I was thinking it should be 39 Watts. The 4 Watt HT added to the 35 Watt rating 
of the Duplexer.

--- In Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com, "Joel Liburd" <v44...@...> wrote:
>
> No, and no.
> Your repeater would be putting out about 65 - 85 % of your 4 watts, based on 
> the type of duplexer setup.
>  
> v44kai.....Joel. 
>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: x.tait.tech 
>   To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com 
>   Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 4:47 AM
>   Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Radio or Duplex watts
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   yeah no, i have no problem with any of that, what i did have a concern 
> over, was my misunderstanding of the way the question was asked
> 
> 
> 
>     " If I would to use 2 HT radios that are 4 watts each and a duplexer that 
> is 35 watts to build a portable repeater, would my repeater be 4 watts or 35 
> watts? "
>   Marcus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 3:24 AM, Mike Morris <wa6i...@...> wrote:
> 
>       
>     Actually a duplexer does have a wattage - it has a 
>     power LIMIT.
> 
>     The small chinese duplexers use a tiny, low voltage 
>     capacitor inside each stage and the have a limit of 
>     35-40 watts.
>     I have a small duplexer here that has a limit of 50 watts and 
>     a large rack mount unit that has a limit of several hundred watts.
> 
>     Things aren't pretty when a duplexer arcs over internally.  
>     You have half a chance of repairing the ones that are 
>     bolted together.  The ones that are welded together 
>     make halfway decent doorstops.
> 
>     Mike
> 
> 
> 
>     At 11:24 PM 05/26/10, you wrote:
> 
> 
>       A Duplexer has no wattage as it is neither a Transmiter nor Reciever
>       i am trying to understand your 35 watts point
> 
>       Marcus
> 
> 
> 
>       On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 6:00 PM, kf7eec <michaelh...@...> wrote:
> 
>          
> 
> 
>         If I would to use 2 HT radios that are 4 watts each and a duplexer 
> that is 35 watts to build a portable repeater, would my repeater be 4 watts 
> or 35 watts?
> 
> 
>         Thanks!
> 
> 
>         Michael
> 
>         KF7EEC
>


Reply via email to