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