These have to be the least accurate things I have ever seen.

The rectangular one is accurate or accurate enough and has been what I used but I noticed files all had cutouts for these round hygrometers…

Well from my 6 pack 1 is within a margin of error to even be useful.

I get they aren’t expensive but seems like a waste of money for this bad.

  • Marvelicious@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    13 days ago

    I’ve pretty much been running on the binary theory with the AMS sensor: anything but a 1 is too high. I guess I’m glad I didn’t waste any money on those digital jobbies. I wonder if the old school analog style are better?

    • Krauerking@lemy.lolOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      13 days ago

      Yeah, that seems good enough for most people and I agree with using it instead of wasting the money on these even for a secondary check. I just wanted to track a new desiccant that doesn’t indicate and see how it compares to cheap silica.

      The old school probably would work better in that they are often adjustable or calibratable, and I feel like I’d trust them more than these to even accurately change with added humidity. I’m gonna end up using paper Testors cause those honestly seem the more reliable analog system.

      • XTL@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        12 days ago

        The old horsehair types are pretty decent though not precision meters. The numbers will be completely off unless calibrated, but you can make multiple meters agree. Either way, you can see which days they take a massive dive.

        Much the same as those bimetallic thermometers.