[RVRC] FW: Top secret???

Prof Bob Hopkins bob at cooper.edu
Sun Apr 17 13:29:55 EDT 2011 

Mike and Scott and all,
Thanks for finally explaining the situation.  To be left partially in 
the dark does indeed cause for confusion.  I suspect I'm not alone in 
that regard.  I'm happy to see our intent is to efficiently follow and 
fulfill our coordinated coverage.  This is a prudent approach.  Go for it!
73,
bob wb2udc
On 4/17/2011 1:17 PM, Marvin Bronstein wrote:
> 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
>>
>
>

More information about the RVRC mailing list