[RVRC] FW: Top secret???

Sun Apr 17 13:17:06 EDT 2011

Mike and members,
I agree with the need to bring our repeater back up to it's original 
performance.  If this is the intent and the amplifier meets our 
'continuous-duty' requirements then we should jump at the chance to purchase 
it at this price.
I've checked with people in the lower NY State about the possibility that 
'FLA' has raised power or increased antenna gain but that seems to NOT be 
true (at this time). I know that we've heard their repeater down here quite 
strongly but it was merely a case of 'enhanced propagation'.  Our greatest 
problem is to get our output back up to it's originally designed level so 
that we achieve a proper 'capture ratio' in our coverage area, then the only 
issue will be getting users of 'FLA' to cooperate and not use 'FLA' while 
mobile in W2QW's coverage area.  Mobiles operating in our coverage area 
cause capture and/or interference to our input while they're using 'FLA'.

Go for it!

73
Marv, K2VHW
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mike Christiansen" <kb2vrm at embarqmail.com>
To: "'JOHN T McAuley'" <jtmcauley at embarqmail.com>; "'Prof Bob Hopkins'" 
<bob at cooper.edu>
Cc: <rvrc at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2011 12:33 PM
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
> 