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 <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