Originally Posted by Lokifish Marz
LLP sealed the all the holes then put it in a bucket with 15cm of water, no bands, no button, no PCB. Didn't leak so it must be IP67. So it wasn't tested as that does not meet IEC requirements for IP67.
No but seriously, you have to send your device to some lab to get that rating right? And the AW420 should also have IP67 as I recall... And I think that I read sometime during the KS project that there was Nano coating on the electronics.....
I was planning on testing the waterproofness with one of my units, but I've seen too many people that messed up their TS, so than it's not worth it...
---------- Post added at 09:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:54 PM ----------
Originally Posted by trent999
LLPen did say the test was done by them, Omate, and that it involved only 15cm on water over the top of the device. They neglected the additional test requirement where the bottom of the device must have at least 1 meter of water over it as well. He did not say publicly that I saw anything about sealing up all the holes, but I think one would have had too to get the watch to survive even the 15cm test they claim to have performed successfully.
In other words, the whole claim of ip67 is based on an inadequate self-performed test that did not really test for ip67. Par for the course for Omate. The TrueSmart is not even vaguely ip67 water-resistant as many owners have already discovered. The cake is a lie.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
Do you think you can find that statement? Not that I don't believe you, it does sound plausible since the TS has never been proven to be IP67... Now that I think about it, if I would've manufactured an IP67 smartwatch a video of it being in water would be on the internet already (no, the guy in the swimming pool is wearing a dummy, don't fall for it!)