Hi Steve, I don't recall ever seeing that done. What was the purpose of using an isolator there?
As to toasting the isolator, if you should loose the antenna etc. there would be a short at the tx frequency rather than a load (assuming there is some kind of cavity between isolator and receiver). 73 Gary K4FMX > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:Repeater- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve S. Bosshard (NU5D) > Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2007 9:35 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Cable formula > > That (isolator in place of tee) is how moto configured their Q package > UHF Med Radio. The receive port gets the receive signal plus reflected > energy that the preselector bounced back...never heard of that damaging > an isolator, matter of fact, aside from burning up too small loads or > lightning, I have never run into a damaged isolator, but I am sure there > are instances - I have 14, 800 mhz smr boxes, and 80, 800 EDACS > stations, plus 30 something UHF repeaters, I can only recall one piston > capacitor failure on a telewave dual junction job. Steve NU5D. > > Gary Schafer wrote: > > Why would you ever want to do that? Unless you like destroying > isolators. > > :>) > > > > 73 > > Gary K4FMX > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: [email protected] [mailto:Repeater- > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve S. Bosshard (NU5D) > >> Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2007 8:52 PM > >> To: [email protected] > >> Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Cable formula > >> > >> That would be the typical installation, unless you install the isolator > >> at the output of the duplexer with the #1 (input) toward the TX > >> cavities, #3 (load) toward the receive cavities, and #2 port (output) > >> toward the antenna, used in place of the TEE fitting. Steve NU5D > >> > >> > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> > >>> Doesn't the isolator typically installed at the transmitter output > >>> spin off any anything reflected from the duplexer (or the > >>> feedline) into it's load? > >>> > >>> > >>> In a message dated 7/1/2007 5:33:33 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > >>> > >>> But at some off frequency that is not 50+j0 > >>> that impedance is going to get transformed into something yet > >>> again by the > >>> time the cable reaches the transmitter. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > >
