CF BT batery life

UHF · Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2004 5:06 am Post subject: CF BT batery life

Most say that BT is better since it uses it's own battery and not the PDAs. But having to use the BT transmits and receives a signal. Wouldn't this also drain the battery quicker, like surfing the net using WiFi? Is BT that much better? I was getting 4 hours on my PDA with a CF, I wonder if the lifer will be better with the BT on but no CF?
Will turning on the BT and leaving it running without receiving a GPS signal be a fair test or do I need it to talk to a BT device to be a fair test?

lbendlin · Posted: Thu Apr 15, 2004 2:52 pm Post subject:

BT power consumption is different for each PDA. Some even have a slider where you can select low, medium or high power output (and influence the range). Needless to say I put mine to low.

The consumption will be slightly different when there is traffic over the BT network. For realistic measurements you should keep the PocketPC running , for example with a datalogger like VisualGPSCE.

How does it compare to CF? We haven't done that test yet - maybe you can be a pioneer in that area?
_________________
Lutz

Report Map Errors here:
TomTom/TeleAtlas NAVTEQ

UHF · Posted: Wed Apr 21, 2004 11:06 pm Post subject:

Update.
Fortuna Pocket XTrack CompacFlash card and Ipaq 2215: 3h, 59minutes before Ipac turned off the com port and gps didn't work 10% capacity left and 100%backup capacity left while set at lowest level for backup batery life, 24 hours.

Fortuna Clip-on BlueTooth reciever and Ipaq 2215: 5h 3minutes with 9% capacity left and 100%backup capacity left while set at lowest level for backup batery life, 24 hours.

Both tests were preformed with back light at 50% and MPN running and no other programs. The displays were set to never turn off.

I'd say BT is worth 1 hour/25% longer operation.
If you ran with the back light at lowest level, but still on, you would probably see a lot more time, but that is the next test. I heard full backlighting pulls a lot of mah.

	PocketGPS
	Web