Tim wrote: ↑Tue Oct 24, 2023 6:12 pm
I'd ask, what answer are you expecting
Good question. - I was expecting something that might explain the different readings under same test conditions because it is so weird that a number of gauges, several high end manufacturers, give different readings. Maybe there is something I'm missing because how would top manufacturers get away with such variance? What could it be?
For your conclusion that you had good gauges because they read 400 - 800 -
Did you have a chance to place both gauges on the same system to see if they read the same? Would you be willing to put both of your gauges on your pump and report what they read?
Then there is the more important and harder to test question, does indicated 400 really mean 400 actual?
Below are the results by reading. The closest grouping is D,E,F with only about 100 microns from one to the next one but say the middle one E at 2800 is still 860 higher than A which is a reading 44% higher than A. A is one of the gauges you cited.
My hope was to have a discussion that could explain the results and hopefully bring some experience secrets how to deal with/calibrate/ensure that the gauges we rely on are giving us accuracy.
The purpose of my test was to find gauges that are accurate and of those, see if there were cool features on some or especially good values. They were all between about $100-200 with most around $175 so really not a huge price difference. For features, some of them BT phone/graph which is kinda cool, some have temp compensation options for leak testing, etc. Pretty cool stuff but if the readings can't be trusted, its all for not.
So I guess so far for the reader, one can conclude that gauges, even from top manufacturers, may not be giving accurate results and there is no way to really know.
Gauge Microns Diff from prior lower % diff of this line
A 1940
I 2180 240 11.01%
B 2340 160 6.84%
D 2710 370 13.65%
E 2800 90 3.21%
G 2900 100 3.45%
C 3300 400 12.12%
H 4425 1125 25.42%
F 124306 119881 96.44%