Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="moonbase" data-source="post: 1126511" data-attributes="member: 178786">[USER=354768]@butchyboy[/USER]A couple of weeks back I compared a 25m run of WF125 with a 25m run of WF100 from the same dish and same LNB using the same satellite receiver on several different satellites.The result was that there was possibly a 0.1db to 0.2db higher signal level achieved with the WF125. The test was carried out using the same output port from the LNB.The purpose of the test was to see if it was worth replacing some WF100 cable runs with WF125 for locking some extreme fringe UK signals such as those from 25.5 East in Ku-BandI had previously achieved some transient locks on a couple of frquencies from this satellite and was hoping that there might be just enough increase from WF125 cable to keep stable locksSignal levels generally fluctuate by around 0.1dB to 0.2dB as viewed in the signal level readout from the receiver.However, by measuring a number of different frequencies from the same satellite and averaging the signal level per cable type I concluded that the WF125 had the marginal edge but it was close to the expected fluctuational level.As for the outcome of the test, it helped to keep the transient locks from 25.5 East for a slightly longer period.At my location in the UK, the signal levels of Ku-Band frequencies from 25.5 East are time dependent, they follow a pattern over the course of a day and have a time when they are at their maximum.The WF125 cable very slightly extended this time window but was not sufficient to justify replacing the existing cable runs of WF100.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="moonbase, post: 1126511, member: 178786"] [USER=354768]@butchyboy[/USER] A couple of weeks back I compared a 25m run of WF125 with a 25m run of WF100 from the same dish and same LNB using the same satellite receiver on several different satellites. The result was that there was possibly a 0.1db to 0.2db higher signal level achieved with the WF125. The test was carried out using the same output port from the LNB. The purpose of the test was to see if it was worth replacing some WF100 cable runs with WF125 for locking some extreme fringe UK signals such as those from 25.5 East in Ku-Band I had previously achieved some transient locks on a couple of frquencies from this satellite and was hoping that there might be just enough increase from WF125 cable to keep stable locks Signal levels generally fluctuate by around 0.1dB to 0.2dB as viewed in the signal level readout from the receiver. However, by measuring a number of different frequencies from the same satellite and averaging the signal level per cable type I concluded that the WF125 had the marginal edge but it was close to the expected fluctuational level. As for the outcome of the test, it helped to keep the transient locks from 25.5 East for a slightly longer period. At my location in the UK, the signal levels of Ku-Band frequencies from 25.5 East are time dependent, they follow a pattern over the course of a day and have a time when they are at their maximum. The WF125 cable very slightly extended this time window but was not sufficient to justify replacing the existing cable runs of WF100. [/QUOTE]

Verification