As pressure controllers advance in speed and accuracy, selecting one over a deadweight tester seems obvious. After all, they can serve as interchangeable reference standards depending on the industry. Automation, convenience, and accessibility are strong selling points for a controller. Additionally, having multiple pressure ranges and different accuracy classes within one device is advantageous. However, while end-of-line testing and transducer characterization can be automated through remote software and computer programs, the user must depend on a digital reading. A pressure controller's electronic and remote aspects can introduce more uncertainty than a traditional primary standard.

The accuracy and reliability of deadweight testers stem from their use of fundamental physics principles. Their durability and minimal drift error allow them to maintain trusted calculations and historical data for years. It's clear why they have been a cornerstone for primary standards for so long. Instead of being seen as old-fashioned and cumbersome, perhaps deadweight testers should be regarded as the tried-and-true method for calibration.

So, after reviewing the pros and cons of deadweight testers, one question remains: Are manual deadweight testers still relevant? Unfortunately, there's no straightforward answer; it depends on the specific applications and industries. For instance, a calibration lab seeking traceability and the utmost measurement certainty should have a primary standard. On the other hand, pressure controllers are the optimal choice for production lines that necessitate swift and efficient automatic testing.

As pressure instruments evolve to meet the demands of the modern world, deadweight testers continue to be a dependable method for high-precision pressure measurements. With the increasing accessibility of advancements such as digital deadweight testers, it is evident that they will continue to be essential for many years to come.