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.

  • aesopjah@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    21 days ago

    because if it says anything other than 10% (the lowest thing it reads), then the dessicant needs to be refreshed.

    it’s more of a binary output rather than trying to look at 53 vs 55%

    • Krauerking@lemy.lolOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      21 days ago

      You get your humidity down to less than 10%? Or still literally treating it like a binary thing and it’s just reading way under real?

      I am at about 25% relative humidity and it’s showing as a 1 in the ams sensor so 10% seems impressive even though I’m not using much desiccant.

      • aesopjah@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        21 days ago

        yeah, it’s usually 60% ambient humidity here, and then in the dry box it’ll read <15%. so that’s a pretty decent indicator to me that it’s working fine. I don’t really care if it’s 10, 15, or even your 25%, those are all way less than the ambient baseline and let me know that the dessicant is working.

        If you’ve got some need to the humidity accuracy then that’s another thing, but for me that’s why I use those cheapos.

        I use modified cereal containers with dessicant on the bottom and have a mount modelled up for those sensors.

      • Marvelicious@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        21 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
          0
          ·
          21 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
            1
            ·
            20 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.