worst fever detection tablet

Review – Worst Fever Detection Tablet, So Far

worst fever detection tablet Our friends at IPVM have been at their testing and verification again. This time they looked at Aratek and they came unimpressed to say the least. Tablets from China (or Taiwan) are difficult to avoid. Many of these tablets will end up being repackaged or modified to a different format.  The best advice from KioskIndustry is to buy from a credible and established US source. Insist on technical specs. This one for example says it is an infrared. Well, pardon us if we ask which one. Its like saying our computer kiosks come with a computer. Is it Rockchip? A Raspberry PI. An Intel i7 or one of the new AMD Ryzens (those look nice).

Thanks IPVM

To learn more about technology like this, or to contribute your own point of view or expertise, KMA runs several collaboration working groups which you can participate at no charge. Interested?  Contact craig@catareno.com

Selected Excerpts from IPVM

Worst “Fever Detection” Terminal Tested Yet (Aratek)
By: Derek Ward, Published on Aug 17, 2020

Temperature tablets have performed badly in IPVM tests but our newest test of the Aratek BA8200-T is, so far, the worst.

We tested the Aratek BA8200-T, answering the following:

  • How often did they miss elevated temperatures?
  • How accurate are measurements vs IR thermometer?
  • Can it measure taller and shorter people?
  • How does subject distance to the terminal impact temperature measurements?
  • How well does it measure with hats and hair covering the forehead?
  • How accurate is mask detection?
  • Do glasses/hats affect temperature measurement?
  • How much can users configure settings on the device?
  • Can configuration be done remotely?

Executive Summary

In our testing, the Aratek BA8200-T produced “normal” measurements (~97°-99° F) regardless of whether subjects forehead temperature as “normal” or slightly elevated (~99°-100°F). Further, at higher temperatures (~102° -104°F), were even more aggressively normalized.

Additionally, the terminal screened users beyond its recommended measurement distance (~2′) with no noti cation that subjects should move closer or further, resulting in measurements ~0.5°-1°F lower, and subjects who do not stand very still for measurement caused similar decreases.

Finally, mask detection was easily spoofed by covering the bottom half of the face with hands, arms, and everyday objects. Occasionally mask detection would fail to recognize subjects properly wearing masks.

Vs. Dahua / Hikvision / ZKTeco

Compared to Dahua, Hikvision, and ZKTeco temperature measurement terminals, the Aratek BA8200-T suffered from more missed detections. Its main advantage over these competitive models is a lower price (~$600 USD vs. ~$2,000).

Vs. Sperry West / Alibaba Terminals

Compared to the Sperry West and Alibaba terminals we have tested, the Aratek performed similarly, with similar missed elevated temperatures and low/normalize measurements. These models (via Alibaba) are slightly less expensive than the Aratek BA 8200-T at ~$600 online, or less in larger quantities.