Well, they screwed that up. I would've pounced on a 200x0.01 scale before I found out about the 500x0.01.
But you can't quick-check rolls or tubes of dollars. Actually, I guess you can't do that with the 500g scale, either. Never mind. (...but don't you want to be able to check a one-pound bag of something to the nearest 10mg?)
In one of my first jobs, not only did we have prewired boards for the collator and accounting machines, but had to change a couple of wires depending on if we were processing 80 or 90 column cards.
Believe it or not, I still have some of the wiring, and the little IBM imprinted wire connector. We would loop the ends back into the connector and use them for key chains. We would wire the collators to perform the various collating jobs we needed. Can't remember if the card punches had to be wired or not.
Just for fun, I had some one ounce silver slugs lying around and I piled them on my little 200.00 g balance one at a time and got 31.13, 31.19, 31.96, 31.42, 31.24, and 31.18 g. The total is 187.96 g and when they are all placed on the balance at the same time, the reading was 188.12 This is off from the numerical total by 0.085% not bad for a $6 balance.
I'll say! Non-linearity isn't nearly so important when you're comparing items of similar weight, either -- so if you had one pile that weighed 188.12 and one pile that weighed 187.96, after weighing them both as piles, you could be pretty confident that they're different by 0.16g, not 0g or 0.3g. That's (forgive me) significant. Of course, if the same pile weighs 187.96 one time and 188.12 the next, that isn't so good. But I haven't seen that on even cheap scales.
