The reason I still recommned recording hygros is:
1.) some museums I deal with don't even have catalogue files on computer,
let alone someone to figure out datalogger software (i know it's easy,
but there is simply no extra time.
2.) some museums I deal with have no computer.
3.) you can have an insantaneous look at current conditions with a
recording hygro.
 just some thoughts

Lori van Handel
[log in to unmask]

On Thu, 15 Feb 1996 [log in to unmask] wrote:

> May I ask why people prefer hygrothermographs to data loggers? Is
> there no need to keep long-term records that can be analyzed,
> compared, and expressed in graphs? If there is, do you just
> painfully transfer the hygrothermograph readings from paper to
> computer? I have experienced two different reactions at my
> institution: the museum curator wants hygrothermographs; the
> archivist, who must store not only paper but things made of cloth,
> plastic, wood, etc., and who in fact still uses hygrothermographs,
> wants to switch to data loggers. The temperature/humidity tolerances
> that both have to monitor are not wildly different. I am therefore
> mystified. Is this an ideological issue?
> Pat Galloway
> MS Dept of Archives and History
>