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
QRACN88MA
UTM (WGS84)10U E502039 N5317043
Canada Map Index92B2
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 field13.6 dBμV/m
Strong signal field28.6 dBμV/m
Weak signal covered area7977 km2
Strong signal covered area7056 km2
Weak signal population reached1351906 pop
Strong signal population reached1065190 pop
Landcover usedYes
Two rays method usedYes
User IDkg2iq
Radio coverage IDRMBDE4632D77F8_0
Generated on6/25/2020 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> 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 mailing list
PSDR@hamwan.org
http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr