-
I know you tried hrmPollInterval with 20 - did you try it with 80?
With 80 the confidence almost never reach 100% and is overall much worse so the heart rate is more random and it does not look like it has any effect on this. With this I've seen it even 'stabilize' on numbers over 110 while fitness tracker was showing below 90 but I also saw cases when it gave similar numbers like with poll interval 40 (too low)
Bangle.on('HRM',print);Bangle.setHRMPower(1)
I tried this with hrmPollInterval back to 40 and 2v17.120 and it makes no difference when compared to running Heart Rate Monitor (v0.11), still about 8-12 less than what my fitness tracker says or what can I count myself on the visible data coming from Heart Rate Monitor (v0.11) when I start it.
I just retried again to switch between 80 and 40 with logging in IDE, see attached file. According to my fitness tracker my HR was about 76
You are reading a single comment by @Gordon and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
fanoush
@Gordon
Hmm, well that's interesting then - I guess at least we know it's not hardware then.
I know you tried hrmPollInterval with 20 - did you try it with 80? The HRM algorithm expects data to come in more slowly and I wonder if sending it data too quickly is actually impacting its accuracy (although as I say, it seemed to work ok for me and at least also when those graphs were made).
I'm not actually 100% sure if I used the HRM app or not. As I understand the HRM should be done in an interrupt so it wouldn't matter, but I guess you could try using a Clock face with ClockInfo and then switching to the HRM clockinfo.
... or just reading the value in code with
Bangle.on('HRM',print);Bangle.setHRMPower(1)