PHR-1 vs Ames Hardness testers - any complaints?

M

matto6

Joined
Jan 30, 2017
Messages
237
I've almost pulled the trigger on a grizzly G9645 several times but they are now $1760 shipped, which is bonkers. It's also big and heavy and a pain to store.

This leads me to looking at the Ames-type testers. Does anyone with the Ames-type regret their choice and wish they had done it right with the grizzly?

Does anyone with a PHR-1 have feedback on them? They are about the same price new as an Ames is used. But I can't tell whether the PHR-1 can be calibrated, so I think there's a risk that you have to remember to do +1 or +2 in your head every time, which I really don't want.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HPD
I have a PHR-1 from eBay and I like it. It is dead on with the calibration blocks that came with it and I can keep it inside with minimal space requirements. If I had to start over, I'd get it again.
 
There is less repeatability and reproducibility with portable hardness testers. Replacement components will also cost more, eventually the diamond indenter will wear out or get damaged, It is more expensive to replace the portable diamond indenter, economy of scale being one of the reasons.

You can find a good deal on a used portable tester but they will be in various levels of condition which may not have good R&R due to wear and tear on critical components.

Bench top testers are superior in performance.


According to ASTM E18-20, E10, E110

HRC results with portable tester should be written as "HRC/P"

That says a lot.
 
I have one and have never really had much luck with it.
There's too much user input, and I screw it up every time. So I bought a used bench top model.
 
Where were all you Negative Nellies before I clicked buy on Amazon? :cool:

I decided to order the PHR-1 and see what happens. Still not entirely sure whether I'll keep it or return it.

I contacted all the folks on ebay with an Ames for sale, and none of them could tell me if they were operational. :rolleyes: Yeah, no thanks.
 
Deleted due to selective moderation.
 
Last edited:
I know a maker who started with an Ames and did not feel like it was working well enough for him so he sold it and bought a Grizzly and never looked back.
 
I've read that for the bench top to work properly, pressure should be applied at a moderate pace, within some number of seconds (5?). That's why it has an adjustable damper so you can achieve the right compression rate.

With the hand unit, I typically see folks crank it a few times, stopping in the middle and restarting. This is not the same as a steady, constant pressure. I'm guessing your crank style is a key factor in accuracy of the results.
 
From ASTM E110, standard test procedure for portable hardness testers.

3. Significance and Use

Section 3.2

"Portable hardness testers, by their nature, induce variation that could influence the test results; therefore, hardness
measurements made in accordance with this test method are
NOT considered to meet the requirements of E10 or E18."

Portable testers are not a replacement for a benchtop tester. It is a compromise for portability.
 
I just called Grizzly to see if they have any kind of sale coming up on the hardness tester and he told me not only is there no sale, but they don't plan to stock them any more. Once their current stock runs out, they are done. He didn't have any official information on why they are being dropped, but he guessed it's because they sell so few of them.

You can buy them elsewhere so it's not a big deal, but I find it interesting that Grizzly gave up on them.
 
I received the PHR-1 and it is shockingly consistent and accurate on a 60 HRC test block that I already had.

But on the 62.2 test block that came with it, I get readings anywhere from 60 and 62, usually closer to 60. So either their test block sucks, or my test block is somehow magical avoids the PHR-1 inaccuracies. I ordered a Wilson 63 test block to confirm.
 
Last edited:
I've improved my technique about all I can, and below is some data on what I'm able to achieve with the PHR-1. I turn in one sweeping motion between 3-5 seconds, keep my head in the same place not only when doing the final reading, but while turning the dial (if you don't it can look like the needle is on 150 when it's not) and I discard the first 3 measurements because they're sometimes low.

Is this what I should expect from a home hardness tester? Would a grizzly actually do better?

Test Block 1: "60 HRC"
Error: +0.5 (Avg reading: 60.5)
Spread 1.0 (Min: 60, Max: 61)
Readings: 60.5 60.5 60 60 60 60 61 61 61 61

Test Block 2: "62.2 HRC"
Error: -0.6 (Avg reading: 61.6)
Spread 1.5 (Min: 61, Max: 62.5)
61 62 61 62 61 61.5 62 62.5 62 61

Magnacut Knife Handle (expected 64-64.5)
Avg reading: 63.0 (Actual hardness unknown)
Spread: 2.0 (Min: 62, Max 64)
63.5 62.5 63 62 63 64 63 63 63 63.5
 
Last edited:
matto6 said:
I've improved my technique about all I can, and below is some data on what I'm able to achieve with the PHR-1. I turn in one sweeping motion between 3-5 seconds, keep my head in the same place not only when doing the final reading, but while turning the dial (if you don't it can look like the needle is on 150 when it's not) and I discard the first 3 measurements because they're sometimes low.

Is this what I should expect from a home hardness tester? Would a grizzly actually do better?

Test Block 1: "60 HRC"
Error: +0.5 (Avg reading: 60.5)
Spread 1.0 (Min: 60, Max: 61)
Readings: 60.5 60.5 60 60 60 60 61 61 61 61

Test Block 2: "62.2 HRC"
Error: -0.6 (Avg reading: 61.6)
Spread 1.5 (Min: 61, Max: 62.5)
61 62 61 62 61 61.5 62 62.5 62 61

Magnacut Knife Handle (expected 64-64.5)
Avg reading: 63.0 (Actual hardness unknown)
Spread: 2.0 (Min: 62, Max 64)
63.5 62.5 63 62 63 64 63 63 63 63.5
Click to expand...

Download the ASTM Test Standards.

Important information to put in the practice.
 
matto6 said:
I've improved my technique about all I can, and below is some data on what I'm able to achieve with the PHR-1. I turn in one sweeping motion between 3-5 seconds, keep my head in the same place not only when doing the final reading, but while turning the dial (if you don't it can look like the needle is on 150 when it's not) and I discard the first 3 measurements because they're sometimes low.

Is this what I should expect from a home hardness tester? Would a grizzly actually do better?

Test Block 1: "60 HRC"
Error: +0.5 (Avg reading: 60.5)
Spread 1.0 (Min: 60, Max: 61)
Readings: 60.5 60.5 60 60 60 60 61 61 61 61

Test Block 2: "62.2 HRC"
Error: -0.6 (Avg reading: 61.6)
Spread 1.5 (Min: 61, Max: 62.5)
61 62 61 62 61 61.5 62 62.5 62 61

Magnacut Knife Handle (expected 64-64.5)
Avg reading: 63.0 (Actual hardness unknown)
Spread: 2.0 (Min: 62, Max 64)
63.5 62.5 63 62 63 64 63 63 63 63.5
Click to expand...
Those results look good to me. While folks would LOVE to quote Rc numbers to the tenth but in the real world that's not required. The certificate of calibration (edited to delete) for the HR150 clone I ordered from Grizzly gives the Rc Tolerance as ±1.5 HRC. It looks like you're close to that range.
 
Last edited:
Ken H> said:
Those results look good to me. While folks would LOVE to quote Rc numbers to the tenth but in the real world that's not required. The certificate of calibration for the HR150 clone I ordered from Grizzly gives the Rc Tolerance as ±1.5 HRC. It looks like you're close to that range.
Click to expand...


No, That is not a certificate of calibration. That is the " readings allowance" table on page 4 in the grizzly manual.

Your tester should not be reading a 1.5rc range in average on a quality +60 HRC test block.

That is outside of the tolerance range of repeatability that is acceptable for valid hardness readings according to the testing standards.

A quality test block above 60 HRC has it written on the test block a "+/-0.5" (HRC) allowance for error in repeatability from the labeled hardness value on the block.

So, if your tester is reading a 0.6rc average in error from the labeled value on the block, you have to clean and recalibrate your tester and possibly replace components such as the indenter.

It's also important to use more than one test block, It's easy to match calibration to single block value but if you can calibrate within a certain range with multiple blocks of different values It will give you a better picture of the actual precision and accuracy of your specific tester.

Calibration is a pretty big deal. Some customers will hold your feet to the fire if your hardness doesn't match what you advertise it as.

Good calibration makes your hardness values shareable and valid.
 
DeadboxHero said:
Good calibration makes your hardness values shareable and valid.
Click to expand...

This is the problem that I ran into with my Ames tester. It was too old and they wouldn't calibrate it anymore, so I had no way to certify my results.
 
They are correct, "IF" you need your Rc numbers totally accurate and traceable to NIST standards the PHR-1 just won't work, nor will the HR150 clone sold by Grizzly and many other places. I doubt you could get any calibration lab to certify a HR150 to 1/2 an Rc or even 1 point.

This is the certificate I referred to in my previous post - no it's not a "Certificate of Calibration". It's just a certificate for the HR150, serial #2611 that happened to be sold by Grizzly. I suspect they're saying don't expect more than ±1.5 and that's a big spread of 3 points. I find my HR150 is much better than that. I'm "assuming" it was created at factory as part of the inspection before going to the shipping dept.

Certificate-Rc.jpg
 
Ken H> said:
They are correct, "IF" you need your Rc numbers totally accurate and traceable to NIST standards the PHR-1 just won't work, nor will the HR150 clone sold by Grizzly and many other places. I doubt you could get any calibration lab to certify a HR150 to 1/2 an Rc or even 1 point.

This is the certificate I referred to in my previous post - no it's not a "Certificate of Calibration". It's just a certificate for the HR150, serial #2611 that happened to be sold by Grizzly. I suspect they're saying don't expect more than ±1.5 and that's a big spread of 3 points. I find my HR150 is much better than that. I'm "assuming" it was created at factory as part of the inspection before going to the shipping dept.

Certificate-Rc.jpg
Click to expand...
That is incorrect. It can be calibrated to within 1.0rc on lower hardness certified blocks and 0.5rc on +60rc certified blocks.

Any tool that cannot is unusable until fixed.

ASTM E18 -20.

Very important reading.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HPD
+/- 1.5 = spread of 3 which is somewhat laughable. I suspect they say that just so people can't return the machine saying it's out of spec. I would hope it has much lower variance than that.

ASTM E18-20 is awesome thank you for the pointer. It even has a precision/bias study (Table 4) that tells you what you should expect in terms of (a) expected error when reproducing your own readings ["r_pb"] and (b) expected error when reproducing someone else's readings ["R_pb"].

I also have one of those certifications with my PHR-1 which shows 5 readings and shows it's within 0.5 HRC of the correct number - but how do you know it's real? Unless it's performed by a 3-rd party trained in they can write whatever they want on it. Even if it's not totally fabricated, it's easy to just drop readings that are wonky until you get a few that look nice enough to write down.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top