gbaji wrote:
So you agree that the output is displayed in granularity smaller than .06% increments? Cause that was the point I was making. Since that is the case, the fact that the measurements are rounded into buckets of that approximate granularity before being "averaged" together does not automatically mean that the system cannot correctly detect BAC levels in between those two points.
Say someone's BAC is 0.07 in reality. After tossing out the initial period of definitely inaccurate values, it settles down (theoretically) into a pattern of
0.06, 0.06, 0.06, 0.06, 0.06, 0.12, &c.
Depending on where the 0.12 lands in that cycle, we could have a reading as high as 0.09 or as low as about 0.062.
That's... uh, pretty bad accuracy, to have a range of nearly 20% of the average.
At 0.08, we're down to a theoretical cycle of three - 0.06, 0.06, 0.12, repeat - and a range between ~0.094 and ~0.069 with six readings "averaged". Again, we've got a nearly 20% spread here. (It's actually possible for someone with a 0.08 actual BAC to read as high as 0.105 with six readings if both 0.12s land at the end, but I'm being slightly charitable towards the system here and just assuming that it accumulates error and then dumps it into the next one once it hits a specific threshold.)