Miniaturizing beacon technology

[summit]

I award PG the Dunning Kruger Medal for valorously spewing at great length about shit he knows next to nothing about. As this is his second time receiving the award, he will get a lead dildo device to wear on his award ribbon.

[Core Shot]

I just hope we don’t have t hear an acceptance speech

[El Chupacabra]

I award PG the Dunning Kruger Medal for valorously spewing at great length about shit he knows next to nothing about. As this is his second time receiving the award, he will get a lead dildo device to wear on his award ribbon.

Shouldn't the medal be a stud finder mounted on a carbon fiber disc rotor?

[pureantigravity]

My point was that the chest antenna array might shift and point the wrong way. When you have the beacon with it's built in antennas in hand you know the antennas are aligned with the beacon(ortovox might fuck that up).

So for the chest array beacon what's the reference for fine search? O.23cm in front of the array where the average person holds their beacon? Maybe everyone will get a custom fit? The dick?

Point of the thread was miniaturizing beacons. A wire that would be trustworthy between the antenna and display would definately be bulky.

Yea increased range with a big antenna array would be benefit.

Your point is taken.
For Rx the chest harness is a suspected fail due to your points.
For Tx it might provide some added range.

[pureantigravity]

I award PG the Dunning Kruger Medal for valorously spewing at great length about shit he knows next to nothing about. As this is his second time receiving the award, he will get a lead dildo device to wear on his award ribbon.

I just hope we don’t have t hear an acceptance speech

Shouldn't the medal be a stud finder mounted on a carbon fiber disc rotor?

Bible say
Welcome the guest
as you would welcome the Jesus.

I'm not as smart as you three.
But I'd like to feel a bit more accepted.

Although Summit's imagination should concern him a little.

[stuckathuntermtn]

TL;DR please fucking stop

[pureantigravity]

It would help a lot, to reduce resort costs and improve the quality of search and rescue
if all off-piste skiers were required to beep from either a full or partial device.
The costs of such devices would be minimal, perhaps less than $25 each when mass produced.

I'm just going to throw this out footage from the Silver Mountain rescue that took place last week.
Specifically, the large number of people required for the search operation (26+ plus specialized equipment)
and also the tedious and lengthy process they took.
The video and snow patterns and tracks gives a good visual perspective of the scope and challenge in this operation.

As for 'Why TX only tranceivers' for sidecountry and inbounds use?
Well, it would help tremendously in situations like this.
Not only in time and money saved, but also probably in lives saved.

I started at a rescuer group shot but there is good footage all through.

[Cocximus]

Why would it be ok to have a TX only beacon in the sidecuntry but not in the backcountry?

[I've seen black diamonds!]

I'm not as smart as you three.
But I'd like to feel a bit more accepted.

Try asking questions instead of spewing uninformed ideas.

[plugboots]

TX beacon

Huh? Is that what Altuve wore?

[stuckathuntermtn]

Can we talk about miniaturizing bacon technology?

[pureantigravity]

Try asking questions instead of spewing uninformed ideas.

Did you read the OP?

Which "uninformed ideas" are you referring to?

OK - so what do you think? How do you think beacon technology could be made smaller or more convenient to carry?

[PNWbrit]

more convenient to carry?

Rectally?

It might mean that you'd need to get your ski boot soles canted though?

[pureantigravity]

Because you would not know where the strap is pointing exactly compared to where you point the beacon. Also for fine searching how would you point your chest down? Really, have you ever used a beacon?

https://freeskier.com/stories/compre...alanche-beacon

[excerpt]
When avalanche beacons were first developed they received with just one antenna and, because of that, required relatively inefficient search protocols. Using this primitive tool, an individual seeking a buried party would sweep the “analog,” or single antenna, beacon back and forth until the antenna best lined up with the transmitting (buried) beacon’s signal; when the searching device was best in-line with the transmitting device, audio tones would increase in volume inside of an integrated earpiece. The rescuer would then proceed in the direction of the loudest tone.

Today, “digital” beacons are the norm and deliver superior performance when it comes to locating buried skiers, climbers, snowmobilers, etc. A digital beacon is able to process the analog signal because it is built with multiple antennae—either two or three. In a two-antennae beacon, the X (the transmitting antenna) and Y antenna operate on the horizontal plane—i.e. what’s out in front of you, rather than above or below—and are used to display range and direction.

“Your beacon is receiving with a certain signal strength from both antennae,” explains Tom Mason, brand manager for Ortovox, one of the leading backcountry safety equipment manufacturers. “Now, it can calculate the difference between those two signal strengths into a direction, with an arrow [displayed on a beacon’s LED screen] pointing one way, conveying the strongest signal is ‘that way.’”

As a result, you don’t have to move the transceiver back and forth like in the older days and can proceed in the direction of the arrow to make your distance markers smaller and smaller, ultimately locating a buried victim. Analog beacons should be retired, plain and simple. In a nod to this idea, Ortovox runs a program where old beacons can be exchanged towards a $75 credit for the brand’s top-of-the-line 3+ transceiver."
[/excerpt]



As per the body harness integrated auxiliary antenna idea, although the straps might move a bit, for the actual antenna to change directions would require the body strap to shift a lot, not a little, and small shifts would only move the calculated direction a little.

Persons looking to hone in on the direction of a distant signal would not need to 'sweep' their body.
They would only need to rely on the direction finding provided by the beacon arrows (pretty much like all recently mfg beacons).

It is a crazy idea, or seemingly so, but that doesn't mean it won't work.

[Core Shot]

All beacons transmit on one antenna.
So a transmit only could use only one and also be much thinner.

However newer beacons can select which transmitting antenna to use depending on how you are buried. When flux lines are not optimal it becomes harder to search

[pureantigravity]

All beacons transmit on one antenna.
So a transmit only could use only one and also be much thinner.

However newer beacons can select which transmitting antenna to use depending on how you are buried. When flux lines are not optimal it becomes harder to search

Sure. But what if the strap had more than one antenna on it? Something like a stacked array that provides more directional emissions?
Furthermore, a harness could also carry more than one antenna alignment.

Patch antennas could be used, stacked in more than one orientation.

That would enable a strap to transmit just like a two antenna BCA Tracker, with both antennas being used simultaneously - highly efficient on both alignments,
greatly increasing range and directional accuracy.

[Core Shot]

You don’t want to transmit in more than one direction.

But interesting thought about a strap being the antenna since you could align it with your body length.
Solves the problem of having a transmit only beacon in your pocket that is randomly oriented.

I think the original single antenna beacons oriented the antenna in line with your body. Head down or head up burial is not as common as horizontal.

[pureantigravity]

You don’t want to transmit in more than one direction.

But interesting thought about a strap being the antenna since you could align it with your body length.
Solves the problem of having a transmit only beacon in your pocket that is randomly oriented.

I think the original single antenna beacons oriented the antenna in line with your body. Head down or head up burial is not as common as horizontal.

Depending on the antenna lobe pattern,
transmitting in more than one direction would compensate for the weak areas and increase range.
I don't know what happens if the same frequency is used. So maybe there would need to be two frequencies
or separate them somehow with a timeslot or encoded signal.
But yes, the lobe pattern does affect range, greatly, and then two antennas, even three, could increase range.

[Cocximus]

I'm convinced. Good idea, pursue it. Check-in when you have a prototype.

[I've seen black diamonds!]

Did you read the OP?

Which "uninformed ideas" are you referring to?

OK - so what do you think? How do you think beacon technology could be made smaller or more convenient to carry?

Yeah I read the OP. It's fucking insane. Beacons aren't particularly inconvenient to carry. You've identified a problem that doesn't exist.

Then you offer a series of solutions to god-knows-what without considering the consequences, such as transmit-only beacons, or multiple transmissions from a single beacon. You're like a freshman in a physics-for-artists class who keeps interrupting the professor to offer a new unified field theory before he understands what f=ma is all about.

[pureantigravity]

Yeah I read the OP. It's fucking insane. Beacons aren't particularly inconvenient to carry. You've identified a problem that doesn't exist.

Then you offer a series of solutions to god-knows-what without considering the consequences, such as transmit-only beacons, or multiple transmissions from a single beacon. You're like a freshman in a physics-for-artists class who keeps interrupting the professor to offer a new unified field theory before he understands what f=ma is all about.

I won't address your ranting ad hominem. That says more about you than me.


I will address your claim that size isn't an issue or doesn't matter.
And how shall I demonstrate to you that you're way out in left field, walking blindfolded, with you fingers in your ears, saying "I'm not lost"?
By directing you to the reviews and comments page of the new BCA Tracker 3:

https://backcountryaccess.com/produc...e-transceiver/

"Small, ... You can barely feel it while skiing and hiking!"

"Tracker 3 is so small you’ll forget you have it until you need it. Then you’ll be really glad to have it."

"Its also super small and sits close to the body."

"The T3 has also gotten a bit smaller and lighter! (who isn’t a fan of that) Which means when I tether and stow it in my zipped front pant pocket it’s less noticeable."

"First thing you notice about this beacon is it’s small size and clean design. Easy to pop in a pant leg pocket, like I do as I prefer to tour without the harness."

"Love it so far. It’s lighter and tighter than the Tracker 1 and 2."

"Also love how compact it is and how well it fits to my body, makes it much more pleasant to have on and less bulky through my jacket."



I mean, not just the reviews posted by people on the website, but even here in this thread, people have already chimed in that small is better and they think it is a relevant issue.


Now, take today's inbound avalanche at Alpine Meadows. Were those people wearing a convenient, small, easy to carry and use TX ONLY beacon,
they wouldn't have to resort to probe lines, choppers with Recco devices on them and the such to either rescue or recover bodies. Sure patrol would have been involved to do the rescue. But that's better than the current alternatives IMO.

So no, I outright reject your claim that I've identified a problem that doesn't exist.
But hey, if you like big square, hard, clunky technology, keep what you have.
No one is forcing you to be interested in this topic.

[waxoff]

I won't address your ranting ad hominem. That says more about you than me.


I will address your claim that size isn't an issue or doesn't matter.
And how shall I demonstrate to you that you're way out in left field, walking blindfolded, with you fingers in your ears, saying "I'm not lost"?
By directing you to the reviews and comments page of the new BCA Tracker 3:

https://backcountryaccess.com/produc...e-transceiver/

"Small, ... You can barely feel it while skiing and hiking!"

"Tracker 3 is so small you’ll forget you have it until you need it. Then you’ll be really glad to have it."

"Its also super small and sits close to the body."

"The T3 has also gotten a bit smaller and lighter! (who isn’t a fan of that) Which means when I tether and stow it in my zipped front pant pocket it’s less noticeable."

"First thing you notice about this beacon is it’s small size and clean design. Easy to pop in a pant leg pocket, like I do as I prefer to tour without the harness."

"Love it so far. It’s lighter and tighter than the Tracker 1 and 2."

"Also love how compact it is and how well it fits to my body, makes it much more pleasant to have on and less bulky through my jacket."



I mean, not just the reviews posted by people on the website, but even here in this thread, people have already chimed in that small is better and they think it is a relevant issue.


Now, take today's inbound avalanche at Alpine Meadows. Were those people wearing a convenient, small, easy to carry and use TX ONLY beacon,
they wouldn't have to resort to probe lines, choppers with Recco devices on them and the such to either rescue or recover bodies. Sure patrol would have been involved to do the rescue. But that's better than the current alternatives IMO.

So no, I outright reject your claim that I've identified a problem that doesn't exist.
But hey, if you like big square, hard, clunky technology, keep what you have.
No one is forcing you to be interested in this topic.

In context of this whole dilemma, it seems to me that there's one thing that you have overlooked. That is the difference in rescuing an alive avy buried person versus retrieving a corpse.

In the former case, the time factor is of outmost importance, since that will determine the victims chance of survival. Hence, the possibility to succeed strongly points to the fact that the rescuers need to be on site when the slide occurs. If not, odds are that a rescue attempt will be too late for the victim to survive.

In the latter case, unfortunately, it's not a matter of minutes and seconds. Recco will greatly assist in body recovery.

All in all, the best chance of avy survival is to carry a beacon and be in close proximity to fellow skiers equipped with devices that also can detect your beacon, a.k.a. tranceivers. If you want anybody else to be able to rescue you, you should also be prepared to rescue somebody else. You cannot do that carrying a TX only beacon.

[summit]

Yeah I read the OP. It's fucking insane. Beacons aren't particularly inconvenient to carry. You've identified a problem that doesn't exist.

Then you offer a series of solutions to god-knows-what without considering the consequences, such as transmit-only beacons, or multiple transmissions from a single beacon. You're like a freshman in a physics-for-artists class who keeps interrupting the professor to offer a new unified field theory before he understands what f=ma is all about.

Pretty spot on

I think he is sharing a bong with that artist in the physics for non science majors

[MakersTeleMark]

[pureantigravity]

In context of this whole dilemma, it seems to me that there's one thing that you have overlooked. That is the difference in rescuing an alive avy buried person versus retrieving a corpse.

In the former case, the time factor is of outmost importance, since that will determine the victims chance of survival. Hence, the possibility to succeed strongly points to the fact that the rescuers need to be on site when the slide occurs. If not, odds are that a rescue attempt will be too late for the victim to survive.

In the latter case, unfortunately, it's not a matter of minutes and seconds. Recco will greatly assist in body recovery.

So you think it takes too long for a Patrol or Mountain Host or other staff at a ski resort to arrive on scene to help a buried skier using a traditional beacon search?
And you think we only want a Quid pro quo with a full partner arrangement and not lone skiers skiing alone beeping?


I'm curious:

What are the average on-scene times for patrol in high priority avy events?

Would all patrols agree with you, that the persons are as good as dead because they didn't have a partner? Or would patrols in recent inbound and patrol-accessible sidecountry see that beeping resort skier is something that could help locating and assisting victims?

Do airbags and avalungs etc. assist skiers to survive much longer that in the past, a difference in survival times that gives more leeway to offsite personal to help victims?

Should a skier have an option to be found by a faster or more accurate means than a Recco - even if that means chancing the time it takes official help?

Are there incidents where people did survive, even from a probe line, and would have had a much higher chance of survival if they had been transmitting from a TX-only beacon?


If what you say is true, that Patrol or other resort staff will never-ever-ever-ever get there in time for a traditional beacon search, then I agree with you, it is pointless.
But I'm not convinced of that. Recent rescues only highlight to me the advantage that people would have had if beeping.