We have been over this many times. If a system is balanced with a receiver at -116 dBm running 50 watts of power, then it will be balanced with 200 watts and a properly deployed preamp adding 6 dB of gain. The added power level on the repeater transmitter helps with noise that is common in urban locations experienced by the mobile; noise that is not experienced by the repeater receiver. Most commercial vendors will tell you a system is balanced with 100 watts and a receiver at -116 dBm. That mentality would require 400 watts to remain balanced with a mere 6 dB (easy) preamp improvement.
Why is it that folks think that if you are running more than 100 watts of power that AUTOMATICALLY it qualifies as an alligator? I have two repeaters that run in excess of 200 watts - neither of them have EVER been considered an alligator. In fact, both are nicely balanced with a rural run 50 watt Japanese mobile. Kevin Custer > The question that pops into my mind concerns the proposed 200 watt power > amplifier. I have to wonder where the notion to run an alligator system > originated. I see four possible answers: > 1. We have this 200 watt amplifier, so we are duty-bound to use it > regardless of whether it is necessary or not. > 2. We subscribe to the policy that more power is always better, and it > always increases coverage. > 3. We have performed a thorough analysis of coverage, and have determined > that less power will result in insufficient coverage. > 4. We know that 50 watts is enough, but a real powerhouse station will give > us bragging rights. > > Once again, I must recall my favorite repeater-coverage dictum: Repeater > coverage is determined by receiver performance, not by transmitter power. > > 73, Eric Lemmon WB6FLY
