Caution ongoing incapatibilty issues with the Barryvox Pulse. It has been previously reported that any problems were user error and this is not the case. Tests done in a controlled environment over a four day day period revealed serious safety concerns. Beware of manufacturer claims of being the latest and greatest. Do your research. Test your beacon with other beacons and have other beacons test yours. Some beacons have cool features that don’t seem so cool when you’re buried in the snow.

Do you have any more information? Why just the Pulse?

I don’t have any reason to doubt what you say but at the same time this is a first post in a public forum about a respected manufacturer so we must be careful about such statements. There are certainly some issues with masking. In general these seem to arise with older analogue models with very wide pulse widths but this doesn’t just affect the Pulse.

Without more details Mammut/Barryvox could reasonably ask me to remove this thread.

One beacon is neither better nor worse than another. My intent was to raise awareness for the need to practice, especially as newer and newer beacons are getting sold to a greater range of people. I understand if there is pressure to remove undesirable posts. I don’t believe that the original post was very specifically slagging Barryvox, and remove if you must. In this digital age, incompatibilty is ongoing. There are incredible ramifications to this. As new beacons become available there is little concern over making them compatible with older technology beyond matching the frequencies. No one was too troubled by the passing of the 8 track as it was surpassed by technology. We would be troubled if we were under the impression that the old technology was going to save our lives. What do we say to the poor guy’s family when we dig him up with a 4-5 year old beacon...’sorry but he wasn’t with the times’?

I cannot post test results in a public forum without making one brand stand out above or below the rest. My belief, however, is that manufacturers should take a greater responsibility towards compatibility. New beacons should be tested not from one computer to the next, but in the field of practice with multiple burials using different brands… simulating reality.

Wow that’s quite a statement. The guys at Facewest UK have done some very good comparison work on various beacons as has beaconreviews.com.  My take is that all the new beacons do the job well, but some folk want and feel the need to have lots of functions such as “mark” features, GPS or digital compass.  My take is that less is more.  All I want is a big display and reliable fast processor that takes me as fast as possible to the sending unit that I can dig out as fast as possible.  The automatic auto revert to send is a pain in the butt when folk come and rubberneck, or other rescuers who are not in your group arrive as it costs time - big time.  Marking isn’t digging and the best airway opener is a shoveller. My only comment on the pulse is the V3.2 “Rescue Send” which is a nice idea but not necessary in my opinion. Signal overlap is worthy of mention on any beacon course and highlights the need for educators to know their subject.  A lot of folk are jumping on the bandwagon of avalanche education but maybe don’t know so much about the beacon technology. The 4 things on a beacon that save lives are high quality antenna’s that have been pre stressed to reduce antenna bias, a super fast processor (that maybe only fast because it isn’t trying to run other functions),an easy on the eye display and last but not least big buttons!

reason - 20 December 2011 07:25 PM

One beacon is neither better nor worse than another.

but you’ve specifically singled out the Barryvox Pulse, from Barryvox’s viewpoint they won’t be too happy. I don’t have any commercial relationship with Barryvox or any other manufacturer so agree that if there is a problem it should be out in the open. However manufacturers do monitor websites and it is me their lawyers write to with if they feel information is unfair as I’ve experienced many times in the past.

BTW some information on issues with signal masking

http://pistehors.com/news/ski/comments/1028-problems-with-multivictim-searches/

I can see why singling out a particular manufacturers beacon would seem contentious. However, for many folk forums are the only way that particular issues can be constructively discussed and learned from. My own opinion is that any manufacturer should sit up and take note rather than resort to lawyers as in the end its an end users life that is at risk if technology is flawed or problems come to light. I could highlight issues with a beacon from a manufacturer on here right now which shows problems new out the box and which only comes to light when you have a big fleet so you get to see a common malfunction. What we are saying is that it can’t be aired if the manufacturer might not like it. I thought BCA’s take when a user group came up with an issue on T2’s was the right one when they went public and asked if the problem had occurred with other users while also they undertook an investigation of the incident, and modified the software in case it was a problem.  As folk now know there was no problem whatsoever other than the user groups misuse and a compatibilty myth that both Mammut USA and BCA squashed.

It’s getting more and more confusing (or is it my poor understanding of English?). Let me try to get this straight:

- ISSUE:due to software settings some sophisticated modern transceivers are having problems (Which? What? How?) with receiving signals from older tranceivers. (@reason)

- TESTRESULTS seem to be available, but are not published here, because it will make some manufacturers stand out (@reason)

Do I understand this correct?

MY QUESTIONS:
- why is the thread called ‘Barryvox Pulse’? (if reason only wanted to raise awareness for the need to practice; which in itself is always a good idea)
- how will the information provided so far, help us in our quest to more safety? Should we just practice more? Should we consider bying different types of transceivers?
Should we revert to analogue?
- what is the definition of ‘compatibality’ if not referring to the frequency?
- is there any change to see the results from the research reason is referring to? (I would very much like to read it, I am sure it is interesting)
- is this only about the marking functions, or receiving signals in general?

reason - 20 December 2011 06:04 PM

Caution ongoing incapatibilty issues with the Barryvox Pulse. It has been previously reported that any problems were user error and this is not the case. Tests done in a controlled environment over a four day day period revealed serious safety concerns. Beware of manufacturer claims of being the latest and greatest. Do your research. Test your beacon with other beacons and have other beacons test yours. Some beacons have cool features that don’t seem so cool when you’re buried in the snow.

It would be useful to understand what ‘incompatibility’ you are suggesting exists.  Also, information on what controlled tests were carried out and what the results / findings were could aid constructive discussion.  At a minimum, an explanation of the nature of the ‘safety concerns’ you found.

A claim that a mainstream, some could argue best-in-class, transceiver has serious flaws without provding some context is not very informative.

reason - 20 December 2011 07:25 PM

One beacon is neither better nor worse than another. My intent was to raise awareness for the need to practice, especially as newer and newer beacons are getting sold to a greater range of people. I understand if there is pressure to remove undesirable posts. I don’t believe that the original post was very specifically slagging Barryvox, and remove if you must. In this digital age, incompatibilty is ongoing. There are incredible ramifications to this. As new beacons become available there is little concern over making them compatible with older technology beyond matching the frequencies. No one was too troubled by the passing of the 8 track as it was surpassed by technology. We would be troubled if we were under the impression that the old technology was going to save our lives. What do we say to the poor guy’s family when we dig him up with a 4-5 year old beacon...’sorry but he wasn’t with the times’?

I cannot post test results in a public forum without making one brand stand out above or below the rest. My belief, however, is that manufacturers should take a greater responsibility towards compatibility. New beacons should be tested not from one computer to the next, but in the field of practice with multiple burials using different brands… simulating reality.

For around 20 years now the only real difference between transceivers when ‘transmitting’ is the rate at which they do so.  Whether you use a 5 year old unit or a brand new one, the signal they transmit is exactly the same.  The main difference with newer units is that they provide guidance to the user through some ‘processing’ of the signal.  Some also have two or three antennae to enable a greater range and avoid erroneous signal interpretation in some conditions. 

I am assuming the incompatibility issues you have experienced are to do with searching for other transceivers perhaps in complex multiple burial scenarios?