I had them tuned because I had just bought them and didn't 
really trust that they were right.  They were very far out 
so it's good that I got them tuned.  I was having the same 
problem as now though very poor receive.  Right now I have 
a radio on there for receive that was getting about 30 
miles of coverage as an Echolink link node with home made 
antenna and now hooked up to the repeater using a big Tram 
Dualband antenna through the duplexer I am lucky if I am 
getting 3 miles.

So I don't think the repeater's built in receiver is the 
problem which leads me to either desense or a bad antenna 
cable.  Transmit is getting out very well and the swr is 
almost 1 to 1 so I think the cable is OK.  I am running 
LMR 400 up the tower 95% of the way.  I just have a short 
coax jumper that goes into the antenna.

I am going to try to split them and see what I get.

Thanks,
Vern
KI4ONW

On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 12:50:48 -0500
  "Steve S. Bosshard (NU5D)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Time for an isolated TEE test with a dummy load.  Why 
>did you have the 
> duplexers tuned ?  Was there a problem prior?
> 
> You should be able to split the duplexer without any 
>trouble - just mark 
> things so you can go back as it was.
> 
> Best luck and 73, Steve NU5D
> 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> I am having some receive problems on my repeater and I 
>>am 
>> thinking that it might be desense.  I am on 2M running a 
>> MASRII repeater with a Decibal Products band reject 6 
>>can 
>> duplexer.
>>
>> While I can key the repeater from a pretty good distance 
>> the audio that makes it through the repeater drops off 
>> pretty quickly.  I just had the duplexers tuned and they 
>> are tuned very well.
>>
>> So on to my question.  If I were to take and seperate 
>>the 
>> recv cans from the xmit cans and run to 2 seperate 
>> antennas would that mess up the duplexer tuning?  will 
>>20' 
>> of vertical seperation plus the cans and the fact that I 
>> would be running through seperate cable, make a 
>> difference?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Vern
>> KI4ONW
>>
>>   
> 

Reply via email to