Windmills and microwave towers?

This is a curious question, which I don't believe has been asked before,
and to which I couldn't actually find and answer. And only being half
asleep and thinking about one thing whilst reading the paper idly,
caused three things to slip into my mind together.

Namely 'rural broadband' the influence of the environment on
transmission speed and quality, and the fact that here, high up in west
suffolk, and hence potentially a target for windmills, we already have
half a dozen radio towers dotted with aerials and dishes.

So, how do presumably metal or carbon fibre blades thwacking past or
around a microwave tower affect its transmission and reception?

Nearly all mobile phone masts are fed via microwave. A HUGE amount of
data backbones are built out of them - a lot cheaper than fibre. And
although the towers occupy in general the highest ground around,
windmills reach even higher. They would inevitably be in many line of
sight beams' paths..


It seems to me as well as being ugly, noisy, and dangerous to low flying
aircraft, as well as effectively screening low flying aircraft from
radar, these things are likely to also totally disrupt any RF
frequencies in the VHF bands and up, that rely on line of sight
transmission to teh horizon.

Already the inlaws digital TV is totally disrupted by wet leaves on
trees blowing in the wind..the DSP algorithms can cope if the things are
static, but not if the multipath is constantly changing.

I know there are RF experts here. The question is, would a landscape
with a windmill every kilometre, actually be one in which any frequency
beyond short wave was usable?

The message <haseon$ci$(E-Mail Removed)>
from The Natural Philosopher <(E-Mail Removed)> contains these words:

> This is a curious question, which I don't believe has been asked before,
> and to which I couldn't actually find and answer. And only being half
> asleep and thinking about one thing whilst reading the paper idly,
> caused three things to slip into my mind together.

> Namely 'rural broadband' the influence of the environment on
> transmission speed and quality, and the fact that here, high up in west
> suffolk, and hence potentially a target for windmills, we already have
> half a dozen radio towers dotted with aerials and dishes.

> So, how do presumably metal or carbon fibre blades thwacking past or
> around a microwave tower affect its transmission and reception?

> Nearly all mobile phone masts are fed via microwave. A HUGE amount of
> data backbones are built out of them - a lot cheaper than fibre. And
> although the towers occupy in general the highest ground around,
> windmills reach even higher. They would inevitably be in many line of
> sight beams' paths..


> It seems to me as well as being ugly, noisy, and dangerous to low flying
> aircraft, as well as effectively screening low flying aircraft from
> radar, these things are likely to also totally disrupt any RF
> frequencies in the VHF bands and up, that rely on line of sight
> transmission to teh horizon.

> Already the inlaws digital TV is totally disrupted by wet leaves on
> trees blowing in the wind..the DSP algorithms can cope if the things are
> static, but not if the multipath is constantly changing.

> I know there are RF experts here. The question is, would a landscape
> with a windmill every kilometre, actually be one in which any frequency
> beyond short wave was usable?


The organisation that I used to work for kept a watching brief for any
wind turbine planning applications to check for possible effect on links
and other transmissions. If they thought that there could be a problem
they would try to get a clause in the planning permission so the owner
had to compensate for any extra costs like diverting a microwave link
around a turbine.

I don't know if they ever did have to modify a link path.

Peter Crosland <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Planning law does not permit such a clause and if included it would be
> unenforceable..

I suppose they could threaten to sue, but on what grounds? EM spectrum
interference? But it's not caused by another transmitter. And if they
don't own the land over which they have line-of-sight, do they have any
air-rights over it? Or are they in the same position as someone whose view
is spoilt by a new skyscraper, which is no direct grounds for complaint?

Theo

"Peter Crosland" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:8-(E-Mail Removed)...
> "NOSPAM" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> The message <haseon$ci$(E-Mail Removed)>
>> from The Natural Philosopher <(E-Mail Removed)> contains these words:
>>
>>> This is a curious question, which I don't believe has been asked before,
>>> and to which I couldn't actually find and answer. And only being half
>>> asleep and thinking about one thing whilst reading the paper idly,
>>> caused three things to slip into my mind together.
>>
>>> Namely 'rural broadband' the influence of the environment on
>>> transmission speed and quality, and the fact that here, high up in west
>>> suffolk, and hence potentially a target for windmills, we already have
>>> half a dozen radio towers dotted with aerials and dishes.
>>
>>> So, how do presumably metal or carbon fibre blades thwacking past or
>>> around a microwave tower affect its transmission and reception?
>>
>>> Nearly all mobile phone masts are fed via microwave. A HUGE amount of
>>> data backbones are built out of them - a lot cheaper than fibre. And
>>> although the towers occupy in general the highest ground around,
>>> windmills reach even higher. They would inevitably be in many line of
>>> sight beams' paths..
>>
>>
>>> It seems to me as well as being ugly, noisy, and dangerous to low flying
>>> aircraft, as well as effectively screening low flying aircraft from
>>> radar, these things are likely to also totally disrupt any RF
>>> frequencies in the VHF bands and up, that rely on line of sight
>>> transmission to teh horizon.
>>
>>> Already the inlaws digital TV is totally disrupted by wet leaves on
>>> trees blowing in the wind..the DSP algorithms can cope if the things are
>>> static, but not if the multipath is constantly changing.
>>
>>> I know there are RF experts here. The question is, would a landscape
>>> with a windmill every kilometre, actually be one in which any frequency
>>> beyond short wave was usable?
>>
>>
>> The organisation that I used to work for kept a watching brief for any
>> wind turbine planning applications to check for possible effect on links
>> and other transmissions. If they thought that there could be a problem
>> they would try to get a clause in the planning permission so the owner
>> had to compensate for any extra costs like diverting a microwave link
>> around a turbine.
>>
>> I don't know if they ever did have to modify a link path.
>
> Planning law does not permit such a clause and if included it would be
> unenforceable..
>
> Peter Crosland
>

You haven't understood enough for your usual Google search!
Learn about planning laws and also the various wireless telegraphy acts
amongst others. It also depends on what sort of traffic is carried and
on the frequencies used. You might find a windmill is "removed"!

"Peter Crosland" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) o.uk...
> "Mark McIntyre" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:qFNAm.35223$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Peter Crosland wrote:
>>> "Theo Markettos" <theom+(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> news:8kc*(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>> Peter Crosland <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>> Planning law does not permit such a clause and if included it would be
>>>>> unenforceable..
>>>> I suppose they could threaten to sue, but on what grounds? EM spectrum
>>>> interference? But it's not caused by another transmitter. And if they
>>>> don't own the land over which they have line-of-sight, do they have any
>>>> air-rights over it? Or are they in the same position as someone whose
>>>> view
>>>> is spoilt by a new skyscraper, which is no direct grounds for
>>>> complaint?
>>>
>>>
>>> The point I was making that what a previous poster had sated was simply
>>> untrue about getting conditional clauses put into a planning approval.
>>> This link to a House of Lords Judgement suggests such an action would
>>> fail.
>>
>> I think your original assertion is incorrect - the planners have
>> considerable discretion about what conditions may be imposed on planning
>> permission - and in any events the judgement you quote is unrelated to
>> the point: that one relates to interference with the enjoyment of one's
>> property, whereas the other relates to interference with another's
>> business.
>>
>> Consider for example that it is commonplace for planning departments to
>> impose conditions such as funding bus services, diversion of roads or
>> footpaths, creation of new rights of way or creation of nature zones and
>> corridors. I would suggest that diverting a footpath was legally similar
>> to diverting a microwave link.
>
> Sorry to say that you are quite wrong. The diversion of footpaths comes
> under specific legislation that has no relevance to microwave links.
>
> Peter Crosland
>
The biggest problem with you is that you spend hours on Google looking up
what people post, then get involved without any basic understanding of what
the topic or subject is. This is extremely noticable by your posts in many
groups. You probably like to think you come across as some sort of expert
on everything, but all you seem to do is repeat what you read without
understanding it.
So when someone says you are wrong, you probably are in most cases so
do us all a favour and go back to one of the many other newsgroups you
haunt.
Diversion of footpaths can come under Health & Safety Laws, this also
shows your complete lack of knowledge of Law. Leave it to those of us
who deal with these matters every day.

"Peter Crosland" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) o.uk...
> "martin goose" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed) o.uk...
>> On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 10:52:16 +0100, Peter Crosland wrote:
>>
>>> "Mark McIntyre" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> news:qFNAm.35223$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>
>>>> Consider for example that it is commonplace for planning departments to
>>>> impose conditions such as funding bus services, diversion of roads or
>>>> footpaths, creation of new rights of way or creation of nature zones
>>>> and corridors. I would suggest that diverting a footpath was legally
>>>> similar to diverting a microwave link.
>>
>>> Sorry to say that you are quite wrong. The diversion of footpaths comes
>>> under specific legislation that has no relevance to microwave links.
>>
>> Perhaps such issues might become the subject matter of a section 106
>> agreement. See:
>> http://www.communities.gov.uk/public...ngandbuilding/
>> circularplanningobligations
>
>
> Section 106 agreements can only cover matters that are concerned with
> matters that relate to planning. They cannot be used to deal with matter
> which are, in legal terms, a question of nuisance.
>
> Peter Crosland
>
Time to stick you in the Global Killfilter, you come across as a boring
old pensioner who sits using Google all day. Many people tell you in
different groups to leave it to the expert and not interfere when you
haven't a clue!

Mark McIntyre wrote:
> Peter Crosland wrote:
>>
>> Sorry to say that you are quite wrong. The diversion of footpaths
>> comes under specific legislation that has no relevance to microwave
>> links.
>
> I beg to differ, and in any case point out other provisions which are
> commonplace. For instance requiring building contractors to build
> nurseries, playgrounds or community centres, or fund bus routes, or
> provide wildlife habitat zones or corridors. Note that Local Plans are
> not planning law.
local plans are simply a way to waste money coming up with A Plan which
then has no money left to implement.

On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 22:59:59 +0100, Mark McIntyre ate alphabet spaghetti
and shat out:

> Peter Crosland wrote:
>> "Mark McIntyre" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:ZA3Cm.57440$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> Peter Crosland wrote:
>
>>>> The special rules regarding aesthetics you cite apply to listed
>>>> buildings, or their close proximity, and conservation areas. As for
>>>> national parks they are covered by their own set of rules and again
>>>> none of them are relevant to the case under discussion. None of the
>>>> examples you cite have any relevance
> >>> whatsoever to the question of wind turbines,
>
>>> And you know this for a fact, because you can read the OP's mind, and
>>> know for certain that the wind turbine mentioned wasn't in a national
>>> park, SSSI, conservation area or AONB.
>>
>> It would make no difference whatsoever to an open ended liability
>
> Are you even bothering to read what people write, or is that too
> inconvenient?

Ladies - please....

Peter has a point that it may be considered outside their jurisdiction to
impose conditions, something my own local council were all to aware of.
So prior to allowing a recent major development, the refused it on the
grounds that the road infrastructure was not sufficient, there was no
public transport link and the local school was at capacity. They could
*not*, AFAICT, enforce the developer to do anything about that. However,
the plans were duly resubmitted some months later with a new road scheme
included, a bus route sponsored by the developer for 24 months and a
school bus for the same period to a school further away. The Council
liked this, but not being stupid, asked the developer to first submit
plans for the road changes in isolation. Once that had been approved and
completed a Highways Inspection could take place more favourably for the
initial plan put forward. The road upgrade is in progress at the
developers cost but planning for actual original development still
remains refused at this stage. In short, yes it may be outside of their
jurisdiction to insist on conditions, but there are plenty of other
things they can do to stand in the way if creative enough.







--
political correctness: The safety net protecting deaf blind disabled
ethnic minority gays & lesbians with odd religious beliefs from reality

The message <lesBm.39428$(E-Mail Removed)>
from Mark McIntyre <(E-Mail Removed)> contains these words:

> Peter Crosland wrote:
> > "Mark McIntyre" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > news:aA7Bm.43485$(E-Mail Removed)...
> >> Peter Crosland wrote:
> >>> Sorry to say that you are quite wrong. The diversion of footpaths comes
> >>> under specific legislation that has no relevance to microwave links.
> >> I beg to differ, and in any case point out other provisions which are
> >> commonplace. For instance requiring building contractors to build
> >> nurseries, playgrounds or community centres, or fund bus routes, or
> >> provide wildlife habitat zones or corridors. Note that Local Plans
> >> are not
> >> planning law.
> >
> > Planning law doers not allow Councils carte blanche to put whatever
> > conditions they want in planning permissions. For example there are
> > frequently objections from the public such "it would spoil the view"
> > which
> > might be true in absolute terms but not under palnning law.

> You're mistaken in your beliefs. But then what would I know, my dad was
> only a town planner for 45 years, and I'm only active in local planning
> monitoring.

> Planners can stick all sorts of conditions on, especially in controlled
> areas. In Richmond, Yorks, there was once the only brown co-op in the
> country - the colour was a planning condition. In a street near where I
> live, you can only paint your front door blue or green. In national
> parks, its generally quite tough to put in PVC windows or plastic
> guttering.



There is the well known BT brown microwave dish near Ballachulish and I
have also seen a couple of mobile phone towers painted in brown and
green as in DPM.

There used to be a BBC UHF relay station with the cylinder illuminated
by small spotlights which I was told were put there at the instruction
or request of the planning permission.