[HamWAN PSDR] VOTE: Blyn HamWAN Site

[Doug Kingston]

Here is a coverage plot from Radio Mobile Online to inform the discussion.
If any of the parameters are incorrect, I am happy to rerun with
modifications.
I will let other render opinions based on this.

Parameters I used:
Radio Mobile Online Coverage report
Description              Blyn Mt. HamWAN 5875 MHz***
Frequency                5875 MHz
Base Name                Blyn Mt. HamWAN
Latitude                 48.00667800 °
Longitude                -122.97266800 °
Latitude                 48° 00' 24.04"N
Longitude                122° 58' 21.60"W
QRA CN88MA
UTM (WGS84) 10U E502039 N5317043
Canada Map Index 92B2
Elevation                599.4 m
Base Antenna Height      32 m
Base Antenna Gain        18.0 dBi
Base Antenna Type        omni
Base Antenna Azimuth     0 °
Base Antenna Tilt        2 °
Mobile Antenna Height    6.0 m
Mobile Antenna Gain      24.0 dBi
Tx Power                 1.00000 W
Tx Line Loss             3.0 dB
Rx Line Loss             0.5 dB
Rx Threshold             0.400 μV (-115.0 dBm)
Required Reliability     70%
Strong signal margin     15.0 dB
Weak signal field 13.6 dBμV/m
Strong signal field 28.6 dBμV/m
Weak signal covered area 7977 km2
Strong signal covered area 7056 km2
Weak signal population reached 1351906 pop
Strong signal population reached 1065190 pop
Landcover used Yes
Two rays method used Yes
User ID kg2iq
Radio coverage ID RMBDE4632D77F8_0
Generated on 6/25/2020 3:38:01 PM

On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 12:48 PM Kenny Richards <richark at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 11:52 AM John C. Miller <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 <richark at gmail.com>>* wrote ----
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 1:01 PM Tom Hayward <tom at tomh.us> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 11:47 AM Bart Kus <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
>> http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PSDR mailing list
>> PSDR at hamwan.org
>> http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
> PSDR mailing list
> 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/20200625/860952f0/attachment.html>