PudgysMom has a thread here: viewtopic.php?f=34&t=171580&p=1381640#p1381414PudgysMom":31fcrawb said:
Thermometer Accuracy: Why Not To Use Dial Thermometers
- Thread starter Claudiusx
- Start date
- Status
Drache613":kdpvbcld said:Hello Brandon,
I had not seen this post. Excellent job & very nice charts.
This is extremely helpful for everyone.
Thanks for posting it for all of us!
Tracie
Don't mention it :mrgreen:
Heather, I hope you were able to get the answer to your question. :wink:
-Brandon
vesperwillow
Member
Awesome work. Just a few observations from a neutral standpoint on the matter. Essentially, the tests/comparisons aren't a matter of showing the level of accuracy in any fashion, in fact they show that both temperature devices are actually reading VERY accurately and almost equally, to each-other. The differences are explained below:
In tests 1-5, you're going to have disparing differences by default because of the physics involved and the base purpose of each thermometer. Tests 6 and 7 actually prove this with their wide margin, and I believe those two to be the closest appropriate tests for comparison of the group.
The thermometer systems:
Most dial thermometers are designed to only measure air temperature, and only in the general area they're located. They can't measure the physical surface temperature of a basking spot, but when placed as close to the spot as possible to allow airflow (about 1/4" or 1/2" from the base of the spot), they will very accurately measure the air temperature of that area. That's important to know when combined with humidity. With dial thermometers, it's important you allow at least a 1/4" of space all around for airflow to rise and fall on the thermal element. You should never lay it face down or belly up, because that traps the heat inside, allowing the plastic to absorb heat and magnify it against the element (or preventing the element from heating up properly, depending on the orientation).
Probe thermometers are designed to measure very specific, pinpoint locations, typically by being pushed into something such as the substrate. They can measure air temperature but unless they're shielded from the radiant UV heat, you're going to get inaccurate readings because the probes are encapsulated with ABS or polymer plastic. The difference is due to the black plastic, which absorbs radiant heat, and begins to "cook" the probe's sensor. It's sortof like how if you're in arizona in the summer, the blacktop is going to be boiling, whereas the concrete will be really hot but won't dissolve your shoes--both will have different surface temperatures because both have different thermal capacities and reflect/absorb differently.
Here's a simple proof of concept: When the probe is reading 150F* like it was, pick it up by the probe end with your bare finger. I'll bet you can do it with absolute ease, and not get the 2nd-degree burn that 150F* would normally give you. This demonstrates it's not actually 150F*, but the thermister inside the probe is being accelerated by radiant heat. I've picked up probes before which were sitting within a few inches of 100 watt bulbs. Never had to drop them because my finger was on fire.
Dissecting the tests and providing explanations:
In the test with the probe laying flat or being upside down, you'll note the readings are almost exactly the same regardless of orientation. I would expect this, since the thermal probe is entirely exposed to the atmosphere, and is enclosed equally in plastic, so orientation won't matter. Rate of absorbtion/reflection/capacity is going to be equal, so your temperature is for the most part, stable. Stable doesn't mean "more accurate".
On the dial test where it's face down or face up, the temperatures recorded also show exactly what I would expect due to the design and physics. The gauge is inappropriately being used. The elements are designed to be used in a vertical fashion, allowing air to flow up/down past them. What you've done, by placing it face down, is caused hotter air to become trapped near the heating element, and allowed the plastic to absorb heat, radiating it toward the element. Of course it's going to show a higher temperature, than your test with it face-up, where the element is furthest away from the heat source and thus "insulated" against the elements as it were.
To further demonstrate my point, the test with it face down with the sticky on the back, provided lower temperatures than when the face was exposed. Why? Because the sticky pad was insulating the plastic from radiant heat, preventing buildup. It was still hotter than if it was face-up, because air was being trapped on the elements. There was no lateral flow to push air through them.
Those tests on the dial are pretty much worthless at this point, they're invalid because they're using the device inappropriately. It would be like trying to test a meat thermometer's accuracy by not putting it in the meat, merely sitting it on the hot metal frying pan. The data is going to be way, way off.
When the dial was attached to the tank on the bottom row of the first set of data, you'll see the temperature shift isn't much more than about 5% of the probe's test on the floor of the tank. This is what I would deem accurate. The dial is being used properly. The higher temperatures recorded by the probe can be accounted for easily. It's absorbing radiant energy, and cooking the thermal probe on the inside. Also, it's about an inch further away from the dial. You could place the probe right under the dial, so the probe portion is not within direct receipt of radiant energy, but can still measure the ambient air temperature which is flowing into the dial. This would give you the closest-possible reading between the two.
The final test goes on to further establish what I'm saying. Of course there's a significant difference in temperature between the two: you're comparing apples to oranges. Physical temperature of a heat-laden object (the probe), versus air temperature flowing around the dial. Consider that most 60 watt incandescent unfiltered bulbs will provide 150-160F* of radiant heat @ 12", the probe is doing well to absorb and trap most of that energy. The dial gauge is not, and for good reason. Air doesn't trap heat that well unless it's enclosed ,which this isn't.
Like I said before, it's like standing on hot pavement when it's 100F* outside. You're not combusting because the ambient air temperature is only 100F*. You're breathing in the hot air, like a dial gauge would. However, your shoes are screaming bloody murder. The pavement, like the temperature probe, is absorbing and trapping the majority of the radiant heat, probably over 200F*. Important observation: This is also why within the first 60 seconds, both methods show the exact same reading, because neither is laden with the thermal energy, they're merely reporting the ambient at that very instant.
That "instant" reading is the same in all tests except for the one with the sticky-pad, which is naturally going to skew the data. What this shows is that, dial or digital probe, are going to read almost the same within 1-2%, hands-down, every time, provided they're being used properly.
Perhaps a better test:
If you can block the IR and radiant heat from soaking the probe, you'll get a more accurate reading. In fact, if you truly want to compare the two, find a dial gauge which is a bit larger, and stick the probe inside the back of it so that the dial gauge plastic is shielding the probe, but still allowing ambient air flow on both of them. I've done this, and there was next to no difference noted between a $10 digital, a $100 digital and a $10 analog dial.
Alternatively, you could create a hide or two, one on the substrate, and one much closer to your heat source--both almost fully enclosed. Place the dial on the glass inside the hide, and then stick the digital probe to the side of the dial gauge. I'd almost guarantee both are within 1-5% of each other at all times, unless there's a horrible QA flaw in one (or both).
Probably the easiest would be to take both outside on a porch of your house. Hang the probe and dial gauge on the wall, next to each other. You'll see they're similar. You won't be seeing one showing 180F* and another showing 90F*.
What's also not being done is calibration with a known-calibrated-accurate device, to compare the digital and dial gauges to initially. That would truly be awesome.
Important Observation: There's a reason why a lot of folks enjoy digital thermometers in many aspects of science. They provide the most accurate, instant readings. You don't have to let them sit and adjust. Digital provides INSTANTANEOUS readings. If you let it sit there, and the temperature begins an upward/downward trend, it's because the probe itself is absorbing or expelling thermal energy due to exposure of its environment. The only exception to this is: if the probe's physical temperature is much different than the temperature of what is being measured (ie the probe was sitting on a shelf, whos ambient temperature was 80* and you want to measure substrate which is most likely 110*, you're going to want to wait a few moments for the probe to catch up). Not so if the probe is already submerged. Analog gauges are the ones which have to "sit" for a few moments, because their metallic thermal coils have to adjust to the temperature around them. In the 21st century we've come a long way in manufacture of dial gauges using analog elements, they're much more accurate than in the past. 20-40* differences make no sense. 1-5 degrees MAYBE.
In summary:
Dial gauges - Ambient air temperature monitors. Place them RIGHT where you want the air temperature measured (for instance, where the animal's head is where it breathes the most)
Probe gauge - Meant for placing inside of hides, cracks, mediums such as substrate or water. Not for use where the heating device has a direct line of sight to the probe.
IR gauges - for surface temperatures, can also be used for water and air (if yours is so equipped for air).
As a side note, a probe gauge when sat on or in a substrate, should read almost the same as an IR measurement of that location, unless there's a disparity in the materials. Something else to try: Use an IR method to check the surface temperature of your digital probe. If the IR shows a different reading (more than a decimal place) than your digital probe, you're seeing the thermal-entrapment in action on the probe.
For basking spots, use IR temperature checking devices. Cheap ones can be had for $20 which are as accurate as any other similarly-priced digital device. More expensive ones just increase the decimal-point-accuracy. I've got a $15 one and have compared it to a 4-digit-$ one for engine work. They both read the same to the first decimal point.
I hope I've come across as helpful in an analytical sense, I in no way mean any offense to the OP, or to take away from his efforts. I merely looked at the experiment and noted it was done improperly, and didn't take into account how the two systems work and what they're meant for.
Both the OP and myself are looking out for the health of the animals, and the further education of those in the hobby. I just want to help everyone understand the physics and science behind the situation.
In tests 1-5, you're going to have disparing differences by default because of the physics involved and the base purpose of each thermometer. Tests 6 and 7 actually prove this with their wide margin, and I believe those two to be the closest appropriate tests for comparison of the group.
The thermometer systems:
Most dial thermometers are designed to only measure air temperature, and only in the general area they're located. They can't measure the physical surface temperature of a basking spot, but when placed as close to the spot as possible to allow airflow (about 1/4" or 1/2" from the base of the spot), they will very accurately measure the air temperature of that area. That's important to know when combined with humidity. With dial thermometers, it's important you allow at least a 1/4" of space all around for airflow to rise and fall on the thermal element. You should never lay it face down or belly up, because that traps the heat inside, allowing the plastic to absorb heat and magnify it against the element (or preventing the element from heating up properly, depending on the orientation).
Probe thermometers are designed to measure very specific, pinpoint locations, typically by being pushed into something such as the substrate. They can measure air temperature but unless they're shielded from the radiant UV heat, you're going to get inaccurate readings because the probes are encapsulated with ABS or polymer plastic. The difference is due to the black plastic, which absorbs radiant heat, and begins to "cook" the probe's sensor. It's sortof like how if you're in arizona in the summer, the blacktop is going to be boiling, whereas the concrete will be really hot but won't dissolve your shoes--both will have different surface temperatures because both have different thermal capacities and reflect/absorb differently.
Here's a simple proof of concept: When the probe is reading 150F* like it was, pick it up by the probe end with your bare finger. I'll bet you can do it with absolute ease, and not get the 2nd-degree burn that 150F* would normally give you. This demonstrates it's not actually 150F*, but the thermister inside the probe is being accelerated by radiant heat. I've picked up probes before which were sitting within a few inches of 100 watt bulbs. Never had to drop them because my finger was on fire.
Dissecting the tests and providing explanations:
In the test with the probe laying flat or being upside down, you'll note the readings are almost exactly the same regardless of orientation. I would expect this, since the thermal probe is entirely exposed to the atmosphere, and is enclosed equally in plastic, so orientation won't matter. Rate of absorbtion/reflection/capacity is going to be equal, so your temperature is for the most part, stable. Stable doesn't mean "more accurate".
On the dial test where it's face down or face up, the temperatures recorded also show exactly what I would expect due to the design and physics. The gauge is inappropriately being used. The elements are designed to be used in a vertical fashion, allowing air to flow up/down past them. What you've done, by placing it face down, is caused hotter air to become trapped near the heating element, and allowed the plastic to absorb heat, radiating it toward the element. Of course it's going to show a higher temperature, than your test with it face-up, where the element is furthest away from the heat source and thus "insulated" against the elements as it were.
To further demonstrate my point, the test with it face down with the sticky on the back, provided lower temperatures than when the face was exposed. Why? Because the sticky pad was insulating the plastic from radiant heat, preventing buildup. It was still hotter than if it was face-up, because air was being trapped on the elements. There was no lateral flow to push air through them.
Those tests on the dial are pretty much worthless at this point, they're invalid because they're using the device inappropriately. It would be like trying to test a meat thermometer's accuracy by not putting it in the meat, merely sitting it on the hot metal frying pan. The data is going to be way, way off.
When the dial was attached to the tank on the bottom row of the first set of data, you'll see the temperature shift isn't much more than about 5% of the probe's test on the floor of the tank. This is what I would deem accurate. The dial is being used properly. The higher temperatures recorded by the probe can be accounted for easily. It's absorbing radiant energy, and cooking the thermal probe on the inside. Also, it's about an inch further away from the dial. You could place the probe right under the dial, so the probe portion is not within direct receipt of radiant energy, but can still measure the ambient air temperature which is flowing into the dial. This would give you the closest-possible reading between the two.
The final test goes on to further establish what I'm saying. Of course there's a significant difference in temperature between the two: you're comparing apples to oranges. Physical temperature of a heat-laden object (the probe), versus air temperature flowing around the dial. Consider that most 60 watt incandescent unfiltered bulbs will provide 150-160F* of radiant heat @ 12", the probe is doing well to absorb and trap most of that energy. The dial gauge is not, and for good reason. Air doesn't trap heat that well unless it's enclosed ,which this isn't.
Like I said before, it's like standing on hot pavement when it's 100F* outside. You're not combusting because the ambient air temperature is only 100F*. You're breathing in the hot air, like a dial gauge would. However, your shoes are screaming bloody murder. The pavement, like the temperature probe, is absorbing and trapping the majority of the radiant heat, probably over 200F*. Important observation: This is also why within the first 60 seconds, both methods show the exact same reading, because neither is laden with the thermal energy, they're merely reporting the ambient at that very instant.
That "instant" reading is the same in all tests except for the one with the sticky-pad, which is naturally going to skew the data. What this shows is that, dial or digital probe, are going to read almost the same within 1-2%, hands-down, every time, provided they're being used properly.
Perhaps a better test:
If you can block the IR and radiant heat from soaking the probe, you'll get a more accurate reading. In fact, if you truly want to compare the two, find a dial gauge which is a bit larger, and stick the probe inside the back of it so that the dial gauge plastic is shielding the probe, but still allowing ambient air flow on both of them. I've done this, and there was next to no difference noted between a $10 digital, a $100 digital and a $10 analog dial.
Alternatively, you could create a hide or two, one on the substrate, and one much closer to your heat source--both almost fully enclosed. Place the dial on the glass inside the hide, and then stick the digital probe to the side of the dial gauge. I'd almost guarantee both are within 1-5% of each other at all times, unless there's a horrible QA flaw in one (or both).
Probably the easiest would be to take both outside on a porch of your house. Hang the probe and dial gauge on the wall, next to each other. You'll see they're similar. You won't be seeing one showing 180F* and another showing 90F*.
What's also not being done is calibration with a known-calibrated-accurate device, to compare the digital and dial gauges to initially. That would truly be awesome.
Important Observation: There's a reason why a lot of folks enjoy digital thermometers in many aspects of science. They provide the most accurate, instant readings. You don't have to let them sit and adjust. Digital provides INSTANTANEOUS readings. If you let it sit there, and the temperature begins an upward/downward trend, it's because the probe itself is absorbing or expelling thermal energy due to exposure of its environment. The only exception to this is: if the probe's physical temperature is much different than the temperature of what is being measured (ie the probe was sitting on a shelf, whos ambient temperature was 80* and you want to measure substrate which is most likely 110*, you're going to want to wait a few moments for the probe to catch up). Not so if the probe is already submerged. Analog gauges are the ones which have to "sit" for a few moments, because their metallic thermal coils have to adjust to the temperature around them. In the 21st century we've come a long way in manufacture of dial gauges using analog elements, they're much more accurate than in the past. 20-40* differences make no sense. 1-5 degrees MAYBE.
In summary:
Dial gauges - Ambient air temperature monitors. Place them RIGHT where you want the air temperature measured (for instance, where the animal's head is where it breathes the most)
Probe gauge - Meant for placing inside of hides, cracks, mediums such as substrate or water. Not for use where the heating device has a direct line of sight to the probe.
IR gauges - for surface temperatures, can also be used for water and air (if yours is so equipped for air).
As a side note, a probe gauge when sat on or in a substrate, should read almost the same as an IR measurement of that location, unless there's a disparity in the materials. Something else to try: Use an IR method to check the surface temperature of your digital probe. If the IR shows a different reading (more than a decimal place) than your digital probe, you're seeing the thermal-entrapment in action on the probe.
For basking spots, use IR temperature checking devices. Cheap ones can be had for $20 which are as accurate as any other similarly-priced digital device. More expensive ones just increase the decimal-point-accuracy. I've got a $15 one and have compared it to a 4-digit-$ one for engine work. They both read the same to the first decimal point.
I hope I've come across as helpful in an analytical sense, I in no way mean any offense to the OP, or to take away from his efforts. I merely looked at the experiment and noted it was done improperly, and didn't take into account how the two systems work and what they're meant for.
Both the OP and myself are looking out for the health of the animals, and the further education of those in the hobby. I just want to help everyone understand the physics and science behind the situation.
First off, thank you very much for the very thorugh and detailed response Vesper.
There are a few things I need to point out first:
1 The purpose of doing this wasn't to determine which was more accurate, persay, but to convince people that dial thermometers have virtually no use in your bearded dragon(s) tank. This is because the most important temp, the basking SURFACE, can NOT be accurately measured with dials. You have said so a few times in your replies how dial thermometers can not be placed down on the surface, which (along with their inaccuracy anyways) makes them not suitable for use in this hobby.
That's the problem we have in this hobby. As you saw in tests 6-7, the position of the dial in relationship to the basking surface is about (I say about because I actually put it closer to get it a better chance at an accurate reading) where it would be if a "newbie" were to buy a setup. They would rely on that temperature gauge up against the glass wall on the hot side and assume that it is the basking temp they have been hearing about. So, they see the temp gauge reading 90 degrees. Well, that can't be right! Bearded dragons need a basking temp of 105~!! So what do they do? They go and buy a new bulb, that gets the temps even higher. If they are able to somehow get a bulb powerful enough to get the temp on that dial to reach the temp they have been told they need, I can GUARANTEE you that the basking surface would actually be many many degrees hotter than that, a potential death hazard.
Sorry, I will have to disagree again. Tests 6-7 as mentioned before were performed with how BOTH thermometers are recommended to be used. The earlier tests were just an attempt at finding out if the dials would be suitable for finding out a surface temperature or not. Which IS the most important temperature in the tank.
The purpose of this (the most important temp for the health of our dragons) isn't actually the air temperature, it is what the dragon would be feeling while resting under a beam of heat.
If I were to put the probe under something to get it out of direct heat (a dragon won't be out of direct heat, it will be in direct heat) then it wouldn't really help the cause. The dragon won't have a giant dragon sized dial thermometer over its body to protect it from the direct heat. That's why probes/temp guns are recommended because the air temp is not the most important part, the surface temp is.
And... as been proven in my tests, dial thermometers are not suitable by any means to measure surface temp.
I do believe (Correct me if im wrong) that I said dials seem to be pretty to semi-accurate in gauging the air temp, more near to the cool side. But really, chances are if your basking SURFACE is the proper temp, that the heat gradient will be proper too. Which is why its so important to first get an accurate reading of the basking SURFACE and not the surrounding air.
You made a lot of other good points, and points I don't necessarily see eye to eye with you on, but I don't have as much time as I once had so I will just briefly go over a few from this point on if you don't mind.
Your recommendation for an IR gun/temp gun is a great suggestion. In fact, when I recommend people thermometers those are the two types always recommend.
However, through my years here and being able to see and learn from hundreds if not thousands of other peoples experiences, I have seen a common trend that [most] probes read the same as the temp guns +/- 2 or so degrees when reading the basking surface. This means the probe was indeed exposed to direct heat, which is why I disagree with your point of heat getting trapped in the probe causing inaccurate measuring.
I don't disagree that some heat might get trapped, but I don't think it causes any significant deviance in temp readings, as has been my observation over the years.
You sound very knowledgeable on the subject of thermometers so it was nice to get a second opinion from another person knowledgeable in the subject.
I will just reiterate my main points one more time just to stray away from any possible confusion.
-Surface temp is, in fact, the most important temp for a dragons health. Dial thermometers should not be used to get this reading.
-Digitals with probes seem to be just as accurate (+/- 2 or so degrees) as IR guns. As has been seen over the years on this board.
-I really do need to do a test with IR guns too, its just I have had virtually no time as of lately to do anything. But it is on my to-do list.
-I do not believe that placing a probe in direct heat makes it any more inaccurate. If anything, it surely is a heck of a lot better than using a dial to get your surface temp.
Once again, thank you for your very well thought out response vesper.
If there was a point you made that you think I missed, just let me know I will try to get some more time and write another response if you want.
The ONE purpose of this thread, is not to bash one tool or the other, but simply to tell people that dials should not be used to get the most important temp in the tank, the surface temp. I believe we all can agree on that.
-Brandon
There are a few things I need to point out first:
1 The purpose of doing this wasn't to determine which was more accurate, persay, but to convince people that dial thermometers have virtually no use in your bearded dragon(s) tank. This is because the most important temp, the basking SURFACE, can NOT be accurately measured with dials. You have said so a few times in your replies how dial thermometers can not be placed down on the surface, which (along with their inaccuracy anyways) makes them not suitable for use in this hobby.
Exactly the point of this thread. Dials have virtually no use in this hobby.vesperwillow":32uiwkqz said:
I am going to have to disagree with this statement. Tests 6-7 had the dial positioned this way (the way the manufacturer wants them to be used) And they were still inaccurate.
That's the problem we have in this hobby. As you saw in tests 6-7, the position of the dial in relationship to the basking surface is about (I say about because I actually put it closer to get it a better chance at an accurate reading) where it would be if a "newbie" were to buy a setup. They would rely on that temperature gauge up against the glass wall on the hot side and assume that it is the basking temp they have been hearing about. So, they see the temp gauge reading 90 degrees. Well, that can't be right! Bearded dragons need a basking temp of 105~!! So what do they do? They go and buy a new bulb, that gets the temps even higher. If they are able to somehow get a bulb powerful enough to get the temp on that dial to reach the temp they have been told they need, I can GUARANTEE you that the basking surface would actually be many many degrees hotter than that, a potential death hazard.
Sorry, I will have to disagree again. Tests 6-7 as mentioned before were performed with how BOTH thermometers are recommended to be used. The earlier tests were just an attempt at finding out if the dials would be suitable for finding out a surface temperature or not. Which IS the most important temperature in the tank.
This is actually a good idea, and something I wish I would have done in the original test just to do it and see what happens, but truth be told, after thinking about it a bit longer, I don't think it would work for the purpose of this.
The purpose of this (the most important temp for the health of our dragons) isn't actually the air temperature, it is what the dragon would be feeling while resting under a beam of heat.
If I were to put the probe under something to get it out of direct heat (a dragon won't be out of direct heat, it will be in direct heat) then it wouldn't really help the cause. The dragon won't have a giant dragon sized dial thermometer over its body to protect it from the direct heat. That's why probes/temp guns are recommended because the air temp is not the most important part, the surface temp is.
And... as been proven in my tests, dial thermometers are not suitable by any means to measure surface temp.
I do believe (Correct me if im wrong) that I said dials seem to be pretty to semi-accurate in gauging the air temp, more near to the cool side. But really, chances are if your basking SURFACE is the proper temp, that the heat gradient will be proper too. Which is why its so important to first get an accurate reading of the basking SURFACE and not the surrounding air.
You made a lot of other good points, and points I don't necessarily see eye to eye with you on, but I don't have as much time as I once had so I will just briefly go over a few from this point on if you don't mind.
Your recommendation for an IR gun/temp gun is a great suggestion. In fact, when I recommend people thermometers those are the two types always recommend.
However, through my years here and being able to see and learn from hundreds if not thousands of other peoples experiences, I have seen a common trend that [most] probes read the same as the temp guns +/- 2 or so degrees when reading the basking surface. This means the probe was indeed exposed to direct heat, which is why I disagree with your point of heat getting trapped in the probe causing inaccurate measuring.
I don't disagree that some heat might get trapped, but I don't think it causes any significant deviance in temp readings, as has been my observation over the years.
You sound very knowledgeable on the subject of thermometers so it was nice to get a second opinion from another person knowledgeable in the subject.
I will just reiterate my main points one more time just to stray away from any possible confusion.
-Surface temp is, in fact, the most important temp for a dragons health. Dial thermometers should not be used to get this reading.
-Digitals with probes seem to be just as accurate (+/- 2 or so degrees) as IR guns. As has been seen over the years on this board.
-I really do need to do a test with IR guns too, its just I have had virtually no time as of lately to do anything. But it is on my to-do list.
-I do not believe that placing a probe in direct heat makes it any more inaccurate. If anything, it surely is a heck of a lot better than using a dial to get your surface temp.
Once again, thank you for your very well thought out response vesper.
If there was a point you made that you think I missed, just let me know I will try to get some more time and write another response if you want.
The ONE purpose of this thread, is not to bash one tool or the other, but simply to tell people that dials should not be used to get the most important temp in the tank, the surface temp. I believe we all can agree on that.
-Brandon
http://www.zoomed.com/db/products/EntryDetail.php?EntryID=172&DatabaseID=2&SearchID=1&SearchContext=YTo1OntzOjQ6IlBhZ2UiO3M6MToiMSI7czo4OiJTZWFyY2hJRCI7czoxOiIxIjtzOjEwOiJEYXRhYmFzZUlEIjtzOjE6IjIiO3M6NzoiSGVhZGluZyI7czo5OiJUZXJyYXJpdW0iO3M6MTU6IlByb2R1Y3RDYXRlZ29yeSI7czo3OiJIZWF0aW5nIjt9
This is the thermometer I have. Digital, recommended by someone here. The probe is, as you can see, white instead of black. I put it on her basking area an hour or more ago and it is hovering between 105.3-105.5, temp drops into the 90's on the hot side away from the basking area, still working on getting good, accurate temps on the cool side, but we are talking in the 80's. For a 10 week old, is this a good temp? AND most importantly can I rely on this? It's all I have to work with at the moment, although I do plan on getting a better one as time goes on. At this point, I just got her lighting straightened out as of yesterday. (I got her a week ago today.)
Not sure if it's of importance, but I have a 20 gal (regular, not high or long), 10 UV tube and 100 watt Zilla "day white light" bulb for heat/basking, and she will be 10 weeks old tomorrow (8/9/12).
I just need to know if there is any data on this that says it could be hotter than the max 105.5 that it is showing now.
I do have pics of her on photobucket. I am going to try to get the link to the pics on my signature.
Thank you!
Tracey
One more thing, HOPEFULLY this is not something I need to worry about, just something I wondered. Since beardies don't feel when something is too hot, what do you do if you have the wrong thermometer and realize they are burning themselves? How would you cool them off without putting them into shock? Might be info someone else can use if they have the wrong setup. Hopefully it's info on one would need, but it's bound to come up.
Thanks again!!
This is the thermometer I have. Digital, recommended by someone here. The probe is, as you can see, white instead of black. I put it on her basking area an hour or more ago and it is hovering between 105.3-105.5, temp drops into the 90's on the hot side away from the basking area, still working on getting good, accurate temps on the cool side, but we are talking in the 80's. For a 10 week old, is this a good temp? AND most importantly can I rely on this? It's all I have to work with at the moment, although I do plan on getting a better one as time goes on. At this point, I just got her lighting straightened out as of yesterday. (I got her a week ago today.)
Not sure if it's of importance, but I have a 20 gal (regular, not high or long), 10 UV tube and 100 watt Zilla "day white light" bulb for heat/basking, and she will be 10 weeks old tomorrow (8/9/12).
I just need to know if there is any data on this that says it could be hotter than the max 105.5 that it is showing now.
I do have pics of her on photobucket. I am going to try to get the link to the pics on my signature.
Thank you!
Tracey
One more thing, HOPEFULLY this is not something I need to worry about, just something I wondered. Since beardies don't feel when something is too hot, what do you do if you have the wrong thermometer and realize they are burning themselves? How would you cool them off without putting them into shock? Might be info someone else can use if they have the wrong setup. Hopefully it's info on one would need, but it's bound to come up.
Thanks again!!
Hi Tracey,
You're temperature is fine! I wouldn't worry about trying to raise it or anything :mrgreen:
There really is no reason to doubt your thermometer unless it gives you reason to. Such as it reading 100 degrees or something but your baby never basking, and gaping all the time.
Beardies can feel heat, it's just they cannot feel heat from their underside. They are well aware of how hot it is above them and around them, but directly under them, they are clueless :roll: :mrgreen:
-Brandon
You're temperature is fine! I wouldn't worry about trying to raise it or anything :mrgreen:
There really is no reason to doubt your thermometer unless it gives you reason to. Such as it reading 100 degrees or something but your baby never basking, and gaping all the time.
Beardies can feel heat, it's just they cannot feel heat from their underside. They are well aware of how hot it is above them and around them, but directly under them, they are clueless :roll: :mrgreen:
-Brandon
vesperwillow
Member
Just saw this pop up on my list. I totally agree, you'll be fine. I've used100 watt bulbs with 20g enclosures, and the temperature was about the same. As Brandon said, if they don't like it, they'll move a few inches.
Goodtruant
Sub-Adult Member
One time I accidentally turned up the dimmer on Drapers basking lamp and when he stepped on to it he stood on one foot, then switched to the other foot....and went back and forth. So I think they can feel heat with their feet....maybe not their belly's so much. I felt bad after I checked the surface temp and it was 119!
ok... this is a scary post I have the dial therms and I haven't even money for a probe therm yet but im really worried about the temp differences. I have 2 bulbs that I use in my tank a basking bulb lil thing it is and a 10.0 uvb uva and basking all in one would you say it would be alright if I were to use just the uvb uva and basking bulb only for the summer to be safe... also my tanks size is as follows. 36Lx18Hx18W please help cuz im not looking to be a fan of cooking my pet alive. P.S. she is a baby
- Status
Latest resources
-
General Care Practical tips: A healthy brumating bearded dragonPractical tips to help keep your bearded dragon healthy during brumation
- Shinryu
- Updated:
-
-
Lighting Beginner Guide to Bearded Dragon LightingA basic lighting setup for any bearded dragon.
- Shinryu
- Updated:
-
Lighting Introduction to UV LightingMake a more educated purchase on your next UVB light.
- Shinryu
- Updated:
-
General Care Bearded Dragons - Care SheetAn all-in-one guide to caring for your bearded dragons.
- Shinryu
- Updated:
Latest profile posts
I just walked into my room and instead of looking at me, Swordtail's eyes darted directly to the ice cream drumstick I'm holding