[HamWAN PSDR] PSDR Digest, Vol 88, Issue 23

Fri Jun 26 12:47:49 PDT 2020

I was just up at Blynn and although I could easily see Sequim, Port Angeles
was not a slam dunk because of terrain blockages. I think that a sector
towards Sequim/PA, a Sector towards Cape George/PT, and a third sector
facing south towards Quilcene would be most beneficial to Jefferson and
Clallam counties.

73 Dick Illman
Jefferson County ARES EC

On Fri, Jun 26, 2020, 12:00 PM <psdr-request at hamwan.org> wrote:

> Send PSDR mailing list submissions to
>         psdr at hamwan.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         psdr-request at hamwan.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         psdr-owner at hamwan.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of PSDR digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: VOTE: Blyn HamWAN Site (Kenny Richards)
>    2. Rattlesnake mission this weekend (Bart Kus)
>    3. Re: VOTE: Blyn HamWAN Site (Doug Kingston)
>    4. Re: VOTE: Blyn HamWAN Site (Carl Leon)
>    5. Re: Rattlesnake mission this weekend (Rob Salsgiver)
>    6. Re: Rattlesnake mission this weekend (Doug Kingston)
>    7. Neat Milky Way video brought to you by HamWAN (Bart Kus)
>    8. Re: VOTE: Blyn HamWAN Site (John C. Miller)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2020 12:47:54 -0700
> From: Kenny Richards <richark at gmail.com>
> 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
> Message-ID:
>         <CAHEUKbK-6nbnPoSBZdQRS=
> LDbZVoRkbV_-mOihqh_hMOedJSmg at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://mail.hamwan.net/pipermail/psdr/attachments/20200625/3a15adce/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2020 13:16:48 -0700
> From: Bart Kus <me at bartk.us>
> To: Puget Sound Data Ring <psdr at hamwan.org>
> Subject: [HamWAN PSDR] Rattlesnake mission this weekend
> Message-ID: <6c04e069-4939-81a1-af37-2330133e3cae at bartk.us>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>
> Hello,
>
> I'd like to get some climbing + non-climbing volunteers for this
> weekend's mission to Rattlesnake.  While the site is open for business
> as of last weekend, some work is still required.  This will be hopefully
> the last trip to Rattlesnake this year.  The work list is:
>
> 1) Install ice shield on stubby tower to protect 60GHz dish.
> 2) Bring down Baldi dish from Rohn25 tower, install RF shield, upgrade
> modem, re-install and re-align dish.
> 3) Install missing cable cushions on the big tower.
>
> We'll be meeting at the gate on Saturday @ 9:30AM and going up from
> there.  If you'd like to come help out, please email me for details.
>
> Thanks,
>
> --Bart
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2020 13:39:40 -0700
> From: Doug Kingston <dpk at randomnotes.org>
> To: Puget Sound Data Ring <psdr at hamwan.org>
> Subject: Re: [HamWAN PSDR] VOTE: Blyn HamWAN Site
> Message-ID:
>         <
> CAGPaoUttjBF-+MjY7yuCz2Bzy5z87iamUDtf96Br1MH+2Xm2Wg at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> 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-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2020 14:11:00 -0700
> From: "Carl Leon" <carl at n7kuw.com>
> To: "'Puget Sound Data Ring'" <psdr at hamwan.org>, "'John C. Miller'"
>         <kx7jm at jmit.com>
> Subject: Re: [HamWAN PSDR] VOTE: Blyn HamWAN Site
> Message-ID: <008201d64b35$211989c0$634c9d40$@n7kuw.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> 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-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2020 17:03:52 -0700
> From: "Rob Salsgiver" <rob at nr3o.com>
> To: "'Puget Sound Data Ring'" <psdr at hamwan.org>
> Subject: Re: [HamWAN PSDR] Rattlesnake mission this weekend
> Message-ID: <015701d64b4d$485037b0$d8f0a710$@nr3o.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="utf-8"
>
> I don't know how many it will affect, but this is Field Day weekend for
> those who will be playing.
>
> Rob
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: PSDR [mailto:psdr-bounces at hamwan.org] On Behalf Of Bart Kus
> Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2020 1:17 PM
> To: Puget Sound Data Ring
> Subject: [HamWAN PSDR] Rattlesnake mission this weekend
>
> Hello,
>
> I'd like to get some climbing + non-climbing volunteers for this
> weekend's mission to Rattlesnake.  While the site is open for business
> as of last weekend, some work is still required.  This will be hopefully
> the last trip to Rattlesnake this year.  The work list is:
>
> 1) Install ice shield on stubby tower to protect 60GHz dish.
> 2) Bring down Baldi dish from Rohn25 tower, install RF shield, upgrade
> modem, re-install and re-align dish.
> 3) Install missing cable cushions on the big tower.
>
> We'll be meeting at the gate on Saturday @ 9:30AM and going up from
> there.  If you'd like to come help out, please email me for details.
>
> Thanks,
>
> --Bart
>
> _______________________________________________
> PSDR mailing list
> PSDR at hamwan.org
> http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2020 18:46:43 -0700
> From: Doug Kingston <dpk at randomnotes.org>
> To: Puget Sound Data Ring <psdr at hamwan.org>
> Subject: Re: [HamWAN PSDR] Rattlesnake mission this weekend
> Message-ID:
>         <CAGPaoUv6kerQsZJZwwjok6mDdj7f=
> r+y20wfJ0aFYN7yBrs4EA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> I will be playing Field Day.
>
> -Doug-
>
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 5:04 PM Rob Salsgiver <rob at nr3o.com> wrote:
>
> > I don't know how many it will affect, but this is Field Day weekend for
> > those who will be playing.
> >
> > Rob
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: PSDR [mailto:psdr-bounces at hamwan.org] On Behalf Of Bart Kus
> > Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2020 1:17 PM
> > To: Puget Sound Data Ring
> > Subject: [HamWAN PSDR] Rattlesnake mission this weekend
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I'd like to get some climbing + non-climbing volunteers for this
> > weekend's mission to Rattlesnake.  While the site is open for business
> > as of last weekend, some work is still required.  This will be hopefully
> > the last trip to Rattlesnake this year.  The work list is:
> >
> > 1) Install ice shield on stubby tower to protect 60GHz dish.
> > 2) Bring down Baldi dish from Rohn25 tower, install RF shield, upgrade
> > modem, re-install and re-align dish.
> > 3) Install missing cable cushions on the big tower.
> >
> > We'll be meeting at the gate on Saturday @ 9:30AM and going up from
> > there.  If you'd like to come help out, please email me for details.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > --Bart
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/c076bf81/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2020 23:21:22 -0700
> From: Bart Kus <me at bartk.us>
> To: Puget Sound Data Ring <psdr at hamwan.org>
> Subject: [HamWAN PSDR] Neat Milky Way video brought to you by HamWAN
> Message-ID: <dd3a8dd0-7880-cebd-7a8e-5a96d88106fd at bartk.us>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
>
>
>
> Figured I'd share a frame of the video stream showing the Milky Way and
> Mount Rainier from the new Rattlesnake camera.  Focus could probably use
> some manual tuning.  :)
>
> --Bart
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://mail.hamwan.net/pipermail/psdr/attachments/20200625/d8fcc9d9/attachment-0001.html
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: ogbdimikgknhlkkn.png
> Type: image/png
> Size: 4195870 bytes
> Desc: not available
> URL: <
> http://mail.hamwan.net/pipermail/psdr/attachments/20200625/d8fcc9d9/attachment-0001.png
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2020 09:52:04 -0700
> From: "John C. Miller" <kx7jm at jmit.com>
> To: "Kenny Richards" <richark at gmail.com>
> Cc: Puget Sound Data Ring <psdr at hamwan.org>
> Subject: Re: [HamWAN PSDR] VOTE: Blyn HamWAN Site
> Message-ID: <172f18b17de.eb9bf58846338.3724347758983807279 at jmit.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Kenny and all,
>
>
>
> One (hopefully final) set of comments regarding Blyn sector 3.
>
>
>
> With sector antennae radiating 120 degrees wide, this means a sector 3
> coverage of *roughly* 180 degrees through 300 degrees, given that sector 3
> is pointed at 240 degrees.  While a good chunk of that (sector 3) pattern
> would be covering forested land, it looks like a number of under-served
> (albeit small) communities along the hood canal, and along US 101, might be
> provided coverage by this sector, especially if the antenna were biased a
> few degrees counter-clockwise.
>
>
>
> If we don't want to cover national park land, how about a 60 degree wide
> sector antenna for sector 3, pointing more toward 200 degrees or so? (a
> 170-230 degree "cone").  This would focus more of the RF footprint on
> populated areas.  We could even cut the power in half going to that 60
> degree antenna, resulting in the same effective radiated power but a bit
> less RF congestion in the "shack."
>
>
>
> There is clearly no one "correct" path forward, and thanks for considering
> these comments and suggestions.  As always, many thanks go to the people
> who show up, and put in the hours of work making HamWAN happen.
>
>
>
> John KX7JM
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---- On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 12:47:54 -0700 Kenny Richards <mailto:
> richark at gmail.com> wrote ----
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 11:52 AM John C. Miller <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 <mailto:
> richark at gmail.com> wrote ----
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 1:01 PM Tom Hayward <mailto:tom at tomh.us> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 11:47 AM Bart Kus <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
>  mailto:PSDR at hamwan.org
>  http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> PSDR mailing list
>
> 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/20200626/db7e07ef/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> PSDR mailing list
> PSDR at hamwan.org
> http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of PSDR Digest, Vol 88, Issue 23
> ************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.hamwan.net/pipermail/psdr/attachments/20200626/79608367/attachment.html>