[Cal_stir]

Originally Posted by sphelps

Each segment only outlines possible sources of error in a worst case scenario, not confirmed or "for sure" types. These types of articles are thorough and based on theoretical events and not actual. That's why at the end of the day you'll see conclusions are vague yet still suggest calibration with freshwater is perfectly acceptable despite all the errors listed.

In addition if you look into the matter further you will find numerous cases of hobbyists experimenting finding the same results as I have. Some have even purchased rather expensive so called seawater refractometers and compared them to other types and getting identical results.

At the end of the day articles like this should be taken with a grain of salt, not to be used in a black and white scenario saying things like there's no way it'll be accurate cause this article lists sources of error. The parts I quoted previously where to reflect and taken from a what I believe was more concluding section of the report, it was certainly not nitpicking certain sections and stating them as fact. I've read the article numerous times, however I followed what I mentioned above, using it as good source of information on the subject but not the only one.

The simple matter is stating refrectometers need a special fluid for calibration is a myth, while based on some fact it's an exaggeration on those with unverified assumptions.

I agree 100%