[HamWAN PSDR] VOTE: Blyn HamWAN Site

[Carl Leon]

Looking at the propagation model Doug provided, I would personally be inclined to agree with Kenny’s argument that sector 3 would not serve a purpose at Blyn.  I also agree if there is any benefit to adjusting sectors 1 and 2 counterclockwise a bit to advantage the westward shot toward Port Angeles, I would be in favor.

 

I live in Seattle, right on the edge of Gold Mtn Sector 1 and Sector 2. Both sectors are several db down in signal from their centerlines – what you get on the edge of a sector is noticeably less than if you were just a couple of degrees further in. To me, my experience being on a sectors edge justifies the argument to adjust Blyn sectors to give more emphasis to the west.

 

Carl, N7KUW

 

From: PSDR <psdr-bounces at hamwan.org> On Behalf Of Kenny Richards
Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2020 12:48 PM
To: John C. Miller <kx7jm at jmit.com>
Cc: Puget Sound Data Ring <psdr at hamwan.org>
Subject: Re: [HamWAN PSDR] VOTE: Blyn HamWAN Site

 

On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 11:52 AM John C. Miller <kx7jm at jmit.com <mailto:kx7jm at jmit.com> > wrote:

Just to clarify:  Sector 3 is nominally pointed Southwest / 240 degrees, is that correct?

 

Yes, which would mostly be pointed at the national park.

 

 

I would counter with the following regarding sector 3 on Blyn:

 

1) The users that we *would* potentially have in this sector 3 region might well be the ones who have the fewest (or no) other connectivity options.  They also might be the most isolated in certain types of disasters, which would only amplify the usefulness and public service dimension of providing this coverage.

 

Except the area is densely forested, making the ability to establish a connection for a remote user even more unlikely. The DMR repeater being installed would be a much better option for someone trying to communicate out of the area.

 

 

2) The incremental cost in terms of time and $$$ to add that third sector,  versus just deploying 2 sectors, mitigates in favor of deploying Sector 3 now.

 

It isn't a cost factor, but an additional RF noise source being added to a pretty confined structure. (ie. reducing the effectiveness of the other radios) The plan is to install five radios and while there is a fair amount of vertical distance, it sounds like the top will be reserved for the PtP to clear other physical blockers located in the line of sight to Triangle/SnoDEM. I know this is why we install shields, but they are not perfect.

 

I'm not flat out against this, just raising the question.

 

Thanks

Kenny 

 

 

 

 

---- On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 09:16:22 -0700 Kenny Richards <richark at gmail.com <mailto:richark at gmail.com> > wrote ----

 

On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 1:01 PM Tom Hayward <tom at tomh.us <mailto:tom at tomh.us> > wrote:

 

On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 11:47 AM Bart Kus <me at bartk.us <mailto:me at bartk.us> > wrote:

It covers Port Angeles.

 

We should plan to fudge the azimuth slightly to optimize Port Angeles.

 

Could we fudge S1 and S2, then not need a S3?

 

Sorry to keep pushing this point, but that is a huge area of space which is not likely to have many users.

 

Thanks

Kenny

 

_______________________________________________
PSDR mailing list
PSDR at hamwan.org <mailto:PSDR at hamwan.org> 
http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr

_______________________________________________

PSDR mailing list

PSDR at hamwan.org <mailto:PSDR at hamwan.org> 

http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.hamwan.net/pipermail/psdr/attachments/20200625/0d5b8e72/attachment.html>