Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 133
  1. #51
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    South of 49
    Posts
    1,022
    Quote Originally Posted by Summit View Post
    Are you suggesting that there are people who understand the avalanche danger, want to ski avalanche terrain, but don't want companion rescue capability?
    Yes


    Quote Originally Posted by Summit View Post
    And that the industry should enable such selfish irresponsible desires by making a new product? Pieps and RECCO have specifically said that is not their intent.
    Who's intent?
    Peips and RECCO, source please?
    What about all the others?


    Quote Originally Posted by Summit View Post
    No company could develop such a product in good conscience with that intent.
    Why not?
    Isn't that also assuming intent?


    Quote Originally Posted by Summit View Post
    What is wrong with you dude? Shove that idea of the "slackcountry" right back in the pit where you found it.
    All good. Thx.
    Are you saying that people should be rescued base on their ability to play by your rules?
    Does the SAR near you require people to pay for their rescue? Or do they encourage people to call as soon as they need help?
    I see parallels there.
    A lot of rescues on/off piste/boundaries is done by patrols. Why wouldn't you want something more efficient and reliable and exact like a beacon?
    Does beacon use aid in finding unknown accidents during sweep? Could it? How many peeps could have been saved if there was an efficient way of monitoring areas for static fixed beacon pings over a period of time (tree wells, inverted skiers/boards in creeks)?


    Quote Originally Posted by Summit View Post
    If you want a location device for the backcountry that is going to have a super low save rate because it relies on the longer response time of organized rescue, well the options are out there already.
    Recco?
    How many Euros are saved by organized rescue vs nearby companion/tourers?
    I'd love to see your stats.


    No need to be stuck.
    Shake your heads and come back with some clear thinking.
    Poll: Did you vote for Obama Care?
    [KURTZ] Hinterstoisser, you heavy bastard.
    [HINTERSTOISSER] You need to do more push-ups, Kurtz.

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Posts
    11,270
    Quote Originally Posted by puregravity View Post
    Does beacon use aid in finding unknown accidents during sweep? Could it?
    No. Patrollers aren’t using beacons in search mode during sweep, especially for “unknown accidents.”

    Have you ever used a beacon, or worked on sweep? Those two things call for much, much different procedures.

    How many peeps could have been saved if there was an efficient way of monitoring areas for static fixed beacon pings over a period of time (tree wells, inverted skiers/boards in creeks)?
    That strikes me as a ridiculous scenario. I’d love to see your stats.

    Shake your heads and come back with some clear thinking.
    Poll: Did you vote for Obama Care?
    Heh. “Clear thinking” - try it sometime.
    And I guess that I just don't know

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    9,300ft
    Posts
    17,904
    PG whatevs you are smoking... smoke less... or more... I don't know but you gotta change something up bud
    Quote Originally Posted by blurred
    skiing is hiking all day so that you can ski on shitty gear for 5 minutes.

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Your Mom's House
    Posts
    6,570
    Quote Originally Posted by puregravity View Post
    did you vote for Obama Care?
    Not sure we have many elected Congressional representatives posting on TGR.
    Quote Originally Posted by Norseman View Post
    All ye punterz! Leave thine stupid heavy skis in the past, or at least in the resort category, for the age of lightweight pussy sticks is upon us! Behold! Keep up with the randocommandos on their carbon blades of shortness! Break thine tibias into spiral splinters with pintech extravagance!

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    South of 49
    Posts
    1,022
    Quote Originally Posted by Meadow Skipper View Post
    No. Patrollers aren’t using beacons in search mode during sweep, especially for “unknown accidents.”

    Have you ever used a beacon, or worked on sweep? Those two things call for much, much different procedures.


    That strikes me as a ridiculous scenario. I’d love to see your stats.


    Heh. “Clear thinking” - try it sometime.

    In an alternate world, patrols will be required to turn on beacons during search.
    Perhaps lift towers will even have more powerful sector panel receive antennas on them,
    allowing the accounting of peeps across the ski inbounds/outbounds and allowing AI enabled intelligent search for missing persons.
    Perhaps insurance will require changes in the winter snow sports industry.
    That's blue-skying, obviously.


    Perhaps I need to clarify.
    I'm not inquiring about beacon use for strictly back-country.
    For that, companion search should be part of the equation.
    Although, to be honest, I don't think that changes the fact that everyone should be locatable via beacon and that would include transmit-only beacons.


    You would put a beacon on your dog, right?

    You bring your kids, maybe they are too small to assist.
    Yet you would still put a beacon on them in case you got separated as part of an accident or avy, right?

    What about your dad. He's in no shape to rescue anyone. But he will come with you on a snowshoe that crosses some low-chance paths that might have risk from other skiers above. You would put a beacon on him, right?



    So, no. I categorically reject the thinking that says,
    "I can only be found if I want to be part of the full TX and RX search ecosystem".


    To be clear, the reason I see the need for smaller beacons, even perhaps transmit only backup style beacons,
    is precisely because the risk and terrain available to the general public, inbounds and out, has expanded to include a lot of
    terrain that would be better skied with a beacon. To be rescued by patrols, yes. To be rescued by companions, yes. To be rescued by someone with a phone APP that can detect beacon transmissions, yes.

    Furthermore, outside of the ski realm, snowshoers and cross-country skiers, and so many others that now wander on hiking paths and around resort areas
    are still better served by active transmit technology than just a Recco tag.


    I repeat ...
    I'm not inquiring about beacon use for strictly back-country.
    For that, companion search should be part of the equation.

    But that's a strict interpretation of backcountry code that needs to be relaxed in response to the increasing popularity of
    poaching powder and steeps and areas not well controlled.



    Patrol DOES have to find people buried inbounds,
    in supposedly avy-controlled terrain -- people that are on risky terrain and yet would not think of packing a shovel, probe and full fledged beacon (and training!).
    They deserve to be saved and they deserve a more convenient option to protect themselves.
    [KURTZ] Hinterstoisser, you heavy bastard.
    [HINTERSTOISSER] You need to do more push-ups, Kurtz.

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    12,415
    I have to wonder 2 things:

    1) Do you own a beacon; and
    2) Do you understand what they were designed for and how they actually work?

    I'm at a loss for logic here.

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Park City
    Posts
    3,252
    I love the idea of integrating the antenna into the 3 point straps.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    I rip the groomed on tele gear

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,510
    Quote Originally Posted by detrusor View Post
    I love the idea of integrating the antenna into the 3 point straps.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    Except searching would be terrible

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Park City
    Posts
    3,252
    When you switch to search mode the internal antenna take over.



    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    I rip the groomed on tele gear

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Posts
    11,270
    Quote Originally Posted by puregravity View Post
    In an alternate world, patrols will be required to turn on beacons during search.
    Perhaps lift towers will even have more powerful sector panel receive antennas on them,
    allowing the accounting of peeps across the ski inbounds/outbounds and allowing AI enabled intelligent search for missing persons.
    Perhaps insurance will require changes in the winter snow sports industry.
    That's blue-skying, obviously.


    Perhaps I need to clarify.
    I'm not inquiring about beacon use for strictly back-country.
    For that, companion search should be part of the equation.
    Although, to be honest, I don't think that changes the fact that everyone should be locatable via beacon and that would include transmit-only beacons.


    You would put a beacon on your dog, right?

    You bring your kids, maybe they are too small to assist.
    Yet you would still put a beacon on them in case you got separated as part of an accident or avy, right?

    What about your dad. He's in no shape to rescue anyone. But he will come with you on a snowshoe that crosses some low-chance paths that might have risk from other skiers above. You would put a beacon on him, right?



    So, no. I categorically reject the thinking that says,
    "I can only be found if I want to be part of the full TX and RX search ecosystem".


    To be clear, the reason I see the need for smaller beacons, even perhaps transmit only backup style beacons,
    is precisely because the risk and terrain available to the general public, inbounds and out, has expanded to include a lot of
    terrain that would be better skied with a beacon. To be rescued by patrols, yes. To be rescued by companions, yes. To be rescued by someone with a phone APP that can detect beacon transmissions, yes.

    Furthermore, outside of the ski realm, snowshoers and cross-country skiers, and so many others that now wander on hiking paths and around resort areas
    are still better served by active transmit technology than just a Recco tag.


    I repeat ...
    I'm not inquiring about beacon use for strictly back-country.
    For that, companion search should be part of the equation.

    But that's a strict interpretation of backcountry code that needs to be relaxed in response to the increasing popularity of
    poaching powder and steeps and areas not well controlled.



    Patrol DOES have to find people buried inbounds,
    in supposedly avy-controlled terrain -- people that are on risky terrain and yet would not think of packing a shovel, probe and full fledged beacon (and training!).
    They deserve to be saved and they deserve a more convenient option to protect themselves.
    One more time: have you ever used a beacon or worked on sweep?

    And another question: have you ever been diagnosed?
    And I guess that I just don't know

  11. #61
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    3,098
    PG is a troll

  12. #62
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    9,300ft
    Posts
    17,904
    Quote Originally Posted by Summit View Post
    PG whatevs you are smoking... smoke less... or more... I don't know but you gotta change something up bud
    Bears repeating
    Quote Originally Posted by blurred
    skiing is hiking all day so that you can ski on shitty gear for 5 minutes.

  13. #63
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    South of 49
    Posts
    1,022
    Quote Originally Posted by daught View Post
    Except searching would be terrible
    Why?
    [KURTZ] Hinterstoisser, you heavy bastard.
    [HINTERSTOISSER] You need to do more push-ups, Kurtz.

  14. #64
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Sandy
    Posts
    4,850
    There is a lot of research into finding cell phones in the Europe SAR community. TOPR rescue in Poland had their first avy rescue last season where someone was wearing a beacon. Poland has one small mountain range in the country (think the Wasatch) that serves 34 million people. They have developed a device that localizes cellular phones by establishing a cellular network with a portable device. The system allows for locating GSM phones with a range of 400 meters in the mountains, 1km on flat ground, and 3km from a helicopter. They claim that the device can be used to find cell phones with a precision of .1m, even under 1.6m of snow. TOPR have been exploring it's use in avalanche rescue, but due to the operating frequency of cell phones there are problems penetrating the snow. LifeSeeker has a similar system that is deployed by air (Teton County SAR has a unit) and they are working on a system that can be deployed by drone.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	ls-drone.jpg 
Views:	52 
Size:	147.2 KB 
ID:	310736

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	tatra.jpg 
Views:	51 
Size:	154.3 KB 
ID:	310737
    When life gives you haters, make haterade.

  15. #65
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    3,071
    Barely relevant but rumor has it that the woman recovered at Silver was first "found" by cell signal before bringing in the Recco heli.

    Didn't get any details: could mean anything from triangulation between towers to just confirming last pings were with a tower that services the debris field. Doesn't seem improbable but also not terribly meaningful without knowing details. Better cell coverage at ski areas may well be valuable at some point, though.

    Odd that this conversation would assume backcountry use as a target of the OP; given the timing I guess I just assumed we were talking about a way of encouraging beeping inbounds. At which point, is there a difference between lots of people wearing a transmitter and lots of inexperienced people wearing transceivers? I guess I'd expect both groups to be bad at turning them off during a search but it seems like managing that is an acceptable price to pay if it means buried victims are beeping.

  16. #66
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,510
    Quote Originally Posted by detrusor View Post
    When you switch to search mode the internal antenna take over.

    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    So now you have a full beacon with internal antennas and the antenna in the strap with the associated wiring?

    Quote Originally Posted by puregravity View Post
    Why?
    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?

  17. #67
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Park City
    Posts
    3,252

    Miniaturizing beacon technology

    Thats why the straps would “turn off” in search mode. You would have robust broadcasting if buried. I know it complexity, cost etc but would boost range thereby making non witnesses burial easier to find.

    I think


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    Last edited by detrusor; 01-16-2020 at 09:25 AM.
    I rip the groomed on tele gear

  18. #68
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    South of 49
    Posts
    1,022
    Quote Originally Posted by daught View Post
    So now you have a full beacon with internal antennas and the antenna in the strap with the associated wiring?
    The wiring can do double duty with the leash. Or it can communicate by Bluetooth.


    Quote Originally Posted by daught View Post
    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?

    That's not how beacons work.
    You don't need to point your beacon around to get a reading on direction and distance.
    The beacon tells you that without you needing to move it. If you point your beacon the wrong way, the beacon arrow still points in the correct direction.

    edit: to a degree. Mine BCA Tracker doesn't have a backwards arrow. It has a bunch of off centre arrows and I can't remember what it reads when the signal is coming from out of that range. It still knows it is from behind because the antenna array signals already provide that data. But that doesn't matter as long as the beacon was programmed to have arrows in all directions (the arrows would show signal direction related to beacon direction at all times). In the body strap instance, the arrows would be relevant to chest direction. Perhaps it would need a slightly different mode of operation with antennas on body. But perhaps it might even work better and afford more accuracy with the more effective antenna array. Who knows? I wouldn't rule out an improved system.


    When you move towards the subject, I assume you don't walk backwards with your beacon held pointing backwards.
    You usually move your front torso face in that direction.
    You also don't have to point your beacon down to fine search. They work fine if you keep them level.

    edit: the reason you get down on your knees and beg is because, your beacon signal is a terrible frequency for accuracy.
    However, with more than one antenna, on the body harness, and with more than one signal,
    i.e. the current standard for distance and snow penetration and a new signal for high accuracy,
    it wouldn't be necessary to get close to get an accurate pinpoint. The accuracy is a feature of the frequency used.

    If 2.4 GHz was chosen for an alternate signal, the signal itself would have enough accuracy at 100 meters as it has at 1/2 a meter. It just wouldn't work with the distances and without line of sight. But say that or another higher frequency, perhaps MHz was chosen, the need to pinpoint search would become a thing of the past.


    Who is saying how the antennas are arranged or how the signal direction is computed? I think that can all be programmed in the receiver.
    The big advantages could be ergonomics and even better antennas. Perhaps double or quadruple the current distances for detection. And much better signal separation with the antennas having a better distance to each other.

    edit: Perhaps with a software defined radio, and the capabilities afforded by a few magic electronics, multi-searcher searches would have their radios communicating with each other sharing signals received, searcher coordinates, etc. The whole of a system that doesn't rely of small in-box antennas and uses more than one frequency could yield a much faster and more efficient search.
    Last edited by puregravity; 01-16-2020 at 11:22 AM.
    [KURTZ] Hinterstoisser, you heavy bastard.
    [HINTERSTOISSER] You need to do more push-ups, Kurtz.

  19. #69
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    South of 49
    Posts
    1,022
    Quote Originally Posted by jono View Post
    Barely relevant but rumor has it that the woman recovered at Silver was first "found" by cell signal before bringing in the Recco heli.

    Didn't get any details: could mean anything from triangulation between towers to just confirming last pings were with a tower that services the debris field. Doesn't seem improbable but also not terribly meaningful without knowing details. Better cell coverage at ski areas may well be valuable at some point, though.

    Odd that this conversation would assume backcountry use as a target of the OP; given the timing I guess I just assumed we were talking about a way of encouraging beeping inbounds. At which point, is there a difference between lots of people wearing a transmitter and lots of inexperienced people wearing transceivers? I guess I'd expect both groups to be bad at turning them off during a search but it seems like managing that is an acceptable price to pay if it means buried victims are beeping.
    That's relevant. It just goes to show that more than one mode can be combined for effective search.
    In the future, beacons could detect beacon signals as well as cell pings and Recco tag reflections.
    [KURTZ] Hinterstoisser, you heavy bastard.
    [HINTERSTOISSER] You need to do more push-ups, Kurtz.

  20. #70
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    9,300ft
    Posts
    17,904
    Why do microwaves work at 2.45GHz?
    Quote Originally Posted by blurred
    skiing is hiking all day so that you can ski on shitty gear for 5 minutes.

  21. #71
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by puregravity View Post
    That's relevant. It just goes to show that more than one mode can be combined for effective search.
    In the future, beacons could detect beacon signals as well as cell pings and Recco tag reflections.
    Do you realize that in order for recco to work there has to be something emitting the signal in the first place? I don't think that technology is small enough to fit into a handheld beacon

    Sent from my SM-G960U1 using Tapatalk

  22. #72
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    South of 49
    Posts
    1,022
    Quote Originally Posted by m90e85 View Post
    Do you realize that in order for recco to work there has to be something emitting the signal in the first place? I don't think that technology is small enough to fit into a handheld beacon

    Sent from my SM-G960U1 using Tapatalk
    I don't see why a short-range version couldn't. The Recco R9 has 200 metre range.
    That range is not needed since current beacons only do 40m to 50m
    Perhaps as an adjunct to current beacons, a short range emitter/receiver could be integrated that has 10m range and also works for pinpointing.
    If the antenna portion is in the three-point harness, that also adds a lot of range that would compensate for power limitations.
    [KURTZ] Hinterstoisser, you heavy bastard.
    [HINTERSTOISSER] You need to do more push-ups, Kurtz.

  23. #73
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Your Mom's House
    Posts
    6,570
    please god, let this thread die the swift death it deserves, amen
    Quote Originally Posted by Norseman View Post
    All ye punterz! Leave thine stupid heavy skis in the past, or at least in the resort category, for the age of lightweight pussy sticks is upon us! Behold! Keep up with the randocommandos on their carbon blades of shortness! Break thine tibias into spiral splinters with pintech extravagance!

  24. #74
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    30,563
    Quote Originally Posted by adrenalated View Post
    please god, let this thread die the swift death it deserves, amen

    ^ This.
    Quote Originally Posted by Downbound Train View Post
    And there will come a day when our ancestors look back...........

  25. #75
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,510
    Quote Originally Posted by puregravity View Post
    The wiring can do double duty with the leash. Or it can communicate by Bluetooth.





    That's not how beacons work.
    You don't need to point your beacon around to get a reading on direction and distance.
    The beacon tells you that without you needing to move it. If you point your beacon the wrong way, the beacon arrow still points in the correct direction.

    edit: to a degree. Mine BCA Tracker doesn't have a backwards arrow. It has a bunch of off centre arrows and I can't remember what it reads when the signal is coming from out of that range. It still knows it is from behind because the antenna array signals already provide that data. But that doesn't matter as long as the beacon was programmed to have arrows in all directions (the arrows would show signal direction related to beacon direction at all times). In the body strap instance, the arrows would be relevant to chest direction. Perhaps it would need a slightly different mode of operation with antennas on body. But perhaps it might even work better and afford more accuracy with the more effective antenna array. Who knows? I wouldn't rule out an improved system.


    When you move towards the subject, I assume you don't walk backwards with your beacon held pointing backwards.
    You usually move your front torso face in that direction.
    You also don't have to point your beacon down to fine search. They work fine if you keep them level.

    edit: the reason you get down on your knees and beg is because, your beacon signal is a terrible frequency for accuracy.
    However, with more than one antenna, on the body harness, and with more than one signal,
    i.e. the current standard for distance and snow penetration and a new signal for high accuracy,
    it wouldn't be necessary to get close to get an accurate pinpoint. The accuracy is a feature of the frequency used.

    If 2.4 GHz was chosen for an alternate signal, the signal itself would have enough accuracy at 100 meters as it has at 1/2 a meter. It just wouldn't work with the distances and without line of sight. But say that or another higher frequency, perhaps MHz was chosen, the need to pinpoint search would become a thing of the past.


    Who is saying how the antennas are arranged or how the signal direction is computed? I think that can all be programmed in the receiver.
    The big advantages could be ergonomics and even better antennas. Perhaps double or quadruple the current distances for detection. And much better signal separation with the antennas having a better distance to each other.

    edit: Perhaps with a software defined radio, and the capabilities afforded by a few magic electronics, multi-searcher searches would have their radios communicating with each other sharing signals received, searcher coordinates, etc. The whole of a system that doesn't rely of small in-box antennas and uses more than one frequency could yield a much faster and more efficient search.
    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •