George, I am not sure how you went about comparing the readings between the two meters, nor where the .57 factor was applied. What were the raw readings and what did you multiply by .57
Cheers Ivan -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, 18 November 2002 11:02 a.m. To: [email protected] Subject: CS>(no subject) I have had a Hannah TDS meter for several years, but following the discussions about the PWF, which said generally that the PWF had greater accuracy, I bought a PWF. I have just completed a comparison of the readings on the two on the CS I make. For the PWF readings I used the .57 conversion multiplier which Ivan developed. PWF TDS DIFFERENCE 17.10 16 1.1 11.11 10 1.1 15.67 14 1.67 dw 2.1 2 .1 ` 15.38 14 1.38 dw 1.2 1 .2 In an effort to ensure accuracy, at this point I calibrated the PWF 13.90 15 1.1 dw 2.4 2 .4 14.36 15 .64 11.97 10 1.97 8.89 10 1.11 I think it was Ole Bob who pointed out that accurate readings with these meters requires repeated tests with large quantities of liquid. For the small quantities that most of us make, the readings are only approximate. If my comparison is valid, since the difference between the readings is so small, never reaching 2, is it worth investing in the higher-cost PWF? George Allen -- The silver-list is a moderated forum for discussion of colloidal silver. Instructions for unsubscribing may be found at: http://silverlist.org To post, address your message to: [email protected] Silver-list archive: http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/index.html List maintainer: Mike Devour <[email protected]>
