Ingenuity Precision trickler

With how precise these scales are, I think the environment and ambient temperature in which they are used probably matters quite a bit.

I bought a “grade B” granite surface plate a few years back off Amazon for ~$50 to put my fx120i on, and since, the scale has been much more stable and low drama. I’m sure part of this is that, along with isolating the scale from vibrations, the granite block doesn’t change temperature much, or at least not quick, and I bet it helps.
 
  • Like
Reactions: straightshooter1
With how precise these scales are, I think the environment and ambient temperature in which they are used probably matters quite a bit.

I bought a “grade B” granite surface plate a few years back off Amazon for ~$50 to put my fx120i on, and since, the scale has been much more stable and low drama. I’m sure part of this is that, along with isolating the scale from vibrations, the granite block doesn’t change temperature much, or at least not quick, and I bet it helps.

Oh yeah, you are 100% correct on all the above.

However, there will still be people that set it up on a folding card table outdoors in the wind and then loudly complain about it not being stable, etc.
 
Will the mechanical/electronics of this thing have a restricted or optimal temperature operating range?

Asking because: the ATV4 motor would seize up in my garage on 100 degree days because of thermal expansion; and the ST vibratory motor is highly temperature sensitive below about 70 degrees - it speeds up as it heats up with continued operation, which alters its performance; or if you have settings that work at 90 degrees ambient, they don’t work at 65 degrees ambient (need different settings for seasonal temp variation if not in climate controlled environment.)

Mentioning because these are the things you don't think of when you're developing/testing in the same environment
@Ingenuity1 not sure if you saw the above, but inquiring minds want to know.....

Any updates in the past few weeks?
 
I get that sentiment, however, once the product is released with hardware flaws, you are done. Unless you’re going to recall all of the already released products which a small outfit cannot realistically do financially. The two competing devices are learning this the hard way: the autotrickler needs an adjustable tilt and the screw allowing this was removed somewhere along its development leading to the regrettable situation we have now with people Jimmy rigging it with shims, or, in my case, selling it in frustration and dissatisfaction.

The super tickler was released with that vibratory motor, which is an absolute disaster because of how finicky it is, and even if you can deal with that, the temperature sensitivity is a deal killer if you are utilizing the machine across a temperature spectrum, leading people to except a very high overthrow rate, or selling it in frustration and dissatisfaction.

So some polite skeptical questioning will do nothing but help the developer not repeat the errors of his predecessors. And one of the fatal errors in both cases was releasing a machine before the hardware bugs were worked out.

The goal should not be to rush a machine to production. We already have two examples of that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: akh223
I get that sentiment, however, once the product is released with hardware flaws, you are done. Unless you’re going to recall all of the already released products which a small outfit cannot realistically do financially. The two competing devices are learning this the hard way: the autotrickler needs an adjustable tilt and the screw allowing this was removed somewhere along its development leading to the regrettable situation we have now with people Jimmy rigging it with shims, or, in my case, selling it in frustration and dissatisfaction.

The super tickler was released with that vibratory motor, which is an absolute disaster because of how finicky it is, and even if you can deal with that, the temperature sensitivity is a deal killer if you are utilizing the machine across a temperature spectrum, leading people to except a very high overthrow rate, or selling it in frustration and dissatisfaction.

So some polite skeptical questioning will do nothing but help the developer not repeat the errors of his predecessors. And one of the fatal errors in both cases was releasing a machine before the hardware bugs were worked out.

The goal should not be to rush a machine to production. We already have two examples of that.

I haven’t owned an AT4 or SuperTrickler, but I did own 2 MatchMasters that were designed around a vibratory motor (well not exactly, spinning tube, but similar)…

…and even after literally putting in hours towards mastering the parameters to get the best performance I could out of them, I was shocked with what I got with the IP trickler’s “dumb” slider after playing with it for less than a minute. It’s like a f’ing revelation lol.

Without having used both types it’s almost hard to explain how much better IP’s approach works… I’m no engineer, but if the temperatures allow the scale to behave, I think the IP hardware will be just fine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Terp
I'll gladly shoot my SuperTrickler for the IP Trickler. Do not get me wrong, the thoughts behind it are awesome and the execution is well, but they dug their own grave with this finicky vibrating tube. Hate that thing with a passion, yesterday I was waiting around 40 seconds for the last kernels to be dropped, the initial charge was fine but the wait... Oh the glorious wait.
 
The vibrating tube is the Achilles heel, but Rex Peterson in Denmark will hear nothing of it. Mind is closed on the matter.

It was supposedly used because the rotating tube is patented and he didn’t want to pay royalties to the patent holder (not sure who that is, since it’s a common design, that’s just what I heard).

It is the death knell of the ST. Fatal flaw and there is no software work around for a hardware problem.

I was a beta tester and haven’t even had the heart to tell them yet that I sold my machine
 
  • Like
Reactions: akh223
The vibrating tube is the Achilles heel, but Rex Peterson in Denmark will hear nothing of it. Mind is closed on the matter.

It was supposedly used because the rotating tube is patented and he didn’t want to pay royalties to the patent holder (not sure who that is, since it’s a common design, that’s just what I heard).

It is the death knell of the ST. Fatal flaw and there is no software work around for a hardware problem.

I was a beta tester and haven’t even had the heart to tell them yet that I sold my machine
Yeah the ST was all the rage when it hit the scene and it has some great features but ultimately, the disk system is just way better than any rotating tube or vibrating anything. I have no doubt the new drop system will be an excellent partner to it.
 
I just sold my Super Trickler due to frustration. If you like to tinker, the ST might be for you, but I just want to load ammo. I have a pre-order on the IP powder meter. I'm most interested on the complete IP thrower/meter package when it comes out, but understand the demand might be high. I'd be interested in a powder meter with Autotrickler V3/V4 if I can't get the whole package. Is the Autotrickler V3 + IP better than the V4 + IP? I may also go the manual throw + IP route if I can't get the whole package.
 
I just sold my Super Trickler due to frustration. If you like to tinker, the ST might be for you, but I just want to load ammo. I have a pre-order on the IP powder meter. I'm most interested on the complete IP thrower/meter package when it comes out, but understand the demand might be high. I'd be interested in a powder meter with Autotrickler V3/V4 if I can't get the whole package. Is the Autotrickler V3 + IP better than the V4 + IP? I may also go the manual throw + IP route if I can't get the whole package.
I sold my V4 without even opening it up because I have the v3 +IP so, considering that when I say:

I don't think you can use the v4 with the IP trickler because it's all in one ultimately with the v4 and you only need the powder drop part if using the IP trickler.

If I didn't have a V3 to use, I'd probably just use a regular powder measure and drop it that way then let the IP trickle it up. I'm not sure what all guys have had to do to use the IP that way but they are doing it. Ideally a v3 is great for it because it drops powder pretty consistently and reliably so the IP can then trickle up 1.5gr or so up to your target weight , but anything that will drop a consistent drop will work if you have the IP trickler part and cable to go to the scale.


If you don't want to wait for the whole system from Paul then trying to find a V3 or V2 + IP would be the way. That could be impossible though and I do think there will be quite a wait for the new whole system from paul
 
I tried to find a V3 AT for the longest before deciding just to go semi old school and do the bulk drop manually…

I’ll be buying Paul’s bulk dropper when it comes out, but not because I have to. I don’t find doing the bulk drop myself too annoying at all, in fact, doing powder is now “the easy part” as each drop only takes ~3-7 seconds to trickle up once I throw the bulk charge (and it almost never goes over so there’s almost no wasted time dicking around).

The cool thing is that it doesn’t really matter how accurate the bulk drop is, as long as it’s in the ballpark, the IP takes care of the rest. A $20 Lee Perfect Powder measure would work fine for the bulk drop.
 
I tried to find a V3 AT for the longest before deciding just to go semi old school and do the bulk drop manually…

I’ll be buying Paul’s bulk dropper when it comes out, but not because I have to. I don’t find doing the bulk drop myself too annoying at all, in fact, doing powder is now “the easy part” as each drop only takes ~3-7 seconds to trickle up once I throw the bulk charge (and it almost never goes over so there’s almost no wasted time dicking around).

The cool thing is that it doesn’t really matter how accurate the bulk drop is, as long as it’s in the ballpark, the IP takes care of the rest. A $20 Lee Perfect Powder measure would work fine for the bulk drop.
Yeah this is probably the route I'll go if I can't snag the whole system. Just hope I can get the IP powder meter without too long of a wait. I'm back to my 40 second RCBS for now.
 
Just came up from loading in the bunker. I'm using a V3 Autotrickler with the A&D scale and Ingenuity Precision trickler, and am utterly pleased. The units sit on a flat sheet of glass (old Photo frame) and are quite stable. The A&D scale reads very quickly and doesn't drift. Getting the IP trickler down low, close to the breeze shield was helpful and I'm not experiencing any spillage from the trickler. The powder dump from the Autotrickler does send a kernel of H4350 or Varget bouncing, perhaps once every 30-40 rounds. I just keep an eye on this and brush it off the pan if it lands there.

I've found that weighing charges does significantly reduce velocity SD compared to using a good Redding measure alone (and one has to measure 30 or so rounds for a reasonably significant result--don't bother me with your 5-shot reading with "3 fps SD"). Using the A&D/AT/IP keeps my powder weigh variance around 0.04 grains. That actually doesn't improve velocity SD over careful use of a strain-gauge scale and a variance of 0.15 grains. But I don't have to watch for scale drift and I'm producing ammunition more quickly. With this setup, I can precision charge 100 cases in about 20 minutes and my back doesn't hurt afterwards.
 
Using the A&D/AT/IP keeps my powder weigh variance around 0.04 grains. That actually doesn't improve velocity SD over careful use of a strain-gauge scale and a variance of 0.15 grains.

I find this interesting, and have always wondered what kind of tolerance is actually meaningful in our reloading. It seems that reloaders always want to hold the smallest unit they can measure to. With the old digital scales it was +/- 0.1 gr. Now everyone has the A&D's and everyone seems to want +/- 0.02 gr. tolerance on everything. I haven't ever run in to anyone who did any testing with meaningful sample sizes to determine if the AVG, SD, and ES are actually any better when holding these super tight tolerances. The Hornady guys tease in some podcasts that they have, but I havent seen it yet (maybe I missed that podcast). Sounds like you have done the testing, and I would love to hear your results if you have them available.

Along these same lines; I have always wondered how consistent the energy distribution within the powder is. For example, does 50.00gr of powder X always yield energy of Y, or is there a margin that it fluctuates within and how big is it. If we knew this, then maybe we could mathematically calculate what our charge tolerances really needed to be held to?


Oh...and I hope Paul releases the IP system soon!
 
I find this interesting, and have always wondered what kind of tolerance is actually meaningful in our reloading. It seems that reloaders always want to hold the smallest unit they can measure to. With the old digital scales it was +/- 0.1 gr. Now everyone has the A&D's and everyone seems to want +/- 0.02 gr. tolerance on everything. I haven't ever run in to anyone who did any testing with meaningful sample sizes to determine if the AVG, SD, and ES are actually any better when holding these super tight tolerances. The Hornady guys tease in some podcasts that they have, but I havent seen it yet (maybe I missed that podcast). Sounds like you have done the testing, and I would love to hear your results if you have them available.

Along these same lines; I have always wondered how consistent the energy distribution within the powder is. For example, does 50.00gr of powder X always yield energy of Y, or is there a margin that it fluctuates within and how big is it. If we knew this, then maybe we could mathematically calculate what our charge tolerances really needed to be held to?


Oh...and I hope Paul releases the IP system soon!
Improved precision of measurement is often a good thing but we can end up pursuing inconsequential increments. I'd posted here in the past about scale precision with strain gauge and magnetic force restoration devices (search "Adventures in Metrology"). The A&D unit is excellent and when I test with calibration weights it lives up to the 0.02gr promise. That lets one do some comparative analysis. With my pet Redding LR-1000 scale throwing a 40-45 grain charge, if I test fifty throws, the spread is about 0.5-0.6 grains. (A Harrell scale was worse). My Ohaus (and most strain gauge scales) claim 0.1 grain resolution. If you check a series of those charges on the A&D, the actual spread will be about 0.2 grains or so, and that is if you watch closely for drift.

The newer TRX-925 is a strain-gauge scale but claims improved resolution, and is the best-performing strain gauge scale I've tested (with calibration weights), but is not as accurate as the A&D. Being a strain-gauge scale, it is still subject to drift and arrives at the weight significantly slower than the A&D scale.

I was curious about the utility and have checked this on two occasions. The first was using a pet Stuteville 6.5 Creedmoor rifle and handloads with H4350 powder, CCI 450 primers, Lapua SRP brass (once-fired and annealed with an AMP annealer), and Redding bushing dies on a Forster Co-Ax press. Velocities checked with a Labradar. I did 20 or 17-shot strings. Thirty would be better, but I get bored easily and if a difference isn't apparent in twenty rounds, I'm sure I cannot shoot the difference. (It's analogous to eating oatmeal daily because it will drop your cholesterol by two points. It's an improvement but not worthwhile unless you enjoy oatmeal).

I took the velocity readings and used Excel to derive the mean and standard deviation. I then used Excel to run an F-test to look at the differences. If you compared the Redding thrown (not weighed) shots to either the strain-gauge or A&D rounds, there was a difference at the 95% probability level. I'm pretty cocky that would persist for a more rigorous 50-shot comparison. But comparing the strain-gauge to A&D weighed rounds showed no difference.

I happened to check this again last week using a different 6.5 Creedmoor rifle, but just comparing Ohaus to A&D weighed charges. When I initially looked at the results, I thought that I'd found a real improvement with precision weighing. The Ohaus rounds had a mean velocity of 2805 fps with a SD of 25.7. The A&D precision weighed rounds had a mean velocity of 2808 fps and a SD of 15.1. I was about to run an F-test but looked at the data more carefully. (The group sizes were essentially identical)

The first Ohaus round fired had a velocity of 2713 fps, well under all the others. It was about 40 degrees and this was the first round out of a cold rifle. Although H4350 isn't particularly temperature sensitive, the other rounds spent a little time in a hot chamber as I aimed. Likewise, the rifle sat and cooled for a few minutes while I fired a ten-shot group with the .308. The first "precision weighed" 6.5 CM round was 2768 fps, also the lowest velocity in that 17-shot string.

I re-analyzed the data, discarding the first "cold" round and just used the 16 rounds that followed. The Ohaus rounds then showed a mean velocity of 2811 fps with a SD of 9.8. The A&D rounds showed a mean velocity of 2811 fps with a SD of 11.5.

Ooops. I didn't run an F-test, but I'm confident that there was no significant difference after excluding that first "cold" round. I'll still keep using the A&D scale, however. First, unlike the Ohaus strain-gauge scale, the A&D never exhibits any "drift" whereas I have to watch the Ohaus and periodically tare it back to "zero" (which is a class characteristic of strain gauge scales). Also, the response and result on the A&D scale is much faster. I don't enjoy weighing individual charges but it is worthwhile for precision rifle ammunition. The speed gain with the A&D/Autotrickler/Ingenuity Precision system is substantial.

It may seem counter-intuitive that precision weighing does not reduce velocity SD. With cartridges in the .308/6.5CM class, I generally find that one grain of powder increase yields about 60-70 fps increase in muzzle velocity. When I check the Ohaus weighed "0.1gr" charges on the A&D scale, I'm decreasing my powder charge variation by about 0.10-0.15 grains with precision weighing, so you would think that the velocity SD would drop by about 6-7 fps. Nope. The trouble is the muzzle velocity depends on other factors also, like the powder temperature, case capacity, exact bullet diameter, primer ignition, and more. The total "error" in velocity is the square root of the SUM of the individual "error" squared for each of these factors. So even if one drives the error in powder weight down to zero, you don't gain measurable benefit from eliminating a powder weight variation of only 0.1 grains. (The mathematical proof is gnarly, but remember that all the errors work in both directions)

Cal Zant's "Precision Rifle Blog" has some excellent essays on these considerations. Improving the accuracy or velocity SD of our pet load can be helpful, but only within limits. One does reach a point of "painting the lily" where further improvement just does not help get rounds on target. At some point, you have to declare victory, push away from the reloading bench, and learn to call that damn wind!
 

Attachments

  • Stats.jpg
    Stats.jpg
    83.4 KB · Views: 33
It's well known that the FX-120i is pretty accurate and I was very curious as to how much difference there is between the scales I have )including a small Frankford DS-750) and the FX. The other scales were all less accurate, but not as much as I thought and how much that might make a difference on target, I feel depends a lot on the amount of precision is required for the type of shooting one is doing. Often preferences for the FX had more to do with speed, and ease of use to get an accurate reading (e.g. drifting issues). I've posted this in other threads, but here again is those numbers:

Scale Comparison.jpg
 
I think owning a good scale that measures to +/- 0.02gn and that allows dropping every single charge to within a kernel is one of the single biggest things we can do to consistently achieve low SDs.

Along with an A&D FX120i, I also have an Ohaus SPX-123 which also has +/- 0.02gn resolution (strain gauge, but fast and doesn’t drift much) and even before I got the IP tricker I had noticed that there was no going back from measuring powder drops to the kernel for me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: straightshooter1
Anybody know which sartorius scale this is?

After hearing Doug Skogman talking about it on the Cortina video, I’m interested in the speed and lack of drift he was saying the Sartorius offers

Paul mentioned the one in his video was discontinued, and recommended the

BCE124-1S​


Looking at over $2,000 for that scale.
 
Anybody know which sartorius scale this is?

After hearing Doug Skogman talking about it on the Cortina video, I’m interested in the speed and lack of drift he was saying the Sartorius offers

The Sartorius appears to be slower, but a tiny bit better on drift.

From the spec sheets:
Sartorius
Typical Measurement Time≤ 2.0 s
Typical Stabilization Time≤ 1.5 s

FX-120i
Stabilization time (typical at FAST) Approx. 1 second

Now for the drift:
Sartorius - ± 1.5 ppm/k
FX-120i - ±2 ppm/°C

Of course, the Sartorius gives you another decimal place in grams, and probably a smaller measurement in grains also.

I am of the opinion that even with the FX-120i we are weighing charges to a level that exceeds the consistency of the powder itself. The lab scales I have used at the 0.0000g level are much more frustrating than my FX-120i.
 
Here it is saying three for the sartorius, but I don’t even understand what the units are or what they mean and nor can I find an explanation on the Internet

At one hour and 12 minutes, almost exactly in the Cortina video, Doug says that the sartorius doesn’t drift. Made it sound like it’s night and day from the FX.
IMG_5128.png
 
Last edited:
When the FX drifts, is it the calibration being thrown off or is it just the way the scale is reacting? Meaning... is re-zeroing the scale after drift enough to give us peace of mind or do we need to re-calibrate?
 
Here it is seeing three for the sartorius, but I don’t even understand what the units are or what they mean and not can I find an explanation on the Internet

At one hour and 12 minutes, almost exactly, and the Cortina video, Doug says that the sartorius doesn’t drift. Made it sound like it’s night and day from the FX.

That is what I heard also. Maybe this is the wrong spec, or the "drift" we refer to isn't the same as this spec? I wonder if the drift from zero is also somewhat a function of the code in each scale and how the scale corrects to stay at zero?

I found this on the web regarding that spec.
"The thermal coefficient of electrical circuit parts is sometimes specified as ppmC, or ppm/K. This specifies the fraction (expressed in parts per million) that its electrical characteristics will deviate when taken to a temperature above or below the operating temperature."

So, if my math is correct (3/1,000,000)*100. We are looking at a change of 0.0003% for each degree Celsius or Kelvin (same delta, different scales).
The "better" spec would be 0.0002% or 0.00015%. I'm not sure if that small difference matters or not?
 
When the FX drifts, is it the calibration being thrown off or is it just the way the scale is reacting? Meaning... is re-zeroing the scale after drift enough to give us peace of mind or do we need to re-calibrate?

It shouldn't affect the calibration. Re-zeroing should be all that is needed.

Check weights are your friend in this scenario. You can quickly check after re-zeroing to make sure everything still weighs the same. It is easy to "make" your own weights for commonly used target weights.
I cut and filed down a hex wrench to weigh right at 25.0 gr. It never changes, and I have tested it on multiple laboratory scales that are certified regularly so I know if my scale at home says the same its good to go. I also have several different bullets from 35gr to 140gr that I tested at the laboratory and documented the weights. I keep them all in a little plastic box so they dont get damaged and I can keep up with them.
 
What is the issue with the AT4? I have one I ordered a while ago that I basically just function checked, haven't used it yet just with the way things have lined up.
 
Besides it being somewhat inelegant and clumsy like a high school science fair project, sitting precariously atop the scale — all of which I could live with — I could not live with the need to make and label a bunch of shims to tilt the damn thing and get it to dispense large stick powders reliably. So I sold mine and got the supertrickler. Then I spent probably 50 or 100 hours tinkering with and beta testing that thing, and then the novelty wore off and I was not satisfied with successful throw rates in the 60% range or with the extreme temperatures sensitivity of the vibratory motor, which is the Achilles’ heel of that machine. So I sold that.

And now, like so many others on this thread, I eagerly await the release of this system and I hope that it too does not have hidden flaws that will only be discovered after release into the wild.
One thing I have not seen yet is the procedure for changing powder and settings, and how lengthy and cumbersome a process that is or is not.

So meanwhile, I am back to hand trickling
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Schw15
Besides it being somewhat inelegant and clumsy like a high school science fair project, sitting precariously atop the scale — all of which I could live with — I could not live with the need to make and label a bunch of shims to tilt the damn thing and get it to dispense large stick powders reliably. So I sold mine and got the supertrickler. Then I spent probably 50 or 100 hours tinkering with and beta testing that thing, and then the novelty wore off and I was not satisfied with successful throw rates in the 60% range or with the extreme temperatures sensitivity of the vibratory motor, which is the Achilles’ heel of that machine. So I sold that.

And now, like so many others on this thread, I eagerly await the release of this system and I hope that it too does not have hidden flaws that will only be discovered after release into the wild.
One thing I have not seen yet is the procedure for changing powder and settings, and how lengthy and cumbersome a process that is or is not.

So meanwhile, I am back to hand trickling
It doesn't. The IP trickler is the key and I've been using one for a year at least now as have many others here. It's legit and I have a lot of confidence in Paul's overall competency as it relates to the dropper, though the dropper isn't near as big of a deal as the trickler, which is proven to be extremely good.
 
Would love the full system but hope I can at least snag the trickler to use with a manual thrower. Not sure what IP's plan is for incoming tricklers, to give them to those who are on pre-order or sell them with the complete system. Does anyone have a good idea what the typical re-stock cycle is for the tricklers?
 
Would love the full system but hope I can at least snag the trickler to use with a manual thrower. Not sure what IP's plan is for incoming tricklers, to give them to those who are on pre-order or sell them with the complete system. Does anyone have a good idea what the typical re-stock cycle is for the tricklers?
Isn't the trickler already available for you to use with a manual thrower?

See posts # 257 and 273-277.
 
I guess that was my question. It is no longer available, or he stopped selling it until he releases the entire system? Or can you just buy it? CK1.0 explains what is needed for his setup in those earlier posts I enumerated.