Please help read electric dial meter

[EFLImpudence]

if you read it in isolation the read is indeed 1. That's pretty much what you'd do on a clock, if you were reading a sun dial or a clock with no minute hand you'd say it was the hour that you're closest to even if you didn't quite reach that hour yet.

Yes but if you are going to do that then you would have to record all the other digits as zero.

Hence you would have 10000 which is not far from 09804; but a long way from 19804.

 

[John D v2.0]

Yes but if you are going to do that then you would have to record all the other digits as zero.

Hence you would have 10000 which is not far from 09804; but a long way from 19804.

Agree, i assumed that was what he meant by in isolation, but maybe not

 

[JohnW2]

Great explanation however, Actually you can at a push, if you read it in isolation the read is indeed 1. That's pretty much what you'd do on a clock, if you were reading a sun dial or a clock with no minute hand you'd say it was the hour that you're closest to even if you didn't quite reach that hour yet.

Indeed - but, in the present context, there's a catch in that. If the hour hand of a clock (which has no hourminute hand) or a sundial is pointing roughly at 5, it's fair enough to say that "it is about 5'oclock".

However, for electricity metering purposes, one is expected to provide all digits. If one could say that the reading was "about 50000" then that would be fair enough, just as with the clock/sundial, but one generally records/reports all digits. However, in the real world situation, if one said that the first digit was "about 5", but also supplied the following digits (say 9888), one would end up being billed on the basis of 59888, rather than the correct 49888 - which would be pretty costly

Edit: Ah, I missed EFLI's post, which is saying the same thing!
Edit2: Misbehaviour of communication between brain and typing fingers corrected.

Kind Regards, John

 

[boringoldcodger]

Deleted, as no longer relevant.

 

[rsgaz]

This thread reminds me of trying to explain KWh to an old person...

"No grandma, it's not kilowatts per hour!!!"

 

[JohnW2]

Living down to my moniker (again): I believe he meant "minute hand".

You believe correctly

Corrected - thanks ... now just wait until your typing fingers next disobey your brain

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Indeed, except when it's between 9 and 0, when its 9.

When it's between 9 and 0 the 0 is 10.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

How can the first digit on the first meter read be a zero??

Every digit is a 0 when the meter is first installed.

After a short time it will be reading 00001. Then 00002.

Etc

Imagine reading that meter in isolation from any other readings.

You can, but looking at past readings, or if it's in the past comparing it to later ones, can flag up mistakes.

The third dial from the left is pointing at the 8 and the reading is 8.

Because the 4th one is only a little over 0.

The first dial is pointing at the 1 and the reading is 0?

Yes - as JohnW2 says, if it were 19804 then the needle would be almost on 2. The first pointer is 98.04% of the way round from 0 to 1, but it isn't there yet. If it really was reading 19804 then it would be 98.04% of the way round from 1 to 2, and it clearly isn't.

 

[platforminc]

Hi all.

Had an estimated bill again despite giving last meter reading. I think what might have happened is that my opening reading 2as wrong.

Can someone pls help read the latest reading so I can avoid further issues.

 

[boringoldcodger]

I'd say that's 10189, but I'm happy to be told I'm wrong.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I hope that doesn't mean you'd be unhappy to be told you're right...

 

[JohnW2]

I'd say that's 10189, but I'm happy to be told I'm wrong.

... in which case you will probably be even more happy to be told that I would read it the same as you!

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Me, too.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

The easiest way to read them correctly is to work from right to left.

1. .75 (which you don't report, but it helps to get started on the progression.)
2. The next one has gone past 9, but not got to 0. It has gone past 9 by .75, so your reading is going to end 9.75
3. The next one has gone past 80, but not got to 90. It has gone past 80 by 9.75, so your reading is going to end 89.75
4. The next one has gone past 100, but not got to 200. It has gone past 100 by 89.75, so your reading is going to end 189.75
5. The next one has gone past 0000, but not got to 1000. It has gone past 0000 by 189.75, so your reading is going to end 0189.75
6. The next one has gone past 10000, but not got to 20000. It has gone past 10000 by 0189.75, so your reading is going to end 10189.75

But that is the end, ignore the fractional figure, your reading is 10189.

 

[JohnW2]

Whether one reads from L to R or vice-versa, the difficulty which many people have (including the OP) arises when one of the pointers appears to be 'exactly on' one of the numbers (e.g. '2' in the middle black dial in the recent photo) - and the only way one can determine whether or not it has 'gone past' the number is by reference to what the dials to the right of it are indicating.