Aye. 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. On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 11:48 AM Rob Salsgiver <rob@nr3o.com> wrote:

Would it make sense to cross-link to Lookout, or not worth it?

That would be a really long link. With the current proposal, there would be two paths to Lookout with one hop, via Triangle or SnoDEM. Those will perform better than one really long hop. Tom

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 <mailto:tom@tomh.us> wrote: On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 11:47 AM Bart Kus <mailto: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 mailto:PSDR@hamwan.org http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr _______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list mailto:PSDR@hamwan.org http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr

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

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

I vote Yea. On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 3:29 PM Bart Kus <me@bartk.us> wrote:

Hello,

Upon further review of the mounting hardware, I appear to have "misunderestimated" the required Unistrut. My original thinking was to bisect 3 10ft Unistrut sections and use 5ft pieces top+bottom to form the 3 required dual-offset arms. I have since studied the Rohn 45G specs, on page 12 here:

https://www.rohnnet.com/files/45G_90MPH_DWG_0105_ASSYPKG.pdf

The tower is 1.5ft wide, so a 5ft piece of strut would only have 1.75ft of stick-out at the very end, which would also need to come in a few inches to hold the 2" mast pipe towards the end. This is packing things too tightly. We need to clear some guy wires up there, and more separation in general would be better. Since we need more stick-out, we can no longer simply bisect the 10ft sections, so the count of required strut needs to be doubled from 3 to 6 sections. Furthermore, due to the longer stick-out and the requirement for microwave gear to be steady and not wobbly, we need to use more rigid Unistrut. This is available in the form of back-to-back welded channels. At a 2.5ft stick-out for example, the back-to-back channels exhibit 2.6x more rigidity than single channels.

I have created a new Blyn spreadsheet here:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zUqJWOPQXt4Qv6iYbQs2cHTLbL5NOdQ5ail4...

Which doubles the Unistrut count and also specifies the more rigid strut. The keen-eyed will also notice a change from U-bolts to 1.25" pipe clamps. There is no cost difference there.

I am aware of the thread arguing for the removal of a sector from the site, but I don't think the foundations of the arguments are valid, so this revised proposal keeps all 3 sectors.

My vote for this revised proposal is: Yea.

--Bart

On 6/24/2020 11:11 AM, Bart Kus wrote:

...

Hello,

I've put together the spend request to deploy HamWAN coverage to Blyn Mtn:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/12lho76dJUSlXiJRy0UzYlnG66JHQeDzPMBZU...

...

The site is at (48.006678°, -122.972668°), has a 110ft Rohn 45G tower, will provide a high speed link between SnoDEM and Victoria, as well as providing regional omnidirectional coverage. Once HamWAN is installed, my understanding is there will be some DMR repeater(s) going on the air there. There is already a corresponding dish @ SnoDEM for this site, and has been for years. We've also got confirmation that we'll be able to get a dish installed @ Triangle for the Victoria end.

24-hour director voting period for this starts now.

My vote for this is: yea.

--Bart

_______________________________________________ PSDR mailing list PSDR@hamwan.org http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/psdr