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@hamwan.org> wrote:
Send PSDR mailing list submissions to psdr@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@hamwan.org
You can reach the person managing the list at psdr-owner@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@gmail.com> To: "John C. Miller" <kx7jm@jmit.com> Cc: Puget Sound Data Ring <psdr@hamwan.org> Subject: Re: [HamWAN PSDR] VOTE: Blyn HamWAN Site Message-ID: <CAHEUKbK-6nbnPoSBZdQRS= LDbZVoRkbV_-mOihqh_hMOedJSmg@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
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