The difficulty with this stuff is that once you make the measurements you have to then interpret the data. Interpretation of the data also means that you have to understand the effects of the boundary conditions on what you got. It's a mistake for people to draw conclusions about general machine stability in actual usage if you purposely measure an idle group as a demonstration of agreement between two probes, which is a valid test of agreement, but not a valid test of machine brewing performance.

The temperature measurement standard that Barry, Bill Crossland, John Sanders and I wrote for the WBC addresses specifically the measurement method to be used in evaluating machinery for the WBC. I suppose the standard ought to be made very available so that people use the same methods once people are armed with good measuring gear.

-Greg

gscace wrote:It's a mistake for people to draw conclusions about general machine stability in actual usage if you purposely measure an idle group as a demonstration of agreement between two probes, which is a valid test of agreement, but not a valid test of machine brewing performance.

in fact, i found stability to be a hindrance when testing the panel meter. i worked on it after working with the thermofilter, and the machine was up to temp, so i couldn't tell if the lack of temp fluctuation on the display unit was due to brew temp stability or poor meter response time. i need to redo the tests from idle to better gauge meter response.