thanks for the detailed description of how the lights work, Rick. I was hoping that the lighted
dial on the Ultrasmart would help use it in total darkness, but I can't seem to get the sampling
area filled properly when holding my finger SOMEWHERE against the test strip. Invariably the
sampling area doesn't quite get filled and I waste a strip or get an inaccurate reading because
it's not filled completely. Sounds like the Flash is the cat's meow for testing in the dark, like a
movie theater.
Could you do one more thing for me? could you measure the height of the numbers on the screen that
show the BG reading? My UltraSmart has smaller numbers than the preceeding Ultra. Thanks.
dave
Rick Ayres wrote:
> Dave,
>
> I just did a test with the Flash in total darkness to see how it would work. I was able to do it
> without any problem. There's a light in the display and a green LED that lights up the test strip
> and the area around it. Only one of the lights is on at a time. If you press the light button
> without a test strip inserted, the display lights up. When you insert a strip and the meter is
> ready to test, the light automatically switches to the LED. When the strip has received an
> adequate sample, the light switches back to the display. Pretty neat.
>
> The Freestyle test strips (same kind for both the original Freestyle and the Flash) use edge
> sampling. There's a sample area on each side of the strip, so you can use whichever one is most
> convenient. According to the specs, the test strips need only a 0.3 microliter sample, vs. 1.0.
> for the Ultra. I don't know if these numbers are really meaningful, but I do know I can get
> accurate readings from the Flash with incredibly small samples. By contrast, my old Accu-Chek
> Advantage now seems like it takes a gallon of blood!
>
> Rick
>
>
> "Bay Area Dave" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
>
newsF7Xb.12232$%[email protected]...
>
>>thanks, Rick for the info. My wife is a meter junky <g> and almost got a Freestyle the other day
>>when we had gone to the store to pick her up an UltraSmart. She liked the small size and the fact
>>it has a light. My concern was that since both of us have tried most popular meters on the market
>>and find the Ultra series to be the best choice for us right now, I encouraged her to not try yet
>>another "unknown". Both of us would like to have a meter that we can use inside a movie theatre or
>>dark car interior, but don't want to give up accurate readings. The UltraSmart has a lighted
>>screen but not a lighted test strip.
>>
>>Would you say that the light that shines on the strip is sufficent to easily place the blood on
>>the sample area? Keep in mind I've never seen the strips, so I don't know if they have edge
>>sampling like the Ultra.
>>
>>dave
>>
>>Rick Ayres wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The Freestyle Flash (and the original Freestyle) works great for me. It gives repeatable results
>>>and provides similar results to other meters
>
> I've
>
>>>used (Accu-Chek Compact, Accu-Check Advantage). The light seemed
>
> adequate
>
>>>the few time I tried using it in dim conditions.
>>>
>>>The test time varies with both sample volume and BG level. The smaller
>
> the
>
>>>volume and the higher the BG level, the longer the test takes. Worst
>
> case is
>
>>>probably 15 seconds with a small (and I mean extremely small ) sample.
>>>
>>>Rick
>>>
>>>
>>>"Bay Area Dave" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>
news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>
>>>>does the light work well for placing a sample on the strip in low or no light?
>>>>
>>>>are the readings always accurate (based on your use over a long period of time of a Lifescan
>>>>meter such as the Ultra or SureStep? The Profile is reliable but IIRC, it gives lower readings
>>>>overall than the newer meters due to the calibration theory once used by meter makers). If you
>>>>take several readings, moments apart, are they essentially the same? (consistency)
>>>>
>>>>Do you get unexplained system errors?
>>>>
>>>>On their website, testing time is an "average" 7 seconds. What is it really? Ultra's testing
>>>>takes EXACTLY 5 seconds, so what's the deal with an "average" testing time? Does it take longer
>>>>when the ambient temp is low/high, or longer for higher bg readings?
>>>>
>>>>What is it's operating temperature range?
>>>>
>>>>How is Therasense's support?
>>>>
>>>>TIA!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>dave
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>