1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. UK.TECH.DIGITAL-TV

  • Bilsdale

    From Brian Gaff (Sofa)@21:1/5 to All on Wed Dec 8 19:19:57 2021
    I wonder, if they had not demolished the old mast when they did, if the
    recent storms might have done it for them?
    Brian

    --

    This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
    The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
    briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
    Blind user, so no pictures please
    Note this Signature is meaningless.!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From williamwright@21:1/5 to All on Thu Dec 9 02:49:50 2021
    On 08/12/2021 19:19, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
    I wonder, if they had not demolished the old mast when they did, if the recent storms might have done it for them?
    Brian


    Appen.

    Bill

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Max Demian@21:1/5 to williamwright on Thu Dec 9 14:05:53 2021
    On 09/12/2021 02:49, williamwright wrote:
    On 08/12/2021 19:19, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:

    I wonder, if they had not demolished the old mast when they did, if the
    recent storms might have done it for them?

    Appen.

    Why doesn't Google Translate include Yorkshire?

    --
    Max Demian

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ian Jackson@21:1/5 to Demian on Thu Dec 9 15:40:41 2021
    In message <geOdndGdELzZkC_8nZ2dnUU78eOdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, Max
    Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> writes
    On 09/12/2021 02:49, williamwright wrote:
    On 08/12/2021 19:19, Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:

    I wonder, if they had not demolished the old mast when they did, if the
    recent storms might have done it for them?

    Appen.

    Why doesn't Google Translate include Yorkshire?

    https://tinyurl.com/ydvm4yk5 ?
    --
    Ian

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From MB@21:1/5 to Max Demian on Thu Dec 9 22:45:35 2021
    On 09/12/2021 14:05, Max Demian wrote:
    Why doesn't Google Translate include Yorkshire?

    Politics?

    The Scots have convinced people that their dialect is a "language" but
    Lankie and Yorkie have just as much right to be a language as all are
    variants of Northern English. All have their own vocabulary and grammar

    I went to a talk at a Scottish heritage centre where someone gave out
    flash cards of words in Scots dialect and asked people how many they understood. I was able to recognise all even though I am not Scottish
    and have no knowledge of the Scots dialect. All were similar to words I recognised from my knowledge of Lankie and Yorkie.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JNugent@21:1/5 to All on Fri Dec 10 12:37:40 2021
    On 09/12/2021 10:45 pm, MB wrote:

    On 09/12/2021 14:05, Max Demian wrote:
    Why doesn't Google Translate include Yorkshire?

    Politics?

    The Scots have convinced people that their dialect is a "language" but
    Lankie and Yorkie have just as much right to be a language as all are variants of Northern English.  All have their own vocabulary and grammar

    I went to a talk at a Scottish heritage centre where someone gave out
    flash cards of words in Scots dialect and asked people how many they understood.  I was able to recognise all even though I am not Scottish
    and have no knowledge of the Scots dialect.  All were similar to words I recognised from my knowledge of Lankie and Yorkie.

    Would you have readily recognised them all aurally (especially in
    context), as opposed to seeing them in print?

    I ask because other European languages - French being a good example -
    may be easy to read and understand from the printed page but are much
    less easily "translated" by the ear, particularly if spoken quickly. I
    suspect that the same may be true of "Scots".

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mark Carver@21:1/5 to All on Mon Dec 20 08:06:05 2021
    Plans for a 300m mast plans now on the local council website

    NYM/2021/1004/EIA

    http://planning.northyorkmoors.org.uk/northgate/documentexplorer/application/stream.aspx?target=http%3A%2F%2Flocalhost%2FNorthgate%2FDocumentExplorer%2FDocumentStream%2FDocumentStream.aspx%3Fname%3D2021-12-16%2BPublic%2B-%2BPlans.pdf%26unique%3D817376%
    26type%3DNLPL_DC_PLANAPP

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Woody@21:1/5 to Mark Carver on Mon Dec 20 08:44:15 2021
    On Mon 20/12/2021 08:06, Mark Carver wrote:
    Plans for a 300m mast plans now on the local council website

    NYM/2021/1004/EIA

    http://planning.northyorkmoors.org.uk/northgate/documentexplorer/application/stream.aspx?target=http%3A%2F%2Flocalhost%2FNorthgate%2FDocumentExplorer%2FDocumentStream%2FDocumentStream.aspx%3Fname%3D2021-12-16%2BPublic%2B-%2BPlans.pdf%26unique%3D817376%
    26type%3DNLPL_DC_PLANAPP


    NYCC VHF (lo-band PMR?)at 179m??? Are they trying a takeover of Durham
    and Northumberland as well?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mark Carver@21:1/5 to Woody on Mon Dec 20 09:00:37 2021
    On 20/12/2021 08:44, Woody wrote:
    On Mon 20/12/2021 08:06, Mark Carver wrote:
    Plans for a 300m mast plans now on the local council website

    NYM/2021/1004/EIA

    http://planning.northyorkmoors.org.uk/northgate/documentexplorer/application/stream.aspx?target=http%3A%2F%2Flocalhost%2FNorthgate%2FDocumentExplorer%2FDocumentStream%2FDocumentStream.aspx%3Fname%3D2021-12-16%2BPublic%2B-%2BPlans.pdf%26unique%3D817376%
    26type%3DNLPL_DC_PLANAPP


    NYCC VHF (lo-band PMR?)at 179m??? Are they trying a takeover of Durham
    and Northumberland as well?

    I wonder if their rig on the old mast survived, on was the side that hit
    the ground !?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From williamwright@21:1/5 to Mark Carver on Mon Dec 20 16:11:45 2021
    On 20/12/2021 08:06, Mark Carver wrote:
    Plans for a 300m mast plans now on the local council website

    NYM/2021/1004/EIA

    http://planning.northyorkmoors.org.uk/northgate/documentexplorer/application/stream.aspx?target=http%3A%2F%2Flocalhost%2FNorthgate%2FDocumentExplorer%2FDocumentStream%2FDocumentStream.aspx%3Fname%3D2021-12-16%2BPublic%2B-%2BPlans.pdf%26unique%3D817376%
    26type%3DNLPL_DC_PLANAPP

    How does the UHF TV transmission height compare with Old Bilsdale?

    Bill

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mark Carver@21:1/5 to williamwright on Mon Dec 20 17:23:40 2021
    On 20/12/2021 16:11, williamwright wrote:
    On 20/12/2021 08:06, Mark Carver wrote:
    Plans for a 300m mast plans now on the local council website

    NYM/2021/1004/EIA

    http://planning.northyorkmoors.org.uk/northgate/documentexplorer/application/stream.aspx?target=http%3A%2F%2Flocalhost%2FNorthgate%2FDocumentExplorer%2FDocumentStream%2FDocumentStream.aspx%3Fname%3D2021-12-16%2BPublic%2B-%2BPlans.pdf%26unique%3D817376%
    26type%3DNLPL_DC_PLANAPP

    How does the UHF TV transmission height compare with Old Bilsdale?


    The new mast is to be 306.2m. The old mast was 311.5m. However I think that the cylinder on the old mast contained two separate aerial systems. The 1982 vintage band IV aerial at a mean height of 296m transmitting the PSB muxes and a band V aerial at
    about 306m for the COM muxes. It looks like the new mast will have a wideband aerial for all the muxes at a mean height of 300.2m

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tweed@21:1/5 to Woody on Mon Dec 20 18:06:37 2021
    Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com> wrote:
    On Mon 20/12/2021 17:23, Mark Carver wrote:
    On 20/12/2021 16:11, williamwright wrote:
    On 20/12/2021 08:06, Mark Carver wrote:
    Plans for a 300m mast plans now on the local council website

    NYM/2021/1004/EIA

    http://planning.northyorkmoors.org.uk/northgate/documentexplorer/application/stream.aspx?target=http%3A%2F%2Flocalhost%2FNorthgate%2FDocumentExplorer%2FDocumentStream%2FDocumentStream.aspx%3Fname%3D2021-12-16%2BPublic%2B-%2BPlans.pdf%26unique%
    3D817376%26type%3DNLPL_DC_PLANAPP


    How does the UHF TV transmission height compare with Old Bilsdale?


    The new mast is to be 306.2m. The old mast was 311.5m. However I think
    that the cylinder on the old mast contained two separate aerial systems.
    The 1982 vintage band IV aerial at a mean height of 296m transmitting
    the PSB muxes and a band V aerial at about 306m for the COM muxes. It
    looks like the new mast will have a wideband aerial for all the muxes at
    a mean height of 300.2m


    The bit I find amusing is two VHF dipoles at 179m for NYCC. Can you
    imaging the interference range for a lo-band Tx at that height - even at 10Werp??




    But it might be the only comms working for miles in an extended power cut
    once all the cell sites have flat batteries.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Woody@21:1/5 to Mark Carver on Mon Dec 20 17:59:50 2021
    On Mon 20/12/2021 17:23, Mark Carver wrote:
    On 20/12/2021 16:11, williamwright wrote:
    On 20/12/2021 08:06, Mark Carver wrote:
    Plans for a 300m mast plans now on the local council website

    NYM/2021/1004/EIA

    http://planning.northyorkmoors.org.uk/northgate/documentexplorer/application/stream.aspx?target=http%3A%2F%2Flocalhost%2FNorthgate%2FDocumentExplorer%2FDocumentStream%2FDocumentStream.aspx%3Fname%3D2021-12-16%2BPublic%2B-%2BPlans.pdf%26unique%
    3D817376%26type%3DNLPL_DC_PLANAPP

    How does the UHF TV transmission height compare with Old Bilsdale?


    The new mast is to be 306.2m. The old mast was 311.5m. However I think
    that the cylinder on the old mast contained two separate aerial systems.
    The 1982 vintage band IV aerial at a mean height of 296m transmitting
    the PSB muxes and a band V aerial at about 306m for the COM muxes. It
    looks like the new mast will have a wideband aerial for all the muxes at
    a mean height of 300.2m


    The bit I find amusing is two VHF dipoles at 179m for NYCC. Can you
    imaging the interference range for a lo-band Tx at that height - even at 10Werp??

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Woody@21:1/5 to Tweed on Mon Dec 20 18:31:32 2021
    On Mon 20/12/2021 18:06, Tweed wrote:
    Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com> wrote:
    On Mon 20/12/2021 17:23, Mark Carver wrote:
    On 20/12/2021 16:11, williamwright wrote:
    On 20/12/2021 08:06, Mark Carver wrote:
    Plans for a 300m mast plans now on the local council website

    NYM/2021/1004/EIA

    http://planning.northyorkmoors.org.uk/northgate/documentexplorer/application/stream.aspx?target=http%3A%2F%2Flocalhost%2FNorthgate%2FDocumentExplorer%2FDocumentStream%2FDocumentStream.aspx%3Fname%3D2021-12-16%2BPublic%2B-%2BPlans.pdf%26unique%
    3D817376%26type%3DNLPL_DC_PLANAPP


    How does the UHF TV transmission height compare with Old Bilsdale?


    The new mast is to be 306.2m. The old mast was 311.5m. However I think
    that the cylinder on the old mast contained two separate aerial systems. >>> The 1982 vintage band IV aerial at a mean height of 296m transmitting
    the PSB muxes and a band V aerial at about 306m for the COM muxes. It
    looks like the new mast will have a wideband aerial for all the muxes at >>> a mean height of 300.2m


    The bit I find amusing is two VHF dipoles at 179m for NYCC. Can you
    imaging the interference range for a lo-band Tx at that height - even at
    10Werp??




    But it might be the only comms working for miles in an extended power cut once all the cell sites have flat batteries.


    Hmmm, not quite.

    If they are the correct spacing from the tower the polar diagram will be
    a figure-of-eight east-west. NYCC have another system for the east area
    of the Moors (I used to maintain it!) but west would fire up Wensleydale
    and Swaledale quite well. Having said that two, say, 3 ele yagis would
    do the job much better.

    I wonder.........

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From williamwright@21:1/5 to Mark Carver on Tue Dec 21 12:53:24 2021
    On 20/12/2021 17:23, Mark Carver wrote:
    On 20/12/2021 16:11, williamwright wrote:
    On 20/12/2021 08:06, Mark Carver wrote:
    Plans for a 300m mast plans now on the local council website

    NYM/2021/1004/EIA

    http://planning.northyorkmoors.org.uk/northgate/documentexplorer/application/stream.aspx?target=http%3A%2F%2Flocalhost%2FNorthgate%2FDocumentExplorer%2FDocumentStream%2FDocumentStream.aspx%3Fname%3D2021-12-16%2BPublic%2B-%2BPlans.pdf%26unique%
    3D817376%26type%3DNLPL_DC_PLANAPP

    How does the UHF TV transmission height compare with Old Bilsdale?


    The new mast is to be 306.2m. The old mast was 311.5m. However I think
    that the cylinder on the old mast contained two separate aerial systems.
    The 1982 vintage band IV aerial at a mean height of 296m transmitting
    the PSB muxes and a band V aerial at about 306m for the COM muxes. It
    looks like the new mast will have a wideband aerial for all the muxes at
    a mean height of 300.2m

    Thanks Mark.

    Bill

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From tony sayer@21:1/5 to All on Fri Dec 24 15:39:20 2021
    In article <spqi65$luu$1@dont-email.me>, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com> scribeth thus
    On Mon 20/12/2021 18:06, Tweed wrote:
    Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com> wrote:
    On Mon 20/12/2021 17:23, Mark Carver wrote:
    On 20/12/2021 16:11, williamwright wrote:
    On 20/12/2021 08:06, Mark Carver wrote:
    Plans for a 300m mast plans now on the local council website

    NYM/2021/1004/EIA

    http://planning.northyorkmoors.org.uk/northgate/documentexplorer/applicati
    on/stream.aspx?target=http%3A%2F%2Flocalhost%2FNorthgate%2FDocumentExplorer%2FDo
    cumentStream%2FDocumentStream.aspx%3Fname%3D2021-12-16%2BPublic%2B-%2BPlans.pdf%
    26unique%3D817376%26type%3DNLPL_DC_PLANAPP


    How does the UHF TV transmission height compare with Old Bilsdale?


    The new mast is to be 306.2m. The old mast was 311.5m. However I think >>>> that the cylinder on the old mast contained two separate aerial systems. >>>> The 1982 vintage band IV aerial at a mean height of 296m transmitting
    the PSB muxes and a band V aerial at about 306m for the COM muxes. It
    looks like the new mast will have a wideband aerial for all the muxes at >>>> a mean height of 300.2m


    The bit I find amusing is two VHF dipoles at 179m for NYCC. Can you
    imaging the interference range for a lo-band Tx at that height - even at >>> 10Werp??




    But it might be the only comms working for miles in an extended power cut
    once all the cell sites have flat batteries.


    Hmmm, not quite.

    If they are the correct spacing from the tower the polar diagram will be
    a figure-of-eight east-west. NYCC have another system for the east area
    of the Moors (I used to maintain it!) but west would fire up Wensleydale
    and Swaledale quite well. Having said that two, say, 3 ele yagis would
    do the job much better.

    I wonder.........



    Yes pig of a job getting Omnni patterns off large cross sectioned
    structures, we used to have a Lo-band system on Winter hill many years
    ago rather lopsided! Worked better around Dublin than Oldham, long story
    but...

    And Mendelsham much the same there. A few two or three element Yagi's
    around the mast or Cardioid's will be better but cost will prevent that
    in most instances..



    --
    Tony Sayer


    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person.

    Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From tony sayer@21:1/5 to All on Fri Dec 24 15:33:33 2021
    In article <spqgnd$uh4$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> scribeth thus
    Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com> wrote:
    On Mon 20/12/2021 17:23, Mark Carver wrote:
    On 20/12/2021 16:11, williamwright wrote:
    On 20/12/2021 08:06, Mark Carver wrote:
    Plans for a 300m mast plans now on the local council website

    NYM/2021/1004/EIA

    http://planning.northyorkmoors.org.uk/northgate/documentexplorer/applicatio
    n/stream.aspx?target=http%3A%2F%2Flocalhost%2FNorthgate%2FDocumentExplorer%2FDoc
    umentStream%2FDocumentStream.aspx%3Fname%3D2021-12-16%2BPublic%2B-%2BPlans.pdf%2
    6unique%3D817376%26type%3DNLPL_DC_PLANAPP


    How does the UHF TV transmission height compare with Old Bilsdale?


    The new mast is to be 306.2m. The old mast was 311.5m. However I think
    that the cylinder on the old mast contained two separate aerial systems. >>> The 1982 vintage band IV aerial at a mean height of 296m transmitting
    the PSB muxes and a band V aerial at about 306m for the COM muxes. It
    looks like the new mast will have a wideband aerial for all the muxes at >>> a mean height of 300.2m


    The bit I find amusing is two VHF dipoles at 179m for NYCC. Can you
    imaging the interference range for a lo-band Tx at that height - even at
    10Werp??




    But it might be the only comms working for miles in an extended power cut >once all the cell sites have flat batteries.


    Yes excellent idea, a bit like Raynet which has been of use on quite a
    few occasions, but you'll have a job getting councils to spend of n that
    sort of backup;!..

    --
    Tony Sayer


    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person.

    Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From tony sayer@21:1/5 to All on Fri Dec 24 15:31:48 2021
    In article <spqgam$jin$1@dont-email.me>, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com> scribeth thus
    On Mon 20/12/2021 17:23, Mark Carver wrote:
    On 20/12/2021 16:11, williamwright wrote:
    On 20/12/2021 08:06, Mark Carver wrote:
    Plans for a 300m mast plans now on the local council website

    NYM/2021/1004/EIA

    http://planning.northyorkmoors.org.uk/northgate/documentexplorer/application
    /stream.aspx?target=http%3A%2F%2Flocalhost%2FNorthgate%2FDocumentExplorer%2FDocu
    mentStream%2FDocumentStream.aspx%3Fname%3D2021-12-16%2BPublic%2B-%2BPlans.pdf%26
    unique%3D817376%26type%3DNLPL_DC_PLANAPP

    How does the UHF TV transmission height compare with Old Bilsdale?


    The new mast is to be 306.2m. The old mast was 311.5m. However I think
    that the cylinder on the old mast contained two separate aerial systems.
    The 1982 vintage band IV aerial at a mean height of 296m transmitting
    the PSB muxes and a band V aerial at about 306m for the COM muxes. It
    looks like the new mast will have a wideband aerial for all the muxes at
    a mean height of 300.2m


    The bit I find amusing is two VHF dipoles at 179m for NYCC. Can you
    imaging the interference range for a lo-band Tx at that height - even at >10Werp??



    Shouldn't be much if at all. VHF Lo-band is almost extinct! Used to have
    quite a few users years ago, now not none!...
    --
    Tony Sayer


    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person.

    Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Woody@21:1/5 to tony sayer on Fri Dec 24 16:05:04 2021
    On Fri 24/12/2021 15:31, tony sayer wrote:
    In article <spqgam$jin$1@dont-email.me>, Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com> scribeth thus
    On Mon 20/12/2021 17:23, Mark Carver wrote:
    On 20/12/2021 16:11, williamwright wrote:
    On 20/12/2021 08:06, Mark Carver wrote:
    Plans for a 300m mast plans now on the local council website

    NYM/2021/1004/EIA

    http://planning.northyorkmoors.org.uk/northgate/documentexplorer/application
    /stream.aspx?target=http%3A%2F%2Flocalhost%2FNorthgate%2FDocumentExplorer%2FDocu
    mentStream%2FDocumentStream.aspx%3Fname%3D2021-12-16%2BPublic%2B-%2BPlans.pdf%26
    unique%3D817376%26type%3DNLPL_DC_PLANAPP

    How does the UHF TV transmission height compare with Old Bilsdale?


    The new mast is to be 306.2m. The old mast was 311.5m. However I think
    that the cylinder on the old mast contained two separate aerial systems. >>> The 1982 vintage band IV aerial at a mean height of 296m transmitting
    the PSB muxes and a band V aerial at about 306m for the COM muxes. It
    looks like the new mast will have a wideband aerial for all the muxes at >>> a mean height of 300.2m


    The bit I find amusing is two VHF dipoles at 179m for NYCC. Can you
    imaging the interference range for a lo-band Tx at that height - even at
    10Werp??



    Shouldn't be much if at all. VHF Lo-band is almost extinct! Used to have quite a few users years ago, now not none!...


    7/7 had a to to do with local authority comms. Many had acquired very
    cheap contracts from cellular some of which didn't even charge for calls.
    Then came 7/7 and the cellular system just fell over with the amount of
    calls until the CoL Police invoked the priority system - and guess who
    had not been included?
    As a result of that a surprisingly large number of rural local
    authorities saw the error of their ways and went back to PMR. I don't
    think NYCC ever gave up PMR albeit it is probably digital now.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)