Please help read electric dial meter

[ban-all-sheds]

Hence move from R to L and you will already know what the dials to the right of it are reading.....

 

[JohnW2]

Indeed, but one will still have to think about the 'readings to the right' in order to determine whether or not the pointer of interest had 'gone past' the number it appeared to be pointing 'at'.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Keep up, John, if you start from the right, that's what you will be doing.

 

[JohnW2]

Keep up, John, if you start from the right, that's what you will be doing.

My point is simply that that will not happen 'automatically' - one will still have to think about the figures one has ascertained 'to the right', and work out what they mean in terms of the interpretation of the 'current' ('marginal') one. In terms of the recent photo, BAS wrote : "4. The next one has gone past 100, but not got to 200.... ", but that is far from necessarily obvious to someone (since the pointer seems to be pointing exactly to 200) unless one considers the implication of the figures ('to the right') that one has already read.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

...but that's what you do when you start from the right.

The previous (from right) numbers are 89.7(5) so it must be 89.75% past a number. That number clearly cannot be 2.

 

[platforminc]

Printed off and saved somewhere.

I do have a question, the middle one in my eyes has hit 200 and if I was reading this, I would have reported 200.

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]

...but that's what you do when you start from the right. The previous (from right) numbers are 89.7(5) so it must be 89.75% past a number. That number clearly cannot be 2.

Indeed, as everyone has said, that is the conclusion one would come to if one thought about the implication of those numbers to the right, which is the only way that one will ever be able to resolve uncertainties about a dial whose pointer appears to be pointing AT a number. As I said early on ....

... that you CANNOT do that. If the needle in one dial is very close to a number, one MUST look at the other numbers to work out whether it is 'just over' or 'just under' (or, very rarely, 'exactly') the number it appears to be pointing at.

It's extremely easy for us 'in the know'. However, you'll see from the post after yours that the OP read that number as "2", even though, as you say (after looking at other numbers) "that number clearly cannot be 2" - and I rather suspect that he might well have made that same mistake whether he read the numbers from left to right or from right to left.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

I do have a question, the middle one in my eyes has hit 200 and if I was reading this, I would have reported 200.

The pointers aren't spot on but they're not that far out.

If it was 2 that would mean it is xx289 which is nearly 300.
This cannot be right because the pointer is nowhere near 3, so it must be xx189, that is nearly 200.

 

[JohnW2]

The pointers aren't spot on but they're not that far out.

I very much doubt that if one only had that middle black dial ('hundreds') to look at, anyone (including us us two) would be able to be totally confident whether it should be read as 1 or 2 (particularly given that those dials are not always 'perfect').

If it was 2 that would mean it is xx289 which is nearly 300. This cannot be right because the pointer is nowhere near 3, so it must be xx189, that is nearly 200.

As everyone has been saying, in one way or another, throughout this thread, that is obviously the logic that has to be applied. For example, early on I wrote:

However, things become clearer if you look at the rest of the numbers. If that first digit were a 1, then the whole number would be 19804. That's nearly 20000 and if that were the case, the needle on that first dial would be close to 2, rather than very close to 1 as it actually was.

However, one has to be aware of 'the audience'. You and I would not (now) need to come here to ask how to read the meter correctly. However, although it's too long ago for either of us to remember, I strongly suspect that both you and I had to look and think at least twice (probably a lot more times) when we first encountered one! For someone who is not 'used' to looking at them, it really is not necessarily at all easy or 'obvious' - and it's not helped at all by the fact that (presumably to save the small cost of 4 or 5 'idler' gears) alternate dials rotate in opposite directions!

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

I very much doubt that if one only had that middle black dial ('hundreds') to look at, anyone (including us us two) would be able to be totally confident whether it should be read as 1 or 2 (particularly given that those dials are not always 'perfect').

Has anyone disputed that?

As everyone has been saying, in one way or another, throughout this thread, that is obviously the logic that has to be applied. For example, early on I wrote:
"However, things become clearer if you look at the rest of the numbers. If that first digit were a 1, then the whole number would be 19804. That's nearly 20000 and if that were the case, the needle on that first dial would be close to 2, rather than very close to 1 as it actually was."

Then why did you dispute Bas' explanation and write:

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.

Plus - It is not necessary to follow posts which agree with yours with a reminder that you wrote it first.

However, one has to be aware of 'the audience'. You and I would not (now) need to come here to ask how to read the meter correctly. However, although it's too long ago for either of us to remember, I strongly suspect that both you and I had to look and think at least twice (probably a lot more times) when we first encountered one!

So what. Now we are teaching someone else.
I couldn't read until I was four.

For someone who is not 'used' to looking at them, it really is not necessarily at all easy or 'obvious' - and it's not helped at all by the fact that (presumably to save the small cost of 4 or 5 'idler' gears) alternate dials rotate in opposite directions!

The DNOs are not noted for caring about the customer.

 

[JohnW2]

Then why did you dispute Bas' explanation and write:....

I didn't 'dispute' anything BAS had said. I merely pointed out that, even if one reads from right to left (as BAS had suggested), one still has to 'think about' those 'numbers to the right' and be able to work out what they mean in terms of the number of interest.

You may say that it is "easy"/"obvious"/"logical"/whatever, but several of us here have explained, in various ways, how the meter should be read, yet the OP clearly still finds the task difficult (and/or the various explanations difficult to understand), since his most recent attempt was as incorrect as his earlier ones.

Plus - It is not necessary to follow posts which agree with yours with a reminder that you wrote it first.

I agree. I 'learned' that one off someone who does it all the time, and therefore generally only do it in response to his posts. If I 'slipped' on this occasion, and did it in a post directed at you, please accept my apologies.

... now back to the urgent 'garden work', now that it has become just about cool enough to contemplate doing it.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

The DNOs are not noted for caring about the customer.

Did that type of meter coming into being at a time when DNOs were supplying (and paying for) consumer's meters?

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I didn't 'dispute' anything BAS had said. I merely pointed out that, even if one reads from right to left (as BAS had suggested), one still has to 'think about' those 'numbers to the right' and be able to work out what they mean in terms of the number of interest.

My apologies - reading things and not thinking about them doesn't come naturally to me, and some people have an advantage over me in that respect.

 

[platforminc]

Hi all.

Please help me on the below. Can't afford mistakes. I just need the correct reading.

 

[SFK]

10,312.1

Taking Text from BAS that he told you before:

Starting from the Right:
0.1 dial has gone past 1 so it is 0.1
1 dial has gone past 2 so it is 2
10 dial has gone past 1 so it is 1
100 dial has gone past 3 so it is 3
1000 dial has gone past 0 so it is 0
10000 dial has gone past 1 so it is 1

SFK