Having a background in science, I understand that any experiment must be both repeatable, reliable and relevant. ALso, you'll find that without multiple testing sessions, nobody in the scientific community would accept the results of one test sequence. And, often, you'd have to have independent verification before it was an accepted result. Then, you have to consider what you're trying to accomplish and if your results are meaningful in any way as related to the intended use of the thing under test. Using unscientific methods and not following the specifics for the test and trying to compare them against properly done scientific testing can be very misleading, and may only be meaningful to the person doing it. IOW, a test is only useful in comparison if it is done in the same way with the same materials and methods. That that testing uses carefully designed, precision equipment that may cost a lot of money is irrelevant, but it is often required if you want to replicate a test and have it deemed valid.
If you can't believe the independent tests the manufacturer's have done in certified labs, maybe you should just ignore them, and use what you think works in a manner you believe is how it should be done. The manufactures spend a huge amount of money engineering, developing, testing, marketing their products, and if they have any integrity, if you use their products as intended, they work. Now, certainly, some have different characteristics, but you as the user, must decide whether any benefit may conflict with what you deem as an unacceptable disadvantage. IOW, compare apple to apples, not apples to oranges.
