Huddersfield Daily Examiner (11.06.17): Work starts today on second Emley Moor mast

[MB]

In the Huddersfield Daily Examiner earlier in the week





Work starts today on second Emley Moor mast

And it will be there for 4 years while work is carried out on the main mast

http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/work-starts-today-second-emley-13169856

[Brian Gaff]

Hmm, well I don't exactly know what they are doing with the main one, but
one supposes its important.
However the temp mast presumably cannot be as big as the other one so this
maigh well give signal issues one supposes.
However I wonder if in fact they will take it down after four years, or is
it a bit like the Millennium Dome, it will be there for as long as somebody
will pay to use it?
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"MB" <M...@nospam.net> wrote in message news:oht7cr$jes$1...@dont-email.me...

[Mark Carver]

On 15/06/2017 08:22, Brian Gaff wrote:
> Hmm, well I don't exactly know what they are doing with the main one, but
> one supposes its important.

Replacing the UHF antennas (I think they are still the original 1971 EMI
slots ?) for a modern wideband system, because of 700 MHz clearance
within the top cylinder, and shortening it by about 10 metres in the
process.


--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

[hwh]

On 15/06/2017 13:47, Mark Carver wrote:
> On 15/06/2017 08:22, Brian Gaff wrote:
>> Hmm, well I don't exactly know what they are doing with the main one, but
>> one supposes its important.
>
> Replacing the UHF antennas (I think they are still the original 1971 EMI
> slots ?) for a modern wideband system, because of 700 MHz clearance
> within the top cylinder, and shortening it by about 10 metres in the
> process.

There is a cylinder with a rather large diameter and another one with a
diameter more common in UHF aerials. Will they replace both? Why wasn't
it possible to put a temporary aerial slightly lower on the tower?

gr, hwh

[charles]

In article <5942a568$0$776$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl>, hwh

Access difficulties?

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

[Woody]

"charles" <cha...@candehope.me.uk> wrote in message
news:564caa82...@candehope.me.uk...

They couldn't put aerials lower because (1) the tower is made of
reinforced concrete and thus a pretty good signal blocker and (2)
bringing the aerials down the better part of 200ft would seriously
reduce the coverage - which has to be maintained for regulatory
purposes.

The aerials were replaced for DSO. 800MHz clearance and now the
upcoming 700MHz clearance where not even thought about at DSO.

I doubt the replacement aerials will be a wideband system due to loss
of efficiency and thus erp. They might however put two sets of
aerials, one upper, one lower, for the different bands in case someone
somewhere decides the whole of the UK should be in A-group on multiple
SFNs!

There are two sets of aerials split between the upper and lower
sections of the candle and a third low-gain set lower down for service
standby. There are also VHF/FM aerials splashed around in the lower
section for a couple of commercial stations along with DAB in one side
(directional.)

For DSO aerial work was done overnight so that reduced power and some
breaks could be tolerated. Not a problem when they were working on the
lower half, but when the upper half was being done there had to be a
transmission break to allow the riggers to climb up through the lower
half. One of the most difficult jobs ever done up there was
replacement of the aircraft warning light on the top of the candle -
but don't ask me why. You might be surprised that without lighting it
is pitch black inside the candles.


--
Woody

harrogate3 at ntlworld dot com

[Brian Gaff]

I'd imagine climbing up past an active aerial with that sort of power might
not be healthy?

Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please!

"hwh" <iime...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:5942a568$0$776$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...

[Mark Carver]

On 15/06/2017 21:43, Woody wrote:

> They couldn't put aerials lower because (1) the tower is made of
> reinforced concrete and thus a pretty good signal blocker

Err, yes, but you'd put the aerails on the *outside* of the concrete,
wouldn't you ?

[Woody]

"Mark Carver" <invalid...@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:eqhluc...@mid.individual.net...

> On 15/06/2017 21:43, Woody wrote:
>
>> They couldn't put aerials lower because (1) the tower is made of
>> reinforced concrete and thus a pretty good signal blocker
>
> Err, yes, but you'd put the aerails on the *outside* of the
> concrete, wouldn't you ?
>
> --

Yes, that is assumed, but the tower would still block perhaps 120deg
of the pattern off one stack, which means a lot of aerials in
different directions.

Add to that that the Emley stack has 13dB gain and you are looking at
a lot of aerial elements which means a significant change in loading
on the structure.

Not really feasible IMO. The temp mast is both quicker to build,
easier to construct, and can equally easily be arranged to match
existing coverage.

[charles]

In article <eqhluc...@mid.individual.net>,

Mark Carver <invalid...@gmx.net> wrote:
> On 15/06/2017 21:43, Woody wrote:

> > They couldn't put aerials lower because (1) the tower is made of
> > reinforced concrete and thus a pretty good signal blocker

> Err, yes, but you'd put the aerails on the *outside* of the concrete,
> wouldn't you ?

1. How would you get them there?

2. How would you create proper omni coverage round the side of the concrete
tower.

[Mark Carver]

On 16/06/2017 10:22, Woody wrote:
> "Mark Carver" <invalid...@gmx.net> wrote in message
> news:eqhluc...@mid.individual.net...
>> On 15/06/2017 21:43, Woody wrote:
>>
>>> They couldn't put aerials lower because (1) the tower is made of
>>> reinforced concrete and thus a pretty good signal blocker
>>
>> Err, yes, but you'd put the aerails on the *outside* of the
>> concrete, wouldn't you ?
>>
>> --
>
> Yes, that is assumed, but the tower would still block perhaps 120deg
> of the pattern off one stack, which means a lot of aerials in
> different directions.

Indeed, I wasn't suggesting that for Emley. Compare the S1 (cantelever)
and S2 (wrap around) arrays at any lattice mast site, and you can see
the difference

[Stephen Wolstenholme]

On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 09:18:44 +0100, "Brian Gaff"
<bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>I'd imagine climbing up past an active aerial with that sort of power might
>not be healthy?
> Brian

The frequency is too low to cause any health problems. There is a bit
of warmth induced when very near to radio and television transmitters
but it is not harmful. OTOH, microwave and radar frequencies can be
harmful.

Steve

--
Neural Network Software for Windows http://www.npsnn.com

[Mark Carver]

On 16/06/2017 12:13, Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 09:18:44 +0100, "Brian Gaff"
> <bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> I'd imagine climbing up past an active aerial with that sort of power might
>> not be healthy?
>> Brian
>
> The frequency is too low to cause any health problems. There is a bit
> of warmth induced when very near to radio and television transmitters
> but it is not harmful. OTOH, microwave and radar frequencies can be
> harmful.

Arqiva operate very stringent rules about exposure to UHF and VHF
radiation. When the new Rowridge mast was being bult, the high power
VHF signals from the old mast 100 yards away were significantlt reduced,
when workers on the new mast were hoizontally in line with the VHF stack.

[Woody]

"Stephen Wolstenholme" <st...@easynn.com> wrote in message
news:fle7kc1bq9uhh7nus...@4ax.com...

> On Fri, 16 Jun 2017 09:18:44 +0100, "Brian Gaff"
> <bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>I'd imagine climbing up past an active aerial with that sort of
>>power might
>>not be healthy?
>> Brian
>
> The frequency is too low to cause any health problems. There is a
> bit
> of warmth induced when very near to radio and television
> transmitters
> but it is not harmful. OTOH, microwave and radar frequencies can be
> harmful.
>

With three feeds at about 13KW, three feeds at about 9KW, and two at
about 4KW plus a few KW each of FM and three (4?) DAB muxes I don't
think I would want to go near them!

[MB]

On 16/06/2017 12:13, Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:

> The frequency is too low to cause any health problems. There is a bit
> of warmth induced when very near to radio and television transmitters
> but it is not harmful. OTOH, microwave and radar frequencies can be
> harmful.

There have been accidents when people have received high doses of RF
from the antenna which is why so many precautions are taken.

[tony sayer]

In article <oi13a5$aki$1...@dont-email.me>, MB <M...@nospam.net> scribeth
thus

Don't really wan to be handling that much metal in high RF fields;!!

--
Tony Sayer

[Graham.]

On Sat, 17 Jun 2017 13:23:05 +0100, tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk>
wrote:

Your trouser zip should resonate nicely.
--

Graham.
%Profound_observation%

[Brian Gaff]

Exactly. The building I worked in had radars all over the roof and people
used to go and sunbathe with little or no garments up there as it was the
highest place. The snag of course was the proximity of radars some working
some not, so I often wondered if anyone got a bit i ionised so to speak.

Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please!

"Graham." <graham...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:th5bkc9bsk98cse4t...@4ax.com...

[NY]

"MB" <M...@nospam.net> wrote in message news:oht7cr$jes$1...@dont-email.me...

Why do I get an uneasy feeling about guy ropes and Emley Moor? :-)

[Mark Carver]

Although I think the cause was thought to be the mast itself (overloaded
with ice) twisting and resonating in a constant wind ?

[Bill Wright]

On 18/06/2017 17:25, Mark Carver wrote:

> Although I think the cause was thought to be the mast itself (overloaded
> with ice) twisting and resonating in a constant wind ?
>

I thought it was the weight of ice on a guy snapped it and that started
an imbalance issue.

Didn't they put heater wires on the Belmont guys afterwards?

Bill

[Mark Carver]

Not sure, put they did install inside the mast several tonnes worth of
damper chains, (same at Winter Hill too)

[tony sayer]

In article <th5bkc9bsk98cse4t...@4ax.com>, Graham.
<graham...@mail.com> scribeth thus

Oooh! You don't know the half wave of it dearie;)

--
Tony Sayer

[NY]

"Bill Wright" <wrights...@f2s.com> wrote in message
news:oi6cmi$j8c$2...@gioia.aioe.org...

> On 18/06/2017 17:25, Mark Carver wrote:
>
>> Although I think the cause was thought to be the mast itself (overloaded
>> with ice) twisting and resonating in a constant wind ?
>>
> I thought it was the weight of ice on a guy snapped it and that started an
> imbalance issue.

When I was a university in the early 80s, Emley Moor was used as a case
study on my elec eng course for risk analysis and failure mitigation. And we
were told as "facts" that the mast collapsed because the guy ropes all had
equal tension which normally provided no nett force on the mast, but when
ice accumulated on the ropes, it caused some to snap, thus causing a nett
force on the mast.

But it sounds as if another theory (resonance due to wind) is now regarded
as the explanation for the collapse.

Either way, the people in that chapel next to the mast had a very lucky
escape. I remember my grandpa and grandma driving me in their little Hillman
Imp to see the wreckage of the mast a few days after the collapse. I was
about six at the time. My grandpa, bless him, was a bit of a rubbernecker
when it came to collapses and fires - he would always get the car out if he
heard the siren summoning the reserve firemen to the local fire station, and
try to find the fire. I remember him phoning from one of the platforms of
Wakefield Westgate station saying that he'd got a grandstand view of a huge
mill fire nearby, and saying "if you climb that big tree in your back
garden, you'll see the smoke".

[Mark Carver]

On 18/06/2017 23:17, NY wrote:
> "Bill Wright" <wrights...@f2s.com> wrote in message
> news:oi6cmi$j8c$2...@gioia.aioe.org...
>> On 18/06/2017 17:25, Mark Carver wrote:
>>
>>> Although I think the cause was thought to be the mast itself (overloaded
>>> with ice) twisting and resonating in a constant wind ?
>>>
>> I thought it was the weight of ice on a guy snapped it and that
>> started an imbalance issue.
>
> When I was a university in the early 80s, Emley Moor was used as a case
> study on my elec eng course for risk analysis and failure mitigation.
> And we were told as "facts" that the mast collapsed because the guy
> ropes all had equal tension which normally provided no nett force on the
> mast, but when ice accumulated on the ropes, it caused some to snap,
> thus causing a nett force on the mast.
>
> But it sounds as if another theory (resonance due to wind) is now
> regarded as the explanation for the collapse.

Although the uneven icing on the guy ropes would have contributed to the
twisting of the mast too, (and the mechanical load increase) so it's
all interelated !

[Roderick Stewart]

On Sun, 18 Jun 2017 17:12:44 +0100, "NY" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:

>> Work starts today on second Emley Moor mast
>>
>> And it will be there for 4 years while work is carried out on the main
>> mast
>>
>> http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/work-starts-today-second-emley-13169856
>
>Why do I get an uneasy feeling about guy ropes and Emley Moor? :-)

I guess that means another retune for us then, and another when they
switch the permanent one back on, and a mass migration to iPlayer if
either of them falls down.

Rod.

[Mark Carver]

On 19/06/2017 11:35, Roderick Stewart wrote:

> I guess that means another retune for us then, and another when they
> switch the permanent one back on, and a mass migration to iPlayer if
> either of them falls down.

It might well for those that discover they require a new receiving
aerial, Winter Hill being the biggest chance for that.

[Mark Carver]

On 19/06/2017 12:57, Bob Latham wrote:
> In article <eqprer...@mid.individual.net>,

> Mark Carver <invalid...@gmx.net> wrote:
>> On 19/06/2017 11:35, Roderick Stewart wrote:
>
>>> I guess that means another retune for us then, and another when they
>>> switch the permanent one back on, and a mass migration to iPlayer if
>>> either of them falls down.
>
>> It might well for those that discover they require a new receiving
>> aerial, Winter Hill being the biggest chance for that.
>

> May I ask, has anything concrete been published about what channels muxes
> will be on post the big shuffle down? Or even confirmation of SFN working?
>
> I'm particularly interested in Sutton C, Wrekin, Brierley Hill.

Only this year's frequency changes are in the public domain so far (on
the Freeview Postcode checker) and that's only Northern Scotland, and
the 'trial' move at Selkirk that happened in March.

I've taken a look at the West Midlands *draft*, and it seems that
Brierley Hill will move to allocations between 29 and 37 next Feb/March.
The move of COM 6 on Ch 55 to 37 will allow Sutton Coldfield to move COM
7 and 8 to 55 and 56 at the same time. (55/56 are to be a national SFN
for all transmitters carrying COM 7/8 I think)

There seem to be no other changes planned for Sutton C, and no changes
at all for The Wrekin

[Woody]

"Roderick Stewart" <rj...@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message
news:q3afkcpn2jthic1e0...@4ax.com...

There will only be two channels to move - 51 and 52. It will be
difficult to use channels in the 40's as Emley uses 41, 44, 47 and 48,
and Chesterfield and Bilsdale use 40, 43, and 46 amongst others, and
Sheffield uses 39, 42 and 45. My guess is one will go to 49 and the
other to somewhere in the 30's. Where LTV will go is another question
altogether!

[Mark Carver]

On 19/06/2017 13:24, Woody wrote:

> There will only be two channels to move - 51 and 52. It will be
> difficult to use channels in the 40's as Emley uses 41, 44, 47 and 48,
> and Chesterfield and Bilsdale use 40, 43, and 46 amongst others, and
> Sheffield uses 39, 42 and 45. My guess is one will go to 49 and the
> other to somewhere in the 30's. Where LTV will go is another question
> altogether!

51, 52, and 56 will probably move to 33, 36, 39 it seems.

Sheffield 39 moves to 35

Not due until late 2019

[hwh]

On 19/06/2017 14:20, Mark Carver wrote:
... will allow Sutton Coldfield to move COM

> 7 and 8 to 55 and 56 at the same time. (55/56 are to be a national SFN
> for all transmitters carrying COM 7/8 I think)

Seems rather unlikely as they are in the 700 MHz band, which starts at 49.

gr, hwh

[Mark Carver]

There's a guard band that is likely to be used to 'park' COM 7 and 8
at UHF 55 and 56 while clearance is happening

https://www.comreg.ie/publication-download/mou-use-channel-55-channel-56-uk-700-mhz-band-clearance-transition-period-ofcom-comreg

[hwh]

On 19/06/2017 18:44, Mark Carver wrote:
> There's a guard band that is likely to be used to 'park' COM 7 and 8
> at UHF 55 and 56 while clearance is happening

I see. Interesting move!

gr, hwh

[Mark Carver]

Somewhere deep in another Ofcom document it talks about COM 7 and 8
staying there until 2022, and a study of how they might exist adjacent
to 5G services, (as it is Ch 55 can only have a bandwidth of 7 MHz) .

In the original (2013) plan was they were to close at the end of 2020,
but there's been a campaign by Arqiva (in their role as the COM 7/8 mux
operator) to extend their life.
Good news for Arqiva (in their role as Tx provider eh ;-) !)

[hwh]

On 19/06/2017 19:10, Mark Carver wrote:
> In the original (2013) plan was they were to close at the end of 2020,
> but there's been a campaign by Arqiva (in their role as the COM 7/8 mux
> operator) to extend their life.
> Good news for Arqiva (in their role as Tx provider eh ;-) !)

Completely independent of course!

gr, hwh

[NY]

"hwh" <iime...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:594808a9$0$805$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...

> On 19/06/2017 19:10, Mark Carver wrote:
>> In the original (2013) plan was they were to close at the end of 2020,
>> but there's been a campaign by Arqiva (in their role as the COM 7/8 mux
>> operator) to extend their life.
>> Good news for Arqiva (in their role as Tx provider eh ;-) !)

Is the intention for the channels that are currently in COM7 and COM8 to be
moved into the remaining six multiplexes when those change to DVB-T2 and
thus can fit more channels? Or will channels like Talking Pictures TV and
BBC Four HD simply be ditched?

[Mark Carver]

The original purpose of COM 7 and 8 was to promote and drive the sale
of DVB-T2 receivers, so that that could happen. I don't think it's
been terribly successful ! The two muxes were only ever to be temporary,
so it seems they may get extended by two years, I think
come 2023, Ch 55 and 56 get grabbed by the mobile boys ?

[tony sayer]

In article <eqqesu...@mid.individual.net>, Mark Carver
<mark....@invalid.invalid> scribeth thus

Talking of Infrastructure i wonder if tolls on a certain motorway might
rise;?..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/40285221

--
Tony Sayer

[Mark Carver]

On 19/06/2017 22:15, tony sayer wrote:

>
> Talking of Infrastructure i wonder if tolls on a certain motorway might
> rise;?..
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/40285221

Ha, well, the toll plaza is right next to the Langley Mill Tx, they
must have 1152 and 1458 kHz pissing out of everything there !

[Mark Carver]

On 20/06/2017 09:51, Bob Latham wrote:
> In article <eqptrr...@mid.individual.net>,

> That's very interesting.
>
> Thank you Mark, much appreciated.
>
> No massive SFN then?

Only for COM 7 and 8, and I'm not sure that's a true SFN, it might just
be a channel share with mush zones where the guard interval is too far
out of tolerance ?

> I was hoping they would do something about the impossible to filter nature
> of using 41,44,47 for Wrekin and 39,40,42,43,45,46 for Sutton. As an
> amateur enthusiast it is very hard to see the logic of such an allocation.

As everything in the UK will be stuffed in between 21 and 48, there will
be many more similar instances, that currently don't exist. Look at your
area as pioneering the idea !

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <Yvqdnfp9tMqbgtXE...@brightview.co.uk>, NY

"the remaining six multiplexes when those change to DVB-T2" - I know
there are lots of people, especially in the industry, _wanting_ this,
and I'm sure some tentative plans have been made too. (I know it's more
efficient, bitwidth-wise.)

But there are an awful lot of T1 (?) only pieces of equipment out there
by now (I have at least three for a start, to one T2 [and _that_ was
only bought because my local ASDA was out of the T1s when I wanted it]).
I think dropping T1 will be highly unpopular!
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Address the chair!" "There isn't a chair, there's only a rock!" "Well, call
it a chair!" "Why not call it a rock?" (First series, fit the sixth.)

[Paul Ratcliffe]

On Wed, 21 Jun 2017 19:51:54 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John)
<G6JP...@255soft.uk> wrote:

> But there are an awful lot of T1 (?) only pieces of equipment out there
> by now (I have at least three for a start, to one T2 [and _that_ was
> only bought because my local ASDA was out of the T1s when I wanted it]).

Anyone who has bought T1 only stuff in the last 7 years is just stupid.

> I think dropping T1 will be highly unpopular!

Tough. Nobody will care. There will be much bigger fish to fry.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <slrnokptn2...@news.pr.network>, Paul Ratcliffe

<ab...@orac12.clara34.co56.uk78> writes:
>On Wed, 21 Jun 2017 19:51:54 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John)
><G6JP...@255soft.uk> wrote:
>
>> But there are an awful lot of T1 (?) only pieces of equipment out there
>> by now (I have at least three for a start, to one T2 [and _that_ was
>> only bought because my local ASDA was out of the T1s when I wanted it]).
>
>Anyone who has bought T1 only stuff in the last 7 years is just stupid.

Perhaps that can apply to me, but is somewhat harsh on the majority of
the non-tech-savvy public, especially (but not only) the elderly.

>
>> I think dropping T1 will be highly unpopular!
>
>Tough. Nobody will care. There will be much bigger fish to fry.

The usual attitude. "I'm all right Jack" and other similar. (That's not
_quite_ right, but I CBA to think of the right phrase in the face of
such a view.)

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Bread is lovely, don't get me wrong. But it's not cake. Or it's rubbish cake.
I always thought that bread needed more sugar and some icing. - Sarah Millican
(Radio Times 11-17 May 2013)

[Woody]

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JP...@255soft.uk> wrote in message
news:R8PU9IIP...@soft255.demon.co.uk...

> In message <slrnokptn2...@news.pr.network>, Paul Ratcliffe
> <ab...@orac12.clara34.co56.uk78> writes:
>>On Wed, 21 Jun 2017 19:51:54 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John)
>><G6JP...@255soft.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> But there are an awful lot of T1 (?) only pieces of equipment out
>>> there
>>> by now (I have at least three for a start, to one T2 [and _that_
>>> was
>>> only bought because my local ASDA was out of the T1s when I wanted
>>> it]).
>>
>>Anyone who has bought T1 only stuff in the last 7 years is just
>>stupid.
>
> Perhaps that can apply to me, but is somewhat harsh on the majority
> of the non-tech-savvy public, especially (but not only) the elderly.
>>
>>> I think dropping T1 will be highly unpopular!
>>
>>Tough. Nobody will care. There will be much bigger fish to fry.
>
> The usual attitude. "I'm all right Jack" and other similar. (That's
> not _quite_ right, but I CBA to think of the right phrase in the
> face of such a view.)
> --

The situation of T1 and T2 has not been helped by the confusing
nomenclature used by the retail industry IMO specifically designed to
confuse Joe Public, and the prices of T2 sets being kept artificially
high to give them status.

The only thing that might have helped would for HMG to have made the
'32" or more must have a T2 tuner' a year or two earlier. Modern sets
AIMO have built-in obsolescence - like most things these days - so a
TV lasting much more than 5-7 years is a thing of the past (remember
when colour TVs lasted 15-20 years without a fault?)

[Bill Wright]

On 23/06/2017 20:50, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

>>
>> Anyone who has bought T1 only stuff in the last 7 years is just stupid.
>

Paul has the belief that the world is divided into two classes:
1. Paul
2. The stupid people

Bill