That's what she said Sent from my iPhone
> On Jun 7, 2017, at 8:26 PM, Lewis Bergman <lewis.berg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Normally size is not a good determinate for quality. It just limits the input > power. There are some good sub 50 watt out there. If you use those you should > at least use a preselector. Really, if you are colocated at all you should. > > >> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017, 7:51 PM Jaime Solorza <losguyswirel...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Be the hero dude...fix it and move on.. >> >>> On Jun 7, 2017 6:42 PM, "Chuck McCown" <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote: >>> Helical resonator duplexers can be almost as good as quarter wave duplexers >>> and much smaller. >>> >>> From: George Skorup >>> Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2017 5:56 PM >>> To: af@afmug.com >>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Interference on a repeater at 149 MHz >>> >>> We have a local school district co-located with us on a water tower and >>> they're complaining about noise on their input. I pretty much told them >>> they're SOL until we need to add or replace cables since they're all in an >>> 1-1/4" PVC. So we'll have to run temp cables up, rip all the cables out of >>> the pipe and pull new ones. The village said we have to be in conduit. And >>> we do have a couple cables in use that aren't shielded. They didn't offer >>> to pay for it, so too bad. >>> >>> They're running a Kenwood repeater in an outdoor cabinet. Maybe 12U. >>> Obviously that's not going to fit the proper large can cavity duplexer like >>> a Sinclair. Plus they have >4.5MHz split, so no doubt that let them use a >>> smaller rack-mounted duplexer. >>> >>> So I'd be curious to know what the setup is on this 149MHz repeater. Are >>> they using a small crappy duplexer with a large split, too? >>> >>>> On 6/7/2017 5:55 PM, Lewis Bergman wrote: >>>> I don't think so. I am assuming they probably didn't install some >>>> connectors correctly. Unless they are using some extremely crappy gear the >>>> RF portions of all half decent repeaters are shielded very well. Unless >>>> they modified the repeater leaving some shielding off the connectors are >>>> the most likely source. I guess there could also be punctures or some such >>>> in the coax as well. >>>> >>>>> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 5:51 PM Jaime Solorza <losguyswirel...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> Lewis. You are assuming the VHF gear was properly installed...few folks >>>>> do right first time... someones laziness or lack of knowledge is >>>>> another's opportunity to make some cash >>>>> >>>>>> On Jun 7, 2017 4:41 PM, "Lewis Bergman" <lewis.berg...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> Has anyone checked their connectors/connections between all RF points? >>>>>> Antenna to cable, cable to duplexer, duplexer TX/RX to repeater. >>>>>> >>>>>> Most of the time I have seen Two Way equipment either be interfered with >>>>>> or interfere with someone else it is a connector issue. The only other >>>>>> case I have seen issues should be able to be determined by an intermod >>>>>> study. I doubt it has anything to do with intermod. My bet is a faulty >>>>>> connector. I would assume it is the RX side so I would check the RX >>>>>> Repeater port to the RX port on the duplexer and then the rest of the >>>>>> connectors. >>>>>> >>>>>> Not saying it can't be the the CAT5, just that if all is good on the >>>>>> antenna system I haven't ever seen an issue and I have a lot of sites >>>>>> with both two way and 900, 2.4, and 5GHz operating on all kinds of >>>>>> speeds both POE and not. >>>
