[RVRC] FW: Top secret???

Sat Apr 16 21:15:37 EDT 2011

Marv has a very good point.  We have developed a reputation of an 
excellent organization and a very friendly repeater.  We really have to 
continue to follow the repeater coordination rules.  Since I haven't 
been on too often lately, I assume it is that our output power is below 
what we normally transmit and we wish to bring it back up to the 
original allowed level?
73,
bob wb2udc
On 4/16/2011 8:41 PM, Marvin Bronstein wrote:
> RVRC Members,
> There are several key issues that must be considered on an issue to raise
> transmitter power.
> 1.) the original repeater coordination that was based upon the transmitter
> output power and 'effective radiated power' at the time of coordination.
> 2.) any increase above the coordinated power requires an application to
> (currently) MetroCor and will certainly require a "NOPC" (Notice Of Proposed
> Coordination) which must be sent by MetroCor to our bordering coordination
> organizations for their approval or disapproval. This is a mandatory
> function and This could result in a nasty situation with respect to our
> bordering coordinating bodies.
> 3.) A substantial increase in transmitter power would affect the need for
> additional 'isolation' in the duplexer if the duplexer doesn't have enough
> protection for the current receiver at the higher transmitter power.
>       (Raising transmitter power effectively reduces the 'isolation' of the
> transmitter to the receiver which consequently requires additional
> attenuation of the transmitter carrier at the receiver terminals. Increasing
> duplexer attenuation creates additional losses to the
> receiver........effectively reduces receiver sensitivity.)
> 4.) There would be no changes necessary if the amplifier was operated at the
> originally coordinated power level.
>
> Fraternally,
> Marv,  K2VHW
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "E Drew Moore"<drumor at optonline.net>
> To: "RVRC"<rvrc at mailman.qth.net>
> Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2011 5:14 PM
> Subject: [RVRC] FW: Top secret???
>
>
>> Bryan, thanks. Whenever we increase our power above 100 watts two things
>> happen. 1.) We create intermod that effects the ETSNJ and the W2LI
>> repeaters, and 2.) we impact repeaters outside of our coordinated area.
>> Both
>> create undesirable consequences.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: rvrc-bounces at mailman.qth.net [mailto:rvrc-bounces at mailman.qth.net]
>> On
>> Behalf Of Bryan D. Boyle
>> Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2011 3:56 PM
>> To: rvrc at mailman.qth.net
>> Subject: Re: [RVRC] Top secret???
>>
>> On 4/16/2011 2:59 PM, njradioman at aol.com wrote:
>>> I don't feel we need an amp that puts out 250 watts.
>>>
>>> What do we want to do, start interfering with other repeaters, I don't
>> think so.
>>> My vote is no .
>>>
>>> Let's stay with a 100 to 150 watt model.
>>>
>>> Marty
>> This will run, as Scott said, at 100 to 150w comfortably.
>>
>> Advantages:
>>
>> 1. We can run it at less than its' full-bore rated power, it will
>> operate cooler and shed less heat.  That it's capable of doing 250 does
>> not mean that we necessarily SHOULD run it at 250.  The amp is capable
>> of running at less than it's fully rated power by design without spurs,
>> garbage, or harmonic and linear distortion of the signal. Henry tells
>> you how, and rates the amp for running at less than full output.
>>
>> 2. Less thermal stress on the components.  250w is a lot.  So is 150.
>> About a minimum of 40% less, though.
>>
>> 3. The amp is linear; less in (drop the exciter to 1w) and run at
>> reduced power.
>>
>> 4. The difference between running 100w and 250w in geographic range at
>> our HAAT is a lot less than the difference between 25 and 100.  The 625
>> machine gets down here in PA fine (a little scratchy) at 25W.  That's 35
>> air miles.  So, figure, @ 4x or more, the power increase will double
>> that. (I'm as far from the site as midtown manhattan, fwiw.)
>>
>> 5. The cost to purchase an at-the-limit 100w amp somewhere down the road
>> will be more than the cost to purchase this amp and have the factory
>> (which has a good rep, I mean, who wouldn't want, even today, an Henry
>> sitting on the floor in their shack...) recondition it.
>>
>> 6. The AC/DC power system was sized specifically to handle up to 40-45A
>> load through the powergate into the battery backup, assuming up to 150W
>> of transmitter/amp power.  The limiting factor will be how much power we
>> would want the amp to generate which will determines the resultant load.
>> The power supplies are capable of providing 60A of current at 13.8V.
>> IF we are smart and not looking to throw blue flames and cook hot dogs
>> close to Eric's tower, then keeping the total DC power draw (see above)
>> under, let's say, 75% of the 45 amp capacity of the charge controllers
>> will give us more than enough range.  IF we don't try and run at
>> 250w..the system will handle it just fine.
>>
>> 7. Stated current draw at 250w is 45 amps.  Current draw at 150 would
>> about 27 amps from my calculations, all things being equal.  The Icom,
>> running at 25W input, is drawing a little over 8 amps.  Dropping the
>> Icom down to 1W to tickle the amp to give us our desired output would
>> draw a little over 3.5-4 amps (some of the power is used for other
>> things besides transmit..have to drive the receiver and oscillator,
>> etc..).  I show that as a total of 30.5-31 amps @ 13.8v to drive to 150w
>> tpo into the duplexer.  Comfortably under the 75% of capacity of the
>> charge controller.
>>
>> I don't see a downside to this.  Feel free to disagree, but this is my
>> analysis and conclusion.
>>
>> 73 Bryan
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> RVRC mailing list
>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/rvrc
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>> Post: mailto:RVRC at mailman.qth.net
>>
>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>>
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> RVRC mailing list
>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/rvrc
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>> Post: mailto:RVRC at mailman.qth.net
>>
>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> RVRC mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/rvrc
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:RVRC at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html