 06 May 2002 13:37:43 -0700; I should mention that at nationals last year we were 993#. We have added accurately weighed lead hunks (in 60# pieces, with one cut in half for a 30# slug), and added 3x60+30=220# more. That gave us; /html/ba-autox/2002-05/msg00039.html (10,040 bytes)
3. Scales (score: 1): Author: Larrybsp@aol.com; Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 17:03:54 EDT; Be warned about scale weights. When I had my #1500 DP Midget its weight on Larry Parks scales varied up to 75# on a year to year basis on a car with no mods to effect weight. The car actually weight; /html/ba-autox/2002-05/msg00041.html (7,796 bytes)
4. Re: Scales (score: 1): Author: "Pat Kelly" <lollipop487@attbi.com>; Date: Mon, 06 May 2002 14:20:18 -0700; As I recall there is nothing in the rules preventing It's okay to fill before last run, if...there's a fire extinguisher nearby. BTDT! :) --Pat K; /html/ba-autox/2002-05/msg00042.html (7,237 bytes)
5. scales (score: 1): Author: ERito@aol.com; Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 19:15:20 EDT; i think that it is incredible that we would demand a 1/2% repeat accuracy from a portable sale. we are talking lab accuracy here in something that gets hauled from place to place. wow. ed rito; /html/ba-autox/2002-05/msg00043.html (7,072 bytes)
6. Re: scales (score: 1): Author: Kevin Stevens <Kevin_Stevens@pursued-with.net>; Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 16:23:50 -0700 (PDT); (shrug) That's what we expect from a $20 bathroom scale... KeS; /html/ba-autox/2002-05/msg00044.html (7,390 bytes)
7. Re: scales (score: 1): Author: james creasy <Black94PGT@pacbell.net>; Date: Mon, 06 May 2002 16:25:05 -0700; scales also need to be calibrated for altitude, as they report mass, but measure only force. i dont know how close to 0.5% this would be at common sites off hand. my guess is it is also likely to be; /html/ba-autox/2002-05/msg00045.html (7,785 bytes)
8. Re: scales (score: 1): Author: "John J. Stimson-III" <john@harlie.idsfa.net>; Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 16:52:12 -0700; What prevents a portable scale from having good accuracy? I don't think that it's at all incredible. It seems like it's the quality and design that are important to accuracy, and not the size. If the; /html/ba-autox/2002-05/msg00046.html (8,525 bytes)
9. Re: scales (score: 1): Author: Darren Madams <dspyder@yahoo.com>; Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 17:28:07 -0700 (PDT); Well, but the stated rules don't account for that [in]acuracy. If the scales are allowed to be +/- 1/2% (which I think is reasonable), then our minimum weight should be +/- 1/2% too... for me on the; /html/ba-autox/2002-05/msg00049.html (7,936 bytes)
10. Re: scales (score: 1): Author: Larrybsp@aol.com; Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 21:32:09 EDT; Years ago I worked in the auto industry developing test instrumentation. In short you'll be lucky to get 5% accuracy and repeatability out of portable scales. Although I haven't taken a set apart I'l; /html/ba-autox/2002-05/msg00057.html (10,273 bytes)
11. Re: scales (score: 1): Author: Lolita and Mike <lomike@earthlink.net>; Date: Mon, 06 May 2002 19:06:46 -0700; Let see, I used to run a 100 ton crane and the load cell was +/- 5 to 7 pounds on a repeat basis. Would that be close enough? =) MJ (Never did like that "tippy" feeling); /html/ba-autox/2002-05/msg00058.html (7,569 bytes)
12. scales (score: 1): Author: "John F. Kelly Jr." <76067.1750@compuserve.com>; Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 23:16:36 -0400; Message text written by INTERNET:ERito@aol.com "i think that it is incredible that we would demand a 1/2% repeat accuracy from a portable sale. we are talking lab accuracy here in something that gets; /html/ba-autox/2002-05/msg00063.html (7,670 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 12
Page: [1]