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@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 11:52 AM John C. Miller <kx7jm@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@gmail.com <richark@gmail.com>>* wrote ----
On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 1:01 PM Tom Hayward <tom@tomh.us> wrote:
On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 11:47 AM Bart Kus <me@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@hamwan.org http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
_______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr
_______________________________________________
PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr