Forum Index > Gear Talk > IS my old Ortovox avalanche beacon useless?
Previous :: Next Topic  
Author Message
ale_capone
Member
Member


Joined: 22 Sep 2009
Posts: 451 | TRs

ale_capone
  Top

Member
PostTue Nov 06, 2018 4:31 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
DIYSteve wrote:

looks like a couple of ET's letting out thier heart lights.wink.gif

I love watching my dog do scent searches. it's like a text book beacon search. zig and zag til she finds the scent arc, then curves into her target... amazing nattytech.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
DIYSteve
seeking hygge



Joined: 06 Mar 2007
Posts: 12638 | TRs
Location: here now
DIYSteve
  Top

seeking hygge
PostTue Nov 06, 2018 6:30 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
ale_capone wrote:
it's like a text book beacon search. zig and zag til she finds the scent arc, then curves into her target... amazing nattytech.

I've seen a dog do a bacon search like that  wink.gif
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Byeguys
Armchairing



Joined: 09 Feb 2006
Posts: 1411 | TRs
Location: Sparkwood & 21
Byeguys
  Top

Armchairing
PostWed Nov 07, 2018 9:00 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
DIYSteve wrote:
I suppose that'd be interesting but, if it could be done, how would it enhance your understanding more than a instructional schematics like these?


Hah, because what you are proposing here sounds kind of like "how would using your device enhance your understanding more than reading the manual?" to me. The schematics don't show me anything about how the flux lines are generated, distributed (could they change depending on brand/model/battery level?), or may be obviated or affected by external factors (is anyone carrying other non-beacon RF devices? did I see John pack his shovel next to his beacon this morning? what else around us might be making noise in the 457khz range?). These might be some of the factors that I would take into account that the beacon cannot. The beacon should be the primary source of data. I'm not saying that the beacon's prompts should be ignored, I'm only interested in digging deeper to see what I can learn about my devices.

I also propose that if I become intimately familiar with the flux line "map" of the beacons I own and the behavior of my searching beacons within those maps, I might be better able to determine where I am within the near/far field lines.

If we really wanted to get into the weeds, we could deconstruct the algorithms for multiple burial detection, signal filtration and amplification, how the microprocessors do their microprocessing... again, there's nothing wrong with the prompts and functionality provided by the beacon here. I'm not attacking those things. I just want to understand how the beacon is sending, receiving and processing data.

It might not matter in a decade, the Iridium satellite network should open up the GPS beacon market.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
DIYSteve
seeking hygge



Joined: 06 Mar 2007
Posts: 12638 | TRs
Location: here now
DIYSteve
  Top

seeking hygge
PostWed Nov 07, 2018 9:58 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Okay, we obviously have different backgrounds. I have a basic level understanding of the fundamentals of electromagnetic radiation, specifically RF wave propagation. Avy beacon transmitters are RF transmitters, no more, no less. As I said above, it's good to understand the basics, although I still don't see how that could make faster a search with a modern multi-antenna digital beacon. IMO, ski tourists would be safer if they spent their time practicing with good quality multi-antenna digital beacons and digging strategy than sitting in a classroom to hear a lecture on RF theory.

Doppelganger wrote:
did I see John pack his shovel next to his beacon this morning?

That's an easy one: If John is packing his beacon inside his pack, don't tour with John. If John tours with a shovel strapped to his chest, don't tour with John.

Doppelganger wrote:
These might be some of the factors that I would take into account that the beacon cannot.

Okay, so how does that affect use of an avy beacon? As I asked above, when and how do you decide to outthink, i.e., ignore prompts from, a digital beacon? I cannot conjure any circumstance where that makes sense. Seriously, I'm not getting your suggestion re relying on knowledge of RF flux lines in making overriding adjustments during a real time search.

Doppelganger wrote:
I also propose that if I become intimately familiar with the flux line "map" of the beacons I own and the behavior of my searching beacons within those maps, I might be better able to determine where I am within the near/far field lines.

We're going in circles. A modern multi-antenna digital beacon gives very accurate distance to the victim and provides direction prompts. Thus, I ask again: What kind of information re RF flux lines would enhance a multi-antenna digital beacon search or cause you to adjust or ignore the prompts? I'm not trying to be difficult. I'm trying to understand where you're going.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 5887 | TRs
Location: Mobile
RandyHiker
  Top

Snarky Member
PostWed Nov 07, 2018 10:19 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
It takes an impressive ego to believe that one can compute flux line intersects faster with your brain than the microprocessor in a modern beacon which has two decades worth of engineering effort into improving the algorithms.

Personally when a companion is buried under the snow suffocating, the last thing I want to depend on is my brain to do some complex math.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Byeguys
Armchairing



Joined: 09 Feb 2006
Posts: 1411 | TRs
Location: Sparkwood & 21
Byeguys
  Top

Armchairing
PostThu Nov 08, 2018 7:48 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker wrote:
It takes an impressive ego to believe that one can compute flux line intersects faster with your brain than the microprocessor in a modern beacon which has two decades worth of engineering effort into improving the algorithms.

Maybe I should have put it in bold and italics. I never suggested that the beacon's prompts should be disregarded, I never suggested that I might be able to compute flux lines myself, nor did I suggest that the data provided by the beacon is not to be trusted. It takes some presumption and laziness to jump to those conclusions, I'm not sure what's got your jimmies rustled up about this. rolleyes.gif  lol.gif

Some people are fine with just starting their cars and driving them, and that is completely OK since that's what the car was designed to do. Some people see benefits in learning more about how the car works. That's all I'm interested in here, and I think that the better you know your equipment the better you will be at using it.

Edit: to address your point of "decades of engineering", you must accept that you are trusting the work of an engineering team dedicated to the production of your beacon's brand/model. Humans are capable of errors. It's possible (highly unlikely but possible) that there are hardware/software bugs the engineering team didn't catch.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 5887 | TRs
Location: Mobile
RandyHiker
  Top

Snarky Member
PostThu Nov 08, 2018 8:54 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Doppelganger wrote:
. It's possible (highly unlikely but possible) that there are hardware/software bugs the engineering team didn't catch.

With decades of software engineering experience,  I can guarantee that every beacon's firmware and hardware has numerous undetected flaws. So does the firmware/hardware in the stability control system of modern vehicles and the flight control systems of modern aircraft.

Is that a good argument for saying a 1966 Mustang is a safer vehicle or that a 707 is a safer aircraft?
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Byeguys
Armchairing



Joined: 09 Feb 2006
Posts: 1411 | TRs
Location: Sparkwood & 21
Byeguys
  Top

Armchairing
PostFri Nov 09, 2018 8:46 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker wrote:
...the microprocessor in a modern beacon which has two decades worth of engineering effort into improving the algorithms.

RandyHiker wrote:
I can guarantee that every beacon's firmware and hardware has numerous undetected flaws.

Pick one. I know the first statement was in relation to the beacon's speed, rather than accuracy. But still.

RandyHiker wrote:
Is that a good argument for saying a 1966 Mustang is a safer vehicle or that a 707 is a safer aircraft?

I wasn't making any point about comparing the relative safety of simple vs complex systems either  rolleyes.gif  redface.gif Just pointing out another possible benefit to learning more about my equipment.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
DIYSteve
seeking hygge



Joined: 06 Mar 2007
Posts: 12638 | TRs
Location: here now
DIYSteve
  Top

seeking hygge
PostFri Nov 09, 2018 1:09 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
I acknowledged above that some people operate more confidently if they have a basic understanding of how things work, although I cannot imagine any way in which educating oneself re RF flux line propagation would enhance a search with a multi-antenna digital beacon. And I really don't get your suggestion that an understanding of RF wave propagation would allow your brain to "collate" or "take into account" RF wave data in any way that would assist in a burial search -- any more than, say, understanding RF wave propagation would make your cell phone or car radio work better than for someone who is wholly ignorant about RF science.

I am curious about all modern devices I use. It's fun for me to learn about, say, our vehicles' variable valve timing and electronic control of fuel/air mix, although such understanding does not make my car drive better for me than for my wife (who has no interest in such things).
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Byeguys
Armchairing



Joined: 09 Feb 2006
Posts: 1411 | TRs
Location: Sparkwood & 21
Byeguys
  Top

Armchairing
PostFri Nov 09, 2018 2:09 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
DIYSteve wrote:
And I really don't get your suggestion that an understanding of RF wave propagation would allow your brain to "collate" or "take into account" RF wave data in any way that would assist in a burial search -- any more than, say, understanding RF wave propagation would make your cell phone or car radio work better than for someone who is wholly ignorant about RF science.

Just blue skying another potential scenario where learning more about RF field behavior could be beneficial. Did that irresponsible oaf (no I didn't drop him yet) John pack a hotspot and leave it on? If I take the time to understand how a beacons RF field may be affected by other RF sources, I may be better prepared to recognize and handle situations where field interference might be a risk. ONCE AGAIN: I am not saying that I would recompute the flux lines on the fly in my head ffs. I only maintain that there is benefit in exploring the variables and conditions of a beacons operation.

The phone analogy is a good one for this practice. We have all come to learn which of our most frequently visited locations have good or bad reception. Perhaps even noting which areas are best/worst and narrowing those areas down to a radii of mere yards. There you go, that's all I'm talking about - exploring the capabilities of your device and maximizing its usage if there is opportunity to do so. Someone who understands those sources of phone interference will be better equipped to recognize and deal with them. Your increased knowledge of your car could be applied in recognizing (and perhaps even addressing with the technical expertise) symptoms of problems related to those systems.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 5887 | TRs
Location: Mobile
RandyHiker
  Top

Snarky Member
PostFri Nov 09, 2018 4:28 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Doppelganger wrote:
RandyHiker wrote:
...the microprocessor in a modern beacon which has two decades worth of engineering effort into improving the algorithms.

RandyHiker wrote:
I can guarantee that every beacon's firmware and hardware has numerous undetected flaws.

Pick one.

I have found both to be true after nearly four decades of engineering experience.   If you can't understand how that can be the case, iI doubt anything I say here will change your mind.

But, I'll give you a non-engineering example.   A friend of mine used to edit the newsletter for a non-profit.  The team would go through multiple edit / proofread / correct cycles -- typically until the publication deadline arrived.  Over 90% of the time once the printed copies came back from the printer at least one fairly obvious typo would be found within minutes, despite many hours of proofreading by the same people.

Almost never did these typos interfere with the information being communicated, but it was super annoying to my friend who is a bit of a perfectionist.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 5887 | TRs
Location: Mobile
RandyHiker
  Top

Snarky Member
PostFri Nov 09, 2018 4:38 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Doppelganger wrote:
Your increased knowledge of your car could be applied in recognizing (and perhaps even addressing with the technical expertise) symptoms of problems related to those systems.

If you follow that line of thinking, an understanding of quantum mechanics would enhance one's ability to write poetry or novels using a computer as a word processor, as quantum theory is essential to the design of both the transistor and just about every aspect of a computer.

But I think the Venn diagram of people that understand quantum mechanics and write novels you would want to read is very very small.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
DIYSteve
seeking hygge



Joined: 06 Mar 2007
Posts: 12638 | TRs
Location: here now
DIYSteve
  Top

seeking hygge
PostFri Nov 09, 2018 9:13 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Maybe you should stop touring with John -- or, at least, have him read the instruction book (which covers possible interference from other RF devices). PM me with his real name so I can avoid touring anywhere near that guy.

Doppelganger wrote:
I only maintain that there is benefit in exploring the variables and conditions of a beacons operation.

You've changed your tune. What about the theory re your brain "collating data" and assessing "factors that [you] would take into account that the beacon cannot?"

What do you mean "variables and conditions?" What "variables and conditions" could you possibly ascertain from your proposed demonstration of flux line 3D imagery that the instruction book doesn't cover?

If you need to experience electromagnetic wave interference in real life, try this: Pair your Bluetooth ear bud with your cell phone and listen to your favorite podcast or favorite band. Then walk over to your microwave oven and turn in on for 60 seconds. [/electromagnetic wave interference lesson]

Oh, and have John try that too.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
snoqpass
Member
Member


Joined: 21 Dec 2007
Posts: 290 | TRs

snoqpass
  Top

Member
PostMon Nov 12, 2018 11:43 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Back to the OPs original question, that old F1 should be considered a museum piece, using it for practice is questionable too given the older transceivers electronics and crystals degrading with time, signal drift, and sending phantom signals that can be read as a multiple burial by a newer transceiver. The price of transceivers has come way down as well a new pieps  DSP sport can be had for around $250 so cost shouldn’t be an issue considering how much skis, boots, bindings or whatever else gear you need for BC touring
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
DIYSteve
seeking hygge



Joined: 06 Mar 2007
Posts: 12638 | TRs
Location: here now
DIYSteve
  Top

seeking hygge
PostTue Nov 13, 2018 7:17 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
^  ^  ^  what we have here is a lucid sensible post
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
  Display:     All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Forum Index > Gear Talk > IS my old Ortovox avalanche beacon useless?
  Happy Birthday Kathleen, eplanajr, Pepper!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
   Use Disclaimer Powered by phpBB Privacy Policy