[RVRC] FW: Top secret???
Scott Wilson
w2sjw at comcast.net
Sun Apr 17 13:07:14 EDT 2011
I could not have said this any more eloquently myself. We are NOT
trying to put a 'flamethrower' on the air.
It also begs the question about why we are not trying to fight FLA
through proper administrative channels. We clearly have the burden of proof
in our favor, and should be doing everything in our power to get him to
lower his power/antenna, or vacate the frequency completely (but alas, that
is a different argument for a different day).
73
Scott
-----Original Message-----
From: rvrc-bounces at mailman.qth.net [mailto:rvrc-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On
Behalf Of Mike Christiansen
Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2011 12:33
To: 'JOHN T McAuley'; 'Prof Bob Hopkins'
Cc: rvrc at mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [RVRC] FW: Top secret???
Hi guys, apparently there are a lot of people reading a lot more into this
than should be. What is happening here is that we have the opportunity to
purchase a high quality repeater amp at a very good price. The fact that it
has a good amount of "headroom" so we can run it at a greatly reduced output
is a great benefit in my eyes. I know we aren't coordinated to run at 250w
and our power supplies wouldn't be good with that either but to run this
thing at 100 to 150 would be a good thing all the way around. If we had the
money to buy a new amp for 3 times the price that would max out at 100w I
still would be in favor of this slightly used one. I know we had problems
with interfering with ETS in the past but I doubt we still would since they
moved their site, not to mention we would only be running about what we
should be running anyway. The amp is the last thing that the 2 meter
repeater needs to be back up and running to its former glory. If any of you
would ride with me out toward the Clinton area and listen (or try to listen)
to our 2m machine you would understand the importance of getting back to our
proper output. The longer we wait means the longer the guys up north think
this is what we "always" do signal wise. I don't know for sure but rumor has
it that when we replaced our antenna and put our signal back to normal, FLA
raised the antenna and power level on his machine. I want us to do this
upgrade properly and get back to where we are supposed to be. Please don't
feel that the technical committee is trying to ram this down our throats,
it's the farthest thing from their minds, they put in countless hours of
hard work keeping these repeaters and computers up and running and try not
to take it personally when things don't go as smoothly as they hope they
should. The reason for trying to put together an Emergency Meeting was to
let everyone know we have a very important issue at hand and that we wanted
the membership to understand fully what was on the table without "going
behind anybody's back" and railroading something through. The total cost of
the amp, recalibrating and testing (at the Henry factory) and shipping will
be as follows, $300 for the amp, $75 at the factory, and whatever the
shipping is. I'm told the amp has approximately 100 hours on it. I probably
forgot to address a point or two I wanted to touch on but I hope this clears
up some questions in the membership. I'm not exactly sure how the bylaws
read at this moment in time as I missed the March meeting but I don't
believe the revisions have taken effect as of yet. If we are able to vote by
email that would be fine by me. Respectfully, Mike, KB2VRM President
RVRC
-----Original Message-----
From: rvrc-bounces at mailman.qth.net [mailto:rvrc-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On
Behalf Of JOHN T McAuley
Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2011 10:40 PM
To: Prof Bob Hopkins
Cc: rvrc at mailman.qth.net
Subject: Re: [RVRC] FW: Top secret???
Prof Bob has some excellent points. We have a long record, since 1927, of
being an organization of integrity and "friendliness". Our success going
forward will depend on our integrity and adherence to the rules we've agreed
to operate by.
Let's have a face to face meeting where we can fully discuss what the
problem we are trying to solve is and what are options are available. If the
solution isn't immediately available we can authorize the officers to spend
up to a given amount when the solution is available.
Thanks,
John
AB2XH
----- Original Message -----
From: Prof Bob Hopkins <bob at cooper.edu>
To: rvrc at mailman.qth.net
Sent: Sat, 16 Apr 2011 21:15:37 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [RVRC] FW: Top secret???
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
______________________________________________________________
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
More information about the RVRC
mailing list