This is good to know with the hero 3, is there an option to turn off the wifi? Has anyone sent gobro an email about this?Quote:
Originally Posted by CupoDamus
This is good to know with the hero 3, is there an option to turn off the wifi? Has anyone sent gobro an email about this?Quote:
Originally Posted by CupoDamus
Does it run on electricity - from batteries, solar, extension cord to wind turbine? If so, then YES, it MIGHT mess up your ability to pick up a buried beacon.Quote:
Originally Posted by snowgod5
Again, as stated several times in this thread, any device that uses electricity - GPS, iPod, digital camera, headlamp, smartphone, laptop, sex toys - has the potential to interfere with your beacon. The issue has nothing to do with WiFi capability and everything to do with the power consumed by the other devices, the distance between devices, and the frequency of the stray signals.
The level of interference has an inverse-square relationship with distance, so holding your beacon with the same hand that your Suunto hangs from will magnify the likelihood of interference. OTOH, the power used to run the watch may not be enough to create much in the way of stray signal. The frequency of the watch's emissions may not be close enough to the 457kh frequency of the beacon to impact the search either.
Only one way to tell for sure - get a fix on a transmitting beacon, then move your Dick Tracy watch/gps/communicator/etc toward your searching beacon and see if the tracking goes wacky. Would be interesting to hear your findings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CupoDamus
Have the two of you been paying attention? Did you read Shralp's explanations above? Beacon interference has nothing to do with the presence of a wifi signal!Quote:
Originally Posted by bertrenolds
If stupidity emitted an electronic field, the two of you wouldn't be allowed within 100 KM of a transmitting beacon.
has anybody seen a skull that looks like a tibia fibula?
This point got me thinking... Beacons have the CE mark on there, which probably means they are subject to the European standards for EMC/EMI, which are usually fairly robust (FCC by comparison generally only regulates noise emission not noise immunity). It turns out there already are a fairly comprehensive looking set of standards.Quote:
Originally Posted by SchralphMacchio
Unfortunately there's a lot of tedious digging involved to get at all the particulars in there, but from first glance it looks like there is at least a requirement to meet some type of "immunity" test- meaning the device gets placed in a lab, bombarded with a known amount of noise and has to operate through it. Usually in order to pass these tests products have to be fairly well designed in terms of shielding, filtering and other noise considerations.
That noise interferes with a search and produces incorrect search readings is unavoidable, however, IMO, noise should not cause a beacon to "reset", go nuts, or otherwise have issues outside of the poor search readings. If beacons are doing that, reports and pressure on the manufacturer to improve designs is warranted.
Ding ding ding. I am talking industry standards here ... perhaps even a new class of UL product with agreed upon test procedures written by consortium.Quote:
Originally Posted by NatEE
Disclaimer: as an industry outsider, I have ZERO knowledge or visibility into existing, or planned, test standards, proprietary or universal, that apply to these products. I am unaware of any developments within ISO / IEC / CE / UL / IEEE to create/adopt universal standards for operation and frequency protection, but this would be the path forward.
The CE logo could be little more than indicating safe use of power circuitry, trace spacing on the circuit board, etc and nothing about the transceiving operation of the unit. To their credit, BCA and Ortovox actually publishes that they are compliant with EN 300 718, one of the three standards linked on NatEE's link above. I don't know if every manufacturer has adopted this, and it is certainly not a required marking on the device, and does not appear to be a common marketing-driven marking on webpages or packaging. So ... the standards do not have *that* much weight yet, or else we'd know more about them as technical consumers.
If we had anyone here with NatEE's background, and other product development leaders, we could certainly write a joint letter to be sent to BCA, Mammut, Ortovox, PIEPS, etc ... but ultimately it's going to take consumer pressure and interaction with leaders from each of these corporations to drive more transparency and better data. I don't know if ISSW is the forum to motivate updated progress from the industry, but I can't think of a more relevant convention at the moment.