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.!

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

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

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

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.

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".

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

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?

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 !?

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

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

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??

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.

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.........

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

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.

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.

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.

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.