"Mark Carver" <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote in message news:jgohnbFbr9cU1@mid.individual.net...
It's here
One bit that caught my eye, '....power was increased 12 fold....'
<sigh>
How much was the power actually increased? Was it an increase by 12
dB. You'd expect a report by Ofcom would either use the correct powers
(eg "from 100 W to 300 W") or else the correct increase in dB (eg
"from 10 dBW to 20 dBW") - fictitious figures. If the report is
intended to be read by non-technical people, I'd use both notations -
or even only quote powers in watts, on the assumption that dB don't
mean a lot to non-technical people.
The report doesn't seem to include any "from/to" information, either
in W or dB. just that weird "12-fold increase".
It's here
One bit that caught my eye, '....power was increased 12 fold....'
<sigh>
It's here
One bit that caught my eye, '....power was increased 12 fold....'
<sigh>
<htttps......Fire>
On 13/06/2022 11:26, Mark Carver wrote:20Bilsdale%20Transmitter%20Fire+CID_f0eb3b7bec923a10c52b1eddb5031537&utm_source=updates&utm_term=review%20of%20the%20Bilsdale%20Transmitter%20Fire>
It's hereTry this
One bit that caught my eye, '....power was increased 12 fold....'
<sigh>
<htttps......Fire>
<https://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-and-on-demand/information-for-industry/tv?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Ofcom%20publishes%20incident%20review%20following%20Bilsdale%20Transmitter%20Fire&utm_content=Ofcom%20publishes%20incident%20review%20following%
On 13/06/2022 11:45, NY wrote:
"Mark Carver" <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:jgohnbFbr9cU1@mid.individual.net...
It's here
One bit that caught my eye, '....power was increased 12 fold....'
<sigh>
How much was the power actually increased? Was it an increase by 12 dB.
You'd expect a report by Ofcom would either use the correct powers (eg
"from 100 W to 300 W") or else the correct increase in dB (eg "from 10
dBW to 20 dBW") - fictitious figures. If the report is intended to be
read by non-technical people, I'd use both notations - or even only quote
powers in watts, on the assumption that dB don't mean a lot to
non-technical people.
The report doesn't seem to include any "from/to" information, either in W
or dB. just that weird "12-fold increase".
Well, decibels are meaningless without a reference.
If the power was increased by a factor of 12, then that is a 10.8 dB increase. We don't know what the starting (or finishing values) were
It's here
One bit that caught my eye, '....power was increased 12 fold....'
<sigh>
"Mark Carver" <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote in message news:jgohnbFbr9cU1@mid.individual.net...
It's here
One bit that caught my eye, '....power was increased 12 fold....'
<sigh>
How much was the power actually increased? Was it an increase by 12 dB.
You'd expect a report by Ofcom would either use the correct powers (eg
"from 100 W to 300 W") or else the correct increase in dB (eg "from 10
dBW to 20 dBW") - fictitious figures. If the report is intended to be
read by non-technical people, I'd use both notations - or even only
quote powers in watts, on the assumption that dB don't mean a lot to non-technical people.
The report doesn't seem to include any "from/to" information, either in
W or dB. just that weird "12-fold increase".
On 13/06/2022 11:45, NY wrote:
The report doesn't seem to include any "from/to" information, either in W
or dB. just that weird "12-fold increase".
10dBW to 20 dBW is not an increase, it is two <absolute> power levels, the larger is a factor of 10 greater than the smaller figure.
Mark Carver <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
It's here<htttps://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-and-on-demand/information-for-indust ry/tv?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Ofcom%20publishes%20incident%20revie w%20following%20Bilsdale%20Transmitter%20Fire&utm_content=Ofcom%20publis hes%20incident%20review%20following%20Bilsdale%20Transmitter%20Fire+CID_ f0eb3b7bec923a10c52b1eddb5031537&utm_source=updates&utm_term=review%20of %20the%20Bilsdale%20Transmitter%20Fire>
One bit that caught my eye, '....power was increased 12 fold....'
<sigh>
Without proper information about what caused the fire, why it involved
the mast and what proposals there are to prevent the same thing
happening again, the report is pointless. Surely those should have been
the main points of the report, not the history of the site and how
services were restored, repeated over and over again.
It's here20Bilsdale%20Transmitter%20Fire+CID_f0eb3b7bec923a10c52b1eddb5031537&utm_source=updates&utm_term=review%20of%20the%20Bilsdale%20Transmitter%20Fire>
One bit that caught my eye, '....power was increased 12 fold....'
<sigh>
<htttps://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-and-on-demand/information-for-industry/tv?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Ofcom%20publishes%20incident%20review%20following%20Bilsdale%20Transmitter%20Fire&utm_content=Ofcom%20publishes%20incident%20review%20following%
Mark Carver <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
It's here<htttps://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-and-on-demand/information-for-indust ry/tv?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Ofcom%20publishes%20incident%20revie w%20following%20Bilsdale%20Transmitter%20Fire&utm_content=Ofcom%20publis hes%20incident%20review%20following%20Bilsdale%20Transmitter%20Fire+CID_ f0eb3b7bec923a10c52b1eddb5031537&utm_source=updates&utm_term=review%20of %20the%20Bilsdale%20Transmitter%20Fire>
One bit that caught my eye, '....power was increased 12 fold....'
<sigh>
Without proper information about what caused the fire, why it involved
the mast and what proposals there are to prevent the same thing
happening again, the report is pointless. Surely those should have been
the main points of the report, not the history of the site and how
services were restored, repeated over and over again.
--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk
On 13/06/2022 18:13, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Without proper information about what caused the fire, why it involvedThat seems to me harsh.
the mast and what proposals there are to prevent the same thing
happening again, the report is pointless. Surely those should have been
the main points of the report, not the history of the site and how
services were restored, repeated over and over again.
On the one hand, it seems to me there are many potential lessons to be
learnt irrespective of what caused the fire. I don't see that the consequences of the loss of the transmitter and mast plus the exclusion
zone as a result of a fire are necessarily - or even probably -
different from the same consequences as a result of e.g. an aircraft
crashing into the site or terrorist action by the Yorkshire Dialect
Brigade.
On the other hand, AFAIK neither Ofcom nor anyone else has the same
power as e.g. the Rail Accident Investigation Branch to investigate and report on stuff like the causes of the Bilsdale fire irrespective of any criminal or civil cases which are or may be live. So it's easy to
imagine reasons why Ofcom simply go there.
Agreed. The report is by the organisation responsible for maintaining
and restoring the services, and they don't care what caused the problem,
they are merely explaining what they did to react to it and have done to prevent similar problems in future.
MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
On 14/06/2022 18:21, John Williamson wrote:
Agreed. The report is by the organisation responsible for maintaining
and restoring the services, and they don't care what caused the problem, >>> they are merely explaining what they did to react to it and have done to >>> prevent similar problems in future.
Do the reports ever get made publicly available. I never saw a report
on the causes of the Eitshal 'fire'.
As mentioned by Robin, the Rail Accident Investigation Branch publish
very full and searching reports to make sure the causes of railway
accidents are understood and dealt with. Perhaps it was naïve of me to
hope for the same breadth of searching enquiry from Ofcom.
On 14/06/2022 18:21, John Williamson wrote:
Agreed. The report is by the organisation responsible for maintaining
and restoring the services, and they don't care what caused the problem, they are merely explaining what they did to react to it and have done to prevent similar problems in future.
Do the reports ever get made publicly available. I never saw a report
on the causes of the Eitshal 'fire'.
The RAIB has statutory duties and powers to investigate railway
accidents. As John Williamson indicated, Ofcom don't. Indeed, I'd
expect them to face questions from their sponsoring department and from Parliament if they paid for investigations into the causes of a fire in
a commercial company's facility.
It was a bloody great bolt of lightning wasn't it ?
I'm told the IBA transmitters were relatively undamaged, the BBC kit was toast.
Proves that God is an ITV viewer I suppose ?
On 14/06/2022 21:38, Robin wrote:
The RAIB has statutory duties and powers to investigate railway
accidents. As John Williamson indicated, Ofcom don't. Indeed, I'd
expect them to face questions from their sponsoring department and from
Parliament if they paid for investigations into the causes of a fire in
a commercial company's facility.
I would think the safety of the mast or tower is effectively regulated
by the insurance companies. Do OFCOM get involved in that?
Do the reports ever get made publicly available. I never saw a report
on the causes of the Eitshal 'fire'.
On 15/06/2022 08:33, Mark Carver wrote:
It was a bloody great bolt of lightning wasn't it ?
I'm told the IBA transmitters were relatively undamaged, the BBC kit was
toast.
Proves that God is an ITV viewer I suppose ?
The general consensus was that it was not the classic "bolt of
lightning" but I never saw the report.
Most of the damage was from from the smoke.
On 14/06/2022 21:38, Robin wrote:
The RAIB has statutory duties and powers to investigate railway
accidents. As John Williamson indicated, Ofcom don't. Indeed, I'd
expect them to face questions from their sponsoring department and from
Parliament if they paid for investigations into the causes of a fire in
a commercial company's facility.
I would think the safety of the mast or tower is effectively regulated
by the insurance companies. Do OFCOM get involved in that?
On 14/06/2022 21:14, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
On 14/06/2022 18:21, John Williamson wrote:
Agreed. The report is by the organisation responsible for maintaining
and restoring the services, and they don't care what caused the problem, >>> they are merely explaining what they did to react to it and have done to >>> prevent similar problems in future.
Do the reports ever get made publicly available. I never saw a report
on the causes of the Eitshal 'fire'.
As mentioned by Robin, the Rail Accident Investigation Branch publish
very full and searching reports to make sure the causes of railway accidents are understood and dealt with. Perhaps it was naïve of me to hope for the same breadth of searching enquiry from Ofcom.
The RAIB has statutory duties and powers to investigate railway
accidents. As John Williamson indicated, Ofcom don't. Indeed, I'd
expect them to face questions from their sponsoring department and from Parliament if they paid for investigations into the causes of a fire in
a commercial company's facility.
Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
On 14/06/2022 21:14, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
On 14/06/2022 18:21, John Williamson wrote:
Agreed. The report is by the organisation responsible for maintaining >>>>> and restoring the services, and they don't care what caused the problem, >>>>> they are merely explaining what they did to react to it and have done to >>>>> prevent similar problems in future.
Do the reports ever get made publicly available. I never saw a report >>>> on the causes of the Eitshal 'fire'.
As mentioned by Robin, the Rail Accident Investigation Branch publish
very full and searching reports to make sure the causes of railway
accidents are understood and dealt with. Perhaps it was naïve of me to >>> hope for the same breadth of searching enquiry from Ofcom.
The RAIB has statutory duties and powers to investigate railway
accidents. As John Williamson indicated, Ofcom don't. Indeed, I'd
expect them to face questions from their sponsoring department and from
Parliament if they paid for investigations into the causes of a fire in
a commercial company's facility.
I would have thought that they could justify expenditure on measures
that would identify and help to prevent disasters that had the potential
to involve them in a lot of extra costs in the future.
If Ofcom, then I don't see that they incurred much additional cost.
If the company then where does it end? Should Ofcom spend time and
money reviewing the risks to other infrastructure across the whole of it patch - not just the broadcasters but also telephone and internet? And
not just risks from fire but also e.g. power failure, terrorism, hacking
and drunken JCB operatives?
For my part, I think Ofcom are right to stick to setting targets for reliability and leaving the license holders to decide what's needed to
meet them - in consultation where appropriate with people like the fire service and NCSC.
I'm told the IBA transmitters were relatively undamaged, the BBC kit was toast.
Proves that God is an ITV viewer I suppose ?
A bit unseasonal but:
While shepherds washed their socks by night
All watching ITV
The angel of the lord came down
And switched to BBC
and similar I would guess.
Proves that God is an ITV viewer I suppose ?
In that case add Durris to the list of (publicly) unexplained fires,
that was blamed on lightning ?
On 15/06/2022 08:51, MB wrote:
On 15/06/2022 08:33, Mark Carver wrote:In that case add Durris to the list of (publicly) unexplained fires,
It was a bloody great bolt of lightning wasn't it ?
I'm told the IBA transmitters were relatively undamaged, the BBC kit was >>> toast.
Proves that God is an ITV viewer I suppose ?
The general consensus was that it was not the classic "bolt of
lightning" but I never saw the report.
Most of the damage was from from the smoke.
that was blamed on lightning ?
MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
On 14/06/2022 18:21, John Williamson wrote:
Agreed. The report is by the organisation responsible for maintaining
and restoring the services, and they don't care what caused the problem, >> > they are merely explaining what they did to react to it and have done to >> > prevent similar problems in future.
Do the reports ever get made publicly available. I never saw a report
on the causes of the Eitshal 'fire'.
As mentioned by Robin, the Rail Accident Investigation Branch publish
very full and searching reports to make sure the causes of railway
accidents are understood and dealt with. Perhaps it was naïve of me to
hope for the same breadth of searching enquiry from Ofcom.
Fireworks my arse!..
Fireworks my arse!..
That phrase made me wince.
I understood that the lightning came in via the phone line. Most damage caused by a vapourised coil of Polypropelene rope.
On 15/06/2022 08:33, Mark Carver wrote:
It was a bloody great bolt of lightning wasn't it ?
I'm told the IBA transmitters were relatively undamaged, the BBC kit was toast.
Proves that God is an ITV viewer I suppose ?
The general consensus was that it was not the classic "bolt of
lightning" but I never saw the report.
Most of the damage was from from the smoke.
On Sat, 18 Jun 2022 08:56:22 +0100, Roderick Stewart ><rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
Fireworks my arse!..
That phrase made me wince.
That reminds me of 'Boggy':
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3U_YwUu_PNs
On 14/06/2022 21:38, Robin wrote:
The RAIB has statutory duties and powers to investigate railway
accidents. As John Williamson indicated, Ofcom don't. Indeed, I'd
expect them to face questions from their sponsoring department and from
Parliament if they paid for investigations into the causes of a fire in
a commercial company's facility.
I would think the safety of the mast or tower is effectively regulated
by the insurance companies. Do OFCOM get involved in that?
What I am wondering is that if 99.9% of listeners and viewers can now
receive the same programming via the temporary transmitters, why do
they want to spend lots of money reinstating Bilsdale, and putting the >temporary stuff into store or scrapping it? The remaingin few dozen who
can't receive the servoce could probably be fed by micro transmitters
mounted in something that look almost exactly like a cellphone base
station. Why not just leave the temporary sites in place, substituting >temporary masts and transmitters with permanent ones as and when the >maintenance schedule requires it?
A big mast at Bilsdale made sense when it was built, but a lot of
smaller sites are far more resilient to problems, and with modern
technology, it is as almost as easy to link a dozen small sites near
urban centres to power and data as one large remote site.
On Wed, 15 Jun 2022 at 08:47:56, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote (my responses
I would think the safety of the mast or tower is effectively regulated
by the insurance companies. Do OFCOM get involved in that?
Presumably that depends on what the insurance cover was supposed to
provide. I would imagine it covers the cost of the replacement of
buildings and equipment. Whether it also covers temporary service
provision in the meantime (and possibly interaction with planning
authorities if regulations have changed since the original was built
such that simple replacement is not possible [or requires concessions]),
is probably what determines how involved OfCom are.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 99:51:11 |
| Calls: | 6,659 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,208 |
| Messages: | 5,334,676 |