Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 101 to 125 of 133
  1. #101
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Posts
    11,269
    ^ puregravity, please, just stop. This is a tech kind of sub, and you are woefully unprepared for that.

    Please.
    And I guess that I just don't know

  2. #102
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    9,300ft
    Posts
    17,903
    PG you can't win a second lead dildo for your Dunning-Kruger Medal while posting on the same topic in the same thread.

    But if you could, you would have deserved it.
    Quote Originally Posted by blurred
    skiing is hiking all day so that you can ski on shitty gear for 5 minutes.

  3. #103
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    The Fish
    Posts
    3,138
    Why would I want a smaller beacon that requires me to wear a harness to properly function? I personally can't stand the harnesses.
    a positive attitude will not solve all of your problems, but it may annoy enough people to make it worth the effort

    Formerly Rludes025

  4. #104
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Missoula, MT
    Posts
    20,436
    You guys can actually stand to read what he writes? It's like untreated autism meets cocaine. I can't even look at it.
    No longer stuck.

    Quote Originally Posted by stuckathuntermtn View Post
    Just an uneducated guess.

  5. #105
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Alpental
    Posts
    3,551
    Quote Originally Posted by sfotex View Post
    While the backup isn't meant to be used without a regular beacon, it shows how small you can go..Attachment 310424
    The transmitting range is significantly less than a regular transceiver which could mean a longer search time
    “I have a responsibility to not be intimidated and bullied by low life losers who abuse what little power is granted to them as ski patrollers.”

  6. #106
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    12,412
    Jessubus Christ.

    Why? Let this fade, please. It's painful.

  7. #107
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    338
    Quote Originally Posted by puregravity View Post
    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.
    Your automated algorithm would probably also cause a multitude of false alarms because of skiers, solo or groups, stopping randomly somewhere on the mountain for whatever reason. Be it to take a dump in the trees, share drinks or food, or just discussing the last or the next run...

    Patrols or rescue services can bring more workforce, experienced leadership and shovels on the scene, and arrange with qualified first aid and medical evacuation. Even more so, taking preventive measures in and near resorts to minimize avy risks by identifying them, closing off areas, blasting avys etc. are major purposes for having them.

    But responding to an automated alarm (that would trigger only after how long time of a beacon not moving?) and being first on the scene, after what, 10-15 minutes, a few more for pinpointing victim position and dig them out, stats show that survival chances gets slim pretty fast as the clock ticks. I'm sorry, I just don't support your idea. Use your creativity for something else!

  8. #108
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    South of 49
    Posts
    1,022
    Quote Originally Posted by Meadow Skipper View Post
    ^ puregravity, please, just stop. This is a tech kind of sub, and you are woefully unprepared for that.
    Please.
    Quote Originally Posted by Summit View Post
    PG you can't win a second lead dildo for your Dunning-Kruger Medal while posting on the same topic in the same thread.
    But if you could, you would have deserved it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Eluder View Post
    Why would I want a smaller beacon that requires me to wear a harness to properly function? I personally can't stand the harnesses.
    Quote Originally Posted by stuckathuntermtn View Post
    You guys can actually stand to read what he writes? It's like untreated autism meets cocaine. I can't even look at it.
    Quote Originally Posted by MakersTeleMark View Post
    Jessubus Christ. Why? Let this fade, please. It's painful.

    I love intriguing correlation between trolling and post-counts on TGR forums.
    LOL. You guys are hilarious.
    You really are!

    You will clearly have to share the TGR comedy award for creative and persistent trolling.
    I don't mind one bit that you are here, sharing your ideas and criticisms ... and soiling your keyboards with spunk.
    Just make sure to disinfect it once in a while!
    [KURTZ] Hinterstoisser, you heavy bastard.
    [HINTERSTOISSER] You need to do more push-ups, Kurtz.

  9. #109
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    South of 49
    Posts
    1,022
    Quote Originally Posted by Eluder View Post
    Why would I want a smaller beacon that requires me to wear a harness to properly function? I personally can't stand the harnesses.
    I hear you. Something needs to hold it in place securely. That's probably the best there is right now.


    Quote Originally Posted by snoqpass View Post
    The transmitting range is significantly less than a regular transceiver which could mean a longer search time
    But considerably better than a probe line or waiting for a Recco chopper sweep.


    Quote Originally Posted by SoooL View Post
    Your automated algorithm would probably also cause a multitude of false alarms because of skiers, solo or groups, stopping randomly somewhere on the mountain for whatever reason. Be it to take a dump in the trees, share drinks or food, or just discussing the last or the next run...

    Patrols or rescue services can bring more workforce, experienced leadership and shovels on the scene, and arrange with qualified first aid and medical evacuation. Even more so, taking preventive measures in and near resorts to minimize avy risks by identifying them, closing off areas, blasting avys etc. are major purposes for having them.

    But responding to an automated alarm (that would trigger only after how long time of a beacon not moving?) and being first on the scene, after what, 10-15 minutes, a few more for pinpointing victim position and dig them out, stats show that survival chances gets slim pretty fast as the clock ticks. I'm sorry, I just don't support your idea. Use your creativity for something else!

    Agreed on false positives.
    I'd think that Patrol clears the areas pretty quick and that the official searchers can mask/ignore/etc. to keep focused.
    Just look at the big inbounds avys in Europe last year. LOTS of skiers caught and then the search was a very long process. If beeping, even with a shorter range, the survival rates would surely increase.

    The big problem is that due to (rockered skis, gopros, weather reports, insert cause here), there
    are lots more potential incidents inbounds than there was before.
    If beeping, even if just users with TX-ONLY units, the searches and rescues can be more effective.

    I wonder how many maggots here, that carry a beacon inbounds, carry their shovel and probe and have at least one ski partner?
    We know there are people now beeping inbounds. But are they any more equipped than if they had a TX-ONLY unit?
    If you are beeping inbounds, and not fully geared, and with a partner, you might as well pack a Pieps Backup.
    [KURTZ] Hinterstoisser, you heavy bastard.
    [HINTERSTOISSER] You need to do more push-ups, Kurtz.

  10. #110
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    A LSD Steakhouse somewhere in the Wasatch
    Posts
    11,068
    I like to tour with sfotex
    I wont ever even consider skiing with pg
    dude haz no clue
    whatsofuckinevers
    "When the child was a child it waited patiently for the first snow and it still does"- Van "The Man" Morrison
    "I find I have already had my reward, in the doing of the thing" - Buzz Holmstrom
    "THIS IS WHAT WE DO"-AML -
    ski on in eternal peace

  11. #111
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Church of the Nifty Blue Chrysler
    Posts
    5,111
    Quote Originally Posted by puregravity View Post

    I wonder how many maggots here, that carry a beacon inbounds, carry their shovel and probe and have at least one ski partner?
    We know there are people now beeping inbounds. But are they any more equipped than if they had a TX-ONLY unit?
    If you are beeping inbounds, and not fully geared, and with a partner, you might as well pack a Pieps Backup.
    I really don't want to wade into this shitstorm any deeper than necessary, but to answer your question, I often ski solo in-bounds, but I always ski with my full set of avy gear (beacon, shovel, probe, often skins).

    I practice regularly with my gear, and take knowing how to use it efficiently and effectively seriously. I hope that it's never anything more than a few pounds of dead weight on my back, but as a skier who frequents off-piste terrain at a resort and skis in the backcountry, I feel that it is my duty to be prepared to respond to an incident if one occurs. If something goes sideways I want to be ready to volunteer to help probe or dig if needed, and I hope that there are other skiers out there who feel the same sense of responsibility.
    Set my compass North, I got Winter in my blood.

  12. #112
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    South of 49
    Posts
    1,022
    Quote Originally Posted by glademaster View Post
    I really don't want to wade into this shitstorm any deeper than necessary, but to answer your question, I often ski solo in-bounds, but I always ski with my full set of avy gear (beacon, shovel, probe, often skins).

    I practice regularly with my gear, and take knowing how to use it efficiently and effectively seriously. I hope that it's never anything more than a few pounds of dead weight on my back, but as a skier who frequents off-piste terrain at a resort and skis in the backcountry, I feel that it is my duty to be prepared to respond to an incident if one occurs. If something goes sideways I want to be ready to volunteer to help probe or dig if needed, and I hope that there are other skiers out there who feel the same sense of responsibility.

    OK. Apart from the Quid Pro Quo of being ready to rescue others,
    isn't skiing inbounds without a partner, but beeping, no different than
    skiing without your kit, and just beeping using something like a Pieps Backup?

    Some people here have argued that the time it takes for 3rd party help to arrive,
    patrol or other prepared persons,
    is too long and that partner rescue is the only viable means of helping self or others.

    If you are beeping inbounds without a mate,
    what help is that?
    [KURTZ] Hinterstoisser, you heavy bastard.
    [HINTERSTOISSER] You need to do more push-ups, Kurtz.

  13. #113
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,508
    Personally a change I would like to see is beacons with rechargeable li-ion batteries. That could miniaturize them a bit

  14. #114
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Church of the Nifty Blue Chrysler
    Posts
    5,111
    Quote Originally Posted by puregravity View Post
    OK. Apart from the Quid Pro Quo of being ready to rescue others,
    isn't skiing inbounds without a partner, but beeping, no different than
    skiing without your kit, and just beeping using something like a Pieps Backup?

    Some people here have argued that the time it takes for 3rd party help to arrive,
    patrol or other prepared persons,
    is too long and that partner rescue is the only viable means of helping self or others.

    If you are beeping inbounds without a mate,
    what help is that?

    It's not the same at all. Having the ability to respond to an incident is just as important to me as increasing my likelihood of being found, and I believe it is the responsibility of anyone who skis in avalanche terrain to be prepared to render assistance. What you keep referring to as a quid pro quo is something I see as an essential, non-negotiable part of responsibly traveling in avalanche terrain, in-bounds or out.

    As a hypothetical, let's say I'm solo and something pulls out below me as I'm skiing that's big enough to carry someone or bury someone. I would want to have, and would utilize my ability to perform a quick visual and beacon search of the deposition area before leaving the scene and reporting it to ski patrol.

    Or as another, let's say you're skiing back along the exit traverse from an area or run, and you happen across a fresh debris pile that is significant enough to have buried someone. Once again, I would want to have, and would utilize the tools at my disposal to do a quick beacon search of the area, and I would hope that others would do the same.
    Set my compass North, I got Winter in my blood.

  15. #115
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    South of 49
    Posts
    1,022
    Quote Originally Posted by glademaster View Post
    It's not the same at all. Having the ability to respond to an incident is just as important to me as increasing my likelihood of being found, and I believe it is the responsibility of anyone who skis in avalanche terrain to be prepared to render assistance. What you keep referring to as a quid pro quo is something I see as an essential, non-negotiable part of responsibly traveling in avalanche terrain, in-bounds or out.

    As a hypothetical, let's say I'm solo and something pulls out below me as I'm skiing that's big enough to carry someone or bury someone. I would want to have, and would utilize my ability to perform a quick visual and beacon search of the deposition area before leaving the scene and reporting it to ski patrol.

    Or as another, let's say you're skiing back along the exit traverse from an area or run, and you happen across a fresh debris pile that is significant enough to have buried someone. Once again, I would want to have, and would utilize the tools at my disposal to do a quick beacon search of the area, and I would hope that others would do the same.
    Respect. Seriously. That IS the way it is supposed to happen.

    When is avalanche terrain avalanche terrain?
    Is it when you cross a warning sign "slide area"?
    Or when you identify that 'this looks suspect'?
    And isn't a lot of off-piste technically 'avalanche terrain' or even 'tree well terrain' these days, even if within the controlled ski area?

    Say you don't bring your kit, and you get the urge to poach a fun run off the cat track and meet them at the lift.
    It is a short steep, not often traveled run off the cat track, isn't at all avy terrain. It isn't signed, it isn't roped, and it is in controlled area.
    But it doesn't get a lot of skier compaction and it might slide. It just might.

    I'm not going to head up with my kit on days like that.
    It is too inconvenient to carry all that.
    It ruins the fun of skiing to be skiing with a pack.

    If something happens, do you want to leave it to Recco to find you?
    Personally, I'd like the chance that a better search can find me faster.

    So, why not carry a Pieps Backup for those days?
    The way I see it, there is no difference between that and Recco-only patrons,
    except there is a much higher chance a patrol would find and help someone beeping.
    [KURTZ] Hinterstoisser, you heavy bastard.
    [HINTERSTOISSER] You need to do more push-ups, Kurtz.

  16. #116
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Missoula, MT
    Posts
    20,436
    Oh yeah, I'M the troll
    No longer stuck.

    Quote Originally Posted by stuckathuntermtn View Post
    Just an uneducated guess.

  17. #117
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Posts
    11,269
    Quote Originally Posted by stuckathuntermtn View Post
    Oh yeah, I'M the troll
    lol! Right?

    Guy’s got a problem.
    And I guess that I just don't know

  18. #118
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    South of 49
    Posts
    1,022
    Quote Originally Posted by stuckathuntermtn View Post
    Oh yeah, I'M the troll
    I'm just joking - you daft cow
    You ARE one of the better contributors on this forum.

    Tell you what, I'll make it up to you.
    I've contacted my Taiwan skunk works
    and asked them to design a special dual-mode transceiver that
    is extremely comfortable to wear
    as a suppository.
    [KURTZ] Hinterstoisser, you heavy bastard.
    [HINTERSTOISSER] You need to do more push-ups, Kurtz.

  19. #119
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    South of 49
    Posts
    1,022
    I'm going to throw this out to the techies here.

    457 KHz ELECTROMAGNETISM AND THE FUTURE OF AVALANCHE TRANSCEIVERS
    https://s3.amazonaws.com/Backcountry...Future_000.pdf

    ABSTRACT: The standardized frequency for avalanche transceivers, 457 kHz, presents many interesting,
    important, and confusing issues, especially related to receive range, flux lines, near field, interference,
    point sources, receiver design, searching, and specifying and measuring transmit power and receive range.
    Improved standards and the possible addition of a higher frequency will help in providing a sophisticated,
    yet uncomplicated beacon in the future for the expeditious rescue of avalanche victims.

    Of note is the choice of frequency, what interferes with it, near field, far field, search path etc.


    TL;DR ??


    5. HIGH FREQUENCY AND ID LOCATOR

    We propose to significantly improve beacon operation by adding a higher frequency signal to this 457 kHz carrier. With digital technology, this is now more feasible than in the past.

    This would increase the detection range and would allow giving each transmitter a unique identifier (ID) so that multiple victims can be even better isolated and located.

    Since there is more power explicitly in a higher frequency, this would increase the detection range, but without the inherent limitations described above regarding the (non)usability of a weak signal in the near field by the recreationist.

    Since the operating range would be in the far field, the transmitter could be seen as a point source, initial detection would “point” in that direction, antenna systems could be more optimally designed, and there would be less effect from atmospheric noise.\

    Finally, this higher frequency signal would allow giving each transmitter a unique identifier so that tims could be even better isolated and located. Of course, this frequency would have to be carefully selected based on issues related to snow depth, multi-path, human body effects, radio spectrum allocations, and other considerations.

    Adding this higher frequency to the present 457 kHz carrier would not interfere with downward compatibility, or the ability of a newly designed transceiver to detect an “older” transmitter.

    The higher frequency would “ride” on the 457 kHz signal much like DSL or ISDN data rides on an analog telephone line. The 457 kHz signal would still be used for fine and pinpoint searching in the near field.



    5. CONCLUSION
    Avalanche beacon design has improved markedly in the past three years, but progress has been limited by the issues stated above.

    Constraints for future development are not just limited by technology, but by poorly defined standards for the signal and by the need for downward compatibility with existing beacons.

    Professional use is an important aspect of transceiver design, but one main goal should be to make effective avalanche rescue transceivers accessible to as many users of the backcountry as possible, especially those who are most at risk: recreationists.

    By leaving user interface issues up to the designers and allowing for a higher frequency in addition to the current 457 kHz standard, transceiver technology could see even greater improvements than the present, yet maintain downward compatibility with the transceivers of the past.
    [KURTZ] Hinterstoisser, you heavy bastard.
    [HINTERSTOISSER] You need to do more push-ups, Kurtz.

  20. #120
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Wasatch
    Posts
    5,547
    Quote Originally Posted by puregravity View Post
    I'm going to throw this out to the techies here.

    457 KHz ELECTROMAGNETISM AND THE FUTURE OF AVALANCHE TRANSCEIVERS
    https://s3.amazonaws.com/Backcountry...Future_000.pdf




    Of note is the choice of frequency, what interferes with it, near field, far field, search path etc.


    TL;DR ??
    So I imagine a big part of frequency choice is the ability to punch through dense snow. Also frequencies are utilized so much by everyone especially in widely used bands. Digital has come along way but antenna at 457 is the main inhibitor. One way would be to use a different antenna. I have an idea but will see about patent options first. Until then beep on ........


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    I need to go to Utah.
    Utah?
    Yeah, Utah. It's wedged in between Wyoming and Nevada. You've seen pictures of it, right?

    So after 15 years we finally made it to Utah.....


    Thanks BCSAR and POWMOW Ski Patrol for rescues

    8, 17, 13, 18, 16, 18, 20, 19, 16

    2018/2019 (24/32)

  21. #121
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    South of 49
    Posts
    1,022
    Quote Originally Posted by Summit View Post
    What do you mean by an active tag? Recco detectors are actually a pulse harmonic UHF RADAR unit that emits around 900MHz (at about 1 or 1.5ish watts in the handlheld units that weigh about 1kg) and listens at about 1.8GHz giving the pulse returns as analog audio. It only works at range (particularly at those frequencies) because it is has a large antenna and a large battery compared to a 457KHz beacon and is made to operate for a much shorter period of time. They have a 5 figure cost so it is only economical because very few detectors are made while tons of reflectors are sold with a good profit margin.

    The beauty of RECCO is that the reflector tabs cost very little because they are just a little frequency doubling dipole antenna made of foil and a cheap diode. They require no turning on, can be sealed and washed, and are durable.

    As soon as you say "active tag" you mean powered and now you have more parts, costs, on-off switch, battery, and what your are describing is a transmitter... like say.. an avalanche beacon.

    I guess the thing is, the Recco receiver works because it has a large antenna and lots of power. But the frequency used actually has very good range at very low power.
    It is a much better frequency for low power devices than 457 KHz.

    So what I meant, it got lost in my previous comment, is that if the tags were actually powered, they could put out a much more powerful signal.

    Even if the tags had some active electronics, perhaps a very low power receiver that triggered an amplifier when a search signal was detected, and then that it turn turned the tag into an active electronic with amplifier at that moment in time, still sending back the doubled signal, but with some active amplification.

    All of this low power electronics is now in other commercial and consumer devices, especially in signal processing and speech devices and other devices that have long standby modes.

    Someone probably knows how to connect the dots, make something about the size of a Recco tag, maybe slightly larger, that requires only a very small lithium battery like the ones in an exercise heart rate monitor.

    And then, the search device can also be smaller, use less power, because it doesn't need to broadcast a signal strong enough to detect a frequency doubled reflection from a passive tag.

    So now, tag is still small, search device is smaller, maybe small enough to fit in some other part of a persons gear that can be kept safe in an avalanche.

    [just talking out loud]
    [KURTZ] Hinterstoisser, you heavy bastard.
    [HINTERSTOISSER] You need to do more push-ups, Kurtz.

  22. #122
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    South of 49
    Posts
    1,022
    Quote Originally Posted by whyturn View Post
    So I imagine a big part of frequency choice is the ability to punch through dense snow. Also frequencies are utilized so much by everyone especially in widely used bands. Digital has come along way but antenna at 457 is the main inhibitor. One way would be to use a different antenna. I have an idea but will see about patent options first. Until then beep on ........


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

    Yes. The chosen frequency is well suited to that. However, the chosen frequency also makes for a very inefficient small antenna.
    That is at the lowest end of Medium Wave, and a truly efficient antenna would be magnitudes bigger.
    Hence, Recco and even the search finding by cell phone signals. The higher bands can be better matched to small antennas,
    enabling much higher radiated output for the power of the device.
    Anyone with a radio electronics degree, correct that if not correct.
    [KURTZ] Hinterstoisser, you heavy bastard.
    [HINTERSTOISSER] You need to do more push-ups, Kurtz.

  23. #123
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Wasatch
    Posts
    5,547
    Quote Originally Posted by puregravity View Post
    Yes. The chosen frequency is well suited to that. However, the chosen frequency also makes for a very inefficient small antenna.
    That is at the lowest end of Medium Wave, and a truly efficient antenna would be magnitudes bigger.
    Hence, Recco and even the search finding by cell phone signals. The higher bands can be better matched to small antennas,
    enabling much higher radiated output for the power of the device.
    Anyone with a radio electronics degree, correct that if not correct.
    Antenna type is more the culprit. There are small UHF antennas but they are expensive. If you want a small beacon and can pay 3-5k then sure it could be smaller. Range and size and cost are are optimal combo for $250-500 beacons.
    But your not far off. Im an RF engineer


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    I need to go to Utah.
    Utah?
    Yeah, Utah. It's wedged in between Wyoming and Nevada. You've seen pictures of it, right?

    So after 15 years we finally made it to Utah.....


    Thanks BCSAR and POWMOW Ski Patrol for rescues

    8, 17, 13, 18, 16, 18, 20, 19, 16

    2018/2019 (24/32)

  24. #124
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    land of the free
    Posts
    8,812
    Quote Originally Posted by puregravity View Post
    Irn the

    [just talking out loud]
    Yes. I can smell the diarrhea from here
    “Life has become immeasurably better since I have been forced to stop taking it seriously.”
    Hunter S. Thompson

  25. #125
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    356
    It is easy to change the frequency - all you have to do is go to the International Telecommunications Union and argue your case for a worldwide, free of charge, frequency allocation. Should only take a few days (shakes head).

Posting Permissions

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