At 3/10/2010 02:42, you wrote: >On Mar 9, 2010, at 8:37 PM, n...@no6b.com wrote: > > > t most certainly does. Try random length cables from the cavities to the > > T instead of 1/4 wavelength (like one local did several years ago) & watch > > your sensitivity drop by over 20 dB if you're unlucky (as he was). That > > mistake literally killed off a local radio club, as few of the members > were > > able to use the repeater following the addition of the T & wrong cables. > >Thanks both Bob and Skipp for explaining that one odd-ball configuration >that would crush the receivers with random cable lengths that just happen >to hit the right "sweet spot" to do this. > >I suspect, that if someone saw a 20 dB loss while installing this setup, >they'd at least STOP and start asking questions -- maybe they wouldn't >"get it" that they'd hit this "perfect storm" combination -- maybe they'd >think they had some kind of receiver failure when it suddenly was "really >deaf" -- but I also doubt that *most* people would hit the problem. > >Would you agree with that assessment? (Skipp's comment that if there's a >train wreck to be found, he'll be there... I know that feeling.)
In this case, the owner wrote the poor sensitivity off to site noise. The club was based a good 30 miles from the repeater, but before it was transferred it worked just fine in the target area. After the system was modified/deafened, an article was written in the club newsletter explaining how the repeater was too far away from the club's user base for HTs to work there. Funny how after the repeater was sold off to yet another trustee, it suddenly began to receive well again. That's when I found out what was done that made it so deaf in the interim. Bob NO6B
