https://www.arqiva.com/news-views/news/update-on-incident-at-bilsdale-mast
Arqiva have just updated the page and say "the damage caused by the
fire means it is probable that the existing mast will have to be
dismantled".
No great surprise there, but sad that it can't be saved. I wonder how
long the final replacement will take to erect and configure.
On 08/09/2021 16:20, NY wrote:
https://www.arqiva.com/news-views/news/update-on-incident-at-bilsdale-mast >>
Arqiva have just updated the page and say "the damage caused by the
fire means it is probable that the existing mast will have to be
dismantled".
No great surprise there, but sad that it can't be saved. I wonder how
long the final replacement will take to erect and configure.
As I said weeks ago in here, taking the Peterborough rebuild in 2004/5
as a reference, about 15-18 months
On 08/09/2021 17:30, Mark Carver wrote:
On 08/09/2021 16:20, NY wrote:
https://www.arqiva.com/news-views/news/update-on-incident-at-bilsdale-mast >>>
Arqiva have just updated the page and say "the damage caused by the
fire means it is probable that the existing mast will have to be
dismantled".
No great surprise there, but sad that it can't be saved. I wonder how
long the final replacement will take to erect and configure.
As I said weeks ago in here, taking the Peterborough rebuild in 2004/5
as a reference, about 15-18 months
If they need to bother. How many of the people in that area can't receive
one or more of the "temporary" relays and don't have a decent broadband
speed yet?
Probably cheaper to set up a mesh of microwave or optic fibre linked
little ones nowadays than a humungous great mast.
Is it fair that all the people who want what they had before (good
reception of all six/seven multiplexes) have to pay extra for satellite
plus the kit to receive/record it which they already have - but for
terrestrial.
Freesat only requires the equivalent of a new TV aerial which can be
mounted at or just above ground level in many cases, and a cheap decoder (Many modern sets include such a decoder as part of their circuitry) and there are very few channels, if any, on Freeview that are not on Freesat, from what I remember. If you want subscription services, (Which need a satellite dish or decent broadband anyway) all you need is a card to put
in the slot and maybe slightly redirect the dish, unless things have
changed lately. My not very smart and cheap decoder could record to a USB stick quite happily.
"John Williamson" <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:ipsgjoF80tgU1@mid.individual.net...
Is it fair that all the people who want what they had before (good
reception of all six/seven multiplexes) have to pay extra for satellite
plus the kit to receive/record it which they already have - but for
terrestrial.
Freesat only requires the equivalent of a new TV aerial which can be
mounted at or just above ground level in many cases, and a cheap
decoder (Many modern sets include such a decoder as part of their
circuitry) and there are very few channels, if any, on Freeview that
are not on Freesat, from what I remember. If you want subscription
services, (Which need a satellite dish or decent broadband anyway) all
you need is a card to put in the slot and maybe slightly redirect the
dish, unless things have changed lately. My not very smart and cheap
decoder could record to a USB stick quite happily.
Yes - *modern* TVs often include both satellite and terrestrial
decoders. I imagine the same is true for modern PVRs. But older ones
(even as recent as 2010 when we bought a TV) only came with terrestrial decoders (analogue and digital).
A separate Freesat decoder is fine for a TV: it is as easy to change
channel on an STB (with the TV kept on HDMI input) as it is to change
channel on the TV itself. The same is not true for recorders: you need
to be physically present to change channel if you want to record first
from one channel and then another. Unless Freesat decoders are now
coming with built-in recording and playback capabilities - it's ages
since I've looked at the product range. (*)
"John Williamson" <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:ipsct3F7ai9U1@mid.individual.net...
On 08/09/2021 17:30, Mark Carver wrote:
On 08/09/2021 16:20, NY wrote:
https://www.arqiva.com/news-views/news/update-on-incident-at-bilsdale-mast >>>>
Arqiva have just updated the page and say "the damage caused by the
fire means it is probable that the existing mast will have to be
dismantled".
No great surprise there, but sad that it can't be saved. I wonder how
long the final replacement will take to erect and configure.
As I said weeks ago in here, taking the Peterborough rebuild in 2004/5
as a reference, about 15-18 months
If they need to bother. How many of the people in that area can't
receive one or more of the "temporary" relays and don't have a decent
broadband speed yet?
Probably cheaper to set up a mesh of microwave or optic fibre linked
little ones nowadays than a humungous great mast.
The temporary relays are (AFAIK) all Freeview-Lite: they have PSB1,2,3
but not COM4,5,6,7. They will be a lot weaker signal, so people who previously had glitch-free reception will have lots of drop-outs. And
because the temporary masts are/will be a lot lower than Bilsdale, there
will be a lot more shadow areas that get no reception.
People in small rural communities tend to be too sparsely spread out for
it to be worth BT installing FTTC to a green cabinet - because some
people will be too far away for VDSL to give a reasonable speed. It's a
shame BT don't offer FTTC with ADSL from cabinet to house: ADSL is not
as fast as VDSL, but will give better speeds for copper from a cabinet
that is a few hundred metres away than for copper that goes several
miles back to the exchange.
Is it fair that all the people who want what they had before (good
reception of all six/seven multiplexes) have to pay extra for satellite
plus the kit to receive/record it which they already have - but for terrestrial.
It's a shame BT don't offer FTTC with ADSL from cabinet to house: ADSL
is not as fast as VDSL
On 08/09/2021 16:20, NY wrote:
https://www.arqiva.com/news-views/news/update-on-incident-at-bilsdale-mast >>
Arqiva have just updated the page and say "the damage caused by the
fire means it is probable that the existing mast will have to be
dismantled".
No great surprise there, but sad that it can't be saved. I wonder how
long the final replacement will take to erect and configure.
As I said weeks ago in here, taking the Peterborough rebuild in 2004/5
as a reference, about 15-18 months
Freesat only requires the equivalent of a new TV aerial which can be
mounted at or just above ground level in many cases, and a cheap decoder (Many modern sets include such a decoder as part of their circuitry) and there are very few channels, if any, on Freeview that are not on
Freesat, from what I remember. If you want subscription services, (Which
need a satellite dish or decent broadband anyway) all you need is a card
to put in the slot and maybe slightly redirect the dish, unless things
have changed lately. My not very smart and cheap decoder could record to
a USB stick quite happily.
A separate Freesat decoder is fine for a TV: it is as easy to change
channel on an STB (with the TV kept on HDMI input) as it is to change
channel on the TV itself. The same is not true for recorders: you need
to be physically present to change channel if you want to record first
from one channel and then another. Unless Freesat decoders are now
coming with built-in recording and playback capabilities - it's ages
since I've looked at the product range.
Is it fair that all the people who want what they had before (good
reception of all six/seven multiplexes) have to pay extra for satellite
plus the kit to receive/record it which they already have - but for terrestrial.
The temporary relays are (AFAIK) all Freeview-Lite: they have PSB1,2,3
but not COM4,5,6,7.
On 08/09/2021 20:37, NY wrote:
A separate Freesat decoder is fine for a TV: it is as easy to change
channel on an STB (with the TV kept on HDMI input) as it is to change
channel on the TV itself. The same is not true for recorders: you need
to be physically present to change channel if you want to record first
from one channel and then another. Unless Freesat decoders are now
coming with built-in recording and playback capabilities - it's ages
since I've looked at the product range.
Freesat recorders operate just like Freeview recorders. Programme guide,
set your recordings, series links, etc.
Bill
On 08/09/2021 19:45, NY wrote:
"John Williamson" <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote in messageFair enough. Though depending on the topography, there must be a lot of shadow areas from Bilsdale as well, as the signal is pretty much
news:ipsct3F7ai9U1@mid.individual.net...
On 08/09/2021 17:30, Mark Carver wrote:
On 08/09/2021 16:20, NY wrote:
https://www.arqiva.com/news-views/news/update-on-incident-at-bilsdale-mast
Arqiva have just updated the page and say "the damage caused by the
fire means it is probable that the existing mast will have to be
dismantled".
No great surprise there, but sad that it can't be saved. I wonder how >>>>> long the final replacement will take to erect and configure.
As I said weeks ago in here, taking the Peterborough rebuild in 2004/5 >>>> as a reference, about 15-18 months
If they need to bother. How many of the people in that area can't
receive one or more of the "temporary" relays and don't have a decent
broadband speed yet?
Probably cheaper to set up a mesh of microwave or optic fibre linked
little ones nowadays than a humungous great mast.
The temporary relays are (AFAIK) all Freeview-Lite: they have PSB1,2,3
but not COM4,5,6,7. They will be a lot weaker signal, so people who
previously had glitch-free reception will have lots of drop-outs. And
because the temporary masts are/will be a lot lower than Bilsdale, there
will be a lot more shadow areas that get no reception.
propagating horizontally at the edges of its range. Each local link would
be reasonably carefully sited to give the best coverage, I would assume,
not just dumped on a local small hill?
People in small rural communities tend to be too sparsely spread out forThat could be a good reason to force Beattie to upgrade the system.
it to be worth BT installing FTTC to a green cabinet - because some
people will be too far away for VDSL to give a reasonable speed. It's a
shame BT don't offer FTTC with ADSL from cabinet to house: ADSL is not
as fast as VDSL, but will give better speeds for copper from a cabinet
that is a few hundred metres away than for copper that goes several
miles back to the exchange.
Is it fair that all the people who want what they had before (good
reception of all six/seven multiplexes) have to pay extra for satellite
plus the kit to receive/record it which they already have - but for
terrestrial.
Freesat only requires the equivalent of a new TV aerial which can be
mounted at or just above ground level in many cases, and a cheap decoder (Many modern sets include such a decoder as part of their circuitry) and there are very few channels, if any, on Freeview that are not on Freesat, from what I remember. If you want subscription services, (Which need a satellite dish or decent broadband anyway) all you need is a card to put
in the slot and maybe slightly redirect the dish, unless things have
changed lately. My not very smart and cheap decoder could record to a USB stick quite happily.
(I used to live in a house which, despite being in a city, could not get
line of sight to any of the relatively close masts without a 15 metre long pole, which would have needed guys, attached to the chimney, but had a
free line of sight to the sky in the South, and I got the same channels as everyone else, plus quite a few non-local ones they couldn't get.)
--
Tciao for Now!
John.
"John Williamson" <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:ipsct3F7ai9U1@mid.individual.net...
On 08/09/2021 17:30, Mark Carver wrote:
On 08/09/2021 16:20, NY wrote:
https://www.arqiva.com/news-views/news/update-on-incident-at-bilsdale-mast >>>>
Arqiva have just updated the page and say "the damage caused by the
fire means it is probable that the existing mast will have to be
dismantled".
No great surprise there, but sad that it can't be saved. I wonder how
long the final replacement will take to erect and configure.
As I said weeks ago in here, taking the Peterborough rebuild in 2004/5
as a reference, about 15-18 months
If they need to bother. How many of the people in that area can't receive
one or more of the "temporary" relays and don't have a decent broadband
speed yet?
Probably cheaper to set up a mesh of microwave or optic fibre linked
little ones nowadays than a humungous great mast.
The temporary relays are (AFAIK) all Freeview-Lite: they have PSB1,2,3 but not COM4,5,6,7. They will be a lot weaker signal, so people who previously had glitch-free reception will have lots of drop-outs. And because the temporary masts are/will be a lot lower than Bilsdale, there will be a lot more shadow areas that get no reception.
People in small rural communities tend to be too sparsely spread out for
it to be worth BT installing FTTC to a green cabinet - because some people will be too far away for VDSL to give a reasonable speed. It's a shame BT don't offer FTTC with ADSL from cabinet to house: ADSL is not as fast as VDSL, but will give better speeds for copper from a cabinet that is a few hundred metres away than for copper that goes several miles back to the exchange.
Is it fair that all the people who want what they had before (good
reception of all six/seven multiplexes) have to pay extra for satellite
plus the kit to receive/record it which they already have - but for terrestrial.
On 08/09/2021 16:20, NY wrote:
https://www.arqiva.com/news-views/news/update-on-incident-at-bilsdale-mast >>
Arqiva have just updated the page and say "the damage caused by the fire
means it is probable that the existing mast will have to be dismantled".
No great surprise there, but sad that it can't be saved. I wonder how
long the final replacement will take to erect and configure.
As I said weeks ago in here, taking the Peterborough rebuild in 2004/5 as
a reference, about 15-18 months
On 08/09/2021 17:30, Mark Carver wrote:
On 08/09/2021 16:20, NY wrote:
https://www.arqiva.com/news-views/news/update-on-incident-at-bilsdale-mast >>>
Arqiva have just updated the page and say "the damage caused by the
fire means it is probable that the existing mast will have to be
dismantled".
No great surprise there, but sad that it can't be saved. I wonder how
long the final replacement will take to erect and configure.
As I said weeks ago in here, taking the Peterborough rebuild in 2004/5
as a reference, about 15-18 months
If they need to bother. How many of the people in that area can't receive
one or more of the "temporary" relays and don't have a decent broadband
speed yet?
Probably cheaper to set up a mesh of microwave or optic fibre linked
little ones nowadays than a humungous great mast.
--
Tciao for Now!
John.
In article <ips6ovF65huU2@mid.individual.net>, Mark Carver <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> scribeth thus
On 08/09/2021 16:20, NY wrote:
https://www.arqiva.com/news-views/news/update-on-incident-at-bilsdale-mast >>
Arqiva have just updated the page and say "the damage caused by the
fire means it is probable that the existing mast will have to be
dismantled".
No great surprise there, but sad that it can't be saved. I wonder how
long the final replacement will take to erect and configure.
As I said weeks ago in here, taking the Peterborough rebuild in 2004/5
as a reference, about 15-18 months
I expect that they are taking the view that even "if" the mast is stable enough, someone said it had bulged quite possible with the heat level
then that may well put it into an uncertain safety area. Of course you
cant chop out a bit and replace it with another with that sort of weight being several hundred tons.
Then they'll have to climb the inside of the thing soot that may well be carcinogenic as well as a very difficult to remove the shitty mess...
NY wrote:
It's a shame BT don't offer FTTC with ADSL from cabinet to house: ADSL is
not as fast as VDSL
But if BT were going to put any form of active kit into (or next to) why would they use ADSL instead of VDSL at this late stage?
Because ADSL works over a longer distance albeit at a lower speed.
Combined with FTTC it would still give the advantage of fibre to keep
the distance shorter than all-the-way-back-to-the-exchange, but could be
used at distances beyond which VDSL would give up and a router would
fail to sync at all.
NY wrote:
Because ADSL works over a longer distance albeit at a lower speed.
Combined with FTTC it would still give the advantage of fibre to keep the
distance shorter than all-the-way-back-to-the-exchange, but could be used
at distances beyond which VDSL would give up and a router would fail to
sync at all.
You'd think VDSL could drop to the same number of bins and bits per bin
that ADSL uses, i.e. be no worse?
Freesat recorders operate just like Freeview recorders. Programme guide,
set your recordings, series links, etc.
Bill
They do, bur to do so they require two connections to the LNB.
Jim
there are very few channels, if any, on Freeview that are not on
Freesat, from what I remember.
Do you think it was insured against fire damage? Brian
... unless forced by legislation
(as we are for car etc. insurance).
On Thu, 9 Sep 2021 at 08:17:03, "Brian Gaff (Sofa)" <briang1@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote (my responses usually follow points
raised):
Do you think it was insured against fire damage? BrianBig enough companies don't insure, if they can persuade whatever
authorities regulate that risk that they have enough assets to cover the liability insured against; all insurance is a bet, and overall, the only winner is the bookie (the insurance company) - it's cheaper to cover it yourself if your company is broad enough, unless forced by legislation (as
we are for car etc. insurance). I have no idea whether Arqiva are big
enough to think that way. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they weren't insured against the replacement costs, only third-party injury-type liabilities, and quite possibly not even those, if they were able to
persuade the relevant authorities they could cover the liability.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
"Bother," said Pooh, as Windows crashed into piglet.
I was thinking last night as to how one might go about dismantling such a tall structure safely. As its guyed, the minute you remove the anchor points of those you surely have an unsafe structure.
On 10/09/2021 09:19, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
I was thinking last night as to how one might go about dismantling such aThe mast is made up of welded together metal panels.
tall structure safely. As its guyed, the minute you remove the anchor
points
of those you surely have an unsafe structure.
The only safe way to get it down, is by pushing it over.
J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
... unless forced by legislation
(as we are for car etc. insurance).
There used to be an exemption from that if you were able to ring-fence
or deposit a large enough sum. I don't know if the law has changed
since the 1950s, which was when I heard about it.
On 10/09/2021 09:25, Mark Carver wrote:
On 10/09/2021 09:19, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
I was thinking last night as to how one might go about dismantlingThe mast is made up of welded together metal panels.
such a
tall structure safely. As its guyed, the minute you remove the
anchor points
of those you surely have an unsafe structure.
The only safe way to get it down, is by pushing it over.
But think of the birds!
Seriously, I suspect that getting permission to do that requires some
serious legal manoeuvring through the protections on the site; and
solid evidence that there really is no practicable alternative (not
just an even more expensive alternative).
On 10/09/2021 09:19, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
I was thinking last night as to how one might go about dismantling such aThe mast is made up of welded together metal panels.
tall structure safely. As its guyed, the minute you remove the anchor points >> of those you surely have an unsafe structure.
The only safe way to get it down, is by pushing it over.
On 10/09/2021 12:07, Robin wrote:
On 10/09/2021 09:25, Mark Carver wrote:Rather like its two sisters (Waltham and Emley) it would have been far
On 10/09/2021 09:19, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
I was thinking last night as to how one might go about dismantling >>>>such aThe mast is made up of welded together metal panels.
tall structure safely. As its guyed, the minute you remove the
anchor points
of those you surely have an unsafe structure.
The only safe way to get it down, is by pushing it over.
But think of the birds!
Seriously, I suspect that getting permission to do that requires some >>serious legal manoeuvring through the protections on the site; and
solid evidence that there really is no practicable alternative (not
just an even more expensive alternative).
less fuss if it had just collapsed by itself on the day of the fire !
On 10/09/2021 12:07, Robin wrote:
On 10/09/2021 09:25, Mark Carver wrote:Rather like its two sisters (Waltham and Emley) it would have been far
On 10/09/2021 09:19, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
I was thinking last night as to how one might go about dismantlingThe mast is made up of welded together metal panels.
such a
tall structure safely. As its guyed, the minute you remove the
anchor points
of those you surely have an unsafe structure.
The only safe way to get it down, is by pushing it over.
But think of the birds!
Seriously, I suspect that getting permission to do that requires some
serious legal manoeuvring through the protections on the site; and
solid evidence that there really is no practicable alternative (not
just an even more expensive alternative).
less fuss if it had just collapsed by itself on the day of the fire !
If the mast is now just scrap iron, the quickest way to get it down
would be let it fall. [Pity Fred Dibnah isn't around any more.]
However, might they first want to salvage the more-valuable undamaged
bits (such as the main aerials)?
In article <iq0j3hF1c0mU2@mid.individual.net>, Mark Carver <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> scribeth thus
On 10/09/2021 09:19, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
I was thinking last night as to how one might go about dismantling such a >>> tall structure safely. As its guyed, the minute you remove the anchor pointsThe mast is made up of welded together metal panels.
of those you surely have an unsafe structure.
The only safe way to get it down, is by pushing it over.
Pulling it over Mark;!...
In message <iq0tulF3dkgU1@mid.individual.net>, Mark Carver ><mark.carver@invalid.invalid> writes
On 10/09/2021 12:07, Robin wrote:
On 10/09/2021 09:25, Mark Carver wrote:Rather like its two sisters (Waltham and Emley) it would have been far
On 10/09/2021 09:19, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
I was thinking last night as to how one might go about dismantling >>>>>such aThe mast is made up of welded together metal panels.
tall structure safely. As its guyed, the minute you remove the >>>>>anchor points
of those you surely have an unsafe structure.
The only safe way to get it down, is by pushing it over.
But think of the birds!
Seriously, I suspect that getting permission to do that requires some >>>serious legal manoeuvring through the protections on the site; and
solid evidence that there really is no practicable alternative (not
just an even more expensive alternative).
less fuss if it had just collapsed by itself on the day of the fire !
If the mast is now just scrap iron, the quickest way to get it down
would be let it fall. [Pity Fred Dibnah isn't around any more.] However, >might they first want to salvage the more-valuable undamaged bits (such
as the main aerials)?
On 10/09/2021 13:37, Ian Jackson wrote:
If the mast is now just scrap iron, the quickest way to get it down would
be let it fall. [Pity Fred Dibnah isn't around any more.] However, might
they first want to salvage the more-valuable undamaged bits (such as the
main aerials)?
Yes, but how ?
I wonder how old Fred would have bought this down?, don't think his
chimney propping methods would have worked that well somehow;!...
"Mark Carver" <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote in message >news:iq179aF56thU1@mid.individual.net...
On 10/09/2021 13:37, Ian Jackson wrote:
If the mast is now just scrap iron, the quickest way to get it down would >>> be let it fall. [Pity Fred Dibnah isn't around any more.] However, might >>> they first want to salvage the more-valuable undamaged bits (such as the >>> main aerials)?
Yes, but how ?
Controlled explosion on one or more of the guy ropes so the load becomes >unbalanced and the mast falls the opposite way to the severed guy ropes. You >need an old car horn with a rubber bulb, which you belatedly sound *after* >the mast has fallen, at which point you run like buggery, and then turn
round to the camera and grin, saying "Did yer like that?".
Controlled explosion on one or more of the guy ropes so the load becomes unbalanced and the mast falls the opposite way to the severed guy ropes. You need an old car horn with a rubber bulb, which you belatedly sound*after*
the mast has fallen, at which point you run like buggery, and then turn
round to the camera and grin, saying "Did yer like that?".
Do you think it was insured against fire damage? Brian
"Mark Carver" <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote in message news:iq179aF56thU1@mid.individual.net...
On 10/09/2021 13:37, Ian Jackson wrote:
If the mast is now just scrap iron, the quickest way to get it down would >> be let it fall. [Pity Fred Dibnah isn't around any more.] However, might >> they first want to salvage the more-valuable undamaged bits (such as the >> main aerials)?
Yes, but how ?
Controlled explosion on one or more of the guy ropes so the load becomes unbalanced and the mast falls the opposite way to the severed guy ropes. You need an old car horn with a rubber bulb, which you belatedly sound *after* the mast has fallen, at which point you run like buggery, and then turn
round to the camera and grin, saying "Did yer like that?".
I wonder how old Fred would have bought this down?, don't think his
chimney propping methods would have worked that well somehow;!...
Cutting all the guys on one side simultaneously, so that it falls as a
single piece in one direction (away from anything valuable) appears to
be the most likely solution. Everything will end up in a predictable
way at ground level , where it is easy to deal with.
(**) There is a section of the road from Castleton, via the Blakey Inn pub, >to Hutton-le-Hole where you are in a very rural moorland setting but in the >far distance you used to be able to see the steaming cooling towers of >Eggborough, Drax and Ferrybridge power stations.
"MB" wrote in message news:shg7t2$cfr$1@dont-email.me... At the time of >Eitshal, we were told that we had permission to use the items that were
going to be scrapped, to restore service. Which suggests that there was
some insurance.
I was asking how the aerials could be salvaged, considering no one in
their right mind is ever going to climb the mast again.
"Mark Carver" <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote in message news:iq179aF56thU1@mid.individual.net...
On 10/09/2021 13:37, Ian Jackson wrote:
If the mast is now just scrap iron, the quickest way to get it down
would be let it fall. [Pity Fred Dibnah isn't around any more.]
However, might they first want to salvage the more-valuable
undamaged bits (such as the main aerials)?
Yes, but how ?
Controlled explosion on one or more of the guy ropes so the load
becomes unbalanced and the mast falls the opposite way to the severed
guy ropes.
Or they could pay someone a ridiculous amount of money to make the
scrap into an artwork.
On 11/09/2021 11:01, MB wrote:
Ron Smith was ahead of the game on that one
Or they could pay someone a ridiculous amount of money to make the
scrap into an artwork.
https://ronsmithaerials.com/catalogue/G17.php
On 10/09/2021 18:00, NY wrote:
"Mark Carver" <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:iq179aF56thU1@mid.individual.net...
On 10/09/2021 13:37, Ian Jackson wrote:
If the mast is now just scrap iron, the quickest way to get it down
would be let it fall. [Pity Fred Dibnah isn't around any more.]
However, might they first want to salvage the more-valuable undamaged
bits (such as the main aerials)?
Yes, but how ?
Controlled explosion on one or more of the guy ropes so the load becomes
unbalanced and the mast falls the opposite way to the severed guy ropes.
I was asking how the aerials could be salvaged, considering no one in
their right mind is ever going to climb the mast again.
On 10/09/2021 18:00, NY wrote:
"Mark Carver" <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:iq179aF56thU1@mid.individual.net...
On 10/09/2021 13:37, Ian Jackson wrote:
If the mast is now just scrap iron, the quickest way to get it down
would be let it fall. [Pity Fred Dibnah isn't around any more.]
However, might they first want to salvage the more-valuable
undamaged bits (such as the main aerials)?
Yes, but how ?
Controlled explosion on one or more of the guy ropes so the load
becomes unbalanced and the mast falls the opposite way to the severed
guy ropes.
I was asking how the aerials could be salvaged, considering no one in
their right mind is ever going to climb the mast again.
On 11/09/2021 11:03, Mark Carver wrote:
On 11/09/2021 11:01, MB wrote:
Ron Smith was ahead of the game on that one
Or they could pay someone a ridiculous amount of money to make the
scrap into an artwork.
https://ronsmithaerials.com/catalogue/G17.php
Ha! You saw through it! So many didn't.
Bill
On 08/09/2021 20:18, John Williamson wrote:"out of touch" is the phrase you're looking for Bill.
Freesat only requires the equivalent of a new TV aerial which can be
mounted at or just above ground level in many cases, and a cheap
decoder (Many modern sets include such a decoder as part of their
circuitry) and there are very few channels, if any, on Freeview that
are not on Freesat, from what I remember. If you want subscription
services, (Which need a satellite dish or decent broadband anyway) all
you need is a card to put in the slot and maybe slightly redirect the
dish, unless things have changed lately. My not very smart and cheap
decoder could record to a USB stick quite happily.
Oh I just can't be bothered.
Bill
On 09/09/2021 03:08, williamwright wrote:
On 08/09/2021 20:18, John Williamson wrote:"out of touch" is the phrase you're looking for Bill.
Freesat only requires the equivalent of a new TV aerial which can be
mounted at or just above ground level in many cases, and a cheap
decoder (Many modern sets include such a decoder as part of their
circuitry) and there are very few channels, if any, on Freeview that
are not on Freesat, from what I remember. If you want subscription
services, (Which need a satellite dish or decent broadband anyway)
all you need is a card to put in the slot and maybe slightly redirect
the dish, unless things have changed lately. My not very smart and
cheap decoder could record to a USB stick quite happily.
Oh I just can't be bothered.
Bill
Dave
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 285 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 63:17:13 |
Calls: | 6,488 |
Calls today: | 1 |
Files: | 12,096 |
Messages: | 5,274,676 |