[HamWAN PSDR] annoying banter... (Graham Hill site)

[Bart Kus]

I don't think we ever got clear on the exact location, but I'm gonna 
assume it's the tower complex around (47.029254°,-122.299524°).  I've 
taken another look at it and it does seem to stand about 500ft above the 
plain below.  I have no doubt it provides great coverage @ UHF, but 
HamWAN operates @ about 6GHz.  In 6GHz land, it's better to add an extra 
10 miles than to shoot through trees.  And that right there is my 
concern with Graham.  I'm not sure how much "tree clearing" power it 
provides to the users in the plains below given the mere 500ft of 
elevation gain.  Is the tower of substantial height?

Now, as far as Graham's ability to bridge Capitol Peak and Baldi Mtn, 
it's a pretty good candidate.  So at the very least I'd like to put PtP 
infrastructure there.  It may make sense for HamWAN to spend the extra 
$700 and put PtMP there too, at least on a trial basis.  If no-one can 
use the PtMP gear there, we can tear down and re-deploy.

I'll reach out to Mike to get a move on with this site, now that we have 
a spectrum plan.

Oh, and what's the internet feed there, what provider/speed/cost?

--Bart


On 2/7/2013 11:03 PM, KL7WM at aol.com wrote:
> Yes but it does have a good coverage area and very high speed Internet
> Daniel Stevens, KL7WM
> In a message dated 2/7/2013 4:33:50 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, 
> me at bartk.us writes:
>
>     Yes.  I've spoken @ WWARA already in order to address the repeater
>     owners throughout the Puget Sound.  What came of that is that most
>     repeater owners have very little power over their sites when it
>     comes to installing new gear, and are typically (>95%) not the
>     site owners.  It's still a viable avenue though in terms of who
>     might be interested in using or supporting such a system, but
>     probably not from the sites-for-HamWAN angle.  Perhaps you know
>     more repeater folks, give it a shot!
>
>     FWARC has expressed the most interest in D-Star over HamWAN for
>     their D-Star system.  However, their site is fairly low down, on
>     Graham Hill.
>
>     --Bart
>
>
>     On 02/07/2013 04:06 PM, Rob Salsgiver wrote:
>>
>>     Sorry all for the ongoing barrage of emails, but once something
>>     starts taking root in the head it's hard to drive it out.....
>>
>>     Has there been any thought given to the angle of marketing HamWAN
>>     to repeater owners?
>>
>>     Specifically the following two points:
>>
>>     <!--[if !supportLists]-->1)<!--[endif]-->Internet based remote
>>     control for repeaters
>>
>>     <!--[if !supportLists]-->2)<!--[endif]-->Internet connectivity
>>     for repeaters (echolink, IRLP, D-Star gateways, etc)
>>
>>     Getting mountain-top connections to the 'net is often difficult
>>     enough.  If we market right, we may be able to get into sites
>>     easier, connect to multiple repeaters per site, make their lives
>>     easier, and drive some adoption and expansion through that avenue.
>>
>>     Cheers,
>>
>>     Rob
>>
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     PSDR mailing list
>>     PSDR at hamwan.org
>>     http://mail.hamwan.org/mailman/listinfo/psdr_hamwan.org
>
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     PSDR mailing list
>     PSDR at hamwan.org
>     http://mail.hamwan.org/mailman/listinfo/psdr_hamwan.org
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PSDR mailing list
> PSDR at hamwan.org
> http://mail.hamwan.org/mailman/listinfo/psdr_hamwan.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.hamwan.net/pipermail/psdr/attachments/20130208/ff20614e/attachment.html>