I have not looked at the web page, but I have seen similar units and almost purchased one. Then I looked closely at the spec and found that it only did type K TC's which makes it useless for use with a Scace or Eric's E61 thermocouple adapter which are both type T.

I just gave in and got the Fluke 54II but I have not broken down and purchased the flukeview software yet. But now having a Scace and Eric's adapter I am logging twice as much data when testing. I have had to hand key over 200 datapoints at a time, which gets old, very fast.

Hello:

jggall01 wrote:Looks like another good choice. Note that the basic instrument accuracy is 0.7C.

I've no idea how relevant the difference (being more than 100%) could be.
I'd appreciate it if I could rely on the more knowledgeable out there to enlighten me in this respect.

cannonfodder wrote: ... looked closely at the spec and found that it only did type K TC's which makes it useless for use with a Scace or Eric's E61 thermocouple adapter which are both type T.

Unless I'm mistaken, both the Royton and the Tenmars (most probably the exact same thing) accept type K, J, E, T, R/S and N thermocouples.

Cheers,
CIV

civ wrote:I've no idea how relevant the difference (being more than 100%) could be.
I'd appreciate it if I could rely on the more knowledgeable out there to enlighten me in this respect.

CIV -

I don't count myself among the truly "more knowledgeable" here on HB, but I'll offer my opinion anyway

If you are measuring boiler temperatures, the difference between 0.3C and 0.7C instrument error is not significant.

If you are measuring brew temperature profiles with a Scace device, then a difference in maximum error of 0.4C would be significant to me.

If you are making your measurements with the instrument at a consistent ambient temperature, you can probably safely input an "offset" correction. Checking measurements in boiling distilled water (after correcting for your altitude) and in a distilled water ice slurry will tell you how much correction you need.

Jim

An addendum to my post about Eric's E61 group adapters, it can be had with other types of thermocouples. But you still need a type T to use a Scace.

Hello:

jggall01 wrote: If you are measuring brew temperature profiles with a Scace device, then a difference in maximum error of 0.4C would be significant to me.

I'll keep it in mind and take it into account when I decide about the datalogger to buy.

jggall01 wrote: Checking measurements in boiling distilled water (after correcting for your altitude) and in a distilled water ice slurry will tell you how much correction you need.

Indeed.
This is the method I use (36 years later, M. J. Turvey's teachings paid off ....) to check and calibrate a thermocouple to 0° C / 100° C for my Sanyou TA4 PID.

Thanks for your input.

Cheers,

CIV

I might be interested in getting a Scace thermometer if discussions like this didn't scare me so much. I don't anticipate the need to EVER upload my data to a spread sheet. I just want to know what's happening in the PF. Can you break this down into simpler terms: which thermometer would work? I'm ready to buy a Scace and a Fluke or other appropriate alphabet-couple thermometer, but I don't need IR, ports, software, 2 channels, etc.

What's a girl to do?

Thanks
Mary

The numbers go by so fast that you really can't use these things very well to just look at the numbers as the Scace "shots" are made. Many times I have gotten an "impression" from a run of shots that turned out to be incorrect when I looked at the numbers more closely.

You might be able to get enough information for your purposes by simply using the recall function of the datalogger, although I prefer to see it graphically, which is why I plot it out with a PC based program called "Dplot," which is not all that expensive (well less than $50 when I bought it).

It sounds like you might be happy with a Scace and a Fluke 54- one channel datalogger. Since you can get the second channel for minimal added cost, I'd suggest going for that one, which I believe is the 54-II. The Fluke is going to be, far and away, much more pleasant to use, especially if you are going to rely on the recall function rather than exporting the data for use in a graphing or spreadsheet program.

ken

The single channel logging thermometer from Fluke is the 53-II. But I agree that the dual channel 54-II is a better choice.

Best price for 54-II I've seen is Byram Labs, but it was back-ordered last time I checked.

Jim

jggall01 wrote:The single channel logging thermometer from Fluke is the 53-II. But I agree that the dual channel 54-II is a better choice.

Best price for 54-II I've seen is Byram Labs, but it was back-ordered last time I checked.

Jim

http://webtronics.stores.yahoo.net/fluk54dualin.html

these people are slightly more expensive, have it in stock, are Fluke authorized dealers, and if you follow the instructions on the homepage, you can get any of several "free" gifts with orders over $50. I like the set of pliers, if you don't know what to take as the "gift."

ken
p.s. I've placed a whole lot of orders from this company; they ship promptly and give good service

CDW has them for $339. I got my 54-II from them, but it was a little cheaper. Benefit of spending hundreds of thousands a year on computer gear.

Don't even bother with a 51 or 52, I tried it and without the data logging, it is almost useless. You can get a deal on eBay now and then as well.

I got a toy from Espresso Parts a few days ago.