Caution Pieps DSP Transceiver..........

[upallnight]

Frankly, the range is what seals the deal for me. I'm able to pick up a signal 10-20m before people with Trackers. So while they're still on a coarse search, I'm tapped into a flux line and headed in.

This is one thing to note when touring with folks who use Trackers -- their range consistently tests lower than other beacons.

I still like the Barryvox for the combo of a long range/analog capability at the outset, switching to digital as you get closer.

For the devious ones, you want your buddies to be wearing the beacons that pick up signals from the furthest away (although if ease-of-use is lost, then it's a wash, at best).

[nesta]

humans have the capability to overcome the limitations of their gear, though, right, Carl? You can do it with any beacon. 3 circle method is a good way to start.

Thanks Telemike. Guess I should have said without digging them up and physically turning them off one at a time, if indeed that's what The Suit does. Personally (say in a beacon basin or in any multiple beacon practice) I locate buried beacon, probe it, (dig it out if shallow and I'm the only rescuer, but not necessarily turn it off since that would waste valuable time in a real life scenario) check for other beacons using circle method, which is useful for closely buried beacons ( I can almost always tell when there's more than 1 by sound anyway), mark that first probe strike if it's a deeper burial, and then proceed to locate other beacons in the same manner. I use an Ortovox analog transceiver and have used analog beacons my whole career (25 years). I have tried Tracker, Barryvox/Mammut and Pieps DSP and to tell you the truth I just feel more comfortable using an Ortovox. I can definitely see the advantage of using digital beacons, and have observed that neophytes ( especially kids) seem to do inherently well with them. I guess it's us old dogs trying to learn new tricks that have the hardest time letting go. On the other hand, I can see myself using Ortovox S-1 within a year or two, just waiting to see how they are accepted and if there's the inevitable bugs to be worked out.

[The Suit]

You know, I think I was taught to turn off the beacon as soon as it's found, but maybe I just assumed that, based on examples like the following:

From the Tracker manual:

If the Tracker displays more than one signal, follow the one with the lowest distance reading. Once you are within about ten meters, the Tracker will isolate that signal. Turn off the first beacon once it is found.

From the Barryvox manual:

Switch off the transceivers of rescued persons in order to make continued search easier.

I will start systematically practicing nesta's scenario. It's clearly a superset of what I've been doing, and therefore better practice. Thank you.

[nesta]

You know, I think I was taught to turn off the beacon as soon as it's found, but maybe I just assumed that, based on examples like the following:

From the Tracker manual:

From the Barryvox manual:

I will start systematically practicing nesta's scenario. It's clearly a superset of what I've been doing, and therefore better practice. Thank you.

No problem phone guy, glad I could help. Now that's just how I would do it, not necessarily what other so-called experts would do. Like Barryvox says, of course it is easier to continue searching with the the beacon of the rescued victim turned off, but in the real world usually first aid (airway cleared/assisted ventilation) is the priority, not digging under layers of clothes to switch off a transceiver. Often, this first task is accomplished before the victim is even extricated from the hole. Professional rescuers have the added advantage of having other people around usually to tend to various tasks of the rescue, so often the hasty searcher(s) performing the transceiver search can delegate the probing and/or shovelling to others until all the signals have been found. That could also apply to companion rescue as well, depending how many people escape the avalanche unscathed. Remember to mark any probe strikes with a ski pole, wand or tree branch etc before moving on to the next beacon if you are alone. The important point is to efficiently use your resources to save as many of the buried victims as you possibly can. To do this I think you have to practice locating multiple buried transceivers without turning them off. One more thing, in a real situation, DON'T FORGET to ensure your own safety before proceeding to rescue others. Be very aware of hangfire and further avalanches.

[Rednas]

Uhhh.... isn't the Pieps DSP the only beacon with that capability? Their aren't any (11/6/6) other beacons with that capability.

Every beacon on the market can search while leaving all transmitting signals on. It just takes practice. With analogue you need to isolate the signals. With digital you need to get used to the natural pull toward the closest signals. But then most digitals have the advantage of their special multiple modes. I got the fastest time in my CAA level 1 test with a Tracker. It was for 2 beacons and not that big a deal to me. Other beacons on the course were the Peips DSP, Peips 457, Ortovox F1, Ortovox digital, Barryvox, etc. Some people did not pass. It all comes down to how much you practice regardless of what beacon you are using. Bottom line.

[Thomas]

First off every beacon on the market has its limitations. If a manufacturer tells you different they are full of it. All of you bring up valid concerns and rightfully so, you’re professionals and enthusiast trying to keep things safe. With that said I will try to address all of your questions without being too long winded. I will title the sections so you can skip past what you may already know or don’t want to read. Before I start I will say this, there is one reason three other companies are trying to make a triple antenna beacons and that’s the DSP. If you look back at the evolution of beacons Pieps and Ortovox were on the cutting edge. Then with some great improvements Tracker came out and changed the market place. Well the nature of the beast is evolution and Pieps is doing it’s best to keep improving on current standards as are all other companies.

Pieps Software Upgrade 2.8:
To determine which software you have hold down the ? button while turning the unit to send. Hold the button down until you see a number like this, 2.8. If you see 1.4, 1.7, you have the older software. If you have anything besides 2.8 you can get the upgrade at Liberty Mountain. The turn around time is really fast.
What did the upgrade do?
1. Increased receiving bandwidth from +/- 150 to +/- 500 the broadest range in the industry. You can now determine if your partners beacon is processing beyond twice the industry STD.
2. Increased battery life
3. Increased range
4. Better isolation of all beacons
5. Eliminate ghosting

Pieps DSP Receiving Bandwidth
Industry STD states a beacon must transmit within +/- 80 cycles from 457. Pieps use to stop receiving at +/- 150. Now with the 2.8 upgrade you will have an increased bandwidth ranging from +/- 500. Not only can you pick up old/damaged beacons, but you will do it with a much longer range than any other beacon.

Isolating a Signal
Isolating a signal can be more difficult with the old software. The beauty about that is you can fix the issue with a simple upgrade to 2.8. You do not have to spend $300 for a new beacon. All analog beacons have what is referred to as a Continuous Carrier. That is the underlying tone you can hear with an analog beacon while listening to another analog signal. When you get close to that beacon you will hear a distinct beep with a buzz in the background. That buzz (the continuous carrier) made it hard to isolate a signal and it often will make the Pieps indicate a second victim. The new upgrade helps to eliminate both issues. If you’re having troubles with the isolations try this. Hold very still while isolating a signal. Quick movements can make it hard to isolate. Also try marking your low spot and then step back to isolate. If any one wants more details on this drop an e-mail.

[Hacksaw]

Thomas, I got your phone message. I'll try calling you Friday.
Halsted

[Rednas]

This is one thing to note when touring with folks who use Trackers -- their range consistently tests lower than other beacons.
.

Range is directly related to the orientation of the transmitting beacon. I have seen people walk by transmitting units and miss them regardless of what beacon they have.

[summit]

This is one thing to note when touring with folks who use Trackers -- their range consistently tests lower than other beacons.

Range is directly related to the orientation of the transmitting beacon. I have seen people walk by transmitting units and miss them regardless of what beacon they have.

No!

If you use proper search technique, both in general and for your beacon model, you will not walk past a transmitting beacon without seeing it, assuming all beacons are properly functioning.

Range is directly related to the orientation of the transmitting antenna relative to the orientation and relative position of the receiving antenna(s), and the transmit power and frequency versus the receiver design (many variables here).

The Tracker has a short range because of its design. Period.

[hutash]

Thomas, are you employed my Pieps or Liberty Mountain? Just curious, I find it helpful to know where info is coming from. I have a new Pieps and look forward to using it this year. Your info is very helpful, thanks for contributing.

[~mikey b]

No!

If you use proper search technique, both in general and for your beacon model, you will not walk past a transmitting beacon without seeing it, assuming all beacons are properly functioning.

Range is directly related to the orientation of the transmitting antenna relative to the orientation and relative position of the receiving antenna(s), and the transmit power and frequency versus the receiver design (many variables here).

The Tracker has a short range because of its design. Period.

and proper search technique shouldmake this a non-issue

People get a bit too hung up on range stats for my liking.

[summit]

Range means wider search swaths which means you cover area faster.
Range means you acquire signal sooner and follow the flux line instead of continuing the grid.
Range means you become aware of a burial/multiple burial situation sooner.

Beacon searching is about speed. Speed is about two things: ease of use & range

I like my beacon's 90+m range... I find it a usefull feature... I know how to make use of it... OTOH a lot of people wouldn't like my beacon.

[GT40]

I was out practicing multi-burials today with the Pieps DSP v2.8. I did get one ghost for a moment, as I as very close to a Tracker. It went away, but still I hadn't seen it before.

I like this thread because it answers that question, and helps me to know that I still want to practice more. When time is not a life and death issue.

I will be taking my DSPs in for an update from 2.8 to 3.1. I can get it done here in Salt Lake City.

[Rednas]

...assuming all beacons are properly functioning.
Range is directly related to the orientation of the transmitting antenna relative to the orientation and relative position of the receiving antenna(s), and the transmit power and frequency versus the receiver design (many variables here).
.

1. "assuming all beacons are properly funtioning." This is exactly my point.

2. Does range = increased search speed? I would argue that it does not among novice users but it can among guides (ACMG, AMGA) in large slide paths if they are well practiced. I would rather have a novice with a Tracker beacon than a novice concerned about range! It's a no-brainer.

[cj001f]

2. Does range = increased search speed?

Previous studies have suggested, no it doesn't. That data may be subject to debate

All things the same, more range is a good thing. In the beacon world, all things aren't the same, and some things work better for some people.

[Tri-Ungulate]

I will be taking my DSPs in for an update from 2.8 to 3.1. I can get it done here in Salt Lake City.

Hey GT, where did you hear about the 3.1 upgrade? It's not even on the Liberty Mountain website. The only info I could get on it was from a German bboard that said v 3.1 came out earlier this month and that it improved the "mark" function along with adding an "auto revert-to-transmit" function, if I understand the German correctly. The revert function is the main thing I wished the DSP had, and if this is true, I'll definitely be looking into the upgrade. That would be very nice, I sure hope I don't have to shell out another $25 bucks though.

edit:I don't think the auto-revert is part of v3.1 after al.

[The Suit]

Hey GT, where did you hear about the 3.1 upgrade? It's not even on the Liberty Mountain website. The only info I could get on it was from a German bboard that said v 3.1 came out earlier this month and that it improved the "mark" function along with adding an "auto revert-to-transmit" function, if I understand the German correctly. The revert function is the main thing I wished the DSP had, and if this is true, I'll definitely be looking into the upgrade. That would be very nice, I sure hope I don't have to shell out another $25 bucks though.

edit:I don't think the auto-revert is part of v3.1 after al.

http://www.pieps.com/cms/index.php?o...d=20&Itemid=39

[summit]

Previous studies have suggested, no it doesn't. That data may be subject to debate

IIRC that study showed that among recreational users there was no difference between recreationists using analog 2.2Khz or dual frequency beacons compared to just released analog 457khz beacons like the peips optifind... all old... however it did show an increase in speed for professionals.

The study is outdated and probably of little relevance when comparing modern analog 457s, dual and tri antenna digital beacons of various ranges against each other...

----------

I've always said the best beacon is the one that works for you. Of course I'd like a novice who is comfortable with his tracker versus one that doesn't know how to use his Barryvox or Peips DSP... that is a strawman argument though.

--------

Rednas: assuming all beacons are working properly... we don't perform beacon searches with the idea that all beacons may have a damaged antenna or bad batteries and can only be picked up at 5m... another strawman. It is part of the reason why you do beacon checks and range of the day checks. If a beacon is missed on the initial beacon search due to beacon malfunction... well they will probably be the last beacon found.

BCA Trackers have a 40m range and they recommend 20m between search grids (its also about not having to walk back uphill).

[cj001f]

The study is outdated and probably of little relevance when comparing modern analog 457s, dual and tri antenna digital beacons of various ranges against each other...

"Modern" analog 457's - like the SOS, F1, etc. - haven't changed since the study came out (or since their introduction). Like I said, subject to debate (mostly by people arguing greater range is useful)

If anyone cares to read it themselves
http://bcaccess.com/documents/Compan...cue_Atkins.pdf

[summit]

"Modern" analog 457's - like the SOS, F1, etc. - haven't changed since the study came out (or since their introduction). Like I said, subject to debate (mostly by people arguing greater range is useful)

If anyone cares to read it themselves
http://bcaccess.com/documents/Compan...cue_Atkins.pdf

I am NOT arguing that any recreationists should ditch their digital beacons for 80-120m range analog beacon. That was NOT the sole comparison I was aiming at. There is a good variance in ranges with digital beacons, whose ranges vary from 40m to over 60m.

It is poor logic to assert that one digital beacon's 60m range is of no an advantage over another digital beacons 40m range just because a statistical comparison of old slow pulse 457khz analog beacons to older fast pulse 2.2khz analog beacons found that the shorter ranged 2.2khz analog beacons were no worse for the recreationist, and might even be faster in the hands of a recreationist.

You are comparing apples and oranges!!!

And for the record, the information from that paper suggests that longer ranged analog beacons are of benefit to practiced professionals versus short ranged analog beacons, though there wasn't enough data for good confidence on that point.

My opinion is that range helps with modern beacons. Your opinion is that longer range doesn't matter with modern beacons. Referring to a study that isn't about modern beacons does not back up your opinion very well.