[WSWSS] RE: New 2m beacon

[Chip Angle]

7.12.03

I finally got the new reflector address.  Speaking of beacons, the 
re-located N6CA/b 10368.300 MHz beacon is now up and running again 
from the 1300 foot level on Palos Verdes.  Initial reports from N6XQ 
in San Diego look great.  Thanks Glenn for the tower clinbing work!

73  N6CA
------------------------------------------------------

7.11.03 the reflector failed to send this out yeaterday, trying again.

73  Chip N6CA

This was my original respose to Wayne's email and not to the reflector:

------------------------------------------------------

>>Tuning up the band looking for Es and noticed N6NB/b DM05 on around
>144.284.
>
>Thanks for noticing, Robert!  The beacon just went on yesterday on a trial
>basis.  It runs about 50 watts into a short 7-element Yagi, beaming 330
>degrees from Tehachapi.  I set the frequency roughly 2 kHz higher than
>KJ6KO/b (about 350 miles farther north in CM88).
>
>I would welcome signal reports!

July 9, 7:39 am

Wayne,

I am curious why we need another 2 meter beacon.  Beacons are great 
if there is a real need.  Your new one is S9 + 15-20 db of the back 
of your beam here near Torrance.  That means looking for any other 
beacons in the beacon subband is out of the question if I have to run 
my noise blanker.  What do you think of the idea of a cleaner pattern 
yagi > -25 dbc off main beam and reducing the power to 1 watt or so 
or moving it up to 144.299.  That would keep the center and lower 
portion of the beacon band useable.   There must be others who 
receive the beacon this strong.  The 20 db reduction would help 
reduce the interference potential.

I have always condended that beacons are great only if they don't 
interfere with anyones operating and they should not be located near 
major city centers.  Band population near city centers is usually 
high enough to eliminate the need for beacons on the more used bands.

If any thing, make it vertical and place it at 144.299 to inhibit the 
FMers from coming down into the weak signal segment.  That will 
reduce horizontal polariztion signal strength by 20 to 25 db.


73

Chip N6CA

-----------------------------------------

July 10, 8:43 AM

I will comment further on this beacon a other beacons:

As the "father" of the original VHF/UHF beacon sub-bands (way back 
when) and I am strongly in support of beacons.   The subbands were 
created to solve a major problem; local interference by beacons 
keeping local operators from using the weak signal segment.  Strong 
local beacons keep us from looking for DX beacons.  I think beacons 
are great if there is real need. This beacon is indeed interfering 
with the beacon 2 kHz away.  Moving it up (or down) the band to 
144.299 would open up the beacon band so it would become more useful.

Yes we can all get a big list of people who are getting and are not 
getting interference from this beacon.  Yes we can drive around and 
find weak spots where it doesn't bother anyone.  The point is it is 
loud off the back of the antenna and is too loud at my QTH.  It is 
poorly placed in frequency.  The suggestion of 144.299 was two fold: 
it would open up the beacon subband again and it would serve to push 
FM operations off of 144.300 where many of them congregate. 
Evidently FMers don't think their signals occupy any bandwidth. 
Making it vertical would allow "them" to hear it better. Go up to 
144.300 and listen a bit.

Beacons which affect all of us should take in the opinions and 
recommendations of the local weak signal operators which are near by. 
I would love to see a 500 watt beacon at W6OMFs QTH....that way I can 
see if the band is open to Larry's even when he is not home while I 
am mobile and in the tunnel near LAX.  That's not fair to Larry 
however.  We have to be realistic.  Before a beacon is placed on the 
air we need to consider everyone and that is what we are doing in 
this email exchange.  To expect a beacon to come close to matching 
performance with a home station is asking a bit too much.


73  Chip N6CA