[WARC] Re: KAGE Repeater Site Upgrade planning

[Erik Brom]

Les,
Thanks for the comments.  That's why we put the list out there.  Only 
a couple general comments from me:

The equipment at the site is functioning well, but reaching the end 
of its life.  The idea is to replace it to improve the reliability.

There is no indication there is any issue with the duplexors.  Just 
that since we are doing all this work, we want to make sure they are 
also in top shape.  I wouldn't anticipate replacing "internal" cables 
unless they are found to be faulty.

I'm not an expert on the cables or antennas, but in my original list 
I asked for "equivalent or one step better" on those items.  I would 
like all items, inside and out, to be as high quality as we can 
reasonably accomplish.

What is the life expectancy of the Andrews feedline?  If its not near 
the end of its life, then we wouldn't need to replace it unless we 
found it to be damaged.

I don't know if the Kendicom repeater is really what we would want, 
but the costs should be representative, I would hope.  The same goes 
for many other items - we may or may not go with exactly what is on 
the list, but it gives us an idea of the cost.  I do want to make 
sure the new repeaters have the capability to support the linking and 
other new modes we want to do, but have not defined yet.

Erik



At 09:16 PM 05/09/08, Leslie Hittner wrote:
>I have taken a look at the suggested upgrades to the KAGE
>repeater site and have a few comments to make. I have also
>embedded some comments in the update planning spreadsheet
>(attached).
>
>I am mostly concerned about the antennas and various feedlines -
>both outside and inside.
>
>It also feels like we are replacing some things just to replace
>them - especially when the replacements do not represent
>significant improvements and especially when there is no
>documented evidence that some of the items are faulty and in
>need of replacing.
>
>No one likes to climb towers. That's why we should put the best
>darned hardware we can on that tower. Comet does not fit that
>description. It was a step down from the Hustler, when we should
>have been taking a step up from it. It's time to correct that
>error. If we are going to spend $1,000 for a man to climb the
>tower, then we best not skimp on the hardware we are asking him
>to put up there.
>
>I have some other comments embedded in the spreadsheet.
>
>I'll take your shots now...
>
>-Les
>
>