ANT Forum

I'm trying to support the Tanita BC-1000 scale, but it does not appear to be following the profile for Weight/Scale devices. It sends it's page 80:

8.0000 Rx - [A4][09][4E][00][50][FF][FF][10][0B][00][00][00][A8]

I see the product information:

14.0000 Rx - [A4][09][4E][00][51][FF][FF][10][01][00][00][00][A3]

I see a data page 1, which seems to fit the spec:

18.0000 Rx - [A4][09][4E][00][01][65][00][03][FF][FF][53][1F][C8]

But all the other metabolic information would appear to be page '241'.

These should just be carrying data that would be expected on Page 2/3/4. Any idea how to process this?      

After some helpful calls with Ant and Tanita (with a not so helpful outcome from Tanita), it appears they're only disclosing the weight in a standard way, and the F1 data is manufacturer specific. The word back from Tanita is that they're not disclosing the information, so the net result is if you want to integrate this sort of information into your application you either need to reverse engineer Tanita's implementation or wait until another scale manufacturer supports the full spec.

Hope that helps anyone else in the same situation.      

Wait,

Tanita claims the BC-1000 supports reporting Body Composition (Page 2), and Metabolic Information (Page 3) and Body Composition Mass (Page 4)

Are you telling me that they don't return these 3 pages, but instead report it all in mfg-specific pages?

Quoting the March 18, 2009 press release:

In addition to weight, body fat percentage and hydration levels, the BC-1000 Body Composition Monitor provides measurements on muscle mass, overall physique rating, daily caloric intake, metabolic age rating, bone mass and visceral fat.
     

Correct. Tanita follows the minimum weight scale requirements. Apart from weight, all other information they send is proprietary information sent using manufacturer's pages, NOT ANT+ data pages 2,3,4.      

Wow... and you let them get away with that?


Do you know of a scale manufacturer that does it the 'right' (non-proprietary) way?

Jim      

Again, Tanita is 100% compliant with the ANT+ weight scale profile. Device profiles are specifically designed to facilitate both interoperability and allow for a manufacturerâ??s own propriety information. Provided the minimum requirements are met, specifics of any implementation are left to the developerâ??s discretion and not managed by ANT+. Tanita implemented the weight scale device the â??rightâ?? way, both for ANT+ compatibility and their own product requirements.

We try to promote positive ANT+ B2B relationships, please keep comments regarding any ANT+ Alliance member as such. Negative comments regarding ANT+ Alliance members will be removed from any ANT/ANT+ Forum.

ANT+ weight scale devices that use data pages 2, 3 and 4 are in development and will be released in the near future. Please refer back to our homepage for announcements.      

boucousis wrote:

ANT+ weight scale devices that use data pages 2, 3 and 4 are in development and will be released in the near future. Please refer back to our homepage for announcements.

Is there any scales on the market yet that uses data page 2, 3, and 4?      

They are currently in development and should be available soon...      

This weight scale is only available in USA. There is already another weight scale that uses the data page 2, 3 and 4? Or do you know another way to buy this scale from Europe?

Thanks.      

Did you check the usual suspects, e.g. amazon.com.
I've ordered similar devices from amazon.com to Europe and they arrived within a week for some $30 shipment fees + customs fees.      

HMM Group in Germany has released a scale that uses the ANT+ data pages for body composition:

http://www.smartlab.org/index.php?s=fit      

kebinw wrote:

HMM Group in Germany has released a scale that uses the ANT+ data pages for body composition:

http://www.smartlab.org/index.php?s=fit

I had ordered a SmartLab+ blood pressure monitor by HMM (from the same ANT+ enabled series like the mentioned scale) a few months ago. And this wasn't built very well.
1. it had severe errors in the ANTFS and/or ANT+ profile implementation but was advertised and sold with the ANT+ logo. Their (good!) support told me they'll fix this.
2. it had the look and feel of a cheap "Made in China" device and smelt like a 99cent rubber hammer from the bargain bin - a typical plasticizer smell.