Just to clarify:  Sector 3 is nominally pointed Southwest / 240 degrees, is that correct?

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.

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.

John KX7JM




---- 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@hamwan.org
http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr