hi , this locator is used for a dog but will not pick it up once its below ground , the pulse works fine when practising on the surface but i cant get a mark once the dog is in the ground . i know the collar is working (ortovox hunderetter) as i have a pieps 457 that i used previously that has been used to find the dog without a problem. i have tried this pulse locator in a few different locations and soil conditions but find myself wandering about aimlessly , then i call on the pieps457 and find in no time . please help

Send it back to Ortovox. Good customer support.  I have 40 of the pulse at a mountain centre and like all transceivers problems occur, but all the companies have good customer support.

My guess is that ortovox is off frequency and that the pieps is less sensitive to that. I’d check that the pulse is upgraded to version 3.0 firmware then test the ortovox again using the pulse group check mode, this should give an indication if frequency drift has occurred on the ortovox.

Or just send it ortovox like Davy say’s and they’ll check it properly using a frequency analyser.

This Transceiver was purchased recently on ebay. So the user has no experience of a time when it was working properly in the usual environment. It could have been faulty from purchase on ebay.

I think that as mentioned it’s most likely that it’s a problem with the combination of collar and transceiver but hard to rule anything out without all the elements to play with.

what exactly is this dog doing underground?

The pulse does seem to be prone to coming up with “457 Search Failure” if they are used daily, even with the software upgrade.  This is possibly frequency drift but the units do seem to be picked up by other pulse and beacons. I’m a Tracker fan myself, but even they need a software upgrade for the T2.

Alan Scowcroft - 07 March 2011 06:24 PM

what exactly is this dog doing underground?

searching for fox

Davy Gunn - 08 March 2011 08:41 AM

The pulse does seem to be prone to coming up with “457 Search Failure” if they are used daily, even with the software upgrade.  This is possibly frequency drift but the units do seem to be picked up by other pulse and beacons. I’m a Tracker fan myself, but even they need a software upgrade for the T2.

That’s odd, I do use a pulse (in expert mode) a lot and I’ve never seen that message. I have seen “457 Send Failure” which seems to be associated with interference from phones and the like.

The point I was making about the software upgrade is that it’s a undocumented/badly-documented feature of group check at version 3.0 that the pulse reports frequency drift in the transmitting device if it is off frequency. To my knowledge this wasn’t the case prior to version 3.0. It’s also the case that you don’t get this check performed unless you use group check, i.e. if you check using normal receive mode it will detect any device inside the frequency range. That means that without using group check you can detect a device that has frequency drift during your safety check but actually not be able to detect the same device at distance or with altered environmental conditions. This is the real reason people should use group check, it does rather more than just using the device in receive mode.

On a related note, the self check mode on a pulse is very sophisticated and runs a whole load of checks. The upshot of that is that people should not turn the device on until they’ve stopped all other faffing around, so stick your phone in the pocket it’s going to be in, put your sack on, have the pulse harness on with the pulse in it and then finally turn the pulse on. If you’ve got a phone or other device that’s too close and is interfering with the pulse it should give a failure message. It’s also why it’s a good idea to distribute your junk in the same place each day.

On yet another related note, owners of the Pieps DSP get a free frequency analyser built in saving a useful $20,000 IIRC you need to hit the button as it powers up and it goes into a mode similar to pulse group check displaying a readout in HZ of the drift. The standard calls for a tolerance in receivers of +/- 80HZ but really anything close to that and the range is compromised.

If all that sounds a worry it probably shouldn’t be, frequency drift is only a big deal on old devices with ceramic oscillators which are pretty old now, anything more modern than crystal oscillators will be fine. But I thought the Ortovox canine collar was a ceramic oscillators which is why I guessed it was a problem of frequency drift.

had some info from ortovox that explains why -
We had to change the transmitter parameters of the Doggy.
Avalanche Transceiver Frequency: 457 kHz (period: max. 1300ms) is the frequency which is used in Avalanche Transceivers. This frequency with the specific parameters (457 kHz; period max. 1300 ms) is for use in Avalanche Transceivers only!
(The “period” is the time in milliseconds including the time of the transmitted signal and the pause in between two signals.)
We can not use the same frequency/ parameters for the Doggy!

The new frequency/ parameters for the Doggy are: 457 kHz (period: 1500ms). The S1, d3 and Patroller can not receive these new parameters. You still can locate the new Doggy with f1, f1 focus and m2.

Most hunters we asked tell us that the S1 would be the best/ appropriate device for them to search for their dogs. It is possible to see the relative position of the dogs on the display.
But this needs some modifications on the S1.

We are willing to innovate the ORTOVOX Doggy and to adjust the S1 to the needs of the hunting society.
Which means?
- We will have to adopt the new transmitter/ receiver parameters (457 kHz; period 1500ms).
- Change the S1 case into colours accepted by hunters.
- The Doggy S1 will have no transmitter (as the Doggy receiver does not have a transmitter).

does anyone know if i can adjust the pulse to receive the modified signal???

Wow!  Pulse rates and adjusting signals fills me with horror.  It seems like there needs to be a system for hunters very different to humans as the risk of adjusting a pulse and it not finding a human seems not worth the risk.  Someone on here might have the answer.  On another note the problems relating to the Tracker 2 are it seems non existant.  A ski patrol was using duff batterries and this seems to have been the root of the problem.  Also static bursts have not been reproducable in tests from keeping the T2 in a pocket.  BCA are saying that if you want the software upgrade you can have it but your don’t really need it.

me too !

carrier keying is supposed to be 1000 ms +/- 300ms but some devices are massively tolerant of variation, in fact just thinking about I’m not sure even big alterations to a couple of thousand ms would fool some gear which are tolerant of constant carrier.

As for altering the frequency, that’s pretty hard, the theoretical limits are various. First, frequency licensing and potential interference with other devices etc. Second, and potentially more problematic, is that transceivers are a near-field device, without too much science that means they’re primarily electro-magnetic which is what gives us the flux line shapes we all know.  The range of a near-field is a function of the frequency or wave length. Basically, the whole way a transceiver works, the range and shape of the field is dependent on that frequency, alter it enough to get some separation and the whole game changes.

As for the practicalities, it’s a hackers job really, you’d need to reverse engineer the service interface on the pulse and produce your own firmware. I *think* the DSP used in most transceivers is technically capable of altering frequency or carrier keying but I’d not be sure without reading the data sheet for that chipset. The engineering effort would be considerable. I’d expect for an electronics geek that altering an old analogue transceiver to transmit on a different frequency would be easier, you’d need to replace the oscillator which may not be too hard.

I saw the BCA press release. Interesting of what people can convince themselves of when they’ve got a transceiver in their hand. You think back to the issues with phone interference and the number of people who were able to perform tests proving things that were entirely untrue if not to say impossible including people who really should have known better.