Conservation DistList Archives [Date] [Subject] [Author] [SEARCH]

Subject: Hygrothermographs


From: Paul N. Banks <pbanks>
Date: Sunday, April 16, 1989
Just saw your note on Walter's bboard. Having used three different
brands of conventional hygrothermographs (that is, non-electronic), I
have found that the Belfort is by *far* the best. (Others are Honeywell,
which mercifully may no longer be made, and an English one, whose name I
don't remember, which was cheap). The Belfort is very well made, easy to
calibrate; the hairs (which should be replaced every couple of years!)
one can do relatively easily oneself, etc. I believe that they now have
a model with a battery-operated quartz clock, which would be preferable
not only because of the vague annoyance involved in winding the clock
every week, but also to avoid the additional vibration entailed in
winding the clock every week, and for the greater accuracy of quartz
clocks over spring-wound ones. Pretty good service form Belfort in
Baltimore also. (The only serious drawback that I have found it that the
replacement fiber pens are absurdly expensive.

It is an unfortunate time to have to buy hygrothermographs, because if
we but knew which types to buy, we should be getting electronic ones
now--but no one seems to have good answers about reliability, etc. (My
understanding is that the weak point--or at least potential weak
point--is the humidity sensors. The temperature sensors and the
electronics are pretty straight-forward). Electronic instruments offer
potentially *many* advantages--greater precision, easier maintenance,
direct digital readout, and the possibility of plugging into a computer
to process data.

                  Conservation DistList Instance 2:17
                    Distributed: Friday, May 5, 1989
                        Message Id: cdl-2-17-002
Received on Sunday, 16 April, 1989

[Search all CoOL documents]